ML12299A109
| ML12299A109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/2012 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23663, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12299A109 (305) | |
Text
Page 1780 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 HEARING 7 ---------------------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
9 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. : 50-247-LR and 10 (Indian Point Generating Units : 50-286-LR 11 2 and 3) : ASLBP No.
12 ---------------------------------x 07-858-03-LR-BD01 13 Wednesday, October 17, 2012 14 15 DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel 16 Tarrytown 17 Westchester Ballroom 18 455 South Broadway 19 Tarrytown, New York 20 The above-entitled interview was conducted 21 at 9:05 a.m.
22 BEFORE:
23 LAWRENCE G. McDADE Chair 24 MICHAEL F. KENNEDY Administrative Judge 25 RICHARD E. WARDWELL Administrative Judge Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1781 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.:
3 KATHRYN M. SUTTON, Esquire; 4 PAUL M. BESSETTE, Esquire; 5 RAPHAEL KUYLER, Esquire; 6 BRAD FAGG, Esquire; 7 MARTIN J. O'NEILL, Esquire; and 8 MARTHA B. STOLLEY, Esquire 9 of: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 10 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C. 20004 12 (202) 739-5738 (Sutton) 13 (202) 739-5796 (Bessette) 14 (202) 739-5146 (Kuyler) 15 (202) 739-5191 (Fagg) 16 (713) 890-5710 (O'Neill) 17 (212) 309-6858 (Stolley) 18 ksutton@morganlewis.com 19 pbessette@morganlewis.com 20 rkuyler@morganlewis.com 21 bfagg@morganlewis.com 22 martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com 23 mstolley@morganlewis.com 24 and 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1782 1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
3 (Continued):
4 WILLIAM GLEW, Esquire 5 Assistant General Counsel 6 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
7 440 Hamilton Avenue 8 White Plains, New York 9 (914) 272-3360 10 wglew@entergy.com 11 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
12 SHERWIN E. TURK, Esquire; 13 BETH N. MIZUNO, Esquire; 14 DAVID E. ROTH, Esquire; and 15 BRIAN HARRIS, Esquire 16 Office of the General Counsel 17 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 20 (301) 415-1533 (Turk) 21 (301) 415-3122 (Mizuno) 22 (301) 415-2749 (Roth) 23 (301) 415-1392 (Harris) 24 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 25 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1783 1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 (Continued):
4 david.roth@nrc.gov 5 brian.harris@nrc.gov 6 On Behalf of the State of New York:
7 JOHN J. SIPOS, Esquire 8 Assistant Attorney General 9 Office of the Attorney General of the 10 State of New York 11 The Capitol 12 State Street 13 Albany, New York 12224 14 (518) 402-2251 15 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov 16 and 17 JANICE A. DEAN, Esquire; and 18 KATHRYN LIBERATORE, Esquire 19 Assistant Attorneys General 20 Office of the Attorney General of the 21 State of New York 22 120 Broadway, 26th Floor 23 New York, New York 10271 24 (212) 416-8459 (Dean) 25 (212) 416-8482 (Liberatore)
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1784 1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 On Behalf of the State of New York (Continued):
3 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov 4 kathyrn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov 5 On Behalf of Riverkeeper, Inc.:
6 PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, Esquire; and 7 DEBORAH BRANCATO, Esquire 8 Riverkeeper, Inc.
9 20 Secor Road 10 Ossining, New York 10562 11 (800) 21-RIVER 12 phillip@riverkeeper.org 13 dbrancato@riverkeeper.org 14 On Behalf of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, 15 Inc.:
16 KARLA RAIMUNDI 17 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
18 724 Wolcott Avenue 19 Beacon, New York 12508 20 (845) 265-8080 21 mannajo@clearwater.org 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1785 1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 On Behalf of the State of Connecticut:
3 ROBERT D. SNOOK, Esquire 4 Assistant Attorney General 5 Office of the Attorney General 6 State of Connecticut 7 55 Elm Street 8 Post Office Box 120 9 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0120 10 (860) 808-5020 11 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us 12 On Behalf of the Village of Buchanan:
13 SEAN MURRAY, Mayor 14 Municipal Building 15 236 Tate Avenue 16 Buchanan, New York 10511-1298 17 (914) 737-1033 18 smurray@villageofbuchanan.com 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1786 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
3 Exhibits: Mark Recd 4 Riverkeeper 5 RIV000049 1788 1791 6 State of New York 7 NYSR100399 1792 1792 8 NYSR180001 1792 1792 9 Board 10 00003 1793 1793 11 WITNESSES 12 Robert M. Aleksick Joseph Jones 13 Nelson Azevedo Dr. Francois J. Lemay 14 Dr. Nathan Bixler Ian D. Mew 15 Dr. Allen Hiser Dr. Kevin O'Kula 16 Alan Cox Lori Potts 17 Donald Harrison Kathryn Sutton 18 Dr. Joram Hopenfield Grant Teagarden 19 Jeffrey Horowitz Matthew Yoder 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1787 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (9:03 a.m.)
3 JUDGE McDADE: The hearing will come to 4 order. A couple of preliminary matters before we get 5 started. We had drafted and circulated a settlement 6 order. Do Entergy or Riverkeeper or Clearwater have 7 any objections? First, Entergy?
8 MR. BESSETTE: Paul Bessette for the 9 applicant, Your Honor.
10 No objections to the consent order as 11 drafted.
12 JUDGE McDADE: From Riverkeeper?
13 MR. MUSEGAAS: No, Your Honor, no 14 objections.
15 JUDGE McDADE: And from Clearwater?
16 MS. RAIMUNDI: No, Your Honor, no 17 objections.
18 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. That being the case, 19 we will enter the order today. It will be entered on 20 the EIE. And that will resolve that contention.
21 Next we have an issue with regard to two 22 Riverkeeper exhibits. They were to be furnished to 23 the other parties. Has that been accomplished?
24 MR. FAGG: This is Brad Fagg for the 25 applicant, Your Honor.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1788 1 We have received the copies. We got 2 excerpts at 6:30 last night and the full exhibits this 3 morning about 15 minutes ago.
4 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Do you have 5 electronic copies of that as well for Riverkeeper?
6 MS. BRANCATO: Yes, Your Honor, we do.
7 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.
8 (Whereupon, the aforementioned document 9 was marked for identification as 10 Riverkeeper's Exhibit Number RIV000049.)
11 JUDGE McDADE: Do you have any objection 12 to those being received in evidence?
13 MR. FAGG: We do, Your Honor.
14 JUDGE McDADE: They are?
15 MR. FAGG: A number of things. I guess 16 there are three documents. There are the two that we 17 got recently and then, as I understand it, Riverkeeper 18 00049 is also being offered into evidence. And our 19 objections overlap with some respects, although there 20 is a unique aspect to Riverkeeper 00049.
21 Generally there were a number of 22 opportunities for Riverkeeper to present these 23 exhibits, including with Dr. Hopenfeld's direct 24 testimony, with his rebuttal testimony, over our 25 objections with the presentation that he started out Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1789 1 the proceedings with two days ago. And they weren't 2 presented at any point during any of these 3 opportunities. And here we are, you know, two and a 4 half days into the hearing. And at this 11th hour, we 5 have these documents. Again, our folks only had the 6 opportunity to spend a bit of time this morning 7 reviewing.
8 So, you know, leniency is leniency. We 9 understand that. But, with respect, we think enough 10 is enough. There has been no showing of excuse or 11 justification for the delay to present these 12 materials.
13 The short amount of time we have had to 14 review them I think on its face suggests prejudice.
15 We just think at this point, again, enough is enough.
16 And the documents should not be received into 17 evidence.
18 If I could, just one final point on 19 Riverkeeper 00049? That one was produced previously; 20 however, indicated as an exhibit only with respect to 21 the metal fatigue contention. So, again, our 22 witnesses had no reason to review or assess that.
23 Again, there were all the same opportunities to 24 present that in this contention that were achieved by 25 Riverkeeper and, again, no showing of excuse or Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1790 1 justification for that delay.
2 So, for all of those reasons, we would 3 resist and object to the introduction of those three 4 documents.
5 JUDGE McDADE: It was my understanding 6 when they were mentioned yesterday that Dr. Hopenfeld 7 believed that in light of certain questions that the 8 Board asked and certain answers that were given by 9 witnesses for Entergy, that those exhibits would be 10 helpful to him in explaining his position. And it was 11 not until those questions were asked and answers given 12 that to him they appeared relevant.
13 Starting with that premise, although the 14 documents have been furnished to you, they haven't 15 been furnished to the Board. We haven't seen them.
16 How voluminous are these documents? Are we talking 17 about one page, 10 pages, 100 pages?
18 MR. FAGG: Well, as I understand it from 19 Riverkeeper and the representations they made, they 20 intend to focus on a handful of pages of short 21 excerpts.
22 The document itself, I guess the best way 23 to do it is hold it up. They're outage reports. They 24 are very voluminous documents. Again, obviously we 25 haven't had a chance to review every page of this, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1791 1 but, as I understand -- and obviously Riverkeeper can 2 correct me if I am wrong -- what they propose to focus 3 on are five or almost ten-page excerpts from the 4 larger documents.
5 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. So, as far as the 6 volume, you are basically saying it should be valued 7 by the pound, rather than the page?
8 MR. FAGG: I think either way you assess 9 it, Your Honor, it's late in the day for that.
10 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Well, clearly it is 11 late in the day. And what I am predisposed to doing 12 -- back now 100 years ago when I first took evidence, 13 they still used Latin. And they talked about 14 admitting documents de bene.
15 What we will do in the event in the short 16 questioning here this morning, if Dr. Hopenfeld 17 desires to make use of them, we will allow that. They 18 are admitted. But if it appears from the documents 19 when we see them either that they do unduly prejudice 20 and raise something that Entergy has not had an 21 opportunity to address or the relevance is unclear, 22 they would be stricken by the Board at that time. So 23 we will receive them de bene.
24 (Whereupon, the aforementioned document, 25 having previously been marked for Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1792 1 identification as Riverkeeper's Exhibit 2 Number RIV000049, was received de bene 3 esse in evidence.)
4 JUDGE McDADE: If you could, please, at 5 the first break furnish an electronic copy of them to 6 Mr. Wilkie? If Dr. Hopenfeld is going to refer to 7 them if they need to be shown on the screen, in order 8 for him to do that, as opposed to just draw 9 conclusions from them, then we need to get the 10 electronic copy to Mr. Wilkie before that.
11 Also, please and no later than Monday 12 submit a revised exhibit list. And I think that would 13 be Riverkeeper revision 10 to their exhibit 1, which 14 would be a new exhibit list.
15 MS. BRANCATO: Yes, Your Honor, that's 16 correct. We will do that. Thank you.
17 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. The next 18 administrative thing had to do with New York 5, where 19 we received a revised New York 399 and also a revised 20 New York exhibit list, which I believe is New York 21 revision 8. And those are to exhibit 1. And those 22 are received.
23 (Whereupon, the aforementioned documents 24 were marked for identification as State 25 of New York's Exhibits Number NYSR100399 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1793 1 and NYSR180001, respectively, and were 2 received in evidence.)
3 MR. SIPOS: Your Honor?
4 JUDGE McDADE: Yes?
5 MR. SIPOS: This is John Sipos.
6 I think the exhibit list is R180001.
7 JUDGE McDADE: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. And 8 I can't read my own notes. Yes. We had 17 before.
9 So now we are up to 18.
10 The last thing I did want to mention going 11 back to the settlement agreement, we did receive an 12 email from counsel for the Town of Cortlandt, 13 expressing their view that they had no objection to 14 the settlement agreement. That is an email. It's not 15 part of the record, nor is my stating it part of the 16 record. So what we are going to do is to identify 17 that email as Board exhibit 3 and admit it as Board 18 exhibit 3 so it would be part of the record.
19 (Whereupon, the aforementioned document 20 was marked for identification as Board's 21 Exhibit Number 00003 and was received in 22 evidence.)
23 JUDGE McDADE: Is there anything before we 24 get started now? Now, before we get -- yesterday we 25 indicated that we are going to allow interrogation of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1794 1 witnesses briefly by the parties involved in this 2 contention. Before we get started with that, the 3 Board has just a few more questions of its own based 4 on the testimony that came in yesterday.
5 But before we get into that with these 6 witnesses, does anybody have any administrative 7 matters to be taken up before we get started? Ms.
8 Sutton?
9 MS. SUTTON: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Fagg 10 has another item he would like to address.
11 MR. FAGG: We would, Your Honor. And it 12 does relate to the procedure that Your Honor indicated 13 the Board contemplated at the end of the day 14 yesterday. And we have a motion to make in connection 15 with that. In particular, I'm talking about the 16 examination and cross-examination opportunity after 17 the Board's additional questions to the witnesses.
18 With respect, Your Honor, we believe that 19 the procedure that the Board has indicated it is about 20 to embark upon is inconsistent with the regulations, 21 the controlling authorities, and the Commission's 22 order in this very proceeding. Subpart L proceedings 23 have been very specific and prescriptive regulations, 24 including a 2.1207 and 2.1204, prescribe the 25 circumstances in which direct examination is allowed Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1795 1 in these types of proceedings.
2 And, as I'm sure the Board and everyone, 3 all the counsel and the parties to this room, are 4 aware, on October 12th, 2012, the Commission issued an 5 order with respect to these matters. At least there 6 are four or so aspects of that order we believe that 7 are informative for these issues.
8 First, there has been no showing by any 9 party, Riverkeeper or anyone else, regarding the need 10 for such direct examination. As I'm sure the Board is 11 aware, at footnote 19 at page 5, the Commission found 12 it "troubling" that such examination would be allowed 13 without such a showing. Without such a showing, we 14 are just left with the "voluminous and technical" 15 nature of these proceedings, which the Commission 16 again indicated very specifically would not be 17 sufficient to justify the sort of departure from the 18 established rules that we appear to be about to embark 19 upon.
20 Secondly, the Commission was very clear 21 that there should not be open-ended examination.
22 Again, with respect to what has been articulated so 23 far, we perceive no constraints upon the questioning.
24 We believe that as we are about to embark on an 25 open-ended sort of procedure, which is contrary to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1796 1 both regulations and, again, what the Commission has 2 told us we should be doing.
3 Third, the Commission indicated it should 4 be a "rare occurrence" where this type of procedure is 5 employed. We are here at the very first contention in 6 these lengthy proceedings. Again, with no showing by 7 any party or even an attempt to make a showing by any 8 party, we believe those circumstances confirm this is 9 not a rare occurrence. We fear it will become the 10 norm.
11 Fourthly, the Commission indicated that 12 such a procedure would only be warranted if it were 13 "true and necessary." And, with all due respect, the 14 Board has conducted what we believe to be a very 15 thorough examination over two days. It's hard to 16 imagine a more comprehensive exploration of these 17 issues. And so the circumstances where the regs and 18 the Commission and this very proceeding have 19 contemplated this type of procedure we believe are not 20 close to being met with respect to this contention in 21 this posture.
22 So, with all of that, our motion is to 23 request that, obviously subject to additional 24 questions of the Board but subject to that, that the 25 evidentiary record on this contention be deemed closed Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1797 1 and concluded.
2 In the alternative, our request would be 3 that Riverkeeper be held to the showing that the 4 Commission has indicated is required and to make such 5 a showing and for us to be able to respond that 6 additional direct testimony outside of the rules and 7 the presumption to the rules is warranted.
8 And then, thirdly and conditionally, if 9 those two requests are not granted, in the interest of 10 equivalent treatment, we would request to follow 11 Riverkeeper with respect to any questioning that they 12 be allowed to do with our own potential questioning of 13 witnesses. And we would be prepared to make a showing 14 for the necessity of that.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. A few things in 17 response and perhaps to make sure that the proceeding 18 will go at least as the Board anticipates that it 19 will. First of all, we envisioned allowing 20 Riverkeeper, then allowing Entergy, then allowing the 21 NRC staff a brief opportunity that from the Board's 22 standpoint, the showing to us appeared clear without 23 needing to be articulated by either Riverkeeper or 24 Entergy.
25 We have had a day and a half of testimony.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1798 1 The testimony has gone back and forth considerably.
2 And we thought it would be helpful to the Board in 3 developing a complete record to allow both a limited 4 interrogation of the parties' witnesses and the 5 parties' opponents' witnesses; to clarify, if you 6 believe that the statements they have made in any way 7 have misled the Board, could be misinterpreted, or are 8 wrong with regard to the opponent's witnesses, that 9 you can make that showing very briefly.
10 This is not intended to be open-ended.
11 When we had the status conference and discussed what 12 was intended by the Board, we indicated, I think very 13 clearly and very repeatedly, that if the questioning 14 became repetitive or we believed it was not directly 15 relevant, you would be cut off.
16 Yesterday, as a preface, I indicated that 17 we anticipated that the entire proceeding with all 18 three of the operative parties asking the questions 19 would take under an hour. And there are certain areas 20 we don't anticipate the parties going into at all:
21 the qualifications of the witnesses, any potential 22 bias, those qualifications. Any bias is very clear 23 from the record, from the testimony. What we are 24 looking for is just clarification.
25 If you believe that something that your Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1799 1 witness said may be misunderstood by the Board and 2 that we would, therefore, reach an inaccurate 3 conclusion based on an inaccurate assumption, we are 4 giving you the opportunity to correct that impression; 5 likewise, with the testimony of the witnesses for 6 Riverkeeper or the NRC staff and the NRC staff having 7 the opportunity to do that with both the Riverkeeper 8 and the Entergy witnesses as well.
9 Again, if you believe there is something 10 that is unclear, if you believe that the Board has, in 11 fact, shed light on all of the issues that you 12 consider to be relevant and that we understand 13 correctly what the witnesses have said, what their 14 positions are, and what the issues are, then there 15 would be no need to ask any additional questions.
16 This isn't a requirement. It is just 17 simply an opportunity if you think it will help 18 further develop the record. We wanted to give you 19 that opportunity to do it given at least -- and I 20 think perhaps from the questioning over the last day 21 and a half, whether it is or it isn't, the Board 22 perceives the issues with regard to Riverkeeper 23 contention, technical contention, too, to be somewhat 24 complex. And we feel that it would be helpful to us 25 in developing the record to allow that opportunity to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1800 1 the parties.
2 Again, it is not going to be open-ended.
3 If it tends to be abusive, if it tends just simply to 4 be repetitive of things that are already clear, we're 5 not going to be the least bit shy in cutting it off.
6 So it is going to be even-handed. The applicant, the 7 NRC staff, as well as the intervenor, is going to have 8 the same opportunity, the same amount of time, and is 9 going to be held to the same standards as to 10 relevance. So the motion is denied.
11 MR. FAGG: Thank you, Your Honor.
12 JUDGE McDADE: Anything further before we 13 get started? From Riverkeeper? From the staff?
14 Apparently not.
15 MR. MUSEGAAS: No, Your Honor.
16 JUDGE McDADE: Judge Kennedy, you had a 17 couple of more questions?
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you, Judge McDade.
19 This is Judge Kennedy. I had one additional follow-up 20 question.
21 I think this topic has come up a couple of 22 times during the questioning of the witnesses. I 23 would like to direct my question to either Dr.
24 Horowitz or Mr. Aleksick. The question is, to have 25 either of you or if there is a more appropriate Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1801 1 witness clarify the basis for the linearity wear 2 assumption. I know we have been pointed to Dr.
3 Horowitz's book, but I guess I would like to take this 4 opportunity to give the Entergy witnesses one more 5 time to help us understand the basis behind the 6 assumption of linearity for wear.
7 DR. HOROWITZ: Thank you, Judge. Jeff 8 Horowitz for Entergy.
9 There are several bases. First of all, 10 the picture -- and I can pull it up if you wish --
11 that Judge Wardwell presented yesterday showing some 12 EDF -- and that was laboratory and plant data going up 13 for several thousand hours, as I recall.
14 The EDF, which is Electricite de France, 15 the national utility in France, has done more work in 16 the area of flow-accelerated corrosion than any other 17 organization. They have perhaps the best lab 18 facilities for still doing work in this area. And 19 their model was the basis for what we have done. And 20 their model assumes that the oxide layer is thickness 21 and there is a result the corrosion rate is linear.
22 This is an assumption they check in that test data 23 they show as well as other data. It's a little slow 24 inherent in the BRT-CICERO program, which makes the 25 same assumption that CHECWORKS does.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1802 1 As far as we are concerned, Mr. Aleksick 2 and I and other people have looked at, you know, data 3 from thousands of components; in fact, tens of 4 thousands of compounds. And they seem to be linear 5 with time, same condition, same corrosion rate.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Would it be possible to 7 point us to the exhibit for the EDF data?
8 DR. HOROWITZ: It would take a second to 9 find, but I will be glad to look for it.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Your Honor and Dr.
11 Horowitz, you are referring to the work that they were 12 doing and plotted up in regards to the results of 13 CICERO?
14 DR. HOROWITZ: Yes. Actually, CICERO is 15 the name of the computer program. The original 16 program was CICERO. The current version is called 17 BRT-CICERO. And B is from the late Dr. Michel 18 Bouchacourt.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: You pronounced the name 20 correctly that I tried to pronounce.
21 DR. HOROWITZ: The data was from the 22 CIROCO loop or something like that.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
24 DR. HOROWITZ: Do you remember which 25 figure that was?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1803 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: I don't.
2 MR. KUYLER: Ray Kuyler for the applicant.
3 It's Entergy exhibit 000036B, figure 7.1.
4 And that's on page 124 of the .PDF.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry. Say that number 6 again.
7 MR. KUYLER: Entergy 000036B. And it's 8 page 124 of the .PDF.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: And figure 7.1?
10 MR. KUYLER: Yes, Your Honor.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: All right. Thank you.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Using this figure, could 13 you help us understand how you get to the linearity?
14 DR. HOROWITZ: I would have to look at the 15 text to see. Unfortunately, my copy doesn't have that 16 page in it. Looking at that figure, what you have is 17 both laboratory and plant data scaled to the same 18 conditions with the Sherwood number. The Sherwood 19 number is a dimensionless number in mass transfer, 20 which includes the mass transfer coefficient. By the 21 theory that the FAC is controlled by mass transfer, 22 the corrosion rate should be directly proportional to 23 the mass transfer coefficient at a given set of 24 conditions.
25 So if you go back to the figure, this is Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1804 1 data from 200 to 60,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: And does this include 3 both straight tubes and elbows that I think was --
4 DR. HOROWITZ: Yes. It shows directly 5 that the lab is all from straight tubes and the plant 6 data is all from other fittings.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And how do we know that 8 those are elbows? Could there be other things with 9 other fittings that might not be elbows?
10 DR. HOROWITZ: I can only speculate. I 11 imagine they are elbows because elbows are the most 12 common type of fittings. They are probably also 13 reducers. There may be some other fittings as well.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Generally power plants 15 don't have couplings?
16 DR. HOROWITZ: Generally not.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: So the time dimension, 18 does the time dimension --
19 DR. HOROWITZ: Well, the time dimension is 20 the fact that all of the data agrees with each other.
21 And so it points us to the same correlation lines.
22 There is no distinction between the plant data at 23 50,000-60,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> and the lab data 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />. All 24 of the lab data now is taking 50 to 100-hour tests.
25 And they say, "Close enough. That is good forever."
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1805 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it the Sherwood number 2 that had a time factor in it?
3 DR. HOROWITZ: No, it does not.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: And, Dr. Horowitz, does 6 the first bullet item in the second paragraph below 7 this table -- if we could scroll down to it? You went 8 too far. There it is. Is that one of the areas you 9 were looking for in regards to the conclusions that 10 they were drawing?
11 DR. HOROWITZ: Excuse me? The second 12 bullet?
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: The first bullet item.
14 DR. HOROWITZ: Can you repeat the 15 question, please?
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is that one of the 17 conclusions that you are looking for in regards to 18 their position on where --
19 DR. HOROWITZ: Yes, absolutely, in 20 response to Judge Kennedy's question.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that bullet item says 22 the thinning is directly proportional to time.
23 DR. HOROWITZ: That's right.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: To time.
25 JUDGE McDADE: Just very briefly, to make Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1806 1 sure I understand, could you explain to me what the 2 Sherwood number is and how it is derived?
3 DR. HOROWITZ: I will try. In heat 4 transfer and mass transfer fluid mechanics, there is 5 a quantity called dimensionless numbers. And 6 dimensionless numbers are physical parameters arranged 7 in such a way that have no dimensions. And the most 8 common one is Reynolds number, which relates inertial 9 forces in the flow to viscous forces in the flow.
10 And a Sherwood number relates to the 11 convective mass transfer coefficient to diffusional 12 mass transfer. And, again, more deep than that gets 13 more complicated, I'm afraid.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: And I think that probably 15 clarifies it for him.
16 (Laughter.)
17 JUDGE McDADE: That clarified it for me, 18 Doctor. Thank you.
19 Judge Kennedy?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: That's all I have.
21 JUDGE McDADE: Judge Wardwell?
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: I have, oh, about a 23 half-dozen questions. I will start out with 24 Riverkeeper. On page 10 of your direct testimony; 25 that is, Riverkeeper 00003, where you are talking Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1807 1 about you made the statements between page 10 that 2 CHECWORKS code is useless for objective, quantitative 3 assessments. And I just wanted to --
4 DR. HOROWITZ: Could you --
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: You don't have to see 6 that. Don't bother pulling these up. I have read 7 from that. And my question really doesn't relate to 8 that to any degree.
9 But I just want to clarify, Dr. Hopenfeld, 10 that several places you mentioned about recalibration 11 and calibration types of things. And we talked about 12 this, but I just want to fix the point that, as we 13 discussed yesterday, Entergy labeled some flow of 14 accelerated corrosion lines as being calibrated or 15 uncalibrated using five different criteria. And I 16 just wanted to clarify that it is my understanding 17 that your use of the terms "calibrated" and 18 "recalibrated" deal with the CHECWORKS model as an 19 entity. And we're not referring to these 20 classification schemes that they were using. Is that 21 correct?
22 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. I just wanted 24 to fix that point.
25 On page -- and, again, you don't Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1808 1 necessarily have to go there unless I am wrong when I 2 get to page 3. But on page 3 of your rebuttal 3 testimony now -- that's 108, I believe. Yes, 4 Riverkeeper 000108. You are stating at the top of 5 that, top of the page of page 3, that "Nothing in 6 Entergy's testimony disturbs my initial testimony and 7 conclusions that CHECWORKS code at Indian Point 8 produces unreliable, inaccurate, non-conservative 9 results and that, as a result, fails to adequately 10 detect flow-accelerated corrosion in susceptible 11 components."
12 I just was wondering whether or not you 13 dispute Entergy's witnesses' testimonies at answer 76 14 and at 94, where they state in those answers that over 15 and/or as presented here over the last couple of days 16 that over 75 percent of the flow-accelerated 17 susceptible analysis lines at Indian Point are 18 susceptible non-modeled lines; that is, lines that are 19 not modeled by CHECWORKS. And do you remember that 20 testimony that they have said over the last day or so 21 in regards to that?
22 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you dispute that 24 figure?
25 DR. HOPENFELD: I in no way dispute it.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1809 1 It's there doing whatever they're doing.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: I just want to make sure 3 you didn't --
4 DR. HOPENFELD: No, no. In no way, yes, 5 sir, no. No way am I doing it. I haven't audited.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: And then on page 24 of 7 your testimony, rebuttal testimony --
8 (Pause.)
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm just deciding whether 10 to go there now or not. I think, instead, I would ask 11 you to call up Riverkeeper 000110. In the meantime, 12 I will read what I am referring to. And this gets 13 back again to the CICERO model. And that is 14 Riverkeeper 000110 is a paper talking about the 15 BRT-CICERO model that we just talked about.
16 And where I am going to go with this is we 17 scroll down here, and we'll see another diagram very 18 similar to the one we just looked at. It may be the 19 same one, but it's drawn a tad differently. That's 20 all.
21 DR. HOPENFELD: No. It's different.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And if we can zoom in on 23 that model? It looks very similar, but it's -- I 24 think it would be good to, yes, go out a little bit.
25 Bring it down so we can see that writing above it Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1810 1 also. That may come into play. I can't remember.
2 On page 24 of your rebuttal testimony, you 3 referenced this particular paper. And you made the 4 statement that this shows that an order of magnitude 5 better accuracy -- that this paper shows an order of 6 magnitude better accuracy for predicting wall 7 thickness and relatively little scattering compared to 8 CHECWORKS. I assume you were comparing this diagram 9 to the scatter diagrams that we looked at before.
10 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, sir.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is plotting 12 calculated thickness versus measured thickness. And 13 I think the axes were switched around from what they 14 used.
15 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's just a version of 17 it. Do you have any reason to believe that that red 18 line isn't the 45-degree line? That would be the 19 perfect line.
20 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: You would believe that 22 that is probably? That is what I would, too.
23 The questions I have on this now, though, 24 are that when you made this statement about this order 25 of magnitude difference based on this, did you Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1811 1 visually estimate that or have you done some 2 calculations in regards to claiming that is an order 3 of magnitude better prediction than the scattered 4 diagrams?
5 DR. HOPENFELD: Two things: first, 6 visually just looked at it.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
8 DR. HOPENFELD: I think they are talking 9 about like 40 percent. They're not talking about --
10 they're talking about 40 percent, not 900 percent.
11 If you just look at it and you see there 12 are some outliers, but once they're there, it seems to 13 be bunched together pretty good. If you read the --
14 I don't know what they have done. I don't know what 15 components they represent, but, again, if they 16 represent averages, that by itself doesn't answer the 17 question. It goes back to we talked earlier about the 18 Sherwood number, which their basic equation if you 19 look at it is based on Sherwood number plus a couple 20 of other components which take account for erosion.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. But back to my 22 question because these will be pretty specific 23 questions. You didn't perform any calculations 24 necessarily? This was an estimate just by anyone 25 could see that it seems like this scatter is less than Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1812 1 it was at the scatter charts we looked it.
2 DR. HOPENFELD: I didn't spend more than 3 20 minutes on this.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: When you looked at this, 5 did you notice that the scales are different, that 6 here they're calculated in millimeters and I believe 7 the CW plots were in mils? And that would account --
8 that is a difference, right? Millimeters are about 9 .04 inches.
10 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And these are .001 inch 12 if you were dealing with mils, correct?
13 DR. HOPENFELD: Uh-huh. The scales are 14 different.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And are you aware that or 16 have you accounted for the fact that figure 7 is based 17 on a wall thickness measurement; that is, a thickness 18 measurement; where the CW plots were based on wear; 19 that is, the difference in thickness?
20 DR. HOPENFELD: I thought that theirs were 21 also in terms of mils.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: It says, "thickness."
23 Well, this says, "thickness in millimeters." And I 24 believe the CW plots -- we can pull them out, but I 25 believe they were in mils and in wear, not in Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1813 1 thickness.
2 DR. HOPENFELD: The only difference would 3 be the difference between the initial value and what 4 the wear was. So if this way you plotted that way, 5 that a-way, the ratio is what counts. I don't think 6 that would have --
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: But if you are dealing 8 with a larger number and you are dealing with a larger 9 scale in regards to millimeters; for instance, if you 10 plotted these scatter plots using miles as the basis, 11 everything would really be scrunched up.
12 DR. HOPENFELD: Yeah, but I am looking at 13 the ratio.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: And wouldn't the scatter 15 visually look different if this were plotted in mils 16 and in wear, rather than in thickness and millimeters?
17 DR. HOPENFELD: I would think that it 18 would look differently, though I doubt it would affect 19 the conclusion because what you are really looking at 20 is the ratio of what you predicted. And you show that 21 as bunching numbers. You look to the ratio of how 22 well your prediction is, and you compare that 23 basically to the straight line.
24 All their predictions are very bad. They 25 are not conservative. But I told you what I would do Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1814 1 about that.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: But they would be further 3 away from that line if, in fact, you plotted, if you 4 zoomed in and plotted, on a more detailed scale and 5 if, in fact, you were plotting wear, rather than the 6 thickness. Of course, wear being only a small 7 percentage of the thickness would tend to spread that 8 out also, would it not?
9 DR. HOPENFELD: The numbers wouldn't make 10 a difference. I don't believe the number would make 11 a difference. Visually, yes.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Exactly. That is my 13 point. If you did calculations to arrive at a 14 conclusion, it wouldn't change it.
15 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: But if you are just 17 looking at it and why this diagram may be a bit 18 deceiving in regards to how well --
19 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, right.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: That is my only point 21 that I am fixing here.
22 DR. HOPENFELD: May I just -- I didn't 23 answer your -- didn't answer it correctly. Yeah, I 24 looked at it, but at the same time, it doesn't take 25 much to compare the numbers because it's so simple.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1815 1 So, you know, you just look predicted versus that and 2 you see it's not a factor of ten any way you look at 3 it, no matter how many you plotted, you put the wear 4 rate or the initial less the final thickness or 5 whatever the thing is.
6 It's very pleasant, the discussion in the 7 paper itself. I believe they talk about like 40 8 percent or something. And I'm talking about 900 9 percent.
10 But you are right. If you take the thing, 11 you can pull it on a scale that maps all over the 12 ceiling. And you will see different scatter.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it certainly would be 14 reasonable to think that it would be better to compare 15 this plotted to the same scales and then go from 16 there?
17 DR. HOPENFELD: I went one step beyond 18 that.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Does the approach by 20 using CICERO as described in this paper include other 21 mechanisms, other than flow-accelerated corrosion? Do 22 they consider erosion, cavitation, and droplet 23 impingement?
24 DR. HOPENFELD: I believe so, yes. I 25 don't know how. They are constantly there. Remember, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1816 1 they had this F1, F2, F3. And they had this Sherwood 2 number that was presented this morning. By the way, 3 there is a controversy about whether it is linear 4 velocity or not, but it --
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Let's stay to the 6 question.
7 DR. HOPENFELD: But yes. The answer is 8 yes.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Can we get to the top of 10 that paper, I believe?
11 JUDGE McDADE: Before we do, I just want 12 to make sure for clarification for the record, we are 13 talking about -- Riverkeeper exhibit 000110, page 8, 14 figure 7 is what we have been discussing, correct, 15 Doctor?
16 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, I believe. I don't 17 know what the number of the -- this is the correct --
18 in context, I am referring to this paper, yes.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: If you could go to the 20 first page of this paper and then go right to the 21 introduction? Smaller, smaller, smaller, just first 22 line of the introduction. There. Perfect.
23 That first sentence in the introduction 24 says, does it not, "Among the various degradation 25 models that cause pipe wall thinning in a secondary Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1817 1 system of nuclear power plants (corrosion, galvanic 2 corrosion, environmental corrosion, flow-accelerated 3 corrosion, cavitation, droplet impingement, erosion, 4 and abrasion), FAC is one of the most important 5 widespreads in the installation, and that requires 6 constance efforts to fight"? And then it goes on to 7 talk about the wall thickness loss due to FAC.
8 Doesn't that pretty much state, as does 9 the title of this paper, that it is dealing with 10 flow-accelerated corrosion and not the other types of 11 wall thinning processes?
12 DR. HOPENFELD: Well, it says that it 13 encompasses droplet impingement, erosion, abrasion, 14 cavitation, accelerated corrosion.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Correct, but I am saying, 16 of those degradation modes, the one we are focusing on 17 is FAC as the one that is the most important. Isn't 18 that what that first sentence is saying?
19 DR. HOPENFELD: I don't understand the 20 question. Yes. All of these factors here, all these, 21 droplet impingement cavitation, they're all part of 22 flow-accelerated corrosion the way it is defined here 23 and by the equation.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, it doesn't say it 25 defines here, I don't believe. Read the question Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1818 1 again. Maybe I am reading it wrong -- not the 2 question. Read the statement again. It says --
3 DR. HOPENFELD: Oh, okay. Okay.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- "Among the various 5 degradation models that cause pipe wall thinning."
6 And then they put in parentheses what the various 7 degradation models are. Then it says, "FAC is" the 8 one that is the more widespread, --
9 DR. HOPENFELD: Okay.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- FAC being one of those 11 series in the parentheses.
12 DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. Yes, you're right.
13 In this context, that was separated. But I believe in 14 the equation, they had a constant that would take that 15 thing in account if you go down to the equation.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, the title of the 17 paper says, "Optimization Due to Flow-Accelerated 18 Corrosion."
19 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: So I believe they 21 separated out flow-accelerated corrosion from these 22 others.
23 DR. HOPENFELD: It did separate them.
24 Yes.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: So this deals with Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1819 1 flow-accelerated corrosion separately from erosion and 2 --
3 DR. HOPENFELD: They have to go down the 4 equation and see it. The sentence is correct the way 5 you say it, sir.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Well, point us to 7 --
8 DR. HOPENFELD: They have to look at the 9 equation because I thought in the equation, they said 10 that --
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where is that? Could you 12 refer us to it here?
13 DR. HOPENFELD: Well, we have to go to the 14 equation somewhere down -- you went through it.
15 JUDGE McDADE: Would that be paragraph 16 2.2, Doctor?
17 DR. HOPENFELD: I don't -- oh, here.
18 You're getting here. I think some of those constants 19 the way I recognize these equations -- yes. I believe 20 some of that, those constants, if there was no other 21 thing, you would just take that one with a K* out of 22 there and just leave the rest of them and that would 23 be a K. But I believe that in here, there is 24 something about that they put a number in there that 25 accounts for this other erosion effect. That's when Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1820 1 I read it the first time. I believe that's what it is 2 because this equation looks too complicated to be a 3 straightforward corrosion equation shown with that 4 correlation. You can go and see what the definition 5 of --
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry. Which one of 7 those accounts for the other? Do you know?
8 DR. HOPENFELD: I am saying that when I 9 read it the first time and I believe in the 10 description, that one of those K's, maybe a K*,
11 accounts for erosion effects, droplet impingement, 12 cavitation, or whatever it is. I believe the --
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: You see the Ceq defines 14 what that is. So it isn't the Ceq, correct?
15 DR. HOPENFELD: Ceq is correct, yes.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: No. That isn't one that 17 accounts for erosion, is it?
18 DR. HOPENFELD: No. Ceq is here when you 19 calculate --
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: I don't need to know what 21 it is. I just need to know what it isn't. It isn't 22 erosion.
23 DR. HOPENFELD: It's in corrosion, yes.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
25 DR. HOPENFELD: Correct. It's not -- yes.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1821 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's go on to the next 2 page because they --
3 DR. HOPENFELD: But it is in corrosion, 4 correct.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- then define the other 6 terms.
7 DR. HOPENFELD: Correct.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Right there. What 9 of those terms deal with erosion?
10 DR. HOPENFELD: No, there isn't -- I don't 11 see the number here. I originally thought that one of 12 those cases did deal with erosion because the way we 13 were talking about it, but I may be wrong about that.
14 They have an equation for the oxide layer, but that 15 could be indirectly an erosive effect because the 16 whole idea of the oxide layer, whether it is there or 17 not, is an erosion effect. But it could very -- I 18 don't see that --
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: You're speaking of the 20 porosity of the oxide layer?
21 DR. HOPENFELD: Yeah. The only way that 22 could be tied up would be there. But I remember in 23 the reading, constants --
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Could be tied up with 25 just additional surface area associated for a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1822 1 dissolution of that also, could it not? I mean, that 2 seems --
3 DR. HOPENFELD: I don't really know how 4 that thing ties in, but it could mean that the physics 5 of that because, you see, it does go into the 6 formation of the oxide layer.
7 The British had a theory of how to relate 8 that C equivalent through the kinetics of the process.
9 And that is one reason they came up with an entirely 10 different correlation with the velocity. But I am 11 getting too far and complicated, but I originally 12 believe when I read those equations and somewhere in 13 the writing, that they also take account for erosion 14 effects.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.
16 DR. HOPENFELD: And I thought one of those 17 constants was there, but evidently it isn't. I was 18 wrong.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you, Dr. Hopenfeld.
20 Entergy, on your direct testimony; that 21 is, Entergy 000029, I believe, on page 33, you make a 22 statement about variations in wear rates. And I just 23 want to fix the point to whoever wants to answer that 24 that degree that the variation in wear rates with 25 roughness is small. And given the extent of aging in Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1823 1 the piping, further surface changes are likely to be 2 minimal.
3 Do you agree with that statement, which 4 was previously made at other hearings?
5 DR. HOROWITZ: Jeff Horowitz. I would be 6 glad to address that, Your Honor.
7 Would you repeat the location of that 8 quote?
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm referring to page 33.
10 You really don't need to see it. All I'm asking you 11 is, do you agree that variation in wear rates with 12 roughness is small and that given the existing age of 13 the piping, further surface changes; that is, for more 14 roughness, is unlikely to occur to any degree?
15 DR. HOROWITZ: Yes, I do, Your Honor.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
17 For staff, a general question for staff.
18 Just bear with me a minute. I don't know if Mr. Yoder 19 or Dr. Hiser should answer this, but I will let 20 whoever wants to. Dr. Hiser is raising his eyebrows, 21 getting all excited, hoping he can.
22 (Laughter.)
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Are you proposing any 24 license commitments associated with flow-accelerated 25 corrosion and a program in the flow-accelerated Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1824 1 corrosion AMP?
2 DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser, the 3 staff.
4 I don't believe there are any commitments 5 because this is an existing program with no 6 enhancements necessary and just continuation of that 7 parent program is sufficient for the period of 8 extended operation, 9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Likewise, do you believe 10 there are any license conditions that you are 11 proposing as part of the flow-accelerated corrosion 12 program?
13 DR. HISER: No. There would be no license 14 conditions necessary.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: On page 10, we're talking 16 about the Interim Staff Guidance that was published 17 just in July of 2010. And we touched upon this. And 18 maybe it passed me by. And I just want to make sure 19 it was in the record. And not having the transcript 20 or -- even if I had the transcript, I wouldn't have 21 time to read it. So let me just re-ask it in case it 22 has already been asked.
23 I believe that Interim Staff Guidance 24 states that you now advise that erosion should be 25 encompassed by flow-accelerated corrosion management Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1825 1 and that erosion-related mechanisms require further 2 consideration to ensure adequate maintenance of the 3 plant components. Is that part of the Interim Staff 4 Guidance?
5 MR. YODER: Matthew Yoder, staff attorney.
6 First, to clarify, we're talking about the 7 July 2012 Interim Staff Guidance?
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Correct.
9 MR. YODER: I believe you said --
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Correct. July 5th, 2012.
11 I probably didn't say that correctly.
12 MR. YODER: Yes. That proposed guidance 13 recommends that erosion be part of the 14 flow-accelerated corrosion AMP going forward.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And does it also say that 16 erosion-related mechanisms require further 17 consideration to ensure adequate maintenance of plant 18 components?
19 MR. YODER: In addition to treatment of 20 what we have defined as flow-accelerated corrosion, 21 yes. It requires additional treatment.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: In light of this 23 recognition and, really, a change in what was a 24 narrow, much more narrow definition of 25 flow-accelerated corrosion beforehand, what have you Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1826 1 done to ensure that erosion mechanisms will be 2 adequately managed at Indian Point during the PEO?
3 DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser again. If 4 I could just -- this is Allen Hiser again -- clarify 5 a couple of things?
6 The ISG does not require that erosion be 7 addressed by the FAC AMP. What it does is it allows 8 applicants to manage those mechanisms using the FAC or 9 they may propose some alternative plant-specific 10 methods. For example, because cavitation, the 11 mechanical -- while thinning mechanisms tend to be 12 correctable through design changes, then that is the 13 method that most applicants use to address those 14 concerns.
15 So, just to clarify that, the FAC ISG does 16 not require that erosion be considered within the AMP.
17 Now, for Indian Point, I believe, as they discussed 18 yesterday, they do have other activities that address 19 erosion.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: But doesn't the ISG say 21 that erosion-related mechanisms require further 22 consideration to assure adequate maintenance of plant 23 components?
24 DR. HISER: That's correct. And, again, 25 in most cases, the applicants choose to address those Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1827 1 through design changes, to eliminate the mechanism as 2 a concern at that plant. If it is not addressed 3 through design changes and there are erosion types of 4 mechanisms occurring, the plant must address it. It 5 may be through the FAC Program, which is what the ISG 6 --
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: I see.
8 DR. HISER: -- brings in to the FAC 9 Program as an option by applicants, or it would be 10 through some other inspection or modeling, some other 11 management program.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: And my question revolves 13 around what has been done here at Indian Point, if 14 anything, to ensure that this erosion-related 15 mechanisms have received that additional consideration 16 to ensure the adequate maintenance of the plant 17 components?
18 DR. HISER: I'm not familiar with all 19 aspects of how Indian Point would manage erosion.
20 That may be better directed towards them.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: But aren't you the ones 22 that are reviewing that? And you have reached or are 23 reaching conclusions in regards to moving forward 24 here. If it was going to come up -- well, let me ask 25 this. Has it come up in your review of the FAC Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1828 1 activities in regards to any additional considerations 2 they have done?
3 DR. HISER: I don't believe that it has 4 within the FAC Program because their program is 5 focused on the chemical dissolution aspects of wall 6 thinning. And that is the way that it was reviewed.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: So you know of no 8 additional considerations of erosion --
9 DR. HISER: I'm not familiar with all 10 aspects of the reviews that were performed and didn't 11 prepare to address the erosion sorts of mechanisms 12 here.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
14 I will ask Entergy, then, in regards to 15 this. Are you able to point to anything that you have 16 done to further consider erosion-related mechanisms at 17 your plant?
18 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. This is 19 Nelson Azevedo for Entergy.
20 When we find instances where there is 21 erosion or some kind of mechanical wall thinning 22 process going on, we enter that into our corrective 23 action program. And, as has already been said, at 24 that point, we evaluate what the issue is and what the 25 appropriate corrective action is.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1829 1 If a design change is the appropriate 2 corrective action, that is what we implement. If we 3 conclude that design change is not warranted and we 4 continue to monitor that location, then that location 5 because the inspection methods and the processes are 6 very similar to the flow-accelerated corrosion 7 monitoring activities, we add that to the 8 flow-accelerated corrosion program because that is 9 what is easiest to manage.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: How will you find or 11 detect locations that are affected by erosion? What 12 will lead you to that?
13 MR. AZEVEDO: Several ways. The primary 14 one is operating experience, whether it's at Indian 15 Point or other plants. And we factor that into 16 evaluations. The NRC issues information notices, 17 INPO. And the industry issues notices when they 18 initially come up. So we evaluate those. And then we 19 determine whether it is applicable to Indian Point.
20 And of so, we go out and do additional inspections.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: As this draft staff 22 guidance, which that's what it is, it's draft. And it 23 is still guidance anyhow. So there are no mandates 24 associated with this. But certainly it is raising the 25 awareness of erosion, isn't it, over what was Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1830 1 previously done prior to July 5th of 2012?
2 MR. AZEVEDO: I wouldn't characterize it 3 that way. I mean, we already have locations at the 4 plant that we know are susceptible to it. And we are 5 -- as we already discussed, we are monitoring it.
6 I believe -- I can't speak for the staff.
7 I believe what the ISG is pointing out, that if you 8 are going to monitor the location, should you monitor 9 it, then, in a flow-accelerated corrosion program or 10 a similar program that has the elements to attract the 11 wear at this location.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me go back to staff, 13 then. by issuing this draft worded the way it is 14 implies that more attention is needed than before, as 15 I read it. And where am I wrong with that reading?
16 DR. HISER: I wouldn't say that you are 17 wrong, but I think what it really does is it addresses 18 situations that we have encountered where specific 19 applicants have not addressed erosion through design 20 changes, but they have chosen to do aging management 21 as their approach.
22 And the way that the program description 23 in the ISG is written, the very first sentence that 24 has been added says that "This program manages wall 25 thinning caused by flow-accelerated corrosion and may Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1831 1 be used to manage wall thinning due to various erosion 2 mechanisms if the erosion mechanisms are not being 3 managed by another program."
4 So from that aspect, this really is a 5 permissive ISG that allows applicants to manage the 6 erosion mechanisms through the FAC Program, as opposed 7 to requiring or indicating that they would need to 8 develop a plant-specific program that would be 9 separate from the FAC Program.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
11 My last question deals with page 30 of 12 your testimony, answer 50. You don't necessarily have 13 to go to it.
14 JUDGE McDADE: Page 30 of whose testimony?
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: The staff's, 121, staff 16 exhibit 000121.
17 The question is, "What is your opinion in 18 the nature of Riverkeeper's concern with CHECWORKS 19 with the power uprates in IP2 and 3?"
20 And the answer is "The concerns expressed 21 by Riverkeeper are concerns that apply to the current 22 usage of CHECWORKS at IP2 and 3 and not just the usage 23 during the renewal license term." In other words, the 24 CLB, the current licensing basis, of Indian Point 2 25 and 3, which allows the use of CHECWORKS at the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1832 1 current license power levels, is the root of 2 Riverkeeper's concerns."
3 And my questions are these. Do the 4 activities in the current licensing basis under Part 5 50 automatically exempt aging management review under 6 Part 54 during a license renewal?
7 DR. HISER: No, it does not exempt 8 consideration, but in terms of the aging management 9 approach, absent any new mechanism or new aspect of 10 the degradation, it would be only relevant for the 11 period of extended operation. Then we would consider 12 that the CLB Program would be sufficient. We would 13 still evaluate that, but there would be --
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: It doesn't exempt it. It 15 still has to be looked at.
16 DR. HISER: Right.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: You can't just say, "Oh, 18 gee, it's part of the current licensing basis.
19 Therefore, we don't have to worry about it under 20 license renewal."
21 DR. HISER: No, but there is already an 22 underlying acceptance of that program based on the 23 fact that it is in the CLB and the staff has reviewed 24 it, not only in the case of the FAC Program, in the 25 late 1980s, when the FAC Program was initially Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1833 1 implemented, but also in the power uprates.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: The challenge is always, 3 then, is it truly going to hold for the period of 4 extended operation?
5 DR. HISER: That's correct. We should 6 still need to address the adequacy of it for the PEO.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. You're back to the 8 same. You're back to reviewing it for those issues.
9 So you do agree that CHECWORKS and the FAC 10 Program do come into play in license renewal, even 11 though it is part of the CLB? That's what we just 12 talked about for that license renewal period, the --
13 DR. HISER: Right.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- period of extended 15 operation?
16 DR. HISER: Absolutely. and I would say 17 it is one of the key programs that the applicant will 18 use during the PEO. It just happens in this case that 19 it is also an existing program in the CLB.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: But, yet, it still 21 requires a review of those attributes in GALL, the ten 22 attributes in GALL, to assure that through the PEO, 23 that program will be sufficient?
24 DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. That's all Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1834 1 the questions I have.
2 JUDGE McDADE: Very quickly I would like 3 to pose a hypothetical to Entergy. And I am not sure 4 if Mr. Mew, Mr. Azevedo, or Mr. Cox would be most 5 appropriate. So whoever wishes to answer it?
6 A hypothetical. You have a component that 7 is identified through CHECWORKS for inspection. It is 8 inspected. You find that the actual wear is 9 significantly below the predicted wear. What happens 10 next? Is that component taken off the inspection 11 schedule? Is it placed on a reduced inspection 12 schedule? How do you react to that hypothetical?
13 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for 14 Entergy. Maybe I can answer the first part.
15 If the measured thickness is below the 16 nominal thickness -- and here we define the nominal 17 thickness as 87 and a half percent. The nominal 18 thickness, that's the minimum thickness that the 19 component had to meet when it was originally 20 purchased.
21 So if the measured thickness is below 22 that, then that component is -- an evaluation is 23 performed. It is put in the training database. And 24 we calculate when that component needs to be inspected 25 next before it reaches the critical thickness.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1835 1 Now, if the measured thickness is above 87 2 and a half percent, Mr. Mew can probably address that.
3 MR. COX: This is Alan Cox. Just a point 4 of clarification.
5 If I understood your question right, you 6 were asking about a case where the measured wear was 7 much less than what was predicted.
8 JUDGE McDADE: Correct.
9 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah. Just to clarify, the 10 decision as to whether to inspect the component next 11 is really based on the wall thickness, not on the 12 wear. Obviously the wear comes into play because it 13 tells you how much longer that component is good for, 14 but usually a decision is based on the wall thickness, 15 in the predicted wall thickness before the next 16 inspection, not necessarily on the wear.
17 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But you used 18 initially checkpoints to identify the particular 19 component for inspection. You prioritized the 20 inspection of components using CHECWORKS. It comes 21 up. It is inspected. And the actual observed 22 thickness is greater than what had been predicted.
23 Do you change the priority of inspection 24 based on that or is it only based on the actual 25 thickness versus the minimum thickness allowable?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1836 1 MR. MEW: Ian Mew for the applicant.
2 Basically when we perform a measured 3 thickness, the measured thickness dictates how that 4 component is reinspected. We perform a wear 5 calculation, a wear rate evaluation, a thickness but 6 satisfies all design loading. And then the next 7 scheduled inspection is all done.
8 JUDGE McDADE: So the CHECWORKS, then, is 9 only used to identify a component for the initial 10 inspection. After that, it's based on the actual wear 11 observed?
12 MR. MEW: The measured thickness.
13 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. Once the 14 component is inspected, the decision as to whether 15 that component is inspected again and when it is 16 inspected is based on the actual measurements, not 17 based on the wear rates from CHECWORKS.
18 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And assuming for the 19 sake of argument -- and I realize based on the 20 testimony the last couple of days, you don't agree 21 with this hypothesis. But if Dr. Hopenfeld's 22 hypothesis is correct that you cannot rely on this 23 being a linear phenomenon, how would you identify an 24 increase in the rate of corrosion in a pipe?
25 MR. AZEVEDO: I am not sure I understood Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1837 1 your question, sir. Are you saying that if we were to 2 postulate that the wear was not limited in the future 3 --
4 JUDGE McDADE: If you could not assume, if 5 you could not rely on the fact that the corrosion, FAC 6 is a linear phenomenon only, would there be any way of 7 identifying a change in the rate of corrosion using 8 the system that you have?
9 In other words, if during the period A 10 through B corrosion was very low but as a hypothesis, 11 corrosion then increased, for some reason, many of 12 which were discussed, hypothesized by Dr. Hopenfeld 13 yesterday, would there be any way that you would be 14 able to identify that component for reinspection?
15 MR. AZEVEDO: If there was a technical 16 basis for that hypothesis, if there was, for example, 17 lab data that showed that it was not linear, it was 18 some other shape, then we factored that technical 19 basis into our wear rate predictions in the future.
20 Absent a technical basis, if we just 21 postulate, I'm not sure how we would come up with any 22 scheme to predict future wear. It is not consistent 23 with the data that we have.
24 JUDGE McDADE: At this point, your program 25 presumes a linear phenomenon for a fact.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1838 1 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, that's correct. Based 2 on the data available, that's correct.
3 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you.
4 MR. COX: If I could add a little bit to 5 that? One way that you could -- I mean, you are 6 talking about one component, but we're dealing with 7 CHECWORKS, which deals with analysis lines that 8 include multiple components. So there are going to be 9 opportunities to look in that same line for other 10 components to see if you have that effect. So you may 11 not be looking at the same component, but you may be 12 looking at an identical component or a different part 13 in that line or in another analysis line that is very 14 similar.
15 So, you know, if it happened in one 16 component only, that was the only place it ever 17 occurred, it would be hard to detect. But if it was 18 a real phenomenon that applied to that line, there is 19 a good chance you would pick that up in other 20 inspections or in similar components or in other 21 components within that line. So that would be one way 22 that you could dissect that sort of phenomenon 23 occurring.
24 JUDGE McDADE: So because a particular 25 line would have multiple components that would be Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1839 1 subject to inspection, if that phenomenon, the change 2 in corrosion rate, occurred, you're confident that you 3 would be able to pick it up through multiple 4 inspections along the line?
5 MR. COX: Right, if it was a line-level 6 phenomenon. You know, if there's something unique to 7 one specific component, you wouldn't necessarily know 8 that. But if it was a phenomenon that was consistent 9 or consistent across the components in that line, yes, 10 you would be able to pick it up from those other 11 inspections.
12 JUDGE McDADE: Now, as hypothesized by Dr.
13 Hopenfeld, it would not necessarily be through the 14 entire line but might occur due to specific geometric 15 factors along the line, such as at an elbow or a weld.
16 How would that be addressed?
17 MR. COX: When I am discussing here the 18 components of the line, there are multiple elbows 19 within the line. So you would pick it up by looking 20 at another elbow. You wouldn't pick up an issue with 21 an elbow by looking at what happens in another type of 22 fitting. You would look at elbows in that analysis 23 line.
24 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you.
25 Dr. Hopenfeld, would you care to respond Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1840 1 to that?
2 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. If I was working for 3 Entergy when I was hired in 1992, what I would do, I 4 would pick up knowing that the phenomenon is a local 5 phenomenon -- this is not new -- I would pick up two 6 elbows, four orifices, five diffusers, five other 7 components without a simple geometry. And I will go 8 with a small probe, smaller than 300 mils that they 9 are using now. I would go to a point on that elbow 10 where I believe I am going to have maximum wear.
11 I am going to get one outage. I'll take 12 a reading. I'll go next outage and take a reading.
13 At the same time, I'll take readings in straight pipes 14 and adjacent straight pipes, three, four, five, six 15 outages. And then if I get a straight line, these 16 people are right.
17 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.
18 DR. HOPENFELD: I haven't seen any data 19 like that.
20 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Dr. Hopenfeld, 21 you've hypothesized a process that you believe would 22 be more effective, but do you have any reason to 23 believe that you could articulate for us why the 24 system just explained by Mr. Cox would not provide 25 reasonable assurance that the system would operate as Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1841 1 intended during the period of extended operation?
2 DR. HOPENFELD: For two reasons. One, the 3 whole line approach is a simplification. It's the 4 first level of looking at the thing. The chemistry is 5 correct.
6 I'm digressing for one second. There are 7 some other aspects of it. And that has to do with 8 that. You asked me something. All the corrosion, 9 tons and tons of that stuff, goes out. They do affect 10 the downstream conditions, especially when you change 11 temperatures in the system. I am getting off the 12 subject.
13 Going back, yes. They're looking at one 14 level. They're looking at components, one line, which 15 has similar properties, but the similarity is not 16 sufficient to show you the differences that I showed 17 you yesterday with one elbow and I would like to show 18 you with orifices, additional diffuser orifices, 19 additional elbows. There are hundreds of data points 20 that they have shown. All conclusively show that it 21 is not a line phenomenon. It is a component 22 phenomenon.
23 I'm not worried about what happens to the 24 line. The line, that is a simplification of 25 approaching the problem. It reduces cost. But the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1842 1 problem is a component phenomenon.
2 You are worried about whether -- and it is 3 not even an overall component. It's not an average 4 phenomenon. You want to know locally how much of that 5 thing thinned down and is it going to withstand LOCA, 6 earthquake. The one we had the other day, is it going 7 to take these kinds of stresses? That's what you want 8 to know.
9 JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Cox indicated that by 10 looking at similar components that would be subject 11 for inspection, you could make reasonable 12 interpretations of the wear rate at those similar 13 components. Why would that not be an effective 14 program?
15 DR. HOPENFELD: Because I don't believe 16 you can. I think the differences are such that you 17 cannot draw that conclusion. He hasn't given any data 18 to support his statement.
19 JUDGE McDADE: That there are not 20 sufficient similarities among --
21 DR. HOPENFELD: That is correct.
22 JUDGE McDADE: -- the various components 23 in a line?
24 DR. HOPENFELD: That is correct.
25 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1843 1 DR. HOPENFELD: Not only that. Only the 2 chrome -- you can see the chrome value, which changes 3 from one point to another. I gave you an example with 4 the J-tubes, where I watched the thing. I saw one 5 fall apart. And that one was completely perfect.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Hopenfeld, but how 7 are you going to be assured under your approach that 8 you have selected the right elbow to measure when you 9 measure it over six outages or whatever it was, the 10 number of outages, that you are going to repeat these 11 measurements to sign off on? How do you know that is 12 representative of other elbows?
13 DR. HOPENFELD: I think I said I am going 14 back to 1992 at that time. At that time, the plant 15 was fairly new. It was just started. I don't know 16 how many years. They had maybe six, seven years by 17 then.
18 At that point I would just beg judgment.
19 And that would be an engineering judgment. Pick up, 20 as I said, elbow, components which I know the geometry 21 affects working. It's a judgment call at that point.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
23 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you.
24 Riverkeeper, do you have any clarifying 25 questions to ask? It's now about 10:15.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1844 1 MS. BRANCATO: Yes, Your Honor, we do have 2 a limited line of questioning intended to clarify the 3 record. You did indicate there would be a break. And 4 the reason I would ask for that is so that I could 5 provide the electronic copy to the person, Mr. Wilkie, 6 you indicated earlier is handling the exhibits.
7 JUDGE McDADE: Please?
8 MS. BRANCATO: So I need that.
9 I would like to start by addressing a 10 question to Dr. Hopenfeld. Yesterday as well as this 11 morning, there were discussions about whether 12 corrosion results and nonlinear wear in piping 13 component at Indian Point.
14 He explained one such example, and he did 15 make reference to Entergy documents that you reviewed 16 in the course of this proceeding, which could serve as 17 additional examples to clarify your position. Those 18 two such examples have now been admitted as exhibits 19 as Riverkeeper 0000132 and 0000133, which are being 20 brought up on the screen in front of you.
21 Dr. Hopenfeld, can you explain how these 22 two Entergy Ultrasonic Examination Reports demonstrate 23 your position that nonlinear wear exists at Indian 24 Point?
25 DR. HOPENFELD: Could you -- I don't see Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1845 1 it on the screen. I just see it --
2 MS. BRANCATO: Sure. You could just 3 scroll down to -- just let us know what page that you 4 are referring to.
5 DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. Come back. Okay.
6 Can I respond to the question? No?
7 MS. BRANCATO: Yes.
8 DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. This exhibit again 9 demonstrates because of having --
10 JUDGE McDADE: And excuse me, Doctor.
11 Just let me --
12 DR. HOPENFELD: Sure.
13 JUDGE McDADE: -- interrupt very quickly.
14 Okay. We're talking about Riverkeeper exhibit 132.
15 And we're looking at page 2 of 6, which includes a 16 diagram. And you are referring to the diagram, 17 correct?
18 MS. BRANCATO: Dr. Hopenfeld, do you 19 intend to refer to the diagram? You are looking at 20 the diagram. Is that correct?
21 DR. HOPENFELD: Can I talk about it now?
22 MS. BRANCATO: Yes.
23 DR. HOPENFELD: This exhibit again 24 demonstrates very clearly that the process of FAC is 25 not a chemical dissolution process alone. It may play Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1846 1 a role, but it is not a major process here. If it 2 was, if it was only a chemical-controlled process, 3 then the ratio of the wall thinning in the stray 4 section to the maximum point, maximum wear of material 5 lost in the elbow would be something on the order of 6 less than 1.6. If it is more, then it is echo an 7 erosion problem. It is a combination of both. So 8 that number tells you whether it is -- whether the 9 whole assumption is correct to say that it is a 10 dissolution problem.
11 Now, why is that important? In this 12 particular case, it is important because as soon as 13 you go and say it is an erosion problem, you get into 14 the situation where you really cannot predict how fast 15 that wear is going to occur. And you cannot say how 16 linear it is.
17 You can go on the very, very scale of the 18 eddies around that corner and say, "Look, that kind of 19 a process is not going to be stable. The whole thing 20 is not stable. It is going to bear in with time."
21 Now, turning to a different area, in the 22 literature, you see plenty of times when it varies.
23 In the Japan data, it shows to be varied. Here that's 24 what I said. If I started, if I was hired in 1992, I 25 started from scratch, I would take that elbow, take a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1847 1 probe, and follow what is happening for six or seven 2 years. And then I will tell you exactly what 3 happened. But I don't see any data. And all of that 4 stuff indicated that is the case.
5 So the conclusion that it's linear, it's 6 based on some averages. It is based on a gut feeling.
7 MS. BRANCATO: And if we could bring up 8 Riverkeeper exhibit 000133 and go out to the third 9 page? Thank you.
10 Dr. Hopenfeld, could you explain how this 11 exhibit demonstrates your position?
12 DR. HOPENFELD: This doesn't have all the 13 information I wanted, but you can take a look very 14 quickly that before in station 1, in station 2, -- and 15 I don't know the distance -- there is a half an inch 16 drop.
17 And, based on my feeling, I don't think 18 the geometrical change is sufficiently high here that 19 if you only -- it was a diffusional control, as you 20 have in these equations, then you would see a half an 21 inch change. And that's what you have, a half an inch 22 change of that one station.
23 So if you look at the -- I don't know 24 where the grid is, but if you look at the grid, I have 25 a number changing between half an inch. Take a look Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1848 1 at the first line there. So the first station --
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Now, where are you? I'm 3 sorry. Actually, you lost me. Where are you looking?
4 Okay.
5 DR. HOPENFELD: I'm looking between the .1 6 to .2. You can take a look at the average there. You 7 will see there is about a half an inch change.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is this correct?
9 DR. HOPENFELD: Yeah, that's correct.
10 Take a look from the top to the -- from 1 to 2. Now, 11 why he changes this direction, I don't know. I 12 haven't analyzed it. I just looked at this and said, 13 "Look, there is significant change here." If it was 14 a simple dissolution problem, you wouldn't see that 15 kind of change.
16 But, again, I don't know the length. I 17 don't have -- I haven't analyzed that. I just said, 18 "Look, these are steep changes."
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there a reason those 20 numbers are shaded? Do you know when you looked this 21 over?
22 DR. HOPENFELD: I didn't plot the --
23 that's what I -- I don't know why.
24 MR. YODER: There's a scale to the right.
25 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you, Dr. Hopenfeld.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1849 1 DR. HOPENFELD: Zoom out.
2 MS. BRANCATO: Do the judges have 3 additional questions based on Dr. Hopenfeld's 4 statements or --
5 (No response.)
6 MS. BRANCATO: Okay. I have one 7 additional clarifying question. Dr. Hopenfeld, you 8 indicated that NRC's clarification regarding the 9 definition of FAC in its recent draft Interim Staff 10 Guidance was an improvement but not entirely adequate.
11 Can you clarify why you believe NRC's alteration of 12 the definition of FAC is not adequate in your opinion?
13 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. I'll try. I believe 14 that though there is still hate for the CHECWORKS 15 idea, FAC is simply a dissolution project. And that's 16 why they didn't get beyond it. They included the 17 impingement, cavitation, or whatever else, but they 18 didn't say in there that it is possible that there is 19 a disagreement, that many people have a different idea 20 about that, that the flow-accelerated corrosion is not 21 a pure dissolution problem, as all our data at IP 22 shows.
23 Now, I believe -- I am again digressing.
24 I think that definition should not have been 25 introduced 20 years ago, but it was. It gives a lot Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1850 1 of pain to everybody that looks at it if you look at 2 the literature, how you people mentioned this whole 3 thing. And there is a lot of controversy around that.
4 But that's my answer.
5 So I wish that their clarification was a 6 little bit more scientific than it is.
7 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you, Dr. Hopenfeld.
8 The next question I have is directed 9 toward Entergy's witnesses. There have been numerous 10 references to Entergy's reliance on engineering 11 judgment within its FAC Program at Indian Point.
12 Are there specific objective, meaning 13 reviewable; for example, by the ASLB, criteria that 14 the engineers at Indian Point utilize to make 15 decisions based upon engineering judgment?
16 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah. This is Nelson 17 Azevedo for Entergy.
18 Yes. NSAC-202L is a section on how to use 19 engineering judgment. And EN-DC-315, which is 20 implementing procedure, also clarifies the engineering 21 judgment, who is qualified to make engineering 22 judgment and when it is appropriate to use it.
23 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you.
24 And so there is no further level of detail 25 or specificity beyond these two, the guidance in these Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1851 1 two documents? Is that correct?
2 MR. AZEVEDO: It is our position this is 3 pretty specific.
4 MS. BRANCATO: Okay. And is there any 5 sort of peer review or supervisory review process, 6 such as any documentation of how determinations based 7 on engineering judgment are arrived at or approving 8 decisions that are made pursuant to engineering 9 judgment?
10 MR. AZEVEDO: Again this is Nelson Azevedo 11 for Entergy.
12 Yes. We have both. There is independent 13 -- there is a self-assessment that is performed once 14 the outage scope is selected. There are qualified FAC 15 engineers from other plants or from the corporate 16 office to come and review it. And that's how we 17 determine whether it is the appropriate inspection 18 scope or not and whether the engineering judgment was 19 properly used.
20 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you.
21 And are the criteria --
22 JUDGE McDADE: Let me just interrupt for 23 a second.
24 MS. BRANCATO: Sure.
25 JUDGE McDADE: You said NSAC-202L, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1852 1 correct?
2 MR. AZEVEDO: That's correct.
3 JUDGE McDADE: And that's Riverkeeper 4 000012. And you said EN-DC-315, which was Entergy 5 exhibit 000038?
6 MR. AZEVEDO: I believe so, Your Honor.
7 I don't --
8 JUDGE McDADE: Trust me on the exhibit 9 number.
10 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.
11 JUDGE McDADE: But just is the EN-DC? I 12 just want to make sure I heard it correctly.
13 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. EN-DC-315 is the 14 correct document. And NSAC-202L, rev. 3 is the other 15 correct document.
16 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, which I believe are 17 Riverkeeper 000012 and Entergy 0000038, respectively, 18 just so we know where to go in the record. Thank you.
19 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you.
20 And just a quick follow-up. The 21 self-assessments and supervisory review processes, are 22 these documented in Entergy's AMP or within the 23 program or how would you characterize how they are 24 documented?
25 MR. AZEVEDO: Those internal documents Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1853 1 generate it and maintain a reference.
2 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you.
3 And to the extent engineering judgment is 4 used at various steps in different processes, Entergy 5 employees to manage FAC at Indian Point, are the same 6 criteria applied at each analytical step, for example, 7 using CHECWORKS to prioritize components down to 8 decisions to repair or replace? My question is the 9 same criteria for engineering judgment applies 10 throughout that process?
11 MR. AZEVEDO: There is no engineering 12 judgment on repair/replacement. If a component does 13 not have adequate thickness, then the component is 14 repaired or replaced. There is no judgment involved.
15 It's pretty specific.
16 MS. BRANCATO: Okay. Thank you for that 17 clarification.
18 And to the extent engineering judgment is 19 used as various parts of the FAC Program, the question 20 is, are the same criteria applied or are they specific 21 to different areas of using engineering judgment?
22 MR. AZEVEDO: No. Whenever engineering 23 judgments were used in the FAC Program, we followed 24 the requirements of NSAC-202L and EN-DC-315.
25 MS. BRANCATO: Okay. Thank you.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1854 1 The next question is to Dr. Turk, NRC 2 staff's witnesses. You indicated yesterday that 3 should changes to Entergy's program implementation 4 documents, such as EN-DC-315, occur, that this would 5 follow the procedures set forth in 10 CFR 50.59. Are 6 there criteria specific to fact that inform that 7 determination, meaning whether a program change has 8 safety significance versus those that do not and, 9 thus, require a license amendment?
10 DR. HISER: There's nothing in 50.59 11 process that's specific to FAC so the procedures that 12 are listed in 50.59 would apply to the FAC Program 13 just as any other AMP at Indian Point.
14 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you. I have another 15 question directed toward Entergy's witnesses aimed at 16 clarifying the record with respect to Entergy's 17 process for determining whether to repair and replace 18 a component and it may be helpful to bring up NSAC-19 202L Riverkeeper Exhibit 000012 which was discussed.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Before we do that, don't 21 do that just yet. I'd like to ask a question of Dr.
22 Hopenfeld in regards to this graph. If we can zoom 23 out a bit and maybe even go back to the other page.
24 Yes.
25 In your review of this, is there any Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1855 1 indication that, in fact, from going from one to two 2 that the initial pipe wall thickness changed from a 3 half inch to an inch?
4 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, in the next grid 5 that's what it shows. No, no, it doesn't show the 6 initial but it just shows the relative between one and 7 two.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, well, go back to 9 those other. Maybe I read that wrong then.
10 DR. HOPENFELD: I wouldn't expect it. Go 11 back to the grid, please. You see one, the number 12 here is 0.4. You can go on the average. They are 13 symmetrical.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's look at Column A.
15 DR. HOPENFELD: Okay, 0.452.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Column A is --
17 DR. HOPENFELD: 0.452.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: What's the difference 19 between A and B?
20 DR. HOPENFELD: Well, that's just going 21 around.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
23 DR. HOPENFELD: But this is going with the 24 flow. You're flowing there with it.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Is there any chance Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1856 1 that at Location 2 the initial wall thickness was a 2 half inch?
3 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, but you would expect 4 that.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: And at two it's one inch.
6 DR. HOPENFELD: And I wouldn't buy a 7 component like that, no. Why would it be?
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I just thought that 9 maybe they thickened up the wall of that device, that 10 component because of its potential to wear more there.
11 I'm just asking you is there any indication in your 12 review that that is or isn't? You don't know?
13 DR. HOPENFELD: No, I didn't get that 14 detail and I have no reason to believe that there was 15 but it could have been, but I just looked at that just 16 as a backup since people asked me what about other 17 components? So I just looked at it and picked it up 18 basically at random and same thing with the previous 19 one and the one yesterday that I provided you too.
20 JUDGE MCDADE: And just so the record's 21 clear on this, we pulled up again Riverkeeper Exhibit 22 0000132. The diagram referred to by Dr. Hopenfeld was 23 on numbered Page 2 of 3 and the grid was on numbered 24 Page 3 of 3.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I don't believe so.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1857 1 You may have the right number. We're on Page 4.
2 JUDGE MCDADE: On the document itself it 3 says Page 3 of 3.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
5 JUDGE MCDADE: I just want to be able to -
6 -
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, sorry.
8 JUDGE MCDADE: I just want when we're 9 writing our initial decision to make sure we're all 10 looking at the same piece of paper.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Good. Sorry.
12 MALE PARTICIPANT: 0000133.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, okay. And it's 14 0000133, not 0000132. Okay, thank you.
15 DR. HOPENFELD: This is just an example.
16 There are hundreds of more like that.
17 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you and I had 18 indicated -- if we could pull out Riverkeeper 000012 19 and at Page 4-26.
20 And while that's being accomplished, take 21 one step back and just one clarifying question that I 22 did pose to NRC staff regarding the use of the 50.59 23 process and perhaps this is a better question for 24 Entergy and/or NRC staff's witnesses.
25 But are there any criteria specific for Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1858 1 making a determination about whether there is safety 2 significance such that it would inform the 3 determination about whether a license memo would be 4 required?
5 MR. AZEVEDO: Was that question for us, 6 for Entergy?
7 MS. BRANCATO: If you can answer. I posed 8 it to either/or.
9 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, again, it's Nelson 10 Azevedo for Entergy. I'm fairly familiar with the 11 50.59 process.
12 And 50.59 process basically goes through, 13 it requires you to review all your licensing basis, 14 UFSAR/FSAR commitments, tech specs, all the 15 regulatory, all the documents to implement regulatory 16 requirements at the plant.
17 And so we look at the document that we 18 changed. In this case let's use the EN-DC-315. So we 19 look at the change and we go back to the licensing 20 basis and we evaluate whether that change impacts 21 anything in the current licensing basis.
22 And then if the answer's yes, then we ask 23 the questions in 10 CFR 50.59 and then that will tell 24 us whether we need prior NRC approval prior to 25 implementing the change or whether it's appropriate Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1859 1 for us to implement the change, document it and have 2 the documentation available for audit by the NRC. So 3 that's how the 50.59 process works in general, not 4 necessarily specific to FAC but in general.
5 MS. BRANCATO: And are there any specific 6 criteria relating to FAC that would inform that 7 determination?
8 MR. AZEVEDO: No, it's been said before.
9 The 50.59 process is an overall process. It's not 10 specific to any one program or AMP.
11 MS. BRANCATO: Okay, thank you. And if we 12 could go to Page 4-26 on this Exhibit that's up, 13 Riverkeeper Exhibit 000012, the NSAC-202L. Thank you.
14 Toward the top of the page there are three options for 15 when predicted remaining service life is shorter than 16 the amount of time until the next inspection.
17 And I wanted to inquire from Entergy's 18 witness in relation to Option 2, which is to perform 19 a detailed stress analysis to obtain a more accurate 20 value of the acceptable thickness.
21 Is there a reason that the initial 22 calculations are not detailed or sufficient enough?
23 And another way to put that would be how does the 24 detailed stress analysis differ from the initial 25 actual wear measurement process and why?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1860 1 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, again this is Nelson 2 Azevedo for Entergy. The initial acceptance criteria 3 assumes that the thinning occurred over the entire 4 component 360 degrees around the circumference.
5 If we conclude there is some localized 6 wear going on, the code allows us to measure the width 7 and the length and the depth of the wear and then we 8 can do a localized wall thinning evaluation to 9 determine whether there's appropriate still remaining 10 wall thickness left to continue to operate.
11 So that's the difference between the 12 localized wall thinning evaluation which actually 13 considers the width and the length of the defect 14 versus assume it's 360, the entire length of the 15 component.
16 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you. And if you 17 just, actually under Section 4.8, we're on the same 18 page of the Riverkeeper Exhibit 000012, it indicates 19 that certain different considerations are taken into 20 consideration in making replacement decisions.
21 And the first bullet indicates that cost 22 and availability of replacement fittings is one such 23 consideration. So I'm wondering if Entergy's witness 24 could explain the extent to which cost is considered?
25 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, it's considered but it Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1861 1 doesn't allow us to go below the minimum required 2 thickness.
3 So for example, let me give you one 4 example, if the component is not available, we could 5 choose to inspect, as the NSAC says, inspect sooner.
6 So as long as we inspect before we reach the critical 7 thickness, that's an acceptable way to manage the wall 8 thinning.
9 MS. BRANCATO: Thank you for that 10 clarification. Also directed to Entergy's witnesses, 11 there's been much discussion about calibrated versus 12 non-calibrated lines. And in order to clarify the 13 record, is it ever the case that a calibrated line 14 will be found to be non-calibrated in a subsequent 15 outage?
16 And what I'm trying to understand so that 17 the record is clear on this is whether these 18 classifications change over time versus improve over 19 time and if they do change to non-calibrated from 20 calibrated the reasons for that.
21 MR. ALEKSICK: This is Rob Aleksick for 22 the Applicant. The answer is lines do change from 23 non-calibrated to calibrated over time.
24 Generally as the plant progresses through 25 time and we collect more and more inspection data over Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1862 1 time, we expect that on average we'll have more lines 2 shift from the un-calibrated category to the 3 calibrated category.
4 I can't recall an instance where it went 5 the reverse. I suppose that's theoretically possible 6 but I don't remember that ever happening.
7 MS. BRANCATO: Okay, thank you. I believe 8 my colleague has a few additional questions.
9 MR. MUSEGAAS: Yes, thank you. Phillip 10 Musegaas for Riverkeeper. I just have a few remaining 11 questions for staff, I'm sorry, NRC staff and Entergy 12 witnesses. Actually I think this is directed at Mr.
13 Aleksick or Dr. Horowitz. Is it Mr. Aleksick or 14 doctor? I'm sorry.
15 MR. ALEKSICK: Mister.
16 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, I can't see the -- we 17 don't have a good line of sight so I apologize.
18 DR. HOPENFELD: I'll get out of your way.
19 MR. MUSEGAAS: All right, Mr. Aleksick, I 20 think you testified, I believe it was yesterday 21 morning, in terms of this is kind of a general 22 question about the scope of the inspection program and 23 so I'm just trying to get a sense of how many 24 components you inspect.
25 I believe you said yesterday that Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1863 1 Entergy's program has generally modeled about 8,000 2 FAC-susceptible components at Indian Point and correct 3 me if I get some of these numbers or the categories 4 wrong, but is that accurate?
5 MR. ALEKSICK: Yes, that's about right.
6 That's not the exact number but that's very close.
7 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay. And just related to 8 that and I believe following on that you said that 9 about 3,700 of those components had been inspected 10 from the program's inception. I believe you said from 11 1992 to the present.
12 MR. ALEKSICK: Yes, that's right.
13 MR. MUSEGAAS: So approximately half of 14 those modeled have been inspected?
15 MR. ALEKSICK: Yes.
16 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay. And to step back 17 just maybe one step, what percentage of plant 18 components that are susceptible to both FAC and to 19 other wall-thinning mechanisms have been inspected by 20 Entergy at Indian Point? I realize this is probably 21 a rough estimate but up to this point in time. And is 22 that a clear question? Do you understand that?
23 MR. ALEKSICK: If I understand your 24 question, it includes an assumption and the premise 25 that there are components susceptible to both FAC and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1864 1 mechanical erosion phenomena which premise we reject, 2 so I don't know that I can answer that question.
3 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, why don't we unpack 4 it, so just speaking of components that Entergy 5 believes are susceptible to FAC. Of the inspections 6 you've done, what percentage of all the components at 7 Indian Point that are susceptible to FAC have been 8 inspected to this date?
9 MR. FAGG: Your Honor, if I could just 10 interpose an objection at this point. I think --
11 MR. MUSEGAAS: I'm sorry. I did the --
12 JUDGE MCDADE: It was just asked and 13 answered. You said there were approximately 8,000 14 that were susceptible. About 3,700 have been 15 inspected of those, so I think that question's been 16 answered so.
17 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, perhaps I'm not 18 asking it correctly. So the 8,000 that were modeled, 19 those 8,000 components, that's all of the components 20 susceptible to FAC that you believe occur at Indian 21 Point?
22 MR. ALEKSICK: In addition to the 8,000 23 modeled components, there are a number of susceptible 24 non-modeled components, primarily small bore lines, 25 but there are additional components to those 8,000.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1865 1 MR. FAGG: Your Honor, with respect to 2 this whole line of questioning we've gone over this 3 multiple times. We would object on repetitive 4 grounds.
5 JUDGE MCDADE: Well, I'm going to allow 6 Mr. Musegaas a few questions to sort of set up his 7 point. I realize we've gone over this and I assume he 8 believes there's some area that we may be confused on 9 so I'll allow him a few preliminary questions to get 10 to the focus.
11 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, thank you, and I'm 12 just about there. I apologize for taking so long. So 13 among the modeled and non-modeled components which I 14 assume is large bore and small bore piping that 15 Entergy believes is susceptible to FAC, what 16 percentage of that total environment of components 17 could you estimate Entergy has inspected up to this 18 date?
19 MR. ALEKSICK: It's a more difficult 20 question to answer than it might seem because the 21 modeled components, the 8,000 modeled components are 22 very well defined and a great deal of attention has 23 been paid to them.
24 The susceptible non-modeled components, 25 again, primarily are small bore lines. Many of them Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1866 1 are just little drains that really don't have much 2 safety significance and there are a large number of 3 those, approximately 700 lines per unit, and we don't 4 count every component in those lines. So it's hard 5 for me to estimate a percentage.
6 MR. MUSEGAAS: Can you give a rough 7 estimate or in your estimation it's too difficult to 8 give an estimate?
9 MR. FAGG: Well, again, I would object, 10 Your Honor. I think the witness just answered the 11 question and he just re-asked it.
12 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay, well, I think the 13 witness can answer that. Would you feel 14 uncomfortable, sir, in making a guesstimate as opposed 15 to an estimate?
16 MR. ALEKSICK: I think given the gravity 17 of these proceedings, I would hesitate to make an 18 estimate.
19 JUDGE MCDADE: But there are approximately 20 700 of these non-modeled lines per unit and there are 21 multiple components within those lines. It would vary 22 from line to line and it would be difficult for you to 23 assess exactly how many components there are to give 24 us a viable estimate on that or what percentage of 25 those have, in fact, been inspected.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1867 1 MR. ALEKSICK: That's correct, Your Honor.
2 They vary quite substantially from line to line. A 3 large number of inspections have been conducted but 4 it's difficult to express it as a percentage.
5 JUDGE MCDADE: Would you be able to give 6 us an approximate number of inspections of the non-7 modeled components?
8 MR. ALEKSICK: I think perhaps another 9 member of our panel would be better equipped to answer 10 that.
11 JUDGE MCDADE: If there had been 12 approximately 3,700 from the modeled, of the 13 susceptible but non-modeled can you just give us a 14 general idea of how many inspections?
15 MR. MEW: Ian Mew for the Applicant. It's 16 a very difficult question to answer, Your Honor, but 17 I'll make an attempt.
18 The way we look at things at Indian Point, 19 we look at the most critical ones first which are 20 ranked F1S1 which are a consequence of failure and 21 high susceptibility. We try to inspect those first.
22 At Indian Point 3, greater than 90 percent 23 of those highly susceptible ones are inspected. For 24 Unit 2, greater than 60 percent is inspected. For the 25 other ones that comprise the whole SNM program, I'm Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1868 1 going to roughly say it's about 50 percent.
2 JUDGE MCDADE: And can you give us a 3 general estimate as to about, you know, we've heard 4 approximately 3,700 of the susceptible modeled. Of 5 the susceptible non-modeled, are we talking about an 6 equal number of inspections, 3,700? Are we talking 7 about significantly more, significantly less?
8 MR. MEW: As my colleague pointed out, 9 that's a thing that I couldn't put a number to.
10 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay, thank you.
11 MR. ALEKSICK: May I add a clarification?
12 I'm sorry, this is Rob Aleksick again. My 13 clarification is that the percentage of inspections of 14 susceptible non-modeled components is not a very 15 useful number because the population of components in 16 that category includes highly critical components that 17 we pay close attention to and it includes floor drains 18 that really have no safety or other significance.
19 And so to say what percentage of that 20 category of components has been inspected doesn't 21 really help us very much.
22 MR. MUSEGAAS: Thank you, Mr. Aleksick.
23 If I understand correctly, then you give a safety 24 ranking, as Mr. Mew just said. Within both modeled 25 and non-modeled there's, I guess, a risk informed or Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1869 1 a safety ranking process that goes on where you're 2 focusing obviously initially on the most safety-3 significant components. Am I stating that correctly?
4 MR. ALEKSICK: You're stating that 5 correctly for the non-modeled components. The modeled 6 components, we consider all of those to be important 7 and very high priority.
8 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay great, thank you.
9 Just a couple more questions, Your Honor. On a 10 related topic I think you mentioned and this, again, 11 just is trying to get a little clarification and more 12 information about the inspection procedures and 13 frequency.
14 I believe you mentioned yesterday morning 15 that during a typical refueling outage you conduct 16 approximately 100 component inspections. Is that --
17 MR. ALEKSICK: That's correct, Counsel.
18 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, and I think you said 19 approximately 50 of those were reinspections of 20 components that had already been inspected and 50 were 21 new inspections, again approximations?
22 MR. ALEKSICK: Yes.
23 MR. MUSEGAAS: Could you just describe 24 very briefly how do you determine -- is doing 100 25 component inspections a typical number that you do?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1870 1 Does that number vary widely or is that 2 determined by the time that you have during the 3 refueling outage or by criteria that you've done from 4 earlier inspections? I'm just trying to get a sense 5 of how that number is determined.
6 MR. FAGG: Again, Your Honor, I think 7 we've been over this at some length. We're plowing 8 old ground here.
9 JUDGE MCDADE: I'd like to hear the 10 answer.
11 MR. ALEKSICK: Certainly. The number 12 varies. I wouldn't say widely, but it varies. It 13 certainly does not vary as a function of the amount of 14 time available during the outage. There's plenty of 15 time to do the number of inspections that the program 16 requires during each outage.
17 The primary reason for the variation is 18 the reinspection requirements sometimes drive us to a 19 higher or lower number.
20 There may have been more operating 21 experience components added to a given outage 22 depending on what happened out in the rest of the 23 world. I'm sure there are other factors that 24 contribute as well but those are two of the primary 25 ones.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1871 1 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, so depending on, you 2 might have additional information from operating 3 experience at Indian Point or fleet-wide experience 4 that might inform the scope of inspections that you're 5 doing?
6 MR. ALEKSICK: Yes, as well as beyond the 7 Entergy fleet. You know, for example, when Mihama 8 occurred, there was a great deal of attention paid to 9 that event in the United States and inspections were 10 sometimes conducted as a result of that as an example.
11 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, thank you. Another 12 question. This is for I believe, and I may have it 13 wrong, but I believe for Mr. Mew or Mr. Azevedo.
14 There was a brief discussion yesterday 15 relating to an Exhibit that Riverkeeper had put forth 16 and it was in the context of this discussion, whether 17 the pipe wear is linear or non-linear.
18 But the particular example that 19 Riverkeeper had put forth was a pipe that Entergy had 20 explained was found to have lamination on it and so 21 this is just a very brief question on lamination and 22 how that phenomenon --
23 MS. SUTTON: Could Counsel please, this is 24 Kathryn Sutton. Could Counsel please identify the 25 Riverkeeper Exhibit number?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1872 1 JUDGE MCDADE: Well, at this point he 2 hasn't referred specifically to the Exhibit. It's a 3 general question about lamination. Mr. Musegaas, is 4 it necessary for them to review to the Exhibit or just 5 simply do you want to ask a general question about 6 lamination and its impact?
7 MR. MUSEGAAS: I have a general question 8 about lamination and essentially the frequency with 9 which it's encountered at Indian Point in the FAC 10 program.
11 My general question is, you know, the 12 particular example we put forth of a pipe was, I 13 believe Entergy explained well, that that particular 14 pipe, and I'm not sure of the terminology, is subject 15 to lamination or exhibited lamination in the metal.
16 Is that a phenomenon that is found 17 frequently in piping at Indian Point? I'm just trying 18 to get a sense of how this phenomenon fits in when 19 you're doing pipe examinations and whether you 20 encounter it frequently because of how it might affect 21 your readings on pipe thickness.
22 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, this is Nelson Azevedo 23 for Entergy. I'm not sure what your definition of 24 frequent is. We encounter from time to time. I don't 25 know what definition of frequent is.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1873 1 MR. MUSEGAAS: Could you approximate a 2 percentage of how often you might find --
3 MR. AZEVEDO: Based on my experience, we 4 probably see it a couple times during a year for each 5 plant, mostly during the outage when we do inspections 6 so I'd say two. I'm just guessing right now. I 7 really have no sense, sometimes more, sometimes less.
8 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, from the general 9 description what would be frequent, it's not frequent 10 in terms of --
11 MR. AZEVEDO: Certainly it wouldn't be 12 dozens of times if that's what your definition of 13 frequent is.
14 MR. MEW: Ian Mew for the Applicant.
15 Since my assignment to Indian Point, I have only 16 encountered two of those occurrences.
17 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay.
18 JUDGE MCDADE: And just to focus again.
19 We've got it in the record, but how long have you been 20 there?
21 MR. MEW: Since 1997, I mean, 2007.
22 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay, and in your position, 23 you're I believe the owner of this program?
24 MR. MEW: That is correct.
25 JUDGE MCDADE: You can't sell it, can you?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1874 1 MR. MEW: I would like to.
2 (Laughter.)
3 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. So you've been 4 directly involved in it for at least the last five 5 years?
6 MR. MEW: That is correct, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay, thank you.
8 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, thank you. I just 9 have one remaining question and this is I believe for 10 Dr. Horowitz or Mr. Aleksick.
11 Dr. Horowitz and I believe Mr. Aleksick, 12 there was a discussion yesterday when we had, and I'll 13 have to figure out the Exhibit number for this, but we 14 were all discussing a scatter plot from the CHECWORKS 15 program yesterday during testimony.
16 And I believe Dr. Horowitz said, and 17 please correct me if I have the reference incorrect, 18 but mentioned that it's important to keep in mind when 19 looking at the degree of scatter that the actual 20 measured wear is less precise than sometimes the 21 estimates of the measured wear is. I have a question 22 just in the sense of how imprecise is that process of 23 kind of determining the wear?
24 DR. HOROWITZ: Thank you, Jeff Horowitz 25 again. The question is kind of hard to answer because Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1875 1 there are various ways of determining measured wear, 2 number one.
3 Number two, as I said, some work I did for 4 EPRI, oh, about four or five years ago now looked at 5 the most common way of evaluating wear in a component 6 with multiple inspections, okay?
7 And what you do is you make a matrix, a 8 measurement like you saw in the Exhibits we just saw 9 a few minutes ago, and you take the same matrix at a 10 later time and subtract the two matrices and you see 11 the wear, okay?
12 Typically the thicknesses are recorded to 13 a thousandth of an inch. So your wear numbers and 14 take the maximum difference and you might say I'm 15 seeing wear of 0.047 inches sliding over two outages.
16 Typical number.
17 What you don't see by doing that analysis 18 is the fact that you have measurement errors embedded 19 in both matrices and it turns out by the nature of the 20 process you're always conservative, okay? I think we 21 knew this a long time. There's words in NSAC that say 22 that. I can find it if you want.
23 What I found out doing a whole lot of 24 numerical experiments was the amount of error you 25 expect, say the measured wear compared to the imposed Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1876 1 wear affecting them numerically is much more than you 2 would think. It's a function of measurement 3 uncertainty and pipe wall thickness and the amount of 4 wear, okay?
5 In typical kinds of numbers your measured 6 wear can often be twice or three times what the 7 imposed wear is, and I almost fell off the chair when 8 I saw that.
9 MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, thank you. That's 10 all I have. Thank you, that's all I have.
11 JUDGE MCDADE: Thank you. Entergy, do you 12 have any additional questions?
13 MR. FAGG: Reserving all of our rights as 14 we said earlier but yes, Your Honor, in response to 15 the follow-up questions I think I'll be fairly brief, 16 ten minutes or so and with --
17 JUDGE MCDADE: Please proceed.
18 MR. FAGG: -- the Board's indulgence would 19 proceed. Dr. Horowitz, if I could ask you a question 20 or two at the outset. I want to try to understand 21 something you just said a few moments ago.
22 If I buy an elbow from a manufacturer and 23 take it right out of the box before it's had any 24 opportunity for any wear at all, is it your testimony 25 that the thickness of the wall is uniform everywhere, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1877 1 in every portion of that elbow?
2 I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I 3 misspoke. I'm talking to Dr. Hopenfeld. Dr.
4 Horowitz, there's too many Hs here. This is for Dr.
5 Hopenfeld.
6 DR. HOPENFELD: Whether it's uniform all 7 over, is that the question? I want to understand that 8 I understand your question because I've bought 9 hundreds of elbows myself and I checked and most of 10 them were.
11 The elbows I bought vary between, oh, I 12 would say some of them half an inch all the way to 13 probably like six to maybe eight inches. And most of 14 those that I wear, they were fairly uniform, yes.
15 MR. FAGG: Okay, so let me just make sure 16 we're communicating, we're clear. On the curved part 17 of the elbow versus the straight part of the elbow 18 it's your testimony that you would expect those wall 19 thicknesses to be the same?
20 DR. HOPENFELD: Not the same. Fairly 21 uniform within the way I would gauge it and I had some 22 handheld transducer and I'd say, well, it was roughly 23 the same.
24 MR. FAGG: Okay, and I'm no engineer but 25 one way of making an elbow is to take a piece of pipe Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1878 1 and bend it, right?
2 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
3 MR. FAGG: That doesn't change the 4 thickness of the wall?
5 DR. HOPENFELD: I mean, it depends how you 6 make it, how much you're willing to pay for it and how 7 accurate you want it. I would just buy it off the 8 shelf. I'm just telling about my experience with 9 elbows.
10 MR. FAGG: Is your experience, would it be 11 the same for other types of components like a reducer 12 that we saw on Riverkeeper 0000133? Would you expect 13 uniform wall thickness throughout every part of that 14 component?
15 DR. HOPENFELD: Well, I wouldn't say 16 uniform. You can go to Home Depot and find out it's 17 fairly uniform, yes.
18 MR. FAGG: Okay. Let me, if I could, 19 shift the questioning to the Entergy witnesses and I 20 don't know who has the most experience with these 21 types of components, Mr. Azevedo or maybe Mr.
22 Aleksick. Can you comment on what we just heard from 23 Dr. Hopenfeld?
24 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, it's Nelson Azevedo for 25 Entergy. Specific on a reducer, a reducer goes from Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1879 1 a small pipe diameter to a larger pipe diameter, let's 2 say from a six inch to a ten inch or a four inch to 3 eight inch. And by definition, the larger diameter 4 has to be thicker because the hoop stress is 5 significantly more.
6 So when you buy a reducer, the small 7 diameter end is, by definition, thinner because the 8 hoop stress is a lot thinner and then it progresses, 9 gets thicker and then the larger end is thicker.
10 MR. FAGG: Thank you. Doctor Hopenfeld, 11 you, in your rebuttal testimony made reference to, I 12 think we ultimately, with the help of your Counsel, 13 confirmed it was a CICERO program. Is that right?
14 DR. HOPENFELD: I did not make a reference 15 to CICERO. I was showing the draft with the name 16 CICERO. And I remembered that the French ran some 17 laboratory tests 20 or 25 years ago that were called 18 CICERO.
19 But I didn't realize that the paper that 20 I provided to you had also the word CICERO in it. And 21 the paper I was talking about, that one that is dated, 22 I think that was just presented really recently, this 23 year, as a matter of fact, in a conference.
24 MR. FAGG: Well, I'm sorry.
25 DR. HOPENFELD: I'm talking about two Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1880 1 different things.
2 MR. FAGG: Okay. And I apologize if my 3 question's unclear. In your rebuttal testimony, you 4 made reference to --
5 MR. MUSEGAAS: Excuse me, could you point 6 to the specific section of it so that I'd know what 7 you're referring to?
8 MR. FAGG: If we need to. But maybe I can 9 ask the question. because I thought it was fairly 10 straight forward throughout the rebuttal.
11 You talked about a competitive program to 12 check work. It's called CICERO. Am I mis-remembering 13 that? Do we need to go to the testimony?
14 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. But there was some 15 other name to it, yes.
16 MR. FAGG: Okay. So I'm saying that they 17 do refer to it as the CICERO program.
18 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. There're two things 19 here. One there is the CICERO data, that was 20 provided. And I think it's in 202L.
21 And there's another data that I was 22 talking about that was provided six months ago that 23 showed in that paper that was shown this morning. And 24 that's the one I was talking about, that one I talked 25 about when we talked about the equation.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1881 1 MR. FAGG: Okay. And I'm asking about the 2 program that is at use in non-U.S. plants. What's 3 that called, that program?
4 DR. HOPENFELD: The French program?
5 MR. FAGG: Yes, sir.
6 MR. MUSEGAAS: Your Honor, if I may, just 7 ask a question. I don't think Dr. Hopenfeld has 8 presented himself as an expert in what's used in non-9 U.S. plants.
10 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. You can object or 11 that's all. And if I need anything further then we'll 12 ask for you to clarify it. You object, and I think 13 Dr. Hopenfeld can answer the question. He's been 14 asked about it. He can say I don't know. Or, if he 15 knows, he can answer the question. Dr.?
16 DR. HOPENFELD: I don't know anything 17 about that program beyond what I read in that paper.
18 MR. FAGG: Okay. And so from your answer 19 there, is it safe to say, Dr. Hopenfeld, you don't 20 know whether the CICERO program is based upon a linear 21 or a non-linear assumption of corrosion?
22 DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, I do, to a degree.
23 Because it is based on averages because of the way the 24 equations are defined, Sherwood. It's an average 25 value. For that reason, it cannot be concluded from Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1882 1 that whether it's linear on non-linear.
2 MR. FAGG: Dr. Horowitz, are you familiar 3 with the CICERO program?
4 DR. HOROWITZ: Yes, I am.
5 MR. FAGG: Can you respond with respect to 6 whether the CICERO program is based upon linear or 7 non-linear assumptions of corrosion?
8 DR. HOROWITZ: The CICERO code is clearly 9 based on linear assumption. The assumption is exactly 10 the same as CHECWORKS.
11 MR. FAGG: And how do you know that?
12 DR. HOROWITZ: I've been involved with EVF 13 engineers working this area, including the late Dr.
14 Michel Bouchacourt, who is the B in BRT-CICERO. And 15 I've heard presentations by him on several occasions.
16 I've heard presentations by Stephane 17 Trevin, who is the lead author of the paper quoted.
18 And that's what they've said on numerous occasions.
19 And it matches the lab data in the EDF and it matches 20 what the EDF folks have been saying for close to 30 21 years now.
22 MR. FAGG: Thank you, very much. I'm 23 going to stick with you, Dr. Horowitz, as well as 24 potentially Mr. Aleksick here, for the next few 25 questions.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1883 1 In response to the prior exchange, we 2 heard Chairman McDade ask a few questions of Dr.
3 Hopenfeld. And Dr. Hopenfeld responded with the 4 phrase component phenomena. Do you recall that line 5 of testimony a few moments ago?
6 DR. HOROWITZ: Oh, I'm sorry. Would you 7 repeat that? I didn't quite hear you.
8 MR. FAGG: Sure. And I'll try to slow 9 down, apologies for that. We heard some testimony a 10 few moments ago wherein Dr. Hopenfeld referred to a 11 phrase that I wrote down as component phenomena. I 12 believe it was in response to some of Chairman 13 McDade's questions. Do you recall that testimony?
14 DR. HOROWITZ: Yes, I do.
15 MR. FAGG: Okay. Can I ask either one of 16 you if you could respond, does the "component 17 phenomena," as described by Dr. Hopenfeld, cause you 18 to have any sort of concerns, first with respect to 19 the operation of the CHEKWORKS program, and then more 20 generally with respect to the FAC program at Indian 21 Point?
22 DR. HOROWITZ: No, and no concern about 23 that at all.
24 MR. FAGG: Can you explain that answer a 25 little bit, please.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1884 1 DR. HOROWITZ: I think I'll try. First of 2 all, none of this is abstract. CHEKWORKS and 3 predecessor programs have been used for just about 25 4 years now.
5 If we were seeing the sort of behavior 6 that Dr. Hopenfeld has postulated, we'd have seen all 7 sorts of problems. We've had 25 years experience. We 8 haven't seen them.
9 Further, the theoretical understanding of 10 the mechanism is good enough. So we understand what 11 should be happening. And that's what we see. I think 12 I'll leave it at that.
13 MR. FAGG: Thank you. Let's go to the 14 couple of documents that we just saw. Let's start 15 with Riverkeeper-132. And again, I'm sticking both 16 with you, Dr. Horowitz, and with Mr. Aleksick. Have 17 you had a chance to take a look, at least, at the four 18 page excerpt that we received, Riverkeeper-132?
19 MR. ALEKSICK: This is Robert Aleksick.
20 I have had the chance to briefly review that, yes.
21 MR. FAGG: Okay. Is there anything about, 22 anything, in this document, Mr. Aleksick, that causes 23 you to have any concerns about the CHEKWORKS program 24 or the FAC program in general, with respect to either 25 non-linear rates of corrosion or localized corrosion Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1885 1 phenomena?
2 MR. ALEKSICK: No, there is not.
3 MR. FAGG: Can you explain that, sir?
4 MR. ALEKSICK: Certainly. This is a 5 typical example of one of those 8,000 inspections that 6 we have been discussing recently. This is an 7 examination of an 18 inch elbow in the feed water 8 system. And as I look at it, I see that the nominal 9 thickness, that is to say the expected thickness --
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me, what page are 11 you on?
12 MR. ALEKSICK: Oh, I'm sorry. I am on 13 what is labeled Page 2 of 6. Yes, that's it, thank 14 you. You can see, this package is essentially a 15 snapshot in time of the profile of the component wall.
16 And the date in the lower right hand corner looks like 17 it was March of 2005.
18 So in March of 2005, this is what the 19 component wall thicknesses were. The reason that I 20 don't have any concerns about this are, first of all, 21 that the lowest reading on the component, as shown at 22 the top of this page on the third column, the second 23 row down, it says low reading. It's already up, yes, 24 right there. It says low reading, 0.661 inches.
25 That value is compared to the nominal Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1886 1 thickness, which is 0.750 inches. And the nominal 2 thickness is a representation of the as manufactured 3 wall thickness. And there's a tolerance associated 4 with that of 12.5 percent.
5 And so when this component was fabricated 6 before it was ever placed in service, the manufacturer 7 essentially guaranteed that it would be at least 87.5 8 percent of the nominal wall thickness.
9 And the low reading is 88 percent of that 10 value. In other words, this component has been 11 measured to be thicker than it is required to be when 12 it is first installed in a plant.
13 MR. FAGG: And maybe more to the point, 14 Mr. Aleksick, is there anything on this document that 15 suggests the phenomena of non-linear rates of 16 corrosion?
17 MR. ALEKSICK: No. Well, first of all, 18 this is a snapshot. And so there's no time value that 19 we can see here. But in addition to that, no, the 20 wall thicknesses, if you scroll down to the page, I 21 think it's the last sheet in this exhibit. There we 22 go.
23 If you could zoom in on that just a bit, 24 what we're looking at here is the matrix of wall 25 thicknesses that Dr. Horowitz referred to recently.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1887 1 The flow is from the top down.
2 And the numbers on the left hand side 3 indicate rings of data, if you will. And so the first 4 three rings of data, one, two, and three, you can see 5 are roughly 0.9 inches thick.
6 And then as we go to Ring 4, they drop to 7 0.7 or so inches thick. The reason for that is the 8 first three rings of data are on the pipe. And then 9 there is a weld between Ring 3 and 4. And then 10 beginning on Ring 4, we're measuring the actual elbow.
11 MR. FAGG: And my apologies for 12 interrupting you, Mr. Aleksick. Could we get that 13 kind of distribution on an elbow that came right out 14 of the box from the manufacturer?
15 MR. ALEKSICK: Yes, absolutely. As I look 16 at the pattern of the data from Row 3 through Row 17, 17 that's the extent of the data on the elbow itself. It 18 looks to me like a typical example of an elbow with 19 little to no flow accelerated corrosion degradation.
20 I've seen tens of thousands of these in my 21 23 year career, including 1,200 examinations of 22 components that were brand new, uninstalled components 23 at a different power plant, baseline inspections.
24 And this thickness profile matches that.
25 I can go into more detail, if you like, as to why.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1888 1 But I can tell you unequivocally, this looks like a 2 perfectly normal, brand new elbow.
3 MR. FAGG: That's good enough for me. And 4 I'm sure the judges will follow-up if they need to.
5 Let's move on, if we could, to the next exhibit, 6 Riverkeeper-133. Do you have that in front of you?
7 MR. ALEKSICK: Yes, I do.
8 MR. FAGG: Okay. And I'm going to ask the 9 same, I guess, sort of broad question, Mr. Aleksick.
10 Is there anything about this exhibit that causes you 11 to have concerns, either with respect to the CHEKWORKS 12 program or the FAC program at Indian Point, more 13 generally, in connection with the potential non-linear 14 corrosion rates or localized corrosion phenomena?
15 MR. ALEKSICK: No, it does not.
16 MR. FAGG: And can you elaborate a bit on 17 that answer?
18 MR. ALEKSICK: Certainly. If we can 19 scroll down to, I think it is the second sheet. It's 20 labeled Page 1 of 3, in the upper right hand corner, 21 yes. On the right hand side of this sheet, there's a 22 box labeled component information. Yes, thank you.
23 I would just like to point out that the 24 entry labeled nominal thickness in the middle there, 25 on the left hand side, there are two values, 0.594 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1889 1 inches and 0.337 inches.
2 That indicates right there that the 3 manufacturer of this component provided it when it was 4 brand new, before it was even installed in the plant, 5 that it had a wide thickness variation of 0.594 inches 6 at one end of it and 0.337 inches at the other end of 7 it.
8 And for that reason that explains the 9 thickness variations that we observe in the grid of 10 wall thicknesses on the last page of this exhibit.
11 MR. FAGG: Thank you. And thank you, Your 12 Honors. I have no further questions at this time.
13 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. And we've previously 14 heard that, given the fact that the geometry type here 15 is a reducer, that change in nominal thickness is a 16 necessary aspect of a reducer. Is that correct?
17 MR. ALEKSICK: Yes, Your Honor, that is 18 correct.
19 JUDGE MCDADE: And, Dr. Horowitz, we heard 20 earlier, we looked at Riverkeeper Exhibit 112, Judge 21 Wardwell has a number of questions about that. That 22 was the one we were talking about, the K-star value.
23 Would that equation that we were referring 24 to there also support, in your view, the conclusion 25 that this is a linear phenomenon?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1890 1 DR. HOROWITZ: Yes it does, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE MCDADE: And there were no inputs 3 into that equation that would reflect any other kind 4 of phenomenon other than linear?
5 DR. HOROWITZ: That's also correct, Your 6 Honor. That equation is for chemical dissolution.
7 Again the modeling is similar, but not identical to 8 CHEKWORKS.
9 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay, thank you.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Judge McDade, was that 11 Riverkeeper-110, as opposed to 112, do you believe?
12 JUDGE MCDADE: I'm not sure what one you 13 were referring to, that you said I was referring to.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: I was commenting on the 15 one you were referring. I'll stand corrected if you 16 say it was 110.
17 JUDGE MCDADE: I just want make sure. You 18 were referring to the equations that we were looking 19 at in the various Ks and --
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
21 JUDGE MCDADE: -- things like that. Yes.
22 I believe that was 110, Riverkeeper-110.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: I do stand corrected.
24 It's 110, the bottom of that second page, Paragraph 25 2.2 of 110. Thank you.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1891 1 JUDGE MCDADE: So you didn't trust me, 2 huh?
3 (Laughter) 4 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm glad that you --
5 JUDGE MCDADE: You're smarter than I 6 thought.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: I knew at some point I 8 would make an error, and I'm glad that you were the 9 one who caught it.
10 JUDGE MCDADE: Yes. Does the NRC staff 11 have any follow-up?
12 MR. ROTH: David Roth for the staff, just 13 one question, Redirect for the staff. Dr. Hiser, 14 could you please clarify which version of the GALL was 15 used in the LRA?
16 DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser of the 17 staff. The application was submitted under GALL 18 Revision 1, and the staff reviewed it to GALL Revision 19 1.
20 MR. ROTH: Thank you.
21 JUDGE MCDADE: Anything further?
22 MR. TURK: There was one further 23 clarification on that same question that I wanted to 24 bring out, Your Honor, if I may.
25 Dr. Hiser, your testimony refers to GALL Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1892 1 Rev 2. Could you explain what you did with respect to 2 GALL Rev 2 in looking at the application?
3 DR. HISER: Okay. GALL Revision 2 was 4 issued after we had issued the safety evaluation 5 report for Indian Point. With the operating 6 experience that went into changes to GALL Revision 2, 7 we considered how that information could impact our 8 Indian Point review.
9 In the case of the FAC program, we decided 10 that there were no implications, so we did not pursue 11 any RAIs or any other information from Indian Point.
12 The way that our testimony is written, and 13 I believe it's still true, the FAC program at Indian 14 Point is also consistent with Revision 2 of the GALL 15 report. So we evaluated it in the SER according to 16 Revision 1, found it consistent. It also is 17 consistent with Revision 2.
18 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay, thank you. Anything 19 further?
20 MR. TURK: No, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. I believe that 22 concludes our questioning with regard to Riverkeeper 23 Contention TC, Technical Contention 2.
24 I think it might be appropriate for us to 25 take a 15 minute recess, and then start with New York Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1893 1 contention. Do we need more time than that for any 2 party, Mr. Sipos?
3 MR. SIPOS: Your Honor, the State would 4 like to ask a question about the board's intention 5 regarding schedule, if we may. And I realize it's 6 very difficult to predict.
7 But looking forward, would the board, at 8 this time, anticipate starting taking evidence on New 9 York 37 tomorrow, which is Thursday. And the reason 10 I ask is we have attorneys and experts, as I'm sure 11 Entergy and the staff do as well, whose travel plans 12 are contingent upon that.
13 JUDGE MCDADE: It is beginning to look 14 less likely. But let me discuss that with my 15 colleagues at the break. And when we come back after 16 the 15 minute break, we will try to give some guidance 17 with regard to that.
18 MR. SIPOS: Thank you very much, Your 19 Honor.
20 JUDGE MCDADE: Ms. Sutton?
21 MS. SUTTON: Nothing further, Your Honor.
22 MR. TURK: Your Honor, we have one 23 housekeeping matter. Yesterday the staff referred to 24 the fact that we will be making changes to the staff's 25 testimony on flow accelerated corrosion.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1894 1 And we pointed out that in the testimony 2 there are references to various exhibits. And we had 3 captured the wrong exhibit numbers.
4 So Mr. Roth, sitting next to me, is about 5 to transmit, once he's able to connect to EIE, the 6 revised testimony, and the revised SOP, and the latest 7 NRC staff exhibit list. The only changes that are 8 being made are the exhibit numbers that are referenced 9 in the testimony on the SOP.
10 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. There's no 11 substantive change in the testimony. It's just 12 correcting the reference to the exhibit.
13 MR. TURK: That's correct.
14 JUDGE MCDADE: Okay, thank you. And you 15 anticipate that will occur --
16 MR. TURK: Over the break, during the next 17 few minutes.
18 JUDGE MCDADE: Thank you, Mr. Turk. It's 19 now about 20 after. We'll take a 15 minute recess, 20 come back at 11:35.
21 (Whereupon, the hearing in the foregoing 22 matter went off the record at 11:18 a.m. and went back 23 on the record at 11:38 a.m.)
24 JUDGE McDADE: We'll come to order. The 25 first bit of housekeeping business in response to a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1895 1 question by Mr. Sipos, I think it is a relatively safe 2 estimate that we are not going to get to New York-37 3 tomorrow. And therefore you should instruct your 4 witnesses to be available at this point on Monday 5 morning absent some further change.
6 I think that New York-16 and -17 are going 7 to go much quicker than the previous contention and 8 also the contention we're about to embark on. But I 9 think the likelihood of getting to New York-37 is very 10 slim. And on the off-chance that we would actually 11 get through New York-16 and -17 I think it would be 12 better that we would just then break for the weekend 13 and come back on Monday with -37.
14 MR. SIPOS: Thank you, Your Honor. The 15 State appreciates that.
16 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Was the staff able 17 to file the corrected exhibits?
18 MR. TURK: They have not been able to file 19 yet, Your Honor. They are still trying to get through 20 with that. But they are out busy with it right now.
21 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. We'll just revisit 22 that after lunch then. And what we propose to do now 23 is get started on New York-12. Swear the witnesses 24 and get going and probably keep going until about 1:00 25 p.m. And if we have a reasonable time to break in the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1896 1 vicinity of 1:00 p.m. we will break for lunch for 2 about an hour from 1:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m.
3 MR. TURK: Your Honor, if I may, one 4 housekeeping matter. We never introduced ourselves 5 when we first appeared before you. Sitting to my 6 right is Mr. Brian Harris who will be lead for the 7 staff on the next two contentions.
8 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you. And one 9 of the things we advise the court reporter here that 10 everybody had to submit lists of all of the 11 individuals prior to the hearing. So the court 12 reporter has that and he has the list of names, both 13 of the counsel and also the counsel by contention and 14 also the witnesses by contention.
15 Again, since these witnesses were not here 16 when we did our preliminaries on Monday, this is a 17 somewhat formal proceeding, although Subpart L 18 indicates it's informal. But nevertheless certain 19 rules are going to be applicable.
20 Basically, most of the talking is going to 21 be done by you hopefully. And you are to address 22 yourselves to the Bench to the Judges, not to each 23 other. There may well be disagreements between the 24 witnesses where one witness is going to say something 25 different than another. But your rebuttal will be Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1897 1 directed to us, not to the expert from the other side.
2 Likewise, if counsel has questions, 3 they're going to be directing it to the Bench, not 4 directly to you until we get somewhat late in the 5 proceedings when they will have an opportunity to ask 6 questions or may have the opportunity to ask questions 7 of you directly.
8 At this point before we get started if you 9 could all -- You don't need to rise, but please raise 10 your right hands to be sworn. Do you swear that the 11 testimony you will give in this proceeding will be the 12 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so 13 help you God?
14 (Chorus of I dos.)
15 JUDGE McDADE: And the sight lines here 16 are good, but not great. And at least at the 17 beginning of this, the court reporter is not familiar 18 with you. So to make sure that the correct expert 19 opinion is attributed to the correct expert, when you 20 are answering a question if you could please just 21 start answering it by saying "This is Ms. Potts" so 22 that the court reporter then doesn't have to strain 23 his neck to look who is talking and to check the sign.
24 Okay. Are we ready? Judge Kennedy?
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: We're ready to go. This Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1898 1 is exciting. I thought we were one-on-one with all 2 the rest of the witnesses. Now if I start calling you 3 folks by the witnesses for the previous contention, 4 please bear with me. It seems like my sight lines 5 aren't so good and I've sort of memorized where people 6 sat. But that was based on the previous contention.
7 So bear with me. We'll work our way through this.
8 This is New York State Contention-12C.
9 And the contention as we've admitted it states that 10 the severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis 11 for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 does not accurately 12 reflect the decontamination and clean-up costs 13 associated with a severe accident in the New York City 14 Metropolitan area. This has been characterized by the 15 Board as an environmental contention because the 16 severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis is 17 performed in fulfillment of the agency's regulations 18 implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.
19 So that's the contention we're here to 20 take evidence on today. The way I'd like to start is 21 the Board feels that it would be beneficial for its 22 subsequent questioning of the witnesses to have a 23 brief overview of what is involved in a severe 24 accident mitigation alternative analysis.
25 I'd like to do this at a very high level.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1899 1 And again it's to provide context for the follow-on 2 questioning. And we have sort of a path we'd like to 3 walk down. And what I'd like to do if we couldn't 4 find an appropriate witness and I'd like to start with 5 Entergy. But we can punt this around.
6 I guess to me it's my understanding that 7 Entergy sort of gets the ball rolling through the 8 environmental report and its submittal. So I'll allow 9 Entergy to take the first attempt at walking us 10 through at a high level what's involved in a severe 11 accident mitigation alternatives analysis, what's its 12 ultimate goal and sort of what are the building blocks 13 that take us to the conclusion.
14 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. Grant 15 Teagarden for the Applicant. So a severe accident 16 mitigation alternatives analysis seeks --
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: May I interrupt just one 18 second? If there's an appropriate exhibit you'd like 19 to point to that we could put up for the other 20 witnesses and for the public, that would be 21 appreciative. I didn't see an obvious one, but if you 22 have one that's in evidence in the proceeding, that 23 would be useful. I appreciate that. Thank you.
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. Entergy 25 Exhibit 000450.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1900 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Could we have that?
2 MR. TEAGARDEN: And there is a Figure 1 of 3 that exhibit on page 19 which provides a flow chart 4 for the SAMA analysis process.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Say the page number 6 again.
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: Page 19, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
9 MR. TEAGARDEN: So let me begin. A severe 10 accident mitigation alternatives analysis, a SAMA 11 analysis, basically seeks to find, the evaluate, the 12 potential to reduce severe accident risk and to 13 determine the implementation of particular candidates.
14 And these candidates could be hardware changes at the 15 plant. It could be procedure changes. They could be 16 training enhancements.
17 But whether the particular candidates that 18 are so defined have the potential to reduce severe 19 accident risk but it's performed on a cost/benefit 20 basis to see if the benefit associated with such 21 changes as compared to the cost implement of such 22 changes is beneficial such that resources are used 23 appropriately.
24 The NUREG-1850 provided by the NRC is the 25 flow chart that is presented. And step one is Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1901 1 basically just to evaluate, to characterize, the plant 2 risk. This is a risk analysis. It's based on a risk 3 analysis, a probabilistic risk analysis, PRA or PSA, 4 probabilistic safety analysis. They are used 5 interchangeably in our industry.
6 But in essence the plants, Indian point 2 7 and Indian Point 3, have separate PRA models that 8 model all the important safety systems within the 9 plant operator actions that are required for 10 addressing severe accidents or just plant transients.
11 And those as well as -- Let me back up.
12 A PRA are divided into three levels 13 typically. Level one looks at the potential for 14 sequence of events that could result in a core damage 15 event. So it's the sequence of equipment failures, of 16 potential human action failures, that could result in 17 a core damage event. And that's the level one portion 18 of the PRA.
19 The level two portion of a PRA then looks 20 at given a core damage event what is the potential or 21 what is the challenge to the containment such that a 22 radiological release could be released to the 23 environment. And so the level two analysis looks at 24 how the core could degrade and break out of the 25 reactor vessel, what would occur within the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1902 1 containment, how the containment could be challenged 2 with pressures and temperatures and then eventually 3 what would be the failure mechanisms of the 4 containment and help to define given a particular 5 containment failure what would the release or how 6 would the release be characterized in terms of timing, 7 in terms of magnitude. So those aspects would be 8 termed a level two PRA analysis.
9 Plants use those on a consistent basis 10 when interacting with the Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission for their daily operations as they examine 12 how to plan plant functions and maintenance 13 activities.
14 Third level is typically performed. A 15 level three PRA for a SAMA analysis and that's the 16 consequence portion of the analysis. And that 17 examines given a severe accident with a release how 18 does that release get distributed into the environment 19 and impact the environment.
20 And the focus for SAMA has four facets 21 that are looked at, four attributes. Two of those 22 involve offsite consequences and two of those involve 23 onsite consequences. So the two for offsite look at 24 offsite economic impacts and they also look at offsite 25 population dose impacts.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1903 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Can we stop for just a 2 second, Mr. Teagarden?
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: We're all up in the first 5 box here still. So the level one, level two, level 6 three is all within --
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. It's all 8 part of characterizing the plant risk.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: But I will be much briefer 11 for the subsequent boxes, Your Honor.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Understand. And again 13 I've asked for this to try to give us some context to 14 go forward.
15 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Before we go much further, 17 could you give us a brief couple of sentences on what 18 constitutes a severe accident? It seems foundational 19 to step one and I'm not sure I've really got a grasp 20 on what a severe accident is.
21 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. A severe accident is 22 an accident that is judged to be beyond those 23 accidents defined as a design basis accident. The 24 plant is designed to respond to particular accidents, 25 to have the capability to respond to particular plant Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1904 1 malfunctions like a large break loss of coolant 2 accident, a large pipe break as part of the reactor 3 coolant system.
4 A severe accident looks at those accident 5 sequences that are judged to be typically lower in 6 likelihood, very low likelihood, events that have the 7 potential for consequences that would go beyond what 8 would occur with a design basis accident.
9 So it covers a spread. And SAMA analysis 10 actually covers a spectrum of accidents all the way 11 from a core degradation event without containment 12 failure which would be akin to the Three Mile Island 13 accident to a severe accident with a large 14 radiological release that could impact a large area 15 outside the plant.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Are the design basis 17 accidents you referred to are they enveloped in the 18 level one portion? Or is that really handled 19 somewhere else? Just more for an orientation 20 perspective.
21 MR. TEAGARDEN: There would be overlap in 22 that. A plant risk assessment addresses -- It's meant 23 to be a comprehensive look at every possible 24 combination of events that could lead to a core damage 25 event. And if you look at the individual sequences --
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1905 1 We will I'm sure get in our proceedings to a 2 discussion on the eight release categories. We have 3 eight bins, so to speak, release categories postulated 4 as part of the SAMA analysis for Indian Point of 5 different types of releases that could occur to the 6 environment.
7 The frequency associated with each of 8 these bins for most of the bins is less than one in a 9 million per year would be the frequency. Yes, Your 10 Honor.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess what I'm thinking 12 here then if I -- Let me sure I understand this 13 correctly. The severe accident sequence is then the 14 lower probability events where the design basis 15 accidents would be on the higher probability side.
16 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: So we're at the low 18 frequency.
19 MR. TEAGARDEN: We're at the very low 20 frequency events. And in the PRA models that are 21 used, we have what we call a truncation value which is 22 at some point because of the computational limitations 23 of these models you have to stop trying to string 24 together all the combinations of failures. And these 25 values are down in what we say E minus 12, E minus 13.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1906 1 They're approaching the age of the universe as far as 2 the combination of sequences, the frequency of that 3 occurring once in the age of the universe.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: In regards to severe 6 accidents, if there isn't a release of radioactivity, 7 why is it considered part of a SAMA because you 8 wouldn't need any mitigation effort if there's no 9 release?
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, we postulate 11 a design basis release. So a containment structure 12 has a specification for how much leakage is allowed 13 from that containment structure. And so as part of 14 the SAMA analysis we look at the -- we want to 15 encompass the full spectrum of core damage events.
16 And so a portion of that spectrum are events where a 17 core damage occurs. However, the containment fulfills 18 its function that is part of the design nature of that 19 containment. It's designed such that there's an 20 allowance on a particular amount, a very small amount, 21 of release similar to the Three Mile Island event.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Wouldn't that start to 23 level off the impacts from the more severe ones that 24 to the point might make all SAMA somewhat useless? I 25 mean it will never show a real difference in cost if Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1907 1 you bias it towards something that really doesn't have 2 a release to the environment.
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: A SAMA analysis is 4 designed to be what we say a best estimate analysis, 5 a representative average basis. And to present that 6 average basis you need to look at both ends of the 7 spectrum. The high consequence events with very low 8 probability, the low consequence events that had a 9 higher probability or frequency associated with those.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me ask it this way.
11 Even if the containment doesn't fail which is what 12 happens at your low end of your severe accidents, 13 there is still a cost associated with that extra 14 release over what a design basis would be. So it 15 still does have a cost value. It's not that it's 16 nothing dragging down other items.
17 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. There is 18 a typically very small offsite cost associated with 19 those. But in addition I brought up the two 20 attributes, two components, of a SAMA analysis cost 21 basis. And the two I brought up were offsite 22 population dose and offsite economic cost.
23 Then there are two onsite and those are 24 the onsite dose and onsite cost where onsite cost also 25 includes replacement power cost. So what you were Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1908 1 referring to, there are also those onsite costs that 2 would be captured as part of a severe accident where 3 the containment fulfills its function as designed.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: And could you do one 5 other favor for me and just again give me the names 6 for level one, level two and level three of those PRAs 7 that are used?
8 MR. TEAGARDEN: So for level one the 9 metric of interest is the core damage frequency. And 10 we often will refer to that as CDF, core damage 11 frequency.
12 The second for level two is a spectrum of 13 releases. And for Entergy they use the release 14 categories that a nomenclature that both indicates a 15 relative size of the release and a relative timing of 16 the release. So they will be termed like a high, 17 early release.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Those are those eight 19 categories.
20 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, Your 21 Honor.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And then the three was 23 the consequences.
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: I think I interrupted Dr.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1909 1 O'Kula. Did I pronounce that correctly? You were 2 just ready to say something when I managed to just 3 beat you to the punch. Or I think really you gave me 4 difference. I think I was behind you.
5 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Dr. O'Kula for 6 the Applicant. Just to supplement Mr. Teagarden's 7 remarks on the nature of severe accidents against 8 those that would be regarded as design basis 9 accidents. Severe accidents in the PRA sense 10 typically look at multiple failures of systems in 11 demonstrating that they are in fact severe accidents 12 but multiple system failures linked with the 13 probability of occurrence, then tied to the initiating 14 event that is considered. So these multiple failures 15 of events are typically above and beyond what is 16 considered in design basis accident space human 17 intervention, safety system failure, no matter how 18 unlikely. But those are the nature of the type of 19 accidents that are considered for severe accident 20 consideration.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Continue.
22 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, all of that 23 sort of describes step one of attempting to 24 characterize the plant risk where the risk models are 25 used to the level one, level two and level three PRA.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1910 1 And we'll dive into more of the details of that I'm 2 sure as we continue on.
3 So step two then says what are the 4 potential enhancements that could be made to the 5 plant. And there are lists of enhancements that 6 individual plants have looked at. So there's a range 7 and one of the boxes there indicates those. That's 8 step two which is what are all the potential hardware 9 changes, procedure changes, training changes that 10 could be implemented.
11 And a number of those would not be 12 applicable to a particular plant. So some hardware 13 change at a boiling water reactor would not applicable 14 perhaps the pressurized water reactors at Indian 15 Point.
16 The third step then says to quantify both 17 the risk reduction potential and the implementation 18 cost. So for quantifying the risk reduction potential 19 would be looking an individual SAMA candidate and 20 saying what portion of either the frequency would this 21 hardware change as an example, reduce the impacts or 22 might it just reduce the consequence, but not 23 necessarily reduce the frequency. So I attempt to 24 quantify using these probabilistic risk models to 25 benefit the change under consideration of a particular Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1911 1 candidate. At the same time, you also say what would 2 that change cost. So if I want to modify hardware 3 what would be the cost involved?
4 And in step four basically is a comparison 5 of doing that final cost/benefit decision of taking 6 the risk, having it in a monetized fashion so that 7 population dose is monetized to a dollar value. And 8 the various dollar values are summed together. And 9 that then can be compared against the cost for 10 implementation to determine whether or not a 11 particular SAMA candidate is judged potentially 12 cost/beneficial.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Can we back up to step 14 three for a just a second?
15 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: The quantification, what 17 are the figures of merit that are used to quantify the 18 risk reduction potential? And I'm ultimately getting 19 to how we get to the cost/benefit analysis.
20 And maybe step three is an intermediate 21 path. But I'm looking to see how we get to the inputs 22 to the cost/benefit analysis which I'm assuming goes 23 on in step four, the balancing. Is step three where 24 the impact of implementing the mitigation alternative 25 is computed? And, if so, what actually is calculated Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1912 1 there as output to step four?
2 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. So let's 3 take an example. There's a hypothetical example that 4 one of the candidates is a hardware change to a 5 system. The Applicant has a probabilistic risk 6 assessment, a PRA model.
7 They can go into that model and they say, 8 "If I were to make this hardware change perhaps it 9 improves the reliability of this particular system.
10 So I will go into my PRA model. I will make that 11 change in the model. I will requantify the model."
12 And then what comes out of that model would be both 13 the impact on the core damage frequency and the 14 frequency that then can carry over into the level two 15 for how that would impact the frequency of a given 16 release.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: The requantification 18 results in a change in frequency of occurrence.
19 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, Your 20 Honor. Yes. But the frequency of occurrence may only 21 apply to a specific release category or a subset of 22 release categories. So a given change does not 23 necessarily, a given postulated SAMA candidate does 24 not necessarily have the same impact across all 25 release categories depending on how the risk Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1913 1 significance of the particular system that is 2 influencing in the model.
3 But in essence the model is used to mimic 4 the change, to quantify, to determine the change in 5 frequency and then that change in frequency is applied 6 to the level three consequence analysis that's used.
7 Entergy used the MACCS code which I believe every 8 applicant I'm aware of has always used the MACCS code.
9 So it's multiplying a frequency times the 10 two metrics that will come out of the MACCS code which 11 is population dose and offsite economic cost. These 12 represent the impacts to a radial region 50 miles from 13 the plant, so with Indian Point at the center. And we 14 have a little picture that may be worth it.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: While you're looking for 16 that, I've got to clarify. MACCS only applies to the 17 level three PRA. It doesn't to the other two.
18 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct. So the 19 frequencies from level one and level two PRA are 20 applied then with the consequences of what we would 21 say is the level three PRA. Technically, it's called 22 the level three consequence analysis because it's a 23 conditional result.
24 When you run the MACCS code, there is a 25 probabilistic nature to the MACCS code for weather Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1914 1 variability. And I'm sure we'll discuss that. But 2 you are taking the frequencies from the level one and 3 level two PRA and then the conditional consequences 4 calculated by MACCS to determine the offsite risks.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: In the case where you 6 discussed the hardware change that had an impact on 7 for want of a better term the risk profile for the 8 plant, is it possible that that cascades into the 9 consequence parameters? Or is it only carried forward 10 in through the risk profile?
11 MR. TEAGARDEN: Through the frequency 12 portion. It typically proceeds through the frequency 13 portion. Now you could envision a strategy that could 14 be applied and off the top of my head mounting a spray 15 system over the containment dome that is meant to 16 scrub a release in the event of a containment failure.
17 So I have water curtain that runs down the outside of 18 my containment dome.
19 That change would not impact the frequency 20 of the core damage event. It would not impact the 21 frequency of the containment failure. What that SAMA 22 candidate would potentially impact would be the 23 radiological release that escapes to the infirement 24 (phonetic) because in addition to having to exit the 25 containment it has to make its way through this water Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1915 1 curtain.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So again I understand that 3 that was a hypothetical for demonstration purposes.
4 But that would be more description of something that 5 would have impacted the consequences. First example 6 appears to affect the frequency of occurrence.
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: Correct.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: So they ultimately affect 9 the results.
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: Correct.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: But they do so in two 12 different ways. Is that true?
13 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's true. And the vast 14 majority of SAMA candidates are all evident themselves 15 in the frequency.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
17 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, if I may add.
18 Kevin O'Kula for the Applicant. Typically just to 19 take your division of the two types of effects that 20 could occur with this portion of the analysis, the 21 industry looks at the first set that would lower the 22 frequency as preventers. They really get back to the 23 level one and level two portion of the analysis and 24 prevent either that accident sequence that initiating 25 event from occurring or more likely from the sequence Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1916 1 to actually propagate into containment failure. So a 2 preventer type of a descriptor is normally attached to 3 that class.
4 The second class is a mitigator. So that 5 type of SAMA candidate would be useful. It has 6 nothing to do with the frequency as you pointed out, 7 Your Honor. But it would effectively cut down or 8 mitigate the release. So typically the nomenclature 9 is to address those two families as preventers and 10 mitigators.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: And does that language 12 carry forward when the application discusses 13 mitigation alternative? Is that a typical terminology 14 that's used in the application, preventers and 15 mitigators in terms of alternatives?
16 DR. O'KULA: Yes, Your Honor. At least 17 the evaluation is done on a systematic basis. But to 18 look at maybe one of the SAMA candidates can apply 19 equally in some cases in other ways. So it's done 20 very systematically, but accountability is preserved 21 as to whether that SAMA candidate is useful as a 22 preventer or as a mitigator. And the costing is done 23 appropriately.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
25 MR. TEAGARDEN: So, Your Honor, did I Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1917 1 adequately address your question on step three?
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. Thank you. Does 3 that mean you're done?
4 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess then I have a 6 question that's probably on step four.
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: Okay.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: You talked about the 9 quantification of the impact of the mitigation of the 10 alternative on the benefit side of the equation. And 11 is that translated through a change in the population 12 dose component and the offsite -- I'm going to get 13 these terms wrong -- economic cost risk number?
14 MR. TEAGARDEN: It is as well as it can be 15 propagated into the other two cost categories for 16 onsite.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Maybe just so I don't 18 focus on the wrong topic based on your understanding 19 of this contention, are we focusing on offsite 20 economic cost risk in addition to population dose 21 risk? Or do we need to include the onsite components 22 as well as we move forward in taking evidence on this 23 contention?
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: The focus of Contention 12 25 is on the offsite portion.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1918 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Including the population 2 dose risk?
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, Your 4 Honor. The offsite population dose risk and offsite 5 economic cost risk.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the two offsite 7 components that go into the quantification of the 8 benefit if you will of implementing the alternative is 9 those two components. I know there are others, but 10 for this contention.
11 MR. TEAGARDEN: There are others and so 12 the focus of our discussion will be on the offsite 13 portion. However, we will I'm sure bring the back the 14 larger perspective that alternate inputs can be 15 proposed.
16 At the end of the day, so to speak, the 17 question is does it impact the conclusions of the SAMA 18 analysis. And that is does a particular SAMA 19 candidate that has judged to be not cost beneficial is 20 it still not cost beneficial. And to reach that 21 conclusion you still have to look at the onsite 22 portions.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Again I guess just to wrap 25 the benefit portion up, that's computed in terms of a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1919 1 change in those parameters, the population dose risk 2 and offsite economic consequence. And that's balanced 3 against the cost of implementing that alternative.
4 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's a financial 6 balancing between implementation and benefit.
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: And the benefits measure -
9 - Is the benefit measured in terms of change in 10 population dose risk and offsite economic consequence 11 risk in terms of dollars? I guess those are converted 12 to dollars.
13 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. The decision point 14 in step four has a unit of dollars.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Lemay, do you agree 17 that those are the two issues that we're really 18 dealing with, the offsite values here in this 19 contention?
20 DR. LEMAY: Yes, Your Honor, I agree. And 21 the reason is that they intend to dominate the cost.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: Maybe it would be fair to 24 ask the staff if they have anything to add to this 25 overview of what constitutes a SAMA analysis.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1920 1 DR. GHOSH: We agree with that overview.
2 So unless you have any questions I think we don't have 3 anything to add at this time.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Appreciate that. I'm sure 5 we'll have --
6 JUDGE McDADE: Please when you start 7 talking to state your name for the first time so that 8 the court reporter has it.
9 DR. GHOSH: Yes. Sorry about that. This 10 is Dr. Ghosh for the staff.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Go ahead. If you want to 12 fill the gap before you get going again on something 13 else.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: You got ahead of me.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. This is a general 16 statement I would be kind of interested in. In 17 regards to the SAMA analysis, it's certainly something 18 now required by the NRC that if it hasn't been before 19 to be done as part of license renewal. Correct?
20 That's why we're here today in regards to this 21 challenge to this one. Is that correct?
22 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. As part 23 of the environmental report, a look at the performing 24 a SAMA is required.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what actions are Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1921 1 required from the results of this SAMA analysis? What 2 are you forced to do as a company once you see these 3 numbers?
4 MS. POTTS: This is Lori Potts for the 5 Applicant. My understanding is that we are not 6 required to implement the SAMAs that are potentially 7 cost beneficial. What we do is enter them into our 8 process for determining more detailed project 9 implementation and make a decision as to whether they 10 will be implemented or not.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And the implementation of 12 these would be because they provide some additional 13 safety. It's not that the plant isn't designed to be 14 safe. It is. You've done that. But now you're 15 looking at are there some inexpensive things that we 16 could do that provide a lot of benefit. And that's 17 part of the decision making process that you are aware 18 of and that's all that SAMA requires. Is that correct 19 that you do look at these and consider them? But 20 you're not forced to implement any of them is what I 21 heard you say.
22 MS. POTTS: Yes, Your Honor.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Ms. Potts or any of you, 24 but Ms. Potts probably could because I assume you're 25 talking now. Does your company consider these to be Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1922 1 of advantage to them internally? Is it worthwhile for 2 them to do even if it wasn't required by regulation?
3 MR. BESSETTE: Your Honor, this is Paul 4 Bessette from the Applicant. With all due respect, I 5 believe we're straying into the scope of another two 6 contentions, New York State-35 and -36, which go into 7 the legal issues with regard to the role of NEPA and 8 the requirements to implement these. So I don't 9 believe Ms. Potts is able to answer that legal 10 question and which we respectfully believe has been 11 addressed by Commission in several recent Commission 12 decisions this spring.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry if I implied 14 that it's a legal question because it wasn't. I would 15 not consider that a legal question. I still don't 16 believe it's a legal question.
17 And so I will still ask it. And if they 18 don't have any opinion or knowledge to answer, that's 19 fine. You'll see where I'm coming from in regards to 20 a technical aspect in how these SAMAs are calculated 21 is where I'm coming from.
22 So if you're interested, if you have any 23 knowledge of that, I would be interested in whether or 24 not. Maybe I'll rephrase it.
25 It seems to me that if I was managing a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1923 1 company I would be very interested in are there some 2 inexpensive things I can do to improve my company. It 3 would be advantageous to see, not that I would 4 necessarily do anything with it. But I'd like to know 5 about it.
6 Is there something I could do to my car 7 right now that would make it last another ten years 8 longer? I'd kind of like to know what that is.
9 That's what I'm driving at. Do you know whether -- Do 10 you have any comment on whether that is a culture?
11 Whether it isn't? Or you have no comment? And that's 12 fine if you have no comment.
13 MS. POTTS: Yes, sir. I'm a little bit 14 uncomfortable speaking for the entire company in that 15 respect.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fine.
17 MS. POTTS: But my perspective is that 18 Entergy would take these items, these proposed, 19 potentially cost beneficial SAMAs, and they would put 20 them into the process that they have in place that may 21 also have suggestions made by system engineers, plant 22 engineers, for ways to make improvements that would 23 provide benefit to the plant or to safety to the 24 public. And make a decision on the aggregate of those 25 changes as to which ones that they would want to make.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1924 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.
2 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, if I may 3 augment the answer Ms. Potts gave.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure.
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: Entergy like every utility 6 that I am familiar with in our industry is always 7 looking for ways to both improve plant safety and 8 improve efficiency at our plants. That's one of the 9 purposes of the PRA models.
10 They show us -- They help us understand 11 the plants to understand the risk significance of 12 systems, how safety can be improved, the importance of 13 particular operator actions. So all of the facets that 14 are involved within a SAMA analysis are -- Many of the 15 facets are already in place. The SAMA analysis is 16 another means of highlighting some particular changes 17 that can be made.
18 But as Ms. Potts alluded to, the plant 19 already also have their own list of things that they 20 are viewing, that they're evaluating.
21 So the potentially cost beneficial 22 candidates are added to those lists. And then the 23 potential benefits are weighted against the costs and 24 also the priorities for what is needed this year, what 25 is needed next year, what is judged to have the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1925 1 biggest benefit for the company.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
3 JUDGE McDADE: For our purposes right 4 here, you have guidance from the NRC under NUREG-1850.
5 You're required to conduct a SAMA analysis. You're 6 required to submit the results of that SAMA analysis 7 to the NRC staff as part of your license renewal 8 application. And that's what informs the process for 9 what you submit to the NRC, the NUREG-1850. Is that 10 correct?
11 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. Your Honor, we are -
12 - Entergy and other utilities that seek license 13 extension are required to perform a SAMA analysis and 14 there may be other documents that specify those 15 requirements.
16 A NUREG per se does not specify 17 requirements. It is a --
18 JUDGE McDADE: A guidance document.
19 MR. TEAGARDEN: It's a guidance document.
20 So the only clarification I'm attempting to make with 21 your statement was reference to 1850. But as part of 22 the application process for license renewal in order 23 to satisfy the requirements of NEPA a SAMA analysis is 24 required.
25 JUDGE McDADE: But you look to NUREG-1850 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1926 1 as a guide for what the NRC staff is going to require 2 be in your SAMA analysis and as part of your 3 application. Is that correct?
4 MR. TEAGARDEN: NUREG-1850 would be one of 5 several documents and other pertinent documents. One 6 is an NEI document, NEI 05-01, which is an industry 7 guidance document through the Nuclear Energy 8 Institute, hence the NEI on the prefix. Ms. Potts was 9 one of the authors of that document.
10 And that document was endorsed by the NRC 11 as saying that if you follow this industry guidance 12 that that will provide a submittal to the NRC that 13 should be complete enough and appropriate enough for 14 them to evaluate it. That's another very important 15 document that will likely come up in the process of 16 our discussions.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: And both of those 18 documents are exhibits in this proceeding. At least 19 I think I remember that.
20 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, NEI 05-01 is an 21 exhibit and I believe 1850 is an exhibit, Your Honor.
22 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, Your Honor. This is 23 Martin O'Neill, counsel for Entergy. Those documents 24 are exhibits in this proceeding. And I would just add 25 one clarification. I think NUREG-1850 is principally Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1927 1 a document designed to disseminate information about 2 the license renewal process at the broader public.
3 It's kind of a brochure of sorts. And we did 4 incorporate a figure from that document in our 5 testimony because it provides a nice visual overview 6 of the SAMA analysis process.
7 One thing I might add. The applicable 8 regulation is 10 CFR Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) which 9 essentially states that if the staff is not previously 10 considered SAMAs for a license renewal applicant's 11 plant and an EIS or an environmental assessment, then 12 the applicant must complete an evaluation of SAMAs as 13 part of the license renewal application.
14 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, Grant 15 Teagarden for the Applicant. If I may make one 16 further note regarding SAMA analysis. It's important 17 to recognize that a SAMA analysis is a spatially 18 average and time averaged analysis and result such 19 that what is used, what comes out of the level three 20 PRA analysis for input into SAMA analysis looks at a 21 range, a spectrum, of postulated releases that could 22 occur using meteorology, a whole year of meteorology, 23 looking at different weather sequences and determining 24 an average result from all of those. So that as we 25 dig into the details, a SAMA analysis does not seek to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1928 1 model any one radiological release. It models 2 thousands of radiological releases that occur using a 3 year's worth of weather data to develop a distribution 4 of results from which a mean value is taken for 5 continued use in the SAMA analysis.
6 And this mean value is for the entire 50 7 mile region, a very large region. That entire region 8 is not impacted by any one postulated release.
9 However, it is part of the analysis region because of 10 the fact that wind can be blowing different directions 11 at different times. And that's all part of the 12 modeling.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's at the level 14 three stage.
15 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's at the level three 16 stage. But that then is where the mean values from 17 MACCS2 code that are used to generate the population 18 dose risk which is the population dose from MACCS 19 times the frequency and the offsite economic cost 20 risk, the offsite economic costs from MACCS times the 21 frequency. Those are mean values analyzing a 50 mile 22 radial region in view of a whole year of weather data.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: So should I take from that 24 that those are inputs to MACCS2?
25 MR. TEAGARDEN: The meteorological weather Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1929 1 file is an input to MACCS2. Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the spatially averaging 3 and the time averaging is accomplished through inputs, 4 input parameters, to MACCS2.
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, inputs and we can get 6 into the different details. But like population 7 distribution is an important one. So the different 8 population densities around the site are used as part 9 of the evaluation.
10 If we turn to page 32 of this same 11 exhibit, there is this figure three that will help I 12 think depict what I'm beginning to discuss. So this 13 presents a simplified view of the 50 mile analysis 14 region that MACCS2 code uses for offsite, economic and 15 dose calculations.
16 You see that it's divided up into sixteen 17 directional sectors, north headed to the top, south 18 headed to the bottom. And it has divisions, annular 19 rings with divisions. So this is the framework that 20 MACCS uses for many of the inputs like population, 21 like land values. So there are different values that 22 are attributed to what I'll call each grid element 23 where the grid element would be a portion, one little 24 ring element, within one little directional sector.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it a segment of an Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1930 1 annular region? Is that the grid you're talking 2 about?
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, one square, one cell.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: So the analysis becomes 6 very site-specific by using site-specific data in this 7 fashion. And when a release is postulated to occur 8 using the MACCS code as done by Entergy, it will pick 9 a sequence from the weather file. It will use that 10 sequence to determine the distribution, the 11 atmospheric dispersion, along the region.
12 And then also as implemented for Entergy 13 and most others that I'm familiar with they take that 14 and actually rotate it through all the other sectors 15 to see how that would impact had the wind been blowing 16 in a different direction. They wait the results of 17 that using the frequency of the wind blowing in a 18 particular direction.
19 And then you do that for each of the 20 release categories, eight release categories. That's 21 done for I believe in Entergy's case 155 weather 22 sequences throughout the year. So it's looking at a 23 release. A given release is looked at with 155 24 different weather sequences, rotated all the way 25 around the analysis region to generate a large number Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1931 1 of samples from which to draw the mean results.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: And the spacial averaging, 3 how do I interpret that? The grid is relevant to that 4 I'm assuming.
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, because MACCS2 code 6 is going to be calculating for instance the population 7 dose in each one of those little grid elements. And 8 then it will add those results together for each given 9 run of the code and present the mean results.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: So you're representing one 11 of the grid elements by an average parameter for that, 12 let's say, population.
13 MR. TEAGARDEN: Correct. Each grid 14 element would have a population value associated with 15 it that would be different than the grid element next 16 door to it in general.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: So when we run through all 18 these sequences with the eight release categories 19 after having implemented a mitigation alternative, 20 what is the result of that? Or am I oversimplifying 21 yet again?
22 MR. TEAGARDEN: No. For the Entergy 23 analysis I don't believe any of the SAMA candidates 24 required that they had a separate run of the MACCS2 25 code. So what the SAMA candidate would evaluate would Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1932 1 be the change in frequency that would be applied to 2 the conditional results developed with the MACCS2 3 code.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Let's take that 5 again slowly because that seems to be a significant 6 distinction here.
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: Okay.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Particularly since all the 9 challenges appear to be on the MACCS2 side of the 10 equation here. And I'm sure we'll have a whole line 11 of questioning about that. But walk us through that 12 again slowly. And again is this an example as you 13 talked about before of something that impacted the 14 frequency of occurrence versus the mitigation of the 15 release?
16 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: So say to me again in that 18 context what you just said.
19 MS. POTTS: Your Honor, Lori Potts for the 20 Applicant. I do want to clarify Mr. Teagarden's 21 statement. We did have SAMA candidates that do not 22 just impact the frequency. We did have a few that 23 changed the release profile.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So we actually have 25 both types of scenarios here if you will.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1933 1 MS. POTTS: Yes, Your Honor. And one of 2 other point that this figure doesn't show it. But 3 within the 10 mile ring we actually have 10 additional 4 rings for a final resolution in close to the plant.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. And maybe 6 while this is up here you brought up the concept of 7 the 10 mile ring and the 50 mile ring. The population 8 dose rate risk, is that reflective of the whole region 9 here or is it just within the 10 mile region or?
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. It's 11 reflective of the full 50 mile region. And that's the 12 same for population dose and offsite economic cost.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: So when the population 14 dose risk is computed its impact is assessed over the 15 entire 50 mile region.
16 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's true.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Again going through the 18 scenario that you had.
19 MR. TEAGARDEN: Correct, Your Honor. And 20 an end result of that which will probably come out in 21 our discussion is that any one individual grid element 22 will have a small impact on the mean because it's one 23 of many grid elements that are being summed together.
24 DR. GHOSH: This is Dr. Ghosh of the 25 staff. Could I just add one clarification? And I may Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1934 1 be the only one who needs it, but just in case. There 2 are two sets of frequencies that we're generally 3 talking about. One is the core damage frequency 4 that's coming out of the level one PRA and then 5 there's a second frequency which is the frequency 6 associated with the eight source term groups, for 7 example.
8 So when Dr. O'Kula was talking about the 9 prevention versus mitigation, for example, generally 10 if we are reducing the CDF frequency which is what's 11 coming out of level one, we talk about that as a 12 preventive measure. For the mitigative measure, we 13 may also be reducing frequencies, but that's at the 14 level two stage.
15 So we may be, for example, moving the 16 frequency from one source term category to another.
17 And that's how typically the SAMA benefit is 18 quantified. I know there could be some confusion 19 there because we're talking about two sets of 20 frequencies. But that second frequency is actually 21 modeling a change in the consequence if that makes 22 sense.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. And I'm sure 24 we'll get into more of this as we go on. But again in 25 the context of this sort of preliminary to get us Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1935 1 oriented to our follow-on questions, that's 2 appreciated.
3 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, if I just may 4 supplement Dr. Ghosh's and Mr. Teagarden's responses 5 and I'm sure we'll pursue this later on in Contention-6 12C. But with regard to modeling any one type of 7 release, one of these severe accident releases, the 8 weather file that is used in MACCS2 will based on 9 Indian Point meteorological conditions will direct the 10 plume in a certain direction. And the effects may be 11 in the direction that the MACCS2 file is reading as 12 part of the input data may be in a direction randomly 13 selected. But then the answer is weighted by the 14 percentage of time that the wind is blowing under 15 those conditions in that direction.
16 If we look at this 50 mile grid that's 17 used for SAMA analysis calculations using the MACCS2 18 code, it's important to note that certain grid 19 elements may be affected and the other direction 180 20 degrees opposite the way the wind is blowing will not 21 be affected. So at any given time maybe a few or all 22 of the grid elements in a certain direction may be 23 affected.
24 But alternatively there could be little 25 indication of the plume traveled as it goes across the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1936 1 grid. We show in this picture if the plume is going 2 in a northerly direction, then those grid elements 3 would be affected. The other ones would not be.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
5 After all this discussion, I want to make 6 sure that it should be my understanding that in 7 Contention-12C we're focusing on the MACCS2 code, that 8 component of this analysis. I see heads nodding.
9 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. Because that's 11 my understanding, too. But I do appreciate all the 12 background that goes into a complex analysis. I think 13 we're going to spend a good portion of the remainder 14 of Contention-12C discussing the inputs to MACCS2.
15 I guess I'd like to get maybe a 16 perspective both from Entergy and from the staff and 17 we'll allow Dr. Lemay to comment as well. Two 18 questions. The inputs to MACCS2 to perform the 19 cost/benefit analysis or to assess whether a SAMA is 20 cost beneficial for implementation, should we view 21 those as best estimate inputs, conservative inputs, 22 reasonable inputs? What's the perspective that we 23 should start from here for this type of analysis?
24 What do you believe is -- What is the nature of the 25 inputs for this analysis?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1937 1 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. Grant 2 Teagarden for the Applicant. Best estimate and 3 reasonable. There will be -- I'll just stop there.
4 Best estimate.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Anyone from the staff like 6 to comment?
7 DR. BIXLER: This is Nathan Bixler for the 8 staff. Yes, I would agree with that. The input 9 should be best estimate. They shouldn't be 10 conservative or biased one way or the other. They 11 should be the best value that you think you have for 12 that particular parameter.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: For that specific 14 parameter.
15 DR. BIXLER: Yes.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Lemay.
17 DR. LEMAY: Francois Lemay for State of 18 New York. I agree that the input should be best 19 estimate. That's the nature of the PSA, the level 20 three. But they should be best estimate appropriate 21 for the release category we're trying to simulate.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: I appreciate that. And 23 that leads me to my second question. Starting first 24 with Entergy, what is your perspective on the plant-25 specific nature of the inputs to MACCS2? Is this Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1938 1 intended to be a plant-specific analysis, a generic 2 analysis?
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. Grant 4 Teagarden for the Applicant. The Indian Point SAMA 5 analysis and the MACCS2 model that supports it is 6 highly plant-specific. I mean it is designed to be 7 plant-specific in every pertinent way. There may be 8 portions where generic data is appropriate just 9 because it's appropriate for any plant.
10 I'd like to just provide a short list of 11 the different ways that the Indian Point analysis is 12 site-specific.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Can we hold off just for 14 a bit?
15 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: And I appreciate you 17 having a list because that's going to be one of the 18 questions as well. And maybe we can get the staff to 19 comment on whether they feel there should be a plant-20 specific analysis. And, if so, why?
21 DR. BIXLER: This is Nathan Bixler for the 22 staff. Yes, the input should be plant-specific. With 23 that in mind though, the comment from Mr. Teagarden is 24 appropriate that there are a lot of input parameters 25 that end up not being plant-specific that are Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1939 1 applicable to any site that you want to look at. So 2 those end up being generic and that's appropriate 3 because those parameters are generic.
4 There is some thought that needs to go 5 into constructing a MACCS input DAC where you think 6 about which parameters need to be adjusted to be plant 7 specific and which ones don't.
8 JUDGE McDADE: Could you give us a few 9 examples of what you view as generic that would be 10 applicable to any?
11 DR. BIXLER: Yes.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Before you do that, can 13 I just fix that point a little bit more? And then 14 Judge McDade's suggestion would be good after that.
15 But as I heard you say that, you kind of mixed up 16 plant-specific and then you made a statement "Then 17 there's others that aren't plant-specific that apply 18 to a range of plants." But that still doesn't make it 19 non-plant specific for Indian Point. Correct?
20 DR. BIXLER: It needs to be applicable.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: It may apply. For 22 instance, I know nothing about it besides what I read.
23 I mean I'm not a SAMA person and I'm not -- Anyhow, I 24 am what I am. There are some characterizations of the 25 reactor that must go into this in regards to when you Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1940 1 have a core damage problem. You can see how I'm 2 using very strict nuclear terms here.
3 That may very well apply to a number of 4 plants that have the same type of reactor. So one 5 might call a generic parameter that goes into any 6 analysis. Now granted we're at the consequence stage 7 here in this contention. But even let's just -- For 8 instance, this will still affect the results of it 9 possibly.
10 But yet it is plant-specific to Indian 11 Point. It's just that applies to others also. And so 12 I'm hoping that as you move forward -- this is not a 13 question. It's more of a request -- that it would 14 help me a lot if we reserve the term "generic" for 15 something that is just generically used and is not 16 relevant to the situation that occurs at Indian Point.
17 Let's say, for instance, everyone assumed 18 there was no change in topography. Now we're not 19 getting into probably the details of it in that 20 regards. But let's just say for the sake of 21 assumption that you have chosen to not consider any 22 topography changes. Well, that truly is a generic 23 assumption that you're making.
24 To me that's different than the fact that 25 your particular plant may be similar to lots of other Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1941 1 plants and so other people use exactly the same 2 parameter you're using. But it still is plant-3 specific for Indian Point. And I'd hope that you try 4 to remember to not call those generic because that 5 will connote something different to someone like me if 6 you call it just generic. It might very well still be 7 plant-specific if you catch my drift.
8 DR. BIXLER: Let me just give an example 9 of something that I might consider to be generic, 10 something like dispersion data that you start with 11 when you're doing atmospheric dispersion. There are 12 some adjustments to that, but the basic data 13 themselves are generic because they would apply to any 14 plant. It wouldn't even have to be a nuclear power 15 plant. It could be pretty much any facility and they 16 would still apply. So that category of data I would 17 consider generic.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: And it would apply 19 anywhere in the U.S. also.
20 DR. BIXLER: Right.
21 JUDGE McDADE: Can you define what you 22 mean by dispersion data in that context?
23 DR. BIXLER: Dispersion is the way once a 24 release begins and a plume forms. It spreads out as 25 it moves through the atmosphere. It has to do Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1942 1 primarily with atmospheric turbulence that causes 2 mixing of the plume with the surrounding air and 3 causes it to grow, to expand, but to become more 4 dilute as it moves downwind. That's dispersion.
5 JUDGE McDADE: But would that as far as 6 plant-specific depend on, for example, the prevailing 7 winds? The direction of the prevailing winds? The 8 speed of the prevailing winds? The topography of the 9 surrounding area?
10 DR. BIXLER: Those would be plant-specific 11 characteristics. The prevailing wind information 12 would come in from what's called a meteorological data 13 file and that would characterize that specific plant, 14 that specific location. Topography would come in 15 through something called surface roughness that would 16 have an impact on the way things would be calculated.
17 JUDGE McDADE: So you would start with a 18 basic dispersion model and then you would plug in 19 plant-specific criteria to fill out that model.
20 DR. BIXLER: Yes. That's basically right.
21 JUDGE McDADE: And can you give us another 22 example of going from the very plant-specific to those 23 that would have a wide or general --
24 DR. BIXLER: You might characterize dry 25 deposition or maybe even better wet deposition would Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1943 1 be very nearly site independent. It would be -- The 2 rate at which the plume would be washed out onto the 3 ground would depend on the characteristics of the rain 4 and things of that nature, but not on the particular 5 location where the rain happened to occur. That would 6 be another good example.
7 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But, for example, if 8 you have a plant located in a location that had 100 9 inches of rain a year, would you have a different 10 design than if you had a plant where there was five 11 inches of rain a year?
12 DR. BIXLER: That would again come in 13 through the meteorological data file. That would 14 characterize -- That file characterizes wind direction 15 at each hour of the year, wind speed at each hour of 16 the year, precipitation rate at each hour of the year.
17 Those primary characteristics are categorized or the 18 information is carried through in the meteorological 19 data file. And that information would certainly be 20 very site-specific.
21 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But the wet 22 disposition?
23 DR. BIXLER: The basic model parameter 24 that affects what deposition occurs would be site 25 independent.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1944 1 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, if I may 2 supplement this discussion on generic or across-the-3 board applicability.
4 JUDGE McDADE: Again, Dr. O'Kula, just 5 when you get started just to make sure that you get 6 attributed to what you say so that the court reporter 7 doesn't attribute it to a different person. We know 8 identified you as Dr. O'Kula. Please continue.
9 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor. Thank you very 10 much and I apologize for that oversight.
11 Another two examples actually of this type 12 of across-the-board applicability might be the 13 breathing rate of downwind populations. Usually 14 that's a industry or acceptable rate of inhalation 15 that would be used by all applicants having been 16 vetted or reviewed by the appropriate subject matter 17 experts for this type of analysis.
18 The second one would be that all the 19 applicants have used tends to be the dose conversion 20 factors. If I'm affected by a certain radionuclide 21 either through inhalation or exposure to an external 22 plume that is passing overhead, then how much dose or 23 deleterious effect would occur. That's on a pro-24 radionuclide basis.
25 And those data are typically applied Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1945 1 regardless of the power plant or nuclear facility.
2 They would be used in DOE, Department of Energy, 3 circumstances as well as NRC licensed facilities.
4 Those two examples would be broadly applicable.
5 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you, Doctor.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Lemay, are you 7 familiar with the MACCS2 code?
8 DR. LEMAY: Dr. Lemay for the State of New 9 York. Yes, I am.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Do you agree with the 11 characterization that's put forward here of the types 12 of input as generic, plant-specific? And again you've 13 heard the whole discussion about generic could still 14 be applicable to Indian Point.
15 DR. LEMAY: I do and perhaps I can point 16 NEI 05-01. It does provide guidance on what is 17 considered generic and plant-specific. I don't know 18 if you want to put it on the screen and look at it.
19 But there is a section that actually --
20 MS. LIBERATORE: Excuse me for a moment.
21 This is Kathryn Liberatore for the State of New York.
22 That's New York State Exhibit 000287 is the NEI 23 guidance.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Why don't we go ahead and 25 do that?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1946 1 DR. LEMAY: Pages 13 and 14 please.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: What would you like to 3 point us to?
4 DR. LEMAY: Section 3.4 discusses the 5 level three PSA model and specifically MACCS2. And it 6 describes some of the sections. So they describe the 7 various sections that you need to make site-specific.
8 For example, the population distribution was correctly 9 described by the site-specific piece of data.
10 And then below that at 3.4.2 there is 11 economic data and we describe the kind of economic 12 estimates that need to be site-specific, the cost of 13 evacuation, the cost of temporary relocation, the cost 14 of decontamination of buildings. And then if we move 15 to the next page we discuss the lost return of 16 investment, the cost of repairing, interdicted 17 property, the value of crops, the value of farmland.
18 Section 3.4.3 describes the radionuclide 19 releases that should be plant-specific. Keep 20 scrolling down. And then at the end at the bottom of 21 the page they say that MACCS default values are 22 acceptable for other parameter inputs such as 23 inhalation, skin protection factors, acute and chronic 24 exposure effects and long-term protective data. And 25 I think this is consistent with what your experts have Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1947 1 mentioned.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, that's excellent.
3 And I like the phrase "default value" as opposed to 4 generic. I think that's a good characterization of 5 it. Thank you for that.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Teagarden, you had a 7 list of generic versus plant-specific. Is it this 8 list or do you have something that you'd rather offer 9 in?
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: It encompasses that and 11 perhaps just illustrates it. So if I may it will be 12 brief I believe.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it part of a current 14 exhibit?
15 MR. TEAGARDEN: No, Your Honor. Not 16 specifically. Okay. We've discussed the fact that 17 the meteorological data used for Indian Point comes 18 from the Indian Point meteorological tower. We may 19 not have specifically said the meteorological tower, 20 but it's site-specific to the Indian Point reactor 21 plants.
22 We've discussed the fact that the 23 population distribution used in the 50 mile region is 24 specific. We may not have specifically stated --
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me. Just let me Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1948 1 interrupt to make sure just to fix this point. And 2 that's population-specific based on the grids of the 3 radial circle that we're talking about.
4 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. It is 5 taking U.S. Census based data, escalating it to the 6 final year, to the year 2035 for the end of license 7 extension for Indian Point 3 and then distributing 8 that data to the grid and some other additions we can 9 talk about as well which is subject of another 10 contention transient data. But it's using site-11 specific, region-specific population data and 12 distributing it on the grid to represent where 13 individuals live.
14 The third element would be that the plants 15 themselves are -- it's plant-specific. SAMA analysis 16 for Unit 2 is different than the SAMA analysis for 17 Unit 3. The design features between the two units are 18 plant-specific such that the SAMA candidates as 19 they're examined are examined on a plant-specific 20 basis. And the accident frequency between the two 21 plants are different.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Teagarden.
23 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that then reflected in 25 the front end part, the level one, the level two type Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1949 1 of analysis? So there's a plant-specific difference 2 there.
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. That 4 part is captured in the front end in the frequency.
5 And then the next part is what's captured in the back 6 end so to speak and that's source term. And when we 7 use the term "source term" we're looking at the 8 radiological material that basically resides in the 9 reactor vessel, the core, and then its potential 10 release as a function of time for a given accident 11 scenario.
12 The release to the environment for these 13 release categories differ for Indian Point 2 versus 14 Indian Point 3. And we'll use the term the fact that 15 the "source term" is different.
16 Another item is the land economic value.
17 So using the same grid, the value of property includes 18 land and improvements in the region which is 19 distributed according to county-based values. So it 20 is Indian Point specific and varies across that 50 21 mile grid.
22 One of the subjects of our contention is 23 going to be decontamination costs. And it's important 24 to note the decontamination costs are developed on a 25 per capita basis. It's a per person basis. So that Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1950 1 when they're applied within the MACCS code like some 2 other values that are applied on a per capita basis 3 they become site-specific.
4 Those values are multiplied by the number 5 of individuals in that region that are being impacted 6 by the postulated release. So how those values are 7 applied at the end of the day represents a site-8 specific analysis.
9 And land use is another --
10 JUDGE McDADE: Can you go back a second on 11 that?
12 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, sir. Yes, Your 13 Honor.
14 JUDGE McDADE: Do you start off with the 15 overall decontamination costs and then just divide it 16 by the number of people? Or do you figure out what 17 the costs are per person and then just multiply it by 18 the numbers to come up with the total cost? Which way 19 do you work from and to?
20 MR. TEAGARDEN: The second manner, Your 21 Honor. And that will be a subject of discussion.
22 Indian Point used the values that were developed for 23 NUREG-1150, a seminal study. It was an examination of 24 five different nuclear power plants. It involved a 25 level one PRA, a level two PRA, a level three PRA.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1951 1 It involved the Peach Bottom plant which 2 is about 30 miles outside of Baltimore, Maryland. It 3 involved the Zion plant about 37 miles outside of 4 Chicago. It involved the Surry plant, the Grand Gulf 5 plant and the Sequoyah plant.
6 And so these values that have been used by 7 Entergy for the cost of non-farm decontamination --
8 these are per capita values -- stem from the NUREG-9 1150 study. In NUREG-1150, those same values were 10 applied at all five plants.
11 They are escalated for time in the Entergy 12 analysis using the Consumer Price Index which follows 13 the guidance of NEI-05-01. And those values to our 14 knowledge have been used in every SAMA analysis of the 15 Entergy panel's knowledge being based in NUREG-1150 16 and then escalated for time.
17 And they were used most recently, those 18 values, the bases out of NUREG-1150, for the state-of-19 the-art reactor consequence analysis that was 20 developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 21 NRC, and its contractor, Sandia National Lab. So 22 Entergy used values that are per person values, have 23 been well vetted in the PRA community, have been used 24 consistently through time, used in the latest study 25 and then those values are applied to the population Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1952 1 distribution.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Specifically with NUREG-3 1150, we're talking there they looked at five 4 facilities and it's based on an average of those five 5 facilities.
6 MR. TEAGARDEN: The NUREG-1150 study 7 evaluated each facility separately. For this 8 particular variable of parameter, they used the same 9 cost for non-farm decontamination for each of those 10 five facilities.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm thinking along 12 maybe the same lines as Judge McDade. There were five 13 facilities that were analyzed in different locations 14 maybe with different characteristics of the 15 environment around the plant facility. Was there --
16 And again I guess we're talking decontamination values 17 here -- a value for each of the five? I know you just 18 said that for a particular parameter, the same 19 parameter is used for all five.
20 MR. TEAGARDEN: The same value was used.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: But are there other 22 parameters under this category that are unique to 23 whether it's Zion or Peach Bottom? Was there a unique 24 value for other decontamination parameters in MACCS2 25 that was described in NUREG-1150?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1953 1 MR. TEAGARDEN: If I understand your 2 question appropriately, I'll rephrase it. Well, I'm 3 not sure how to rephrase it other than what I've 4 stated. For the five facilities no distinction, no 5 different, values were used for different facilities.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'll overuse the term.
7 There was no plant-specific value for the 8 decontamination parameters for any one of these five 9 reactor facilities and their environments.
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: This is where I guess I 11 would say that the values used were judged appropriate 12 for each of the five facilities.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: The same parameters.
14 MR. TEAGARDEN: The same value for that 15 parameter was judged appropriate for each of those 16 five facilities.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: And as they say in the 18 business and now the fun begins.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Where is it?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's getting close to the 21 lunchtime. But I think this is going to be the meat 22 of the remainder of it. Not just this specific 23 parameter, but I think what you've done is a great job 24 of trying to focus this to the right parameters. And 25 when we get through this whole list, we'll give Dr.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1954 1 Lemay a chance and staff a chance to comment on your 2 generic, plant-specific list. And then I think we're 3 going to -- I'm assuming we'll burrow down into the 4 details.
5 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. It's just about 1:00 6 p.m. now. If we take a one hour break until 2:00 p.m.
7 for lunch. Are there any housekeeping matters that 8 need to be taken up when we come back? Mr. Turk?
9 MR. TURK: Yes, just one, Your Honor.
10 I've noticed on Citrix that the staff has filed 11 through EIE the revised testimony and SOP on the FAC 12 contention. So that is now in the system.
13 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And if you could 14 just write out just to make sure that I've got the 15 right exhibits that you have revised so that we can 16 then strike the ones that were there previously and 17 enter the new corrected exhibits with the correct 18 exhibit numbers in the testimony. I just want to make 19 sure I've got those right and I don't strike the wrong 20 exhibit and also then admit the correct revision 21 number for the staff exhibit list revision X for NRC 22 No. 000001. And we'll do that first thing when we 23 come back from lunch.
24 Clearwater, anything?
25 MR. TURK: Thank you. I'm sorry. There is Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1955 1 a motion to strike and replace as the Board had 2 requested yesterday. So we'll do that right after 3 lunch.
4 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.
5 Clearwater, anything before we break?
6 MS. RAIMUNDI: I'm sorry. No, nothing 7 further. Thank you, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE McDADE: Riverkeeper.
9 MS. BRANCATO: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
10 JUDGE McDADE: New York.
11 MR. SIPOS: No, Your Honor.
12 MS. SUTTON: No, Your Honor.
13 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. We'll be in recess 14 then until 2:00 p.m. Thank you. Off the record.
15 (Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the above-16 entitled matter recessed to return at 2:00 p.m. the 17 same day.)
18 JUDGE McDADE: The hearing will come to 19 order. First, a couple of administrative matters.
20 First of all, as we had before the break, there was an 21 NRC Staff Motion to Strike and replace exhibits. We 22 have received that. We are granting the motion. And, 23 specifically, it involves changing the exhibit list.
24 We're now at NRC Revision 5 of the Exhibit List, and 25 it was NRC Exhibit 121 and NRC Exhibit -- I'm sorry.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1956 1 MR. TURK: 120 and 121, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. So, they will be 3 replaced with Exhibits NRCR121 and NRC Exhibits R122.
4 MR. TURK: I believe that should be 120, 5 Your Honor.
6 JUDGE McDADE: I'm sorry, thank you.
7 MR. TURK: Is the motion incorrect?
8 JUDGE McDADE: No, the motion isn't 9 incorrect. I was reading too fast. 121 was listed 10 before 120 and, therefore, after reading 121 I assumed 11 the next one had to be 122.
12 MR. TURK: I would have done the same.
13 JUDGE McDADE: I assumed incorrectly. So, 14 in any event what we're doing is striking the previous 15 one and admitting those.
16 Also, after the end of the last break we 17 had a discussion with regard to Riverkeeper, and we 18 received the electronic versions, but Riverkeeper 19 should file those through the EIE, and at the same 20 time then file a revised exhibit list. And what we 21 will do, there's nothing to strike with regard to the 22 exhibits because they're additional, but what we will 23 do is strike the previous exhibit list, and then add 24 the new exhibit list with the new revision number. And 25 if I wasn't clear, let me be clear with regard to New Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1957 1 York, we are striking the previous New York State 399.
2 We're replacing it with New York State Revised 399, 3 and striking the previous exhibit list, New York State 4 Revision 17 of Exhibit 1, the Exhibit List, and 5 replacing it with New York State 18 of Exhibit 1.
6 We seem to be having an evolution here 7 with the exhibit lists. At the beginning of the 8 session I indicated, and the beginning of the session 9 on Monday I indicated that we would take the exhibit 10 lists and bind them into the transcript. What we are 11 going to do is to wait until the end of the hearing as 12 there may be additional changes with the exhibit 13 lists. And what we will do is just have the exhibit 14 list that is the last for each of the parties bound 15 into the transcript.
16 That said, are there any other 17 administrative matters to take care of? Mr. Sipos?
18 MR. SIPOS: Good afternoon, Your Honor, 19 John Sipos for the State of New York. During the 20 initial Board questioning of the witnesses, Mr.
21 Bessette made an observation concerning other 22 contentions, and I did not want to interrupt the 23 questions at the time. But the State of New York's 24 position is similar, if not in agreement with 25 Entergy's position, and that is that -
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1958 1 JUDGE McDADE: That had to happen 2 eventually.
3 MR. SIPOS: It did. It did, yes. And I'm 4 glad we're all here in the same room to see that.
5 (Laughter.)
6 MR. SIPOS: And that is that for 7 contentions New York State 35 and 36, those matters 8 have -- those contentions have been presented to the 9 Board, and have been resolved. And the State's 10 position also is that the record would be closed on 11 those given the grant of summary disposition on those.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE McDADE: Anything further? Judge 14 Kennedy.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm ready. Let's begin 16 again. I'd like to return to Mr. Teagarden and 17 continue on. We were discussing the inputs to MACCS2.
18 We were trying to differentiate between generic, site-19 specific, and really I think this is at a relatively 20 higher level of detail than I think we're ultimately 21 going to get to. But I think you're helping us set the 22 stage for the rest of the questioning. So, if you 23 could -- you were last on, I think, decommissioning -
24 - decontamination values. And if you could, if you'd 25 proceed from there it would be appreciated.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1959 1 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. Grant 2 Teagarden speaking.
3 The last item I'll mention, site-specific 4 for the Entergy analysis is the land use as it relates 5 to non-farmland versus farmland. Within the polar 6 coordinate system that we looked at earlier, and I 7 don't think there's a need to bring that up at the 8 moment, but for each of those grid elements there is 9 a proportion that would be listed as farmland versus 10 non-farmland.
11 And the code treats farmland differently 12 than non-farmland. So, when it is addressing farmland 13 it works on a per area basis, as opposed to a per 14 capita basis, so decontamination costs associated with 15 farmland are on a per area basis. And that's a 16 different variable within MACCS than the variable 17 that's applied to the area that is non-farmland.
18 And in the big picture for the Indian 19 Point SAMA analysis there is very little farmland in 20 the region, so the farmland aspect, and variables and 21 values I do not believe are of substance for 22 significant discussion. But I'll highlight that note.
23 That is another means of how the Indian Point analysis 24 takes into account the fact that there's very little 25 farmland. So, the values that it uses for portions Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1960 1 that are not farmland are developed for non-farmland 2 areas.
3 Those are the broad categories. And, 4 obviously, the area of interest and discussion, I 5 believe one important area is part of this contention 6 deals with the particular economic values. And one 7 thought was we could look at the list of MACCS inputs.
8 There's about seven, eight, or so economically-related 9 inputs, some of which are site-specific in that these 10 values would have their basis totally on land county 11 values around the region. Other values would be based 12 on values from NUREG-1150 that are considered 13 applicable for the Indian Point context. And we could 14 pull those up. Those would be Table 4 in our Exhibit 15 450 for Entergy, Table 4 on page 54.
16 Page 54, and I'll just take a brief moment 17 to walk down the table. So, the first variable we have 18 an Index Number list, so number one is the max 19 parameter for the cost of decontamination work, labor 20 cost, so it's dollar per person on a year. The next 21 column shows the value used for the Indian Point 22 analysis, $60,480. The next column shows the basis 23 value from NUREG-1150. And then the final column shows 24 the escalation factor that was applied based on the 25 Consumer Price Index. So, this is just the cost of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1961 1 labor associated with decontamination activities. So, 2 that last column will be helpful just as a indicator 3 of different parameters and their basis upon NUREG-4 1150.
5 The second index value there, the second 6 parameter is the evacuation cost, EVACST. And it's the 7 daily for emergency phase, so when individuals are 8 relocated as part of evacuation for the severe 9 accident modeling, this is the per day cost per person 10 that is used. So, for Indian Point, $46.70 compared to 11 a NUREG-1150 value of $27.00. It should be noted --
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me. What do you 13 mean by the NUREG-1150 value?
14 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, sir. That would be the 15 value used in the MACCS2 analysis for the NUREG-1150 16 study which I referenced earlier. That was the study 17 of the five plants that was performed and documented 18 in NUREG-1150 published in 1990.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, this is the notorious 20 Sample Problem A values?
21 MR. TEAGARDEN: No, sir.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
23 MR. TEAGARDEN: This predates Sample 24 Problem A.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1962 1 MR. TEAGARDEN: So, NUREG-1150 were the 2 five plants that I identified earlier. It's a series 3 of documents. And then I should also note, we'll be 4 discussing there is a line of supporting 5 documentations that go by the number of NUREG/CR-4551.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, to be absolutely 7 certain I'm correct on this, so for certainly the 8 first four parameters you used these values in your 9 analysis.
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor, the fourth 11 column that's headed by IP2 and IP3(MACCS2) were the 12 values that were used in the Entergy SAMA analysis.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, you didn't use, what 14 was it, 4150 was the other one?
15 MR. TEAGARDEN: Correct. We did not use the 16 values that would be reflected in NUREG-1150. However, 17 they have their basis in NUREG-1150, and have been 18 escalated using the Consumer Price Index to the year 19 2005, the year of the analysis.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is the Consumer Price 21 Index what leads to the 1.7 factor?
22 MR. TEAGARDEN: That is correct.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: If I look at the -- if I 24 think about the 1.7, that is all the result of 25 escalating the cost from NUREG-1150 time frame to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1963 1 2035. Is that what I heard?
2 MR. TEAGARDEN: This reflects present day 3 dollars at the time of the analysis of 2005.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you.
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: So, the industry guidance 6 document, NEI 05-01, specifies that economic impacts 7 should be baselined to the year of the analysis which 8 is 2035. Population is projected to a further date, 9 2035.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's where my confusion.
11 MR. TEAGARDEN: I may have misspoken. I'm 12 sorry.
13 MS. POTTS: Lori Potts for the Applicant.
14 Grant accidentally said the year of the analysis was 15 2035, it's 2005.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Good, because I was going 17 to ask that. It was not when you performed the 18 analysis in 2005.
19 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. Sorry, Your Honor, to 20 try to clarify, so the baseline date for the year of 21 the SAMA analysis is 2005. The population is projected 22 to the year 2035.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: But now I'm still 24 confused. 1.7 reflects the price increase from when 25 NUREG-1150 reported that number to what year?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1964 1 MR. TEAGARDEN: To 2005. So, it reflects a 2 cost escalation from approximately 1986 to the year 3 2005.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Should I wait and ask why 5 isn't it up to 2035, or some number in between and not 6 -- rather than the 2005 value?
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: The industry guidance NEI 8 05-01, NRC-approved guidance specifies that all the 9 costs should be at the cost of today. The cost of 10 implementation for the SAMA candidates are also cost 11 to the same day, so if you start to escalate one 12 version, then we would need to also escalate all the 13 time-based elements of the cost of implementation and 14 some of those aspects.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do they have any 16 justification in that document on why they have 17 suggested that as guidance?
18 MR. TEAGARDEN: I do not believe that there 19 is very much discussion related to that, Your Honor.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, is it your -- what is 21 -- what would be your inclination based on your 22 experience with working with this model on why it is?
23 Is it that the values will all sugar out anyhow if you 24 brought it up to 2005, considering we're looking at a 25 change in the exposure as the benefit and the costs of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1965 1 the implementation if we keep them all the same year, 2 it really won't make any difference once you come up 3 with a cost-benefit ratio. Is that as good a 4 justification as one could create?
5 MS. POTTS: Lori Potts for the Applicant.
6 Yes, sir, I would agree with that.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Have you ever tried to 8 test that? Did you try running it at a 2005 -- 2035 9 value to see if, in fact, something would come out 10 different?
11 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, Grant Teagarden 12 for the Applicant. It would be somewhat speculative to 13 try to estimate the rise of economic values between 14 now and 2035. There are population projections. You 15 know, the counties do have methodologies for 16 projecting population. You know, if you tried to 17 project out the Consumer Price Index, you could use I 18 suppose a historical -- what the CPI has been over a 19 period of years, but I've not been aware of anyone 20 attempting to do that with all the SAMA analyses that 21 I am familiar with.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Didn't you say this 23 morning that something was predicated on a 2035 value, 24 or condition, or situation, or an estimate?
25 MR. TEAGARDEN: Beyond the population data, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1966 1 I do not believe I am aware of anything else that is 2 projected out to 2035, Your Honor.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: But the population is 4 projected out to that.
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: But the population is 6 projected --
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, when you're 8 multiplying your unit values that are based on per 9 person year you will have those number -- you will 10 have the years up to 2005, but the rate -- the 11 population number will be reflective of 2035.
12 MR. TEAGARDEN: That is correct, Your 13 Honor. And the population increases in the Entergy 14 analysis between 2005 to 2035. NUREG -- I'm sorry, NEI 15 05-01 regarding population projections provides 16 guidance that says you should project to the middle of 17 the license renewal term. Entergy went beyond that and 18 they projected to the end of the license renewal term 19 for Indian Point 3, so the year 2035. That's actually 20 two years beyond when the proposed license extension 21 for Indian Point 2 would last. So, there's a measure 22 of conservatism in what Entergy incorporated because 23 they projected their population longer than that 24 specified in the guidance, and even beyond the 25 projected extension for Indian Point 2.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1967 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, when I -- when you 2 took the DLB cost which is reflected in a dollar per 3 person year, when that gets multiplied and manipulated 4 within MACCS2, it's going to be multiplied by a 5 population based on 2035, but then multiplied by the 6 years up to 2005, or how is that done?
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: This particular variable 8 parameter does not, because this particular parameter 9 is referenced to the individuals who would be 10 performing decontamination activity, which is separate 11 than the general population. But for the cases where 12 the -- and we'll touch on those in just a moment where 13 the general population is in view.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: For one, that is a general 15 population.
16 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. The multiplier, when 17 you're multiplying by the population it's the 18 escalated, it's the projected population which is 19 larger than the 2005 values.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
21 JUDGE McDADE: Before we move away from 22 this, if I could address question to the Staff. The 23 figures here for NUREG-1150, can you walk me through 24 how those figures are generated? We've heard about the 25 use of the five different plants, but you start -- I, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1968 1 at least, start with a premise that the area 2 surrounding Indian Point, and say the area surrounding 3 Grand Gulf are about as different as two areas could 4 be and yet still be on the same planet. How do you go 5 from one to the other? How are those figures 6 developed?
7 MR. JONES: This is Joe Jones for the NRC.
8 I'll start with a whack at it, and then Dr. Bixler can 9 probably join in because he's very familiar with 10 these, as well.
11 These parameters were developed for five 12 sites, and some of these sites are not indifferent 13 from Indian Point from a population density 14 perspective with regard to the Emergency Planning 15 Zone. The Emergency Planning Zone around Indian Point 16 has about 300,000 people, Surry has an Emergency 17 Planning Zone that on the northern and eastern side of 18 the James River has a very comparable population 19 density. And the Zion Plant that was also part of 20 NUREG-1150 is just north of Chicago and has a 21 comparable population density. So, when the authors 22 developed this they did take into account sites that 23 are not significantly indifferent or different from 24 Indian Point.
25 JUDGE McDADE: But did you then take an Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1969 1 average of the five plants to develop these figures?
2 MR. JONES: Most of the costs do not 3 require an average because let's start with -- well, 4 the decontamination worker labor cost. That was just 5 a national average labor cost that we now escalate to 6 2005. The emergency phase cost of evacuation was based 7 on -- cost of evacuation and relocation in dollars per 8 day. It's just a little further away for me to look at 9 from here, but I can see it, there we go.
10 That was based on hotel rates at the time 11 of development of NUREG-1150, and they actually 12 estimated the meals that people would eat and 13 projected that as a daily value, so that is simply 14 escalated until today. They did not distinguish the 15 region in which those hotel costs were originally 16 developed, so I would believe they were national.
17 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I'm somewhat at a loss 18 here again, going back to my analogy. And I don't mean 19 to be overly flippant, but I think you could probably 20 buy a hotel in Calhoun County, Mississippi near Grand 21 Gulf for what it would cost you to stay in a hotel for 22 a week in New York City. So, what values are they 23 using?
24 MR. JONES: The way this becomes equalized 25 is these are per person or dollars per day per person, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1970 1 so for a family of five, you're right, they probably 2 are skewed so that a Grand Gulf resident or family is 3 more overpaid than an urban family. A family of five 4 would be $230 a day per family, so that's --
5 JUDGE McDADE: What I'm just trying to get 6 at, though, the cost -- did they figure out what the 7 costs would be at Zion, at Surry, at Grand Gulf, take 8 those costs and then average them to come up with this 9 cost that would nationally applicable?
10 MR. JONES: No, there is no discussion in 11 the NUREG/CR-4551, and I have an exhibit number for 12 that. I thought I did. It's an NRC exhibit number. It 13 describes the process for estimating these costs, but 14 it does not describe the relationship between the 15 plants.
16 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Now, you mentioned 17 initially that in the immediate evacuation zone, for 18 example, Indian Point, you talked about 300,000 19 people. In the other documents that were received, the 20 analysis was received on the SAMAs we're looking at 21 the 50-mile circumference around New York City, where 22 we now have almost 20 million people as opposed to 23 300,000. Is there any area even remotely similar to 24 the area around New York City both for population 25 density, the building density, the value of the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1971 1 property? Are any of these compatible?
2 MR. JONES: Yes, the Zion site which is 3 just north of Chicago, 50 miles would encroach upon 4 Chicago and would be similar.
5 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And that's the nearest 6 one, nearest closest analogy to the Indian Point area.
7 MR. JONES: To my knowledge, yes.
8 JUDGE McDADE: And the City of Chicago 9 itself would be within the 50-mile radius, just as the 10 City of New York is with Indian Point.
11 DR. BIXLER: I believe that's correct. This 12 is Nathan Bixler for the Staff.
13 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But these numbers 14 don't reflect just what the costs would be at Zion, 15 the costs are developed through a more complex 16 algorithm.
17 MR. JONES: Correct.
18 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I mean, is it in 19 looking at these realistic when you talk about the per 20 capita cost of long-term relocation in the New York 21 City metropolitan area, the area around Indian Point, 22 to consider $8,600? I mean, it would seem that if a 23 family needed to relocate out of the area in this area 24 it would involve significantly higher costs, and how, 25 if at all, is that factored in through NUREG-1150, and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1972 1 how does the Staff anticipate that an applicant will 2 factor that in in their SAMA analysis?
3 MR. JONES: The relocation cost again for 4 a family of five is just over $40,000. That is a 5 temporary relocation cost during the period that the 6 land may be interdicted for decontamination.
7 DR. BIXLER: It might be helpful to talk 8 just for a minute on what the -- I think you're 9 referring to the parameter called POPCST, the third 10 one on the table there.
11 JUDGE McDADE: Yes.
12 DR. BIXLER: It might be useful to just 13 talk about what that represents. That's a one-time 14 relocation cost. It would be assessed during a period 15 of decontamination or interdiction. And it wouldn't 16 necessarily account -- depending on the circumstances 17 it may not even account for moving a family or a 18 person, or a family to a new location. It may be more 19 based on lost income, for example, over a period of 20 time. And then the question would be what would be the 21 appropriate period of time. And this is based on an 22 assumption for what that period of time would be.
23 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And what is that 24 assumption?
25 DR. BIXLER: I don't recall for sure, but Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1973 1 I think it's on the order of 20 weeks.
2 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And we'll be getting 3 into this a little bit later because some of the 4 testimony and the assumptions are that if it was 5 necessary to relocate looking at other entities, 6 whether it be Chernobyl or Fukushima, we could be 7 talking in terms of years as opposed to weeks. But 8 what you're saying is this is based on a presumption 9 of approximately 20 weeks.
10 DR. BIXLER: Right. The idea is that this 11 is a -- someone who's not necessarily going to return, 12 so it's a one-time thing. And it's to account for 13 losses that they would have until they, for example, 14 could find a new job.
15 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Well, does that --
16 when you say losses, for example, someone living in 17 Westchester County, if they had to relocate outside of 18 the area not to return, would it be reasonable to 19 assume that between what they would -- the value of 20 the residence that they were leaving compared to the 21 value of the residence that they would sell not being 22 able to return could well be in Westchester County on 23 average in the seven figures?
24 DR. BIXLER: This doesn't attempt to 25 account for the value of the property that might be Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1974 1 lost. It's only a one-time -- that would be an 2 additional cost in addition to this one. But this 3 would just account for loss of time and potentially 4 for moving property from one location to another. But 5 quite often, a lot of the analyses that I've seen 6 don't account for moving property because the 7 assumption is it would be contaminated property and 8 couldn't be moved, so it would be, basically, a loss, 9 and it would be declared as a separate part of the 10 analysis.
11 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And how is that and/or 12 the fact that an individual who perhaps is working in 13 Westchester County earning $100,000, moves to Central 14 Vermont working in a similar position for $20,000? Is 15 that captured in the MACCS code?
16 DR. BIXLER: No, it's not trying to capture 17 the -- since we don't know where the person would 18 relocate to, it's impossible to know whether there 19 would be a difference in salary at one location versus 20 another.
21 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. In the case of Indian 22 Point, could it be almost assumed that any place you 23 would move to with the possible exception of Tokyo or 24 Hong Kong would be significantly one -- the salary 25 would be significantly lower that you would earn Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1975 1 there, and that you would have a significant loss in 2 property value?
3 DR. BIXLER: Well, again, the property 4 value would be captured in a separate part of the 5 analysis from this.
6 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.
7 DR. BIXLER: But I don't know the answer to 8 the question of the salaries, and how that compares.
9 JUDGE McDADE: But there's nothing in this 10 code that captures it.
11 DR. BIXLER: Well, it -- you assign a value 12 for POPCST that you think captures an appropriate 13 salary for the person who would be displaced.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's for the 20-week 15 period or roughly, I mean, it's for a period of time, 16 not a permanent loss of income.
17 DR. BIXLER: That's correct. It's not a 18 permanent loss in salary, it's just a temporary one.
19 And the 20 weeks is what I believe was used in NUREG-20 1150.
21 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, Grant Teagarden 22 for the Applicant, if I may augment.
23 JUDGE McDADE: Please.
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: From NUREG-4551, as Dr.
25 Bixler has stated, this can be viewed as a disruption Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1976 1 cost, life disruption. It has, as discussed in 4551, 2 a basis of some reflection of a period of time where 3 an individual employee could be unemployed, and that 4 was a period of 100 days, or also to a perspective of 5 180 days for a commercial establishment, the business 6 side, having their business disrupted. And then they 7 took the median, the 140 days as a value to apply as 8 a basis for this value.
9 And this value is applied to anybody who 10 is relocated, say for decontamination cost. And what 11 would be in view here is somebody who is relocated.
12 Their property needs modest decontamination. They are 13 returned to their property, so it does not necessarily 14 only be applied to folks that can never return. It's 15 applied equally to folks that are returned to their 16 property, so it's a cost to compensate for the 17 disruption in their employment. And there's different 18 perspectives on that, in that in the knowledge economy 19 of this region, you know, individuals have the ability 20 to carry on their positions and their work, not 21 everyone, and I recognize that. But this is a way of 22 saying for everyone in the 50-mile region, not just 23 those located in Manhattan, but for everyone in the 24 50-mile region this is an attempt to monetize a 25 compensation for disruption of their life.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1977 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just a -- I don't know if 2 it's a thought, I guess I better make it a question, 3 but I'm just wondering, the sense I'm getting in 4 listening to the discussion here, when you start 5 talking about disruption costs as opposed to permanent 6 loss, has these parameters or the thinking behind how 7 you establish the values that go into these parameters 8 informed at all by the types of accidents that are --
9 that these parameters will be applied for? I mean, is 10 there some thinking that it's okay to think in terms 11 of non-permanent relocation because we're not talking 12 about a catastrophic accident that would lead to 13 condemning Westchester County? I'm just -- because 14 it's -- I'm feeling we're going to go back and forth 15 through this, and I'm getting a sense even on these 16 first few parameters that there's some undercurrent 17 assumptions that were made that led to the selection 18 of values for NUREG-1150. And I hadn't really thought 19 about it until I started hearing this. I mean, I see 20 that there's differences, but when you start to get 21 into the details, it starts raising questions of what 22 other assumptions are underlying here. And I 23 think we're going to continue to struggle with this.
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, if I may take -
25 -
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1978 1 JUDGE McDADE: Perhaps before you do, and 2 just to put a wider view on that of what Judge Kennedy 3 just said. I mean, my follow-up was going to go also 4 the type of severe accident. At one of the end of the 5 spectrum say you have a Three Mile Island-type of 6 severe accident, at the other end of the spectrum you 7 have a Chernobyl-type severe accident, and how, if at 8 all, are the differences between those factored into 9 these numbers, or into the SAMA analysis generally.
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor, Grant 11 Teagarden speaking for the Applicant, if I may 12 respond. I would like to take maybe one to two minutes 13 and just walk through the table so that the different 14 variables are clear, so that I can just mention where 15 different cost attributes are being captured by the 16 MACCS code, and then I will come back and answer your 17 questions in regards to how these are impacted by the 18 type of severe accident.
19 So, Item 1 there we discussed was the cost 20 for decontamination labor. It's not related to the 21 specific population but just workers that are -- will 22 be cleaning up after a postulated accident. The second 23 item was a daily cost, like a per diem for individuals 24 who are evacuated.
25 It should be noted that for the Indian Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1979 1 Point analysis, they conservatively did not model 2 evacuation, so individuals -- although it is extensive 3 emergency planning, there is an Emergency Planning 4 Zone, there are all sorts of procedures that the plant 5 would follow, for the purposes of the MACCS analysis, 6 they did not model the evacuation. But let me 7 continue, because they do model relocation of 8 individuals. Evacuation is oriented towards 9 individuals leaving the area prior in most respects to 10 being impacted by an atmospheric release.
11 The third variable, the POPCST, POPCST is 12 what we've mentioned as the disruption cost. And it 13 reflects primarily a transition period of some loss of 14 income for a period of time.
15 The fourth item is a relocation cost. Now, 16 Indian Point did not model evacuation but they did 17 model what would be termed normal or hot spot 18 relocation. And this is following the -- after the 19 plume passes over and recognizing that there is 20 deposition, there are contaminants on the ground, and 21 individuals need to be relocated for their protection.
22 So, individuals receive the cloudshine from the dose 23 and are subsequently relocated as part of that. So, 24 that's how, in essence, population movements were 25 modeled for the Indian Post MACCS2 analysis. And Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1980 1 there's some conservatism in that, because they -- in 2 the model individuals are receiving that dose from the 3 plumes that the emergency planning actions in many 4 cases would mitigate against.
5 The fifth item, and if I may have the 6 administrative help scroll down just a tad, this is 7 the cost to decontaminate farmland. And the Entergy 8 analysis used two dose reduction factors, so it's a 9 measure by how much the dose is being reduced, being 10 reduced by either a factor of 3 or a factor of 15. And 11 this is for farmland, and it's on a per hectare basis, 12 that's 1/100th of a kilometer, square kilometer.
13 And then the next item, item six, which is 14 of more interest for our discussions, are the costs 15 for decontamination for non-farmland. The same dose 16 reduction factors are used. The values used here in 17 the Entergy analysis for dose reduction factor of 3, 18 $5,184 per person, and for dose reduction factor of 19 15, $13,824. So, this recognizes the cost for 20 decontaminating property for individuals who need to 21 be relocated and have their property decontaminated.
22 I'll just continue on through the table 23 and then come back. If I could have the table scrolled 24 down, please. Seven and eight represent land values in 25 the region. So, seven is the wealth for the farmland.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1981 1 It's a cost per hectare, and for the Indian Point 2 region it's about $50,000 per hectare. And then number 3 eight is the value of the land and improvements on a 4 non-farm basis, so this is a per capita basis. So, 5 this would be residential area. It's kind of -- a 6 combination of residential, industrial, commercial, 7 open land that's not designated as farmland, so for 8 the Indian Point case that value is $208,838.
9 Now, if I may address the question on 10 severe accidents. So, when MACCS has a optimization 11 scheme, a way of looking at, in essence, a cost-12 benefit scheme for decontaminating. And that is what 13 is an important part of the code as it then develops 14 a total economic cost for the postulated releases.
15 When a release occurs some individuals 16 will not be impacted by that release. Some individuals 17 may, you know, within the code be evacuated but they 18 can be returned because any contaminants on their land 19 do not exceed habitability criteria. And the 20 habitability criteria used in the analysis here was 5 21 rem -- I'm sorry, 4 rem in five years. That's based on 22 EPA guidance. So, some individuals can come 23 immediately back. Their land does not need to be 24 contaminated to meet decontamination or to meet 25 habitability criteria.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1982 1 The next looks at is if it exceeds 2 habitability criteria can it be -- the first level of 3 decontamination for achieving a dose reduction factor 4 of 3 is evaluated. So, if the person's property needs 5 a reduction factor of 2 to meet habitability criteria, 6 the factor for 3 is used because that's the first 7 level that it applies. And then following those 8 activities the individual can be returned to their 9 residence.
10 Now, if that isn't satisfied, suppose that 11 their property needs a dose reduction factor of 5 to 12 meet habitability criteria, 3 is not sufficient, so 13 the next level is 15. So, the cost for a 14 decontamination for a dose reduction factor 15 are 15 applied to achieve the dose reduction factor of 5.
16 MACCS allows three levels of decontamination 17 activities. In the Entergy analysis, two are used, 18 that's common, that's consistent with NUREG-1150.
19 So, if their property requires a dose 20 reduction factor of 16, well, now neither 3 will do 21 it, 15 will not do it, then MACCS evaluates a maximum 22 dose reduction in conjunction with an extended time of 23 interdiction. And during that interdiction time, no 24 active decontamination processes are being modeled, 25 but there is a reduction in the dose due to the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1983 1 effects of weathering and radioactive decay.
2 So, how this could play out is, you know, 3 the individual's property needs a dose reduction 4 factor of 16. The dose reduction techniques, the 5 active decontamination could achieve 15, but it needs 6 a little bit more, so the code then analyzes how much 7 longer is needed. So, there could be an interdiction 8 period of one year. So, following an additional year 9 sufficient natural process, I'll say passive processes 10 allow the habitability criteria to be met.
11 Now, if -- there's a maximum to 12 interdiction that's allowed within the MACCS Code and 13 that's 30 years. If it cannot be achieved within a 14 time period of 30 years, MACCS will consider the land 15 condemned, and it will just take the cost -- the value 16 of the land and the improvements and consider that an 17 economic loss.
18 In addition, if the costs for 19 decontaminating exceed the value of the property, then 20 it will also condemn the land. So, that's part of the 21 cost decision process that MACCS makes. So, as value 22 of property goes up there is a greater likelihood for 23 more decontamination activities to be applied compared 24 -- because you're comparing against the value of the 25 land. Where there is lower property values for the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1984 1 land, and there's a given decontamination cost for 2 some -- in those cases, the property may be condemned 3 without as much application because it's being 4 evaluated in a cost benefit manner.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let me ask a couple of 6 questions about the implementation of this 7 decontamination strategy. Now, the code is doing this.
8 I mean, it's -- this is an internal algorithm --
9 (Simultaneous speech.)
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- to the program. It has 11 -- its informed by the type of accident, the magnitude 12 of the accident, the dispersion across the region, so 13 we've had -- there's been an accident at Indian Point.
14 The radioactive material has contaminated a region, 15 and then MACCS goes in by grid element?
16 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: And then based on the 18 deposition in that grid element it decides whether it 19 needs -- what level of dose reduction factor is needs 20 to get to meet a habitability criteria that's based on 21 some regulatory guidance, or some regulation. And then 22 depending on what dose reduction factor is needed, 23 other decisions occur as you've sort of played out.
24 I'm just trying to --
25 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1985 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- walk through in my mind 2 how this decision process occurs within the code. And, 3 again, at some point if it's too expensive to 4 decontaminate the property is, and I don't want to put 5 words in your mouth, the property is condemned.
6 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, those are the terms.
7 Yes.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: No one would return then to 9 that. And there's a number assigned for that?
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. When a property is 11 condemned because that's the most cost-effective way 12 of addressing it, then the value of the property which 13 is site-specific by grid element is applied.
14 Going back to kind of the genesis of this, 15 which was how does this play out with different 16 releases. So, a TMI release, you get let's say just a 17 smidgeon off site, probably don't -- you don't exceed 18 any habitability criteria, so the costs are primarily 19 limited to on site cleanup costs for the SAMA 20 analysis, and not even recognized in the MACCS Code.
21 MACCS is only used for off site.
22 Take a release that's somewhat beyond 23 that, a little bit greater than that. So, some of the 24 property off site received a measurable, meaningful 25 amount of contaminants and would require some -- so, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1986 1 some amount of land, you know, X number of square 2 meters, square kilometers require decontamination. For 3 a small release those could all just require 4 decontamination level under 3, so only 3 would be 5 applied. For a more moderate release, some of the land 6 area -- if you imagine a plume, a kind of almost a 7 cigar shape or a little cone coming out from the site 8 kind of overlaid on the polar grid that we had 9 earlier, at the edges of the cone there would be areas 10 where no decontamination is needed. A little bit 11 within the cone there would be areas where 12 decontamination might be needed, dose reduction to a 13 factor of 3, and conceivably some to a dose reduction 14 factor, or 15 would need to be applied. It might only 15 need a 7, but 15 would be applied, that's the next 16 step.
17 A more severe release, the cone could be 18 a little wider, a little longer, and now in the middle 19 of the cone in addition to having lines that would 20 depict a dose reduction factor of 3 and 15, there 21 might be a more central portion that says this is the 22 portion that would be determined to be the most cost 23 beneficial, would be to condemn this property.
24 So, how that -- you know, the given 25 release per se, MACCS only -- MACCS knows about well, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1987 1 it's the amount of deposition associated with the 2 release, so more severe releases have the potential 3 for more deposition, greater concentrations in 4 particular areas. And the MACCS2 code addresses that 5 by looking at the doses that result from that 6 deposition and applies the different decontamination 7 activities, costs, potential for interdiction, 8 extended interdiction that I mentioned, and potential 9 for condemnation.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is the required dose 11 reduction factor based on the deposition in a grid 12 element following an accident knowing where you need 13 to get to to allow return to the property, or 14 habitability of the property? Is that --
15 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- the required dose 17 reduction factor?
18 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. And 3 versus 15, 20 it sounds like MACCS will take three values but you've 21 selected -- two has been selected here. Do you have a 22 sense of the philosophy behind selecting 3, which is 23 at the lower end, and 15 at a higher end?
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. We had not 25 mentioned a study that occurred earlier. There was Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1988 1 what was called the WASH-1400 study. It was a study of 2 two plants, Peach Bottom and Surry documented in 1975.
3 In that work they used three dose reduction factors.
4 They used 3, 15, and 20. So, they used three, they 5 used 3, 15, and 20. And then in NUREG-1150, as part of 6 that development they chose to use two, the 3 and the 7 15. Since that time, since NUREG-1150 has been -- was 8 a more recent update, 1990 versus 1975, it was -- has 9 been used as the bases for future SAMA studies since 10 that time. And, typically, those values have been 11 maintained because they are -- these values work 12 together.
13 The values of the cost for decontaminating 14 a particular level, that's related to that level. So, 15 to pick another level, to add another level, you then 16 would need to have a new cost developed. That cost for 17 a third level is not specifically indicated in NUREG-18 1150, so most SAMA applicants, all the SAMA applicants 19 that I'm aware of just use the two.
20 And the last part of your question, sir, 21 use of the two results in some conservatism, because 22 any area that requires a dose reduction factor greater 23 than 3 is going to receive -- assuming then it can be 24 reduced, assuming that a dose reduction factor of 15 25 is sufficient, now not talking about areas where 15 is Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1989 1 insufficient, but if there's an area that's 3.1 to 2 14.99, the costs for dose reduction factor of 15 are 3 being applied. So, there's some -- there's 4 conservatism in what can be viewed in the graduated 5 amount of contamination on property as a function of 6 distance both radially out from the site and 7 tangentially out, as you imagine that cone 8 superimposed upon the grid.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: And this -- the values 10 here, the $972, $2,160, those are the decontamination 11 costs that would achieve a dose reduction factor of 3, 12 or of 15 in this case, and $972 would be a dose 13 reduction factor of 3.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry, where do you see 15 the 972?
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Oh, I'm sorry, the fourth 17 column.
18 JUDGE McDADE: I think we're looking at a--
19 MR. TEAGARDEN: You may be looking at the 20 farm values instead of the non-farm --
21 (Simultaneous speech.)
22 MR. TEAGARDEN: Item 6.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: I was up at Item 5, so 24 let's take 6 which is the non-farmland, those values 25 are $13,824 and $5,184. That's a decontamination cost Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1990 1 that would achieve that dose reduction factor?
2 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. It's a --
3 that is the cost associated with decontamination 4 activities to achieve that dose reduction factor.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: And the concept of --
6 DR. BIXLER: Could I add just one -- I 7 think it's an important but it's a short point of 8 clarification. Keep in mind that a lot of these 9 values, all the non-farm ones are per person. Per 10 person includes children, the population of all ages, 11 not just the owners of the home or a single person 12 associated with a home. So, a home would be multiple 13 people, typically, and that would add up to the 14 overall value for decontaminating that property.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
16 MR. JONES: And, Your Honor, this is Joe 17 Jones with Staff. There's one other point of 18 clarification with regard to how the decontamination 19 factor is calculated from MACCS, and this will be 20 important as the discussion goes on. You are correct, 21 it is at the grid element level, but MACCS calculates 22 the deposition of a contaminant in the grid, so a 23 fixed amount falls in a grid element. And then it 24 looks at an individual as though -- it calculates it 25 as thought it's on a flat plane or surface, very flat Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1991 1 plane, an infinite plane. Then it calculates the dose 2 to an unshielded individual standing in the middle, 3 and it says ah-hah, I have this much contamination. I 4 need to reduce it by some factor, let's say a 5 decontamination factor of 15, to return it to 6 habitability. So, there's a fixed amount of material, 7 and it evaluates an unshielded individual. In reality, 8 we probably have a building on this site.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: What are you inputting, 10 are you inputting the 3 and the 15, or are you 11 inputting the cost? Because the way you described it, 12 Mr. Jones, is that the MACCS Code says here's how much 13 exposure is there. This is how much I need to reduce 14 it. That dictates the decontamination factor, doesn't 15 it?
16 MR. JONES: Correct. The DF of 3 represents 17 -
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, don't use that 19 example.
20 MR. JONES: Okay.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, go on.
22 MR. JONES: It represents a dose reduction 23 of about 67 percent. We could have chosen a DF of --
24 or Entergy could have chosen a DF of 5 to represent 25 a dose reduction of 20 percent. I mean, these are Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1992 1 relatively standard --
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: MACCS is calculating that.
3 That's not used as an input parameter as I understood 4 what you said.
5 DR. BIXLER: No, it is -- the 3 and the 15 6 are input parameters, and the costs associated with 7 those two values are input parameters. Then the code 8 will decide do I need to decontaminate at all, first 9 of all, is the first question. If I do, is a factor of 10 3 good enough, or do I need to go to a higher factor 11 to bring down the dose to below the habitability level 12 so that people will be --
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Does it use the actual 14 dose it needs to get to get habitability. It takes the 15 one that's above but closest to that needed value.
16 DR. BIXLER: The one that would get it 17 below the habitability threshold. If it gets it just 18 a little bit above the habitability threshold, it 19 still wouldn't use it. It would go to the next higher 20 one to achieve what it thinks is required to make the 21 area habitable.
22 One minor additional point that I'd like 23 to add. There is in MACCS, there's something --
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Now each one of these you 25 add adds a level of complexity at the point I'm at.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1993 1 I'll just -- I'll give you a warning on that.
2 DR. BIXLER: Okay.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's going in one ear and 4 out the other is what I'm saying, so I'll ask you 5 about it later again, probably.
6 DR. BIXLER: There is something --
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Go ahead.
8 DR. BIXLER: There's something called a 9 protection factor, a set of protection factors in the 10 code. So, what Mr. Jones just said about a flat plane 11 and a person standing on it as far as this would --
12 that picture would be appropriate for groundshine.
13 That would give a dose to a person -- there's a factor 14 that's applied to that to account for shielding, but 15 typically we base it on a nominal type structure more 16 like a single story house or something like that, 17 rather than a large building that would provide more 18 shielding.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
20 DR. BIXLER: Okay.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Back to what you were 22 saying in regards to --
23 JUDGE McDADE: If I could just to clarify 24 in my own mind, a dose correction factor of 3, that 25 means that in order to bring that area to habitability Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1994 1 you need to get rid of approximately 66-67 percent of 2 the contamination.
3 MR. JONES: That is correct.
4 JUDGE McDADE: And if you had a dose 5 correction factor of 15, you would need to get rid of 6 approximately 95 percent of the contamination?
7 MR. JONES: Approximately 93.3.
8 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, approximately 93.3.
9 Okay. So, am I correct that you start by saying we 10 have a SAMA. We have a correction that could be made 11 to a particular component. To make that change would 12 cost a certain amount of money. If that component 13 failed, although unlikely because we're talking here 14 about beyond design basis accidents. We're talking 15 about accidents that are very low probability 16 accidents. But if that particular accident occurred, 17 you make an estimate of the nature of the 18 contamination. Based on that calculation, you then 19 determine whether to bring the land to habitability 20 you need to get rid of two-thirds of that 21 contamination, or perhaps 93.3 percent of that 22 contamination. And then once you've made that 23 calculation, you then try to assign a dollar value to 24 that. How much would it cost per hectare for this 25 level of decontamination?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1995 1 DR. BIXLER: That's correct. The per 2 hectare would be based -- would be for farmland, it 3 would be done a per person or per capita basis for 4 non-farmland.
5 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.
6 DR. BIXLER: But your description I think 7 was correct.
8 JUDGE McDADE: So, there are a number of 9 different assumptions that go into it. The first is 10 what the mitigation alternative is. Secondly, what it 11 would be designed to prevent. Third would be the 12 anticipated impact if that component failed. And then 13 you start applying these factors to it. Okay.
14 Now, again, getting back, the amount of 15 money that you're talking about, whether it be per 16 acre or per person, is not -- that input is not site-17 specific. All of the other inputs up to this point are 18 accident-specific, postulated accident-specific. But 19 when we then get to the specific cost, that is based 20 on the calculation which is in the NUREG and is not 21 different say for Indian Point, or for Vermont Yankee, 22 or for Plymouth, or for North Anna. You would expect 23 that same dollar figure to be used by applicants for 24 facilities, any of those facilities.
25 MR. JONES: That is correct.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1996 1 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Once more for me. MACCS 3 projects amount of contamination coming over grid, 4 settles down there, boom, there it is. Looks at a 5 person in the middle of the grid, says oh, my 6 goodness, it's going to get a dose of something. We 7 need to get that dose, and it also knows how low it 8 needs to get it. Is it a fixed value, is it 4 rem or 9 something?
10 MR. JONES: That is an input --
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, so it's an input.
12 You will input --
13 MR. JONES: 4 rem over five years.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- what is that low dose 15 that that person limit needs.
16 MR. JONES: Correct.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: That dictates what the 18 decontamination factor is. Correct? You could 19 calculate it from those two values.
20 DR. BIXLER: You could calculate what 21 decontamination factor you need, but the input says 22 what do I --
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, no, no, no, let's stop 24 right there.
25 DR. BIXLER: Okay.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1997 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: I've got to go baby steps.
2 DR. BIXLER: Okay, sorry.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Don't lead me where you 4 want to go, I need to lead me where I need to go.
5 DR. BIXLER: Yes, you're right. That's --
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: It could be calculated.
7 DR. BIXLER: That's right, it could --
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: But it doesn't do that.
9 Instead, it looks to see where that is, and picks 10 either the 3 that you inputted, or the 15 as you 11 inputted as the value. It will take the one that will 12 achieve that value.
13 DR. BIXLER: Yes, that's right. If it knew 14 --
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Why does it do that? I 16 mean, because it could have done it the other way. I 17 mean, couldn't you have inputted the fact that here is 18 3, and that value is 5,000. Here is 5, and that value 19 is X thousand, and here's 15 and that's 13.8 20 thousand.
21 DR. BIXLER: Yes.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: So that when you then went 23 to the grid and you calculated out how much 24 decontamination you need, you go in and pluck off a 25 value.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1998 1 DR. BIXLER: Yes. Then you would have --
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Why is it -- I mean, that 3 would seem the logical way. This seems so convoluted 4 to me.
5 DR. BIXLER: Well, the idea behind it is 6 that you have some finite set of things you can do to 7 decontaminate. You can't -- it may be difficult to 8 achieve a whole graded scale of decontamination 9 factors. You have certain things that you can do that 10 will achieve a lower level of decontamination. You 11 have some other things that maybe would achieve a 12 moderate level, and some things that would achieve a 13 higher level. So, it's up to the user to select those 14 in a reasonable way and assign a cost to them. And 15 then that becomes input to the --
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, we're going to use 17 this 3 and 15 later on, not only for this particular 18 situation, not only for the cost for decontamination 19 for non-farm, but --
20 DR. BIXLER: The procedure --
21 (Simultaneous speech.)
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- then will look at it 23 and see what types of mitigation we can do, and 24 whether or not we can achieve that cleanup.
25 DR. BIXLER: Yes. And it may be that you Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 1999 1 have a different set of procedures for decontaminating 2 farmland than you do for a populated area. But those 3 are all considered in the values that you come up 4 with.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Again, going to the 6 decontamination cost, where is the type of contaminant 7 considered in the cost, or is it? I mean, we've got 8 the discussion of plutonium versus cesium, and big 9 particles and little particles, and all that stuff, 10 and we're going to -- we'll get to that, I'm sure.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: You know, I finally 12 understood things, and now you've mucked it all up 13 again.
14 (Laughter.)
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't know what to say.
16 It just strikes me. I mean, I'm still trying to get my 17 head wrapped around this. Judge Wardwell was wrapped 18 and now he's unwrapped.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's the problem, you 20 just unwrapped --
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: But it does bring to mind, 22 I mean, I think you had me -- I think I was tracking 23 pretty well, and then I got to thinking about well, 24 we're assigning a decontamination -- we, the code is 25 assigning a decontamination cost where the input is Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2000 1 provided for decontamination cost for certain dose 2 reduction factor, and I'm wondering where the 3 contaminant -- the type of contamination is brought 4 into that mix.
5 DR. BIXLER: The type of contaminant would 6 potentially have some influence on this depending on 7 what it is, but whatever the contaminant of interest 8 is has to be assigned as part of the value that would 9 be chosen here. So, you -- when you choose a cost to 10 decontaminate, you would have in mind a type of 11 contamination that would be reasonable for your 12 situation, and then you would choose a value -- a cost 13 to decontaminate based on that specific contaminant 14 that you think is the important one for your 15 application.
16 JUDGE McDADE: Well, doesn't the NUREG tell 17 them what to use here, what factor to use, or suggest 18 a value?
19 DR. BIXLER: NUREG-1150 does suggest these 20 decontamination factors, and the unescalated costs 21 that appear on the table. And that's based on a 22 typical source term that you would have from a nuclear 23 reactor. So, it is -- these values come from a source 24 that are based on the type of source term that's of 25 interest for this problem that we're dealing with Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2001 1 here.
2 JUDGE McDADE: Well, as I recall what Dr.
3 Lemay had to say is one, whether you're trying to 4 clean up say plutonium or cesium, you're dealing with 5 two significantly different items. One is an alpha 6 emitter, one is a gamma emitter, one is going to be 7 readily soluble, and to sort of bond with entities 8 like concrete and, therefore, make it more difficult 9 to clean up. So, if you're dealing with one that is 10 bonding to concrete and is a gamma emitter, the 11 cleanup costs seem to be necessarily significantly 12 different than if you have one that isn't bonding and 13 is an alpha emitter. So, how is that -- is that 14 difference captured in the code, or in the guidance in 15 NUREG, and if so, how?
16 DR. BIXLER: Well, this NUREG-1150 doesn't 17 deal with the plutonium dispersal accident that I 18 think you're describing. It deals with a nuclear 19 reactor accident. So, here we're talking about a 20 source for this information that's consistent with 21 this application. I'm less familiar with plutonium 22 dispersal accidents, but usually there are some 23 significant differences there that would potentially 24 cause the cost for the cleanup to be quite different.
25 And someone, if they were interested in that problem Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2002 1 would need to deal with that situation and come up 2 with an appropriate cost. NUREG-1150 doesn't do that 3 for you. It's based on a nuclear reactor accident.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Are these the only costs 5 that are in 1150 for non-farm decomissioning --
6 decontamination?
7 DR. BIXLER: For both farm and non-farm, 8 but based on a source term that looks like a nuclear 9 reactor source term.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: But little nuances in that 11 source term cannot be -- is not listed -- 1150 doesn't 12 have a bunch of different source terms, and you get to 13 pick the one that's closest to your plant. It has one 14 source term?
15 DR. BIXLER: It has a set of source terms, 16 kind of like the SAMA analysis with eight source term 17 categories. For each of the plants in NUREG-1150 there 18 were a set of source term categories, more than 10, 10 19 to 20 source term categories depending on which plant 20 you're looking at. But in -- those would have a range 21 of releases just like the eight source term categories 22 in the SAMA analysis, but would be plant-specific, and 23 would have somewhat different release characteristics.
24 But they would have the same grouping of fission 25 products over all as this SAMA analysis would.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2003 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, you could go into this 2 description, or table, or whatever they had where they 3 describe that and pick off different numbers than the 4 3,000 and 8,000 that are shown here?
5 DR. BIXLER: No, they use the same set of 6 values.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: They use 3,000 and 8,000 8 period.
9 DR. BIXLER: Right. And then the main 10 difference between the calculations would be the size 11 of the release. The release characteristics may be 12 somewhat different from one accident to another, but 13 not drastically different. In other words, you would 14 always have some cesium release, you would always have 15 some iodine release, the whole range of fission 16 products that you would get from --
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: And as we go through this, 18 we've always got to keep in mind, don't we, that we 19 aren't building a piano here. This is relative, this 20 is not a design effort. This is a let's get our arms 21 around whether or not these things are cost-effective 22 or not. And that's part of our problems, always start 23 zeroing in on some of these things really in detail, 24 so we understand what's going on, but we are always 25 keep in our mind we know what it's going to be used Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2004 1 for, also.
2 JUDGE McDADE: Dr. Lemay, you don't believe 3 they're using an appropriate source code for the 4 particles that would be distributed. Is that correct?
5 DR. LEMAY: Well, I don't believe that 6 these costs are correct. You quite correctly 7 identified that these decontamination costs are 8 critical to the calculation. You're absolutely right 9 on that. And, in fact, you can change the cost of 10 decontamination any way you want by changing these 11 numbers. You can dial up and down the cost of 12 decontamination by simply changing those values. And 13 the cost of decontamination is the most -- the largest 14 contributor to the AOECR that we use for our SAMA 15 comparison. So, when we play with these numbers we can 16 make the SAMA say pretty much what we want.
17 So, you are correct, these numbers are 18 very important. They are critical in the whole scheme 19 of things. And when we look into 1150, we found a 20 description of every single parameter in that list, a 21 description that's saying how they derived it, how --
22 what was the rationale, how many weeks of 23 unemployment people had or whatever, but these two 24 numbers, there was no explanation.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: By two numbers you're Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2005 1 referring to the 8,000 and 3,000?
2 DR. LEMAY: Correct. They just can't pop up 3 like this, and they said well, if you want more detail 4 you can go to another NUREG, NUREG/CR-4551. So, we 5 went into NUREG/CR-4551, and also there is no 6 description of these two parameters. So, then we went 7 to NUREG/CR-4691 which is the MACCS manual. There is 8 also no description of how they arrive at those 9 numbers. Eventually, we ended up to NUREG/CR-3673, and 10 there we found what seems to be the genesis of these 11 numbers.
12 In that report, they show values that seem 13 to be compatible with the 3,000 and 8,000, but a bit 14 earlier in time so they're a bit lower. And, 15 essentially, they say these things were calculated in 16 a report called Os84. Now, we've tried to locate that 17 report, and we can't find it. So, there seems to be no 18 cost basis for the 3,000 and 8,000. There seems to be 19 no description that tells us how these numbers came to 20 be. And if somebody can produce this document, I think 21 it would be very useful because it would allow us to 22 scrutinize the calculation and understand how they 23 came up with those numbers. But at this point, I could 24 not tell you how these numbers came to be.
25 JUDGE McDADE: To someone from the NRC Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2006 1 Staff, Dr. Lemay sort of led us through a list of 2 NUREGs down to NUREG/CR-3673, which is Entergy Exhibit 3 466. Do you agree that that's sort of the end of the 4 NUREG chain on how to -- how one would derive these 5 numbers?
6 MR. JONES: Yes, I would agree that's the 7 end of the line where they --
8 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And would you be able, 9 and we will probably take a break before we get to 10 6:00 tonight at some point. I don't know if you can do 11 it immediately, but if you can, great, if we can pull 12 up 466, and you could point us to where in there we 13 would look for that guidance. And if not, to just sort 14 of -- I'll jot it down and you jot it down, and when 15 we have a break, if you could take a look. Is that 16 something you would be able to get to right at the tip 17 of your fingers, Mr. Jones, or Dr. Bixler, or Dr.
18 Ghosh?
19 MR. JONES: I believe we could find that 20 relatively quickly, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Could you put up 22 Entergy-466.
23 DR. LEMAY: It's on page 4-15, Your Honor.
24 JUDGE McDADE: 4-15?
25 DR. LEMAY: 4-15. Keep going, scroll down, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2007 1 sorry. The cost estimates used in this study, that's 2 the paragraph.
3 JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Jones, do you agree 4 that's the correct area?
5 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honor.
6 JUDGE McDADE: This makes reference to a 7 Sandia study.
8 MR. JONES: Correct.
9 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Now, Dr. Lemay, am I -
10 - my recollection correct that it is your position 11 that the Sandia study actually looked to a dispersion 12 of primarily plutonium contamination?
13 DR. LEMAY: Sorry, Your Honor, no, it's 14 not. The Sandia study that is discussed in this 15 paragraph is a document that we cannot locate. It 16 seems to have never been published.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there a bibliographic 18 reference to that at the end of this --
19 dR. LEMAY: Yes.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- that the Os84 refers 21 to?
22 MR. HARRISON: Yes, this is Donald 23 Harrison. It's on page 8-8 is the reference for this.
24 It's indicated to be published.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: And rather than scroll Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2008 1 down so we don't lose this place, are you looking at 2 that?
3 MR. HARRISON: Yes.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Could you just the 5 bibliographic reference, Mr. Harrison?
6 MR. HARRISON: I have to find it. It's 7 Ostmeyer and Runkle, "An assessment of decontamination 8 costs and effectiveness for accident radiological 9 releases," Sandia National Labs. And, again, it's 10 stated as "To Be Published."
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Who is the second author, 12 Renalls?
13 MR. HARRISON: G.E. Runkle.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Runkle, okay. Thank you.
15 DR. LEMAY: Now, Your Honor, if you just 16 scroll a little bit further to Table 4.4. Okay. The 17 costs that appear there for 3 and 15 are compatible 18 with the costs that appear in 1150. If you go from the 19 date of this report, the date of 1150 and apply the 20 CPI, these costs appear to be compatible with the 21 3,000 and 8,000 that we have in 1150.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And by this report you 23 mean Os84, or this report that we're looking at --
24 dR. LEMAY: Well, Os84 quotes approximate 25 cost per person in the second column, and the $2,600 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2009 1 when you escalate it by the CPI gives $3,000.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. But my question was 3 when you said the date of the report, which report 4 were you talking about?
5 DR. LEMAY: The date of the --
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Os84, or this report that 7 we're looking at?
8 DR. LEMAY: The date of these, where these 9 values come from.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, it would be the Os84 11 date.
12 DR. LEMAY: Probably.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what was the date on 14 that, Mr. Harrison?
15 MR. HARRISON: It's got a To Be Published 16 Date, but I believe the number 84 refers to the year.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And what's the date 18 of this reference?
19 MR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for 20 the Applicant. This also was 1984.
21 JUDGE McDADE: And if I have missed it in 22 my view of the documents that we received, do we have 23 Os84 as an exhibit?
24 MR. JONES: No, Your Honor, it's a document 25 that could not be located.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2010 1 MS. LIBERATORE: Your Honor, excuse me.
2 Kathryn Liberatore for the State. Just as a point of 3 clarification, as was stated in Dr. Lemay's testimony, 4 we searched libraries. I also contacted Brian Harris, 5 counsel for NRC Staff and requested a copy of Os84.
6 Mr. Harris represented to me that he searched internal 7 NRC libraries, as well as Sandia libraries, and that 8 no copy of Os84 in any form, draft or otherwise could 9 be located, so we do not -- none of the parties have 10 a copy of this document.
11 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I take it from Dr.
12 Lemay's testimony that he hadn't reviewed it. Let me 13 ask, if the NRC doesn't have a copy of it, how can the 14 NRC -- how did the NRC rely on it in developing this 15 guidance on NUREG/CR-3673? How were you able to 16 reference it if you never had it?
17 DR. GHOSH: This is Dr. Ghosh for the NRC.
18 It's been -- I mean, 19 -- it's been almost 30 years 19 since those reports were produced. We would have to 20 assume that at the time that this report was published 21 they did have a copy, but unfortunately in the 22 intervening 28 years, I guess we lost track of that 23 report, and we couldn't locate it today. But we 24 certainly expect that they would have had it at the 25 time that this report was published.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2011 1 JUDGE McDADE: And Sandia Lab wasn't able 2 to provide it.
3 MR. JONES: Joe Jones for Staff. No, I 4 checked with our librarians, as well, and we were 5 unable to locate it.
6 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Does that leave us in 7 a position as we sit here right now not knowing 8 whether or not this basically was looking at 9 plutonium, or cesium, or any other kind of radioactive 10 contaminant?
11 MR. JONES: No, Your Honor. I believe that 12 the team, Ostmeyer and Runkle, were part of -- working 13 with Sandia. These documents were all coming together 14 at about the same time, and I have no reason to 15 believe they would have introduced a plutonium source 16 in a nuclear power plant analyses, because it just 17 wouldn't even be considered in that context.
18 DR. GHOSH: I'm sorry, this is Dr. Ghosh 19 again. If we went back to the text where the report 20 was referenced, that paragraph actually describes a 21 little bit about what that reference presumably has.
22 And it does talk about severe accidents, so I guess we 23 would have no reason to assume that they were looking 24 at a different composition than what a severe reactor 25 accident would produce.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2012 1 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I left my note in the 2 other room when I came back from the break but, Dr.
3 Lemay, which document and study are you referring to 4 with regard to the plutonium?
5 DR. LEMAY: It's the Site Restoration 6 Report by Chan. I can give you the --
7 MS. LIBERATORE: Your Honor, this is 8 Kathryn Liberatore for the State. That's New York 9 State Exhibit 249.
10 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: And is that reference 12 applicable to reactor-type accidents, in your opinion?
13 DR. LEMAY: It's not ideal, but it's a very 14 well put together description of decontamination 15 techniques. It describes in great detail how you go 16 about to assess the cost of decontamination by looking 17 at buildings, looking at streets, and it explains how 18 you do that. Obviously, it would ideal if it was 19 dealing with decontamination activities near Indian 20 Point, but it's not.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it possible to review 22 that article with a reactor accident source term in 23 mind and select appropriate decontamination methods 24 and costs?
25 DR. LEMAY: Well, it's -- that's what we've Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2013 1 tried to do as best we could in the limited time we 2 had, but this was a scoping exercise. So, if I may, we 3 are faced with values of the decontamination costs 4 that cannot be described to us, so we can't criticize 5 them because we don't know what they put in the 6 sausage, if I may use that word.
7 At that point, we're left with only one 8 possibility. We can try to benchmark this value 9 against what other people have done, and that's what 10 we tried to do as best we could. We tried to build a 11 range of decontamination costs and see where the 12 values that were given to us out of 1150 fit. Are they 13 within the range, are they above the range, or are 14 they under the range? And it seems based on the very 15 limited scoping exercise we did, they were below the 16 range of values we could calculate.
17 Now, I'm not pretending that performed the 18 SAMA analysis with the level of detail that was 19 necessary for this SAMA analysis, but it's a 20 benchmarking exercise. It's let's look at what other 21 people in the field have done with contaminants and 22 let's see how does it compare, because that's really 23 the only thing we can do. We don't have the basis for 24 these values. We have no idea how they were obtained.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess a number of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2014 1 questions come to mind, and maybe this will have to be 2 followed up later on. But we've progressed in time 3 here from 1984, and we have NUREG-1150, and now we 4 have the Indian Point submittal, itself. I'm 5 struggling with the heritage of these numbers now.
6 MR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for 7 the Applicant. And I didn't mean to interrupt.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: That's all right.
9 MR. O'KULA: But I think it's important in 10 this document, Entergy-466, to look at its context.
11 And, again, as was also the case for NRC Staff and Dr.
12 Lemay, we, too, could not locate a copy of the 13 document that's been referred to as Os84. However, if 14 you look at the context of the document that we do 15 have in hand, the Burke document, Entergy-466, there 16 is repeated reference at the top of page 4-15, the 17 experimental data in that first paragraph. And let us 18 cite that first paragraph that's discussed by the 19 authors indicate that experimental data was reviewed, 20 and techniques were assessed that depend on 21 radionuclides, particle sizes, and the chemical forms, 22 characteristics. We wrote down in the paragraph but it 23 seems to be very much tied to assessing the effects of 24 highly unlikely severe light water reactor accidents.
25 That's one illustration of, I think, the context Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2015 1 that's presented here.
2 Secondly, if we page to 4-17 in the same 3 exhibit, in the third point that's called out, the 4 author notes in Point 3 that this study which was, 5 again, a reactor-specific analysis or an analysis for 6 economic and decontamination costs, is tied to looking 7 at providing cost figures that implicitly include 8 contamination over broad areas, such as would be 9 expected with those associated with a reactor-type 10 source term.
11 So, I think there's -- it's a bit of a 12 contextual relationship that we need to identify as we 13 go forward in this contention that there is not the 14 tie to a T citation trail that we can point very 15 crisply to, but there's still some benefit of looking 16 at what had been developed in the early `80s as far as 17 reactor-type source terms and accounting for their 18 costs under conditions of a severe accident.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I think that it --
20 and, again, this was intended to be the overview to 21 get the context to leap forward into plant-specific 22 type review. But what I think we know where we're all 23 going to be going with this, as we move towards the 24 resolution or the adjudication of this contention.
25 This has been represented as a plant-specific value Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2016 1 for Indian Point Units 2 and 3, so someone's done a 2 reaffirmation that this is an applicable value in 2005 3 for Indian Point for decontamination costs. So, okay, 4 we lost the reference to 1984. Someone convinced 5 themselves, and then the Staff viewed it as reasonable 6 -- and, again, I know we're not looking at great 7 science, but what I'm struggling with is, okay, we 8 lost the reference, but it is 30 years later, and 9 we're trying to deal with a plant-specific analysis 10 for this facility. And someone has reaffirmed that 11 these are good values, reasonable values. Keep it in 12 that context, that these are reasonable value 13 decontamination costs. So, that's really getting into 14 the details, but I think that's where we're going. I 15 think we've now sort of laid the ground work with the 16 entire witness stand here, but I don't -- I'm not 17 getting a good feel that we've addressed the plant-18 specific nature of this -- these parameters.
19 I think I would agree with the Entergy and 20 Staff witnesses it needs to be in the context of a 21 reactor accident scenario. I think it needs to be 22 rooted there. I agree with that, but I guess I'm going 23 to part this for now, but I'm not going to let go of 24 this. This -- we need to get into more detail of how 25 we got to this being an acceptable value.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2017 1 And then on the same vein, on this -- I'm 2 going back to Table 4, page 58. I don't know if we 3 still have it. I've got a couple of follow-up 4 questions on there that again strike me.
5 JUDGE McDADE: While we're pulling that up, 6 if I could very briefly. Dr. Lemay, from your body 7 language it seemed like you wanted to respond to what 8 Dr. O'Kula had said.
9 DR. LEMAY: Well, on page 4-15 of the same 10 CR, NUREG/CR-3673, the author writes, "Little data 11 exists which are directly applicable to the small 12 particle size, .1 to 10 micron insoluble materials 13 which are anticipated in releases from most severe 14 light water reactor accidents. The cost and 15 effectiveness estimates for decontamination contain 16 large uncertainties, and results of future 17 experimentation with decontamination techniques should 18 be used to update models for decontamination." But the 19 authors of this -- of Os84, and CR-3673 recognized 20 that these were tentative results. They were at the 21 time the best they could, but they really expected 22 people to continue to improve these things.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: And if I remember your 24 pre-filed testimony and rebuttal testimony, was not 25 the results of the SAMAs or certainly the cost figures Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2018 1 very sensitive to these particular parameters also?
2 DR. LEMAY: Right.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Not ones that we could 4 just say well, it's really not very sensitive if we 5 change them. In fact, it's your position that it is 6 sensitive.
7 DR. LEMAY: Well, when you do a safety 8 analysis for anything, for calculating the dose, the 9 release, you always go back and look at what are my 10 most sensitive parameters, which are the ones that 11 when I play with I can change the answer. And those 12 you scrutinize. You go back and look at them and say 13 have I used the right value? Am I doing the right 14 thing? And am I getting the correct results? And in 15 this case it's clear that that value that we don't 16 know anything about is one of those sensitive 17 parameters that if you change it a little bit, it 18 swings the answer at the other end quite a bit.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Teagarden, I happened 20 to jot down a statement that I thought you made 21 earlier when we were going through this that happens 22 to fit right in, if this is what you meant. I want to 23 clarify that, and then see if you have something to 24 contribute to it. But I wrote down in my notes that 25 you said something to the effect of "decontamination Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2019 1 costs were well vetted in the community." What did you 2 mean by that, and what is that vettedness that might 3 have occurred that might shed some light on the 4 justification for these numbers?
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. I was 6 referring to the vetting of the NUREG-1150 studies.
7 The NUREG-1150 studies were monumental studies. I 8 mean, they continue to be --
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry?
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: They were monumental 11 studies for performing Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 PRAs 12 of five different plant types situation in different 13 settings in the United States, including elements that 14 we call internal events, things that can go on inside 15 the plant, as well as external events for some of the 16 sites, which would be events like seismic initiators.
17 Volumes of literature, of documentation were produced 18 and those studies received significant review at 19 multiple times, comments were taken and incorporated 20 into those. So, these values that were used in the 21 NUREG-1150 study, they're documented in NUREG-4551 22 what the values are, so they were there. They were 23 apparent to any and all who were performing the 24 different review functions. Dr. O'Kula may want to add 25 into some of the summarizing the review process.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2020 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I'm not sure we need 2 the review process of this much, but we probably --
3 it's possible later, we should decide where we go 4 from here, but we will explore that in more depth 5 probably, because we are going to come back to this if 6 we do leave it now. But between later this afternoon 7 or tomorrow we will probably get into that then.
8 JUDGE McDADE: And if I could just very 9 briefly just for my own edification here, and looking 10 for some education. In trying to design a study to 11 figure out what cleanup costs are going to be, it 12 would seem that there are examples through the 13 military of dispersion of plutonium, through above-14 ground nuclear testing among other things. But 15 fortunately there's been very little experience with 16 actual cleanup after a reactor accident; in the United 17 States there really hasn't been. So, how would I go 18 about -- and let me ask, first of all, the Staff who 19 produced the NUREG in the first, which is the 20 guidance. What would you look for in a study to be 21 able to assess how those costs would occur when you 22 don't have any real world experience, but only sort of 23 theoretical experience to base it on?
24 MR. JONES: This is Joe Jones for Staff.
25 And I've actually done quite a bit of decontamination Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2021 1 of radiological facilities over the course of my 2 career, and many of those were contaminated with 3 cesium. They were not contaminated via a plume passing 4 over, but it's still a contaminant that has been 5 deposited. And within the Department of Energy complex 6 over the last decade and a half, a lot of facilities 7 have been closed down, decontaminated such as Rocky 8 Flats in Colorado, Fernald in Ohio, and Mound.
9 These sites were very large 10 decontamination projects where cesium was encountered, 11 so there is data available today. That data would not 12 have been available in 1984 because those types of 13 activities had not begun. But today there is actual 14 data available which is kind of one of the reasons in 15 my review of some of the supporting documents that 16 were used as a basis for cost estimating, I didn't see 17 those reasonable because in most cases they were not 18 based on actual performance data. So, when data is 19 available, you know, it could be generated, a report 20 could be developed today using that type of data.
21 JUDGE McDADE: The kind of data that you 22 just referred to, were those decontaminations for lack 23 of a better phrase internal to a structure, or did 24 they involve the kinds of complications where you're 25 dealing with gravel, grass, trees?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2022 1 MR. JONES: My particular projects were 2 interior, and demolition of one building. But Fernald, 3 Mound, and Rocky Flats, these Department of Energy 4 facilities included internal and external 5 decontamination activities.
6 They're not directly representative. We 7 couldn't take a report from any one of those sites and 8 say let's use these values, but it would give us 9 excellent insights on how to derive applicable values 10 for something more urban that is handled in a response 11 mode. Most of the Department of Energy projects were 12 not schedule-driven, so nobody was in a hurry to 13 necessarily get things done. Schedules were available 14 but they weren't driven by that. So, you'd have to 15 look at the nuances of each project, but the fact is 16 today we do know how to decontaminate cesium. There 17 have been many different technologies that have been 18 improved, enhanced and used in practice to 19 decontaminate cesium.
20 JUDGE McDADE: Has that data been imported 21 in any way into your NUREG calculations?
22 MR. JONES: Which NUREG, Your Honor?
23 JUDGE McDADE: Well, if we could put up, 24 again, the $8,000, $3,000, those contamination costs.
25 MR. JONES: Again, those particular costs Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2023 1 were developed for NUREG-1150. And the origin of those 2 is the late `80s. So, it is not included in those 3 values.
4 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But -- so, what was?
5 You know, if that data wasn't available at the time 6 these parameters were developed, what was used to 7 develop those, purely theoretical?
8 MR. JONES: I would not want to speculate 9 how the authors put that together, but I can tell you 10 at a National Laboratory in the 1980s, cesium existed 11 and had been cleaned up. I don't know if they used 12 that type of data.
13 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
14 Dr. Lemay, did you want to respond to that?
15 DR. LEMAY: Yes, I would like -- Dr. Lemay 16 for the State of New York. I would like to quote from 17 1150, because we are told that there was a review 18 process, and we can actually read what people -- the 19 reviewers said about these values. They actually 20 commented on these values. So, since we talk about the 21 extensive review process of 1150, if we could have New 22 York State Exhibit 252-D, at page D-31 and D-32.
23 "The models used in calculating the cost 24 of a severe accident lack many factors that should be 25 taken into account. Many of the assumptions are Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2024 1 questionable and unfounded. The models have not been 2 benchmarked. Some interpretations and conclusions that 3 were made in Draft NUREG-1150 are questionable. The 4 cost estimate need to be more thoroughly documented to 5 understand and evaluate the calculations. The response 6 in the present version of the NUREG-1150 provides a 7 limited set of risk reduction calculation principally 8 related to the potential benefits of accident 9 management strategies and reducing core damage 10 frequency. It does not assess the cost of these or 11 other improvements. Such analyses are more properly 12 considered in the context of specific regulatory 13 action."
14 Another comment, the next page. I'm sorry, 15 keep scrolling, scrolling. You can start with 16 "Decontamination cost." I think it's 18, D-32, sorry.
17 D-32, yes. Sorry, keep -- could you please go up, 18 please. Okay. It starts on page D-31 and it ends on 19 page D-32. So, go back to page D-31. Okay. Could you 20 do a search for deserts. It's near by that quotation 21 but I don't see it right now. The word "desert." I 22 will quote the actual --
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Andy, can you do a search 24 for "deserts?"
25 JUDGE McDADE: Go back to where you just Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2025 1 were. One up, number -- can you go to the next page, 2 number 6. Is that what you were referring to?
3 DR. LEMAY: Yes. "Decontamination cost 4 using the calculations may be based on decontamination 5 of test sites in desert instead of agricultural, 6 residential, and commercial property." And the 7 response was, again, "The Draft NUREG-1150 cost 8 benefit analyses reflected in the conventional NRC 9 method of assessing cost and benefit,. Because cost-10 benefit analyses are more properly considered in the 11 context of the specific regulatory activities, they 12 are not provided in this version of 1150."
13 My understanding of this is that the 14 author of 1150 expected regulatory activities such as 15 those that we carry out today to scrutinize the cost 16 of decontamination, and not to rely on generic or 17 default values that came from the `80s. I think that 18 was their intent in the way they disposed of the 19 comments.
20 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Would the language 21 there, maybe based on decontamination of test sites in 22 deserts suggest to the Staff that maybe what they were 23 talking about here are decontamination costs where 24 plutonium was the principal radioactive material?
25 MR. JONES: This is Joe Jones of the Staff.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2026 1 I would interpret it that way knowing the tests that 2 were conducted in the deserts. But there could have 3 been cesium tests conducted out there that I'm not 4 aware of.
5 JUDGE McDADE: But what this does is leave 6 us with a degree or uncertainty as to exactly what the 7 source was for the contaminants that are referred to.
8 It may have been plutonium, it may have been more 9 consistent with a nuclear reactor, it may have been a 10 combination of the two, but at this point there's no 11 way for us to really be sure of that. Is that a 12 correct interpretation, Mr. Jones, or Dr. Bixler?
13 MR. JONES: I'm unable to trace the origin, 14 so I could agree with that.
15 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.
16 DR. GHOSH: This is Dr. Ghosh for the 17 Staff. I'm not sure where these comments came from. We 18 were just trying to figure out what Appendix D is.
19 These may have been comments from members of the 20 public, and I just want to note that in the response 21 there's no confirmation that these comments have a 22 basis. It may be pure speculation in the Point 6. I 23 don't know where the person might have gotten the idea 24 where the costs were coming from because it doesn't 25 explain. And in the response it's not acknowledged Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2027 1 that this may or may not be true, so I'm not sure 2 where the comments came from, or the basis for them.
3 MR. TURK: Your Honor, Sherwin Turk. I 4 don't have the document in front of me, but based on 5 my familiarity with how the NRC Staff publishes 6 NUREGs, they publish a draft, and then they publish a 7 final after responding -- after they consider 8 comments. And if you'll notice, one of the previous 9 pages that Dr. Lemay referred to, in fact, talked 10 about comments on the draft 1150, and then there was 11 the NRC response.
12 JUDGE McDADE: But the NRC response did not 13 discount --
14 MR. TURK: Did not adopt these words.
15 JUDGE McDADE: Well, it did not -- it 16 neither adopted nor rejected the comment.
17 MR. TURK: Unfortunately, that's also 18 typical of how the NRC Staff responds to comments.
19 They don't go into minute details to address each 20 element of the comment.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: But, Dr. Lemay --
22 MS. LIBERATORE: Your Honor, just --
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Lemay, is not your 24 point the fact that the response said gee, you ought 25 to do it as part of a regulatory action? That was the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2028 1 point of both these examples. Right?
2 MS. LIBERATORE: And, Your Honor, just as 3 a point of clarification. Kathryn Liberatore for the 4 State of New York. This is Appendix D to the final 5 NUREG-1150.
6 JUDGE McDADE: But also, Dr. Ghosh, were 7 you finished? You were talking and other people 8 started talking. Had you finished your comment?
9 DR. GHOSH: Yes, I had finished the 10 comment. I just wanted -- I suspect this was a public 11 comment. The only other point I want to make is that 12 there were two formal peer review, expert peer reviews 13 that were performed for NUREG-1150. I believe this is 14 public comment, not an expert peer review comment.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: But, Dr. Ghosh, didn't the 16 NRC respond as Dr. Lemay points out to this comment by 17 saying we don't have any answer, basically. It should 18 be handled on a regulatory action basis.
19 DR. GHOSH: Yes, that is what the response 20 said. Unfortunately, I would say Staff practice, we 21 generally are more rigorous in responding to expert 22 peer review comments versus public comments. But, yes, 23 that was the response in this case.
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, if I may speak 25 for the Applicant. Grant Teagarden.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2029 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Go ahead.
2 MR. TEAGARDEN: It should be noted that 3 while we are observing uncertainty with relations to 4 the bases that are here and these comments, the 5 uncertainty can be viewed as going both directions, 6 whether decontamination costs could be high or whether 7 they could be low. And I just -- Item 4 on the list 8 has been staring at me, the values of the interdiction 9 dose used in the calculations may be too high. You 10 know that would be a conservative result if you're 11 interested in a dose metric. And just that even as we 12 think in the context of uncertainty that there's 13 uncertainty that heads in both directions.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: I appreciate that.
15 Actually, I'd like to take us back to the Entergy 16 Exhibit 450, the Table 4. I've got just two quick 17 follow-up questions, this guy here. If you can open 18 the whole table up, Andy, so we can see the whole 19 thing. I guess one of the things that struck me 20 looking at this table, and looking at the far right-21 hand column, when I see the 1.7, 1.7, I understand 22 that to be a cost escalation parameter.
23 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: When I get down to row 7 25 and 8, I see 19.2 and 2.5.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2030 1 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, that's not a cost 3 escalation factor?
4 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Can someone describe what's 6 being communicated there?
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, values 7 and 8 8 represent the value of property and improvements of 9 those property. Item 7 represent that for farmland, 10 and item 8 for non-farmland. So, Item 7 is the value 11 of the property and any improvements, barns and such, 12 and have a value of $50,000 per hectare. 8 is the non-13 farmland with a value of $208,000 per person. So, that 14 would be viewed as the wealth in the region.
15 In addition to tangible wealth, the 16 Entergy analysis also included another measure of 17 economic activity, and that is, in essence, a gross 18 domestic product at the county or metropolitan level.
19 They actually -- most plants that I'm familiar with 20 for SAMA analysis will perform their basis on tangible 21 wealth; that is, real property and improvements upon 22 those properties. There's information from Census of 23 Agriculture for land values and things of that nature 24 even beyond just like farmland, but there's other 25 measures of value of tangible wealth that can be used Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2031 1 to calculate those values.
2 In addition to that, Entergy performed a 3 sensitivity analysis to examine other measures of 4 looking at economic impacts, potentially. And so a 5 different viewpoint on economic impact is one of 6 production, so especially in an environment where you 7 could have tourism, it's not always -- you know, you 8 would have the tangible property of hotels, but if the 9 hotels are empty you're hitting economic impacts on a 10 service level.
11 So, Entergy did another calculation for 12 economic impacts associated with loss of business 13 income and loss of tourism on this county product 14 perspective, and then added the two values together to 15 achieve this value here in number 8 that becomes a per 16 capita value. So, in my mind there's some double 17 counting that happens when you have these two 18 different ways of looking at economic activity, and 19 you simply add them together at the end.
20 But, in any event, these two values are 21 based on data to the region for surrounding Indian 22 Point. They are not values taken from NUREG-1150, and 23 simply escalated. The values that are there from 24 NUREG-1150, I guess I would probably need to go back 25 and check and see which site those would represent.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2032 1 They probably would just be representing the one site, 2 one of the five sites, because NUREG-1150 would be 3 using different values for each of the five sites, I 4 believe. I don't think they had an average value that 5 they applied to all five sites.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: So, for this parameter, and 7 I guess I'm focusing on number 8, did you just say 8 that in the NUREG-1150 study there were different 9 values in there depending on the site? So, the $84,000 10 number, do you have --
11 MR. TEAGARDEN: I believe that's the case, 12 and we can confirm that, Your Honor.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: And if you could, if you 14 could tell us -- if you could find out which 15 particular site it was for, that would be helpful, as 16 well.
17 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: And one last question. On 19 the evacuation cost, did I understand you to say that 20 that was -- evacuation was not considered in the study 21 for the Indian Point Units 2 and 3?
22 MR. TEAGARDEN: That is correct, Your 23 Honor. The evacuation as far as relocating 24 individuals, an attempt to relocate individuals before 25 they could be impacted by an atmospheric release was Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2033 1 not incorporated into the model.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So, whether the 3 NUREG-1150 value has been escalated by 1.7 or not, it 4 would be deemed irrelevant?
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, Your Honor.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
7 JUDGE McDADE: Do you think it would be a 8 good time? I think maybe it might be a good time for 9 a short break. It's just about 4:00 right now. If we 10 take a break until 4:15, and then come back and I 11 don't anticipate going beyond 6:00, but try to find a 12 good breaking point in that vicinity. We are in 13 recess.
14 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 15 record at 4:00 p.m., and went back on the record at 16 4:21 p.m.)
17 JUDGE McDADE: All set to proceed. Ready 18 to go.
19 MS. SUTTON: Kathryn Sutton for the 20 applicant, Your Honors.
21 JUDGE McDADE: Yes, Ms. Sutton.
22 MS. SUTTON: Prior to the break, there was 23 a discussion of Appendix C to NUREG-1150 ongoing, and 24 Dr. O'Kula had something he would like to add. May we 25 ask the Court's indulgence to please listen to his Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2034 1 interpretation of the comments as well.
2 JUDGE McDADE: Doctor?
3 DR. O'KULA: Kevin O'Kula for the 4 applicant. I respectfully disagree with the 5 characterization made by Dr. Lemay with regard to the 6 disposition of those comments that were found in the 7 public comment part of the document of NUREG-1150.
8 Keep in mind that NUREG-1150 was issued in 9 two, one in -- a first and a second draft before going 10 final, and that the comments that were discussed 11 before break were in reference to a public comment 12 period on the first draft, and then potentially the 13 second draft.
14 But these comments do not apply to the 15 final version of NUREG-1150, and they were indeed 16 public comments. They do not speak to the peer review 17 quality of the work, that gives us a basis to be 18 reasonable in our input of those parameters into the 19 IPEC SAMA analysis.
20 Secondly, the two comments per se are, 21 were not reflective of a discussion of decontamination 22 cost issues with respect to what was being done in the 23 NUREG-1150 SAMA analysis.
24 The first comment that we discussed or 25 that was brought up by Dr. Lemay was referring to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2035 1 potential benefits of accident management strategies 2 in reducing core damage frequency, along the lines of 3 what Mr. Teagarden was discussing at the outset of 4 this contention, with regard to the Level 1 frequency 5 analysis.
6 This was a comment made with respect to 7 accident management strategies, not in reference to 8 the Level 3 portion of the analysis, concerning the 9 MACCS analysis of consequences.
10 Secondly, the second comment that was 11 brought up was referencing in the first draft, that 12 the analysis that had been provided in the first draft 13 had followed conventional NRC methods for cost and 14 benefit analysis.
15 Now it's important to note that in the 16 second draft, and subsequently the final draft of 17 NUREG-1150, economic costs were not calculated, 18 because NRC report indicated that at least the 19 discussion, as we understand it goes, there are --
20 The cost-benefit analyses are more 21 properly considered in the context of specific 22 regulatory activities, such as proposed rule changes.
23 That was a discussion or that was a comment that's 24 also in the document that Dr. Lemay referred to.
25 So again, I think these comments or the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2036 1 objections challenging the quality of NUREG-1150 were 2 with regard to two public comments, and then in a 3 dispositioning of the comments, it was clear that the 4 contamination quantities or input parameters were not 5 at issue in the final version of NUREG-1150.
6 JUDGE McDADE: But Doctor, I guess what 7 our concern was, or at least my concern was, in 8 looking at the document, as we sit here today, without 9 having a full provenance on it, do we know, with any 10 degree of certainty, whether or not that discussion 11 involved the kinds of radionuclides that we would see 12 from what you would anticipate if there were a reactor 13 accident, as opposed to what you would see after, you 14 know, for cleanup of a weapons site.
15 Is that just an unknown at this point in 16 time, or is it, you know, it is something we have to 17 presume, or is there any way of making that 18 determination that you're aware of? I realize Entergy 19 didn't develop this guidance. The guidance was 20 developed by the NRC, and you're doing your best to 21 follow the guidance that they give.
22 But is there something that you can point 23 us to, that would indicate one way or the other 24 clearly that what was being discussed and what was 25 being considered?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2037 1 DR. O'KULA: No, Your Honor. Kevin O'Kula 2 for the applicant. I can't point to a specific 3 follow-up document, but I would suggest that the 4 parameters, as were debated at that time in the 5 resolution stage, before the NUREG-1150 document went 6 final, that because of the subject matter, again by 7 light water reactor plants, that the discussion of 8 parameters and models such was conducted by, at that 9 time by NRC staff and the national laboratories that 10 were involved in the study.
11 It would be my expert opinion that it was 12 concerning nuclear reactor type source terms, and that 13 indeed was the focus of NUREG-1150. It would be 14 entirely reasonable for us, as the Entergy applicant, 15 to use these parameters, given the nature of NUREG-16 1150 as reasonable values to incorporate in a SAMA-17 type analysis.
18 MR. HARRISON: And this is Donald Harris 19 of the NRC staff. I would concur with that. I would 20 believe the presumption would be in the context that 21 it would be, that these were being done for light 22 water reactor accidents, and not for other types of 23 severe accidents for other types of facilities.
24 So that contextually it would be 25 consistent to be that way. But again, it's a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2038 1 presumption. It's not factual.
2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. O'Kula, you also 3 state that there is no documentation of the bases for 4 the number 3,000 and 8,000 for this contamination cost 5 for non-farm land; correct? Is that what you just 6 said?
7 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for 8 the applicant. If again, judging from the context of 9 the analysis that was done for NUREG-1150, we can 10 judge it or it would be my judgment that it's 11 applicable to reactor-type source terms.
12 And as all parties in this proceeding have 13 affirmed, the initial starting point to the $3,000 14 level and $8,000 level, that document trail, that 15 starting point is not available. It's not available 16 to me as well as other members of the applicant's 17 team.
18 JUDGE WARDWELL: So do we have any other 19 choice but to judge the merits of that, based on this 20 regulatory action that's before us now? Is not this 21 the best place to do it?
22 Aren't we burdened with that now? Is this 23 Board burdened when making that evaluation through the 24 testimony that we get here, in making the decision of 25 what is the appropriate facts, based on this Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2039 1 adjudicatory hearing? Do you have any other 2 suggestions besides that? I'd ask Dr. O'Kula first, 3 and then I'll let you, Mr. Teagarden.
4 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, I would suggest, 5 at least in my opinion, that the applicant chose 6 appropriately regarding the reasonableness nature of 7 the input data in this regard.
8 How it's applied, as I think we'll discuss 9 in the remainder of this contention, I think will help 10 shape the impression, at least affirm the impression, 11 that those values, when tied with the type of analysis 12 that was performed by the applicant, is indeed 13 appropriate in the context of the reasonability nature 14 of a SAMA analysis.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you not anticipate 16 that Dr. Lemay may also provide some testimony and 17 already has in regards to direct and rebuttal, that 18 may conflict with your testimony?
19 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, I fully 20 anticipate that.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: So we're here to weigh 22 the merits of both, and that's the regulatory process 23 that I think was pointed out by the comments that 24 we're really going through. Mr. Teagarden, do you 25 have anything else on this matter?
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2040 1 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, just to 2 augment Dr. O'Kula, we believe these values represent 3 the best values that are available for a SAMA 4 analysis. We know of no technically superior values 5 to use for the MACCS code input for these, and that 6 you know, I'm sure we'll talk about some of these 7 values.
8 But you know, the cost of non-farm 9 decontamination, the 13,800 per person for a household 10 of three, that represents some $41,000. A household 11 of four represents $55,000. For an apartment building 12 housing 200 people, that represents $2.7 million to 13 cover decontamination costs for that and nearby 14 spaces.
15 And when we look at the available data 16 sets, we would say that these values are reasonable 17 for the purposes of a SAMA analysis, and we know of no 18 technically superior data that's available for a 19 licensee to use for such an analysis.
20 JUDGE McDADE: Okay let me --
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you, Mr. Teagarden.
22 JUDGE McDADE: If I could, just to Dr.
23 Lemay, the position of Entergy is, as I understand it, 24 and before I ask you to answer the question, I'll make 25 sure that Entergy agrees that that's their position.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2041 1 First of all, with regard to the NUREG, 2 from their standpoint, they are following the guidance 3 given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, through 4 the NUREG, that from their standpoint as individuals 5 with experience as nuclear engineers and engineers in 6 the industry, that it would be illogical for the NRC, 7 in developing NUREG-1150, to use a source term 8 different than a reactor-type source term, that there 9 is no better, no technically superior value that they 10 are aware of, that they could use or should use, and 11 that you haven't pointed them to any technically 12 superior values.
13 So therefore, we should be satisfied that 14 the SAMA analysis that they have done, at least as to 15 this, the use of these terms, is appropriate and 16 allows the NRC to take the hard look at the, as hard 17 a look as is technically feasible, at the cost-benefit 18 analysis of the SAMAs.
19 Have I accurately stated what your 20 position is, Dr. O'Kula?
21 DR. O'KULA: Yes, Your Honor.
22 JUDGE McDADE: How do you take objection 23 to that, Dr. Lemay? Where is that analysis wrong?
24 DR. LEMAY: Dr. Lemay for the State of New 25 York. Well first, Your Honor, with respect, it is not Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2042 1 -- the onus is not on the state of New York to prove 2 that the values used in the SAMA are reasonable. The 3 onus is on the applicant to prove that these values 4 are reasonable.
5 And I would be more than happy to look at 6 how these values were derived and accept that they are 7 applicable for the area around Indian Point. But I 8 can't, because there is no document, there is no 9 equation, there is no rationale that explains to me 10 how these numbers were derived.
11 They may very well be applicable to a 12 reactor accident, but maybe in the desert or maybe in 13 Surry. I have no way of knowing.
14 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Right now, I'm 15 focusing a little bit narrower. Judge Kennedy had 16 been talking about a high level. My question was more 17 at the micro than the macro level. Just talking about 18 the use of the appropriate source terms for this 19 particular analysis.
20 Is there any reason that we should 21 discount the use of those source codes, and again, as 22 I understood a lot of your testimony and your 23 analysis, was that there's such a difference between 24 the cleanup costs that would be associated with cesium 25 as opposed to plutonium.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2043 1 Is it solely that we really don't know 2 what the source code, how it was derived, and 3 therefore it would not be responsible for us to accept 4 it? Or is there more to it than that?
5 DR. LEMAY: That's my position. We have 6 a gaping hole in the record, and we have no way of 7 knowing what went into these costs. There is really 8 no way, and to me it seems that it's very difficult to 9 continue with the process, until that gaping hole is 10 fixed.
11 The authors of NUREG-3673 warned that 12 these were, there was little data, and that more work 13 should be done to improve these values. So it seems 14 to me that we really don't have what is needed to 15 apply this to the Indian Point site, to do a site-16 specific study.
17 MS. POTTS: Your Honor, this is -- may I 18 speak? This is Laurie Potts for the applicant. May 19 I speak?
20 JUDGE McDADE: Excuse me, just one second.
21 Dr. Lemay, are you finished with your thoughts?
22 DR. LEMAY: Yes I am, sir.
23 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Ms. Potts.
24 MS. POTTS: Thank you. As Mr. Teagarden 25 said, these are the best values that we know of, the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2044 1 only values that are available, and it is irrational 2 to think that the authors of 1150 would have used them 3 for all five of the plants in that study if they were 4 not applicable.
5 I know we don't have the source document, 6 and that's fortunate. But it's not rational to think 7 that they would use them if they did not apply. In 8 addition to that, every other SAMA analysis that has 9 been performed before Indian Point and after Indian 10 Point has used these exact values for these variables, 11 and it's my understanding from my colleagues that the 12 SOARCA (ph) project found no reason to change these 13 values either.
14 So I guess you stated our position fairly 15 well, that we just -- these are the best and only 16 values, and we don't believe that Dr. Lemay has 17 preferred any that have a better applicability to what 18 we're doing.
19 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thank you. I know 20 Judge Kennedy has questions about other site-specific 21 variables.
22 MR. HARRISON: This is Donald Harrison.
23 Can I add one more thought from the staff? We've 24 referenced 3673 a couple of times as having 25 uncertainty, and the reference to page 415, where it Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2045 1 has the sentence about updating the models as 2 additional experimentation is done.
3 I'll also provide a bounds perspective on 4 page 417. Item 3 at the very top of that page has a 5 comment about the large uncertainties in these cost 6 estimates, and that the reasonable approach is to use 7 the average value from that.
8 So I'll just provide that as a balance 9 perspective to uncertainty and how it should be 10 considered and used.
11 JUDGE McDADE: Judge Kennedy. Actually, 12 before you get started, just one thing that I should 13 have said at the beginning here, because we have a 14 different panel than we had yesterday. But we all 15 understand sometimes people are going to need a break, 16 and we sort of take a break when we necessarily think 17 it's appropriate.
18 If for one reason or another any one of 19 the panel feels that you really need to take a break, 20 don't sit and suffer, you know. Either try to get our 21 attention and suggest that we take a break, or 22 alternatively, if for one reason or another you can't 23 get our attention, try to get the attention of your 24 counsel, because they won't be shy at yelling at us to 25 request a break.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2046 1 So I should have said that at the 2 beginning with this panel, you know, the fact that you 3 all weren't here at the beginning of the panel 4 yesterday. So and as you're leaving, pass that on to 5 the next panel. Okay. Judge Kennedy.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you, Judge McDade.
7 Let's see. We left off, I think we started on a path 8 of looking, of Mr. Teagarden identifying the plant-9 specific inputs to the MACCS-2 code, and we started 10 down a list and ended up at Table 4 exhibit that we 11 have been talking about for about an hour and a half.
12 Do you have additional discussion you'd 13 like to offer, or is that the end of the road?
14 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, I'll answer a 15 question that was asked earlier before the break, that 16 I said I would return to, and that is Item 8 in 17 regards to NUREG-1150 value of $84,000. Did that 18 refer to a specific one of the five sites or an 19 average of the five sites?
20 That refers to one of the five sites, the 21 Surry plant. The other sites use, have other values 22 that are site-specific, developed similar to the site-23 specific development for Entergy, and then --
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm sorry. I missed the 25 last piece.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2047 1 MM Was Surry the highest of the five?
2 Because you mentioned it's close to Chicago.
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. I 4 believe Surry is the highest of the five.
5 MR. HARRISON: Donald Harrison from the 6 staff. Yes, I've got it open on my computer in front 7 of me. It's slightly higher than the other four 8 sites.
9 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. So you utilized the 10 highest of the five there?
11 MR. TEAGARDEN: But this is just for 12 comparison purposes. The $84,000 that's listed there 13 was purely for a comparison of the Entergy site-14 specific value that was used, in comparison to the 15 NUREG-1150, the seminal study which serves as a 16 comparison point for us.
17 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. So 19 let's take us back to where we are. I don't know if 20 that table's still up on there. I'm done with my 21 questions on that.
22 I guess my question to you is you were 23 walking us through the plant-specific inputs relative 24 to MACCS-2, and I was wondering if you've reached the 25 end of that discussion, or if you have additional --
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2048 1 MR. TEAGARDEN: The other element that I 2 will bring up, because I know it will come up in 3 discussion, is a variable called TIMDEC.
4 It's the time used in the code for 5 decontamination activities, and it is associated with 6 how long those active decontamination activities are 7 modeled to occur in the code. So for the values that 8 were used for the Entergy analysis are the same as 9 those used in the NUREG-1150. They just didn't happen 10 to be on this table.
11 They aren't monetary values, and 12 everything on this table were monetary values. The 13 values that were used for accomplishing the 14 decontamination, the dose reduction factor of three, 15 the value was two months, 60 days, and for a dose 16 reduction factor of 15, the values that were used were 17 four months.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Do those have a cost 19 implication then? I mean even though they're not 20 listed as a cost parameter?
21 MR. TEAGARDEN: The cost to perform the 22 decontamination activities are absorbed in the Item 6, 23 where we have a cost for performing decontamination, 24 a 13,800 number. A portion of that number is used for 25 say decontamination labor, and the portion varies, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2049 1 depending upon the dose reduction factor.
2 So for a dose reduction factor of 15, and 3 this is also another user input that's not on this 4 table, 50 percent of that cost is associated with 5 decontamination labor. So it represents, you know, a 6 number of workers, working for a set amount of time.
7 MACCS uses a set amount of time for 8 effectively two purposes. One to evaluate the dose 9 that workers receive while they're working in a 10 contaminated area, so how long are they present in a 11 contaminated area, and secondly, the TIMDEC also 12 establishes the effective minimum time that people are 13 away from their residences while decontamination 14 activities are performed, given for those that have to 15 be relocated for decontamination activities.
16 So if an individual's residence needs to 17 be decontaminated, and to achieve a dose reduction 18 factor of three, MACCS models those individuals being 19 away from their home for 60 days. If they need to 20 have a dose reduction factor of 15, MACCS models those 21 individuals being away from their home for 120 days.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is then the cost per day 23 multiplied automatically based on that?
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: The cost, there is a cost 25 that accrues while individuals are away from their Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2050 1 home, and that cost is a cost associated with 2 depreciation and deterioration of their properties 3 while they're away.
4 This is an area that I'll make a 5 correction on in our original testimony, where we had 6 a reference to per diem costs while decontamination 7 activities were occurring, and Dr. Lemay in his 8 rebuttal pointed out that actually it's not per diem; 9 it is the depreciation and deterioration, and that is 10 correct.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: So that this 12 decontamination time factor only applies to the line 13 6 parameters, not line 5?
14 MR. TEAGARDEN: It would apply to line 5 15 as well, and the same time periods are used, I 16 believe, for both the farm and non-farm 17 decontamination times.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: And it would have 19 different costs?
20 MR. TEAGARDEN: They have different costs, 21 but the same time lines are utilized within MACCS.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: So have we taken ourselves 23 through the appropriate plant-specific data?
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: I believe we have, Your 25 Honor.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2051 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm trying to set 2 us up for going forward, and we've got some questions.
3 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'd like to fix a couple 4 of things on Table 4 that come to mind. I just want 5 to make sure I understand.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Table 4 is a list of 8 MACCS parameters. What was the basis for selecting 9 these eight parameters? There's more MACCS parameters 10 than this, right?
11 Are these only the ones involved with 12 chronic, or are these some other subset of that, that 13 allowed you to select these, or were they selected 14 because you considered them to be plant-specific?
15 MR. TEAGARDEN: We selected these for 16 discussion and comparison, based on what we believed 17 to be the core issues of New York State 12, and 18 related to decontamination cost bases and questions.
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: So you thought this 20 addressed the contention in the best way, and that's 21 how you selected these?
22 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes sir.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: This subset. So they 24 aren't -- okay, they aren't. That's good, yeah.
25 DR. BIXLER: Could I interject --
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2052 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Why wasn't TIMDEC in 2 there?
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: TIMDEC, I believe I know 4 we have it discussed in other parts of our testimony.
5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. I just wanted to -
6 -
7 MR. TEAGARDEN: I think it was just as we 8 were addressing different attributes, and this was a 9 little earlier in our testimony. We could have put in 10 TIMDEC; we just didn't put it in this particular 11 table.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure, okay.
13 DR. BIXLER: Could I interject a thought?
14 This is Nathan Bixler from the staff. Would that be 15 okay? I think this table is a complete list of the 16 parameters that go into CHRONC, that have units of 17 dollars attached to them. I believe that's the case, 18 and that's probably why this table was assembled the 19 way it was.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's not CHRONIC; it's 21 CHRONC.
22 DR. BIXLER: Yeah. We pronounce it 23 CHRONC.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry to mislead you, Mr.
25 Teagarden. I had no idea. What is this guy talking Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2053 1 about? That's what I meant, that subset, okay.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: When you started your 3 discussion, Mr. Teagarden, we went through some other 4 plant-specific type inputs, the source term and other 5 things, and then you took us down to this level.
6 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess what I started to 8 -- the thought process I'm going down is why you took 9 us there, which I think was just asked.
10 MR. TEAGARDEN: Oh yes, Your Honor.
11 Primarily to try to get to the core questions or core 12 parameters that I understand to be probably the focus 13 areas for discussion and for your questions, and to 14 try to give context and meaning to those parameters.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: And I mean we may need to 16 add whatever it is, T-I-M-D-E-C?
17 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: So I guess what I'd like 19 to do is if we consider Table 4 of Exhibit Entergy 20 450, plus the time, the T-I-M-D-E-C parameter as the 21 values that we may focus on over the remainder of the 22 testimony, do you think those are the core issues we 23 need to address, from your perspective, of course?
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. We seek 25 to show you that the values used within the Entergy Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2054 1 analysis are reasonable for the purposes of SAMA, that 2 these values have an established pedigree, although we 3 acknowledge that a source document is missing, and 4 that Dr. Lemay's evaluation and review has identified 5 several of these parameters that he focuses on, 6 primarily the cost for non-farmland decontamination 7 and TIMDEC.
8 We want to satisfy and assist helping you 9 understand how these values are implemented in the 10 MACCS-2 code, and why they're reasonable for the 11 purposes that they were used for for Entergy.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'd like to turn 13 to Dr. Lemay then, and if -- you've heard the 14 discussion that we've had with Mr. Teagarden. Do you 15 feel that these parameters plus the T-I-M-D-E-C 16 parameter capture the core issues that New York State 17 is raising?
18 DR. LEMAY: Francois Lemay for the State 19 of New York. I do, with the caveat that it seems to 20 me that what we did beyond this is we tried to rank 21 them, in order of importance, and decide which one we 22 should focus on.
23 It was our assessment that CDNFRM and 24 TIMDEC were the most important ones, and the rest had 25 minimal impact on the calculation of the offsite Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2055 1 economic cost. So if you're limited by time and you 2 want to get to the crux of the matter, CDNFRM and 3 TIMDEC are the two parameters that are really at play 4 here.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Knowing we may explore 6 other issues, but you would recommend we need to 7 address at least those three in this hearing?
8 DR. LEMAY: Correct.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm also 10 wondering, maybe either Mr. Teagarden or the NRC, of 11 the subset of MACCS-2 inputs, I mean how many values, 12 how much data is input to MACCS-2, I mean, and what 13 does this represent as a subset of all that 14 information? Rough number. I mean is it five 15 percent, one percent, two percent?
16 DR. BIXLER: I'm not sure if I know the 17 answer to that, but there are certainly hundreds of 18 input parameters.
19 Some of them, though, are connected with 20 atmospheric dispersion and deposition processes.
21 MACCS-2 is designed in a very flexible way, so that a 22 lot of the input parameters can be specified or 23 modified by the user, so that as better information 24 becomes available, you don't have to reprogram the 25 code. You just change the input parameters and the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2056 1 input file.
2 But those are -- there are a large number 3 of ATMOS parameters. In addition to the parameters I 4 just mentioned, the source term parameters come in 5 through ATMOS as well, and there are a large number or 6 potentially could be a large number of those.
7 Then there's another subset of variables 8 that go with the early module of the code. That's a 9 fairly large set as well. I think the total set of 10 input parameters that come in through input files is 11 on the order of hundreds, several hundred probably.
12 Then in addition to that, there's a 13 meteorological data file. It has on the order of more 14 than 10,000 data points in it. There's also a site 15 file. The site file specifically contains site-16 specific information. It has population numbers, it 17 has land use values, and it has economic values.
18 Those are all calculated and tailored 19 specifically to the site, and it has the largest 20 number of highly site-specific values in it, compared 21 with what's in the input file itself.
22 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for 23 the applicant. To supplement Dr. Bixler's discussion, 24 if we could refer to Entergy 450, and on page 29, 25 Figure 2. I believe this gives appropriate context Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2057 1 for the models that are run, and to speak to Dr.
2 Bixler's information, the CHRONC input is one of three 3 input blocks, where the user has -- user input 4 parameters are entered.
5 That would be the seven oval down on the 6 left side, and so that's where the decontamination and 7 economic model is performed inside of CHRONC. Just 8 for filling in the information, ATMOS would do the 9 atmospheric transport and dispersion part of the 10 analysis, and has the appropriate set of data in terms 11 of the meteorological data for Indian Point, and the 12 appropriate dose conversion and decay chain data.
13 Early, handles the early phase of dose 14 calculation and effects, consequences, and you also 15 see the dose conversion factors are addressed in 16 early, as well as also come into play in the long-term 17 aspect of the calculation in CHRONC. Site data is 18 actually used in both the early or the acute phase of 19 the analysis, within the first, customarily the first 20 seven days of the analysis.
21 Then the final wrap-up is over the long-22 term, the period of time that's at issue with New York 23 State 12C, and that is in CHRONC. COMIDA, just for 24 the point of completion, is the food model, the food 25 ingestion model.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2058 1 But I would, to complement Dr. Bixler's 2 discussion, the range of parameters that we're talking 3 about, I believe, is on the order of a percent of two 4 in the grand scheme of things.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you very 6 much. I think the next place the Board wanted to go 7 is to understand what Sample Problem A means in this 8 context, and I guess I'll start with Entergy again, 9 since that's where I was before. But there may be 10 others that we should hear from.
11 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. We 12 appreciate the opportunity to clarify this. NUREG-13 1150, as we've stated our values for Entergy have 14 NUREG-1150 as their bases, published in 1990. The 15 MACCS-2 users manual, published in 1998, has a sample 16 problem A that's included. It has a number of sample 17 problems.
18 Sample Problem A happens to be one of the 19 more complete sample problems running, you know, more 20 of all the modules and things of that nature. The 21 values that Entergy used are based on NUREG-1150. No 22 they also happen to be reflected in Sample Problem A.
23 New York State testimony has inferred, 24 implied that Entergy simply used Sample Problem A, and 25 if I may just characterize, almost without thinking.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2059 1 We do Sample Problem A values without thinking, and 2 that's not the case. You know, a conscious choice was 3 made to use the inputs available from NUREG-1150.
4 We believe those are the best inputs. We 5 know of no technically superior inputs to use. It 6 just so happens that eight years later, some of those 7 inputs, and it happens to be for the Surry plant, were 8 incorporated into a sample problem that's distributed 9 with the code.
10 So yes. You know, there may be some times 11 when folks will reference or talk about Sample Problem 12 A as a MACCS analyst. But we're not saying that the 13 bases of these particular values are just some random 14 bases that were put together in a sample problem. The 15 sample problem reflects values from NUREG-1150. The 16 Entergy analysis used values from NUREG-1150.
17 It should therefore be no surprise that 18 the values have, are similar, where they are 19 appropriately similar if they're based on NUREG-1150.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: What's the purpose of 21 Sample Problem A? You said it was part of the users 22 manual or input manual?
23 MR. TEAGARDEN: It's distributed with the 24 code, you know. When you get a new code and you 25 install it on your computer and you want to run a Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2060 1 sample problem; you want to see if the installation 2 process functions properly.
3 So when we install MACCS on a new 4 computer, we run Sample Problem A. We check the 5 output against tabulated output in the users manual, 6 to confirm that everything is running as expected.
7 That's how I use Sample Problem A.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: To test out the code?
9 MR. TEAGARDEN: Just to verify proper 10 installation of the code on a particular computer.
11 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for 12 the applicant. I should supplement Mr. Teagarden's 13 description with respect to the fact that Sample 14 Problem A, as reflective of the inputs from NUREG-15 1150, offers a full exercise of the code in all its 16 modules.
17 As Dr. Bixler indicated, the user has many 18 freedoms inside the code as far as what modules to 19 run. We could, as the figure shows, we could stop the 20 analysis at ATMOS once we have a dispersion and we 21 want to make some inferences from just the dispersion 22 model, without going into full consequence or SAMA-23 type output. We could stop it there.
24 So the point is that the user has complete 25 flexibility. So in a way, this particular problem Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2061 1 set, as an input case, was a fully representative case 2 that was added to not only demonstrate that the code 3 would be functional on the users platform or PC, but 4 also would exercise all attributes of the code, data 5 sets, particular food model choices.
6 Not limited in any way, but a range, a 7 representative problem, fully exercising the complete 8 capabilities of the code.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. Anyone else 10 care to respond?
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Teagarden, how many 12 SAMAs have you performed for Entergy?
13 MR. TEAGARDEN: I have not performed any 14 SAMAs for Entergy. Yeah, I'm making sure. I have 15 performed ten SAMAs for other utilities, for ten 16 different sites, as well as have used MACCS for a 17 variety of other purposes, in support of reactor 18 vendors, doing consequence analysis for reactor 19 vendors and other clients.
20 JUDGE WARDWELL: And maybe I'll ask Dr.
21 O'Kula, how many SAMAs for Entergy have you been 22 involved with?
23 DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for 24 the applicant. I've supported review or analysis to 25 some degree of two SAMA license renewal application Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2062 1 matters. This one, and also for Pilgrim, and then in 2 addition to other utilities, there have been four 3 other SAMA-related proceedings that I've supported.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Ms. Potts, how many have 5 you been involved with?
6 MS. POTTS: Your Honor, I've been involved 7 in all of Entergy's SAMA analyses.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: I should have started 9 with you, shouldn't I?
10 MS. POTTS: Yes. I have managed and 11 reviewed all of the ones that we have done so far.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: What I should have done 13 is re-read your CVs beforehand, to refresh my memory 14 on everyone.
15 MS. POTTS: I believe that's nine 16 different units.
17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Of those, how many of 18 them used Sample Problem A?
19 MS. POTTS: Your Honor, all of them used 20 the 1150 values that we've been discussing, that are 21 also used in Sample Problem A.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: For Indian Point, are --
23 were there any parameters that were specifically used 24 at Indian Point, that were modified from 1150, to 25 better reflect the conditions at Indian Point, in the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2063 1 Sample Problem A area? I know there are some very 2 site-specific of the many inputs that are used in 3 MACCS.
4 But of those that are associated with 5 Sample Problem A 1150 values, were any of those 6 parameters changed to be specific, that the conditions 7 that Indian Point indicated to you that they needed 8 some modification? I knew I could confuse you.
9 MS. POTTS: Yes. I'm not sure I 10 understand the question.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: You've used Sample -- so 12 I don't step on your toes again, I'll continue to use 13 1150 as a representation of those Sample Problem A's 14 being the same, but we'll call them 1150 values. At 15 all of the SAMAs for Entergy, have you changed or 16 modified any of those parameters when you were 17 implementing them for Indian Point?
18 MS. POTTS: The only change that we made 19 was that scaling using the Consumer Price Index that 20 we talked about.
21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Exclusive of that, 22 exclusive of that.
23 MS. POTTS: Yes.
24 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, if I may 25 clarify. Earlier, I presented a list of how Indian Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2064 1 Point's SAMA analysis was site-specific. All of those 2 aspects are part of Sample Problem A, population 3 distribution, meteorological files, things that we've 4 all alluded to.
5 So when we -- Sample Problem A is not just 6 the CHRONC input file. It consists of all the input 7 files of the early input file, the ATMOS input file 8 and the site input file, and Indian Point, as every 9 other I think SAMA applicant that I'm familiar with, 10 puts in site-specific values in all of those 11 locations, to make the SAMA analysis site-specific.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right, and so yeah.
13 Confusing maybe brought me back again. You're not 14 saying that the population distribution is the same 15 for all those, that you're saying just the opposite?
16 MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, just the 17 opposite, that everyone uses their own population 18 distribution. But if you go to Sample Problem A, 19 there is a population distribution that's included.
20 Every one who performs a SAMA uses their own site-21 specific population distribution.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: So what others of those 23 of Sample Problem A or 1150, like the population 24 distribution, and maybe it's just a repetitiveness of 25 what you said earlier. But that's fine; we've got to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2065 1 go through it again to make sure on the record it's 2 specific towards Sample Problem A.
3 MR. TEAGARDEN: Sure. The meteorology, so 4 the meteorological file. Entergy did not use what 5 would be in Sample Problem A. They used site-specific 6 data. The population distribution would not match 7 Sample Problem A. It is specific to Indian Point.
8 The PRA plant design, in terms of accident 9 frequencies and failure modes that are used as part of 10 the SAMA analysis, those would not be particular to 11 Sample Problem A. That would be on the front end.
12 There are aspects, though, in terms of the source term 13 that's associated with that, and that is the release 14 category, the defined release.
15 That is specific to Indian Point. In 16 fact, it's specific between Indian Point Unit 2, and 17 it's different for Indian Point Unit 3. So those are 18 site-specific. Now you could go to Sample Problem A, 19 and they would have values that were used for that.
20 But no one uses those for their SAMA 21 analyses. You want it plant-specific, and Entergy is 22 plant-specific. The land economic data would be 23 another one.
24 Sample Problem A has -- Sample Problem A 25 happens to have Surry land information in it. Indian Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2066 1 Point did not use Surry land information. They 2 updated it with site-specific, regional-specific 3 economic data for the value of land and property.
4 And the land use, about what percentage of 5 land in a given cell is farmland versus non-farmland, 6 that's site-specific. There was also some very minute 7 issues on what we would say is like a watershed index, 8 which we haven't brought up.
9 Another little element in that is for 10 plants that you can say whether the particular water 11 surrounding a plant is a river system or like an ocean 12 system or a lake system.
13 In general, the guidance is you only apply 14 the lake system for like the Great Lakes, a very large 15 body of water. So for instance, the design on plant 16 would have a different set of inputs for the water 17 that's around the plant than Surry would and then 18 Indian Point does.
19 Each one is site-specific, using the land, 20 you know, look at the land surrounding the reactor 21 site. So in all of those ways, the Indian Point 22 analysis has no reflection, no consistency with, no 23 dependence upon Sample Problem A, or upon NUREG-1150.
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Ms. Potts, of those 25 others, exclusive of the list we just went through and Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2067 1 with the description of generalities and a few other 2 minor ones that are in there that weren't specifically 3 called out, is there anywhere a description of a 4 review that you may have performed, "you" being 5 Entergy, that looked at the other Sample Problem A 6 parameters, and made a conscientious decision that 7 yes, they are either appropriate default values or saw 8 the number and said yes, that number does apply to 9 Indian Point?
10 Or had you just taken them, exclusive of 11 those very obvious ones that are site-related, as 12 summarized, and brought the rest of them in without 13 thinking?
14 MS. POTTS: Okay. Let me make sure I got 15 the question right. You're asking if those values 16 that we used from NUREG-1150 and only escalated using 17 the CPI, those values, did we do a review of their 18 origin --
19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Not as deep as that.
20 You're getting to the right idea, though. I'm 21 thinking a more casual but yet a conscientious 22 consideration of those other parameters, and said 23 yeah, they are just as good as we got for Indian 24 Point?
25 MS. POTTS: Well, I'm confident that the Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2068 1 analysts that did it looked at the reasonableness of 2 them. I don't believe I can point to it written down 3 and a review that they did.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Not necessarily a 5 requirement for that. I just wondered if there was 6 one that we could refer to, that will help comfort us, 7 that some consideration of this went in for adopting 8 that, besides the fact that everyone else has done it 9 before.
10 MS. POTTS: Right.
11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Because I think as we see 12 with your contamination costs for non-farm, maybe it's 13 gone through a number of evolutions and just been 14 used, so everyone else uses it, and hey, everyone 15 points to the other person saying well, they've used 16 it, so I'm using it.
17 I was looking for something more than just 18 that. That isn't good, but there's something more.
19 MS. POTTS: Yeah, there is. The analysts 20 and reviewers like myself looked to see if it passes 21 the smell test, if you will, you know, some values 22 that Mr. Teagarden quoted earlier about how much it 23 would cost to decontaminate a household of four, or a 24 house apartment of 200.
25 You know, we look at those things. But as Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2069 1 far as having it written down that we did that, I 2 don't believe it's written anywhere. It's just 3 understood that you do that.
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, if I could 6 offer. I think what would typify a thoughtless use of 7 Sample Problem A would have been if an individual used 8 the values, say, for cost of non-decontamination 9 without escalating them. You know, that shows a blind 10 use that says I just picked out this value and sample 11 problem. I left it as it was, and I went on my merry 12 way.
13 You know, the fact that these values are 14 reviewed, and that they say okay, you know, these 15 values represent some particular date and time. They 16 are judged to have applicability across, you know, 17 reactor plants and sites, and now I need to escalate 18 them appropriately for my site-specific analysis.
19 So I think if, you know, that would be a 20 smoking gun, so to speak, of a thoughtless use of 21 Sample Problem A, and I did not find anything like 22 that when we reviewed the analysis.
23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
24 JUDGE McDADE: But Dr. Lemay would suggest 25 that in addition to adjusting for inflation over time Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2070 1 through 2005, you should have also adjusted for the 2 significant difference between the land uses and land 3 values, and population employment in rural Virginia, 4 as opposed to urban New York.
5 MR. TEAGARDEN: Well, the depiction of 6 rural Virginia would apply if that value was only 7 applied for rural Virginia. But the values for NUREG-8 1150, for that particular POPCST, applied to all five 9 of the NUREG-1150 sites. So you know, it wasn't 10 viewed as specific to a rural environment.
11 And in conjunction with like land, land 12 values are site-specific. They're incorporated in 13 with regional-specific data, the county data for 14 Indian Point. So you know, those aspects are all 15 appropriately reflective of the Indian Point context, 16 and the 50-mile region surrounding Indian Point.
17 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, excuse me.
18 Mario O'Neill for the applicant.
19 JUDGE McDADE: I'm sorry, yes.
20 MR. O'NEILL: If I may? Sorry. I 21 apologize for the interruption, but I think Ms. Potts' 22 instincts may be correct. I think, or are correct.
23 She may have Entergy Exhibit 460 in mind, which is an 24 RAI response. I would refer the Board and the parties 25 to page 37 of 59. It does contain some discussion of Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2071 1 NUREG-1150, as well as 4551.
2 JUDGE McDADE: That was Entergy Exhibit 3 460?
4 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, 460. It's a letter 5 entitled "NL 08-028," page 37 of 59.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Lemay, do you have 7 anything to add? Earlier, right after the recess, you 8 suggested we move on. Didn't suggest it, but you 9 offered that in regards to addressing the 10 contamination costs associated with non-farmland and 11 the TIMDEC parameter as the ones that are really 12 significant.
13 Do you feel a need -- well, do you have 14 any comments in regard to the use of Sample Problem 15 A/1150, whichever you want to call it? Do you think 16 that in fact it would be productive to pursue that 17 avenue, in regards to whether or not Entergy should 18 show that there is actually a net difference, not 19 necessarily in the cost, but in the cost-benefit ratio 20 when you actually subtract the differences of the dose 21 exposures and then divide it into the cost? Yeah, 22 divide it into the cost of the mitigation, which 23 would result in the SAMA anyhow? Would Sample Problem 24 A bear any fruit in regards to pursuing that for --
25 DR. LEMAY: Francois Lemay for the State Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2072 1 of New York. When we do a safety analysis, any safety 2 analysis, and I would qualify the SAMA analysis as a 3 safety analysis, we're normally required to conduct a 4 sensitivity analysis, to identify the critical 5 parameters that must be scrutinized.
6 Then we need to justify in our report why 7 we believe that the sensitive value, the value that 8 affect the most the output, are correct. It is part 9 of the standard procedure, and whether we believe that 10 some value taken from the literature is correct, we 11 need to go through that process.
12 I believe that Entergy does that for the 13 Level 1 and Level 2 PRA.
14 JUDGE WARDWELL: But this isn't a safety 15 analysis. The plant has been designed to be safe; at 16 least they've presented it, and that's not the 17 contention here, even if --
18 DR. LEMAY: No, but the standards of 19 calculating these things, I would say, are the same as 20 for -- you want to make sure that the numbers that 21 come out of the end of the code are meaningful, and 22 that if you've made a mistake by 20 percent of the run 23 value, you're not going to get a 200 percent error of 24 the output.
25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you have any evidence Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2073 1 to indicate that besides the parameters you focused 2 on, there are any other of those parameters in Sample 3 Problem A that would lead to large differences in the 4 resulting cost?
5 DR. LEMAY: In our report, Exhibit New 6 York State 242, in Annex B page --
7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Bear with me for a 8 minute. I've got the 242, and would you like this 9 pulled up? Would this be worthwhile.
10 DR. LEMAY: Please. If you can scroll to 11 page 42.
12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's see if I can beat 13 him. I can't read the page numbers.
14 DR. LEMAY: So what we did is we listed 15 all the input parameters for CHRONC, and then what we 16 did is a sensitivity analysis for all these input 17 parameters. If you go to page 44, you will see the 18 ranking of these parameters.
19 So the first column shows the input 20 parameter that we changed by ten percent, and we chose 21 ten percent because it's a meaningful change, but it 22 doesn't -- you don't end up in a non-linear region of 23 the code. We have the Entergy value. We had the 24 Entergy value plus ten percent. We had the new cost 25 of the OEC, and we calculated the difference in Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2074 1 percent.
2 That gave us a ranking of how sensitive 3 the output was to a change in these input parameters.
4 That's how we focused, we ended up focusing on a few 5 parameters that are listed, that are highlighted in 6 yellow. Now this is not something I invented. This 7 is normal procedure.
8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Certainly, the Sample 9 Problem A has more of these. How did you select these 10 parameters? I'm sorry.
11 DR. LEMAY: Some of the input values are 12 not amenable to -- well, the number of radionuclides 13 in the water ingestion. We're not going to change the 14 number of radionuclides in the water.
15 JUDGE WARDWELL: You made some 16 professional judgements and selected those that you 17 thought might be --
18 DR. LEMAY: Well, I don't want to change 19 the nature of the problem, and I don't want to change 20 physical constants of nature. So I selected 21 parameters that could be reasonably changed.
22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And out of those, why did 23 you select, TIMDEC and the CDNRFM (sic) as the two 24 that you focused on, when in fact there was others 25 there that had a larger change, TMPACT and --
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2075 1 DR. LEMAY: Well, this was our screening 2 exercise. We had to first say well, where should we 3 focus? Then we went through a second phase, where we 4 looked at the value that Entergy used.
5 We looked at where it came from. We 6 looked at the explanation for the value, and if the 7 explanation sounds reasonable, can be applied to the 8 site of Indian Point, we said well, we think it's 9 good.
10 If the value had no explanation, then we 11 had to dig a bit further and try to see if it's 12 reasonable. So we ended up narrowing down to two 13 places where we don't have a very good explanation, 14 and we don't have a very good basis for this value.
15 I'll just remind you that NEI, that I 16 quoted at the very beginning, requires you to describe 17 the basis for your value. I don't think they meant we 18 took that from 1150. I think they meant a little more 19 than that.
20 So once we realized that some of the 21 values had no basis, we had to create our own basis, 22 and do the benchmarking exercise and see does it fit.
23 Does it seem reasonable?
24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy, 25 would you like to respond to that, to with regards to Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2076 1 that testimony?
2 MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. As has been noted, 3 a SAMA analysis is not a safety analysis, and the 4 industry has guidance for performing sensitivity 5 evaluations. The sensitivity evaluations focus on 6 site-specific aspects. This guidance is in the NEI 7 05-01 guidance that's been endorsed by the NRC.
8 So it will say, you know, evaluate 9 multiple years of weather data, to demonstrate that 10 the year of weather data used as your base case is 11 representative, and you know, the idea is that you 12 don't end up with an El Nino year for some base case 13 that's not representative of what the typical year's 14 worth, other year's worth of weather data are.
15 So Entergy evaluated five years of weather 16 data. That's more than I usually evaluate. I usually 17 evaluate three. They evaluated five years of weather 18 data, and they took the year of weather data that gave 19 them the largest values for off-site dose risk and off 20 -- I'm sorry, off-site population dose risk and cost 21 risk, adding a measure of conservatism. So they 22 performed that, those rounds of sensitivity analysis.
23 They also, NUREG, I'm sorry, NEI 05-01 24 specifies that you evaluate, you know, the impact of 25 evacuation assumptions. So and generally, when I'm Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2077 1 doing this for other clients, I'll increase my 2 evacuation speed. I'll change the delay to 3 evacuation, just to see how much do the evacuation 4 parameters, site-specific parameters, impact the 5 analysis.
6 Now for Indian Point's case, they chose, 7 once again, a conservative approach to the modeling, 8 where they didn't take credit for all their evacuation 9 plans. And so that in and of itself, you know, they 10 could have performed, I suppose, a sensitivity 11 analysis, to see how much the numbers would have 12 decreased had they incorporated emergency planning 13 into the modeling.
14 But you know, the NRC was satisfied that 15 what they did represents a conservative bias, even 16 though this was intended to be a best estimate 17 analysis. So you know, once again they performed the 18 requisite sensitivity case. Let me see if there's any 19 -- as part of Contention for New York State 16, we'll 20 discuss population sensitivity cases. But that wasn't 21 performed as part of the original submittal.
22 But the industry guidance just suggests a 23 few areas where, based on previous analyses, the NRC 24 review of previous analyses, they recognize that these 25 particular parameters are of interest. They are Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2078 1 plant-specific parameters, and those are the ones that 2 are conducted.
3 So you know, some of this just may stem 4 from the different types of analyses that are in view 5 here, one of a safety analysis, with you know, maybe 6 bounding or conservative, you know, lines of thought, 7 versus a SAMA analysis, which is oriented to be a best 8 estimate.
9 We're looking at, you know, inputs that 10 are site-specific and making sure that they make 11 sense, and understand what those particular impacts 12 would be in terms of a sensitivity analysis.
13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
14 MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, I forgot one 15 sensitivity case.
16 JUDGE WARDWELL: I knew no one could 17 withstand a void. Someone wants to fill it. I was 18 going to bet on counsel table, but I did not expect 19 you, Mr. Teagarden. But I figured someone's going to 20 fill that void.
21 MR. TEAGARDEN: I did discuss it earlier, 22 but I should note it under this topic, and that was 23 the sensitivity analysis that they performed on the 24 economic impacts, where they did, in addition to 25 tangible property values, they did a sensitivity Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2079 1 analysis on effect on tourism and lost business 2 income.
3 Then they included that into their base 4 case analysis by just adding the two numbers together.
5 So that's another very pertinent sensitivity case that 6 was performed. They incorporated the results of that 7 sensitivity case in a manner that adds some 8 conservatism to the overall results.
9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
10 JUDGE McDADE: We're going to be starting 11 to get into a new area here, and it may be 12 appropriate, rather than get started at this hour, to 13 break until tomorrow morning to do that. Before I did 14 break, I did want to ask Mr. O'Neill had referenced 15 Exhibit 460. Ms. Potts, was there anything about 16 Exhibit 460, that letter from Mr. Dacimo, that you 17 wanted to address? I believe he addressed page 57 of 18 that.
19 MS. POTTS: It's page 37 and 38.
20 JUDGE McDADE: 37.
21 MS. POTTS: Yes. This is a response to a 22 question from the NRC during their review, about the 23 values that we've been discussing today, the ones that 24 we took and used the NUREG-1150 values and escalated 25 them up. I guess I said it's not written down that we Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2080 1 looked at these, but this discussion is --
2 JUDGE McDADE: Would it be helpful to pull 3 the exhibit up?
4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
5 JUDGE McDADE: Entergy 460, page 37.
6 JUDGE WARDWELL: The discussion of which 7 would likely bring us to past six o'clock.
8 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. We have it up on the 9 screen.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Scroll down a little bit.
11 If you can just scroll down.
12 MS. POTTS: Page 37 here, further down.
13 JUDGE McDADE: Is that where you're trying 14 to address, this response to SAMA RAI 4F?
15 MS. POTTS: Yes, that's correct. This 16 discussion is reiterating a lot of what we said 17 earlier today, that the key input data from NUREG-1150 18 was judged by us to be applicable to the Indian Point 19 SAMA analysis.
20 JUDGE McDADE: Should we roll over to the 21 next page or --
22 MS. POTTS: Yes. It just confirms that 23 our escalation, using the Consumer Price Index.
24 JUDGE McDADE: I'm sorry. Could you 25 repeat that? Id didn't hear you.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2081 1 MS. POTTS: Yes. It just confirms our 2 escalation of the values, using the Consumer Price 3 Indices.
4 JUDGE McDADE: Is there anything else with 5 regard to this particular document that you would like 6 us to focus on, Ms. Potts?
7 MS. POTTS: Not at this time, no.
8 JUDGE McDADE: Judge Kennedy, anything 9 further before we break?
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, I'm good.
11 JUDGE McDADE: Judge Wardwell? As I said, 12 it may be appropriate for us to break at this point.
13 It's about 5:35. Mr. Sipos, do you have anything to 14 take up this evening before we break?
15 MR. SIPOS: Your Honor, may I have one 16 moment? No, Your Honor, not at this time.
17 JUDGE McDADE: Ms. Sutton?
18 MS. SUTTON: Nothing further, Your Honor.
19 JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Turk?
20 MR. HARRIS: Nothing further, Your Honor.
21 This is Brian Harris for the staff.
22 MR. MUSEGAAS: I'm sorry. For 23 Riverkeeper, this is Phillip Musegaas. Just a quick 24 note that Riverkeeper did file the revised exhibit 25 list, and the exhibits that we referenced in this Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2082 1 morning's testimony via the EIE a little earlier 2 today. So that has been filed.
3 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thank you. Anything 4 further from Clearwater before we break for the 5 evening?
6 MS. GREENE: Nothing additional. Thank 7 you, Your Honor.
8 MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, this is Kathryn 9 Sutton. One other question. Should we in fact have 10 our land value experts on hot standby for tomorrow, 11 New York 17?
12 MR. SIPOS: That would be New York 17.
13 JUDGE McDADE: Yes. I mean let me consult 14 with my colleagues, and we will send you an email 15 directly with regard to that. I am very hopeful that 16 we would be able to get to New York 16 and 17 17 tomorrow. We have a, you know, witnesses who will 18 testify on both, and it would be wonderful if we would 19 be able to get them in and get them out.
20 So I'm reluctant to call off the latter at 21 this point, but let me consult with my colleagues, see 22 how long we think it's going to, our best estimate as 23 far as finishing up on New York 12, and then we, as I 24 said, we will give you an email this evening, you 25 know, as soon as possible.
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
Page 2083 1 MS. SUTTON: Thank you very much, Your 2 Honor.
3 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. We are in recess.
4 Thank you.
5 (Whereupon, at 5:36 p.m., the hearing was 6 recessed, to reconvene on Thursday, October 18, 2012 7 at 9:00 a.m.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
202-234-4433
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proceeding: Entergy Nuclear Operations Docket Number: 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ASLBP Number: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Location: Tarrytown, New York were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction and that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.
Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com