Text

Transcript of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point, Units 2 and 3, December 11, 2012, Pages 3590-3979
	ML12355A119
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/11/2012
From:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	;
	SECY RAS
References
	RAS 23912, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, NRC-2033
	Download: ML12355A119 (392)
	v • d • e

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Docket Number: 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ASLB Number: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Location: Tarrytown, New York Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 Work Order No.: NRC-2033 Pages 3590-3979 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433

3590 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +

4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +

6 HEARING 7 --------------------------------x Docket Nos.

8 In the Matter of: : 50-247-LR and 9 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.: 50-286-LR 10 (Indian Point Generating Units 2:

11 and 3) : ASLBP No.

12 --------------------------------x 07-858-03-LR-BD01 13 Tuesday, December 11, 2012 14 15 DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Tarrytown 16 Westchester Ballroom 17 455 South Broadway 18 Tarrytown, New York 19 20 BEFORE:

21 LAWRENCE G. McDADE, Chair 22 MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 23 RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3591 1 APPEARANCES:

2 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.:

3 KATHRYN M. SUTTON, ESQ.

4 PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.

5 BRAD FAGG, ESQ.

6 MARTIN J. O'NEILL, ESQ.

7 of: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 8 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

9 Washington, D.C. 20004 10 (202) 739-5738 (Sutton) 11 (202) 739-5796 (Bessette) 12 (202) 739-5191 (Fagg) 13 (713) 890-5710 (O'Neill) 14 ksutton@morganlewis.com 15 pbessette@morganlewis.com 16 bfagg@morganlewis.com 17 martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com 18 and 19 WILLIAM DENNIS, ESQ.

20 Assistant General Counsel 21 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

22 440 Hamilton Avenue 23 White Plains, New York 10601 24 (914) 272-3360 25 wdennis@entergy.com NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3592 1 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

2 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.

3 BETH N. MIZUNO, ESQ.

4 DAVID E. ROTH, ESQ.

5 Office of the General Counsel 6 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 9 (301) 415-1533 (Turk) 10 (301) 415-3122 (Mizuno) 11 (301) 415-2749 (Roth) 12 sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 13 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov 14 david.roth@nrc.gov 15 16 On Behalf of the State of New York:

17 JOHN J. SIPOS, ESQ.

18 Assistant Attorney General 19 Office of the Attorney General of the 20 State of New York 21 The Capitol 22 State Street 23 Albany, New York 12224 24 (518) 402-2251 25 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3593 1 and 2 JANICE A. DEAN, ESQ.

3 KATHRYN LIBERATORE, ESQ.

4 Assistant Attorneys General 5 Office of the Attorney General of the 6 State of New York 7 120 Broadway, 26th Floor 8 New York, New York 10271 9 (212) 416-8459 (Dean) 10 (212) 416-8482 (Liberatore) 11 janice.dean@ag.ny.gov 12 kathyrn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov 13 14 On Behalf of Riverkeeper, Inc.:

15 DEBORAH BRANCATO, ESQ.

16 Riverkeeper, Inc.

17 20 Secor Road 18 Ossining, New York 10562 19 (800) 21-RIVER 20 dbrancato@riverkeeper.org 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3594 1 On Behalf of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, 2 Inc.:

3 KARLA RAIMUNDI 4 Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

5 724 Wolcott Avenue 6 Beacon, New York 12508 7 (845) 265-8080 8 karla@clearwater.org 9

10 On Behalf of Westchester County, New York:

11 CHRISTOPHER INZERO, ESQ.

12 Assistant County Attorney 13 Office of the County Attorney 14 600 Michaelian Office Building 15 148 Martine Avenue 16 White Plains, New York 10601 17 (914) 995-2660 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3595 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 8:01 a.m.

3 JUDGE McDADE: On the record. We will 4 come to order. We have all our parties. We have all 5 our witnesses. We're ready to proceed.

6 Judge Wardwell.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Good morning, all. Good 8 to see you. Okay. Moving on to the section talking 9 about the BPTIP is where we're at. And the first cite 10 is just talking about the License Renewal Application 11 at B.1.6 which references the Buried Piping and Tanks 12 Inspection Program.

13 Further in Entergy's testimony, 000373, 14 page 2.a.4 states that your AMP for IP2 and IP3 15 include the Buried Piping and Tanks Inspection Program 16 and identifies it as the AMP for buried piping and 17 tanks that may be susceptible to external corrosion.

18 My question to Entergy and this may be a 19 repeat, but I think it's a slight different shade than 20 the questions we talked about yesterday. Do you 21 consider the BPTIP to be the sole heart of your AMP?

22 MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.

23 The BPTIP is the aging management program for buried 24 piping and tanks in the scope of license renewal.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's current now as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3596 1 it was when you submitted your license application.

2 Is that correct?

3 MR. COX: When we submitted the license 4 application, it was a new program. There are many 5 more of the implementing procedures that have now been 6 developed on the street, if you will.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And are those part of the 8 BPTIP? Are they referenced in the BPTIP? How do they 9 interact with the BPTIP?

10 MR. COX: Again, I'm trying to draw a 11 distinction between the program which I consider to be 12 the program we described in the LRA with the 13 references to the GALL Report and the changes that 14 were made during the review. That's the program. And 15 the procedures that implement that program are the 16 plant procedures, the EN-DC-343 and the CEP and the 17 SEP procedures that we talked about yesterday.

18 So if you're looking for another document, 19 a program document, somewhere that summarizes all of 20 that, there's not another document. The program is as 21 described in the LRA. And again, it's a subset of the 22 bigger plant procedure that was implemented to address 23 the NEI initiative.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: What I was pausing to 25 decide was whether I was going to call up again LRA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3597 1 B.1.6. But I believe it just says there under program 2 description something to the fact that the BPTIP is 3 the program, isn't that correct, under program 4 description?

5 MR. COX: Yes. As I recall it's about a 6 page, a page and half, that says the BPTIP is the 7 Aging Management Program for the buried piping and 8 tanks in the scope of license renewal. It also 9 describes some of the additional changes and 10 commitments that were made after we submitted the LRA.

11 Those are also now included in that description.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: You confuse me with that 13 answer. Within the page and a half you're referring 14 to is the program description or is that the total 15 B.1.6? The total B.1.6 I think is about a page and a 16 half long, isn't it?

17 Maybe we should just call it up. I just 18 don't know whether I want to take the time to find it.

19 (Off the record comments.)

20 MR. COX: I'm having a hard time putting 21 my fingers on it. The latest version that was the 22 version that we sent in, the new Entergy exhibit, I 23 believe it was Entergy 000597.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: 000597 is an exhibit you 25 believe.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3598 1 MR. COX: Right.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Can we call up 000597, 3 Andy?

4 Okay. That's an NL and where do you say 5 -- Where are you referring to here in this document?

6 Is this the one you're interested in? Have we got the 7 right document?

8 MR. COX: Yes, that's correct. I believe 9 it's about -- It's perhaps the last page of the 10 document or the last few pages. That looks like part 11 of it. Right there.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Just scroll down 13 through that if you could, Andy, just to -- Okay. Go 14 back up again to those lists of things. Which one was 15 -- Of those systems, which one wasn't included in that 16 previous list we had yesterday? Do you remember?

17 MR. COX: I believe the riverwater and the 18 circulating water system at the bottom of that.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. So you have 20 updated your license application to reflect this as 21 the program description now. Is that correct?

22 MR. COX: Yes. That is correct.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there any other 24 sections of the B.1.6 that have been updated like 25 this? The operating experience? The acceptance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3599 1 criteria? Those types of things?

2 MR. COX: No, I think the program 3 description was all that was changed here.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: And the others weren't 5 changed at any point through any other document since 6 the License Renewal Application?

7 MR. COX: I don't know that for sure. I 8 wouldn't want to say that. I think most of the 9 changes that have been made are in this section. I'm 10 not going to tell you there's not any changes in the 11 rest of it.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Scroll back up to the top 13 if you would, Andy. I guess I'm just still a little 14 perplexed. You give a name to something. It's called 15 the Buried Piping and Tanks Inspection Program. And 16 you say what it includes. But it doesn't exist in a 17 physical format. Is that correct? Is it truly just 18 a concept?

19 MR. COX: I'm not sure what you're really 20 looking for. I mean this is a physical form as it's 21 described here. And that describes the program. It 22 describes the elements of the program in the format 23 that was laid out in the SRP to describe an Aging 24 Management Program. And then we have procedures in 25 the plant that take those steps and put in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3600 1 procedures to be implemented.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: So are you saying this is 3 the form of it? You say it is a physical form. Where 4 is that physical form? Is this it?

5 MR. COX: This is it.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you. This 7 description is it. It's not only a description of it.

8 It is it.

9 MR. COX: Yes, it's hard for me to draw a 10 distinction in my mind between those two. But, yes, 11 this is the program. This is a program description.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, it's hard for me to 13 understand. I read that and it says to me "Here is 14 this program somewhat." And right here you're just 15 describing that program where what you're saying to 16 me, "This is the Buried Piping and Tanks Inspection 17 Program." This description.

18 MR. COX: That's correct.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fair. I just want 20 to make sure I'm clear of this and that there isn't 21 something else out there that we should be looking at.

22 Thank you.

23 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Let me interject 24 something here before we move on. This particular 25 exhibit, Entergy 000597, was presented on December NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3601 1 7th. Yesterday it was marked for identification. It 2 has not been received into evidence yet. It is 3 subject to objection through January.

4 And, Mr. Cox, let me ask just to clarify 5 in my own mind. Your testimony is this is the program 6 here now represented on Entergy Exhibit 000597. But 7 the procedures for implementing that program are what 8 we discussed yesterday that are New York Exhibits 9 000172, 000173, and 000174 which are the EN-DC-347, 10 CFP, TPT-100, the SEP, UIP, IPEC. Am I correct?

11 That's where the procedures are to implement this 12 program.

13 MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.

14 JUDGE McDADE: Are there any other places 15 we should look for those procedures other than those 16 three documents, New York 000172, 000173 and 000174?

17 MR. COX: I believe yesterday we talked 18 about a fourth procedure and I don't recall the number 19 of it. But it was the procedure that had the MULTI in 20 the title.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Would that be Entergy 22 Exhibit 000408?

23 MR. O'NEILL: That's correct, Your Honor.

24 This is Martin O'Neill for the Applicant. It is the 25 -- The admitted version, Revision 0, is Entergy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3602 1 Exhibit 000408. As I had mentioned yesterday, we've 2 also submitted Revision 1 of that same document which 3 is proposed Entergy Exhibit 000600.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: While we're on this 5 subject -- thank you, Mr. O'Neill -- where does NEI 6 09-14 in the EPRI and that's Exhibit -- I've got the 7 wrong number. I slipped a digit here. I've got it as 8 New York Exhibit 00016. Is that correct for NEI 09-9 14?

10 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, it's New York 11 000168.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. So that's 13 000168. And then the EPRI document 10.16.456 which is 14 New York Exhibit 000167. How do those fit in again to 15 this program if they do at all?

16 MR. COX: I think those programs the NEI 17 initiative requires actions that in some cases are 18 very similar or parallel to what's specified in this 19 program description. That NEI initiative was 20 implemented at plant in the UPTIMP program/procedure.

21 And that again as we said yesterday includes more than 22 just what's in the scope of license renewal. So it 23 includes components that go beyond what's required to 24 be in scope and listed in this program description.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you. I'll NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3603 1 probably get back to that again. But let's go back.

2 JUDGE McDADE: Before you do, could I ask?

3 Yesterday you referred to ASME Section 11. How does 4 that fit into this? Mr. Cox or Mr. Azevedo?

5 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. This is 6 Nelson Azevedo for Entergy. That was in the context 7 of implementing repairs and replacements. If we find 8 a component that's not acceptable we need to repair or 9 replace it. It's a safety related component. That's 10 where ASME Section 11 comes in.

11 JUDGE McDADE: And, Mr. O'Neill, did we 12 determine if that's in evidence? Is that an exhibit?

13 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, Your Honor. We did 14 look at that issue. Entergy Exhibit 000531 is Article 15 IWA-2000, Examination and Inspection. That is not the 16 particular section of the ASME code that Mr. Azevedo 17 is referring to.

18 However, we have previously disclosed that 19 section. It is -- Just give me a moment please. It's 20 Article IWA-4000, Repair/Replacement Activities. And 21 that is Blog No. 9134 on Entergy's Mandatory 22 Disclosure Log. That was disclosed in December of 23 2011. Entergy would be willing to -- If the State 24 and/or the Board would like that particular document 25 admitted into evidence, we would have no objection.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3604 1 And we can certainly offer it as a new exhibit.

2 JUDGE McDADE: We're not going to request 3 it at this time.

4 MR. O'NEILL: Okay. But it is available 5 if you are so inclined.

6 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you.

7 MR. O'NEILL: Thank you.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Moving on to discussing 9 Entergy's testimony that's Exhibit 000373, page 45, A-10 63. I guess I just wish I was still 63. "The BPTIP 11 manages loss of material due to external corrosion of 12 buried piping and tanks provide reasonable assurance 13 that the associated systems can perform their intended 14 functions." And you reference License Renewal 15 Application Appendix B at B-27. And that's Entergy's 16 Exhibit 000015B.

17 I could not find B-27. Do you know where 18 that is? And can we call up 000015B, Andy, and we'll 19 see if we can find it here also. Entergy 000015B.

20 It's a huge document I believe. I think there's -- Is 21 that the document that has repetitive photographs over 22 and over again of the plant.

23 There is 000015B. If you can full size 24 the -- Yes. There are 1600 or 1700 pages of it. And 25 we're on page 3.3 and we've got to get to Appendix B NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3605 1 at B-27. And I could not find it. So scroll down, 2 Andy. Okay. If you can try that.

3 MR. COX: If you go the end of it, we can 4 tell you if you've got the right document. Just go to 5 the very end. There you go. This is 00015B. I 6 suspect there's another section.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Scroll down, Andy.

8 You've got a long way to go. There you go. Now we're 9 on Appendix E I gather because E.2-32.

10 MR. COX: Right. Appendix B should be --

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Now we're at 6-6. So 12 between the two. Try searching for B -- Yes, there 13 are these photographs that keep coming up.

14 MS. DEAN: Your Honor, Janice Dean for the 15 State. You might start -- Yes, 639. There you go.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: There it is. Good.

17 Somehow mine did not have 639. Great. Thank you.

18 All right. Back to me.

19 Still staying with Entergy's testimony on 20 page 46, question and answer dealing with 65.

21 Question 65 says, "What preventive measurements does 22 IPEC rely on for in-scope buried piping that contains 23 or may contain radioactive fluids."

24 Answer 65 says, "The IPEC buried piping 25 system subject to aging management review that are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3606 1 constructed of carbon steel are coated to provide 2 effective corrosion control by isolating external 3 surfaces of the buried piping from the environment."

4 I guess my question to Entergy is how do 5 you know that the coating is still effective.

6 MR. LEE: Bob Lee for the Applicant. Our 7 inspection program, the number of direct visual 8 inspections of carbon steel coated pipe would provide 9 us the ability to assess the condition of the as-found 10 condition of the coating on the piping. The other 11 thing is that I think Mr. Biagiotti is ready to expand 12 on this. We did an above ground APEC survey which 13 tells you something about the coating condition.

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 15 Applicant. Yes, in November 2010, we performed an 16 above ground survey technique referred to an APEC 17 survey.

18 And one of the primary functions of that 19 survey is to do a coating degradation assessment. And 20 that provides you information as to if and where and 21 how severe coating degradation is. And that survey 22 did not reveal any significant, any substantial, 23 indications. And we can discuss that I'm assuming 24 probably at a later time.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, let's do that. I've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3607 1 got some questions later on and I'll focus on that.

2 Thank you with that.

3 Back to you, Mr. Lee. And what 4 inspections are you referring to? Are you referring 5 to those that took place when leaks occurred? Or are 6 you describing others that have due to the commitments 7 made of taking some additional inspections prior to 8 the period of extended operation or both?

9 MR. LEE: First, excavations and direct 10 visual inspections began in 2008. We had performed 11 excavations of the buried CST lines from CST tanks, 12 condensate storage tank to the aux feed pump building 13 for Unit 2. And we excavated two locations. There 14 are three lines running in roughly in parallel. We 15 exposed those three lines for a section of the piping 16 and inspected the as-found condition of the coating.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: And at that point the 18 coatings looked sound is what you found.

19 MR. LEE: We noted local degradation of 20 the coating. But after cleaning up the coating, 21 removing the coating to sound coating, we performed UT 22 measurements to confirm if there was any wall loss.

23 And we found that it met the 87.5 percent criteria 24 wall, nominal wall criteria that we have.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: So why you saw NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3608 1 degradation of the coating you still considered it 2 effective because you're still at 87 percent. Is that 3 correct? Is that what you're saying?

4 MR. LEE: I think the net effect is that 5 the overall picture of the environment that that 6 piping is in was that the soil even with the degraded 7 coating was not aggressive enough to have caused metal 8 loss.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: So you considered it 10 effective because the soil wasn't corrosive enough, 11 not that the coating still was functional to the 12 degree it was.

13 MR. LEE: For those, the results of those 14 inspections, yes.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: This was a 2008 16 inspection.

17 MR. LEE: 2008, yes.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is this the same pipeline 19 that in 2009 leaked?

20 MR. LEE: Yes. The leak occurred in a 8 21 inch return line to the CST from the feed pumps. That 22 was the same line that was inspected with these 2008 23 inspections but farther up the hill toward the tank.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: That doesn't comfort 25 anyone, does it, that these inspections are very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3609 1 effective in assessing whether leakage will occur?

2 MR. LEE: Well, as mentioned in the lesson 3 learned from the 2009 event was that we have to be 4 sensitive to it and choose our locations for 5 inspections at piping segment locations that are more 6 susceptible to effects of the water table which the 7 failure location was, the leak location was.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: The leak location was 9 where?

10 MR. LEE: Being down at the plant 11 elevation. Plant elevation being roughly elevation 18 12 feet I believe in the yard.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: And you were performing 14 your inspections where? At what elevation about?

15 MR. LEE: The 2008 inspections were --

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: It was up the hill 17 further.

18 MR. LEE: The CST tank is mounted at 19 roughly elevation 80. One location was at the base of 20 the tank basically. So it was basically five to six 21 feet below grade.

22 The second point was a point, an 23 intermediate position, down towards the hill, but 24 probably closer to the top. Probably like the third 25 point. There's a figure in the analysis that depicts NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3610 1 the location.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: We're going to pull up a 3 figure later on.

4 MR. LEE: But it was a higher elevation.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: We'll ask you to point 6 that out.

7 MR. LEE: Closer to the top of the hill.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Can you describe a little 9 bit how these pipes were initially installed? Because 10 as I understand it when the site was developed 11 basically a bench was carved out of rock to place the 12 plant on. That says to me there isn't much soil there 13 to bury a pipe. Was soil then brought in prior to or 14 during the construction of the plant of which then the 15 pipes were buried in that imported soil? Or was there 16 still enough native soil in the location to install 17 the pipes?

18 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 19 Azevedo. We certainly cannot speak at those details.

20 But I think the picture that I'd seen -- I've seen 21 other pictures on the site -- when it was being 22 excavated.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry. You're going 24 to have to talk slower I think.

25 MR. AZEVEDO: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3611 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: The way the mike tends to 2 blend in all your words. I didn't understand a lot of 3 that. Could you start again?

4 MR. AZEVEDO: Okay. I have looked at a 5 lot of the pictures when the site was being excavated.

6 Certainly the buildings and the structures are built 7 pretty much on solid rock. But the pictures that I've 8 seen and again I was not around at the time and I 9 cannot speak to what was done at the time leads me to 10 believe that there was still enough soil on site to 11 backfill a lot of these locations.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Would anyone else from 13 Entergy like to comment?

14 MR. CAVALLO: Yes, sir. Jon Cavallo for 15 the Applicant. Unfortunately, I'm a dinosaur. I was 16 there during the construction of Units 2 and 3.

17 The method was cut and cover as Mr.

18 Azevedo has just described where there was enough soil 19 on top of the bedrock that is the foundation of the 20 buildings to move that soil around to use as backfill.

21 So it was native soil from the site location.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And was that soil placed 23 there during the construction of IP1 as support for 24 roadways and things like that, as foundation for 25 roadways and things like that after the bench was cut?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3612 1 Or I don't understand how the bench could be cut and 2 still have some soil remaining is what I don't 3 understand.

4 MR. CAVALLO: No, the soil was removed to 5 get to the bench. In other words, there was cover on 6 that. It was not all exposed bedrock. There was 7 native soil on top which was moved around.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: That was pushed to the 9 side. A bench was pretty much blasted out of the rock 10 it looks like. And then that soil was used for site 11 grating.

12 MR. CAVALLO: Correct. And it was native 13 to that area.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is that a fair 15 assessment?

16 MR. CAVALLO: That's correct.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's the soil we're 18 dealing with for those pipes that happen to be buried 19 in that soil.

20 MR. CAVALLO: That's correct.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Do you know 22 -- While I've got you on the hook here, do you know of 23 any of the specifications that were made for the pipes 24 to be installed at that time in regards to the 25 installation procedures that were utilized then and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3613 1 how they might differ from what might now be 2 considered the standard practice for installing pipes?

3 MR. CAVALLO: I can only speak to -- John 4 Cavallo for the Applicant. I can only speak to my 5 review of the various procedures that were in the 6 vintage of the plant construction for buried pipe.

7 In general in the industry, we really did 8 not recognize the effect of very, very pure backfill 9 on coatings. The coatings that we have on the piping 10 at Indian Point 2 and 3 is similar to the same coating 11 systems used throughout the country which is performed 12 extremely well with native backfill for 60 or 70 13 years. So there was no need in the engineering -- I'm 14 reading into what the engineers did as an engineer.

15 There was no need to pedigree that backfill, if you 16 will, except for to limit the size of any stones or 17 rocks in the backfill itself.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Were you able to review 19 a specification that was used at that time? Was there 20 still a copy of that specification available for 21 review?

22 MR. CAVALLO: To my recollection, it is 23 and I believe it's been produced. I'll have to ask 24 for help from our document folks.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fine. To what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3614 1 degree has that specification changed in regards to 2 comparison with a specification that you now have for 3 the installation of buried pipes?

4 MR. CAVALLO: I'm not aware that there 5 have been significant changes to that.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Does anyone else from 7 Entergy?

8 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. It's 9 Nelson Azevedo. I looked at the original spec. It 10 was basically like a page and a half. Did not have a 11 lot of controls on the size of rocks, for example.

12 The specs that we currently have in place 13 limit the size of the rocks to either two or two and 14 a half inches in size. Also it limits the organic 15 material that you can have in the backfill.

16 I can also tell you that we've been 17 excavating lots of pipes over the last couple of years 18 to do direct visual inspections and we pulled clean 19 sand around the pipe. So a big difference from the 20 way the backfill was controlled back then and the way 21 it is controlled today.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: So how do we have any 23 comfort that in fact those larger sized materials 24 aren't impacting the coatings and that it's just a 25 matter of time before enough water gets into it such NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3615 1 that pipes will leak and leak at much more accelerated 2 rate than what we've currently observed?

3 MR. AZEVEDO: I would address in a couple 4 different ways. One is the excavations that we have 5 been doing over the last two to three years have not 6 showed us that we have any large rocks or any organic 7 material in contact with the pipes.

8 The other thing is Mr. Biagiotti alluded 9 a couple of minutes that there had been an APEC survey 10 that assessed the condition throughout the site and we 11 expect if we had issues going on it would have picked 12 it up through this APEC survey.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: In regards to your direct 14 excavations though, that's still a very small 15 percentage of the total length of the pipe that's 16 buried. Isn't that correct?

17 MR. AZEVEDO: It is. However, you need to 18 keep in mind that the areas that we're excavating are 19 the ones with the highest indications of issues. So 20 we took the results of the guided wave. We take the 21 results of the APEC survey.

22 We look at the water table and other 23 issues and we go after the ones that are most likely 24 to have corrosion issues. So although it is a small 25 percentage of the overall entire length of pipe, it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3616 1 focused on the areas that we think are more likely to 2 have issues.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: In regards to the 4 previous construction, were you able to find any 5 construction reports that documented that the 6 specification that did exist at the time was achieved 7 in the installation of the buried pipes?

8 MR. AZEVEDO: No, I did not see any 9 documents confirming what was done back then. I only 10 thing I did see was the specification.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

12 MR. CAVALLO: Just a quick comment, sir.

13 John Cavallo for the Applicant. I'm afraid that we're 14 missing the importance of the indirect surveys that 15 were pointed out. We've been referring to this APEC 16 survey which is one of a number of tried and true 17 indirect surveys which do not involve digging in the 18 ground.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: I hope your fears will be 20 alleviate in a short while. But until then you must 21 be able to live and exist with them.

22 MR. CAVALLO: I will. I will hold my 23 comment.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy's testimony, 25 moving on to page 64.A86 states that Entergy has also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3617 1 gained some insights into the condition of the IPEC 2 buried pipes and their coatings through excavated 3 direct visual inspections and indirect, for example, 4 UT and guided wave examinations performed to date.

5 Although Entergy has been detected some degradation of 6 or damage to buried piping coatings only limited 7 evidence of piping corrosion has been observed."

8 And whoever would like to from Entergy to 9 answer this. Is there one place where the data that 10 has given you these significant insights has been 11 assimulated, evaluated and used in and applied to the 12 aging management program in regards to documenting the 13 current pipe conditions, the priorities and the 14 frequency of the testing and things like that? Where 15 has the data that has given you this significant 16 insight been documented?

17 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 18 Azevedo for Entergy. That is documented in our 19 corrective action program.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: In your corrective action 21 program.

22 MR. AZEVEDO: That's correct.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: What do you mean by a 24 corrective action program? Is this a separate program 25 or is this as each pipe that you've repaired or done NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3618 1 something with you've developed a report from the 2 conclusion of this? Could you -- Which is it?

3 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. Each time that we 4 inspect the pipe and we find any coating anomalies we 5 write a condition report. And that condition report 6 goes into our corrective action process. And then as 7 a result that tells us what corrective actions we need 8 to implement, what additional inspections we may have 9 to do, what change to the program we may need to 10 implement as a result of what we find.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: The details of that 12 corrective action program, are those ones that are 13 generated as a result of this AMP? Or are those ones 14 that you have had as part of your current licensing 15 basis and operational activities?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: Our corrective action 17 program is a current program as part of our current 18 operating license.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: And those procedures that 20 describe that, what needs to be done there, are they 21 presented where? Is this program a document? Or is 22 this similar to the BPTIP program that is not 23 necessarily a single document or is just a program 24 description with procedures elsewhere?

25 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, I'm not exactly sure of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3619 1 how to characterize it. But I can tell you it's a 2 program mandated by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. And we 3 have several implementing procedures both at the fleet 4 level and at the -- Well, mostly at the fleet level.

5 So I'm not sure if I'm answering your question.

6 That's what we have.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: In a general fashion you 8 have. And you're saying as a result of those 9 activities that's where you compiled this data.

10 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, that's correct.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And to your knowledge, 12 has anyone submitted that as an exhibit here in this 13 proceeding?

14 MR. AZEVEDO: I am sure we have submitted 15 lots of condition reports related to this topic.

16 Probably not the overall corrective action program, 17 but I can't really speak to that.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not interested in the 19 overall corrective action program. I'm more interested 20 in the documentation of the information you have 21 gained that has led you to what you characterize as 22 significant insights into the condition of the IPEC 23 buried pipes.

24 MR. AZEVEDO: Again, I'm sure that the 25 condition reports are available. I know that the root NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3620 1 cause, the condition report and the root cause and the 2 failure analysis, for the 2009 leak, those are 3 exhibits because I've looked at them. And that was 4 the more significant one.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Lee, were you 6 interested in making some comments?

7 MR. LEE: Yes. I was going to say that 8 the SEP document not only is a listing of all the 9 piping in the program, but it lists upon first issue 10 sites that we were going to dig up and inspect one 11 year, two years, three years out. And that listing is 12 really an active database. So as these inspection 13 results come in I annotate that list with the OE 14 listing the CR and basically summarizing the findings 15 of the inspection.

16 This would be true whether or not it was 17 coating degradation and resulting from the visual 18 inspection or if it warranted, if it involved a UP 19 verification of the wall. So all that is captured in 20 the SEP and the global plan is to update that SEP as 21 we go on and continue to implement the program.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And did you say if I 23 understood you correctly that the previous leaks and 24 the previous inspections were both documented in there 25 in regards to what you observed and what you learned NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3621 1 from them?

2 MR. LEE: Yes. The 2009 leak as well as 3 the 2007 aux steam line piping. That was a general 4 piping replacement necessitated by a general 5 corrosion.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: And are those the only 7 two leaks that have occurred at the site?

8 MR. LEE: Actually, the aux steam line is 9 really not even within the scope of license renewal.

10 But the 2009 leak certainly is. We've also recorded 11 some leakage events on Unit 2 on some of the circ 12 water piping that we've discovered. But they were 13 caused by ID erosion mechanisms.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: What's a surf --

15 MR. LEE: Circulating water.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, circulating. I 17 thought you said surf. Okay.

18 MR. LEE: Circulating water 84 inch pipe 19 through-wall leaks that were identified during 20 maintenance activities during refueling.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Were these buried pipes 22 or?

23 MR. LEE: These are buried pipes. They 24 are in my program, yes. But as I say they were 25 attributed to ID erosion of the protective coating.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3622 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: ID?

2 MR. LEE: Inner ID. The inner diameter.

3 These were discovered during PM activities where they 4 were cleaning the --

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it wasn't the 6 exterior. It was the interior piping.

7 MR. LEE: Exactly. But I capture 8 everything in my program.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. Is not a 10 degradation of coating and/or thinning of wall 11 thickness caused from external activities on pipes 12 that are not part of or require aging management 13 review still of interest though because doesn't it 14 tell you that there is some corrosivity taking place 15 at the site. It just hasn't happened to have reached 16 the level of impacting the ones that are within the 17 scope.

18 MR. LEE: Yes, that's true. We would 19 create piping groups consisting of piping of various 20 systems whether it's license renewal or not that have 21 similar material, coating configuration, whether it 22 were internally cement-lined, as I mentioned pipe 23 material, service life if it was part of an original 24 plant design. So we would group piping according to 25 those criteria and apply the OE accordingly.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3623 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's done as part 2 of your UP TEMP and that the BPTIP only applies to 3 those that are within license renewal if I remember 4 what was stated yesterday, if I interpreted what was 5 stated yesterday correctly.

6 MR. LEE: That's true, but once I'm in the 7 program and I'm updating the database really those 8 distinctions kind of fade away. Because if it's an 9 applicable -- If an OE is applicable to a piping group 10 or a piping class, it's applicable. So it's not like 11 you don't apply the OE to a non license renewal.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Define OE.

13 MR. LEE: Operating experience.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you. That 15 was helpful.

16 MR. LEE: Okay.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Staying with the 18 testimony on page 64, answer 86 says "In fact, 19 excavating all in-scope buried piping at IPEC even if 20 practicable would significantly increase the potential 21 for mechanical damage to that piping and their coating 22 caused by excavation activities."

23 Dr. Duquette, good morning.

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Good morning, sir.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: I think you said this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3624 1 yesterday, but let's just fix the point again. Do you 2 agree that performing digging up of pipe to detect 3 corrosion would significantly increase the potential 4 risk for damage?

5 DR. DUQUETTE: Could you repeat the 6 question please? I didn't quite understand.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you agree that 8 performing the digging up of a pipe to detect 9 corrosion would significantly increase the potential 10 risk for damage as stated by Entergy's testimony on 11 page 64, answer 86?

12 DR. DUQUETTE: It certainly is correct.

13 And I would never advocate digging up all of the 14 piping at IPEC under any circumstances. It would be 15 a foolish engineering exercise.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's what I thought you 17 said yesterday. I just wanted to make sure that was 18 correct here. Thank you.

19 Entergy's testimony on page 46, answer 66 20 say, "The desirably characteristics of a protective 21 coating system for buried piping include serving as a 22 moisture barrier, a good adhesion for the piping 23 surfaces, the ability to resist the development of 24 holidays that is voids or imperfections over time, 25 resistance of corrosion, corrosive soil conditions, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3625 1 robustness to resist against damage during storage, 2 handling, installation and operation and resistance of 3 disbondment due to mechanical stress or cathodic 4 (impressed) current."

5 For Entergy, where might you point to 6 where these desired characteristics are reflected in 7 your current procedures which I believe will then be 8 what you call the implementing procedures for your 9 AMP? And are they also included in any specifications 10 that you have or decisions that you have in selecting 11 any replacement pipes or new pipes at the plant?

12 Mr. Cox, would you like to start with that 13 question or would you like to turn it over to someone 14 else?

15 MR. COX: Well, you ask -- I mean I read 16 this as kind of a statement of what characteristics 17 you would like to have for a protected coating system.

18 I don't know that we have repeated those in a 19 procedure. I'll let the IPEC folks address that.

20 But when we did an evaluation, we looked 21 at the specs that were used for the coatings that were 22 applied and they met these conditions.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'll ask others. Anyone 24 else from Entergy? Have the specifications you 25 developed for the new pipes or any replacement of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3626 1 pipes address all of these six elements?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo.

3 I concur with what Mr. Cox just said. We implement 4 these characteristics by selecting the appropriate 5 coating. But I am not aware, I have not seen any 6 document that specifically repeats these desirable 7 characteristics.

8 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, Jon Cavallo for 9 the Applicant. Those criteria are reflected in the 10 EPRI documents for buried pipe which we referred to 11 yesterday and you said we're going to discuss today.

12 So the engineer selecting the coating would have that 13 EPRI guidance document available to him or her -- in 14 this case a him -- when they prepared the actual 15 coating specification for the pipe and selected the 16 actual coating system to be used.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you have a plant-18 specific or corporate-specific specification for the 19 coatings that are to be applied to any of the pipes 20 based on the type of pipe it is? Or do you write a 21 new specification for each repair or installation of 22 a new pipe?

23 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo again 24 for Entergy. When we dig up a pipe or we need to 25 inspect it or to repair because of a leak, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3627 1 developed the steps, the requirements and specify the 2 coating, in the actual work order. So we have a work 3 order to do the work. In the work order for the 4 recoating application, we provide all those details in 5 the work order itself. And that is provided by the 6 coatings engineer at Indian Point.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: You have a coatings 8 engineer.

9 MR. AZEVEDO: We do.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: The next question I think 11 we've covered. The next cite to the testimony I think 12 we've covered in regards to what was done before in 13 the specifications.

14 Moving on to some Staff testimony, that's 15 Exhibit 000016, page 21, answer 18, you state that "in 16 regard to preventive actions to mitigate potential 17 corrosion, all steel pipings has been coated in 18 accordance with standard industry practices. Recent 19 excavated direct visual examinations of buried piping 20 have demonstrated that the coatings are in acceptable 21 condition and the backfill in the vicinity of the pipe 22 does not damage the coatings."

23 And I'd ask anyone from Staff who would 24 like to answer that whether you can refer so many 25 exhibit numbers of the evidence that has been offered NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3628 1 which demonstrates that the specifications were in 2 fact followed by the plant owners at the time of 3 construction. Or if none exists what leads you to 4 believe that all the coatings are in acceptable 5 condition?

6 MR. HOLSTON: This is Mr. Holston. I 7 believe that's in response to request for additional 8 information that the Applicant replied to. And I am 9 going over to that section.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what's the exhibit 11 for that? We can pull it up if you --

12 MR. HOLSTON: That's what I'm looking at 13 now, sir. I believe that's --

14 MR. TURK: Or if you'd give us the date of 15 the document. Perhaps that would help us find the 16 exhibit. Sorry. That was Sherwin Turk.

17 MR. HOLSTON: I'm looking right now, sir.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm afraid I can tell 19 your voice just by hearing it. I didn't even have to 20 look, Mr. Turk.

21 JUDGE McDADE: But the court reporter 22 might need that.

23 MR. HOLSTON: In the New York State 24 000151, page six of 27, it's Attachment 1, page six of 25 27. The Applicant states in reply to RAI 3.03.1.2-1, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3629 1 Part 2C, "the piping in question is coated which 2 provides a significant barrier to corrosion."

3 And then if you refer to the -- I will 4 give you a second reference here. And that is New 5 York State 000153. It's a July 27, 2011 letter on 6 Attachment 1, page two of four. This is an excerpt 7 from the -- Well, it is the entire Updated Final 8 Safety Analysis Report for Unit 2. The same words are 9 stated in Unit 3. "Preventive measures are in 10 accordance with standard industry practice for 11 maintaining external coatings and wrappings."

12 Those are two places where they're in the 13 exhibits. When I took part of the TI 2516 inspection.

14 That's the Temporary Instruction 2516 which is the 15 equivalent of the 71003 inspection that would occur 16 with the plant that had a renewed license already, 17 those approaching its period of extended operation.

18 I also verified that by reviewing several inspection 19 records of excavated piping, although I don't believe 20 that's been submitted into the record, those 21 inspection results. I don't recall seeing those as an 22 exhibit.

23 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, this is Martin 24 O'Neill, Counsel for the Applicant. May I interject 25 for a moment?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3630 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Please.

2 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Holston was referring to 3 inspection reports and I do want to note for the 4 record that there have been a number of individual 5 inspection reports generated for excavated, direct 6 visual inspections and related UT examinations. And 7 those have been admitted into evidence as Entergy 8 Exhibits 000430-000442.

9 Just also and this goes to Judge 10 Wardwell's point before or question regarding 11 documentation, there have been a number of vendor 12 studies conducted as well. And I would point the 13 Board to Exhibits New York 000178, Entergy 000579, 14 Entergy 000428 and Entergy 000445. And those are 15 again vendor performed studies, those last four.

16 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you, Mr.

17 O'Neill.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Holston, during the 19 recent inspections, exclusive of the APEC survey, just 20 the recent visual inspections of the piping, it is 21 obvious that the only portion that you're able to look 22 at it is that which is unearthed. Correct?

23 MR. HOLSTON: That is correct, sir.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: And did we say yesterday 25 approximately what percentage of that piping has been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3631 1 exposed? We were doing some mental calculations and 2 I think I've got it later on in a question where I can 3 cite to some summaries of that. But do you remember 4 about how much of that has been exposed? Or would you 5 rather wait until I'm able to pull up other figures?

6 MR. HOLSTON: Well, I don't recall. I can 7 answer that question in part right now. We can cover 8 it in more detail later.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

10 MR. HOLSTON: But if I recall correctly 11 somewhere around 700 feet of pipe have been exposed.

12 Maybe it's 800 feet. It might be a little higher. I 13 don't keep up to date as they continue to do 14 excavations of piping that have been exposed to date.

15 Throughout the entire period of extended 16 operation, if the soil is proven to be corrosive, they 17 will have dug up seven percent of the piping on the 18 site. That's just how the numbers work out if you add 19 all of the pipe lengths and you add up the 20 inspections.

21 However, if you consider the fact that 22 fire protection which is 5,000 feet of that piping is 23 monitored continuously, although the Applicant did not 24 credit monitoring the fire protection buried piping by 25 use of their jockey pumps or anything, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3632 1 information provides significant insights into what's 2 going on with the fire protection system. If you 3 factor that in, it's close to 10 percent of the pipe 4 would be looked at.

5 Now if they do look at fire protection 6 piping, then that numbers mitigates back closer to the 7 6.8 or 7 percent of the piping. But those are the 8 round numbers of what's going to be looked at.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you consider that 10 number a large percentage of the pipe for sampling?

11 MR. HOLSTON: I consider that number --

12 Well, and let me just clarify that it's not just I.

13 It's the Staff. Because when we put together the 14 Interim Staff Guidance which was basically the next 15 rev to the AMP XI.M41 that was issued in GALL Revision 16 2, those are the numbers that we derived. When you 17 look at that inspection table and I don't know if 18 we'll be covering that later on today, but for a plant 19 of Indian Point's persuasion, no cathodic protection, 20 they did have the one leak. We would recommend 90 21 inspections over throughout the entire period. The 22 ten years prior to period of extended operation and 23 proceeding through those 20 years of period of 24 extended operation, Entergy will be doing that. If 25 they don't have corrosive soil 94, it's slightly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3633 1 higher than what the Staff believes is an adequate.

2 That proves the soil will be doing 118 inspections, 3 again higher than the 90 that the Staff has decided is 4 an adequate number, not just myself.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: So by back calculating 6 what that means in regards to percentage, you're 7 saying that 10 to 12 percent of the buried piping 8 exposed is an adequate representation that you can 9 conclude that the coatings are still effective at the 10 piping system at Indian Point.

11 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. That's correct 12 except I think I said 7 to 10 percent, not 10 to 12.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I was just 14 estimating. I was starting off with your 10 without 15 the fire protection to give you the advantage of that 16 and the fact that they're doing more than what you're 17 required. So that would add in a slightly higher 18 percentage of the piping being exposed.

19 MR. HOLSTON: To clarify, they're doing 7 20 percent for sure. If you factor in that based on risk 21 assessments that they're probably not going to look at 22 as much fire protection piping as other more critical 23 systems. It's probably closer to 10 percent. And that 24 represents the 94 plus 24 for corroded soil. The 25 Staff states that a plant of this nature we would look NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3634 1 at 90.

2 That's all I was trying to do. I wasn't 3 trying to add any percentages in there. Staff would 4 say 90. They're doing 94 plus 24 if the soil is 5 corrosive. And, yes, the Staff does believe that's an 6 adequate number to demonstrate that the coating is 7 effective or demonstrate that you have problems.

8 You're going to have to do further inspections, 9 further repair, consider other options when you find 10 the problems if you find them.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Duquette, do you have 12 any evidence that indicates that that isn't a 13 sufficient number of exposures?

14 DR. DUQUETTE: Duquette for New York 15 State. Only the indication you brought up about a 16 half an hour ago or maybe 20 minutes ago that they had 17 had an inspection at one location and then a leak in 18 another location. And so I'm still convinced that 19 spot inspections even if you set priorities for where 20 you should inspect probably are not going to detect 21 areas where you may have significant corrosion either 22 through the coating or underneath the coating.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: But didn't they answer 24 the question in regards to why that pipe for the 25 condensate storage tank did leak just a year NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3635 1 afterwards is the fact that where they did their 2 inspection initially was up the hill and it leaked 3 down the hill where the conditions were wetter.

4 DR. DUQUETTE: But I would argue that then 5 they've chosen a bad location for the inspection. If 6 they'd done it then, what would prevent them from 7 doing it next time?

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Have they not testified 9 yesterday and I think they've even referenced it today 10 that they now prioritize their locations to those 11 areas that are required to do it and those areas that 12 are in the highest potential for corrosion?

13 DR. DUQUETTE: I certainly think they'd 14 improved their inspection procedures from what I've 15 read. I don't think they're failsafe and I'm 16 concerned that again spot inspections won't tell you 17 necessarily where you have problems.

18 I think they were lucky on this one in 19 that they had a leak and not burst because they did 20 have significant wall thinning over a very large 21 distance on the pipe. And again in the corrosion 22 world, at least my world, we distinguish between leaks 23 and bursts. And that was a leak in that particular 24 case. If they hadn't detected that leak when they did 25 and fortunately it was visible, they might have had a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3636 1 burst in the pipe and ended up with a very significant 2 amount of loss of function of that pipe.

3 So I'm just concerned that any spot 4 inspection runs the risk of missing something. And I 5 know we're probably going to get to this later on.

6 But I think there are other methods for ensuring that 7 you will not have problems with the piping systems at 8 Indian Point.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is the criteria by which 10 we address adequacies of an aging management program 11 the failsafe criteria that you alluded to in your 12 response just now? Or is it something more reasonable 13 than that? Is there a reasonableness in here that 14 we're dealing with? Do you know?

15 DR. DUQUETTE: I think -- and again this 16 is a personal observation, not a professional 17 observation -- if it was something other than a 18 nuclear plant, I might have a somewhat different 19 opinion. But I believe that a nuclear plant should be 20 held to a higher standard.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'll stop you there just 22 for sake of --

23 DR. DUQUETTE: Sure.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: My question was standards 25 by which we are addressing, we as a Board, when we're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3637 1 evaluating the adequacy of an aging management plan, 2 is it to prevent all leaks or are we just trying to 3 judge whether or not there's a reasonable assurance 4 that the aging of pipes is adequately managed? Do you 5 know?

6 DR. DUQUETTE: See, again I think you can 7 -- There are procedures to prevent all leaks. And I 8 think those haven't been explored sufficiently.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: I wish you would answer 10 the question I'm asking.

11 DR. DUQUETTE: Sorry.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Or say that you're not 13 qualified to answer it.

14 DR. DUQUETTE: I will say I'm not 15 qualified to answer it.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Say it again.

17 DR. DUQUETTE: I'm not qualified to answer 18 the question as you've placed it.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. The question 20 deals with construction documentation, how that site 21 does and I think we've answered all the questions on 22 that one.

23 I think we've answered this, but I'm going 24 to cover it again just to make sure. Your testimony, 25 Entergy's testimony 000373 on page 50, answer 69 says, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3638 1 "In the field pipes are visually inspected upon 2 receipt to ensure that no damage to the coating 3 occurred during shipment." I won't bother reading the 4 rest of it. It talks about what's needed to be done.

5 My question to Entergy as you peruse that 6 is can you recall off the top of your head where these 7 requirements are reflected in any of your procedures 8 that have been documents and that we've talked about 9 in the last two days. To get the ball rolling, I'll 10 just ask Mr. Cox to start because everyone starts to 11 have their head down and try to kinda hide. Designate 12 someone to start it anyhow.

13 MR. COX: This is Alan. I believe if you 14 look at the context in which it was given it's 15 referring to the construction practices that were in 16 place at the time of plant construction.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: So this is just merely a 18 statement of what was done then. Is this a valid 19 guideline for what you're trying to attempt now in 20 regards to part of the construction process?

21 MR. COX: You know I think we have 22 specifications that would be used. We haven't spent 23 a lot of time talking about what we would do today if 24 we were installing a new pipeline. But we would use 25 specifications that I suspect would include these same NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3639 1 elements.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there any difference 3 in regards to the specifications for the coating and 4 given a certain type of pipe that you'd use when 5 you're replacing a section than you would for a brand 6 new pipeline that you were installing?

7 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 8 Azevedo for Entergy again. For example in 2009 when 9 we replaced the section of pipe that was leaking, when 10 we bought the pipe, the pipe was not precoated. We 11 just bought a bare steel pipe and then we coated after 12 it was installed.

13 So this description as Mr. Cox has said is 14 primarily focused on what was done initially. I 15 suspect it --

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is what? I'm sorry. I 17 missed that.

18 MR. AZEVEDO: It reflects what was done 19 initially when the plant was built. But again, right 20 now, because usually when we replace piping or small 21 sections, it's easier for us to just coat it after 22 it's installed.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you perform 24 simpler activities such as this or such that you would 25 require if you were installing a new pipeline and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3640 1 receiving it coated?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: You're talking about talking 3 to the Holiday Testing to make sure that there are no 4 holidays.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.

6 MR. AZEVEDO: I believe the answer is yes.

7 But I cannot say for certain.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Would you like to add 9 something?

10 MR. CAVALLO: Yes, sir. John Cavallo for 11 the Applicant. As a subject matter expert, these 12 requirements are totally appropriate for the time 13 period when the plant was built and also today to 14 answer your original question.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. This area 16 deals with something we went through yesterday, but I 17 do want to fix it again to make sure I understand it.

18 I'll reference Entergy's testimony on 000373, page 58, 19 answer 80. "Entergy first revised the BPTIP in 2009 20 in response to the operating experience and industry 21 initiatives discussed above. Specifically, Entergy 22 committed to perform 15 IP2 inspections before 23 entering the IP2 period of extended operation in 2013 24 and 30 IP3 inspections before entering the IP3 period 25 of extended operation in 2015."

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3641 1 I think I'll start with Mr. Holston on 2 this. Could you explain again for me how commitments 3 such as these inspections get folded into the AMP or 4 are placed such that they will become part of the 5 current licensing basis once the license is renewed?

6 MS. GREEN: This is Kimberly Green for the 7 NRC Staff. A commitment such as this would be 8 provided by Entergy in a documented letter to the NRC.

9 The NRC then tabulates all of the commitments that 10 Entergy has submitted as part or in support of their 11 License Renewal Application.

12 We document that in Appendix A to our 13 Safety Evaluation Report. And as Ms. Sutton pointed 14 out yesterday, the definition of a current licensing 15 basis includes commitments. It specifically says 16 commitments that are documented in Staff's Safety 17 Evaluation Reports. So the inclusion of those 18 commitments in Appendix A to our Safety Evaluation 19 Report would then make it part of the Applicant's 20 current licensing basis.

21 MR. HOLSTON: And this is Mr. Holston from 22 the Staff. And I'd like to supplement that. In fact, 23 given that the number of inspections was a critical 24 aspect of the program, if you look at New York State 25 Exhibit NYS-000153, Attachment 1, page 2 of 4, those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3642 1 inspections quantities have been incorporated into 2 both the Unit 2 and Unit 3 Indian Point Updated Final 3 Safety Analysis Report. So everything Ms. Green said 4 was absolutely on target. But that's also in the 5 UFSAR.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: You overloaded me 7 slightly. I wish I could read the transcript right 8 now. But I can't. So I'm going to be repetitive 9 again. I guess being repetitive again is repetitive, 10 isn't it?

11 I was with you until about the last half 12 a sentence or so. So I wouldn't mind, Ms. Green, 13 repeating that.

14 MS. GREEN: Sure.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And because I got 16 particularly confused when Mr. Holston then said what 17 he did because I understood what you were saying, Mr.

18 Holston. But I thought it was almost the same. But 19 go ahead. Could you just say that again please?

20 MS. GREEN: Sure. When Entergy or an 21 applicant makes a commitment to the NRC, they document 22 it in a letter to us.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Pause right there if you 24 might.

25 MS. GREEN: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3643 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: How are these commitments 2 flagged in a letter to you? Is there some magical 3 designation? Or does it just say we agree to do 4 these? Or does it have to have very specific wording 5 that makes it a -- and I'll use a phrase and I'm going 6 to quote later on hopefully today -- the phrase 7 "docketed commitment"? What is the difference between 8 a promise that's in a letter and a docketed 9 commitment?

10 MS. GREEN: There is some wording that an 11 applicant or a licensee will use when submitting a 12 letter to the NRC whether or not it actually contains 13 any regulatory commitments. They specifically state 14 that in the letter.

15 So when it comes to license renewal 16 application, they will give us a table. They have 17 been giving it to us in a table. And when they've 18 changed any of the license renewal commitments that 19 were previously provided to the NRC or additional 20 commitments, they will update through a redline 21 strikeout to the commitment table.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it has to be in this 23 commitment table before -- Let me change my question.

24 The commitments you're referring to when you just make 25 your first statement here and I paused you relate to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3644 1 those that are in the table. Any other types of 2 discussion within that letter -- and we're talking 3 about the NL letters. Is that correct? Whatever one 4 we happen to be looking at.

5 MS. GREEN: That is correct.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Any other allusions to 7 what they may or may not be doing is irrelevant if 8 it's not in that table. Is that correct?

9 MS. GREEN: I would say that is correct.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So now any of 11 those commitments that are in the letters.

12 MS. GREEN: So that letter that is 13 submitted to the NRC becomes a docketed 14 correspondence. It is entered into our ADAMS system.

15 You're familiar with that.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh yes.

17 MS. GREEN: Okay. So it's entered into 18 the ADAMS system. It's related to their docket 19 number. Makes it docketed correspondence.

20 The NRC when we're reviewing responses to 21 request for additional information, if in that letter 22 that contains a response the applicant has changed a 23 commitment or added a new one, it is the 24 responsibility of the project manager to tabulate and 25 keep track of all of those commitments and to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3645 1 accurately reflect those in the Safety Evaluation 2 Report. That's where the staff puts the list of 3 commitments that were made in response to or in 4 support of a License Renewal Application.

5 For four years, I was the safety project 6 manager and that was one of my responsibilities as a 7 safety project manager to document and tabulate all of 8 those commitments in the Safety Evaluation Report.

9 Because those commitments have been tabulated and 10 issued as part of our Staff's Safety Evaluation 11 Report, it then makes it part of their current 12 licensing basis when they received the renewed 13 license.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: So as part of the current 15 licensing basis, but it doesn't really kick in until 16 they get their license to renew.

17 MS. GREEN: That is correct.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: So what would you 19 consider to have more weight, those changes in 20 Appendix A that we understood yesterday are associated 21 with the UFSAR or those that you have talked about as 22 being adopted into the SER? Or do they have equal 23 weight and are they kinda one in the same?

24 MS. GREEN: They are not the same. I 25 would give more weight to what is included in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3646 1 UFSAR Supplement which is then incorporated into their 2 UFSAR. And any changes made to their UFSAR has to go 3 through the 50.59 process.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do the ones that you've 5 adopted into the SER necessarily have to go through 6 the 50.59 process?

7 MS. GREEN: Not necessarily unless they 8 are also made part of the UFSAR. I'd like to add that 9 most of the commitments that an applicant makes to the 10 NRC in support of its License Renewal Application are 11 also included in the UFSAR. So if an applicant 12 commits to implement a new program, that's a 13 commitment.

14 We will also find in the program 15 description for the UFSAR supplement that they will 16 implement that new program prior to entering the 17 period of extended operation. They're the same, but 18 more weight is given to what's in the UFSAR because 19 they can't make a change to that unless they go 20 through the 50.59 process.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: And again I always 22 bristle at the word "implement."

23 MS. GREEN: I understand.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Could I replace with the 25 phrase "executed" or "initiated" and be just as valid NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3647 1 a description for my own understanding of how you 2 interpret implemented?

3 MS. GREEN: I would like to say that 4 they've executed the program. But since some of the 5 activities that are associated with some of the 6 programs do not take place until the period or during 7 the period of extended operation, it's kinda of not 8 accurate to say that.

9 The Staff currently interprets the word 10 "implemented" to mean that they have all their 11 procedures in place prior to entering the period of 12 extended operation. However, for certain programs 13 like the Buried Piping and Tanks Inspection Program, 14 since they have to do some inspections prior to 15 entering the period of extended operation, we would 16 say implemented in that case would mean that they are 17 also doing the activities that are associated with 18 that program.

19 I know that's a little confusing.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, it isn't, but I was 21 still reflecting on your first use of the word 22 implementing. Didn't you say that there's a 23 commitment to implement these? And so what would be 24 the difference to say there's a commitment to execute, 25 i.e., yes, there are some that you can't do now NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3648 1 because you've got to wait for the period of extended 2 operation. So it's impossible to do it. We know they 3 aren't going to be done until that time frame.

4 MS. GREEN: I think I made my statement in 5 the context of the new programs, programs for which 6 they are not currently required to do under their Part 7 50 license. The commitment that they typically give 8 for a new program is to implement the new program 9 prior to entering the period of extended operation.

10 In that context, we would expect that they 11 would have developed all of their implementing 12 procedures to put that program into action when the 13 last day of their current license expires.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: And do they do this for 15 each of the implementing procedures? Do they make 16 this commitment for and specifically call out those 17 that they are talking about? In our case, there were 18 four ones that we really focused on yesterday and even 19 today, the two ENs, the SEP and the CEP. Have those 20 calls those out specifically?

21 MS. GREEN: No, they have not to my 22 knowledge.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do they generally do that 24 or when you say the implementing procedures those 25 aren't defined by the designation specifically?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3649 1 MS. GREEN: That is correct. They don't 2 typically list the implementing procedures by name and 3 number in a commitment because they put that 4 commitment into the UFSAR. In order to ever change a 5 procedure, they would have to go through a 50.59 6 evaluation and not just the screening that was being 7 referred to yesterday.

8 So the UFSAR description that is provided 9 to us gives us a general description of the program 10 and how they carry out that program without citing 11 specific procedures. But as Mr. Holston mentioned 12 yesterday certain key aspects that we would like to 13 see in the program description such as they will a 14 certain number of inspections, we do like to see in 15 the program description because we would like to hold 16 them to that. And if they wanted to decrease the 17 number, they would have to do a 50.59 evaluation. And 18 we would be made aware of that through the submittal 19 that they provide to the NRC every two years along 20 with their UFSAR.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Just to make sure I'm 22 clear on this issue then. If it is incorporate into 23 the UFSAR, then they are required to notify you. They 24 on their own cannot go through the screening process 25 in order to not inform you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3650 1 MS. GREEN: No, I believe they can do a 2 50.59 evaluation as long as they can answer positively 3 or negatively to all the questions.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

5 MS. GREEN: It does not increase the 6 consequences of an accident. It does not create the 7 possibility of a new or different --

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: But I thought that was 9 the screening process.

10 MS. GREEN: Think there's a screening 11 process which is three questions that they can go 12 through to determine if they need to do a 50.59 13 evaluation. 50.59 evaluation is eight questions. In 14 the regulations, they're specifically called out that 15 they have to answer negatively to in order to 16 determine that they can make the change without prior 17 NRC approval.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Ah. Where are those 19 three initial questions documented or discussed or? I 20 didn't know they existed. I thought it was just the 21 screening that you talked about under 50.59.

22 MS. GREEN: I don't think they're in the 23 regulation. I think it's questions that an applicant 24 develops and puts in their site procedure to help them 25 determine if they actually need to go do a 50.59 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3651 1 evaluation. But my lawyers can correct me if they 2 look at the regulation and tell me.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: They'll have a chance to 4 deal with that later.

5 MS. GREEN: Entergy also can answer that 6 question as well because they are the one that would 7 have the screening procedure at their site.

8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, may we pass the 9 regulations to Ms. Green so she has them in front of 10 her?

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry.

12 MR. TURK: May we give the regulations to 13 Ms. Green so she has them in front of her as she 14 testifies?

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: I don't think that's 16 necessary right at the moment for me at least. I'd 17 like to not get interrupted with my train of thought 18 because I just --

19 MR. TURK: I apologize.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's coming clearer.

21 We're getting closer.

22 If, in fact, they still have these -- I 23 forgot -- seven or eight questions as part of 50.59 to 24 determine whether or not they can proceed ahead on 25 their own in there, what's wrong with putting a direct NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3652 1 reference to those specific operating procedures 2 because it's going to be for those cases that are 3 insignificant they don't have to do anything more than 4 it's not a big deal and they'll know instinctively 5 just based on experience which they have to and which 6 they don't? So I assume they're probably almost 7 asking that question themselves anyhow with each 8 situation that comes up. I don't see where it's a 9 more onerous endeavor to put all of those in the UFSAR 10 and make them susceptible to 50.59. Where am I wrong?

11 MS. GREEN: Although the Applicant would 12 be able to give a better explanation for why they feel 13 that wouldn't be necessary, I would say that some of 14 the procedures that they use -- and I'm talking 15 general terms, not just the buried piping -- are used 16 for other reasons at the plant. And if a citation is 17 made to a specific procedure -- Let me back up.

18 I'll give you an example. An applicant 19 has a procedure in place that they use all the time.

20 And there are few steps in the procedure that they 21 have enhanced in order to be consistent with the GALL 22 AMP. But they use the procedure in its entirety, but 23 only three steps are needed for license renewal.

24 If they cited that procedure in the UFSAR, 25 I would think that any time they needed to make a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3653 1 change to that procedure for other reasons other than 2 the license renewal it would cause them to go through 3 a 50.59 evaluation which would seem unnecessarily when 4 only a few steps in the procedure are needed for 5 license renewal purposes. Does that help?

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, it does. Thank you.

7 Have we finished with your dialogue that 8 you started off with? I think we're all the way 9 through it.

10 MS. GREEN: I think so.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And I'll get back to you 12 in a minute, Mr. Holston, in regards to UFSAR. But I 13 do want to now go to Entergy to complete the cycle 14 here on what we've heard so far.

15 Mr. Cox, it's still not clear to me why 16 having to go through a 50.59 is to onerous to you that 17 you wouldn't be able to cite specifically for the 18 buried pipes program those four procedural documents 19 that we've been talking about in your UFSAR.

20 MR. COX: Well, I don't know that I've --

21 I didn't intend to indicate that it was too onerous.

22 I'm not sure --

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I'm just saying that.

24 Maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.

25 MR. COX: I'm not sure what purpose it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3654 1 would serve if you put those four procedure numbers in 2 the UFSAR. If I come up with a new procedure that's 3 an improvement on one of those methods, have I got to 4 get prior Commission approve on that? I've got to do 5 the 50.59 evaluation to make changes to that. And it 6 just seems like you're taking away the flexibility.

7 I mean we're following a process that's 8 been in place for -- I mean it's evolved over 30 to 40 9 years of operation of these plants. And if you step 10 outside of license renewal, you don't see references 11 to individual procedures in the SAR where it talks 12 about how we do things. I'm not aware of any cases 13 where we've actually said we'd do it in accordance 14 with a specific procedure at the plant.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: But probably this hasn't 16 been addressed before a board like this. And one of 17 the concerns that we may face when we're starting to 18 write a decision is what assurances do we have that 19 these will continue. Yes, we've got a lot of 20 testimony from some sound people and it seems like 21 they've got a pretty good handle on it. But they may 22 not be around forever. Have can we assure ourselves 23 that those procedures will be used? And if it's not 24 an onerous process to go through a 50.59 because you 25 have that screening portion as a start-off of that, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3655 1 that you probably already know the answer to when you 2 see the change you're going to make.

3 If it's a significant change, you're going 4 to contact them anyhow. And if it isn't, you're not.

5 You've got the experience. You've got the ability.

6 I guess I'm still having trouble understanding why it 7 would place any burden on you to go ahead and cite 8 these in the 50.59 just as a complete, more specific 9 link to what you're proposing to do.

10 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 11 Azevedo for Entergy. May I add?

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure.

13 MR. AZEVEDO: First of all, all procedure 14 changes go through 50.59 screen whether they are in 15 the FSAR or not. That's our process. We have to do 16 a 50.59 screen for all procedure changes.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: And where is that 18 documented that that's what you do?

19 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. In fact I have the 20 procedure in front of me. I don't know if this is the 21 one. This is the 50.59 screen. There's another 22 procedure that controls procedure changes. And I 23 don't have that one in front of me. But that's what 24 it would be.

25 So a 50.59 screen is done for all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3656 1 procedure changes. As far as adding them to the FSAR, 2 --

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: All right. Where did you 4 say it was documented? I didn't --

5 MR. AZEVEDO: The 50.59 screen process.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: The requirements for you 7 to do it for all changes that you just described, 8 where is that documented?

9 MR. AZEVEDO: I don't have the procedure 10 number, but there is a procedure that controls 11 procedure changes and it tells you what to do. And 12 one of the requirements is to do 50.59 screen. So 13 that's done whether it's in the FSAR or not.

14 As far as adding these procedures to the 15 FSAR, we revise them on a regular basis. There are I 16 want to say hundreds. I know you are just referring 17 to four right now. But many of the procedures, it 18 would very cumbersome to keep track of all these 19 procedures and all the right revisions in the FSAR.

20 So that's the reason why we don't include them.

21 I don't believe that would add much as far 22 as the 50.59 process because as I said they're already 23 screened.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: But in regards to the 25 four we're talking about and no one -- Just in regards NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3657 1 to the four we're talking about, I guess I still don't 2 see what burden that adds. You are doing it anyhow.

3 You are doing that screening anyhow.

4 If the results of that screening is that 5 you don't have to notify them, do you have to document 6 the process that you went through in that screening?

7 Or is there just a checkbox or do you just proceed 8 ahead if in fact it's not significant enough that 9 requires Staff attention?

10 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, it's documented, but 11 let me make sure it's clear. If I have the procedure 12 number in the FSAR and I assume you want the revision 13 number as well so you know which one you're looking 14 to, then when I change that procedure I not only have 15 to do a 50.59 screen. I actually have to change the 16 FSAR because the FSAR is no longer accurate because 17 the revision number changed.

18 So that's the difference by having it in 19 the FSAR. And it's just more cumbersome and we don't 20 feel it really adds any value because it's already 21 covered by the 50.59 process.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

23 MR. COX: If I could add one thing, if you 24 put it without the revision number and then you say 25 you're going to do it in accordance with these four NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3658 1 procedures, you can still change those four procedures 2 under 50.59. When you do your 50.59 evaluation, it 3 would say are you affecting what's in the SAR? No, 4 I'm still using this procedure. I'm doing different 5 things in the procedure now than I did when that 6 number was put in there. But I'm still using that 7 procedure.

8 So I'm not sure you've added anything. I 9 think the way we've done it is we've included the 10 essential elements of the program in the text without 11 referring to a specific procedure. And we have to 12 evaluate the procedure. If we make a change to it, we 13 have to evaluate it against those essential elements.

14 And that's essentially the way the regulatory process 15 and the regulatory frame work and the way we do 16 procedures and 50.59s and control the SAR. That's the 17 established process. And I believe that's an 18 appropriate way to handle license renewal commitments.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

20 Mr. Holston, could you now describe again 21 what you talked about in regards to UFSAR and how does 22 it interact with the SER and the supplement to those 23 SERs?

24 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. The point I was 25 adding to what Ms. Green stated was that not only were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3659 1 those number of inspections expressed in commitment, 2 but the number of inspections of buried piping 3 components was also included in both the Unit 2 and 4 the Unit 3 UFSAR supplements. So it's in both places.

5 That was all I was trying to say.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: But there's a whole bunch 7 of other procedures and activities that haven't been 8 incorporated in the UFSAR as I just now understood.

9 Is that correct?

10 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And in regards to that 12 here is a list of the letters, the procedural 13 documents and the EPRI and the NEI. All of those 14 interact and overlap to some degree and have various 15 procedures that have resulted in how they are going to 16 manage the effects of aging through the period of 17 extended operation.

18 For our use, we can say that none of these 19 have been specifically called out in the UFSAR. Is 20 that correct?

21 MR. HOLSTON: That is correct, sir.

22 MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, this is Kathryn 23 Sutton for the Applicant. The list of documents 24 you're referring, could we either read that into the 25 record or provide a citation?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3660 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Let's do that.

2 That's good. Thank you.

3 The list I'm referring to says, "These 4 include the NL letters, NL-09-106. That's New York 5 Exhibit 000203 dated July of `09. The next NL letter 6 is NL-09-111, Exhibit 000171 of New York, August `09.

7 The NL-11-032 is Exhibit 000151 of March of `11. And 8 the letter NL-11-071 Exhibit 152, July of `11. NL 9 090, Exhibit 000153 of July, `11.

10 And then the four corporate/plant 11 documents, that's the EN-EP-S-002-MULTI which is 12 Entergy Exhibit 000408, October of `09. SEP-UIP-IPEC, 13 New York Exhibit 000174 of August `11. And EN-DC-343, 14 New York Exhibit 000172 of May of `11. And CEP-UPT-15 0100, Exhibit 000173 of October `11.

16 And then the NEI 04-14 New York Exhibit 17 and that's 000168 of December 2010. And then the EPRI 18 1016456 Exhibit of New York of 000167 December of `08.

19 JUDGE McDADE: With sort of a break here 20 between your questions on that, I'd like to clarify 21 something in my own mind here. And, Ms. Green, you 22 talked about a 50.59 screening which consisted of 23 three questions. Am I correct that you then have a 24 50.59 review or evaluation which consisted of eight 25 questions that whether something is in the UFSAR or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3661 1 not is not as a regulatory matter significant but just 2 as a practical matter de facto? If it is in the 3 UFSAR, then the first aspect, the screening, will 4 almost always require moving on to the more detailed 5 review or evaluation with the eight questions? And 6 then depending on how those questions unless they were 7 all answered in the negative, then the Applicant would 8 need to go through the 50.59 process to get approval 9 from the agency before making the procedure change.

10 Have I correctly understood what you said or, if not, 11 can you correct me?

12 MS. GREEN: No, you have correctly 13 understood. When I said three questions, I'm going 14 off my memory from when I worked in the industry back 15 20 years ago and wrote 50.59 evaluations for 16 utilities.

17 The number of screening questions probably 18 varies from site to site. But it is a process that 19 they go through to answer screening questions when 20 they're making procedure changes. If they -- Like one 21 of the screening questions might be, is this in the 22 UFSAR?

23 And if they determine it is, then they 24 know that they have to go through and do the full 25 50.59 evaluation. Those are the eight questions that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3662 1 are required under regulation that they have to 2 answer. If they answer any of them negatively, I mean 3 all of them negatively, they can proceed with the 4 change without prior NRC approval. If they answer any 5 positively, they probably need to come into the NRC 6 for approval before they can proceed with the change.

7 JUDGE McDADE: Not probably need to. They 8 need to.

9 MS. GREEN: Yes, they need to.

10 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you.

11 MR. COX: Judge McDade. I could add one 12 clarification. This is Alan Cox. My recollection and 13 I'm a little bit like Kim. I haven't known a lot of 14 50.59 in recent years, but my recollection is that one 15 of the questions "Will this affect a licensing basis 16 document or does it have the potential to affect a 17 licensing basis document?" So it's kinda -- I think 18 you are correct in that most things where you have a 19 process that's described in the FSAR is going to trip 20 the wire that says "Does this have the potential to 21 affect something on a licensing basis document?" And 22 that will require the evaluation of eight questions 23 that Ms. Green mentioned.

24 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you, Mr. Cox.

25 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3663 1 Azevedo. It is actually a three step process. The 2 first process is does the 50.59 process apply and we 3 call that a PAD, a Process Applicability 4 Determination. If we say yes where 50.59 applies as 5 opposed to some other process, then we go to a screen.

6 And I think the difference between a 7 screen and an evaluation is the questions in the 8 screen ask whether there's any adverse impact of this 9 change on any licensing document.

10 So if there's an adverse impact, then you 11 move onto the evaluation. And then the evaluation, 12 the questions are is the adverse impact more than 13 minimal. So again the difference between a screen and 14 an evaluation is the screen is any adverse impact.

15 The evaluation is is the adverse impact than minimal.

16 And if it is more than minimal, then you need to get 17 a prior NRC approval.

18 JUDGE McDADE: What does the first step 19 consist of of whether or not the 50.59 is applicable?

20 How do you make that determination? What is the 21 criteria used?

22 MR. AZEVEDO: There is a long checklist 23 that we go through and, for example, on the 10 CFR 24 50.55(a) which is a code and standards which is a 25 different process than a 50.59, there are a bunch of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3664 1 other regulations like fire protection and others 2 where if -- like the quality assurance program, for 3 example. If you make changes to the quality assurance 4 program, it's a separate process. It's not the 50.59 5 process. So that's what that checklist requires you 6 to fill out and then it will tell you what process 7 applies.

8 JUDGE McDADE: So all that is is 9 procedural not substantive.

10 MR. AZEVEDO: You mean the PAD? The 11 Process Applicability --

12 JUDGE McDADE: The applicability. Just is 13 this within 50.59 or is this under some other 14 regulation such fire protection or whatever?

15 MR. AZEVEDO: Right. That's just a 16 checklist that we go through. That's correct.

17 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. It may be an 18 appropriate time for us to take a short break. Would 19 ten minutes be sufficient before -- Mr. Holston.

20 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. I appreciate it.

21 I wanted to if I could right before the break 22 interject a correction to something I stated if that's 23 alright.

24 JUDGE McDADE: Please do.

25 MR. HOLSTON: And this was in relation to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3665 1 the amount of feet of piping that have been inspected 2 to date. And I did a 10 times error in my head. I 3 apologize, but I transposed. But I stated and I 4 confirmed with our attorney and with Ms. Green. I 5 stated 700 and 800 feet. It's 70 to 80 feet. And 6 they might have inspected more. I'm not up to date on 7 every inspection that they have conducted.

8 The percentages I gave are correct. You 9 know approximately 7 percent to 10 percent because Ms.

10 Green and I did that yesterday. But I apologize, but 11 that was just too much of a difference in numbers not 12 to get on the record.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

14 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I've got now about 15 9:45 a.m. If we come back at 9:55 a.m. Is that 16 enough time? Does anyone need more time?

17 MS. SUTTON: That's sufficient, Your 18 Honor.

19 JUDGE McDADE: And anybody need to take 20 anything up before the break? Raise any issue?

21 Apparently, not. We're in recess for ten minutes.

22 Off the record.

23 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Still on the same subject 25 area, Mr. Holston, yesterday, you made a comment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3666 1 something to the effect, did you not, that certainly 2 the UFSARs are most important and that -- did you say 3 the AMP disappears once we enter the -- once a license 4 is granted, something to that effect or maybe you were 5 referring to something else if you said disappeared?

6 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. What I was 7 referring to was when you were referring to those 8 pages B-27, B-28, that two-page summary of the AMP, 9 that's the License Renewal Application. Once we've 10 granted the renewed license, issued the Safety 11 Evaluation Report, flipflop that order, right, and the 12 licensee enters the period of extended operation, that 13 license renewal document is a historical document.

14 It's not a living document.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: So another way to 16 paraphrase it then, does the SER and the UFSAR then 17 rule the day in regards to what takes place?

18 MR. HOLSTON: That is, in part, correct.

19 The Safety Evaluation Report would be referred to to 20 understand what the staff's intent was if a 50.59 were 21 being conducted. But what really rules the day is 22 those procedures that have been developed, those three 23 plus one, the four procedures that are on the record 24 that we've been referring to back to periodically.

25 They have the risk assessment details. They have how NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3667 1 do you do visual inspections. Those are what on a 2 day-to-day basis the engineer or the craft that's 3 going out, excavating piping, the engineer that's 4 setting up well, what are my next five programmatic 5 inspections I'm going to be doing, those -- that's 6 what they refer to.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: But yet, there is at that 8 point in time no documentation linking those specific 9 procedures to the buried pipe and tanks program for 10 managing aging is there? There's no direct link.

11 You're linking it based on faith.

12 MR. HOLSTON: Not linking it based on 13 faith. When we go out and do our audits of a plant, 14 the applicant has a program basis document. They take 15 those two, maybe three pages in the License Renewal 16 Application that mostly tell you it's consistent.

17 They give you a little bit of a program description.

18 They give you these parts of consistent. I have an 19 enhancement here. Here's a little bit of OE.

20 That program basis document I talked about 21 yesterday usually 20, I think I said 20 to 30, maybe 22 I've seen them as much as 40 pages long, translates 23 that how do we demonstrate that we're going to be 24 consistent? Well, we're going to be consistent with 25 the Aging Management Program and the relation to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3668 1 number of inspections because if I demonstrate my soil 2 is corrosive, I'm going to have 24 in addition to 3 these. That's the kind of detail you see in a program 4 basis document.

5 It will walk through each of the ten 6 program elements of the GALL AMP and specifically 7 state how they'll be consistent. Within that 8 document, there's generally -- every one I've seen has 9 a list of reference documents it refers to and that's 10 where you would see the link to those procedures that 11 we've been talking about.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where is this reference 13 document published? Where are those references?

14 MR. HOLSTON: They would be listed in the 15 reference section of the program basis document.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Program basis document.

17 MR. HOLSTON: Some plants call them 18 slightly different, but they all look the same. Most 19 plants call them the program basis document. It's an 20 expansion of what's in the License Renewal Application 21 so that the -- that's probably enough to describe it 22 unless you have any further questions.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: So there is a commitment 24 to do things consistent with GALL or GALL with some 25 exceptions or enhancements. We talked of those three NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3669 1 things. And then as I am paraphrasing what you're 2 saying that the designated commitments are -- the 3 docketed commitments are in the UFSAR, so those are of 4 no debate. But the other promises, i.e., the other 5 implementing procedures, see how I can get right into 6 that lingo of using that? Those implementing 7 procedures --

8 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir --

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: -- are by definition what 10 is considered to achieve that consistency with GALL.

11 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: And therefore, it is 13 incumbent upon Entergy to be performing their aging 14 management and according to those procedures in order 15 to maintain their consistency with GALL to provide the 16 linkage that's needed.

17 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir.

18 JUDGE McDADE: Let me just go through 19 something to make sure I understand it and understand 20 your testimony, that the summary of the AMP in the 21 License Renewal Application be one that after approval 22 occurs and once the period of extended operation 23 begins, that -- your wording, no longer a living 24 document, it's a historical document. Basically, that 25 information and the applicable information is included NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3670 1 in the UFSAR. But what really controls what is done 2 are those procedure documents that we discussed before 3 New York 000172, 000173, 000174 and Entergy 000408 4 which -- and proposed 000600, those are the documents 5 that were designated as SEP-UIP-PEC, CFP-UPT-0100, EN-6 DC-000374, and then the multi-document.

7 Am I correct so far?

8 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir.

9 JUDGE McDADE: Now then where does this 10 program basis document come in? Is this a compilation 11 of those other four documents or is this something in 12 addition to those?

13 MR. HOLSTON: The program basis document 14 is assembled to guide the staff when we go to the site 15 to do the audit. In the process of doing the audit, 16 I'm looking at current procedures, enhancements, often 17 looked at testing results just to see, you know, for 18 testing that you've done in an existing program 19 whether it's consistent with what we're expecting to 20 see. And all of that review I do during -- or the 21 staff does during the AMP audit will then will either 22 lead to a conclusion that what we've seen is 23 consistent with the GALL or will result in Request for 24 Additional Information.

25 I can give you an example I've seen at a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3671 1 couple of plants. I've reviewed procedures and this 2 might seem like kind of a nit, but I'll give you a 3 level of detail that I look at. And the procedures 4 will say you should consider corrosion risk. And I'll 5 push back on that. I'll say no. To be consistent 6 with the GALL, you shall consider corrosion risk.

7 And I would request for additional 8 information because in my mind a "should" statement 9 versus a "shall" statement is not consistent with the 10 GALL. So that's what we're doing. And that document 11 that we get back to, the program basis document, helps 12 us by showing us where all those links are. So I 13 don't just go to the site and put a pile of 100,000 14 pieces of paper in front of me and I'll try to go 15 through that and figure out what you credited.

16 JUDGE McDADE: But the program basis 17 document includes those procedure documents, New York 18 000172, 000173, 000174, Entergy 000408, 000600. It 19 includes those. Then you said enhancements. What are 20 we talking about by way of enhancements?

21 MR. HOLSTON: Just to clarify, they were 22 references to those procedures, so it's not like the 23 procedure is embedded in that, but yet references.

24 Enhancements are recommendations in the GALL that the 25 applicant wants to implement to demonstrate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3672 1 consistency, but they haven't done the procedure 2 changes yet. So for example, they've installed 3 cathodic protection on their AFW piping. They have 4 cathodic protection on their city water piping. And 5 they want to do testing and they want to use the 6 negative 850 millivolt criterion that's in NACE 7 SPO169. But it's not in the procedure yet.

8 So to be consistent with the GALL, we want 9 them to use that criterion. They'll state I'm 10 consistent with the GALL, however, I need to do an 11 enhancement. I need to revise the procedure to 12 incorporate that requirement. If that is not 13 implemented prior to the period of extended operation, 14 that would be written as a commitment. That 15 enhancement would be incorporated into a commitment.

16 JUDGE McDADE: And where do we find those?

17 Are those indexed somewhere so we would have a list of 18 all of those enhancements?

19 MR. HOLSTON: The enhancements are 20 discussed in the License Renewal Application.

21 However, when we do our audit, there may be more 22 enhancements are developed as a result for a Request 23 For Additional Information. So they're all listed in 24 the Safety Evaluation Report that we publish, each and 25 every one.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3673 1 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, and you also referred 2 to test results. Where are those indexed or 3 documented?

4 MR. HOLSTON: The test results we wouldn't 5 -- they would be listed in the audit report. If we 6 had the opportunity to look at inspection results, we 7 would list them. We have one part of the audit report 8 is a list of every document we looked at for that 9 program while we were on site. That's where those 10 would be indexed.

11 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, and these make up 12 this, as you describe it, somewhat or at least to me 13 it sounds somewhat amorphous, program basis document.

14 It isn't a single document. It's a concept that you 15 just described?

16 MR. HOLSTON: The program basis document 17 is a singular document that references out to all 18 these other procedures that are used to demonstrate 19 consistencies.

20 JUDGE McDADE: And where do we find that?

21 We don't have an exhibit identified as a program basis 22 document. Where do we find that?

23 MR. HOLSTON: Then that would just be 24 available at the site for the staff to review during 25 the audit. I don't recall seeing it as an Entergy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3674 1 exhibit, but Entergy could correct that if they 2 provided that as an exhibit.

3 MR. COX: Judge McDade, I think I could 4 add a little clarification to what Mr. Holston has 5 said. A couple points. Again, if you remember back 6 about when we were talking about the LRA submitted in 7 2007, this was a new program that we committed to 8 implement prior to the PEO which is September of next 9 year for Unit 2. So enhancements, typically are going 10 to be things that you do to existing programs.

11 Where you've got a program, you've got 12 procedures for implementing that program, but maybe 13 you don't have a procedure step that addresses one 14 specific item out of the GALL Report program 15 description. So you'd write an enhancement to revise 16 your procedure to include that aspect of the program.

17 When you're dealing with new programs 18 which we have here for the buried piping, there's no 19 existing procedures to enhance. We have to implement 20 the program which means we have to go out there and 21 develop the procedures to do that. So there's not 22 going to be a -- if you look at the program basis 23 document that went with the program, when we submitted 24 the License Renewal Application, there would not be 25 references to these four procedures. These four NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3675 1 procedures were all developed as part of the 2 commitment that we made that says we will implement 3 this program prior to the PEO. It's a little bit of 4 a different -- you've got to keep that in mind when 5 you start talking about enhancements and program basis 6 documents. The commitments that are in the SER are 7 going to be new programs, implemented program, and for 8 this one we say as described in Appendix B or there 9 are going to be enhancements to existing programs.

10 You've got an established program with procedures that 11 are on the street. That's not going to show up as one 12 of your SER commitments. That program will be 13 described in the SAR supplement, but it's not going to 14 be -- the SER commitments are things that have to be 15 done that are not in place now that you've got to go 16 put in place before the period of extended operation.

17 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Cox, 18 but let me ask again if someone -- an investigator 19 goes out, an auditor goes out from the NRC, is there 20 a location that he can say I want to see the program 21 basis document and someone will bring him a file 22 folder and say there it is. There's the document.

23 MR. COX: We actually have the documents 24 that we have done for Indian Point. It's not a single 25 document for each program. There's a document for a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3676 1 group of programs. We have a document for the non-2 Class 1 mechanical programs. We have a separate 3 document for the Class 1 programs and I believe 4 another document for the electrical programs, 5 etcetera.

6 So here's a document that we will have 7 evaluated it. It will basically say for a new program 8 that we're going to be consistent with what's in the 9 GALL Report.

10 There's another exercise that we go 11 through as part of implementing license renewal. We 12 have to confirm that we've met these commitments. So 13 prior to the PEO, we're going to do another review 14 that says we have committed to implement the program 15 described in Appendix B of the LRA. Okay, so what 16 does that say? We go to that appendix and it says 17 you're going to implement a program consistent with 18 GALL.

19 So we go to the GALL Report and it says 20 you've got to this particular preventive action. And 21 we go look at the procedures or the plant design and 22 say have we met that? If it says you have to do a 23 visual inspection, we go and look, do we have a 24 procedure for doing visual inspections? And if we do, 25 this is another point where we have a link between the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3677 1 procedure and the commitment.

2 If the GALL Report says you have to do a 3 visual inspection or in our case it says we have to do 4 -- I can't remember the number, 34 visual inspections.

5 We're going to have to look in the procedure to see if 6 has directions to do that. And we'll flag that 7 procedure as implementing a commitment. It's part of 8 the commitment. All of the individual steps that are 9 entailed in that commitment will be flagged in the 10 procedure that says you can't change this procedure 11 without considering that you may be changing something 12 that we've committed to do as part of the License 13 Renewal Application.

14 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Before you get to 15 the period of extended operations, we need to make a 16 finding that you have adequately addressed the impacts 17 of aging that the allegation of New York is that 18 there's insufficient specificity in your program in 19 order to demonstrate that.

20 Now we're going to be looking at the 21 application. We're going to be looking at the FSAR.

22 We're going to be looking at New 000172, 000173, 23 000174, Entergy 000408 and 000600 to see whether or 24 not there's adequate specificity there to satisfy us 25 that the effects of aging are adequately managed.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3678 1 What I'm trying to find out is there 2 something else in addition to what I've just run 3 through that we should be looking to that can inform 4 our decision as to whether or not aging will be 5 appropriately managed and again, we're talking about 6 this program basis document. And where do we go to 7 sort of get our arms wrapped around that?

8 Ms. Green?

9 MS. GREEN: Yes, this is Kimberly Green 10 for NRC staff. When the NRC conducts its audits, we 11 look at what Mr. Holston and Mr. Cox has termed as the 12 program basis document. In Entergy exhibit 000041, we 13 document our audit, the results of our audit. It's an 14 audit report. And in Section 3.1.2, the staff 15 specifically describes what it reviewed on site for 16 the buried pipe and tanks inspection program.

17 At that time, and we stated in our audit 18 report, that Entergy had not -- it's a new program, as 19 Mr. Cox stated. And at the time, we had not yet 20 developed any procedures, so in the program basis 21 document for a new program, what we typically see is 22 a statement from the GALL AMP. So for element 1, 23 program description and then we see the applicant's 24 statement about the program description. And since 25 it's a new program, it typically is very much NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3679 1 consistent with what the GALL AMP program would say.

2 The document that we looked at, I do 3 believe is also an exhibit. It's IP-RPT-06-LRD-07.

4 And the buried pipe and tanks inspection program as 5 described at the time of our audit back in 2007, it's 6 in Section 3.1. But I think they've revised that 7 document since because they've now developed 8 procedures and the program has changed significantly 9 since the original submittal of the LRA. And in that 10 type of document, we would expect to see step by step 11 specifically what they plan to do and a citation to 12 the procedure. And those procedures that we've been 13 talking about would be referenced.

14 Sometimes, applicants get down to the 15 level where they say on this page or in this step. I 16 was present on all the AMP and AMR and TRA audits as 17 the project manager and I can tell you from my 18 recollection, my memory that, in fact, Entergy did 19 call out specifically steps or procedures and they 20 provided those pages of the procedure in the program 21 basis document notebook that they gave us, so we could 22 see specifically to where they were referring for how 23 they were going to implement the program. They didn't 24 do that for the buried pipe and tanks inspection 25 program because as I indicated and as we documented NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3680 1 our audit report, those procedures have not yet been 2 developed.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Azevedo --

4 MR. LEE: Excuse me, I have something to 5 add?

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, Mr. Lee.

7 MR. LEE: Ms. Green mentioned the word 8 notebook. And part of your question is addressing if 9 the NRC came on site and wanted to inspect our buried 10 piping program what would they be looking at. All 11 program engineers, basically assemble, put together 12 program notebooks which is -- can be a hard copy or an 13 electronic file version. But basically, it's a 14 collection of all procedures, references, FSAR 15 sections, tech spec sections, vendor reports, surveys, 16 engineering reports, and the like. So all of the 17 inspection reports that we've mentioned that have been 18 completed inspections would be assembled in that 19 notebook and available.

20 And there is no program basis document per 21 se for this program. Other programs, we have 22 generated program basis documents, but I think that is 23 in the future, for future development. But I think 24 there is an overlap between the intent of what the 25 notebook accomplishes in collecting all the pertinent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3681 1 information in one place.

2 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

3 Judge Wardwell?

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Azevedo, is it your 5 intent to follow all the procedures that are listed in 6 those documents that we brought up today, that is, the 7 New York 000172, 000173, 000174, and Entergy 000408 8 and 000600 was it?

9 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

10 It's not my intent, it's my requirements, part of my 11 job.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy's 13 testimony 000373 on page 59.A80, Entergy again revised 14 its BPTIP program in March of 2011, principally in 15 response to further NRC staff RAIs and then I'd ask 16 anyone from staff to say if you can recall why there 17 was a need to revise this at this point, what were the 18 key RAIs that went into this revision?

19 MR. HOLSTON: This is Mr. Holston. The 20 key RAIs was -- I did a reconciliation or a gap 21 analysis between the critical aspects of GALL read to 22 the issuance of AMP XI.M41 that replaced 34, AMP 23 XI.M34 and so it's a series of questions. And those 24 are -- I can give you the exhibit numbers if you would 25 like that, that have all of those requests for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3682 1 additional information captured within them. Do you 2 want those exhibit numbers?

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. How many are 4 there? Is it lengthy?

5 MR. HOLSTON: There's three principal 6 ones.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure, just exhibit 8 numbers.

9 MR. HOLSTON: And that would be New York 10 State 000151, New York State 000152, New York State 11 000153.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: And were those NL numbers 13 or were those NL letters?

14 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. They were.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: I thought the exhibit 16 numbers sounded familiar. Thank you.

17 Staying with Entergy's testimony, page 18 61.A83, as discussed in Section 7G below, available 19 data do not indicate that soil surrounding in-scope 20 buried piping at IPEC is corrosive. I could not find 21 7G.

22 Entergy, would you be able to guide me to 23 that? I must have lost it the same way I lost B27.

24 That's one of the problems with keeping electronic 25 versions of this. A click of the mouse may delete NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3683 1 stuff. Again, this was stated on your exhibit 373 2 page 61A in answer to 83. There was something in your 3 testimony.

4 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, Martin O'Neill 5 for the applicant. Section VII.G is a reference to 6 our actual testimony, Entergy Exhibit 000373, 7 beginning with question/answer 129. So it's kind of 8 an internal cross reference.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: But is the word VII.G 10 stated in your testimony or --

11 MR. O'NEILL: The VII.G, it's Roman 12 numeral -- section Roman numeral VII, subsection G.

13 It's the subsection of the testimony entitled the 14 available data do not indicate that soil corrosivity 15 is a significant concern at IPEC that by itself 16 warrants cathodic protection.

17 MR. COX: Just to clarify that, Mr.

18 O'Neill, I believe the numbering has changed. That's 19 now VIII.G. I'm not looking at the same version as 20 Judge Wardwell of the testimony, but the latest 21 version has that --

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Put up 000373, Andy, 23 please. Entergy 000373.

24 MR. O'NEILL: I think it's R2, Your Honor.

25 I think R3 is the most recent one.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3684 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: You think I'm referring 2 to the R2 with all my references?

3 MR. O'NEILL: I would hazard a guess.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I haven't.

5 JUDGE McDADE: We'd had the R2 for a 6 while.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: I know, but only in 8 October. I have not updated it since October. No, go 9 to R1, the first revision of 000373. Hang on a 10 second. It would just be the original 000373.

11 JUDGE McDADE: Question. We got the first 12 revision in May of 2012 and that just would be 13 ENTR00373. Is that the one you're working on from?

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: I cannot tell. It's not 15 easy for me to tell without completely changing my 16 system here. I didn't think it was going to be this 17 involved. Call up a 00373, please. I don't care 18 which one. All right.

19 Now where shall we go to see this VII.G 20 that you're referring to?

21 MR. O'NEILL: I'm being told it's Section 22 VIII.G now.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Fine, let's go to VIII.G 24 then. This is the only place that it's listed is in 25 the Table of Contents?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3685 1 MR. O'NEILL: Right there, page 114 of 2 this version.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: When I go to 114 there's 4 no -- you don't -- this isn't a Table of Contents 5 because there's no headings in your testimony, is 6 there?

7 MR. O'NEILL: There are, right here.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

9 MR. O'NEILL: Maybe there was an incorrect 10 reference to VII.G.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's probably it.

12 MR. O'NEILL: I apologize.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: It was VIII.G and not 14 VII.G. Thank you. I now know where it is. You've 15 answered that.

16 (Pause.)

17 The question is dealing with staff's 18 testimony, page 60.A53, we've already covered this 19 morning. In regards to staff testimony 000016, page 20 28.A23, inspection results are trended to identify 21 portions of buried piping systems with a history of 22 corrosion problems. Staff testimony on page 64, 23 answer to 59, "given the 24 additional inspections 24 will be performed in the remaining years prior to 25 license renewal, 30 inspections will be conducted in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3686 1 the next 10-year period. Thirty inspections will be 2 conducted in the final 10-year period. It is 3 reasonable to expect that long periods of time would 4 not occur between inspections."

5 My first question for staff is what 6 trending analyses or other bases did you look at that 7 leads you to believe that the 10-year period is 8 adequate?

9 MR. HOLSTON: Here in the TI2516 10 inspection -- can I just use that term from now on?

11 It's kind of the replacement of the 71003?

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry, say it again?

13 MR. HOLSTON: TI2516. Normally, a plant 14 right before it goes into the period of extended 15 operation has a 71003 inspection conducted by the 16 region. Because Indian Point has not been granted its 17 renewed license yet, there was a Temporary 18 Instruction, TI2516 inspection procedure that was put 19 in place that mimics the 7103. So I took part with 20 the region in that inspection.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: This is not inspection of 22 the pipes, this is your inspection of the plant?

23 MR. HOLSTON: Correct, and it's inspection 24 to go and look at has the applicant implemented, 25 developed the procedures, closed the commitments that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3687 1 they're supposed to. And it's an inspection that 2 occurs over multi-phases, probably three different 3 subset inspections. I took part in one of those.

4 And during that inspection I looked at 5 several inspection reports. I looked at inspection 6 reports for AFW piping for condensate piping and for 7 service water piping. And from that I determined part 8 of the conclusions that go into my testimony and the 9 significant one being that they had the 2009 event 10 where they had corrosion, through-wall, and they had 11 the leakage, but since that time all of their 12 inspections have revealed no damage to coatings and no 13 deleterious materials in the backfill.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: So how does that lead you 15 to the 10-year period? I mean where did this come 16 from?

17 MR. HOLSTON: The 10-year period was 18 established all the way back in the origins of the 19 GALL, so XI.M34 had although one inspection, right, 20 that one inspection was conducted somewhere within the 21 10-year period, prior to the period of extended 22 operation. When we developed AMP XI.M41 to replace 23 that, we developed three discrete periods, 30 to 40 24 years; 40 to 50 years; and 50 years to 60 years. And 25 stated how many inspections had to be conducted in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3688 1 each of those 10-year periods. So that's the origin 2 of the ten years.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there no other 4 rationale besides just what you described?

5 MR. HOLSTON: I would say there's no other 6 -- well, to say there's no other rationale is not 7 quite accurate in that if a plant has a cathodic 8 protection system that's fully functional, meets 9 availability criteria, meets effectiveness criteria 10 for all of its buried piping, then in each of those 11 10-year periods we just have them do one excavated 12 inspection, right? What we said for a plant that has 13 portions or all other piping that does not have 14 cathodic protection, in this case Indian Point has 15 portions that are not cathodically protected, and 16 because their plant-operating experience had that one 17 instance of leaking -- of a leak, then they're going 18 to conduct many more inspections.

19 Now how Entergy implemented that was 94 20 inspections instead of the 90 that are recommended in 21 the GALL Report. So by virtue of having 34 done in 22 the first 10-year period and 30 in each of those 23 subsequent periods, plus the consideration of an 24 additional 24 inspections in those two 10-year periods 25 of the period of extended, if the soil is corrosive, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3689 1 it gives a little more teeth to it than just saying 2 well, you just pick ten years. That's a lot of 3 inspections to accomplish in a 10-year period.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: I guess my question is 5 why didn't you pick a 5-year period?

6 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, if I may.

7 There is industry precedent for ten years. In the 8 exhibits, Entergy --

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: And who is speaking, may 10 I ask?

11 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Sorry, Biagiotti for the 12 applicant, I apologize. Entergy 000447 is a copy of 13 the American Petroleum Institute API 570 standard.

14 And in that standard, you'll find as Table 9.1 for 15 systems without cathodic protection they do recommend 16 a 10-year or a 15-year inspection frequency and that 17 standard has been around for 20 plus years.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there an exhibit 19 number on that did you say?

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Entergy 000247.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. That kind of 22 completes the questions I have dealing with the BTIP.

23 I'll turn it over to other Judges if they have any 24 others before I'll charge ahead with others.

25 MR. O'NEILL: Quick clarification, Your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3690 1 Honor. That's Entergy Exhibit 000447. I think 2 Biagiotti originally said 000247. It's 000447.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

4 JUDGE KENNEDY: I have just a couple of 5 follow-up questions and hopefully the time hasn't 6 elapsed during this testimony.

7 I'd like to go back to some earlier 8 discussion, but let me try a possibly easy one first.

9 Ms. Green, in your discussion about the 10 current licensing basis and the placement of 11 commitments and SERs to capture the key AMP 12 attributes, we discussed it all in the context of the 13 buried pipe inspection -- buried piping and tanks 14 inspection document. I guess I'm wondering does that 15 have more generic applicability to other AMPs? Can I 16 think of that sort of process?

17 MS. GREEN: Yes, that applies to all AMPs.

18 JUDGE KENNEDY: So that's a process that 19 the staff uses generically as part of the license 20 renewal?

21 MS. GREEN: Yes.

22 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'd like to go back to 23 some discussion that Mr. Lee and Mr. Azevedo had about 24 the corrective action process. We started this 25 yesterday. In the testimony in front of us, there's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3691 1 very little discussion about that particular GALL AMP 2 attribute and I think, Mr. Azevedo, you talked in 3 terms of some of the inspections providing insights 4 that are fed into the BTIP or BPTIP program. How does 5 that work? How do those insights get factored into a 6 particular Aging Management Program from the 7 corrective action process?

8 And I guess when I first thought about 9 this question, I hadn't heard about this program basis 10 document, but I was thinking more in terms of what's 11 in BI.16 at the time and how you would provide 12 insights into that. But maybe if you could help us 13 understand a little bit more again, the corrective 14 action process and its ability to provide insights.

15 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for 16 Entergy. As part of the corrective action process, 17 one of the questions that we have to answer is where 18 else can this problem exist? What other systems are 19 affected? Not just the unit that we're dealing with, 20 but the other unit and, in fact, as I said yesterday, 21 the rest of the Entergy fleet.

22 So if we conclude there are other 23 locations that are affected by this corrosion 24 mechanism, then we have to establish corrective 25 actions to go and deal with that issue, whether it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3692 1 inspection, whether it's testing it, whatever the 2 appropriate action is. So that's how the corrective 3 action process deals with it.

4 As Mr. Lee said earlier today, I believe, 5 the SEP that has all the results, if he finds 6 conditions in one part of the plant that impacts the 7 rest of the systems, he will go and update the SEP to 8 reflect the operating experience. So as part of 9 reviewing the operating experience, we may have to 10 revise what locations get inspected, how frequently, 11 those kinds of things.

12 JUDGE KENNEDY: What about as part of the 13 corrective action process you discover a nuance in the 14 aging effect that would be related to buried piping?

15 How does that wind its way back into the program, if 16 it's appropriate?

17 MR. AZEVEDO: When you say a nuance, I'm 18 not exactly sure I understood your question.

19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's say a degradation 20 evidences itself that hadn't been envisioned when the 21 original program was written. How do those hooks work 22 from the corrective action process to make in this 23 case maybe an action or an enhancement to the Aging 24 Management Program? Or is that such a -- can that 25 sort of thing happen in this context?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3693 1 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, if it were defined, 2 let's use an extreme example. Let's say instead of 3 corrosion where we have wall thinning, let's say we 4 find cracks. A totally different mechanism, not the 5 one that we normally are looking for, but if that were 6 the case, we would likely have to revise our 7 inspection methods because the inspection methods that 8 we use to detect cracks is different from the 9 inspection methods that we use to measure wall 10 thickness. So that's one example.

11 If we find something that's different, 12 then we need to evaluate what changes we need to 13 implement to address that degradation mechanism.

14 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm envisioning 15 there's a series of closeout steps that need to occur 16 before the particular condition report that you've 17 opened up on an issue can occur. Is that the hook 18 that I'm looking for?

19 MR. AZEVEDO: Absolutely. Our condition 20 reports before they get closed out and depending -- I 21 mentioned yesterday whether it's a Level A, B, or C 22 CR, but it's A or B, it actually goes back to a 23 management committee at the site and they review the 24 responses and they determine whether the responses 25 were appropriate and correctly address the issue or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3694 1 not. If it's just a C condition report, then it just 2 gets reviewed by the CR Department.

3 JUDGE KENNEDY: And the A, B, C is a 4 significance determination, is that what I remember?

5 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, and whether it's A, B, 6 or C depends on a number of things. One is the impact 7 on plant availability, did we violate any regulatory 8 requirements, those kinds of things. If we answer yes 9 to any of those, it gets at a minimum a B designation 10 which means that we have to do an apparent cause and 11 establish corrective actions to address the issue and 12 answer the extent of condition question.

13 JUDGE KENNEDY: And this corrective action 14 process is driven by site-wide procedure? Is that 15 what you said yesterday?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: It's actually fleet wide and 17 it's required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.

18 MR. IVY: Ted Ivy for the applicant. I 19 would also add that's procedure EN-LI-102. It's 20 Entergy Exhibit 000401.

21 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.

22 MR. BIAGIOTTI: One last thing, Steve 23 Biagiotti for the applicant. This flow-chart process 24 is actually provided in the En-DC-343, Attachment 9.1.

25 And it does call out specifically where the corrective NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3695 1 action activity would occur in the process.

2 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that was exhibit?

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Exhibit Entergy 000578 is 4 the one I have here.

5 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, Your Honor. That's 6 correct. That's revision 5 of that document which has 7 been previously admitted into evidence. Again 8 revision 6 is a proposed Entergy exhibit.

9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I have no 10 additional questions.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's move on then. I 12 have a few questions remaining in regards to the 13 details in the AMP. We've covered an awful lot of 14 these, so we'll be going by quite a few, but one I 15 would like to get back to and to make -- no, we've 16 answered that question.

17 The first EN was just a reference for me 18 to remind to ask Entergy in regards to summarizing the 19 known leaks and we have done that already. So I don't 20 need to ask anything on that.

21 Regards to the testimony on page 31, 22 answer 50, speaking of the buried pipes and tanks that 23 fall under license renewal you state that "all the 24 systems identified in answers 46 and 48 above only the 25 IP3 safety injection system contains radioactive NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3696 1 fluids during normal operations because it contains 2 borated water." And it goes on.

3 What I wanted to do is get back to what we 4 talked about yesterday and I think we got interrupted 5 and we covered it again quickly here. Here listed, as 6 I show here is the safety injection service water, 7 fire protection, fuel oils, security generators, city 8 water, plant drains, and auxiliary feedwater. Where 9 are the systems of buried pipe that we're concerned 10 with in GALL 1.

11 And as we said earlier this morning, there 12 are two others and two are again, Mr. Cox? I believe 13 one was river water and --

14 MR. IVY: Ted Ivy for the applicant. It's 15 Unit 1 river water and Unit 2 circulating water.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

17 MR. COX: And there's one other, 18 containment isolation support is also --

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: So there's three others.

20 MR. COX: Right.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Than the list showing 22 here.

23 MR. COX: That's correct.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: I think we started this 25 and I wasn't sure we actually closed the loop, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3697 1 could you now, Mr. Cox, go through this list with the 2 three additions and say which of those carry 3 radioactive water or have the potential to contain 4 radioactivity?

5 MR. COX: Certainly. This is Alan Cox for 6 Entergy. The safety injection, as stated in the 7 paragraph just above the list, takes suction from the 8 refueling water storage tank which does contain 9 borated water. It's interchanged with RCS during 10 outages so it does contain some radioactive 11 constituents.

12 The service water system is river water 13 that's circulated through the plant. There's the 14 remote possibility that you could have some 15 contamination in the service water system if you had 16 equipment failures. In other words, you'd have to 17 have leakage between -- through a tube and a heat 18 exchanger, for instance, the service water cools the 19 containment fan coolers. So you have containment 20 atmosphere on the one side of the tube. You have 21 service water on the other side. If you had a unusual 22 situation where the pressure and containment was 23 higher than the pressure in the service water and you 24 had a hole in the tube, you could get a small amount 25 of contamination into that system.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3698 1 The plant drains, I think we touched on.

2 The next one, there are some areas of the plant that 3 have floor drains that could have contaminated water 4 flowing into those drains if you had equipment leaks.

5 And I believe that -- aux feedwater. Aux feedwater 6 includes the condensate storage tank which was the 7 subject of the 2009 leak. And as we've noted there, 8 it has trace amounts of tritium in that water at times 9 or it can have.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: And the other three ones 11 don't have radioactivity or the potential for it?

12 MR. COX: That's correct.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do all the buried pipes 14 at Indian Point that have the potential to carry 15 radioactivity included in these systems?

16 MR. COX: There are buried pipes that have 17 the potential to carry radioactivity that do not meet 18 the scoping criteria for license renewal that are not 19 included on this list.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you know what they are 21 offhand?

22 MR. COX: Offhand, and Mr. Azevedo may be 23 able to add some, but I think some of the systems that 24 process radioactive waste might be included in that.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Would you shed some light NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3699 1 on that?

2 MR. LEE: Bob Lee. Yes, I agree. Waste 3 disposal, liquid waste handling systems would be 4 contaminated and would contain some buried piping.

5 MR. COX: My experience at other plants, 6 this is Alan Cox again, my experience at other plants 7 with those systems is you'd have treated water that's 8 processed to release to the river, for example, and it 9 may have low amounts of radioactivity. It would be in 10 a pipe that is buried. So it's -- you're releasing it 11 to the river if it was leaking into the ground. It 12 would take longer to get to the river, but ultimately 13 that would be the source or the destination, I guess, 14 of that leakage.

15 MR. TURK: Your Honor, Sherwin Turk. I 16 would just point out the staff's testimony also 17 addresses which systems might contain or do contain 18 radioactive fluids and that's at pages 18 to 19. The 19 most recent revision, December 7th revision, it's 20 probably the same page as the earlier revision.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you saw the answer 22 numbers? That would be sufficient.

23 MR. TURK: Staff answer 14. The question 24 is do you agree with New York that the nine systems 25 listed in the contention may contain radioactive NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3700 1 fluid. And the staff then went through a listing of 2 each system and indicated which one does or might 3 contain radioactive fluid.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you, Mr. Turk. And 5 that was Staff 16 you were referring to?

6 MR. TURK: Yes, Your Honor.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Andy, could 8 you pull up Exhibit -- Entergy's testimony -- 000373 9 and go to -- I have page 33, but it's answer 50.

10 (Pause.)

11 I'm looking specifically for the figures.

12 If you can scroll down we should see a figure coming 13 up. Oh, good. Figure 2. You can stop right at 14 Figure 2, is labeled the IPEC buried piping that is in 15 scope for license renewal that contains or may contain 16 radioactive fluids.

17 Could you -- Entergy, could you anyone 18 that wants to do this, help us locate where the 19 previous leaks were determined, specifically in 2007 20 and in 2009 and -- yes, that's it, whatever the 21 summary of the leaks are that we have. Where are they 22 located, if you can just describe as best you can 23 where they might be. I won't have control. I won't 24 be able to move the mouse around.

25 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3701 1 Azevedo. The 2009 CST leak on the right-hand side of 2 the screen, you see that purple line, it goes up from 3 the tank, down to the containment towards the river.

4 On the low elevation, so just to the left of where the 5 mouse is, if you go over further down to the left, a 6 little bit up, over the -- on the purple. No, the 7 other end.

8 (Laughter.)

9 Right there, exactly. That's where the 10 leak occurred. That was the 2009 CST leak.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where your inspection 12 occurred was up by the tank itself which is down to 13 the lower left along the purple line?

14 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, lower right. That was 15 one of the holes that we dug. The other hole was I'd 16 say about maybe one third, halfway down the hill. I 17 know you can't tell from the picture, but that's a 18 hill going from the tank on the lower right-hand side 19 to the containment over further out and to the left.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: So if you can bring your 21 hand down all the way to the tank, so follow the 22 purple line?

23 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, right about there is 24 one hole.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3702 1 MR. AZEVEDO: And then if you go down 2 about a third of the way.

3 JUDGE McDADE: And just before we go on, 4 when you say "just about there" you were about a 5 quarter of an inch up from the tank, correct, on the 6 purple line?

7 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, that's about right.

8 JUDGE McDADE: And we're on the right-hand 9 side of the document, maybe --

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's really several feet, 11 I believe, if not a quarter of an inch.

12 JUDGE McDADE: We're talking about the 13 document.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: But this isn't to scale.

15 We're not going to know what it is in regards to the 16 document. So there's no sense in going to inches any 17 more than we can go to feet. Probably better to go to 18 feet if we could estimate it, but it's going to be 19 hard. This isn't at the scale.

20 MR. AZEVEDO: That's it. I can guess 21 about right now, about 15 to 20 feet from the tank.

22 That would be my guess.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, and what about --

24 that was in 2009, correct?

25 MR. AZEVEDO: That was the 2009 CST leak, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3703 1 that's correct.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what about the 2007, 3 what was that one involved with again, refresh my 4 memory?

5 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, the 2007, it was the 6 aux steam line that goes from Unit 1 to Unit 3 and 7 this is going to be more difficult to -- yeah.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Unit 1 is the furthest 9 one down the page, correct, right in the middle.

10 MR. AZEVEDO: If you see -- I don't know 11 if you can tell. There are three squares in the 12 middle of the picture. That's the discharge canal.

13 See the three squares. Up --

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Up just a little bit.

15 MR. AZEVEDO: Just a little bit up.

16 Right there, those three.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.

18 MR. AZEVEDO: Just west of that, a little 19 bit further up, that's where the leak was. So if you 20 go about half inch, the three quarters of an inch up, 21 a little bit further up, that's the general area a 22 little bit further up. That's roughly where it was.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there any other 24 features you'd want to point out that might be of 25 interest to us in regards to our conversations with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3704 1 buried pipes?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: I can't think of any others.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there anything else 4 you board members want to --

5 JUDGE McDADE: I'm just going to note this 6 for myself so I can find it from the transcript 7 talking about Figure 2. We're in the upper third, 8 upper quarter of the document about 45 percent over 9 from the left of the document, just above the three 10 discharge tanks. So that way when I read the 11 testimony, I'll know where you were talking about, Mr.

12 Azevedo.

13 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, except those are not 14 tanks. That's actually a bridge over the discharge 15 canal.

16 JUDGE McDADE: Discharge canal, thank you.

17 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.

18 MR. SIPOS: Excuse me, Judge McDade. John 19 Sipos for the State. I'm wondering for the purposes 20 of the record if we could detach this. This is a PDF 21 file, if we could detach this single page possibly at 22 a break. There are PDF tools that could mark those 23 locations of the leaks and the tests from 2008 and 24 that might just help make the record clearer as we go 25 forward.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3705 1 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, we will attempt to do 2 that. Thank you.

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, if I may?

4 This is Steve Biagiotti for the applicant over here.

5 JUDGE McDADE: Yes.

6 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Just a note on those last 7 figures. These are not just kind of color drawings on 8 sketches. I just want to make it clear that Entergy 9 has gone through and completely digitized with respect 10 to the plant, all buried piping systems, attached all 11 that data to databases. So these are not just sketch 12 lines. We are actually one might consider them almost 13 as-built representations of each of the systems.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Are the width of the 15 lines indicative of the size of the pipe?

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Not in this particular 17 view, but they can be. We've done it that way for 18 other folks as well. At this point, the lines, the 19 graphics that have been provided have been color coded 20 typically by system to make it easier to see that this 21 red one is fire protection. And the last example, the 22 purple line happened to be the aux feed.

23 So we tried to make it easier to be able 24 to see what a system was and actually in the exhibit 25 figure on the left side of this figure is an index or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3706 1 table of contents, well, okay, it's there, that 2 actually shows you the color that matches the unit 3 that matches the system. So you understood what it 4 was actually showing you.

5 I just wanted to make it clear that this 6 is not just a PDF trick where we've drawn a few 7 colored lines on. This is actually a complete 8 database. You can zoom in, zoom out, turn on, turn 9 off, things of interest. The plant absolutely knows 10 where all the buried piping is.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy's 12 testimony on page 9 of A20 states that "SIA digitized 13 information on over 150 pipe drawings."

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I guess I'm my own 15 straight man, huh?

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, you are. But I did 17 jump ahead. I did skip one because we already 18 answered those questions. "So representing more than 19 400 buried lines as part of its buried pipe database 20 population in risk analysis effort, further SIA 21 reviewed, compiled, and discussed with IPEC system 22 engineers, information to include the comprehensive 23 BPWorks database including design specifications, pipe 24 drawings, system descriptions, inspection reports, and 25 soil data."

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3707 1 This is for Dr. Duquette. In your review 2 of this testimony and specifically this portion of it, 3 do you now agree that Entergy with the assistance of 4 SIA has performed a systematic and detailed inventory 5 of the buried pipes at IPEC?

6 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, sir. I do.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And you don't have any 8 reason to doubt that those are not a good inventory?

9 DR. DUQUETTE: No, none whatsoever.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Saves me from 11 reviewing it in detail. I have you to testify that 12 it's okay.

13 Page 5 of your testimony, 165, that being 14 New York, is your report, Dr. Duquette, and on page 21 15 you state that the NL-ll-074, and that's New York 16 Exhibit 000152. And you state that "implementing the 17 recommendations of the PCA Report would have brought 18 IPEC into reasonable agreement with NUREG, XI.M41 for 19 buried and underground pipes."

20 Do you recall offhand which of those 21 recommendations you were referring to when you say 22 that implementation of these recommendations would 23 have brought them into reasonable agreement?

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Section XI.M41 for buried 25 and underground pipes suggests or doesn't suggest, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3708 1 indicates that carbon steel pipes, even if they're 2 coated should be cathodically protected.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's a 4 recommendation you're referring to?

5 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: In PCA, did they 7 recommend that also? Is that the recommendation of 8 interest?

9 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, sir.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy, have 11 you adopted all of the PCA Reports at Indian Point or 12 in any of your fleet-wide documents?

13 MR. LEE: Bob Lee for the applicant. PCA 14 Report is Entergy Exhibit 000373.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: What's the number again?

16 MR. LEE: 000373 is the exhibit.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's your testimony.

18 MR. LEE: I'm sorry, New York State 19 000178, 000178, yes. This is a 2008 PCA Report and 20 they had identified that city water piping was at the 21 location where it crosses the gas pipeline on our 22 property, was subject to effects of stray currents 23 from basically the transit system which is 24 interconnected with the gsa pipeline.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry, you've lost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3709 1 me. Could you start again?

2 MR. LEE: Okay, PCA had identified that 3 our city water lines which cross over the gas pipeline 4 which is on our property, was subject to stray 5 currents and could experience some pipe degradation 6 due to those stray currents.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And it crossed over what 8 pipeline, I'm sorry?

9 MR. LEE: It's referred to as an Algonquin 10 or Spectra Energy gas pipeline. There's actually 11 three pipelines on the property, but --

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it's where the city 13 water crosses this Algonquin gas pipeline.

14 MR. LEE: Yes.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Would it help to pull up 16 that Figure 2 again? Would you be able to locate that 17 or would we not be able to steer our way towards where 18 that might be?

19 MR. LEE: That area, city water, is that 20 on that figure?

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's probably not. The 22 pipeline probably isn't because I believe Figure 2 is 23 only those that contain radioactivity.

24 MR. LEE: It's on the fence line.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: If you don't know where NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3710 1 it is, I doubt if you could point it out.

2 MR. BIAGIOTTI: We've got several figures.

3 Figure 1, I think, is a larger view.

4 MR. AZEVEDO: We know where it is, we're 5 just not sure that the picture actually shows the 6 area.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Could you guide the mouse 8 to about where that is?

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: If we have the right 10 figure which shows the city water line. Figure 1 in 11 000373 where we just were, although the pipeline is 12 not shown, the right-of-way cut and the trees are, so 13 you can point to where it is.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Pull that up. I thought 15 that was Figure 2 we were looking at.

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: You were. Figure 1 is a 17 broader view of the site.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

19 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, Martin O'Neill 20 for the applicant. I believe Entergy Exhibit 000410 21 focus exclusively on the city water line.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's try Entergy 000410.

23 I know we're doing our job when we have Mr. Welkie 24 mumbling to himself.

25 (Pause.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3711 1 MR. LEE: Okay, on the right side of the 2 figure, upper right, you've got two red pipelines 3 shown going up and down direction. Right where the 4 hand is is city water storage tank and our tie-in to 5 the city water system is just above that. So we've 6 got city water coming into the property, coming east.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is that orange, the 8 lightest orange circle the tank?

9 MR. LEE: Yes.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is the hand over the tank 11 at this point?

12 MR. LEE: Yes.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: And it's labeled probably 14 tank. I can't see the details, but that's fine. We 15 don't have to zoom in. Don't zoom.

16 MR. LEE: Okay, so those two red lines 17 coming in a vertical direction are 16-inch line and a 18 10-inch line, I believe.

19 Okay, but going up further that -- those 20 two lines connect with the top middle of the page, 21 right underneath the label, city water. And those 22 continue --

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: I've got you. That's an 24 insert then of what we were looking at.

25 MR. LEE: Yes.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3712 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: That slides up to the 2 top.

3 MR. LEE: That's an extension of the top, 4 exactly.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Got you.

6 MR. LEE: The gas pipeline crosses these 7 -- the patch of green, the grass before -- continuing 8 with that box on the right, those terraced area below 9 the bottom part of the section, that's a parking area, 10 Just east of that in the green you've got gas 11 pipelines which come in at an angle and pass 12 underneath --

13 MR. AZEVEDO: East is to the top, by the 14 way.

15 MR. LEE: I'm sorry.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: About where the hand is 17 now at this point?

18 MR. LEE: Roughly speaking, yes.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, guide the hand to 20 where you want it?

21 MR. LEE: Well, toward the gas pipelines.

22 City water lines, I'm sorry.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

24 MR. LEE: The gas pipeline is basically, 25 you continue and just intersect the red lines. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3713 1 gas pipelines come in at an angle from the northeast 2 to southwest, they travel at an angle.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, so from the upper 4 left of this mini box is that right of way --

5 MR. LEE: It basically follows, I believe, 6 this clearing in the tree line --

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where the hand is moving 8 now?

9 MR. LEE: Exactly.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So that's the 11 right of way for the gas pipeline is underneath that 12 and where it intersects the red lines is about the 13 area that you're speaking of?

14 MR. LEE: Yes.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: About right there?

16 MR. LEE: Yes. In -- this was identified 17 --

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Before we talk about it, 19 are you just going to give up and try to --

20 JUDGE McDADE: No, I think that's clear 21 from the description. We'll be able to find it.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Good.

23 MR. FAGG: Your Honor, if I could just 24 interject. This is Brad Fagg for the applicant. I'm 25 sorry, I just lost the thread and I apologize. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3714 1 don't have a transcript to read back, but is -- I've 2 lost track of the original question. Was it 3 recommendations implemented by the PCA Report?

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: We can go back to that.

5 DR. DUQUETTE: I think we're talking about 6 the wrong PCA Report.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: I guess they brought that 8 up in regards to this discussion.

9 MR. TURK: I believe the question was 10 whether Entergy has adopted the PCA Report?

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right.

12 MR. TURK: And he was giving an 13 explanation about the fact that the PCA Report 14 identified the possibility of stray currents in the 15 city water line due to the transit system associated 16 with the gas pipeline. This was showing where the gas 17 pipeline --

18 DR. DUQUETTE: Duquette, New York. The 19 report I'm referring to in that testimony, I believe, 20 is the report of April 26, 2012 which is the cathodic 21 protection survey of Unit 2 condensate storage tank 22 piping. It's not the city water piping.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: I know. Where it came 24 from, we understand that, but as a result of that 25 question, Entergy, when I asked them have you adopted NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3715 1 the recommendations of the PCA Report, mentions 2 something about stray currents. I said wait a minute, 3 you confuse me.

4 What are you talking about in regards to 5 stray currents and I believe that's where we are and 6 there was a mention about where this city water 7 crossed the gas line. And so then we went to the 8 drawing to find out where that is and now we're going 9 to find out what he's going to say about the city 10 water gas line and how it relates to PCA Report.

11 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 12 Azevedo, if I may try to give a concise response to 13 your question, maybe I'll succeed, maybe I won't. But 14 the PCA Report that we're talking about is the 2008 15 PCA Report. So that's the one that we looked at. And 16 that PCA Report had three recommendations. One is, as 17 Mr. Lee already mentioned, it was alerting us to the 18 fact that the Algonquin gas pipeline was potentially 19 impacting the corrosion susceptibility of the city 20 water line and that we needed to install some cathodic 21 protection. We did that.

22 The second recommendation was for us to 23 progressively evaluate cathodic protection needs 24 throughout the site. We have done that and in fact, 25 we have installed cathodic protection in some areas NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3716 1 and we are currently installing additional cathodic 2 protection in other areas. So we feel we have 3 implemented that recommendation.

4 And then the third recommendation was 5 implement inspection program for high-priority zones.

6 We definitely have excavated lots of pipes. We have 7 done direct visual inspections in lots of locations 8 that we feel we have implemented that recommendation 9 as well.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you. And we 11 will be exploring the cathodic protection hopefully 12 starting right after lunch when we get through the 13 rest of these. So we can start that issue at that 14 point. So thank you for that clarification?

15 MS. DEAN: Your Honor, Janice Dean for the 16 State. Could I clarify for the record that Mr.

17 Azevedo was talking about New York State 000178?

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you know the exhibit 19 number of the PCA Report?

20 MR. AZEVEDO: I'm told that that's the 21 correct --

22 MR. IVY: Ted Ivy for the applicant. Yes, 23 that is 000178.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: It is 000178?

25 MR. IVY: Yes, that's correct.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3717 1 MR. TURK: And I have one suggestion for 2 clarification, if I might, Your Honor?

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Turk.

4 MR. TURK: Entergy's Exhibit 000005A in 5 their testimony on page 104 of their latest version 6 has a site drawing, a site photograph that I think 7 makes it easier to see where that gas pipeline runs on 8 the property.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is it anything 10 significantly different than where we had our hands on 11 that other drawing?

12 MR. TURK: It's a smaller zoom, so it 13 shows the entire right of way of the pipeline coming 14 from --

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it's the same general 16 area. We just wanted to get oriented in regards to 17 the scale --

18 JUDGE McDADE: What was that exhibit 19 number again, Mr. Turk?

20 MR. TURK: 000005A at page 104 of their 21 most recent testimony.

22 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. We can use 24 that, but I don't think we'll call it up now.

25 Okay, I've jumped ahead a bit here because NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3718 1 we've answered the other questions. I'm now looking 2 at New York State's Exhibit 000164 at page 14 and New 3 York State Exhibit 000165 at page 8 stated that "the 4 susceptibility of buried pipe corrosion is determined 5 by the characteristics of the soil-water combination 6 at all locations at a given site."

7 I don't know who of Entergy I should 8 address this. Maybe I'll start with Mr. Azevedo.

9 Isn't it important to characterize lots of soil 10 characteristics in order to determine corrosivity 11 rather than just merely moisture, such things as 12 conductivity, what chemistry is there, how much 13 drainage occurs in a given area, what's the water 14 retention characteristics of the soil? Aren't those 15 types of things needed to characterize the most 16 susceptible locations of corrosivity at a site?

17 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 18 Azevedo. I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass that on 19 to Mr. Biagiotti. That's his area of expertise.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fine.

21 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 22 applicant. You're absolutely correct. Soil has a lot 23 of characteristics that do play into the corrosivity 24 of that soil. We've actually entered into the 25 exhibits multiple places showing how the soil is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3719 1 evaluated. And if you'd like, I can go through some, 2 but in a nutshell, Entergy has submitted as Entergy 3 000582 some lab data, for example, that does show that 4 when soil analysis is done, there's a variety of 5 things that are evaluated including resistivity, 6 anions, cations, pH, moisture content, all the things 7 you were kind of generally referencing. They do go 8 into it.

9 And then we take that information and 10 compare it to readily available let's call them rules 11 of thumb because they vary depending on the 12 publication source and then those rules of thumb will 13 actually provide you guidance as to whether something 14 is mildly corrosive all the way to severe.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'll present that table 16 I think you use. But isn't it based, the table that 17 I saw, that I understand you used, wasn't that based 18 merely on the -- it was on the conductivity and the 19 resistivity.

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Resistivity, correct.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: And it didn't relate to 22 the other components, or do you say those other 23 components all boil down and affect the resistivity?

24 MR. BIAGIOTTI: No, and you've mentioned 25 a very good point, and in Entergy Exhibit 389 is a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3720 1 NACE paper, Paper No. 159, that actually lays out the 2 fact that it's not a single component that impacts the 3 corrosivity of soil, but it is an interaction of 4 factors that impacts soil.

5 The most common, let's say it first 6 assessment, is to use the resistivity, as a function 7 of whether something is significantly or not 8 significantly corrosive.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: And is that what Entergy 10 relied on mainly to divide up the areas into the most 11 susceptible to corrosion?

12 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, that is a factor in 13 their risk model that's presented in the SEP document.

14 It's also what is promoted by the NRC through the 15 interim staff guidance, as well as the NEI 0914 and 16 EPRI guidelines that are out there. They're all 17 consistent in that regard.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: You say it was included 19 in the risk profile. Were the others included also, 20 or was it just resistivity used to delineate the areas 21 of most corrosivity?

22 MR. LEE: Bob Lee for the Applicant.

23 There is a ranking in priority determination, takes 24 into account drainage, which I think reflects moisture 25 content. Not a one for one, but it's, I think it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3721 1 touches upon that consideration.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: And how does it do it?

3 Does it -- is this merely, I don't want to say 4 "merely." Is it a numeric calculation or is it --

5 MR. LEE: It's a numeric point assignment 6 for what is known, if we know the general drainage 7 characteristic, and in particular for Indian Point, 8 when we're going through the risk ranking, we pull 9 some data off of the U.S. Geological Survey website 10 that has information for our site.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And so you incorporated 12 drainage with the resistivity, to determine the areas 13 of most corrosivity?

14 MR. LEE: Yes.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And the drainage you got 16 from the USGS types of information is publicly 17 available?

18 MR. LEE: Yes.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: For your site, based on 20 the drainage characteristics of the soil?

21 MR. LEE: Yes.

22 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 23 Azevedo. New York Exhibit 173, that's the CEP-UPT-24 100, Table 9-3, gives you the actual numerical values 25 that go into each one of those parameters.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3722 1 MR. LEE: Thank you very much.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: New York State Exhibit 3 399, pages 8 to 9, New York State disagrees with NRC 4 staff experts' statements in Footnote 3, in which they 5 said that "Staff evaluated the Applicant's AMP against 6 key elements of the AMP XIM41, and the draft internal 7 staff, initial staff guidance, interim staff guidance" 8 -- what's the "I" for, Interim?

9 MR. AZEVEDO: Interim.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: "Staff guidance for AMP 11 XIM41, and concluded that Entergy's AMP is adequate to 12 manage the applicable aging effects, to ensure that 13 buried piping and tanks will perform their current 14 licensing basis." New York, where is the location of 15 that footnote that you're referring to? Is it in a 16 report? Is it in testimony? I wasn't sure where to 17 look for that footnote.

18 MS. DEAN: May I assist, Your Honor? It's 19 page 12 of the redlined version of the staff's 20 testimony. I don't believe that the pagination should 21 be too different from any previous version that you're 22 looking at, and that's Footnote 3 at the bottom of the 23 page.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it would be Staff 016, 25 approximately page 12? Why don't we --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3723 1 MS. DEAN: Correct.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Could we call that up, 3 Andy, Staff Exhibit 016? Any version would be fine.

4 We should be close enough, and yeah, go to page 12 and 5 then look around there and find a footnote. Ahh, I 6 betcha that's it there. That is Footnote 3 that 7 you're referring to, Dr. Duquette?

8 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

9 Yes, it is.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: And let's see if I had 11 any actual question on that. The footnote reads 12 "Inasmuch as AMP XIM41 was issued after Entergy 13 submitted its license renewal application, the staff 14 has not applied this AMP to the IP2-IP3 license 15 renewal application.

16 "Nonetheless, as discussed below, the 17 staff, through a series of RAIs, received responses to 18 Question 16, evaluated the applicant's AMP against key 19 elements of the AMP XIM41 and the draft ISG for XIM41 20 in regards to the number of inspections, soil sampling 21 and the use of plant-specific operating experience, 22 and concluded that Entergy's AMP, as revised through 23 a series of responses to the staff RAIs, is adequate 24 to manage the applicable aging effects, to ensure that 25 buried piping and tanks will perform their current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3724 1 licensing basis functions."

2 To what degree do you disagree with this, 3 after hearing the testimony over the last day and a 4 half in regards to the statement?

5 MS. DEAN: Judge Wardwell, could you just 6 assist state counsel by clarifying where the statement 7 from Dr. Duquette is found that you're referring to?

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. It was, I have it 9 on New York 399, page 8 through 9.

10 MS. DEAN: Is that --

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is that his report?

12 MS. DEAN: I have his report as New York 13 165. If you could just give me one moment? The 14 confusion may be on my end.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, because I could 16 easily have made mistakes on my cites too.

17 MS. DEAN: Oh, I see. I believe you're 18 referring to his rebuttal testimony.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Ahh, that's probably what 20 it is, yes. Rebuttal, that's right. 399 is his 21 rebuttal. Okay.

22 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes sir. The new AMP, the 23 new GALL, if you want to call it a new GALL, M41 at 24 least, indicates that you should have cathodic 25 protection for carbon steel lines. I understand that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3725 1 it was issued after the original LRA was submitted.

2 However, I think the staff has done a 3 really good job of improving the situation for buried 4 pipelines, and I was disappointed to see that Entergy 5 did not include M41 in its RAIs, under the present 6 circumstance.

7 I would have thought that the staff, 8 having issued a new document that was updated and was 9 more current and contained better engineering 10 practice, that it would have been included in the RAIs 11 and the cathodic protection part of it is not, and 12 that's clearly a part of M41.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: And it's your testimony 14 that M41 specifically requires cathodic protection 15 for, did you say carbon steel pipes?

16 DR. DUQUETTE: As I read it, yes sir.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Staff, is that your 18 reading of GALL 2 in regards to M41?

19 MR. HOLSTON: No, it is not sir. I can 20 clarify if you'd like.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: I would like you to, if 22 you could.

23 MR. HOLSTON: The GALL AMP 41 is a set of 24 recommendations. It's not a set of requirements.

25 GALL AMP 41, when it was published, only had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3726 1 inspection requirements for plants with cathodic 2 protection. That's why the interim staff guidance, 3 basically a revision to AMP 41, was written.

4 Even as we were issuing GALL Rev 2 with 5 the inspection requirements, recommendations -- I'm 6 using the same term -- for plants with cathodic 7 protection, we recognized that there were several 8 applicants that did not have cathodic protection.

9 So we pursued that through a series of 10 requests for additional information. We wanted to 11 understand the basis for why they didn't have cathodic 12 protection, and then each of those plants proposed 13 enhanced inspection programs, quantities of 14 inspections, risk ranking, soil sampling that became 15 the basis for why their programs were acceptable.

16 After we gained enough experience with 17 evaluating plants without cathodic protection, we 18 issued the interim staff guidance, and which it now 19 specifically includes recommendations for a number of 20 inspections, soil samplings, searching, operating 21 experience for plants without cathodic protection.

22 Would it make sense to pull up --

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, what's what I was 24 just debating. But it's somewhat a bit problematic, 25 unless you know the actual page numbers. The reason NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3727 1 is I have it cut out, and I can call it up, and I 2 don't know I can manipulate the screens like Mr.

3 Wilkie can.

4 But he doesn't have my cutout version that 5 would be included in the entire license application.

6 Well, it would be included in the -- in fact, you 7 probably don't even -- his GALL exhibit. Is GALL 2 an 8 exhibit? If we have an exhibit number for it, it 9 would be easily.

10 MR. HOLSTON: I don't have an exhibit 11 number.

12 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, it's NRC 162.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Good. Let's call that 14 up. And whereabouts --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: --that you could point us 17 to, that says to you that cathodic protection is 18 required?

19 DR. DUQUETTE: Under "Program 20 Description."

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: What page number are you 22 on?

23 DR. DUQUETTE: Mine says X -- mine says 24 XIM41-1.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So it's the first NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3728 1 page of this.

2 MR. HOLSTON: But that doesn't say 3 "required."

4 (Simultaneous speaking.)

5 MR. HOLSTON: The first page of the 6 document --

7 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Page 13 of the PDF.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Oh, okay. There's 9 the GALL, yeah.

10 DR. DUQUETTE: My reading of the document 11 basically is condensed within the first sentence. "A 12 comprehensive program designed to manage the aging of 13 the external surfaces and barrier and underground 14 piping and tanks."

15 So I thought the -- in the 16 recommendations, I thought I heard that the aging 17 management program and the GALL were synonymous. I've 18 heard both that and I've heard it's not synonymous, 19 and in some cases I've heard they were synonymous.

20 If that's true, then this comprehensive 21 program should be followed.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, but where does it 23 say here that that cathodic protection is required?

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Oh, on the next page.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3729 1 DR. DUQUETTE: It says "Preventive actions 2 for buried piping and tanks are conducted in 3 accordance with Table 2A and its accompanying 4 footnotes," and under "Steel" it says "Coatings and 5 cathodic protection and backfill quality should be 6 taken into consideration."

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And Mr. Holston, what's 8 your basis for saying those are recommendations and 9 not requirements?

10 MR. HOLSTON: All of the GALL report is a 11 series of recommendations. None of them are absolute 12 requirements. They are one method that an applicant 13 can utilize to meet the reasonable assurance or 14 establishment a reasonable assurance of degradation of 15 piping.

16 If we, and so I don't disagree that Table 17 2 Alpha, as shown, has a recommendation to include 18 cathodic protection. If we could go back to page one 19 of that document, please?

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Now you want the document 21 or --

22 MR. HOLSTON: That document, yeah. No, 23 page two. Yeah, just exactly. If you go down below 24 the Discussion --

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: And the document we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3730 1 looking at is the interim staff guidance, not the 2 GALL. The GALL happens to be attached, I guess, to 3 the bottom of the --

4 MR. HOLSTON: Yeah, the interim staff 5 guidance was kind of a two-part document. The first 6 part describes what and why we're making the changes, 7 which is I think about the first ten pages, and then 8 the remainder part is the GALL AMP and some other 9 companion changes that had to be made.

10 But I think this -- I don't think. I know 11 the staff very clearly states its position. "Based on 12 staff's review of 15 license renewal applications, 13 stakeholder input, the staff has determined existing 14 guidance and should be revised to include inspection 15 recommendations for plants not utilizing a cathodic 16 protection system during the period of extended 17 operation."

18 So even if we regarded the GALL report as 19 a set of requirements, which it's not, it's set of 20 recommendations, we're clearly establishing our intent 21 that we recognize that plants won't have cathodic 22 protection. If you don't have cathodic protection, 23 there are other means to achieve reasonable assurance 24 that the pipe will perform its intended function.

25 If you go on to page two, each of these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3731 1 bullets is then expounded upon in the ISG. You 2 wouldn't expect that we read all this aloud clearly 3 during this hearing. But there's about two pages 4 worth of why we made the changes we made to inspection 5 recommendations for plants not utilizing cathodic 6 protection.

7 In essence, if you'd like me to give a 8 summary I could, or does that answer your question 9 adequately, sir?

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: It answers my question.

11 I am still troubled by this, and we went through it in 12 quite a bit of detail yesterday, in regards to on one 13 hand relying on GALL as being the AMP, and certainly 14 that was stressed when we were talking about GALL 1, 15 which is what Entergy is being evaluated in regards, 16 because that's when they submitted their license 17 application, and I understand that.

18 GALL 2 is now out. I look at that and I 19 don't, you say they're recommendations, but yet it's 20 no different than GALL 1, except it's a lot more 21 detail, and I support that and I think it's much more 22 encouraging and a much better reference that someone 23 could say yeah, that may approach an AMP. I can see 24 that more than I certainly can with GALL 1.

25 Still, you know, it seems there could be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3732 1 more specificity. But now I'm hearing, and I heard 2 yesterday and read in the testimony that you're 3 claiming it's just recommendations, and it seems like 4 you want, when it's convenient, you're going to rely 5 on GALL as an absolute, and when it's not convenient, 6 "Oh by the way, they're just suggestions."

7 Now you're relying on an interim staff 8 guidance that's still a draft, and I don't know where 9 to sort that all out, and that's just why I was 10 pausing. I don't think I need any more testimony on 11 it. But if you have one last comment.

12 MR. HOLSTON: Yeah, I have two comments.

13 First of all, when an applicant adopts the AMP and 14 states that they're going to be consistent with the 15 AMP, it then becomes requirements, because the 16 applicant said that's the way we're going to meet and 17 demonstrate that we'll have reasonable assurance that 18 the buried piping.

19 But when it starts, it's a set of 20 recommendations, and the applicant can take exceptions 21 to portions of those. Those exceptions are evaluated 22 by the staff. They're documented in the safety 23 evaluation report why they're acceptable. In the case 24 of Entergy, they said we'll be consistent with AMP 25 XIM34.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3733 1 That in effect meant that all of AMP XIM34 2 became a set of requirements, because they didn't take 3 any exceptions to it. So I wanted to clarify that one 4 part for you sir, that that's -- that transitions.

5 The second thing I wanted to clarify is --

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: The only reason you claim 7 they're a set of recommendations is because it hasn't 8 been adopted by Entergy. They're not just a series of 9 recommendations. It is still a -- it is a coherent, 10 recommended program. The reason you're calling it 11 recommendations is because Entergy does not have to 12 use that as an aging management program.

13 It's their elective to ignore that, and 14 either do it partially with some enhancements or to do 15 their own. They can create their own if they want to.

16 MR. HOLSTON: That is correct.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's why you call them 18 recommendations?

19 MR. HOLSTON: That is correct, sir, and 20 once they've stated that this is what we're going to 21 meet, it in effect becomes requirements, and any gaps 22 between that. You know, I'm not going to -- if they 23 came in and said we're just going to do what we want 24 to do, you know, that doesn't work.

25 They've got to tell me what they're doing.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3734 1 The easiest way for an applicant to do that is say I'm 2 going to be consistent with the GALL, and in that 3 case, I evaluate them against that consistency.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me ask you this.

5 If an applicant wants to be consistent with GALL 2, 6 they would have to install cathodic protection; is 7 that correct?

8 MR. HOLSTON: To be consistent with GALL 9 Rev 2, AMP 1141, yes. But not to be GALL Rev 2, AMP 10 1141 was modified by the interim staff guidance. That 11 interim staff guidance is no longer draft; it was 12 issued as final on August 2nd. I believe we've 13 revised our testimony to reflect that. So it's not a 14 draft document anymore. GALL, that interim staff 15 guidance is a complete reissuance of AMP 11M41.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Does interim staff 17 guidance have the same weight that GALL does?

18 MR. HOLSTON: Yes sir.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: And neither of them are 20 regulations or law? They are what they are.

21 MR. HOLSTON: They're a set of recommended 22 ways to manage aging, which goes back to the 23 discussion we had. So just the two points I wanted to 24 make is 41, as published within AMP, or within GALL 25 Rev 2 -- I think we issued GALL Rev 2 in December NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3735 1 2010. We issued the interim staff guidance on August 2 2nd, 2012.

3 So for a plant that committed to meet AMP 4 M41 as published in GALL Rev 2, then there are, you 5 know, there aren't any inspection requirements for a 6 plant without cathodic protection, and the preventive 7 action that says that you will have cathodic 8 protection. So if they said they were consistent, 9 then we'd expect that plant to have cathodic 10 protection. That is correct.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

12 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, this is Martin 13 O'Neill for the Applicant. Just so that the record is 14 clear, we are looking at NRC Staff Exhibit 162, which 15 I understand to be the final August 2012 version of 16 the ISG, and Appendix A to that ISG is the current 17 version of GALL 11M41.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: So this is not the draft, 19 but the final version?

20 MR. O'NEILL: That is my understanding, 21 yes.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

23 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 24 Azevedo. May I add a point?

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. Let me just -- can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3736 1 we go back? Yeah, go ahead.

2 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah. The point I was going 3 to make is that when Mr. HOlston says that IPEC does 4 not have cathodic protection, I believe that what he's 5 talking about is IPEC does not have a site-wide 6 cathodic protection system.

7 But we do have cathodic protection in 8 those areas that we have evaluated and determined to 9 be effective in mitigating corrosion, and we will 10 continue to install cathodic protection throughout the 11 site, on an as-needed basis.

12 So it's not like we don't have cathodic 13 protection. I think what you're referring to is a 14 site-wide system.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. The reason I 16 was pausing, I didn't know whether to explore that 17 more. But I've got a series of questions and I 18 decided to wait until this afternoon. We will talk 19 about historic and then where you are now on cathodic 20 protection.

21 New York rebuttal testimony 399, page 15, 22 question: "In your opinion, is guided wave testing a 23 reliable inspection method," and the answer is no, and 24 neither has, how do you pronounce that?

25 DR. DUQUETTE: NACE.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3737 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: NACE. I tried to make it 2 into two syllables, that's why I had problems. "NACE 3 nor the NRC staff think it is either." As far as you 4 know, Dr. Duquette, does the applicant plan to use 5 guided wave technology in lieu of X-ray to direct 6 visual inspections?

7 DR. DUQUETTE: No sir, not in lieu of. My 8 understanding is they were going to use it in addition 9 to.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy, do you believe 11 guided wave technology is unreliable?

12 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for 13 Entergy. It depends how it, what you mean by 14 unreliable. We believe that guided wave is an 15 effective inspection or testing technique to locate 16 those areas where we may pursue, you know, digging up 17 all or do it for an investigation.

18 If you mean to give me the actual wall 19 thickness remaining, then I would agree, it's 20 unreliable for that purpose. But we don't use it for 21 that purpose.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And could you, can you 23 briefly describe how it is performed and what results 24 you get out of it.

25 MR. AZEVEDO: I probably could, but Mr.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3738 1 Biagiotti could probably explain it better than I can, 2 so I'm going to defer to him, if he doesn't mind.

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: No problem. I'm glad to 4 go through that. Just to clear up the one point as to 5 whether or not it's an approved technology, in the AMP 6 M41, as well as the staff, they've actually listed 7 that the use of guide wave ultrasonics or other 8 advanced inspection techniques is encouraged for the 9 purpose of determining those pipe locations that 10 should be inspected.

11 So that is actually in Exhibit NRC 162.

12 It's contained within the AMP M41.4.B.viii, 8.

13 As far as how guided wave works, guided 14 wave technology is a technology in which we actually 15 wrap around the circumference of a pipe, ultrasonic 16 transducers.

17 These ultrasonic transducers, unlike wall 18 thickness measurements, traditional wall thickness 19 measurements that measure straight through the wall 20 thickness to get a net remaining wall thickness, these 21 transducers actually create guided waves that will 22 torsionally wrap and twist along the axis of the pipe 23 through the pipe wall, and it allows us to now to 24 detect changes in wall thickness, at distances away 25 from where the placement of the collar is.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3739 1 It is a widely utilized and we call it a 2 screening technology. It's an indirect inspection 3 method, and I can go down --

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's done in situ, in the 5 ground, while the pipe's in the ground?

6 MR. BIAGIOTTI: It can be done as an 7 inspection technique, meaning they've excavated, 8 exposed a portion of pipe, removed the coating. We 9 just wrapped this collar around the pipe, and then we 10 inspect, you know, 10, 50, 100 feet from the placement 11 of the collar in both directions. There are also 12 varieties that are very --

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: You define the distance 14 by how much energy you put into the system, or what 15 dictates the distance away that you're measuring?

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Good question. It's an 17 acoustic technique. So it's kind of like ringing a 18 bell in a room. If the bell is all by itself, you can 19 probably hear it very far away. As you start to 20 dampen that sound by putting a dry cloth on, you don't 21 hear it as far; a wet cloth, you hear it even less.

22 In a buried pipe application, the amount 23 of degradation in a pipe will reduce, it's called 24 attenuation, will reduce the distance it goes, because 25 every time it sees a change, a portion of the sound NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3740 1 comes back and only that much less can go forward.

2 Coatings, in particular coal tar enamel 3 coatings, tend to be that wet rag on a bell, as it 4 were. It will absorb sound. So the distance I get to 5 go is reduced by that. So there is no fixed distance 6 is a short answer, and you only know once you take the 7 shot.

8 That technology, by the way, is used in 9 more than just nuclear. The gas transmission industry 10 does use it. It was invented in the late 1990's, so 11 you get a feel for how long it's been used.

12 JUDGE McDADE: Now earlier this morning, 13 we talked about the gilded, guided wave technology.

14 At the same time, we talked about the APEC survey. Is 15 that technology used as part of the APEC survey?

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: No sir. APEC is one type 17 of indirect inspection technology; guided wave is 18 another indirect inspection technology.

19 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Can you describe 20 that briefly for me, how that technology works, the 21 APEC survey?

22 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Sure. Can I use the 23 exhibits, or would you rather me just say how it 24 works.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm going to get to that, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3741 1 and I'll be able to call up the exhibits, if you want 2 to --

3 JUDGE McDADE: I'm patient. Thank you.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Because I'm not sure I 5 don't cover it under the cathodic protection.

6 MR. BIAGIOTTI: If I might, Steve 7 Biagiotti for the Applicant, just to be clear, I use 8 terminology that I want to make sure everybody 9 understands. When evaluating and part of a buried 10 piping inspection program, there are things referred 11 to as an indirect inspection and a direct examination.

12 Direct examination is where you would get 13 quantitative remaining wall thickness information.

14 It's things like a visual exam to measure pit depths.

15 It's UT wall thickness to get remaining wall 16 thickness.

17 The indirect survey techniques are a 18 highly effective technology, that allow you to sample 19 large areas of pipe. We're fortunate that corrosion 20 isn't like a pin hitting a balloon and boom, you've 21 got a failure.

22 It's a degradation process that takes over 23 time, and because of that degradation process, there 24 are indicators and signatures that the phenomena is 25 occurring, and this is what indirect inspection NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3742 1 techniques leverage, is that individually they do 2 different things, but they're designed to detect the 3 indicators that tell you something is going on.

4 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, may I just add 5 one thing to what Mr. Biagiotti said?

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Go ahead.

7 MR. CAVALLO: I always love listening to 8 him describe this. But one sentence. Basically, the 9 guided wave technique is something that the industry 10 has endorsed, does use for as an indirect inspection 11 technique to identify areas of interest which may 12 require further examination.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

14 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you, Mr.

15 Cavallo.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Any questions by the rest 17 of the judges into any of the details of AMP?

18 (No response.)

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Corrosion potential.

20 Entergy testimony 373, page 37, Answer 55. "The rate 21 of external degradation may be affected by aggressive 22 chemicals, if present. Temperature, oxygen content, 23 pH and electrochemical potentials between two metals 24 in the soil material and groundwater, if present."

25 Whoever wishes to, could you just quickly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3743 1 explain what is the groundwater, what are the 2 groundwater conditions at the Indian Point plant, and 3 how do they differ over the various sections of the 4 ground?

5 MR. AZEVEDO: Steve.

6 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I'm not sure I'm prepared 7 to talk about groundwater.

8 MR. AZEVEDO: Could you ask the question 9 again?

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: You're saying that 11 groundwater influences the potential for corrosion, 12 and we had heard testimony saying gee, we took some 13 samples up on the high ground, and there wasn't much 14 potential, and we took at the low ground, where 15 there's more groundwater, I think was stated, and so 16 that was an issue.

17 So I'm curious as to whether you can give 18 us an overview of what are the ground water conditions 19 across the plant?

20 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, I can stab at that.

21 This is Nelson Azevedo. The only thing I can say is 22 that the, at the lower elevation, at the plus 15 foot 23 elevation roughly, which is close to the river, where 24 the leak occurred in 2009 --

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: And is that a fair NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3744 1 assessment, to say that's about the bottom of the 2 bench that was first excavated to build the plant?

3 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, that's correct, as 4 opposed to where the condensate storage tank is, which 5 is up at the 80 foot elevation. Much lower, the 6 groundwater level is -- again, when we excavated that 7 pipe, the groundwater level is a couple of feet below 8 the pipe.

9 In fact during -- if it rained a lot, 10 because it's also at the bottom of the hill. So the 11 drainage from the hill also drains down to that area.

12 In some occasions, the water actually would come up to 13 the pipe, and so -- that's about, I would say, about 14 five foot elevation roughly, give or take.

15 So that's where the groundwater is. Of 16 course it goes up and down, depending on the 17 conditions. But that's roughly where it is.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what about on the 19 hillside?

20 MR. AZEVEDO: Up on the hill, when we dug 21 the two holes, we didn't see any water other than --

22 in fact, it was during the fall that it rained a lot.

23 So from the rainwater, it would take a while to drain.

24 But if it hadn't drained for a couple of days, we 25 didn't see any water.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3745 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: As far as free water, was 2 the soil completely dry, or was it moist?

3 MR. AZEVEDO: Go ahead.

4 MR. LEE: The condition we found in like 5 the middle, the one-third point that we had referred 6 to, there were periods where there would be water at 7 the bottom of the pipe, during the time that the hole 8 was excavated. So I would say that the soil was 9 moist.

10 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah, that's correct. But 11 again, it was a heavy rain period. It was raining, a 12 lot of rain there, and that was rainwater. It was not 13 groundwater, as far as I'm concerned.

14 JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Lee, do you agree with 15 that?

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: What do you define as 17 groundwater?

18 JUDGE McDADE: Did you agree with that, 19 Mr. Lee, that it was likely rainwater, not 20 groundwater?

21 MR. LEE: Yeah, because the period that I 22 was talking about was the period that the hole was 23 uncovered, and there wasn't a tent over it or 24 anything.

25 So you know, any rainfall and Nelson was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3746 1 right. There was a period where it had rained for a 2 couple of days, and you know, work wouldn't be 3 suspended and we'd find water in the excavation the 4 next morning.

5 It wasn't the as-found condition as it 6 (coughing) covered the pipe with water, you know, in 7 communication with water. So I would have to say it 8 was the effect of the rain during the --

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: But let me make sure, 10 because I need to be clear on this. There's two 11 things. There's the effect of rainwater, and then 12 there's rainwater. If you have a hole open and rain 13 falls on it and collects in the bottom of the hole, 14 that's rainwater that's collected as it would in a 15 bucket.

16 If the rainwater infiltrated into the 17 ground, and was moving down to a groundwater table, 18 that's groundwater. It's just at a groundwater level 19 yet, is it not?

20 MR. LEE: Yes, I'd agree.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: And so when you started 22 digging the hole, as you brought the soil up, as you 23 dug it up, was it moist?

24 MR. LEE: No.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: It was dry?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3747 1 MR. LEE: It was dry.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Bone dry?

3 MR. LEE: Yes.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: What would you 5 characterize the soil as? Was it -- could you make 6 clumps out of it or was it beach sand?

7 MR. LEE: No. You could clump it.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Do you have 9 any indications of what percentage of your pipes are 10 covered by floor slabs, and I'm not sure I asked this 11 yesterday. I asked whether any were but they said 12 they were. But do you have any idea what length of 13 it?

14 As we looked at that figure, it looks like 15 a large percentage of the site is covered by 16 buildings. So is there a fair number of pipes that 17 are covered by floor slabs?

18 MR. AZEVEDO: I don't know that we can put 19 a number on it. A lot of the piping runs under, you 20 know, roadways covered by asphalt. Some of it runs 21 under buildings like the condensate storage tank, 22 lines that we're talking about. But I certainly 23 couldn't put a number on it.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Have you done any recent 25 inspections where you've gone through asphalt or some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3748 1 other floor slab to look at the moisture, specifically 2 in regards to the moisture conditions, and how a floor 3 slab or a pavement may retard any evaporation and keep 4 more moisture in the ground?

5 MR. LEE: The Unit 3, we excavated it at 6 the end of 2011, the condensate storage tank buried 7 lines, the Unit 3. These are the corresponding lines 8 for Unit 3, and they were dry. They're covered by 9 asphalt in the yard, and we dug up, broke the asphalt 10 and dug up that pipe, which is about five feet below 11 grade.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: And you don't have any 13 information that would indicate that there would be 14 increased corrosion potential between floor slabs or 15 pavements?

16 MR. LEE: No, we don't have any data on 17 that.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: You just don't have any 19 data, period.

20 MR. LEE: No.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, either way. Thank 22 you. Entergy's testimony 373 on page 44, A62. Dr.

23 Duquette states that "At breaks in the coating, all 24 the corrosion damage may be concentrated in a single 25 location, so that a deep pit may perforate the pipe."

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3749 1 He also claims that "The interphase 2 between the coating and the pipe surface may introduce 3 an effective crevice for corrosion. However, these 4 corrosion phenomena are not expected at IPEC, for the 5 buried piping applications have a common electric 6 ground, a specific galvanic or impressed driving 7 force, for instance, stray current or closed galvanic 8 is required for the corrosion phenomena cited by Dr.

9 Duquette.

10 Entergy, who would like to tackle the 11 question of how do the buried piping applications have 12 a common electric ground at Indian Point?

13 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 14 Applicant. For personnel safety reasons, when the 15 site was designed, all of the piping at the plant is 16 electrically connected to one another. Not to say 17 it's flow connected to one another, as is the copper.

18 There's a copper grounding grid to help reduce step 19 potential issues around the site.

20 So typically around the foundation of all 21 buildings, there will be a bare copper wire for 22 grounding protection. Those are all connected to any 23 of the metallic piping that's at the site.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's what you're 25 referring to here in regards to this common ground?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3750 1 MR. LEE: Correct. For stray current 2 corrosion to occur, such as what was happening with 3 the Algonquin line and the city water line that we 4 discussed earlier, the phenomena occurs because one of 5 the two systems that are not electrically connected to 6 one another was receiving some sort of cathodic 7 protection.

8 So what happens is cathodic protection, I 9 know we'll get into this later in the afternoon, but 10 it floods the whole ground. So anything metallic 11 would want to pick some of it up. When two structures 12 cross near one another, the one that is not connected 13 to the return system of the CP is trying to get rid of 14 the current.

15 It's like the static charge on your body.

16 You get near a doorknob, you just want to get rid of 17 it, and that's what stray current is. At the site, 18 though, all the piping is connected to one another.

19 So there's no reason for that static discharge from 20 your finger to the doorknob to try to get rid of that 21 charge.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: It goes on, the same 23 exhibit, the testimony on page 44 A62 goes on to say 24 "Where buried pipes at plants utilize a common 25 grounding approach for personal safety," as discussed, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3751 1 "the likelihood of stray currents is low.

2 Furthermore, for crevice corrosion to occur, an oxygen 3 concentration cell is required."

4 Dr. Duquette, would you like to comment on 5 this statement and the previous ones in regards to the 6 position that Entergy has, that seems to lower the 7 potential for corrosion associated with any stray 8 currents that might be --

9 DR. DUQUETTE: Surely. Duquette, New 10 York. There are some disconnects in some of these 11 questions. I'm not sure why, but the first comments 12 on crevice corrosion and localized corrosion have 13 nothing to do with stray current corrosion. I don't 14 think I ever addressed stray current corrosion in 15 either my report or my testimony. I'm not sure why 16 the two are linked together.

17 But let's address the two things that I 18 did address, and that is localized corrosion.

19 Obviously, if you do have --

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Can I interrupt you 21 quickly?

22 DR. DUQUETTE: Surely.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Good, because I just did, 24 so do you, can you make a comment on this stray 25 current? Do you have any arguments with what they say NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3752 1 in regards to that? It's not an issue you brought up, 2 but they brought up something, and do you have any 3 comments that you maybe -- do you have any reason to 4 refute what they say in regards to the stray current 5 activity?

6 DR. DUQUETTE: No. In fact, they detected 7 a stray current problem and they fixed it.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Good. Okay, now go 9 ahead. Now proceed with your two comments.

10 DR. DUQUETTE: The other two comments that 11 they make -- well first of all, if you have a break in 12 the coating, quite obviously if there's going to be 13 corrosion it's going to occur at the break in the 14 coating.

15 If there are two possibilities for the 16 corrosion to proceed from there. It can either spread 17 sideways, between the coating and the metal itself, or 18 it can almost grow down through the pipe. Which one 19 it will do will depend on the kind of soil, the kinds 20 of ions that are in the soil, the chemistry of the 21 soil, the pH of the soil, oxygen concentrations and so 22 on and so forth.

23 So I don't think there's too much issue on 24 this. If you have a distinct break in the coating 25 that goes right to the metal surface, that that will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3753 1 be the location of localized, intense corrosion, could 2 be intense corrosion.

3 As far as crevice corrosion is concerned, 4 they make a statement that you need an oxygen 5 concentration cell. If I have a break in the coating, 6 and the corrosion begins to spread sideways, there 7 will be an oxygen concentration cell by definition, 8 because oxygen concentration as it proceeds between 9 the metal and the coating, there will be a gradient in 10 the oxygen concentration from the break in the 11 coating, where oxygen can enter into the break and 12 proceeding down the crevice, where there will be an 13 oxygen concentration cell.

14 So if that occurs, and it often does occur 15 by the way, crevice corrosion is a very common 16 phenomenon, where you have two different surfaces.

17 Then you will have accelerated corrosion due to 18 crevice corrosion, and so I think it's a very real 19 possibility, and may have been one of the reasons that 20 the corrosion that was detected, that finally led to 21 the leak, actually extended over several feet along 22 the pipe, because I think the corrosion in that case 23 spread sideways through what was --

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: You're referring to the 25 condensate storage tank?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3754 1 DR. DUQUETTE: That's right.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: The water line --

3 DR. DUQUETTE: And so what will happen 4 then is you will get a corrosion front that progresses 5 down into the material, instead of just a pit that 6 goes through it. It may have been, I haven't seen all 7 of the failure reports, but that may have been the 8 reason why you had such a broad area of corrosion in 9 the condensate return line.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy does this type of 11 corrosion, the crevice corrosion be an explanation 12 for the area, the extensive area that was corroded in 13 the condensate storage tank.

14 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for 15 Entergy. I don't remember that being one of the 16 conditions in the failure analysis. I have to go back 17 and confirm that, but I don't believe that was the 18 case. But let me comment on something that was just 19 said, that the corrosion was several feet.

20 The corrosion was not several feet. The 21 corrosion was localized to a couple square inches, and 22 the coating in between -- there were a few areas, 23 about, you know, a few square inches in area, and the 24 coating in between those areas was intact.

25 There was no extensive corrosion in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3755 1 several feet. That just wasn't -- that's not 2 accurate.

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 4 Applicant, and that is typical of what we see in 5 buried piping applications. What Dr. Duquette had 6 described is crevice corrosion is very prevalent when 7 you have an oxygen-rich environment, such as something 8 exposed to the atmosphere.

9 But it is a fundamental requirement that 10 there be an oxygen concentration difference, and in 11 buried applications that have been in the ground for 12 30 years, and we've got other references to point to 13 if you like, that oxygen depletion happens fairly 14 quickly.

15 The soil itself, whatever animes are in 16 there, will want to react with the oxygen. So oxygen 17 depletion happens very quickly. So crevice corrosion, 18 to my knowledge, and I've been in the oil and gas 19 industry doing this work for 25 plus years, it's never 20 been cited as a big issue.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Are many of the pipes at 22 Indian Point below the groundwater level, the ferratic 23 surface or the free water surface?

24 MR. BIAGIOTTI: As we mentioned, though, 25 groundwater is not oxygen-rich.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3756 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: I don't believe that was 2 my question. My question was are many of the pipes 3 below the groundwater level at the site?

4 MR. BIAGIOTTI: There are some pipes that 5 are below groundwater, and there are other pipes above 6 groundwater.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: For those above 8 groundwater, wouldn't the oxygen be replenished by the 9 infiltrating ground rainwater that comes on through, 10 and brings more of the oxygen from the air into the 11 ground at those points?

12 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Not necessarily to the 13 quantities needed to support long-term, extended 14 corrosion.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Would you 16 like to comment, Dr. Duquette?

17 DR. DUQUETTE: I think I would. They have 18 a classic situation where you have buried pipe that 19 had been in the ground for a very long time. Mr.

20 Biagiotti indicates that there probably wasn't any 21 oxygen present because it's been there for a long time 22 and oxygen was depleted. But they had enough 23 corrosion to get penetration.

24 There's somehow a dichotomy between the 25 fact that there's no oxygen present, because I agree NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3757 1 with Mr. Biagiotti, that the primary -- in soils, the 2 primary ingredient that causes corrosion is oxygen.

3 I fully agree with that. I disagree with the comment 4 that all groundwaters don't contain oxygen.

5 In fact, there are situations where you 6 don't have chemicals that will eat up the oxygen. You 7 usually need ferrous iron to do that, and most soils 8 contain ferric iron if they're near the surface. So 9 they don't have an oxygen depletion process in near-10 surface conditions.

11 Deeply buried pipes, I fully agree with 12 Mr. Biagiotti, low oxygen, low corrosion. But 13 obviously, the plant and Entergy itself, in one of 14 their own documents, recognizes that corrosion can be 15 a problem if all of their buried pipes (coughing) 16 oxygen present, why bother coating them?

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you believe there is 18 sufficient -- for those pipes above the groundwater 19 level in the soil, do you believe there is enough 20 replenishment of the oxygen through rainwater 21 infiltration or just the transfer between oxygen 22 through the pores of the soil, to replenish the oxygen 23 needed to create crevice corrosion?

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes sir, and that's why you 25 coat pipes, because you expect that to happen. You NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3758 1 expect some corrosion to happen on bare pipes that are 2 under the soil, because you have oxygen that's being 3 delivered to the pipe surfaces, if they're not too far 4 below the surface.

5 30 feet or 40 feet below the surface, in 6 a ferrous-rich atmosphere, probably not much 7 corrosion. But again, in Entergy's own documents, 8 they recognize that the primary failure of buried 9 pipes is probably corrosion, and if you don't have any 10 oxygen present, I agree that in most soils, you will 11 not get appreciable corrosion. So there has to be a 12 connection somewhere.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy, what are the 14 depths of the pipes generally there, or what's the 15 range of them?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: The ones that we excavated 17 for the CST for Unit 2, they were roughly -- when we 18 had the leak, they were about, I'd say, eight to ten 19 feet deep.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: These are the ones up on 21 the hill?

22 MR. AZEVEDO: No. These are the ones down 23 where the leak occurred. The ones up on the hill are 24 buried. I think one of them was actually like fairly 25 deep, 15 to 20 feet. It was a pretty deep hole. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3759 1 other one was not as deep, I'd say maybe 10 to 15 2 feet, something like that.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: So you would expect most 4 of the pipes to be below, deeper than five feet, but 5 not deeper than ten? Is that a fair assessment?

6 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.

7 DR. DUQUETTE: If I might add to that, 8 there are probes to tell you what the oxygen levels 9 are at depth after rainwater or anything else. You 10 can simply measure the oxidation potential of the 11 soil. It's done by geologists on a daily basis.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy, does 13 -- why did the corrosion occur at the condensate 14 storage tank if there was this lack of oxygen?

15 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 16 Applicant. The failure analysis report did indicate 17 -- one thing I want to point out is we've talked a lot 18 about oxygen-related corrosion, and that is one of 19 just several mechanisms that can actually occur in 20 buried piping situations.

21 We have provided, as an exhibit, Entergy 22 387, which is Uhlig. He's kind of the bible on 23 corrosion. We provided that, and it does list out, 24 you know, eight to ten predominant corrosion 25 mechanisms.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3760 1 To answer the question asked, the failure 2 analysis report was inconclusive as to exactly why, 3 but the thought was by the failure analyst that we 4 potentially could be dealing with another mechanism, 5 referred to as microbiologically-induced corrosion, 6 MIC, M-I-C, and that is -- that operates in a de-7 aerated situation, meaning no oxygen whatsoever.

8 The phenomena of MIC corrosion is 9 actually, it's a biological type activity. It's 10 bacteria, and it excretes as its own byproduct 11 something that has a very low pH. Steels and the 12 exposure to low pH, in the simplest terms, just 13 dissolves.

14 So the failure analyst thought it was 15 potentially a combination of MIC and/or some 16 mechanical damage that had happened. This particular 17 line operates at a unique set of characteristics, 18 where it's warmer than most for buried piping, as well 19 as it may have potentials to have vibration due to 20 operation.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Duquette, would you 22 have a comment on that?

23 DR. DUQUETTE: Well, I accept that Mr.

24 Biagiotti has mischaracterized MIC. It occurs, 25 Gallionella, for example, is an oxidizing bacteria NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3761 1 that causes severe corrosion in a lot of situations.

2 So you don't need reducing atmospheres. There were no 3 indications, in the failure analysis I saw, of 4 sulfate, which is a -- or sulfide, sulfide and 5 sulfate, which are characteristic of the bacteria he's 6 talking about.

7 But it doesn't make any difference. They 8 obviously had a corrosion process going on. The 9 utility recognizes that corrosion is a problem for 10 buried pipe. Again, if you'd like, I can cite their 11 own documents on that.

12 So if they really believe that there's no 13 oxygen at depth, then I don't know why they -- I know 14 I said this, but why they coat their pipes at all, 15 because if there's no oxygen or other mechanism, there 16 shouldn't be any corrosion.

17 But they recognize that it is a problem.

18 They do coat their pipes. They do hope that the 19 coatings will last for a very long time, and I agree 20 that they will. But I can't imagine a situation where 21 there's no oxygen at the location where corrosion 22 occurs.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Speaking of that, 24 continuing on with this testimony, then, it goes on to 25 say "In long-term buried applications, such as with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3762 1 the pipes at this site, oxygen levels are low or 2 absent." So do you consider, Entergy, the five to ten 3 feet depth to be deep for pipes?

4 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 5 Applicant. Yes, it is. Most gas and hazardous liquid 6 transmission lines across the U.S. and across the 7 world are typically only buried three feet deep to top 8 of pipe. Here at Entergy, the most shallow pipe 9 typically, like fire protection piping, is eight feet 10 to top of pipe. Other pipes, again because of the way 11 the site was excavated and they kind of built as they 12 filled and went up, some pipes are 30, 40 feet deep.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: The testimony goes on and 14 says "Also, over the line survey techniques have been" 15 -- sorry, lost my place. "Over the line survey 16 techniques have been developed to detect potential 17 gradients indicative of current flow, consistent with 18 these forms of corrosion cells."

19 So you know, what does this mean and what 20 types of survey techniques are you talking about?

21 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Sir, this is Steve 22 Biagiotti for the Applicant. This is now entering 23 into the cathodic protection discussion. Would we 24 want to open that Pandora's box now?

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, if you can answer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3763 1 that when we get to that --

2 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yeah, because I think we 3 need to put in place exactly how this works, and then 4 a lot of these questions become evident.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure, and that's, as the 6 last bit of that whole block of testimony says, "As 7 our experts explain, Entergy is taking measures 8 through the BPTIP to identify and address potential 9 degradation of in scope area piping, and its 10 protective coatings." Would anyone like to quickly 11 summarize what those measures are that you're 12 referring to?

13 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 14 Applicant. Again, this is the APEC survey, and the 15 APEC survey does do a coating degradation assessment.

16 That's part of what it does. I would request, though, 17 that if we could take five or ten minutes, if we 18 wanted, to kind of make sure that we understand.

19 I don't know. I guess I'm asking for a 20 lunch break, because when we come back, we can go 21 right into this, and I'll be glad to explain the whole 22 thing.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's just where we 24 were, because our next set of questions deals with the 25 APEC, and then we have a whole block dealing with --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3764 1 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yeah. I'm not trying to 2 avoid it; I just want to give you the whole picture.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well this is the place to 4 break right now.

5 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.

6 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, Martin O'Neill 7 for the Applicant.

8 JUDGE McDADE: Yes.

9 MR. O'NEILL: Just one point of 10 clarification. During the discussion of oxygen 11 content, corrosion potential, there were numerous 12 references by the witnesses to a failure analysis, and 13 I think, though correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe 14 they may be referring to a May 15th, 2009 Structural 15 Integrity Associates report entitled "Analysis of 16 Eight Inch Condensate Water Storage Tank Return Line, 17 a CD-183 Final Report," New York State Exhibit 175.

18 DR. DUQUETTE: I concur.

19 MR. O'NEILL: The witnesses concur?

20 MR. AZEVEDO: I concur.

21 MR. O'NEILL: So New York State Exhibit 22 175.

23 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you, Mr. O'Neill.

24 MR. O'NEILL: You're welcome.

25 MR. SIPOS: And Your Honor, but there's --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3765 1 this is John Sipos, there's also a root cause analysis 2 as well, which is New York State 179 to the same 3 event.

4 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Anything to take up 5 before we go for the lunch break. Mr. Sipos?

6 MR. SIPOS: Yes, Your Honor. Just 7 inquiring about the schedule, I learned this morning 8 that Dr. Duquette may have, and I haven't spoken with 9 him yet, so I'm looking at him, but may have some 10 previously scheduled meetings. Is it tomorrow, Dr.

11 Duquette?

12 DR. DUQUETTE: Tomorrow morning.

13 MS. DEAN: And Your Honor, on that point, 14 it also appears that there is no accommodation here 15 in the hotel for Dr. Duquette this evening, when we 16 attempted to extend his stay.

17 So before we go looking for other 18 accommodations for him in the area, I wondered if you 19 knew if you did intend to wrap up Contention 5 today, 20 or if we would be extending until tomorrow?

21 JUDGE McDADE: We are hopeful to wrap it 22 up today. But let us get back to you after the break 23 for lunch, and we will have a better idea of that.

24 MS. DEAN: Great, thank you.

25 JUDGE McDADE: Anything else before we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3766 1 break?

2 MS. SUTTON: Yes, Your Honor. This is 3 Kathryn Sutton for the Applicant. We've had a 4 request, if the Board would please request that the 5 hotel turn the air conditioning on in this room over 6 the lunch break. That would be very helpful to cool 7 it off a bit.

8 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I think that's an 9 excellent idea. Okay. It's --

10 MR. INZERO: Christopher Inzero, Assistant 11 County Attorney for the County of Westchester. I just 12 wanted to put a notice of appearance on the record for 13 the County.

14 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thanks.

15 MR. INZERO: Thank you, Your Honor.

16 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. We will stand in 17 recess then until 12, until 12 -- until 1:15. We are 18 in recess.

19 (Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., a luncheon 20 recess was taken.)

21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3767 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2 1:20 p.m.

3 JUDGE McDADE: Please be seated. The 4 hearing will come to order. A couple of things left 5 over from before lunch. First of all, with regard to 6 Figure 2, which is on page 33 of Entergy Exhibit 373, 7 I think we are just going to go with the oral 8 description that's in the record, as far as the 9 location of the 2007 and 2009 leaks.

10 I think the Board is fairly clear as to 11 where that is. I think the record is fairly clear 12 that anyone reading it after the fact will be able to 13 identify that, and rather than trying to create a new 14 exhibit at this point in time, we're just going to go 15 with the oral description that's already in the record 16 for that exhibit.

17 With regard to the next question, as far 18 as scheduling goes, it is our hope to finish up 19 tonight on the New York Contention 5. It is our hope, 20 but we are not -- we can't put a guarantee on that.

21 Part of that also, I did want to raise with the 22 parties.

23 As we have done with the previous 24 contentions, we anticipate allowing brief questioning 25 by the parties of these particular witnesses.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3768 1 Obviously, if Dr. Duquette isn't here, that puts a 2 significant crunch on that. So we would want to try 3 to do and will try to do that, will do that with Dr.

4 Duquette here.

5 I anticipate the same instructions that we 6 gave at our session in October, that the question 7 would be allowed to a limited degree, as long as it 8 was not repetitive and was particularly relevant, was 9 designed specifically to either clarify the record, 10 correct or augment testimony that would lead the Board 11 to an incorrect opinion, in the event that it was not.

12 In October, all of the parties were very 13 responsive to the Board's request, that that testimony 14 be focused, and nobody went more than about 15 or 20 15 minutes in that testimony, and you know, in deciding 16 whether or not we can finish today, we anticipate that 17 the parties would be, if they ask questions, ask them 18 within that kind of a time frame.

19 We're certainly not going to be able to 20 finish today, in the event that the questioning by the 21 parties is going to go considerably beyond that. So 22 what we are going to do is make our effort to be able 23 to get our questions done as expeditiously as 24 possible, to take a short break, and then allow the 25 parties the opportunity to ask questions.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3769 1 We may have to go a little bit later than 2 normal, in order to accommodate that. So there won't 3 be a specific cutoff of we're going to stop today at 4 5:00 or stop today at 6:00.

5 We're going to see where we are when the 6 Board is finished asking questions, and then see 7 whether or not there's a reasonable likelihood that we 8 would be able to accommodate the parties this evening, 9 and that would be our hope to do so.

10 So for your planning purposes, you know, 11 it may be necessary to plan to stay a little bit 12 later. That said, does anybody else have any 13 housekeeping matters before we get back to the 14 questioning of the witnesses. From Entergy?

15 MS. SUTTON: No, Your Honor.

16 JUDGE McDADE: New York, Mr. Sipos, Ms.

17 Dean?

18 MR. SIPOS: No, Your Honor.

19 JUDGE McDADE: Nothing from Riverkeeper, 20 Ms. Brancato?

21 MS. BRANCATO: No, Your Honor.

22 MR. TURK: Nothing from staff. Oh, I 23 apologize.

24 JUDGE McDADE: Ms. Raimundi?

25 MS. RAIMUNDI: No. No, Your Honor.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3770 1 JUDGE McDADE: Nothing, Mr. Turk?

2 MR. TURK: No.

3 JUDGE McDADE: And from Westchester?

4 MR. INZERO: No, Your Honor.

5 DR. DUQUETTE: I just want to thank the 6 Board for its consideration, that's all, and I can 7 stay as late as is necessary.

8 JUDGE McDADE: Judge Wardwell.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: I think we left off here 10 at Entergy's Testimony 373, pages 100 to 104, Answer 11 119, discusses a November 2010 "SIA, Area Potential 12 Earth Current APEC (Survey)," and that's Entergy 13 Exhibit 445 is the report from that, I believe.

14 And maybe start and just would you like to 15 describe what that survey is, and how it differs from 16 the PCA survey, which is New York Exhibit 178, that 17 was conducted in 2008?

18 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, thank you.

19 Steve Biagiotti for the Applicant. If I might, these 20 are all going to relate to a fundamental principle of 21 electrochemistry. I would like to just kind of set 22 the stage for a minute, if I could.

23 Can I please ask for Entergy Exhibit 390, 24 and Figure 1.1 in that exhibit, and that will allow me 25 to set the stage for all these different test NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3771 1 techniques and everything else? 1.1, please. It's 2 Chapter 1, page 2. Just 1.1.

3 Okay, great. Thank you. Going down to 4 the bottom of that page, fantastic. Okay. We must 5 understand that the corrosion mechanism we're dealing 6 with requires fundamentally four characteristics. I 7 must have an anode, which is where the removal of 8 electrons happen.

9 I must have a cathode, which is the 10 consumer of those electrons. I must have an 11 electrolyte for current flow, and then I must have a 12 return metallic path for the electrons to flow along.

13 Very simple structure here, but by understanding this, 14 we can actually do inspection methods and detection 15 methods.

16 So at the anode again is where corrosion 17 or metal loss wastage occurs, and then that current 18 will flow to a cathode. Now that cathode can either 19 be immediately adjacent to it. So on a bare metal 20 structure, we could have millions of anode and cathode 21 sites next to each other.

22 It can be with dissimilar metals, such as 23 a carbon steel pipe to a piece of copper or a 24 stainless steel pipe. If I go to the top of that 25 page, please, the reactions that occur, the first NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3772 1 reaction, again I mention that that the first reaction 2 is iron dissolution, and it's where the removal of 3 electrons happen.

4 The next two reactions occur at the 5 cathode, which is where the consumption happens.

6 Earlier, we mentioned that there was a need for water 7 and/or oxygen to occur, and those do aid at the 8 cathodic site of any electrochemical reaction.

9 As soon as there's a depletion of oxygen 10 or an unavailability of water, that reduces the 11 ability for the cathode to operate, which in essence 12 will control the corrosion cell. Okay. Understand 13 that there's these four principles, and this is what's 14 going to occur.

15 Corrosion control is primarily 16 accomplished by breaking one of these four 17 characteristics, again, anode, cathode, electrolyte, 18 metal path. The way we break any electric -- as you 19 understand, if we break any electric circuit, current 20 doesn't flow, light bulbs don't light, that sort of 21 thing.

22 We break it in a buried structure by 23 applying the coating. These coatings are referred to 24 as a dielectric material, meaning they do not allow 25 electrons, electricity to flow. So by coating a pipe, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3773 1 I have now interrupted the metal surface from its 2 environment and electrolytes. That prevents 3 corrosion.

4 That's important to understand, not only 5 because we say coatings are great and it's going to 6 prevent corrosion. But by the same token, if I can't 7 complete the electric cells, things such as cathodic 8 protection won't function either, because I'm not 9 completing the electrical process.

10 Okay, so comfortable with just the basics 11 of the corrosion cell? I'd like to move on to next, 12 your next question was the PCA report and how the 13 inspection methods occur. For cathodic protection, 14 for evaluating these features, the easiest thing for 15 us to evaluate is current flow through the soil.

16 That is actually a quantitative measure 17 that we can detect, and it is directly proportional 18 that the more current flow, the more anode/cathode 19 sites we have, and then by implication the more 20 corrosion that's going on.

21 The industry since the 60's has developed 22 the techniques for trying to measure those corrosion 23 flows. I have in there, let's see, the methods for 24 actually measuring cathodic protection, sorry, are in 25 -- well, there are different exhibits. But the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3774 1 techniques are generally -- two are most prominent.

2 One is referred to as a close interval 3 survey, and what that does is it takes a potential 4 measurement, and I refer you to the same document 5 please, Figure 3.1, this shows you fundamentally how 6 a cathodic protection system operates.

7 In a cathodic protection system, we are 8 assuming that we have exposed metal pipe, and that's 9 the idea of what we want to protect. In this figure, 10 let me just orient everyone. Obviously, the pipe is 11 along the bottom horizontal of the figure.

12 The dark areas are the areas of the pipe 13 that are exposed, bare portions. In the center of the 14 figure, you'll see a plus/minus sign. We actually use 15 what's referred to as a rectifier, and a rectifier 16 just takes AC current, turns it into DC current so 17 that we can use it.

18 At the top of the figure is what's 19 referred to as the ground bed or the anodes or the 20 deep wells or semi-deep wells, whatever you decide you 21 want to call it. But with cathodic protection, we now 22 have the negative the rectifier is directly connected 23 to the piping structure of interest, which is that 24 metallic path we talked about.

25 The positive of the rectifier is connected NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3775 1 to a anode bed, which we are forcing to be the anodic 2 site in the corrosion cell. That makes the pipe the 3 cathodic part of the corrosion reaction, and obviously 4 the soil is now the electrolyte. So again, this is an 5 electrical circuit. So cathodic protection currents 6 are forced from the anode towards the pipe, and 7 they'll be picked up by actually any metallic object 8 in the ground.

9 But the only beneficial aspect to it is 10 those that can actually have a return path current to 11 the rectifier. Notice in the graphic that the current 12 is going to where is bare steel, and again, this is 13 this whole concept that cathodic protection is not 14 going to provide any beneficial effect whatsoever, if 15 the pipe coating is intact.

16 So we are relying on the fact that there 17 has to be an access door, let's call it, to the piping 18 system. So fundamentally, this is how the system 19 works. So again, that anode bed is something we are 20 mechanically forcing to be the anode, such that the 21 pipe can be the cathode.

22 In a system that does not have cathodic 23 protection, you can imagine that maybe the top image 24 in this graphic would be one pipe. The bottom pipe is 25 another pipe, and so one might corrode preferentially.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3776 1 What you're seeing in these lines again is lines of 2 current, and so the techniques that we've developed 3 for inspection are specifically looking for these 4 lines of current.

5 So again, we have close interval survey, 6 CIS technique, that is trying to measure the 7 potential. So a voltage that's moving around the 8 pipe, and then we also use a technique called direct 9 current voltage gradient, DCVG, and that technique has 10 been designed more to look and reveal information 11 about holidays, or where the current pickup points 12 are, or the current discharge points, depending on ho 13 you look at it.

14 Okay. So those are two well-established 15 techniques. They are referenced in an exhibit we have 16 for the API 510 document. They're referenced in the 17 EPRI 101 something document, that's the guidance 18 document. So they're well-established techniques.

19 The APEC survey now, and these techniques, 20 I must preface, were developed for the oil and gas 21 industry way back in the 60's, where they only have 22 one type typically buried, generally remote from 23 anything else. So when you take this measurement, you 24 know this measurement has to be the one pipe you think 25 you're over, because that's the only thing in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3777 1 ground.

2 When we get into plant applications, we've 3 now got piping that is in close proximity to one 4 another. It's vertically stacked, it's congested in 5 general. So it becomes more difficult to say that the 6 measurement I'm reading is related to one particular 7 pipe.

8 This is what prompted the APEC survey. If 9 I could direct you just quickly to --

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: One quick question.

11 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Certainly.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: You emphasized here that 13 this basic cathodic protection installation only 14 addresses the bare pipe.

15 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I did.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well isn't that what 17 we're after to protect? That's what we want to 18 protect. So what's wrong with that? You kind of 19 conveyed that that, you gave an inference as if that's 20 something not advantageous to the system.

21 MR. BIAGIOTTI: No, by all means. It is 22 something that's worthwhile to apply, where you have 23 bare piping systems, and the site has taken that 24 strategy. The strategy that they're using is once we 25 detect that we have some possible areas of degraded NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3778 1 coating, it is prudent to supplement that coating with 2 a cathodic protection system. The corollary is not --

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do we have any proof that 4 any of the pipes have no holidays whatsoever?

5 MR. BIAGIOTTI: It's not necessarily an 6 issue of no holidays. Again, it's a matter of degree 7 and yes, we do have that information. That's the next 8 -- I was going to roll into the APEC survey, if I 9 could.

10 The other little fundamental that I wanted 11 to make sure everyone understood is again, if I could 12 ask you to just show Figure A-1 that appears in the 13 Entergy 445 exhibit, and what this is actually showing 14 --

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Why don't we want until 16 he pulls it up?

17 MR. BIAGIOTTI: A-1, please. It's on page 18 A-2 of the document. It's an appendix. Oh, you 19 passed it. Sorry. There you go. That's what I was 20 trying to show, that figure there.

21 These techniques again use a reference 22 electrodes, a copper-copper sulfate cell, through a 23 volt meter, with the other side of the volt meter 24 connected back to the metallic structure of interest.

25 These do collect somewhat of kind of like NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3779 1 a flashlight. It's collecting information that 2 represents a tome of information. So this is one on 3 a congested piping application. The CIS and DCVG 4 techniques, by themselves, don't lend themselves to 5 direct correlation, because there's several things in 6 the cones, so you don't know what's in there.

7 What the APEC survey has done, just please 8 move to the next page, is a figure, is it's decided to 9 -- it's actually using three of these half cells 10 together. What this allows us to do now is instead of 11 just having a singular reading that you're trying to 12 interpret, we can use the three pieces of information 13 in combination, and get not only a magnitude value, 14 but effectively a direction or a compass direction.

15 We take that and during interpretation, we 16 superimpose that onto this digitized pipe information, 17 such that let's say we see current flow and it's 18 heading towards the two o'clock position. When we 19 look at that, with the actual piping configuration 20 with this superimposed on top of it, we can actually 21 interpret that now, because we say ah-ha, I have 22 something corroding here. That something is this 23 pipe, and it's discharging and something else is 24 picking it up.

25 So the APEC survey provides us that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3780 1 information, and actually please go directly below 2 that. There's some bulleted items. This is the 3 typical interpretations that we get out of an APEC 4 survey. We are looking at two different things.

5 The area potential tells us whether or not 6 something is showing indications of active corrosion, 7 whereas the earth current results is the current flow, 8 which we can use then to give us an indication of 9 coating degradation. How much surface area and how 10 much discharge is really happening, because the 11 discharge is really related to that electrochemical 12 driving force.

13 So these are just to see that the kind of 14 things we're looking at is, you know, whether or not 15 we're meeting polarization levels, and whether or not 16 we're getting where we have coating degradation and so 17 on. So this is just kind of a simplistic way of 18 trying to give people a feel for how the data is 19 interpreted.

20 So we did do this, and we have applied it 21 to the site, and actually, if you'd like now, I can 22 roll into what the APEC survey has shown. In this 23 same document, this is Entergy 445, we've provided 24 some information -- I want to go where the -- sorry, 25 I thought I had this well laid out.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3781 1 Actually, it's not testimony. These are 2 the 5A figures. Yes, please. Sorry. In Entergy 3 Testimony 373, Figures 5A, B and C. Mine's on page 4 102, but there we go. See that's 5A. Okay.

5 This just kind of gives you now a view of 6 the site, and each of those yellow dots represents 7 kind of where we placed the half cells, and you'll 8 recall the half cell is really how we're gathering 9 these measurements.

10 There are over 335 of these measurements 11 around the site. As far as what kind of coverage that 12 is, there are several strategies on how we designed 13 these --

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Can I interrupt? Are the 15 half cells each composed of these three items, or are 16 those three items each one of those a half cell?

17 MR. BIAGIOTTI: A half cell is one corner 18 of those three, the three corners. So they're done in 19 kind of a -- remember, it's three measurements 20 collected at once kind of as a box, and the box 21 progresses around. But we interpret between all of 22 them.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: But does that dot 24 represent one of those half cells or the group of 25 three, each yellow dot?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3782 1 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Each of those, in this 2 particular graphic, each dot is one half cell.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: So the three of them are 4 the other two that are on the other side of a given 5 dot?

6 MR. BIAGIOTTI: A different graphic will 7 show you more of the combined interpretation. This is 8 actually just singular values.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah. My question is are 10 the three half cells that were shown on your previous 11 diagram, are the other two the other dots on the other 12 side of any given one dot?

13 MR. BIAGIOTTI: They are, they are. So 14 this is showing you kind of where we went around.

15 Again, there is a strategy to how we do this. Part of 16 the way we do this, as part of the UPTIMP program, is 17 to really ensure that we're helping the site achieve 18 one of its objectives, with reasonable assurance, in 19 that we are covering more than 50 percent of the 20 critical lines.

21 So that, and again, this is an indirect 22 survey technique, right? So this is surveying broad 23 areas with piping in it, to help direct them towards 24 areas of interest. So as I mentioned, we did 335 25 sites. That did represent more than 54 percent of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3783 1 license renewal piping, as a side interest, and 2 actually 79 percent of the 24 inch service water 3 lines. But that wasn't the exclusive reason we did 4 this.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Where are the other pipes 6 located on site that you've missed?

7 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Where are the other pipes?

8 Yes. Figure 1, you know, shows -- well that shows the 9 license renewal scope stuff. I don't believe we 10 prepared a graphic that is every pipe at the site for 11 the purpose of this contention. We didn't prepare 12 that.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what are the 14 percentages you say that this covered, in regards to 15 --

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: 54 percent of the license 17 renewal pipe was covered, as well as 89 percent of the 18 24 inch service water rad. The portion of the service 19 water system has the potential to contain radiological 20 content.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Would one be foolish if 22 they assume that the other 40 some-odd percent are 23 those that are under buildings?

24 MR. BIAGIOTTI: No sir. I don't believe 25 there's that -- I mean of the piping that we evaluate, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3784 1 there's very little of it that's actually under the 2 buildings, because our focus was on buried, and by 3 definition buried is typically in contact with soil, 4 and we're not seeing a lot.

5 My experience with other plants, as well 6 as this, is some of the ones that are under buildings 7 are more like discharge canals, and some of the 8 intake, you know, water intake structures. But that 9 is not a large fraction of the overall piping.

10 At this site, just as an aside, since you 11 asked, there's currently over 77,000 feet of piping 12 that's about -- that's in the system, which is like 13 fourteen and three quarter miles of piping.

14 Okay, so I'm sorry. What this graphic was 15 trying to show, first off, is where was the 16 inspections, where were the inspections performed.

17 The colored dots here deal with polarization, and 18 polarization is something I didn't really explain as 19 I should have when I first led off here.

20 But you'll recall that I showed you the 21 cathodic reactions. One had to do with the 22 consumption of electrons, and one of the byproducts 23 was hydrogen gas.

24 At a cathode, we do form hydrogen gas, H2, 25 and what happens is that hydrogen formation is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3785 1 actually on a microscopic level, it becomes a surface 2 barrier, because now I have earth, I have a gaseous 3 film, and then I have metal. That separation is 4 actually enough to mitigate and control corrosion.

5 So what this showing you is where we had 6 more than 100 millivolts, which is one of the NACE 7 SPO169 criteria. So where we had more than 100 8 millivolts of polarization, and as expected, it's down 9 by the docks area on Unit 2, because they do have 10 active cathodic protection.

11 Surprisingly, it's up on the hill, behind 12 the Unit 2 CST tanks, and really the reason it's 13 there, it's not clear in this drawing, but there's a 14 fence there, and that fence is galvanized, which means 15 it has zinc on it. Zinc is the material we use as 16 anodes, right. So this area of the plant does have 17 current flow, but it's because of the galvanizing on 18 the fence.

19 The next graphic, please, is 5B, and 20 again, this comes to the question of what are we 21 seeing as far as current flows, that would indicate 22 coating degradation? So this is in the native state.

23 The native state is a term used by cathodic protection 24 practitioners for when we don't have cathodic 25 protection.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3786 1 So in this case, we've actually turned the 2 CP systems off intentionally at the site, to perform 3 this particular survey. And the current flows that 4 you're seeing, although they're listed in centivolts, 5 you notice a lot of blue, 20 to 60 centivolts, this is 6 very, very small.

7 What we're seeing in our experience is 8 these are incredibly small amounts. When we do see 9 issues, we are seeing -- we're not dealing with these 10 tens and hundreds. We're actually seeing, you know, 11 large current flows like amps. So but what we do as 12 a survey, though, is where it is an indirect 13 technique, where we are measuring responses.

14 It's always prudent to go ahead and 15 validate what those responses are telling you. It 16 doesn't necessarily mean they're bad or, you know, 17 good is experience-driven. But it doesn't mean 18 they're necessarily bad, and there is a well-19 established process of how you utilize indirect 20 inspection data as part of an overall assessment.

21 So anyway, the point I wanted you to see 22 here is lots of blue, lots of green, some yellow. We 23 really didn't any terrible spots. We do have that.

24 I believe it's a total of five or four red dots, and 25 those were the sites that as part of the report next NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3787 1 steps, is we recommend that we prioritize those for 2 the site, and say we recommend you further explore 3 these, so that you can validate and quantify, you 4 know, what this is actually telling us.

5 The site actually has started performing 6 those excavations. They've got two completed to date, 7 and they're not seeing metal loss. One of the other 8 things that's important to know with indirect surveys 9 is where we are looking for coatings faults as well, 10 or coating degradation, you can have coating issues 11 that you detect, that because of the soil conditions 12 and other factors, you're seeing just minor current 13 flows.

14 So it's not -- just because I have a 15 coating fault does not necessarily draw you right to 16 the conclusion that it's severe, as was referred to 17 earlier, is that hey, once we have one coating fault, 18 we have concentrations of pitting in one area. That's 19 just not true. We don't see that in buried pipe 20 applications.

21 The last graphic that I think I have to 22 show you is 5C, and this is just more and what we 23 referred to as the "on" condition, with the CP system 24 on. Please keep in mind that this was done in 25 November 2010, before some of the new CP systems were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3788 1 added for Unit 2 and Unit 3.

2 When we see the system turned back on, in 3 this case red is a good indicator. It's showing high 4 potentials, and again we're seeing the warmer colors 5 along the dock, which is where we'd expect, since 6 that's where the active CP is.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Say again, the red is 8 good?

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: In this case, the red is 10 good. It means that we actually have high potentials, 11 and high potentials is what you're trying to achieve 12 with a cathodic protection system. I guess high is --

13 I don't want to go into that. It's a good color.

14 That was what I was going to present.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Explain the difference 16 between this and the PCA testing?

17 MR. BIAGIOTTI: The PCA testing uses the 18 same techniques. It was done in a different area of 19 the plant. It was done just to the top of this 20 graphic, and it used the close interval survey and the 21 DCVG techniques, to actually detect that straight 22 current corrosion issue that we had talked about 23 earlier.

24 So I mean again, it's using the same 25 hardware, same kind of equipment, same interpretation, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3789 1 technology and methodologies, same NACE standards, 2 just in a different location.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: What are your final 4 conclusions from this study?

5 MR. BIAGIOTTI: The conclusions were that 6 we did not have any severe indications that would 7 prompt us to want to make you do something 8 immediately. So but again, this is a process step, 9 and the next step following an APEC survey is to do 10 the strategic prioritized explanations, to quantify 11 what they signify.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: There, you're going after 13 the dots that were red. So red was bad in that case?

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Although these are 15 simplified graphics, yes. Fundamentally, we did point 16 Entergy towards those red dots.

17 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, let me -- Jon 18 Cavallo for the Applicant. Let me just quickly jump 19 in here. Back to that Figure 5 Bravo. The four red 20 dots from the coatings practitioner standpoint, those 21 indicate areas that we need to investigate. Although 22 the current flows, as Steve said, is very low, to 23 investigate to determine visually and mechanically 24 whether or not we have coatings damage there. That is 25 a direct inspection.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3790 1 This guides us where to go for our 2 prioritized direct inspections, which is a requirement 3 of the NRC.

4 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 5 Applicant again. You know, the leak that occurred in 6 2009, more than likely, most likely would have been 7 detected with this kind of -- or would have been 8 pointed to with this kind of a survey. This is really 9 what this survey is intended to do.

10 Where they actually had fairly aggressive 11 metal loss in that one location, I do not believe --

12 we would have seen current flows coming off of that, 13 because obviously it's a corrosion reaction. It was 14 fairly significant. You would see current flows 15 there.

16 So this kind of a technique is actually 17 very good at helping to keep from doing random 18 excavations or opportunistic excavations, to really 19 saying that the corrosion -- we understand what the 20 threat is. The threat is loss of external coating, 21 potentially of a susceptible material in a susceptible 22 environment.

23 That will lead to current flows, and if 24 we're looking, we'll see it. So this is one of those 25 techniques where you say aha, we're looking for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3791 1 right indicators now. So we will see this going 2 forward.

3 Now as far as how often you repeat this 4 kind of a survey, again API 571 and other sources 5 would tell you that you wouldn't repeat this any 6 sooner than three to five years. You just don't see 7 -- we're looking at degradation mechanisms as it 8 happens over time. You're not going to see an 9 instantaneous change.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Duquette, did you 11 reference this study in your testimony?

12 DR. DUQUETTE: I don't think I did, no.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: How about in your 14 rebuttal?

15 DR. DUQUETTE: I think I did. I don't 16 remember doing it. I would have to go back and take 17 a look at it. I don't think I commented on it, but 18 I'm not sure if I did or not.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: What are your comments in 20 regards to what you see here and --

21 DR. DUQUETTE: Well, there are several 22 that I could make, that I don't think would be very 23 productive. But I'm surprised, looking at this chart, 24 that they're getting as much current as they're 25 getting. Mr. Biagiotti suggests that these are small NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3792 1 currents.

2 The corrosion rates, as Mr. Biagiotti 3 knows very well, are measured by current per unit 4 area, not by current per se. So I'm surprised at some 5 of these locations that the coating would really 6 sound, that they'd get any current at all.

7 I would expect the current to in fact be 8 a dielectric, and that they would get no current 9 whatsoever with that kind of a measurement, and I've 10 seen those kinds of measurements before.

11 This suggests to me that you have lots of 12 very small areas on the surface of the coating, that 13 are in fact compromised, and that you're getting 14 current from the metal to the reference electrodes.

15 I don't have any other answer for that, unless the 16 coatings that they're using have some conductivity in 17 them.

18 So this tells me that there are more 19 active -- keep in mind that my concept of what's 20 happening is not large areas of disbonded coating, or 21 large holidays in the coating. I think if there's 22 going to be any kind of a problem with these kinds of 23 coatings, it's going to be at pinholes or at small 24 cracks in the coating, because of the coating aging.

25 So I'm really surprised that this map is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3793 1 as good as it is from a current point of view, because 2 it tells me there's a lot of activity, a lot more than 3 I would have expected in these. I would have thought 4 in most of the cases, you would measure no current at 5 all, and I'm just surprised.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: What's your reaction to 7 that opinion?

8 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 9 Applicant. That brings up a very good point, but what 10 is not being taken into consideration here is that 11 there are a lot of things in the ground. So we have 12 conduits that are galvanized. So we're going to see 13 current flow from any of the buried conduits. There's 14 lots of things in the ground.

15 But that's really the reason for the whole 16 validation, is when you look at the site in total, you 17 say okay, well we're seeing the greatest signals in 18 this area, let's dig that and find out what it is.

19 At some sites, we've been interested to 20 find that we found old construction lines that were 21 used during construction, for everything from 22 compressed air to other things, that when the plant 23 went into operation, they just simply severed the 24 lines and, you know, they're no longer operational.

25 But those lines are now preferentially NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3794 1 corroding, which is not surprising. They're not 2 electric -- they're there. But galvanizing's big. We 3 have storm sewers, again corrugated metal pipe that 4 we're all familiar seeing under road crossings and 5 things. They are also galvanized, and that zinc is an 6 anode material.

7 So it will always give off current, and 8 something else will always pick it up. So you will 9 always have current flow in the ground, because we do 10 have a mixed metal environment.

11 So no, I'm not very surprised that we're 12 seeing minor current flows, and again, everything's 13 going to be taken in context, is that we try to 14 produce these scales for a utility, so that we can 15 help show them what is the worst or the worst for 16 them, let's say.

17 If I was to show this on an absolute 18 scale, everything might appear blue, you know, because 19 I have seen higher numbers at other sites that 20 actually do have some pretty significant issues.

21 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, one way to look 22 at this also, Jon Cavallo for the Applicant, is we're 23 not looking at the magnitude of the numbers, but the 24 relative comparison of the current flow, reported at 25 let's say the red areas versus the blue areas, which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3795 1 tells us indirectly where our areas of interest are.

2 Those areas are being investigated, have 3 been, about half of them have been investigated 4 already, and to determine whether or not Dr.

5 Duquette's concern about the condition of the coating 6 is of concern, and in fact we've proven that there is 7 no significant coating degradation there.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: By half, you mean two of 9 the four?

10 MR. CAVALLO: Two of the four.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And you're not -- where 12 do you go with the orange?

13 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 14 Applicant. They're at a lower relative current flow, 15 so again, going back to the corrosion theory side of 16 things, I'm looking at things that have the highest 17 discharge current first, because they should be the 18 most active over the largest service area.

19 As I mentioned, current density is 20 important. Current density does come into this, but 21 since all of our measurements are taken with a fixed 22 geometry, the density part of it kinds of drops out of 23 the equation.

24 That's why we only reflect millivolts in 25 this thing. But it is considering a current density NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3796 1 aspect. So the idea is we give, we provide to the 2 utility a prioritized list saying we saw the highest 3 current flow here.

4 Investigate that, and when they look at 5 that, the way the direct assessment methodology works 6 is you investigate the first few, and if you've 7 convinced yourself that my, again we're looking at 8 indications of an issue, if those indications are 9 revealing, that it's coating damage or, you know, 10 coating damage but no metal loss, then there's no 11 reason to keep exploring further down. You monitor, 12 and then over time maybe --

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: During the first two 14 inspections conducted?

15 MR. BIAGIOTTI: If we look at the figure, 16 you want to -- can you go where the Unit 2 reactor is, 17 on the left, bottom left, left. No, it was Unit 2.

18 I just want to make sure. I'll let Entergy point it 19 out where they were.

20 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, Nelson Azevedo from 21 Entergy. There's actually not a figure which shows 22 the -- it's in the APEC survey, I believe.

23 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Oh. So sorry. In Entergy 24 445 is the APEC survey report.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: You want to go that?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3797 1 You've lost me on what you're doing.

2 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, we 3 were going to try to actually point you to where the 4 excavation locations were, if that's of interest.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, as long as you're 6 showing it in relationship to those red dots.

7 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah, Your Honor. It's 8 Nelson Azevedo. What I was hoping that we do is go to 9 that figure, where it shows the four --

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: What figure?

11 MR. AZEVEDO: The one that Mr. Biagiotti 12 is pulling up.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

14 MR. AZEVEDO: What was that one again?

15 MR. BIAGIOTTI: This is figure -- in the 16 APEC report, it's Figure 4-2 on page 4-3. You've gone 17 -- there you go.

18 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah, yeah. There you go.

19 So those four red dots are the areas where Structural 20 Integrity recommended that we do further 21 investigation.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: You've got to orient me.

23 We've turned the map now around, haven't we?

24 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, we have. North is 25 now up -- there you go. No, you're 180 degrees off.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3798 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, 180 degrees.

2 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yeah. There we go.

3 MR. AZEVEDO: So the bottom of the page is 4 the Hudson River. The left is north, roughly, and I 5 guess the right is south. So those are the four areas 6 that Structural Integrity said that they found the 7 highest current.

8 Again, they didn't find any areas of 9 immediate areas, but they found these four areas that 10 they recommend that we do for an investigation.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And where have you 12 conducted the -- they said you've dug two of them 13 already?

14 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah. So we took these 15 recommendations from Structural Integrity, and we 16 looked at where the areas of the in-scope piping were, 17 in relation to those locations, and the safety 18 significance of those systems.

19 So if you look at Location 1, which is the 20 one on the left-hand side, we didn't excavate directly 21 above that. We excavated just up into the right of 22 that.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: East.

24 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah, that would be east, 25 and the reason why we did that was to -- we wanted to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3799 1 investigate what was going on, but also we wanted to 2 capture the in-scope pipe. We didn't want to dig 3 where there was no or little in-scope piping, the 4 maximize the data that we're going to collect.

5 So we excavated adjacent to Location 1, 6 and then same thing for Location 2. We excavated on 7 the figure just above that, which would be to the 8 east. And again, the reason why we selected those 9 locations was because there were lots of in-scope 10 piping and safety-significant piping.

11 For Location 3, we're planning on 12 excavating that in 2013, and for Location 4, right now 13 we don't have any plans, because there is no in-scope 14 piping in that area.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what did you find out 16 when you dug 1 and 2?

17 MR. AZEVEDO: In Locations 1 and 2, we 18 found some coating damage in the -- well actually in 19 Location 2, we didn't really find anything. Is that 20 correct, Bob?

21 MR. LEE: Two was clean. The coating, the 22 piping was uncovered and the coating looked very, very 23 good condition.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: So what caused the red 25 current?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3800 1 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 2 Applicant. Please keep in mind that it's not just the 3 pipe. There's a lot of things buried, if we were to 4 take a look at the photos here.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: So what was it? If you 6 dug it up, what was -- what protection did you 7 encounter? If there was nothing there, then doesn't 8 that say that in fact the survey just gives some 9 anomalous results, false positives, if you will.

10 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, I mean I'm not an 11 expert here. Steve is. But what it's telling me is 12 that there is some coating degradation for possibly in 13 the other areas, but not where we excavated.

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: And it's not widespread, 15 or he would have seen it right, you know, where they 16 looked.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: But it doesn't help 18 calibrate your tests if they didn't dig where the red 19 dots are, does it?

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Actually, it does 21 calibrate the testing. We're in the midst of doing 22 that project right now in conjunction with EPRI, is 23 that remember, to calibrate signal interpretations, 24 you don't do it only with your strongest signals, 25 because the false positive issue's important.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3801 1 So every data point that you collect, you 2 know, when you compare back to what the signal said, 3 and if based on how the excavation evolved, then you 4 moved left or you moved right. At that location, when 5 you look back at the signals that we interpreted, we 6 didn't suspect they were going to find something 7 exactly there, and the survey results confirm that.

8 So that does not invalidate the survey.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: How do you reach 10 conclusions -- how are you comfortable in reaching 11 conclusions that you've detected those areas of 12 concern, if in fact when you go in there, it shows 13 nothing?

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I'm sorry, but --

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: I don't know how you 16 could be assured that the orange aren't in fact reds, 17 or that the reds, because you've already shown that 18 the reds are not reds; they're some other color. So 19 --

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I may not have really 21 clearly presented how some of these coating detection 22 techniques work. But if -- the oil and gas industry 23 was under a similar initiative more than a decade ago, 24 and proceeded to go out and test half a million miles 25 of pipe across the U.S.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3802 1 The first set of digs that every company 2 across the U.S. was doing was based on these coating 3 degradation survey techniques, saying "I see 4 something." What they're finding is it was, as the 5 coating gets older, we say it's, we want it to be 6 dielectric, meaning electrically insulating.

7 Over time, you will get some moisture 8 permeation to the coating and other things. Those 9 will all help reveal some minor current flow. The key 10 here is minor. It's not enough to support accelerated 11 or significant corrosion damage.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what's the basis for 13 that statement?

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Several decades' worth of 15 testing, DOT statistics. I'm not sure. This is not 16 new technology. It's very old technology.

17 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, let me --

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: We heard from Dr.

19 Duquette that these aren't small values of current; 20 these are high values. You say they're low values.

21 MR. BIAGIOTTI: With all due respect, Dr.

22 Duquette really knows nothing about this technology.

23 He's not a NACE certified individual. So I can't 24 attest to his knowledge of this.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: But he was just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3803 1 commenting on the value of the current. I don't think 2 you need to be -- I've forgotten how you characterized 3 him, but he just said those look like a fair amount of 4 current, because usually corrosion -- he stated that 5 corrosion potential end up with currents much lower 6 than this, that corrosion doesn't generate a lot of 7 current.

8 Your reasoning for why they're as high as 9 they are is because of things in the ground. There's 10 other things in the ground. Okay. We come here to a 11 spot where it's red, and I don't hear anyone talking 12 about the other things in the ground that were 13 encountered, rather than the pipes that were of 14 concern that will dictate why it should be a red 15 value.

16 That doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling 17 about the survey. Tell me why I should have a warm, 18 fuzzy feeling about the survey?

19 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, it's Nelson 20 Azevedo again. Again, the reason why we selected the 21 adjacent area was to verify that the in-scope safety-22 related piping were not corroding. We will continue 23 to investigate, to look at these results, and we will 24 likely excavate directly above some of these 25 locations, to verify the effectiveness of the survey.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3804 1 That was not the purpose of our digs. The 2 purpose of our digs was to verify that the in-scope 3 piping was not corroding. So we're still looking at 4 these results. We'll factor them in future 5 excavations. But we're not trying to prove the 6 technique was appropriate or adequate for IPEC. We 7 may do that in the future.

8 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, excuse me sir, 9 before we go on. Jon Cavallo for the Applicant.

10 These techniques that are being used here, it's an 11 innovative use of decades old technology, is what 12 Steve was explaining to us, that he's actually, his 13 firm has actually combined two different electrical 14 indirect inspection methodologies for this purpose.

15 This technology is only less than a decade 16 old, and the Applicant is not relying solely on this 17 APEC survey, but also for the excavations which they 18 have performed and will perform, as part of the AMP 19 that they're doing. So it's only one piece of the 20 pie.

21 This is being done not only at Indian 22 Point, but industry-wide. The question about the 23 changes in the morphology of the coating film, all 24 coatings eventually will absorb moisture. Not liquid, 25 but moisture, and this will change the electrical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3805 1 connectivity of that coding, or the resistance to 2 current flow.

3 So over the years, it doesn't mean the 4 coating is malfunctioning. It means that the 5 morphology of the coating film has changed, to give us 6 a different picture. This is a 40 some-odd year old 7 coating film that we're looking at in most cases. I'm 8 not surprised to see some current flow that's not 9 related to active corrosion.

10 JUDGE McDADE: If I could very briefly, 11 you excavated at Location 1 and Location 2; is that 12 correct?

13 MR. AZEVEDO: Well Your Honor, this is 14 Nelson Azevedo. Not at those locations. Adjacent to 15 those locations, I'd say on order of maybe 30 to 40 16 feet, something like that. And again, the reason why 17 we excavated where we did was because we wanted to 18 confirm that the in-scope piping, that there was not 19 an issue with that in-scope piping.

20 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, and what did you find 21 at Location 1?

22 MR. AZEVEDO: In Location 1, as Mr. Lee 23 has said, we didn't really find any coating damage.

24 We didn't really find any issues.

25 JUDGE McDADE: And Location 2?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3806 1 MR. AZEVEDO: Location 2, that hole is 2 still open right now. We did find some coating 3 degradation. We're in process. This is asbestos 4 coating. We're in the process of cleaning up that 5 coating this week and we're going to do some 6 ultrasonic inspections. But based on the initial 7 visual examinations that we did, we didn't find any 8 significant corrosion, just surface corrosion.

9 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Can we go back to 10 Entergy 373, page 103? Okay. Looking at this, 11 Location 1, where you excavated, it's nowhere near 12 either a blue or red, actually nowhere near a red or 13 an orange or even a yellow dot. Mr. Welkie, can you 14 move about another quarter inch to the left? That's 15 Location 1 that was marked on the other one; correct?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: I believe that's Location 2, 17 Your Honor. Let me just double-check.

18 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Unit 2 is Location 1.

19 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, yeah. I'm sorry, 20 yeah. I stand corrected. Location 1 is on Unit 2.

21 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Okay. Can we go back --

22 okay. Why did you activate there? That's not near 23 anything that has a significant current flow?

24 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 25 Applicant. This is -- the level of detail you're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3807 1 asking for is provided in the APEC report, Entergy 2 445. It is figure -- the explanation is actually 3 above Figure 3-10, and again, we have cathodic 4 protection specialists that actually review all the 5 data.

6 Although we did 335 sites, we collect 7 something like 10,000 readings of all sorts and 8 shapes. But the statement made by the CP specialist 9 was it's possible in several, he's seeing several 10 current discharge loops. That was what we're 11 referring to now as multiple anode/cathode sites on 12 something.

13 He's seeing loops, none of which are 14 significant all in themselves. But he's seeing loops.

15 So he was suggesting that they go back, take a look at 16 that, and try to figure out well, is this an 17 indication of maybe a lot of maybe little coating 18 damage? But he's seeing something that he refers to 19 as current loops. So it as not one single discharge 20 area. It's a different form of degradation.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is Location 2 by the red 22 dot, by the, or offset from it at IP3?

23 MR. LEE: Location 2 --

24 JUDGE McDADE: Just below and to the left 25 of Unit 3.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3808 1 MR. LEE: Yeah, would be just east or on 2 top of, in the upward direction from the dot on the 3 other figure. Yes, it would be above that.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. That red dot --

5 that red dot on the drawing matches the red dot here 6 on the photograph?

7 JUDGE McDADE: And that's just slightly 8 north --

9 MR. LEE: It would be slightly east of it.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Your location were you 11 dug, are those dots where you dug or are those dots 12 supposedly representative of these dots?

13 MR. AZEVEDO: Those dots, and I have to go 14 to Steve, but those dots are recommendations from 15 Structural Integrity. So I assume they do coincide 16 pretty well.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry, what? You 18 said those and these. The dots on the drawing in your 19 report.

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes sir.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: In your report.

22 MR. AZEVEDO: Do they match?

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: And flip over to it, 24 Andy, if you will. Yes, those red dots. Are those 25 locations to be dug, or are they, as I heard you say, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3809 1 the location of the red dots in the previous 2 photograph?

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: No. This particular 4 graphic is a summary of the recommended locations that 5 we are asking them to perform direct examination, the 6 excavations on.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is Location 2 just north 8 of the red dot on the photograph in the testimony?

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: You've got to be oriented 10 this way.

11 MR. TURK: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I'm not 12 following which dot --

13 JUDGE McDADE: If we can go back to 14 Entergy 373, page 103.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: See the red dot just 16 north, just west of IP3? Yes. The hands touching it 17 right now.

18 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Where the hand is, you see 19 the red dot and to the right is a green dot.

20 Immediately above the red to green transition, you'll 21 see the shadow outline of a building. The excavation 22 was on the left, above the red dot, just on the left 23 side of that building on the outside.

24 MR. TURK: And that's Location 2?

25 MR. BIAGIOTTI: That would be Location 2.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3810 1 JUDGE McDADE: So just slightly to the 2 north of that building?

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: North is to the left in 4 this drawing. So it's actually to the east. Oh 5 sorry, to the north of the building. You are correct.

6 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Then on this, just 7 to finish up on that, Location 3 is near the red dot 8 just to the west of that building; correct?

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Location 3 is just to the 10 south of the turbine building, right? If that's --

11 JUDGE McDADE: If you go from Location 2, 12 you go west.

13 MR. BIAGIOTTI: To the river.

14 JUDGE McDADE: And then you go slightly 15 south, and there's a red dot there. That's where 16 Location 3 is, approximately.

17 MR. AZEVEDO: That's correct.

18 MR. BIAGIOTTI: That's Location 3.

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 JUDGE McDADE: And Location 4, if you then 21 go midway between those two, as far as east/west and 22 then you go north, there's a red dot right to the 23 south of that building. That's where Location 4 is 24 located; correct?

25 MR. BIAGIOTTI: You are correct.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3811 1 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Moving on to the 3 testimony on 373, Entergy Exhibit page 114, Answer 4 129, you state that the PCA, and that's New York 5 Exhibit 178, recorded soil resistivity data for the 6 areas above the buried piping running between the 7 condensate storage tank and the auxiliary feedwater 8 pump building in the IP2, city water storage tank in 9 IP2 pipe tunnel.

10 "Soil resistivities were determined at 11 depths of 5, 10 and 15 feet below the ground surface, 12 as summarized in Table 7 below." My question for 13 Entergy has there been any other soil resistivity or 14 any other corrosion potential testing performed at the 15 site besides the APEC and this PCA data?

16 MR. LEE: Yes. Associated with the 17 installation of cathodic protection for the Unit 2 and 18 the Unit 3 CST lines, we took soil samples at those 19 anode locations. We grabbed samples of the soil, and 20 then it was also at the Unit 2 service water 21 excavation of 24-inch service water lines. We also 22 took soil for analysis.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you take that soil 24 into the lab and test it for resistivity, or is it 25 tested in the field in place?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3812 1 MR. LEE: No. That was soil sample taken 2 to the lab in the test box.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: The PCA testing, was that 4 done by soil grab in the lab, or in place, 5 resistivity?

6 MR. LEE: I believe the PCA soil 7 resistivities were in situ.

8 MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, Martin O'Neill 9 for the Applicant. With respect to the soil 10 resistivity results that were obtained at the end of 11 2011, those are documented in Entergy Exhibit 582.

12 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you, Mr. O'Neill.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Now is --

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, in addition 15 the FSAR originally, it's New York State Exhibit 13K 16 and 14D, the FSAR for both units had soil resistivity 17 testing done as well, and that's provided in the 18 testimony.

19 JUDGE McDADE: Which were those two 20 exhibits again?

21 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I'm sorry. They were New 22 York State 13K and 14 Delta.

23 JUDGE McDADE: Thank you.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: And does Table 7 indicate 25 values of between 8,000 ohm-centimeters and about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3813 1 63,000 ohm-centimeters, with most in the range of 15 2 to 30 thousand ohm-centimeters? We can go to that 3 test if you want, that table. Would you like to see 4 that?

5 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Bring up 373. It should 7 be close to page 114.

8 MR. WELKIE: Table 7?

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's see what it says.

11 That's what I had --

12 MR. O'NEILL: It's contained in Answer 13 129, if that helps.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Shoot for 114. There's 15 Table 7, and as I look at that, the values say to me 16 that it's 8,000 for a low and a high of about 63,000; 17 correct?

18 MR. LEE: Correct, yes.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: The only reason I had 20 that question was to say pulling this up, because when 21 we pulled it up, it's obvious everyone can see that.

22 So Dr. Duquette, what do you consider to be a 23 threshold value for moderately corrosive soil?

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Well, I agree with the NACE 25 recommendations. More than about 10,000 ohm-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3814 1 centimeters is not very corrosive. So the table that 2 was shown just before this, I agree with. It's 5.5.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: So as far as these 4 resistivity values for the PCA report --

5 DR. DUQUETTE: There's only one reading 6 that I would consider to be mildly corrosive, and 7 that's the one that's at 8,000 ohm-centimeters.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: And in fact, the table 9 5.5 that I believe is -- if you go to the next page, 10 I believe, F. That's the table. That's a direct copy 11 out of this NACE book, I believe.

12 DR. DUQUETTE: I believe that's correct.

13 I've certainly seen it before in different forms, and 14 I certainly agree with it.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: You agree with it, that 16 the 8,000, then, is mildly corrosive, is it not?

17 DR. DUQUETTE: That's correct.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: So at least as far as 19 these PCA results are concerned, there's not a high 20 degree of corrosivity potential?

21 DR. DUQUETTE: I know we testified to this 22 yesterday, but I'm a bit more concerned about the soil 23 and its immediate contact with the pipe, and just soil 24 depths near the pipe, because I don't know what kind 25 of backfill was used at the time of construction.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3815 1 Even the one -- excuse me, the one 2 location that's mildly corrosive, where we've got 40 3 years in the ground at this point and we're looking at 4 another 20, I don't think there's a huge amount of 5 concern about the soil measurements that were made.

6 I think they're valid.

7 I just am not sure that I think that 8 that's what's in contact with the pipe. Clearly, and 9 I know we keep coming back to it, where a leak was 10 detected, the soil was corrosive enough so have 11 initiated and propagated corrosion through the pipes.

12 I don't know, and I should know, but I don't know if 13 there was a measurement of the soil resistivity at the 14 location where the leak occurred.

15 I would have to go back through all the --

16 perhaps someone on staff or Entergy can help me with 17 that.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy, was a soil 19 sample taken where the leak occurred at the condensate 20 storage tank and that was 2009. That's not so long 21 ago. My memory may have almost --

22 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo. I 23 believe there was, Your Honor, but we would have to 24 verify that. I'm sure it's in the root cause 25 analysis, which is one of the exhibits.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3816 1 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, Jon Cavallo for 2 the Applicant. Let me see whether I can make Dr.

3 Duquette feel a little better. It's a proven fact in 4 the pipeline industry, when we're using native soil 5 for backfill, that within approximately four to five 6 years, the backfill material will take on the 7 characteristics of the surrounding soil.

8 So taking the sample near the pipe is as 9 good as taking it right off the pipe in this case, 10 since it's been in place for quite some time.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Are you aware of where 12 they took their samples for the PAS and PCA testing?

13 DR. DUQUETTE: Are you asking me?

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: I was asking him.

15 DR. DUQUETTE: No. I'm going to defer 16 that to Entergy.

17 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 18 Applicant. Yes, we are aware. In that Table 7 that 19 you showed on the page earlier, it identified Location 20 1 and Location 2. Location 1 was close to the Unit 2 21 CST tank. Location 2 was mid-hill on the Unit 2 side, 22 and the city water piping was, it describes right 23 there. Upper parking lot near the stairway, and then 24 overlooking the road.

25 There have been subsequent soil tests NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3817 1 taken. On the Unit 2, near the aux building, those 2 lab-measured values range anywhere from 43 to 99,000 3 ohm-centimeters. The Unit 3 aux building soil 4 measurement, again these were taken in November 2011, 5 was at 93,000 oh-centimeters, and the Unit 2 service 6 water line was at 27,000 ohm-centimeters.

7 MR. COX: This is Alan Cox. To clarify 8 that, when Steve said 43, it was 43,000.

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Oh, I'm sorry. These were 10 all thousands, yes.

11 DR. DUQUETTE: I do find it interesting 12 that if you look at the data for Location 1, for 13 example, relevant to Mr. Cavallo's comment, if 14 everything sort of evens out after a while, it goes 15 from 30,000 to 8,000 at 15 feet.

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, may I address 17 that specifically. It's a math, it's a mathematical 18 issue. To calculate resistivity, and the way they did 19 this was referred to as a method called the Wenner 20 four pin test.

21 The way you calculate resistivity at 22 different depths, if everyone remembers their 23 electrical engineering way back when, when you 24 calculate resistance in series, you add them. When 25 you calculate resistance in parallel, which is what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3818 1 this is, it's parallel swaths.

2 Total resistance, picture this equation in 3 your mind, because I don't have it written down. One 4 over resistance total equals one over the sum of the 5 resistences. So if I -- so I will always find that my 6 measured values at lower depths go down, because if I 7 said my first five -- let's make the math easy.

8 The first five feet of soil was 10 ohms.

9 The second swatch was 10 ohms. If I actually try to 10 -- if I try to calculate that as a total resistance, 11 1 over 10 plus 1 over 10 is 2 over 10, 1 over 5, and 12 then I have to invert that, I get an answers that's --

13 let's see.

14 I just blew my own math. Sorry. It's 2 15 over 10 when you add them together. So no. It's 1 16 over 10.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Don't try. Get to the 18 point.

19 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Okay, I'm sorry.

20 Fundamentally, what happens is every time you add 21 resistance, the total resistance goes down.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: So these aren't the 23 resistences at that depth. They're the total 24 resistance down to that depth? Is that what you're 25 saying?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3819 1 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yeah. It's combining the 2 resistences, how that's measured.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: But then of course, 4 naturally, we're going to look at an anomaly, where 5 the third sample, the upper parking lot, it stayed the 6 same if not increased?

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 MR. BIAGIOTTI: But this is why that 9 occurs. I just wanted to share that it's a phenomena 10 of the measurement technique. So it's, you know 11 again, you take it with a grain of salt. That's why 12 these measurements are, you know, rough estimates.

13 Ultimately, a captured sample and lab test is the 14 better way to do it.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Duquette.

16 DR. DUQUETTE: Just to amplify my comment 17 a little bit, there's obviously a great deal of 18 variability in the soil from location to location, top 19 to bottom, side to side. I think that's why I'm a 20 little bit concerned about random circle. Not quite 21 random, because there is some methodology behind it.

22 But surveys that simply measures specific 23 locations, and I agree with Mr. Biagiotti, that a 24 technique for prioritizing where you should look is a 25 good idea. It's quite obvious that here was a case NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3820 1 where they came up with a relatively large current, 2 and they didn't find any damage in the location that 3 they looked.

4 I'm just concerned that there are so many 5 variables in the equation that it's very difficult to 6 go and pick a site to dig at, unless you choose a very 7 large area to dig in, because obviously in the red dot 8 situation that we talked about just a few minutes ago, 9 they dug not very far away from it and found no damage 10 at all, yet the red dot would have indicated 11 something.

12 But I think the testimony was that there 13 was no damage at all the coating. It was in very good 14 shape. So yes, I think screening processes for 15 choosing locations to analyze is a good idea. I don't 16 think it's perfect.

17 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 18 --

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: On page 15 of -- I'd like 20 to move on, unless it's something important, because 21 we're getting stuck here and we're never going to get 22 off this if we don't move forward.

23 JUDGE McDADE: If I could just have one 24 minute here, just to clarify in my own mind. Dr.

25 Duquette, based on what you just said, as I understood NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3821 1 their testimony from the Entergy representatives, 2 where the red dot is indicated that there was 3 something that was causing that current.

4 It could have been a pipe with a defective 5 coating; it could have been one of a hundred other 6 things, perhaps left over from construction, perhaps 7 other kinds of items. That by using this survey, they 8 identify these locations. By then sampling, they 9 determine whether or not it is as a result of a 10 corrosion in the pipe.

11 In this instance, they determined that it 12 was not as a result of corrosion in the pipe, because 13 the coating was in fact intact. Now why does that 14 undercut the value of the survey?

15 DR. DUQUETTE: Because they didn't find 16 what did cause it, and I suspect, and I suspect --

17 this is only a suspicion -- that there probably was 18 some coating damage that was somewhat removed from --

19 I think the technique that Mr. Biagiotti is 20 describing, and I do know more about it than he thinks 21 I do, since I write some of the questions for the 22 corrosion specialists and NACE.

23 But anyway, apart from that, I think the 24 technique is a good technique. I think it does give 25 you some information that helps you to find locations.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3822 1 He had a false positive. I suspect if they had dug 2 enough along that pipe, my guess is that they probably 3 would have found an area that was causing the reason 4 for the high current.

5 It could have been garbage in the soil, 6 but they would have found that at least. When they 7 did do their digging, they found nothing except good 8 coating. So either the survey technique of the 9 digging area and what they look at isn't large enough, 10 or else it's a false positive.

11 I don't believe it's a false positive. I 12 believe very strongly that the technique is a very 13 good one, and works very well. It's been proven in a 14 lot of other industries.

15 JUDGE McDADE: But isn't the defect not 16 necessarily the way you've described it with the 17 survey, but with the fact that having identified this 18 location, they should have either continued to dig to 19 find what the cause was, since they made a 20 determination that it wasn't a defect in the coating 21 or corrosion on the covered pipe, that it had to be 22 something else. But they didn't carry it far enough 23 to identify what was causing it.

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, Your Honor. That's 25 exactly correct. If they had seen what they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3823 1 considered to be very large current, it had to 2 originate from some place, and I think it would have 3 been good science or good engineering to find out what 4 caused it, because I do believe in the technique.

5 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, I just have 6 one statement, though. I mentioned that this is 7 measuring a cone of area. If this was a significant 8 area, I would have seen it in multiple measurement 9 locations, multiple dots.

10 So what this is really telling us that 11 it's a very small, localized, more than likely near 12 surface, such as a conduit or other thing. So if it 13 truly was at pipe at pipe depth, I would have seen it 14 in successive measurements. But the interpretation of 15 these things is fairly complicated. So it's not as 16 easy as red dot on, red dot off.

17 But you take all this into consideration, 18 saying am I seeing it in successive points? Well, 19 that tells me I'm now near pipe depth, because again 20 it's a cone of information. So please don't draw the 21 conclusion that it was here, it must have been huge, 22 and it's not. These are relative numbers, one to 23 another, to help direct.

24 Notice, we only had four red dots. Had I 25 done that color-coded scheme, the symbology a little NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3824 1 bit different, I might have had no red dots or just 2 one red dot. The idea is --

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: I understand. We need to 4 move forward. But I want to ask this question. Sorry 5 to cut you off, but if we're going to get Dr. Duquette 6 out of here, we can't have long answers. We've got to 7 be concise, and it's getting repetitive.

8 My question to you is while I understand 9 the concept of going near, to the nearest in-scope 10 pipe to take a look at that, and I'm sure that 11 excavation was pretty laborious, because you had to do 12 it very carefully to make sure you didn't disturb the 13 pipe, it seems to me that the comments you've just 14 made, it would be pretty easy to go back to the exact 15 location of that given red dot, that single red dot, 16 and dug down and see if you could see what might be 17 the cause of it.

18 Such that if you did pull up corrosion, or 19 if you got to an out of scope pipe, you would have 20 some information in regards to what that meant, and it 21 would give you confidence that yes, your survey is 22 giving you the results you wanted, given the tight 23 conditions you were in, that might have a lot of 24 different other impacts on your results. Doesn't that 25 sound like a logical approach?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3825 1 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 2 Azevedo, and we may very well do that in the future.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

4 MR. COX: The one thing that I would add, 5 this is Alan Cox for Entergy, is that we have the 6 commitment that says we have to do a certain number of 7 direct visual inspections. So we did consider this 8 red dot in selecting locations, but we also had to 9 consider, you know, we've got to get things done to 10 meet this commitment.

11 We've got to dig in an area where we've 12 got in-scope piping. I think the area that we chose, 13 we were actually able to look at multiple pipes that 14 were in scope.

15 So we got multiple inspections that we 16 could take credit for to meet our commitment, and as 17 Nelson said, we may go back later and do more 18 exploration, to see at this specific location whether 19 there is something there.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: But it doesn't take much, 21 does it, to get a backhoe out to that red dot area, 22 and dig down and see if you see something that might 23 cause it?

24 MR. COX: I think Mr. Azevedo could say 25 more about that, but you know we're talking, I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3826 1 he mentioned 30 feet away. So there could be 2 significant effort involved in doing that.

3 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 4 Azevedo. Just to give you a feel for what, how 5 extensive this is, digging in an area of a nuclear 6 site, each hole that we have dug so far is on the 7 order of about $200,000.

8 So it's not something done in a day. So 9 you don't just get a backhoe and start digging.

10 There's stuff in the area that you need to do, ground-11 penetrating radar. There are a lot of procedures you 12 go through, safety issues. So it's not an 13 insignificant effort.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. On page 15 of 15 your -- yeah, I'm sorry. This doesn't have -- yeah, 16 no. Okay, it's the right one. Now in New York 17 Exhibit 399, which is rebuttal testimony on that page 18 15, you state that corrosion is corrosion and soil 19 conditions are either corrosive or not. It seems like 20 your testimony is backing off from that a little bit, 21 or do you still believe that?

22 DR. DUQUETTE: No sir. I think even if an 23 area is mildly corrosive, 40 years of exposure is a 24 very long time, and in fact the one failure that did 25 occur occurred at about a 40-year time period. So I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3827 1 don't think you need very aggressive soil to have 2 active corrosion. It just takes a very long time to 3 develop, where it can become serious enough to be of 4 concern.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: In regards to that 6 Entergy, I don't have any questions there. I think 7 we've covered this question from New York's Testimony.

8 This is testimony for Entergy on 373, page 9 117, the Question and Answer 133, where the question 10 summarizes your disagreement with Dr. Duquette's claim 11 that soil corrosivity conditions at IPEC by themselves 12 warrant cathodic protection, and then you go on to 13 answer that.

14 The question I have for that, without 15 reading all of that, because it's really not 16 important, was the one I was kind of thinking of, that 17 I just pulled away from, but decided let's go ahead 18 and do it.

19 There has been corrosion issues at the 20 site. They seem to have matched up with some relative 21 service lives that people would give a buried pipe.

22 Those now are going to be extended 20 more years. Age 23 is a factor in the durability of coatings, is it not?

24 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah. I think it's fair to 25 say it is.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3828 1 MR. CAVALLO: From a -- Jon Cavallo for 2 the Applicant. We have documented evidence that this 3 coating system, without trying too hard, is good for 4 at least 70 years, all over the country, sir.

5 So it's well within its lifetime. This is 6 a very, very durable, rugged, well-designed coating 7 system. It's been in use in many, many industries, as 8 Dr. Duquette points out, and is performing admirably.

9 So in answer to your question, this is 10 about conservatively halfway through its life at 40 11 years.

12 MR. BIAGIOTTI: We've included that as 13 Entergy 404 and 405 exhibits.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry?

15 MR. BIAGIOTTI: We've included industry 16 articles that talk specifically to the fact of it 17 lasting 100 years, with proven performance as Exhibits 18 Entergy 404 and 405.

19 MR. CAVALLO: And just to help you --

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: There's a pipe, if I may, 21 excuse me, at the site that disagrees with that 22 statement, is there not?

23 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 24 Applicant. No, I disagree with that statement. You 25 know, what happened in 2009 was a combination of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3829 1 mechanical damage and coating. It wasn't simply the 2 coating wore out.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: But we don't know that 4 there -- do we know that there is absolutely no other 5 mechanical damages that are leading to an eventual 6 aging of that coating, such that it will degrade 7 during the period of extended operation?

8 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Sir, they are two distinct 9 and different issues. So aging is one thing. Another 10 mechanical cause is another.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: But that mechanical cause 12 didn't happen instantaneously. It took time before it 13 appeared; is that correct?

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: We don't know when it 15 occurred, and that's one of the biggest challenges 16 with corrosion, is you never know when to start the 17 clock was. It could have been mechanical damage that 18 happened as soon as a few years back, or it may have 19 been during construction. We just don't know.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right, and so we don't 21 know how it's really been installed. That we've 22 received testimony today, and we also know it's been 23 in the ground for a long time.

24 MR. BIAGIOTTI: But we do know that if we 25 are looking for corrosion current degradations, there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3830 1 are techniques to help us see that. To the point of 2 2009, we just weren't looking at.

3 MR. COX: Let me add one point of 4 clarification. We're not trying to say that there's 5 never going to be another coating failure.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, that's what I heard 7 one of your experts imply.

8 MR. COX: Well, we're obviously not 9 standing on that, on that precept, or we wouldn't be 10 doing this extensive program of inspections and 11 cathodic protection and the other monitoring that 12 we've talked about before. So I don't want to get 13 bogged down in the PCAC and the coating life, because 14 like I said, if we were banking on the fact that the 15 coating was good for 100 years, we wouldn't be doing 16 all these other things.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: And so Mr. Cox, would you 18 agree, we have to be concerned with corrosion at this 19 site, and we are doing -- you are doing some stuff to 20 address that issue?

21 MR. COX: Yes, we are concerned about 22 corrosion. That's why we're doing the programs that 23 we're doing.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: So any other discussions 25 of what industry claims is the length of these pipes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3831 1 is irrelevant; is that a fair assessment?

2 MR. COX: Yeah. I don't know if I'd tell 3 you it's irrelevant. It's an aside. It's not the 4 governing factor here.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

6 JUDGE McDADE: With regard to the 2009 7 leak, what was the related mechanical damage? Didn't 8 you suggest that there was mechanical damage 9 associated with the 2009 leak?

10 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah. This is Nelson 11 Azevedo for Entergy. What we postulated was that 12 there were rocks, a rock or several rocks next to the 13 pipe.

14 That pipe is used to circulate water in 15 the winter, to keep that tank warm. So the flow 16 induced vibration from the pipe could have been 17 rubbing against the rock, and I believe that's what 18 Mr. Biagiotti was talking about, mechanical damage to 19 the coating.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: You say you're just 21 believing this. Now I mean you're not quite as 22 emphatic as what I heard before, in regards to this 23 mechanical failure. Is that a hypothesis?

24 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, the root cause did not 25 come up with the 100 percent guarantee of what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3832 1 happened. This is based on what we saw. That's what 2 the root cause postulated.

3 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, just to add 4 something to this, in New York State 175, in the 5 actual failure analysis, in the summary, and I quote 6 "We determined that the corrosion rate responsible for 7 causing the leak must have been at least 8 mils per 8 year, to cause penetration of the pipe wall in about 9 40 years."

10 This would indicate to me that the damage 11 occurred at the time of construction or shortly 12 thereafter to the coating, to then allow corrosion of 13 that particular area of pipe at 8 mils a year, 14 penetrating it in 40 years, which would support the, 15 that the -- Mr. Azevedo's contention that it was a 16 rock that got there during backfill, and the vibration 17 penetrated the coating.

18 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you, Mr.

19 Cavallo. One thing, I realize we've been going here 20 for a day and a half, but if you could still mention 21 your name before you start to speak. I just want to 22 make sure that when we read the transcript, we don't 23 wind up attributing admissions to Entergy based on 24 something that Dr. Duquette has said, or admissions to 25 New York, based on something that one of the Entergy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3833 1 witnesses has said.

2 So just to make sure the transcript comes 3 out right, if you could, you know, state your name as 4 a preface, and particularly when we're going back and 5 forth from witness to witness real quick.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is nice segue 7 into Staff Exhibit 016, page 58, Answer 42. "Given 8 that plant-specific operating experience at Indian 9 Point includes the discovery of poor quality backfill, 10 resulting in coating damage, which eventually led to 11 piping through-wall penetration, the staff has 12 evaluated the Applicant's AMP for buried piping and 13 tanks against the higher number of inspections 14 recommended in the draft initial staff guidance for 15 AMP for XI.M41."

16 And I guess I would -- I'll stick with 17 staff to address this question, Mr. Holston. What 18 would happen -- what actions are going to take place, 19 if additional inspections do discover some poor 20 quality backfill?

21 MR. HOLSTON: This is Mr. Holston 22 responding. If additional inspections reveal 23 additional coating damage, the Applicant would enter 24 that into the Corrective Action Program, and determine 25 if repairs, replacements, modifications, or you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3834 1 further inspections are required.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do these inspections 3 require a look at the backfill material as you dig 4 down?

5 MR. HOLSTON: Yes sir, they do require 6 that.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And if additional, lesser 8 than desirable backfill material that wouldn't be put 9 back in the hole by today's standards is discovered, 10 will that change of your proposed approaches to rely 11 primarily on just additional inspections, rather than 12 any other technique at the site for controlling 13 corrosion?

14 MR. HOLSTON: It would not change our 15 approach, where they would be doing, as the GALL 16 recommends, 90 inspections.

17 We know that they're doing at least 94, 18 128 if I recall right, if the soil's corrosive.

19 However, future inspectors would look. Let's say they 20 do ten digs and three of those reveal large rocks, 21 coating damage, the FSAR supplement says they're going 22 to do something about that if they keep discovering 23 adverse conditions, and the inspectors are going to 24 know what have you done different.

25 If the only response comes back well, I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3835 1 going to do my 94 inspections, then that would be seen 2 as not necessarily in compliance with the UFSAR 3 supplement, and would be evaluated for violation.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Let me direct 5 that same question to Entergy. If in the process of 6 these inspections you continue, on a fairly regular 7 basis, to discover backfill material that's less than 8 desirable and wouldn't meet today's standards, what 9 would change in regards to your program?

10 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for 11 Entergy. The first thing that would happen is, as we 12 mentioned before, write a condition report and enter 13 it into our Corrective Action Program. As a result of 14 that --

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Slow down a little. I 16 know I'm trying to speed things up, but slow down.

17 I've got to hear your words.

18 MR. AZEVEDO: Okay. So we would initiate 19 a condition report. As part of that evaluation, as I 20 mentioned before, we have to answer the question where 21 else can this condition occur. Then if we concluded 22 that it's more than isolated, that it could occur 23 somewhere else, we would be investigating other 24 locations.

25 If we found additional problems, we would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3836 1 just keep going until we found the, whatever the issue 2 was.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you consider 4 unsuitable backfill material as a condition, or would 5 it have to -- would you have to reserve, would you 6 have to observe coating damage at that location?

7 MR. AZEVEDO: I would say that if we 8 excavated a pipe and we found large rocks next to the 9 pipe, that would be a condition we would investigate 10 further, even if there was no coating damage. But 11 that's just a hypothetical.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Or if you found large 13 rocks anywhere within the backfill, doesn't that say 14 those large rocks could be next to the pipe five feet 15 away?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, that's why I said that 17 we would likely, we would investigate that and see 18 what else --

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it doesn't necessarily 20 have to be large rocks next to the pipe. It's just 21 the quality of the backfill, if it's not suitable, 22 would say that it could be not suitable in other 23 locations, and more detrimental to the coating as the 24 unsuitability of it approached the contact with the 25 coating?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3837 1 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah. When we talk about 2 large rocks or unacceptable fill material, it's next 3 to the pipe, because even today, when we backfill, we 4 pour clean sand next to the pipe. But then on top of 5 that, we can use regular backfill.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: But no indication that 7 took place during initial construction, did it?

8 MR. AZEVEDO: That's correct.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: So you don't know that 10 they didn't just backfill whatever soil they had dug 11 out of the hole?

12 MR. AZEVEDO: Right. But I mean --

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: So if you encounter rocks 14 anywhere, doesn't that say, as you do your inspection, 15 doesn't that say there is a higher potential that 16 those rocks are encountering other parts of the 17 piping, if they aren't next to the pipe at this 18 location?

19 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, just as a 20 hypothetical, if I found large rocks five feet away, 21 I would not be necessarily concerned with that. But 22 if I found large rocks in contact with the pipe or 23 close to the pipe, then I would be concerned about 24 that.

25 JUDGE McDADE: Large rock meaning bigger NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3838 1 than an inc in diameter, bigger than a foot in 2 diameter?

3 MR. AZEVEDO: My definition of large rock 4 is say five to six inches in diameter. The current 5 backfill specs allow up to two and a half inch 6 diameter rocks.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: If in your inspection 8 program, just to make sure I'm clear, that in the 9 spots, the isolated spots, which again only account 10 for about ten percent of the total pipeline, you 11 encountered unsuitable backfill material anywhere in 12 the profile as you dug down.

13 Not five feet away, but any profiles you 14 dug down, and that was repeated in many of your other 15 inspection points that you were doing prior to 16 entering the PEO, is there not some stronger 17 likelihood that at some location in the other 90 18 percent of the lengths of pipes, there's a chance 19 those rocks are in fact against the pipe, the same way 20 they were against the auxiliary feedwater pipe, that 21 it could cause damage, and you just haven't happened 22 to dig in the right area?

23 But you know unsuitable backfill is being 24 placed back in there, especially if when you get next 25 to the pipe, you don't see any change in the quality NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3839 1 of the material; there just doesn't happen to be any 2 rocks at your location. Wouldn't that be of concern?

3 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo again 4 for Entergy. At that point, if we had large rocks, 5 say in the vicinity of the pipe, I would be looking at 6 -- the APEC survey, guided weight survey. We'd look 7 at other tools. Just large rock by itself, a few feet 8 away from the pipe, may not necessarily require us to 9 do anything else.

10 But we have to look at the other tools 11 that we have, to see if there's anything else going 12 on.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

14 MR. IVY: Ted Ivy for the Applicant, Your 15 Honor. I want just to add one thing. It's talking 16 about the inspection of coatings and looking for 17 backfill material.

18 Within one of the exhibits, Entergy 600, 19 which hasn't officially, I guess, been recognized, but 20 the EN-EP-S-002-MULTI procedure, the checklist, has a 21 requirement for inspection of the backfill, and 22 whether it contains rocks or other foreign objects.

23 If you check that off as a yes, you have to initiate 24 a condition report.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy 373, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3840 1 page 42, Answer 60. One of the main questions I had 2 on that in regards to the oxygen has been addressed.

3 But on Figure 4, and let's go ahead and call that up 4 if we could, Andy. It's Exhibit 343, it should be 5 pretty close to 40, page 42. There's a Figure 4 6 showing the relationship between soil corrosion rates 7 and time.

8 MR. WELKIE: Entergy?

9 MR. IVY: 373.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy. What did I say?

11 Entergy 373. It's their testimony. 42. Entergy, you 12 show a relationship between soil corrosion rates and 13 time, and I look at that and see quite a bit of 14 scatter, especially in the 10 to 11 year exposure 15 period, enough that it seems to me I could fit almost 16 any curve I wanted to through that.

17 Would you agree or disagree with that 18 interpretation, especially for the -- let's just focus 19 on the 10 to 12 year exposure period, the yellow dots.

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 21 Applicant. This is the infamous Romanoff study. What 22 you aren't maybe seeing on here is the number of data 23 points, as some would superimpose on top of each 24 other. The black lines are regressed lines.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: I know. We can fit a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3841 1 regression line through any number of points; correct?

2 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Understood.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: And in fact, what about 4 that regression coefficient? Is that very impressive?

5 MR. BIAGIOTTI: No. It's actually showing 6 you that there is several points that are far from the 7 mean. So but again, it's a regressed curve, and that 8 is the trend, because the way these are calculated, it 9 does take into account outliers, but that is the 10 trend.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. We are now 12 entering -- does any of the other Board members have 13 any more questions on corrosion potential, before we 14 go into cathodic protection?

15 JUDGE KENNEDY: No. You can move forward.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: If you want to take a 17 break, this is the time, probably the best time we 18 could.

19 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. This, I've got about 20 five minutes of 3:00. Should we take a break until 21 ten minutes after 3:00? Also, anything to be taken up 22 before we take the break, other than to ask us to try 23 to get the air conditioning back on again?

24 MS. SUTTON: That would be all, Your 25 Honor.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3842 1 JUDGE McDADE: We've already sent out for 2 that, you know, and ordered a block of ice as well for 3 the center of the room. Okay. We are in recess until 4 five minutes after 3:00.

5 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

6 JUDGE McDADE: Come to order. I think the 7 air conditioning is on.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: I don't think so.

9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Wait. We hear a little 10 noise from the --

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: I can hear these things 12 tinkling actually. Then you know it's --

13 JUDGE McDADE: Judge Wardwell.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Our last topic 15 area, and I'm sure all of you remember that we had 16 seven topic areas, finishing up with talking about 17 commitments and that type of thing. But I've looked 18 over that, and we have covered all those questions 19 with our previous discussion.

20 So the last topic area is talking about 21 cathodic protection, and we'll start off with New York 22 Exhibit 165. Pages 6 through 7 describes cathodic 23 protection and states that "the spacing of anodes 24 becomes an important aspect of any impressed current 25 cathodic protection system."

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3843 1 You've kind of explained already how a 2 cathodic protection system works. Can you describe, 3 if you would Entergy, the previous systems that were 4 installed at the time that the plant was first built, 5 summarize what their current state is, and then why 6 don't you go ahead and then describe what systems now 7 are in place and operational, and those that you're 8 thinking of proposing.

9 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this Nelson 10 Azevedo. I'll have Steve Biagiotti address the first 11 point, and I'll address the second and third points.

12 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 13 Applicant. In the original FSAR, when they had done 14 the site survey, the soil resistivities were well 15 above 10,000 ohm-centimeters. They determined it 16 wasn't necessary for the buried piping in soil to need 17 cathodic protection.

18 However, the metallic structures that were 19 in direct contact with the Hudson is a different and 20 aggressive environment. So you'll find that on the 21 water intakes, there is a cathodic protection systems 22 there, you know, traveling streams, that sort of 23 thing. So go ahead.

24 MR. AZEVEDO: Again, this is Nelson 25 Azevedo for Entergy. The cathodic protection systems NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3844 1 that were originally installed when the plant was 2 built, they were evaluated and it was concluded that 3 those structures did not need the cathodic protection 4 system.

5 So those systems have been retired, if you 6 will. They've been disconnected, so they're no longer 7 functioning. That was an evaluation that was done, 8 and our licensing basis reflects that.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me make sure I 10 understand that. You're confusing me. There were 11 cathodic protection placed upon the water intake 12 structures; is that correct?

13 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah, the structure. That's 14 correct.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: And subsequent to that, 16 it was evaluated that in fact it wasn't needed, and 17 that's why they decided to turn them off?

18 MR. AZEVEDO: I would characterize that it 19 was evaluated, the structures were evaluated and the 20 structures were found to be capable of performing 21 their safety function, their function, without the 22 cathodic protection system.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: So it wasn't a matter 24 that they were just left, that maintenance wasn't 25 maintained on them. There was a conscientious NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3845 1 decision to turn them off?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: Those systems have been 3 turned off; that's correct.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's what caused 5 their disuse and lack of repair?

6 MR. AZEVEDO: Well I mean once they're 7 determined to not be needed, then they're abandoned in 8 place.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Right, but it wasn't the 10 opposite. It wasn't that oh gee, we haven't 11 maintained them and they're not working correctly, so 12 let's turn them off?

13 MR. AZEVEDO: I can't say that -- I can't 14 speak for what happened 15 or 20 years ago. That may 15 have occurred. I just can't speak to that.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. So that's all 17 the historical ones? Those were the only ones that 18 were installed historically?

19 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, the ones on the dock.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, and what's -- now 21 when did you install newer ones, and where were they 22 installed and what are you proposing for the future?

23 MR. AZEVEDO: Okay. Is your question just 24 in-scope piping or all piping on site?

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I guess it's --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3846 1 isn't it somewhat valid that you can take advantage of 2 some of the cathodic protection that you install for 3 any piping, because it does have some influence on the 4 overall ground, doesn't it? I mean the pipe doesn't 5 know whether or not you're protecting it or not.

6 MR. AZEVEDO: I understand. I just wanted 7 to know whether you wanted me to cover all of it, or 8 just the --

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: I would like to know how 10 much protection is there, that might in fact be 11 helping assist in the longevity of the buried pipings 12 that are in scope.

13 MR. AZEVEDO: Okay. Currently right now, 14 we have three cathodic protection systems installed 15 and functioning. One is on the city water line. I 16 think we already discussed that at length earlier 17 today.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: And when was that 19 installed?

20 MR. AZEVEDO: 2009. The second system --

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: It covered that full 22 length of the line, the purple line we looked at?

23 MR. LEE: Bob Lee. This is the city water 24 at the gas pipeline. I think, believe a couple of 25 hundred feet of that city water line --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3847 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Down from the tank that 2 we looked at?

3 MR. LEE: In that area, but probably 4 centered around the crossing point, the point of 5 crossing over that gas line.

6 MR. AZEVEDO: The second system is the CST 7 lines, where we had the leak in 2009. Subsequently to 8 that, we installed a cathodic protection system that's 9 completed, up and running, functional.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's located down 11 by the river?

12 MR. AZEVEDO: That's located at the lower 13 elevation. We feel that we're getting some protection 14 up the hill, but we're not relying on the protection 15 up the hill.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's right. I believe 17 that was really the purple line.

18 MR. AZEVEDO: Right, that's correct.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: And it's at the bottom of 20 that purple line, so it's not right near -- a short 21 distance east of the Hudson River, at the end of that 22 line?

23 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, that's correct.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's where you 25 installed that. About how many linear feet do you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3848 1 think you have of coverage of that? 2,200 or 2,000?

2 MR. LEE: I'd say around 50, 50. 50 to 3 70.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thanks. Okay.

5 MR. AZEVEDO: The third system is the IP, 6 Unit 3 sewage line, that cathodic protection system.

7 They're actually anodes, and I'm not a cathodic 8 protection system engineer. But that's not an 9 impressed current. It's just sacrificial (ph) anodes.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

11 MR. AZEVEDO: So those are the systems 12 that are currently fully installed, up and running.

13 We are currently installing cathodic protection on the 14 Unit 3 CST lines, same location. By location, I mean 15 at the lower elevation, but on the Unit 3 side, just 16 like we did on Unit 2.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry. I'm confused 18 on where are these going?

19 MR. AZEVEDO: These are the CST lines on 20 Unit 3, the identical or the same system in Unit 2 21 that we installed the cathodic protection. We also 22 installed it on Unit 3, but that system is not 23 completed yet. We also, the last one is the Unit 2 24 service water system. We have plans to install 25 cathodic protection in 2013.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3849 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is the CST line for Unit 2 3 under construction? Did you say it hasn't been 3 completed yet, or it hasn't been started, or is it 4 just proposed?

5 MR. AZEVEDO: The physical elements have 6 been installed. We are adjusting the system to make 7 sure we have the right levels of current, to meet the 8 NACE standards.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: About how much linear 10 footage of coverage do you think you'll get out of 11 that?

12 MR. LEE: Probably about 100 to 120 feet.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: And what about the 14 service water for IP2?

15 MR. LEE: That's probably on the order of 16 five to possibly say 600 feet roughly, plus or minus.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: I thought you were going 18 to say five to six feet. I was wondering where you 19 were going with that.

20 MR. LEE: It's plus or minus 100.

21 JUDGE McDADE: And Mr. Azevedo, a quick 22 question. Just the second one you mentioned, you said 23 is near the 2009 leak or the 2007 leak?

24 MR. AZEVEDO: 2009 leak, the CST leak.

25 JUDGE McDADE: That's the one that is just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3850 1 slightly north of Unit 2, north and west of Unit 2?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: That's correct.

3 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thank you.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: When New York states that 5 this cathodic protection, the space in the anodes 6 becomes an important aspect. Well, I'll ask Dr.

7 Duquette. What do you mean by that exactly? How do 8 you change the spacing of the anodes?

9 DR. DUQUETTE: Well, I'm sure you know 10 that I was asked to do a brief tutorial at the 11 beginning of my report, so that's probably where that 12 comes from.

13 When you apply a current, there's an IR 14 drop across the soil. So if the soil has a very high 15 resistivity, you have to put the anodes closer 16 together, because you have to get a potential of a 17 pipe below a certain level, minus 850 volts versus 18 copper-copper sulfate.

19 But in any event, if you have a very high 20 resistivity of soil, you then have to bring the anodes 21 in closer, so you accommodate the IR drop from your 22 anode to the position on the pipe that you want to 23 locate.

24 So in fact in many instances that I've 25 been involved with, you actually use backfill that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3851 1 would normally be very corrosive if you used it all by 2 itself. It has very high conductivity, because you 3 want to have the throwing power.

4 So there are instances where you would 5 actually put backfill, which is more corrosive rather 6 than less, if you're going to use cathodic protection, 7 because the IR drop across the backfill would then be 8 less.

9 So that's all I meant by that, and that's 10 sort of tutorial. So depending on how they place 11 their anodes, and most of their soil is fairly high 12 resistivity. So they'll have to put anodes probably 13 fairly close to each other, to maintain the 14 appropriate potential on the pipe, so that it's 15 totally protected.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: And in the diagram we 17 saw, when we first started discussing this after 18 lunch, are those anodes the wells or the things that 19 was north of the pipe?

20 DR. DUQUETTE: The schematic he had put in 21 place was --

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Top of the page.

23 DR. DUQUETTE: --was sometimes they're 24 screens, sometimes they're large graphite anodes they 25 put in the ground. There are various techniques for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3852 1 different kinds of anodes that are used.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: The problem with putting 3 them close is then that reduces the length of coverage 4 of pipe, I would assume?

5 DR. DUQUETTE: That's correct. Reduces 6 the coverage of pipe and it takes more power, frankly, 7 to track the system.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Don't they have plenty of 9 power to deal with their powering issue?

10 DR. DUQUETTE: I would hope so.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: They've got a couple of 12 plugs they could use to plug into?

13 DR. DUQUETTE: I would hope so.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Gee, they've got a power 15 plant. Maybe they could plug it in there.

16 DR. DUQUETTE: But they would have to 17 install more rectifiers and so on and so forth.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Staff's Testimony, 016, 19 page 50, Answer 42. "The draft ISG recommends a 20 higher number of inspections for plants without 21 cathodic protection, to augment the protection 22 afforded by coatings and backfill quality against 23 external corrosion of the piping.

24 "The draft ISG also recommends a further 25 increase in the number of inspections if plant-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3853 1 specific operating experience has revealed prior 2 coating damage or poor material in the backfill, or 3 soil conditions are corrosive." I've eliminated some 4 questions that I had here. Now this probably isn't 5 the best cite for my question, but I'll go ahead and 6 ask the question of the staff anyhow.

7 In regards to other discussions within the 8 ISG, and we've brought -- you've brought some up in 9 regards to how that relates to GALL 2 and how it has 10 modified it, and what can be done in lieu of cathodic 11 protection.

12 But isn't also an underlying tone of the 13 ISG, if not specifically stated, and I just don't have 14 the reference right here for where I thought that was 15 specifically stated --

16 Oh yes, it does. In fact, I've shaded it 17 out. If you read on in that same paragraph, it says, 18 and I quote on page three, "The ISG states that 19 failure to provide cathodic protection in accordance 20 with Table 2A must be justified in the LRA." Do you 21 recall a statement like that in the ISG?

22 MR. HOLSTON: Yes sir.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: Doesn't that really 24 indicate that the ISG is, really wants to make sure 25 people have taken a hard look and have justified if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3854 1 they aren't going to use cathodic protection, that 2 that's almost a default, and that's fine if you're 3 not. But take a hard look at it, justify it, and then 4 you are allowed to do some other things in lieu of 5 that?

6 MR. HOLSTON: Yes sir, and may I expand 7 briefly on that question?

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. But is it 9 generally do you feel that's an underlying tone of 10 that?

11 MR. HOLSTON: Yes sir, it is. I mean I 12 was the author of that ISG. So yes, absolutely it was 13 the underlying tone. In light of that, Entergy 14 applied obviously XI.M34. So they didn't have an 15 opportunity to take an exception to a document that 16 was issued --

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry. I don't remember 18 what that abbreviation means.

19 MR. HOLSTON: Oh, I'm sorry. AMP, GALL 20 report AMP XI.M34.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh yes. I didn't hear 22 what you said.

23 MR. HOLSTON: Yes. So they didn't have an 24 opportunity into take an exception in their program 25 for a document. So if you look at New York State 151, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3855 1 in a series of RAIs, one of those questions --

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's one of those NL --

3 MR. HOLSTON: NL letters, yes sir. It's 4 the March --

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: 2009.

6 MR. HOLSTON: 2011.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: 2011?

8 MR. HOLSTON: Yeah. March 28, 2011, staff 9 asked the following question: "Justify why this 10 piping will continue to meet or exceed minimum design 11 wall thickness throughout the period of extended 12 duration, extended operation, and justify why the 13 number of plant inspections is sufficient," all in 14 relation to starting out with for buried in-scope 15 steel piping that's not cathodically protected.

16 I would have expected if an applicant was 17 applying currently, that they would provide that 18 justification. We asked the question of the applicant 19 in this case, since the application had already been 20 in. They came back. They described scope coating.

21 They described that they've done inspections that have 22 demonstrated no piping degradation, notwithstanding 23 the 2009 leakage from the condensate return line.

24 They talked about the soil resistivity 25 messages or measurements, that they're doing risk NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3856 1 ranking to identify piping segments, and soil will be 2 sampled and even increased inspections beyond that, if 3 the soil is shown to be corrosive. So the staff 4 accepted that approach as a justification.

5 We also recognized that Indian Point, as 6 has been described earlier today, was you know, 7 basically built in bedrock. It's difficult to put in 8 cathodic protection for the entire site. As you've 9 heard them testify, they've gone in in discrete areas 10 and provided cathodic protection, based upon, you 11 know, consultants that have provided them feedback, 12 right? But it would be very difficult to do it all 13 over.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: So the answer to my next 15 question, what evidence has been offered to you, in 16 regards to demonstrating the justification for not 17 installing cathodic protection, and your answer, if I 18 had jumped ahead and answered that, raised that first, 19 would be that it lies in 151, New York 151?

20 MR. HOLSTON: Yes sir. New York State 21 151, Attachment 1, page 6 of 27.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: And is there any other 23 locations or is that's what you've relied on for the 24 justification?

25 MR. HOLSTON: That's what I relied on, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3857 1 sir.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Do you have 3 any criteria for when you might say sorry, this 4 additional inspection stuff just ain't working.

5 There's enough indications that corrosion 6 could be a problem over the next 20 years, based on 7 these number of, pieces of different work that you've 8 done, taken as a whole, that you ought to start 9 looking at cathodic protection?

10 Do you have a line in the sand, or is it 11 left up to the judgment of what you see and what may 12 take place over the course of these investigations?

13 MR. HOLSTON: There is no published line 14 in the sand, and it's not simply a decision I would 15 make. Whenever I do an AMP evaluation, I have a peer 16 reviewer, and for example, Ms. Green happens to be the 17 peer reviewer for buried piping, branch chief.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Just to hold you off. I 19 understand when I ask you, I mean staff. I don't mean 20 --

21 MR. HOLSTON: Right. The staff has not 22 established that. What we would use is our criterias.

23 We'd look at what is the plant-specific operating 24 experience as we recommend in the GALL report. We 25 look at ten years of operating experience instead of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3858 1 five. We would look at what that's been showing us.

2 In the Applicant's case, except for the 3 aux steam lines, there was really an issue with the 4 unique coating that they had. They've only had one 5 instance of through-wall corrosion. They've had 6 several inspections that showed only minor degradation 7 to coatings.

8 If I had a plant that had multiple issues, 9 instances of through-wall leakage, poor soil 10 resistivity, maybe very low pH, that's where we might 11 -- those are parameters we'd use to draw a line in the 12 sand, to say "We think you need to reconsider your 13 program."

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: But likewise, soil 15 inspections and inspections of the pipe itself, when 16 we're dealing with ten percent of the total linear 17 footage, is not a significant protection system. It 18 is an indication system of whether protection is 19 needed. Is not that a fair assessment?

20 MR. HOLSTON: Somewhat. What it tell us 21 is the coatings are the primary means of protecting 22 the piping. NACE SPO169, which a good part of it's 23 devoted to cathodic protection, even tells you that.

24 The coating is the primary means of protecting it.

25 You have the cathodic protection to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3859 1 protect where holidays are. So the inspections 2 themselves are not a preventive measure. We put in 90 3 and of course in this case they're doing more than we 4 even recommend, to go and look to make sure those 5 preventive measures, and the preventive measures are 6 the coating and the quality of the backfill.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And in fact aren't you 8 really doing those to provide some indication that in 9 fact they haven't -- that there's some indication that 10 they're maintaining this ability? You'll never know 11 that they've not failed some other location that you 12 haven't looked at.

13 MR. HOLSTON: That is correct, because our 14 -- the test we have is reasonable assurance, not 15 absolute certainty. I probably don't need to go down 16 that path right now. That's a well-documented 17 statement of consideration and in the law. It's 18 reasonable assurance. So we drove that those 90 19 inspections over a 30-year period would provide that.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: And with only ten percent 21 of the total length, or approximately that amount, you 22 certainly would expect, would you not, that even with 23 severe corrosion problems, that there's a high 24 likelihood that the majority of those wouldn't show an 25 impact necessarily?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3860 1 MR. HOLSTON: I'm not following your 2 question there. I apologize.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Taking ten percent, even 4 if corrosion was relatively significant at a site, 5 would not mean that all ten of those would show 6 problems with the coating?

7 MR. HOLSTON: I would agree with you, that 8 I would not expect to find an issue in every piping 9 excavation I did. But in digging up, as the case is 10 for Indian Point, 940. And since you said there was 11 severe corrosion, then that's really going to be --

12 give me a moment. I don't want to do numbers wrong 13 again here, 1,280 feet of pipe.

14 I would expect to see if there are issues, 15 and as you talked earlier in your questioning and the 16 Applicant responded, it doesn't have to be many before 17 you have to start reconsidering what you're doing.

18 Entergy gave a great example of where they had their 19 issue in 2009, with the condensate return piping, they 20 cathodically protected that piping.

21 They're looking at cathodically protecting 22 the other unit's piping. They're looking at 23 cathodically protecting service water piping. They're 24 doing exactly what's written in the UFSAR supplement, 25 which is if you find things, you're going to go out NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3861 1 and do repairs, replacements or modifications, and 2 possibly further inspections.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: But you would agree 4 there's a certain limit. Certainly, you're going to 5 repair, replace or modify those that are observed to 6 be degradated (sic).

7 But if you continue to see poor backfill 8 and the integrity of the coatings questionable on a 9 regular basis, a more serious look at cathodic 10 protection would be looked at, because that is really 11 the only enhanced protection that you would provide at 12 this time, to assure that those future --

13 MR. HOLSTON: Yes sir. In the 14 hypothetical instance that they -- because they dug up 15 several excavations, seven or eight, that revealed no 16 bad backfill, no coating -- any significant coating 17 damage at all. But let's hypothetically state that 18 they dig up three. You are correct.

19 But I wouldn't say more seriously. I mean 20 the Applicant has demonstrated that they're putting in 21 cathodic protection. There is no indications of a 22 Unit 3 leak on the condensate return line. They put, 23 they're getting ready to put cathodic protection 24 there, based upon what they've discovered on Unit 2.

25 They are doing modifications even now, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3862 1 prior to being in their period of extended operation, 2 based upon the inspection results they have. I guess 3 I'm sounding too defensive for them. I apologize for 4 that.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, it's okay. We know 6 how to weed that out. To Entergy, I gather to 7 retrofit for cathodic protection on an in situ pipe is 8 feasible, because you are doing it; correct?

9 MR. AZEVEDO: Nelson Azevedo. It's 10 feasible.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it done on a 12 routine basis through various industries, including 13 the nuclear industry for buried pipes?

14 MR. AZEVEDO: Mr. Biagiotti can speak to 15 that. I can't speak to other sites. I know it's not 16 an insignificant effort.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's why I tried to 18 avoid that word, because if I understand with nuclear 19 power plants, nothing is insignificant. Everything is 20 very costly, and I appreciate that. So I try to avoid 21 those words. But it is feasible and it is done.

22 MR. AZEVEDO: It's feasible. Again, just 23 to make sure that it's clear, and we're not shy in 24 installing these systems, where we feel it's 25 appropriate. So we do install them, but no, we don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3863 1 just go out and install these systems where they 2 provide no benefit.

3 May I just add just one point? The number 4 of inspections has been kicked around. Those are 5 inspections of in-scope piping. In fact, we do a lot 6 more inspections than those.

7 Those are just inspections of in-scope 8 piping. Our piping program at the site is much 9 broader than that, and we do other inspections, not 10 factored into these 94 that we've been discussing. I 11 just want to make that point clear.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Are they the same type of 13 inspection? Are you looking at the soil backfill?

14 Are you looking at the condition of the coatings, 15 etcetera, but they're just not -- they don't fall 16 under aging management review?

17 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, that's correct. They 18 get the same type of activities.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: And Mr. Lee, if I 20 understood your testimony, some point in the last 36 21 hours2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br />, at least that's what it feels like we've been 22 here, that you almost document this stuff on a 23 holistic basis, that to you, a pipe is a pipe and you 24 need to maintain its function, and if in fact you did 25 see damaged coating on non-scope items, that would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3864 1 influence decisions you make in regards to the scoped 2 pipings, the in-scope pipings?

3 MR. LEE: Yes, that's correct. Bob Lee 4 for the applicant. Yes, that's correct. In fact, 5 earlier we discussed, on looking at one of the 6 figures, an excavation of an area in the Unit 2 7 transformer yard. And we said that we picked that 8 location slightly off from the APEC location, 9 recommended location, because it had a high density of 10 piping.

11 Well, it turns out that that excavation 12 will probably uncover, if I had to estimate, say 40 13 percent. It will uncover lines that are outside of 14 the scope of license renewal and are maybe nonsafety 15 related. But they're carbon steel-coated piping.

16 There are additional data points that we do the 17 inspections on and record, capture those results in my 18 program, so we can extrapolate results for piping 19 class or category of pipe based on material and 20 coating properties, configuration and the like.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you supply the NRC 22 with that information in the same manner that you 23 would for the in-scope piping once you get it to the 24 PEO?

25 MR. LEE: The inspection reports are the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3865 1 same inspection reports that are generated for the in-2 scope piping systems. So we generate those reports.

3 They're maintained in our program notebooks. They're 4 available. They're part of my program. I update, as 5 I say, the SEP document. I just emphasize that that's 6 a living document as far as I'm concerned. It's an 7 active record of our plans to excavate and inspect in 8 the future, as well as completed excavations and 9 inspections.

10 And that would be available on site to the 11 NRC for review.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Holston, do you 13 generally review those results, if you were looking 14 over the results of any inspection programs would you 15 also consider the non-in-scope piping inspection 16 report to get a better feeling for the extent of the 17 general condition of the piping backfill and pipes 18 that exist at the plant?

19 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. We do.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. I think I 21 want to spend a little more time, although I hate to 22 do it, but I'm still a little bit confused on the 23 total length of pipe. And I'm afraid that might be of 24 interest as a decision is being written. And so I'm 25 now on -- let me get us ahead here. This one will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3866 1 work, I guess. The Staff 000016, page 48, answer 38.

2 "The applicant has conducted 10 of its committed 34 3 inspections that are to be conducted in a 10-year 4 period prior to the extended operation before 5 responded to staff's RAI." And that's Exhibit 151.

6 "The inspections exposed 80 feet of pipe during which 7 coatings and backfill were inspected. The method of 8 inspection and parameters being inspected were 9 consistent with both GALL Report XI.M34 and XI.M41."

10 Later on, and same exhibit on page 69, 11 answer 64, states that "inspections of 30 feet of 12 condensate storage tank return line and 28 feet of 13 city water piping and 8 feet of fire protection piping 14 found one instance of adverse conditions involved the 15 condensate storage tank return line. And inspections 16 of additional 70 feet of piping did not reveal adverse 17 backfill conditions or coating degradation that 18 resulted in external surface corrosion that challenged 19 the nominal wall thickness of the piping."

20 As I look at this last quote that I just 21 said, this totals, if I do the math right, about 136 22 feet of piping where on the first quote that I 23 described it said 80 feet. Which is correct?

24 MR. HOLSTON: I presume you're asking me 25 that question?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3867 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, I'm sorry. Anyone 2 on the staff, but I assume Mr. Holston --

3 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, this is Mr. Holston of 4 the staff. Yes, the information in question or 5 response 64 is correct. Those are, in fact, 6 inspections that either the applicant reported to us 7 in RAI responses or were reviewed while we were on 8 site for the TI2516 inspection. So I'm not sure why 9 in the previous answer 38, I didn't give them -- I 10 didn't state all of the inspections there. I can't 11 answer that. But --

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: I just want to know what 13 is the correct answer?

14 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, the answer is 64.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: It's answer 64 and that's 16 136 feet and did I do the math right? I'm not sure 17 how I got that math. Did I add that --

18 MR. HOLSTON: I see 108 feet.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Seventy and 30 is 100.

20 I got 128 feet -- the 8 feet. Yes, I've got 30 feet 21 of CST, 28 feet of city water piping, 8 feet of fire 22 protection, and then 70 feet of additional.

23 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, the four ones you just 24 cited, that's correct.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's 136, is it not?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3868 1 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir.

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: So that's the length of 3 pipe that's been exposed. And is that pretty much 4 current or have more inspections been done since then?

5 MR. HOLSTON: You would have to ask 6 Entergy that question. That was as of what I had 7 either seen in -- that TI2516 inspection was conducted 8 by in February 2011. So there could have been 9 additional ones after that that I just don't have an 10 update on.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy, do you know 12 approximately how much more you've done since then?

13 It's not real critical. I think I can base -- it 14 probably would be better if I just base everything on 15 at the time the testimony was submitted, if, in fact, 16 I even need this.

17 Part of our endeavors here is to make sure 18 we have enough on the record that we can refer to for 19 our decision and if this comes of importance, it may 20 be or it may not, I don't mind doing it for just that 21 testimony. But if you want to add on what you think 22 you've done extra, why don't you say what you believe 23 is the additional inspections?

24 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. This is 25 Nelson Azevedo. I can give you numbers of locations NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3869 1 that we have inspected. I'm not prepared to give you 2 linear footage.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Why don't you do that?

4 MR. AZEVEDO: Okay. For Unit 2, we have 5 completed 14 of the 20 committed prior to the PEO.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

7 MR. AZEVEDO: For Unit 3, we have 8 completed 4 of 14 prior to the PEO.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. New York 10 Exhibit 203 identifies 7,060 feet of buried piping.

11 It's dated by system, plus 5,000 feet of fire 12 protection piping and 4,000 feet of city water piping.

13 Is that not a good representation, Mr. Holston, of 14 what the total linear footage is?

15 MR. HOLSTON: I'm just checking one thing 16 in the testimony because I believe river water length 17 was missing and I'm not sure exactly how long the 18 river water length of buried piping that they credit 19 for license renewal. It's not all of the river water, 20 but the numbers you cited are in the ballpark of what 21 I had assumed.

22 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, Steve 23 Biagiotti for the applicant. We anticipated this 24 question and we went through the database and actually 25 totalled up all of the footage that has been digitized NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3870 1 at the plant. And within the scope of license 2 renewal, there's a little more than 18,300 feet of 3 pipe, roughly 3.5 miles. So the numbers that were 4 quoted in the testimony were approximates, but we have 5 a number, a sum that's included in the Unit 1 river 6 water that's a little better than 18,000 feet.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's from your 8 digitized maps of actual locations?

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Correct.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Does that -- and I assume 11 that includes the whatever it is, but it was 12 previously reported as 5,000 feet of fire protection 13 piping?

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: It would include that, 15 you're right.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: And Mr. Holston, do you 17 have any reason to not believe that's an accurate 18 number?

19 MR. HOLSTON: No, sir. I wouldn't.

20 That's within a thousand feet and I had said I wasn't 21 sure what river water was, so that certainly sounds 22 consistent.

23 JUDGE WARDWELL: So what did you have for 24 river water? Mr. Holston, what did you have for river 25 water just so I can compare it to the number --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3871 1 MR. HOLSTON: I had 17,360 feet of pipe 2 absent river water, but as Mr. Biagiotti said, I took 3 that from the testimony and that was --

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Just to make sure I tie 5 the loop on this. The numbers that I just quoted to 6 you account for about 16,000 including the fire and 7 you came up with 17,000 about?

8 MR. HOLSTON: That is correct, 17,360 feet 9 pipe absent the river water.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

11 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, for the 12 record, Steve Biagiotti. In Entergy exhibits, I think 13 it's 000409 through 000422, we have individual maps of 14 each system and contained on those maps are a table 15 that will, an inset box table that actually lists the 16 lines and lengths, so should one want to individually 17 add them up they're generally all there.

18 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. As we said, 19 we've been talking about -- we're looking at maybe 10 20 percent of the lines that have been covered by 21 inspections. I think I'll address this to Mr.

22 Holston.

23 Do you know of any power plant that 24 inspects significantly more than that on a percentage 25 basis? By significant, I mean 50 percent of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3872 1 piping or something like that?

2 MR. HOLSTON: No, sir. I have evaluated 3 four plants that do not have cathodic protection and 4 this number is on the high end of the inspections out 5 of those four plants we reviewed.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: And those other four 7 plants have absolutely no cathodic protection where 8 this at least has some in your footage of cathodic 9 protection or are they similar to Indian Point that 10 has some?

11 MR. HOLSTON: At least two of them, I'm 12 going on my memory, have no cathodic protection at 13 all. And two of them had small portions of it similar 14 to Entergy. That is correct. Or Indian Point.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: In your testimony, staff, 16 page 66, answer 61, you say "the condensate return 17 line did not experience a through-wall failure." And 18 the next sentence starts off, "although the line 19 developed a leak" and you go on and make some 20 discussion, my question is how can you have a leak 21 without a through-wall failure?

22 MR. HOLSTON: Let me try to locate those 23 exact words.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you want us to pull it 25 up? We can pull it up on the screen if you want.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3873 1 MR. HOLSTON: I guess everybody can see on 2 the screen. I have it right here. I'm looking.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: That exhibit, Andy, while 4 he's reading it is Staff 000016. And it would be page 5 66.

6 MR. HOLSTON: Oh.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: And it's answer 61. Look 8 for "although it developed a leak."

9 MR. HOLSTON: It's the next page. And you 10 get to the paragraph -- there we go, right there.

11 Second. And so the emphasis here was on through-wall 12 failure and the emphasis would be on the word failure.

13 "Although the line developed a leak, subsequent 14 evaluations determined the current licensing basis 15 could be met despite the leak. Therefore, as 16 discussed above, the term failure is not appropriate."

17 That's what I was trying to address. So yes, it was 18 through-wall, but it was not a failure. The piping 19 system was more than capable -- it was capable of 20 delivering its flow at the --

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: You're now, this 22 definition is return to an attended function.

23 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

25 (Pause.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3874 1 Let me just ask this of Entergy. Unit 2, 2 UFSAR, that's exhibit -- New York Exhibit 000013 and 3 000014 A through J, revision 20 at section 5.1.3.12 4 indicated that cathodic protection had originally been 5 recommended and installed for the following systems.

6 That's circulating water lines, the service water 7 lines, the bearing piles, the sheet piling, and ring 8 wall outage anchor systems and the metallic structures 9 inside the intake structures.

10 That's -- is that what you were referring 11 when I asked what historically had been done when 12 you're talking about the -- I don't know if I can find 13 that in my notes, but when you said that the historic 14 systems dealt with just the intake structures. Are 15 those all associated with that? Or is this statement 16 wrong?

17 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for 18 Entergy. I've asked that question. What I've been 19 told is that those systems which are originally 20 installed and documented in the FSAR, the FSAR has 21 been changed and those systems are no longer credited.

22 I'll have to verify that at the next break, but that's 23 what I've been told.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: What I'm asking is when 25 were those -- the Unit 2 updated FSAR indicated that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3875 1 these protection systems had originally been 2 recommended and installed for these following systems.

3 Earlier, we talked about those that historically had 4 been installed. It seems like this list is larger 5 than what you describe as what was historically 6 installed, but I don't know that for sure when we talk 7 about the intake structures, whether or not that 8 included some service water lines right in the 9 vicinity of those intake structures or not.

10 And my question is is this an accurate 11 list for Unit 2? And what is the associated list for 12 Unit 3 that historically have been installed?

13 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for 14 Entergy. I'm going to have to verify that, Your 15 Honor. I don't have that answer for you. Initially, 16 my response was to intake structures themselves. I'll 17 have to go back and verify the service water and 18 circulating water.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: And that would seem to be 20 possibly No. 3 bearing piles, but certainly the sheet 21 piling, that sounds like an intake structure and the 22 metallic structures inside, specifically intake 23 structures which you did mention, the traveling 24 screens, etcetera. So really it boils down to the 25 service water lines and the circulating water lines.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3876 1 As far as you know, Mr. Azevedo, were all 2 of the cathodic protection systems subject to 3 maintenance and were the systems allowed to lapse or 4 were they conscientiously turned off as to the best of 5 your knowledge?

6 MR. AZEVEDO: You're talking about the 7 originally-installed systems?

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: The original ones.

9 MR. AZEVEDO: Again, Your Honor, I really 10 am not qualified to speak what happened 15 to 20 years 11 ago. The only thing I can say is those systems have 12 been evaluated and they've been determined to not be 13 required. I really can't speak for what happened a 14 long time ago.

15 (Pause.)

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: The next issue deals with 17 New York Exhibit 000399 and I believe it's a rebuttal 18 at page 13. I think we've already discussed that. I 19 think it was more the -- yes, it's that at 12, 399 at 20 12 that the judicious installation operation and 21 maintenance of a cathodic protection system to bury 22 piping system will have the effect of completing 23 arresting any future corrosion damage.

24 Entergy, do you have any reason to 25 disagree with this statement in regards to the length NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3877 1 of coverages achieved from a given system of cathodic 2 protection recognizing that, of course, it only covers 3 a certain area. But in that area does that completely 4 arrest any future corrosion?

5 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 6 Applicant. Within the world of corrosion control we 7 specifically do call it corrosion control and not 8 arrest. The target within the NACE SP0169 is to get 9 your corrosion levels down to a manageable level of 10 less than one mil per year. We never actually totally 11 arrest. I know it's semantics, but I just wanted to 12 clear that up.

13 But when a CP system is -- and, again, CP 14 system/systems, the plural is important because it's 15 usually not one thing, it's multiple CP systems in 16 combination that work. But when properly installed and 17 tested yes, they do effectively control corrosion in 18 the area they've been applied.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So, you -- thank 20 you.

21 Entergy testimony at 373, Answer 34, page 22 18 states that, "New York State incorrectly 23 characterizes industry guidance on corrosion 24 protection. The NEI and EPRI guidance documents cited 25 by New York do not recommend that corrosion protection NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3878 1 be installed for critical piping systems. Rather, both 2 documents recommend that if a CP system exists, then 3 it should be properly tested and maintained."

4 Dr. Duquette, is it your position that 5 both the NEI 09-14, which is, I believe, what that 6 part of Entergy's testimony is stating, which is 7 Exhibit 168, and the EPRI document which is Exhibit 8 167, recommend cathodic protection for critical piping 9 systems?

10 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, sir, that is my 11 testimony.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Could -- and you believe 13 that both those organizations recommend the use of 14 cathodic protection for all critical piping systems?

15 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, sir. And I'm trying to 16 find the reference to it.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: That was my next question.

18 Could you point us to where NEI and EPRI in Exhibit 19 167 and 168 recommend cathodic protection, or if 20 you're referring to some other -- if you're referring 21 -- I believe that was your quote that --

22 DR. DUQUETTE: It is my quote.

23 (Simultaneous speech.)

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, it is my quote.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Point us to where they say NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3879 1 that.

2 DR. DUQUETTE: I'm currently looking at the 3 EPRI document.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, that would be Exhibit 5 167. Why don't we pull that up. Pull up 168, also, and 6 have it ready because we'll probably look at that. New 7 York, sorry.

8 DR. DUQUETTE: On page 6-1, and do you need 9 the reference, the IPEC Bates number?

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry?

11 DR. DUQUETTE: I have the IPEC Bates 12 numbers. I don't have a --

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, whichever --

14 DR. DUQUETTE: We do have it up here, 15 anyway, so it's on page 6-1.

16 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.

17 DR. DUQUETTE: It says, "Measures to 18 prevent soil side degradation include coating, 19 cathodic protection and special trenchfill." Those 20 aren't independent of each other. That's a combination 21 of things.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So, they don't 23 specifically say that you must put in cathodic 24 protection. It says, "should be implemented." The 25 characteristic there is that these are measures that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3880 1 should be implemented, Dr. Duquette?

2 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, that's correct. To me, 3 "should be implemented" is a pejorative statement. It 4 says must -- I'm using it --

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: I see. Okay, gotcha. The 6 paragraph -- the box --

7 DR. DUQUETTE: Right, says "should be 8 implemented." To me, that's a pejorative statement but 9 you should --

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: And is there any caveat to 11 when that "should be" takes place?

12 DR. DUQUETTE: Not in this document that I 13 know of.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: How about right in that 15 box, does it says where the risk of failure is 16 unacceptable?

17 DR. DUQUETTE: I think the NEI document 18 pretty much just quotes --

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, doesn't this box, 20 "Recommended Prevention 1, retrofit," start off by 21 saying, "where the risk of failure is unacceptable?"

22 DR. DUQUETTE: "Preventive and mitigative 23 options should be implemented," that's correct.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, it's only when the 25 risk of failure is unacceptable that cathodic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3881 1 protection is recommended. Is that correct?

2 DR. DUQUETTE: Well, again, I think I'm on 3 the record for testimony saying I think a leak in a 4 pipe--

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Is unacceptable.

6 DR. DUQUETTE: -- is unacceptable.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: But you do agree that 8 that's the caveat --

9 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, I agree with that 10 statement.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Mr. Holston, 12 did you have something else to add to that, or was 13 that something you were going to point out?

14 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. You covered exactly 15 my concern. Thank you.

16 MR. CAVALLO: Yes, sir, Judge. Jon Cavallo 17 for the Applicant. This document was developed by a 18 group called the Buried Pipe Information Group, the 19 BPIG, which meets twice a year starting in 2008. The 20 intent of the document was never to mandate cathodic 21 protection. It was -- this particular chapter had to 22 do with familiarizing the use of the document with the 23 various means available for preventing corrosion of 24 the pipe wall, which is what we're all trying to do.

25 And one of those measures which should be considered NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3882 1 and has been by Entergy is cathodic protection.

2 MR. HOLSTON: Thank you.

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, I'd also like 4 to direct you in that same document, please, to 5 Section 2.4.1.2. And here, again, this is -

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Page number?

7 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I'm sorry. It's page 2-8, 8 the bang box that you see there on the top. The intent 9 here when they talk about cathodic protection is where 10 it's available you are to maintain its adequacy. They 11 are not anywhere in this document actually specifying 12 or recommending that it be newly installed, just to 13 make that clear. That's consistent with what the NRC 14 says, as well as what's consistent in the NEI 09-14.

15 They all say the same thing, which is when it exists 16 insure that it's performing. They don't say install.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's what that says, but 18 the previous bang box seems to say it should be 19 implemented if, in fact, the risk of failure is 20 unacceptable.

21 JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Biagiotti, how are these 22 two inconsistent? The one you pointed out, 2.4.1.2, 23 says if it's there properly maintain it. And what Dr.

24 Duquette pointed out is if the risk of failure is 25 unacceptable, then -- and the word they use is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3883 1 "should," and it's one of the matters that should be 2 considered. Do you view those as inconsistent?

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Steve Biagiotti for the 4 Applicant. Yes, I do, because the "should" gives you 5 several options to take. It does not require the list 6 of -- the list that includes the installation of 7 cathodic protection. It's not requiring that. It's 8 saying to think and consider these things. To me, 9 that's a major distinction between, you know, your 10 options versus what's required, but the intent of 11 these -- of all the industry documents are never to 12 require you to install cathodic protection.

13 I don't challenge the fact that cathodic 14 protection is a good option when prudent, but it's not 15 a requirement. There are other techniques that work 16 just as well.

17 JUDGE McDADE: Dr. Duquette, going back to 18 6-1.

19 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, sir.

20 JUDGE McDADE: Is it your position that all 21 of these should be done, or isn't this a list from 22 which an entity can pick what under the circumstances 23 there are most effective? In other words, do you view 24 this recommendation saying that all of these should be 25 done, water treatment, cleaning, lining, special NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3884 1 trenchfill, all of these, or is this just simply these 2 are factors that can be done?

3 DR. DUQUETTE: I specifically refer to the 4 sentence that says for "outside diameter for the outer 5 part of the pipe." You can't, obviously, treat the 6 water if it's external corrosion. So, if you have 7 internal corrosion you can eliminate oxygen in the 8 water, you can put oxygen scavengers in the water.

9 There are a lot of things you can do if you can treat 10 the water, but you can't treat the rainwater or the 11 groundwater to prevent corrosion. So, the only option 12 you have, as far as I'm concerned, and I think it 13 specifically says OD corrosion.

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: Didn't you make testimony 15 that said that if you were going to cathodically 16 protect a pipe, in fact, you're better off not having 17 coating on there so that you can achieve better 18 protection than with a coating on?

19 DR. DUQUETTE: Oh, no, sir. If I testified 20 to that, I was dead wrong.

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: I thought I heard that.

22 DR. DUQUETTE: The main purpose of cathodic 23 protection is to -- on pipelines, at least, is to 24 protect against pinholes, cracks in the -- you're not 25 trying to protect the entire uncoated pipe with it.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3885 1 No. What I think I said is that the cathodic 2 protection would protect those areas that don't have 3 a coating on them.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.

5 DR. DUQUETTE: And you could, 6 theoretically, cathodically protect an entire pipe, 7 and I've seen that done but usually for very short 8 runs.

9 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But I'm afraid I 10 misheard the same way as Judge Wardwell, that in a 11 situation where there is more bare pipe available that 12 the cathodic protection would be more effective 13 because you would have a better electrical current. Is 14 that not correct?

15 DR. DUQUETTE: No, sir, it's not.

16 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Now, here when they're 17 talking about measures to prevent OD degradation, 18 they're talking about coating, cathodic protection, 19 and special trenchfill. Is it your view that this is 20 saying that all three of those need be done?

21 DR. DUQUETTE: I don't think you can do 22 that for a retrofit very readily without digging up 23 the entire pipe. And I don't think that would be a 24 reasonable request. But trenchfill is certainly an 25 important parameter for new systems. If you could, you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3886 1 would like to change the trenchfill here, as well, but 2 you -- it wouldn't be practical to do so. So, while I 3 think that all three should be done, I don't think 4 it's practical in systems where you didn't do that 5 initially.

6 JUDGE McDADE: So, given the fact that this 7 would be in a retrofit setting, here they're saying 8 one of three things should be done, the coating, the 9 special trenchfill, or the cathodic protection, but 10 that only cathodic protection is practicable.

11 DR. DUQUETTE: We already have the coatings 12 in place. One of the three parameters you need for 13 protection is already there. And I will agree with 14 both Entergy and their consultants that the coatings 15 that are in place are very good coatings, but I've 16 been around coatings for a long time. They are very 17 imperfect coatings, and so most coatings can be 18 damaged. They are not always put down the way you'd 19 like them to be. There are faults in them. And 20 cathodic protection systems are to protect those areas 21 where the coating has failed either on installation, 22 or else due to something that's happened in the field.

23 All you need is a connection to the pipe at some 24 location to be able to put a potential on the pipe and 25 keep it below the level where theoretically corrosion NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3887 1 can occur.

2 There's another statement if I might that 3 I think is relevant, since it comes out of the EPRI 4 document. It's not -- it doesn't say anything about 5 "should," but there is a statement on page L-7 under 6 cathodic protection. And I agree with this. It says, 7 "For oil and gas transmission pipelines, cathodic 8 protection is consistently applied and scrupulously 9 well maintained. The CP systems are sized, designed, 10 installed, and periodically inspected and tested to 11 make sure they provide the right protection."

12 In the pipeline world --

13 JUDGE McDADE: Can you hold one second? One 14 second.

15 DR. DUQUETTE: I'm sorry.

16 JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Welkie, can you down 17 below the figure, that paragraph --

18 DR. DUQUETTE: I'm sorry. It's the area 19 below that figure.

20 JUDGE McDADE: Yes. Okay, thank you. Please 21 continue.

22 DR. DUQUETTE: Since this is an EPRI 23 document, I can't imagine why this phraseology would 24 be here except to give guidance at least to the power 25 industry, not just nuclear power. But it says, "In the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3888 1 pipeline world, the CP system is a production 2 necessity, as well as a regulatory mandate." It is 3 not, of course, in nuclear power plants, but I 4 wouldn't think they would have put this portion in on 5 cathodic protection except to guide the industry about 6 here's an industry that does it, and does it well.

7 We're going to give you guidance on how to do it.

8 MR. CAVALLO: Your Honor, Jon Cavallo for 9 Entergy. The "we" that Dr. Duquette is referring to is 10 us, Engineer Biagiotti, Engineer Myself have been very 11 active in preparing this document which is the 12 original issue and the 2010 revision, which is greatly 13 expanded in this area. So, this was prepared by a 14 combination of regulatory personnel, including the 15 NRC, utility members who are very active because that 16 is the EPRI membership, and specialized consultants 17 and subject matter experts. So, it's not something we 18 just pulled out of the air. I don't want it 19 represented that way.

20 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Mr. Holston, 21 could you give us some insight of when Staff would 22 consider the -- I forgot what exactly was said, but 23 the failure was inaccessible -- what was the caveat 24 that started off that --

25 MR. HOLSTON: The risk of failure --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3889 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Can you call up 6-1 again?

2 MR. HOLSTON: And I have it in my 3 testimony, but --

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, when the risk of 5 failure is unacceptable. What guides you to determine 6 whether risk of failure is unacceptable?

7 MR. HOLSTON: Risk of failure unacceptable 8 to us is an intended function could not be met. And it 9 wouldn't matter whether it's fire protection, 10 auxiliary feedwater which delivers, you know, cooling 11 water steam generator safety injection, any one of 12 those systems. If the soil conditions are bad enough 13 there's been demonstration of multiple examples of 14 coating failures because of bad backfill at a site.

15 There's risk that an intended function may not be met, 16 and that's the context we have there.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, it's not that the 18 intended function could not be met, but that the risk 19 would be of that potential occurring would be 20 unacceptable to you.

21 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. And when we wrote 22 Requests for Additional Informations for the plants 23 including Indian Point, that did not have cathodic 24 protection on all in-scope piping, that's the context 25 we placed it in, which was, you know, absent cathodic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3890 1 protection, how are you insuring that the intended 2 functions of the in-scope systems will be met?

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy, just 4 quickly back to your APEC survey, there was some 5 discussion on page 100-104 of Entergy's testimony 373, 6 Answer 119, just discussing that survey. And it's 7 really just a general discussion -- a general question 8 in regards to what you were describing earlier right 9 after lunch.

10 But you note on page 111 that "Additional 11 corrosion protection might not effectively protect all 12 IPEC buried piping due to interferences and plant 13 configuration such as continuing visual inspections of 14 buried piping will be required." Do you remember that 15 testimony, Entergy?

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, can you please 17 give us the question number, since the page numbers 18 have shifted.

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Question number -- the 20 page number I have for initial was discussing it 21 between 100 and 104. The reference I have here are in 22 regards to observations or conclusions from the --

23 maybe this -- yes, on pages 110-111 of 373.

24 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, what's the 25 question number?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3891 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me see if he finds --

2 my question is -- I haven't asked it yet. I wanted to 3 -- my question was do you remember this testimony?

4 MR. AZEVEDO: No, I was asking what the 5 question number is in our testimony.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, question number is --

7 answer is 119.

8 MR. AZEVEDO: Thank you.

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I'm prepared, Your Honor.

10 Go ahead, please.

11 MR. FAGG: Your Honor, we're looking at 12 Question 125. I don't know if there's a disconnect 13 there. I think the excerpt you just read seems to us 14 to come from answer 125.

15 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, because I did jump 16 ahead on pages after that cite. So, on Answer 125, you 17 say, that that discussion is now --

18 MR. FAGG: Yes, Your Honor, page 111 of the 19 more recent, and it refers to the APEC survey, "An 20 additional CP may not effectively protect IPEC buried 21 piping."

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's it, yes.

23 MR. FAGG: That's Answer 125.

24 JUDGE WARDWELL: 125, and what's the page 25 number that you have?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3892 1 MR. FAGG: 111 of the --

2 JUDGE WARDWELL: 111. Yes, I jumped ahead 3 without referencing what the answer was.

4 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, sir. Go ahead. I'm 5 sorry.

6 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, do you believe now --

7 do you believe there are significant interferences in 8 plant configuration challenges associated with the 9 APEC study such that because of -- not so much the 10 study but the fact that those there, and any cathodic 11 protection may not be able to effectively impact all 12 those, that the continued inspections need to 13 continue?

14 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, I think it has 15 to do with the type of CP systems. Again, we mentioned 16 there's many styles, as well as the fact that there's 17 plural versus singular systems. So, one system will 18 not protect this entire plant. There are some plants 19 that we're familiar with that use what's referred to 20 as a Deep Well System. It goes down 300 feet, throws 21 current up under the plant and effectively protects 22 the majority of the plant relatively simply. The 23 geology of the site won't allow that, so that's kind 24 of what we're saying here, is that the geology is not 25 going to let that happen, so we are recommending that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3893 1 they follow up and look at -- do more visual exams.

2 You've got piping that wraps around buildings, I 3 mentioned it's vertically stacked, horizontally 4 stacked, so that's why it's kind of a general -- a 5 corrosion -- cathodic protection consultant typically 6 makes those statements just so that the reader of the 7 report, the utility owner understands that there's not 8 a quick fix here, that there will be challenges with 9 installing any kind of CP solution.

10 JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Duquette, in addition 11 to statements like that, another statement on that 12 same page, I believe, that says, "Excavations and 13 inspections should be performed to validate and 14 qualify the APEC interpretations."

15 Combined with the discussion we had this 16 afternoon in regards to the approach that Entergy is 17 taking in regards to installing some cathodic 18 protection, in addition to the increased inspections 19 and the actions that are proposed from that, what is 20 really wrong with that approach? Why go ahead with all 21 cathodic protection at this time and not proceed the 22 way they are proceeding?

23 DR. DUQUETTE: I think I've testified a 24 number of times, and I don't want to be too 25 repetitious because of the time element, but I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3894 1 what has been proposed so far might be called an aging 2 monitoring system rather than an Aging Management 3 program, program I should say rather than system. And 4 that they are going to periodically inspect certain 5 locations, versus having a program where you can have 6 continuous protection, and you can eliminate many of 7 the inspections, if not all of them, unless you see 8 some other kind of a problem. So, I don't think that 9 what they're proposing is a management system.

10 I liken it to either you're eating well 11 and exercising well versus not doing that and just 12 going to the doctor periodically to see what's wrong 13 with you. I think the former is probably better than 14 the latter. So, I'm not sure that their program is 15 necessarily fatally flawed, but I think that they will 16 clearly miss some locations where leaks will occur. We 17 already have experience with that in this particular 18 plant. So, they can develop a system that will manage 19 the aging process just as we manage our own aging 20 processes, I hope, versus just checking on it 21 periodically.

22 JUDGE WARDWELL: But isn't there a -- is 23 the requirement to prevent all leaks the threshold 24 that they must clear, or is it, in fact, reasonable 25 assurance that these thresholds are clear? And is this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3895 1 not a reasonable assurance that you've heard about 2 this afternoon that leaks are being managed?

3 DR. DUQUETTE: Well, I think within an 4 engineering -- with engineering certainty you can stop 5 all the leaks. And if you can -- I mean, then it 6 becomes an economic issue as to whether you're willing 7 to live with some leaks or not, or whether some of the 8 systems will not function any longer.

9 I testified earlier that I think in the 10 leak that did occur in the condensate return line that 11 they were lucky because there were other areas of 12 corrosion in the vicinity of the place where the leak 13 occurred. And if you had a large enough leak, I think 14 in contrast to what my testimony was yesterday when we 15 only talked about small leaks, and I said a pipe could 16 still perform its function if it had a leak. You got 17 a burst or a fairly significant sized hole in the pipe 18 that would lose many of its functions.

19 In a fire protection system, for example, 20 if you lost a significant amount of water through a 21 hole, not a leak per se but a hole in the side of the 22 pipe that developed due to corrosion, it would not 23 serve its function. So, I'm looking at a situation 24 where I believe that you could stop all of the leaks, 25 or essentially prevent all of them versus controlling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3896 1 the number that you might have.

2 I think the plant is getting old. My 3 engineering background tells me that most plants are 4 designed for about 40 years. This one is 40 years old.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.

6 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Doctor, yesterday you 7 described some of the limitations with regard to 8 inspection; the fact that you can only look at a 9 limited percentage of the overall piping. We've heard 10 some of the limitations with cathodic protection, 11 particularly given the geology of this particular 12 site.

13 Entergy has said they're using a 14 combination of the coating which they believe to be 15 good coatings in place, the periodic inspections that 16 they're using, and in appropriate places according to 17 Entergy the cathodic protection. Their view is that 18 that provides reasonable assurance that these pipes 19 will continue to perform their intended function.

20 Why does, in your view, that not? Again, 21 I understand you're saying that it could be done 22 better. Now, it could be done perfectly, but the issue 23 is reasonable assurance intended function, and we're 24 having a difference of opinion here as to whether the 25 intended function is pressure, containment, or to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3897 1 prevent all leaks. But could you just summarize why 2 that -- the combination of things, the coating, the 3 inspections, and the selective cathodic protection 4 doesn't provide reasonable assurance that the -- and 5 let's just limit it to the pressure boundary right 6 now, that the pressure boundaries will be maintained?

7 DR. DUQUETTE: We fall into the category of 8 defining reasonable assurance. I think I heard this 9 afternoon that it would be difficult in some locations 10 at the plant to install cathodic protection. I did not 11 hear that it would be impossible. I didn't even hear 12 that it would be very difficult, but it just would be 13 difficult. So, I think what I'm hearing, and if 14 someone wants to correct me on that I would appreciate 15 it, that it can be done without a massive change in 16 the way the piping is configured right at the moment.

17 I don't think I've heard anyone say it 18 can't be done. I heard it can't be done with a single 19 system, and I agree with that. You can't put a system 20 underneath the rock and control the whole system. To 21 me, a system might have more components, and one might 22 even use different kinds of rectifiers and a bunch of 23 other things in it, but it can be done. And you 24 eliminate the possibility of any failures from leaks 25 from external corrosion.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3898 1 To me, that then comes down to an economic 2 issue, not an engineering issue. So, since it can be 3 done, and I have a suspicion, and this is a suspicion, 4 mind you since I certainly haven't priced anything 5 out, that the cost of $200,000 a hole for 94 digs is 6 going to be somewhere in the ballpark of what it might 7 be to install a cathodic protection system, so I'm not 8 even sure that economics would come into that. But 9 that's not my expertise, and I really shouldn't be 10 testifying about it.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you, doctor.

12 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, Steve Biagiotti 13 for the Applicant. If I may --

14 JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I think not, as far as 15 I'm concerned, unless Judge McDade would like to hear.

16 You know, we wanted to give him an opportunity, as far 17 as I'm concerned, to explain what his position was.

18 JUDGE McDADE: Was there something very 19 briefly that you could address there?

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, sir, it was. The 21 Department of Transportation has required cathodic 22 protection since the early `70s, and regretfully there 23 was an increasing number of failures over the last 30 24 or 40 years to the point where Congress passed the 25 Pipeline Safety Act of 2000, requiring an Integrity NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3899 1 Management Program or a series of steps like this.

2 Only after that law was enacted in 2000 have we 3 actually started to see a decline in the number of 4 external corrosion buried piping-related failures, so 5 that just shows that cathodic protection, although it 6 is a nice tool, it is not the panacea of solutions.

7 You really do need a programmatic approach to be 8 looking for, detecting, quantifying, and quite often 9 mitigating issues.

10 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thank you. Judge 11 Wardwell.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. New York's testimony 13 172 -- sorry, Exhibit 172, which is the EN-DC-343 14 calls for repair as follows, "(A)For a CP system 15 degradation affecting a safety-related system, 16 structure, or component, recommend repair within the 17 work week T process." And "(B) For a CP system 18 degradation affecting a non-safety-related SSC, 19 recommend repair within six months of identification."

20 I guess I'll address this to Entergy.

21 Could you explain what a work week T process is?

22 MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for 23 Entergy. What that's referring to is we have a station 24 schedule so all activities that occur on site are on 25 a schedule, and we go out like say 28 weeks. We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3900 1 schedule all the work to make sure that when we take 2 a system out of service we minimize the system 3 unavailability. And that's what that's referring to, 4 that work control process.

5 JUDGE WARDWELL: You stated earlier that 6 historically you do not know whether or not a similar 7 system was established for the CP systems that were 8 initially constructed at the site. Is that correct?

9 MR. AZEVEDO: I'm not sure I understand 10 your --

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: When -- for the initial 12 systems that were installed at the site that include, 13 if not others, the intake structures, was such a 14 process in place for maintaining and repairing those 15 systems, to your knowledge?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: I don't know.

17 JUDGE WARDWELL: Does anyone else from 18 Entergy know? Okay, thank you.

19 Entergy's testimony at 373, page 43, 20 Answer 61 says, "The calculated required wall 21 thickness for stainless and carbon steel pipe at 22 Indian Point includes corrosion allowance of 12.5 23 percent of pipe wall thickness. Additional margin may 24 be attained by selecting the next standard wall class 25 thickness which generally steps 0.065 to 0.12 inch for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3901 1 pipe diameters greater than 4 inches above the 2 required thickness."

3 It then goes on later in the paragraph to 4 say, "This indicates that once a coating has been 5 degraded one could expect an additional 40 to 60 years 6 before corrosion would reduce the wall thickness to 7 its design minimum thickness including the various 8 safety factors."

9 Could someone clarify for me how that 10 calculation was done in regards to the first statement 11 which is not really clear to me in regards to this 12 12 percent, and the jumping up from 0.65 to .125 for 13 diameters greater than 4 inches, and then the 14 calculation that was used and derived that you've got 15 40 to 60 years of additional life?

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, Your Honor. Can you 17 please -- we're not seeing what you're reading from, 18 I guess, but --

19 JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, I'm sorry.

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Can you tell me what the --

21 22 JUDGE WARDWELL: That's my fault.

23 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I do have that math worked 24 out. I can explain that.

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, good.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3902 1 MR. O'NEILL: This is Martin O'Neill for 2 the Applicant. It's in answer 60 of Entergy's 3 testimony here.

4 JUDGE WARDWELL: It should be Answer -- you 5 say it's 60?

6 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, and I think the relevant 7 discussion immediately follows Figure 4.

8 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes. No. Steve Biagiotti 9 for the Applicant. No, I have this marked here and I 10 have the math worked out because I anticipated the 11 question.

12 First, this comes down to how we designed 13 pipe during the design process. And during the design 14 process the ASME code provides a series of 15 calculations that have to be assessed. And what the 16 designer does is he arrives at a minimum wall 17 thickness, so let's -- whatever. He does his 18 calculation and it comes out to be .302 thousandths of 19 an inch. Well, that's not a commercially available 20 grade to purchase, so what is typically done is he 21 picks the next standard grade above that. And that was 22 what was meant by part of that comment. And there's a 23 reference there to what standard pipe grades are. The 24 12-1/2 --

25 JUDGE WARDWELL: Referring to the step off NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3903 1 that if you ended up with a .065, you would select the 2 .125 because that's the available grade. Is that what 3 you're --

4 MR. BIAGIOTTI: No, I'm sorry. Actually, if 5 you look at the references there, Engineering Toolbox 6 is just a nice web-based thing. It's Entergy 392. The 7 step between going from Schedule 10 to Schedule 40, to 8 Schedule 80 within a pipe diameter classification, 9 they typically jump 65 thousandths to 125 thousandths 10 as they jump through the standard wall, to extra heavy 11 wall, to extra extra heavy wall, and so on.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, let me just make sure 13 I understand this. That's the maximum range of the 14 wall thickness, the minimum and the maximum, or is 15 that -- does it start off at .065, and then the next 16 one available is .125?

17 MR. BIAGIOTTI: What I was doing is I was 18 picking a typical range. I mean, it does vary by grade 19 and by -- sorry, by grade, by diameter range. But what 20 I was trying to get is if you were looking at going 21 from Schedule 20 to Schedule 40, possibly that 22 transition and wall thickness would be about 65 23 thousandths, and if you went from Schedule 40 to 24 Schedule 80 it jumped 125 thousandths, so I was just 25 trying to get you in the right ballpark. And that's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3904 1 fairly consistent for 4-inch, 8-inch, 12-inch, 16-inch 2 pipe. It doesn't matter, they jump by that amount. And 3 I'm sure somewhere in the ASME code it is something 4 like 25 percent increase. I have no idea what it's 5 based on, but it's a standard.

6 The other thing I was trying to account 7 for here, this 12-1/2 percent. When you purchase pipe 8 to ASTM A106 Grade B specification, for example, the 9 mill manufacturer is allowed to provide pipe to that 10 wall thickness plus or minus 12-1/2 percent of what he 11 says it is. So designers take into account that 12-1/2 12 percent as -- and what we do is we assume it's in the 13 low end, just so we have a conservatism, and then 14 we'll -- during the design he calculates the necessary 15 T min wall, T minimum thickness and then steps up to 16 the next commercial grade that's available. So, that's 17 where those two numbers came from.

18 So, if I could just run through a quick 19 math with you, and this is built on testimony that was 20 earlier looking at the Romanoff graphs on what typical 21 corrosion rates are, and that's what the preceding 22 question had to deal with. But, for example, if we 23 picked a pipe wall thickness that was say 325 24 thousandths of an inch, if we take a look at the 12-25 1/2 percent of that, you get roughly 35 thousandths is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3905 1 12-1/2 percent. If I add the low end step, the 065 to 2 that, I have about 100 thousandths. And that's 3 referred to as a corrosion allowance. So, in the 4 design of material we expect to be able to lose that 5 much material from nominal before we would be 6 concerned.

7 If I use, again, the Question 60, I guess 8 that's part of 60, the Romanoff numbers, and if we use 9 that 2-1/2 mil per year average, because the Romanoff 10 study was showing that for soils about like Indian 11 Point, which are the 10,000 ohm centimeters or 12 greater, and if I use the 16-year line, the blue dots 13 in that figure, that's about 2-1/2 mils per year. And 14 based on that progression, one would assume that the 15 corrosion rates could be in that ballpark, or maybe 16 less over time. 100 thousandths divided by 2.5 mils 17 per year is about 40 years, so if you do the math 18 using the 125 adder it goes up to like 60 years. So, 19 that's typically how we would go about -- if I was 20 doing a Fitness for Purpose Life Assessment for a 21 client, we do -- we perform calculations such as this 22 to try to estimate the remaining wall thickness, and 23 the remaining corrosion allowance so we can help them 24 understand when might be a good reinspection interval.

25 So, this was simply included just to kind NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3906 1 of give you an idea that, you know, right now we're 2 not seeing any significant wall loss. So, if we assume 3 we start with these conditions and we have 2-1/2 mils 4 per year corrosion rate because we're not seeing any 5 other major corrosion activity, that would be a high 6 value when you don't expect in the corrosion rates, 7 you might have at least 40 years of life.

8 JUDGE WARDWELL: That corrosion rate, 9 again, was picked off of that graph that we looked at 10 with the scatter points?

11 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes.

12 JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy's 13 testimony, and I have it as Question 61 and Answer 61 14 on page 43, so the same one. They seem to assert that 15 cathodic protection is only warranted when coating has 16 degraded and when metallic surfaces of the piping is 17 exposed. Entergy then goes on to state that, "If the 18 coating applied to buried piping is still effective, 19 then CP is not necessary to prevent external corrosion 20 of the piping and will offer no additional corrosion 21 control."

22 I guess my question to Entergy is, the 23 basis -- to clarify, the bases that you used to 24 determine that the coating is still effective is the 25 APEC study combined with NACA Resistivity Study, and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3907 1 the inspections you performed to date. Is there 2 anything else that you would add to that mix in 3 regards to giving you comfort that you're reaching a 4 conclusion coating applied to buried piping is still 5 effective?

6 MR. AZEVEDO: Your Honor, this is Nelson 7 Azevedo. The only thing I would add is the Guide Wave 8 Inspection.

9 JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry, is the what?

10 MR. AZEVEDO: Guided Wave Inspection.

11 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, a Guided Wave, 12 indicating the general -- thank you.

13 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Your Honor, Steve 14 Biagiotti. This statement in this question really 15 wasn't to that point per se. It was more a technical 16 issue, and when I described after lunch that a 17 corrosion cell requires the metal to be in contact 18 with the electrolytes, if a coating exists the 19 electrical circuit is incomplete, so fundamentally 20 cathodic protection just won't work. I mean, not --

21 JUDGE WARDWELL: Were you the one that said 22 is better off not having the coating, and it wasn't 23 Dr. Duquette?

24 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Absolutely not. We do not 25 apply cathodic protection to that.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3908 1 JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, if Judge McDade and 2 I Google the transcripts for don't use cathodic 3 protection unless you rip of all the coating we won't 4 find anything with --

5 MR. BIAGIOTTI: It absolutely will not be 6 me.

7 JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you. I am 8 done. Any other questions you might have on cathodic 9 protection?

10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Not on specific cathodic 11 protection.

12 JUDGE McDADE: No.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: I've done all my 14 questioning. Sorry. Don't look so disappointed.

15 (Off the record comments.)

16 JUDGE KENNEDY: I have just a couple of 17 general follow-up questions, I guess, just to get to 18 say something here. Maybe this is direct -- I'd like 19 to direct this first to the Staff.

20 In all this highly technical testimony, I 21 sort of lost track of how the current Indian Point 22 performance stacks up in terms of buried piping and 23 leaks on site compared to the rest of the industry. Is 24 it in the mix, is it better, is it worse? There were 25 some statements earlier I think Mr. Holston had made NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3909 1 about operating experience. And I'm just wondering if 2 I misheard, or if you could help me characterize their 3 operating performance?

4 MR. HOLSTON: I would say that Indian 5 Point's operating performance is in the mix. There are 6 many plants that have no leakage that just have done 7 excavated pipe inspections and found minor coating 8 damage, so there's kind of two classes of plants.

9 There's plants that have had no leakage at all and 10 just minor coating degradation. There's a few plants 11 that have found leaks. The Interim Staff Guidance, 12 GALL, Rev. 2 has about -- I think it's about seven 13 examples of operating experience of plants that had 14 leaks, although some of them were underground piping, 15 so they're not in an extreme.

16 JUDGE KENNEDY: And does that consider the 17 age of the facility, or is that just a general 18 assessment of industry performance?

19 MR. HOLSTON: That's a good point. I do 20 have some applicants I'm looking at that are, you 21 know, put in early -- not early, you know, within the 22 regulation, right, so they maybe have 25 years on 23 their life. Entergy is up there. But I've looked at 24 other plants that, you know -- I guess I can mention 25 them here, you know, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, Salem-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3910 1 Hope Creek that are close to the end of their period 2 of extended operation and, you know, seeing similar -

3 - again, between two demarcations. One leaker, a 4 couple of other plants have one leaker, and then 5 there's some plants that -- the other plants that just 6 have none, they haven't had any leaks.

7 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. I 8 have one final question for the Staff. I guess it 9 strikes me, I'm reflecting on the Rev. 2 GALL AMP, 10 XI.M41 I guess, and the length of it, and the level of 11 detail that exists within that GALL AMP.

12 Unfortunately, you folks weren't here but in previous 13 testimony we've taken here have tried to address 14 levels of detail in Aging Management programs.

15 I wonder if you could speak to -- it 16 appears to me that that AMP is more detailed than 17 other Aging Management programs that exist within 18 GALL, and if there's a specific reason for that, or is 19 this a -- I guess I'm struggling with the level of 20 detail. It seems to me very detail-oriented, and 21 others are not. Is there a particular reason why this 22 Aging Management program has that level of detail in 23 it?

24 MR. HOLSTON: I think the program has that 25 level of detail in it because of the leaks we have had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3911 1 in the industry, so we decided to take a step 2 improvement in how well the proposal, the set of 3 recommendations would manage the aging. And the 4 complexity comes in that there's three different 5 preventive actions you need to address, and there's 6 four different scenarios really, a buried pipe, you 7 have underground pipe, you have buried tanks, you have 8 underground tanks. You don't manage underground piping 9 and tanks as you do buried piping and tanks, so that 10 adds to the overall volume.

11 That, I guess, would -- and because of 12 that, there's repetition within it, because we tried 13 to address buried pipe totally within IV.A, for 14 instance, detection of aging effects is Section 15 Program Element IV. And then we totally address 16 underground tanks within IV.B, so you keep seeing the 17 risk assessment paragraph. That way applicants can 18 just go to one complete section for underground pipe, 19 one complete section for buried pipe. But I'm not 20 denying there's a lot of detail.

21 JUDGE KENNEDY: And, I guess, one 22 explanation is the comprehensiveness of the options, 23 if you will, the fact that you have to cover various 24 options. I guess I'm trying to caution myself to not 25 read too much into the level of detail, unless there's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3912 1 some specific reason I should.

2 MR. COX: Judge Kennedy, this is Alan Cox.

3 I'd like to make one other comment related to that.

4 Some of these other programs which I was involved in 5 in an earlier proceeding where this question was 6 asked, and I'm also familiar with some of the other 7 GALL programs. And I think, you know, you could 8 compare this to the Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Program 9 where you have an industry, a mature industry guidance 10 document that was included as a reference that said 11 your program should be in conformance with this 12 industry guidance document. I think for fact it was in 13 FAC 202L. I think that type of industry guidance 14 document is being developed now for buried piping, but 15 it was not something that existed to where Mr. Holston 16 could point to that and say this would be an effective 17 program for managing buried piping.

18 There are other examples, the In-Service 19 Inspection Program is another GALL program where 20 there's references to the ASME Section 11 code that 21 gets into excruciating detail about how to do 22 inspections. So, it may appear on the surface that M41 23 is an outlier, but I think when you consider the 24 totality of the reference documents and the things 25 that are available to the Staff when they wrote the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3913 1 program, there may not be as much of a difference as 2 it appears.

3 JUDGE KENNEDY: And, Mr. Holston, would you 4 like to add anything to that or comment on Mr. Cox's 5 response?

6 MR. HOLSTON: That's a good insight, but 7 there are -- I would have to say that there are other 8 programs, the inspection of internal surfaces that 9 doesn't have an industry guidance for how to do that, 10 and that's not as complex as buried pipe. I wouldn't 11 want you to read too much into the complexity. It's, 12 as you say, we had to put in recommendations for three 13 different preventive actions, and again four different 14 scenarios because you manage pipe and tanks 15 differently, you manage buried and underground pipes 16 differently. And if you pull that out, if you just 17 pretended that we're just managing buried pipe and 18 pulled out all the other three areas, underground 19 pipe, underground tanks, buried tanks, I don't know 20 that it would look that much more imposing.

21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let me think about that. I 22 appreciate the response. I have no further questions.

23 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. We're going to take a 24 brief break at this point. Before we do, I anticipate 25 when we come back allowing the parties to ask some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3914 1 questions both of their witnesses and of opposing 2 witnesses, if you desire. Before we do, does Entergy 3 anticipate exercising that option?

4 MR. FAGG: We do, Your Honor.

5 JUDGE McDADE: You'll be able to keep that 6 within the 15-20 minute time range?

7 MR. FAGG: We anticipate we will. Yes, Your 8 Honor.

9 JUDGE McDADE: New York?

10 MR. SIPOS: Your Honor, New York would 11 appreciate a little bit longer, 35 minutes.

12 JUDGE McDADE: What about the Staff?

13 MR. TURK: We'll try to hold it to 15 to 14 20, unless we find a need to expand based upon New 15 York's or anyone else's questions.

16 JUDGE McDADE: Well, since you're going 17 last you'll be the one who gets cut off.

18 MR. SIPOS: Your Honor, I may have 19 misunderstood the question. I thought you were asking 20 how long we would like for a break.

21 JUDGE McDADE: No.

22 MR. SIPOS: I'm sorry. I suspect that the 23 State would not be more than 20 minutes in duration of 24 questions.

25 JUDGE McDADE: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3915 1 MR. FAGG: Your Honor, if I could. This is 2 Brad Fagg for the Applicant. Just one other sort of 3 procedural matter on the questioning. In the prior 4 technical contention of Flow-Accelerated Corrosion, 5 the sort of order of questioning, if you will, was the 6 State, and then Entergy, and then the Staff. And we 7 think that both worked well and comported with the 8 nature of the contention here. And I guess I would 9 request that that same order be followed for this 10 technical contention.

11 MR. SIPOS: And, Your Honor, I think with 12 Flow-Accelerated Corrosion it was Riverkeeper. I do 13 think they went first, but --

14 MR. FAGG: I'm sorry.

15 MR. SIPOS: -- I would -- the State 16 actually would like to go after Entergy if NRC is 17 going last.

18 JUDGE McDADE: Well, we're going to leave 19 it as a mystery. We'll talk about it during the break 20 among ourselves and then come out and give the order 21 when we come back.

22 MR. SIPOS: Thank you.

23 JUDGE McDADE: It's now a quarter of, and 24 for New York it's your witness who's looking to --

25 MR. SIPOS: Half hour, Your Honor.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3916 1 JUDGE McDADE: -- get the heck out of 2 Dodge, as it were. So, we'll come back at 5:15.

3 JUDGE WARDWELL: Before you quickly 4 adjourn, I would just like to say to the witnesses, 5 all of you, that I think you did very well, and you 6 put up with my abruptness sometimes when I had to cut 7 it short to move on to other issues. And I appreciate 8 your patience. You all took it with good spirits, and 9 I appreciate that, and appreciate all your testimony 10 that you provided.

11 JUDGE McDADE: You're saying that like 12 you're not coming back after the break.

13 JUDGE WARDWELL: I can read the transcripts 14 -- no.

15 JUDGE McDADE: We're in recess until 5:15.

16 Thank you.

17 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 18 record at 4:48:44 p.m., and went back on the record at 19 5:18:11 p.m.)

20 JUDGE McDADE: Please be seated. The 21 hearing will come to order. New York has the burden of 22 going forward. Entergy has the burden of proof, and 23 the Staff really shouldn't care how this turns out one 24 way or the other, so we're going to start with New 25 York, then have Entergy, and then have the NRC Staff.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3917 1 And I assume nobody else feels they've got a dog in 2 this fight, so we will -- there being no objection to 3 that assumption, we will close for the day after the 4 NRC Staff. We will start tomorrow morning at 8:00. You 5 need not have witnesses for the Transformer Contention 6 here tomorrow, but they should be available for 7 Thursday. And when we break tomorrow we will give you 8 a time for starting on Thursday. Anything else that we 9 need to cover before we get started here this evening?

10 MR. FAGG: Not from Entergy, Your Honor.

11 Thank you.

12 MS. DEAN: No, Your Honor.

13 MR. TURK: I would note only -- I'm sorry.

14 Is it my turn? I would only note, Your Honor, you're 15 right, it's not the Staff's concern whether or not the 16 application is granted. However, we do have a dog in 17 the fight. We want to make sure that our process, the 18 NRC Staff process is characterized correctly so that 19 the record is clear what standards we set, and how we 20 feel those standards have been met.

21 JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Sipos.

22 MS. DEAN: Thank you, Your Honor. It's 23 Janice Dean to begin for the State, and then Mr. Sipos 24 has a few questions, as well.

25 The first follow-up question for Dr.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3918 1 Duquette, in your professional experience would you 2 consider 7-10 percent of total pipeline length an 3 adequate inspection sample for the purposes of an 4 Aging Management Program?

5 DR. DUQUETTE: Well, I think as everyone 6 knows at this point, I don't think the inspection 7 program is going to be very successful, but certainly 8 roughly 1,300 feet of pipe inspected out of 17,000 9 isn't going to tell you very much. I think, to be 10 honest, that they're approaching it as well as they 11 can, but I think that it's still not going to be a 12 successful experience. I think they should at least 13 double that number, that amount of piping that's 14 examined.

15 MS. DEAN: Okay, thank you. And questions 16 for Mr. Holston, two clarifying questions. First, on 17 page 49 of your testimony you stated that Entergy's 18 corporate policies are not binding, and are not 19 enforced by the NRC. And I can pull that document up 20 for you, if you'd like, but I wanted to clarify that 21 by corporate policies in that statement, you meant the 22 documents which you've been discussing today, 23 particularly CEP-UPT-0100, SEP-UIP-IPEC, En-EP-S-002-24 MULTI, and EN-DC-343. Is that correct?

25 MR. HOLSTON: Yes. Could you give me that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3919 1 question number, please, just so I can read the words?

2 MS. DEAN: Sure.

3 MR. HOLSTON: In general, I understand your 4 question. I just want to make sure I do it in the 5 context of the question.

6 MS. DEAN: Of course. That's page 49 of the 7 current version of your testimony, and let me make 8 sure that pagination has not been altered. And I'll 9 give you the question number, as well. That's Answer 10 37 in the current version of Staff's testimony.

11 JUDGE McDADE: Which is NRC Exhibit 16.

12 MR. HOLSTON: Right. So, I have that there.

13 In the question that my testimony was pursuing was, 14 "Do you agree with Dr. Duquette's assertion at page 25 15 of his testimony that it's not clear how Entergy's 16 responses to the RAI squares with information in 17 Entergy's corporate documents setting inspection 18 priority and scheduling every 10 years."

19 And what I was trying to establish in my 20 response is that the corporate procedures, regardless 21 of what's in the corporate procedures, it's what's in 22 the UFSAR Supplement, it's what's in the buried pipe 23 program that the Applicant stated would make it 24 consistent, for instance, in its RAI responses. That's 25 what we're going to look at. If that's in a corporate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3920 1 procedure, that's fine. If it's in a site procedure, 2 that's fine. But nothing in the corporate procedure 3 that is less restrictive than what's in the RAI 4 responses, UFSAR Supplement would be used to say that 5 it could be less restrictive.

6 MS. DEAN: Thank you. And earlier today you 7 made reference to that you understood it was difficult 8 to install cathodic protection at this plant because 9 it is built on bedrock. Can you direct me to document 10 or testimony explaining or offering that perspective?

11 MR. HOLSTON: I forget -- actually, I'm not 12 sure if it was Dr. Duquette or Mr. Biagiotti. I don't 13 -- I'm not aware of any testimony that directs to 14 that, but did talk about that. And the fact that --

15 and I was pretty sure it's Mr. Biagiotti, and he 16 referenced another power plant where they were able to 17 put in one deep well and it protected the entire site.

18 Indian Point won't be able to do that because you 19 can't do cathodic protection through bedrock. It's 20 going to interrupt that, so there would have to be, 21 I'm going to -- multiple, multiple sites have cathodic 22 protection systems installed to be able to 23 cathodically protect all of the piping beyond what 24 they're doing right now.

25 MS. DEAN: Okay, thank you. And last NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3921 1 question from me before Mr. Sipos asks a few. You said 2 that seven plants had experienced leakage or degraded 3 coating. And we've talked a lot about math today, but 4 I wanted to check this math with you. If we've got 104 5 plants and Indian Point is one of the seven plants, or 6 perhaps however you want to configure it, two of those 7 seven plants, doesn't that put Indian Point in the 8 bottom 10 percent of plants nationwide for buried 9 piping performance?

10 MR. HOLSTON: I would have to say I'm not 11 qualified to come to those exact answers. The Division 12 of Engineering has been tasked by the Commission to 13 track that performance via the industry initiative.

14 What I was citing is if you go to GALL Report M41, the 15 operating experience portion -- and, actually, it's 16 six, I apologize for saying seven. I was going off the 17 top of my head, cites six examples of leakage that 18 we're aware of. But based upon -- I've evaluated now 19 about 15, 18 plants' buried piping programs since I've 20 joined the Staff. I would not put Indian Point at the 21 bottom in any shape or manner.

22 MS. DEAN: And why not?

23 MR. HOLSTON: They are -- okay, I don't 24 want to sound defense of Indian Point here, okay, but 25 you are asking me that question directly. Right?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3922 1 MS. DEAN: Yes.

2 MR. HOLSTON: So, they have -- of all the 3 plants they proposed the most inspections. I've seen 4 evidence that there's only been one evidence of one 5 leak, all their follow-up inspections reveal good 6 backfill, no severe coating damage. They're going to 7 do soil sampling. Now, that's not quite unique, but 8 that puts them in the mainstream. They're going to 9 increase their inspections significantly if they have 10 corrosive soil, far more than other plants have 11 proposed. And through their Corrective Action process, 12 and as we've seen during our inspections, follow-up 13 inspections, we've seen them implementing cathodic 14 protection at the plant based upon what they're seeing 15 as their operating experience. So, we see them 16 positively responding to our operating experience.

17 MS. DEAN: And I understand your answer, 18 but what I had -- what I was trying to get at with my 19 question was actually the performance of the pipes, 20 you know, over time. And we do have two units here, 21 both IP2 and IP3, and is it fair to say we've 22 experienced buried piping problems at both of those 23 plants? And by problems I'll qualify, degraded coating 24 and/or through-wall leaks?

25 MR. HOLSTON: There's been a through-wall NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3923 1 leak in in-scope piping. The through-walls leaks in 2 the aux steam piping that are not in-scope that 3 occurred in 2002 and 2007 were caused by a coating 4 system different than what's on all the other 5 coatings, so I don't consider it applicable. And 6 you're correct, they've seen minor coating damage. I 7 would -- that's -- yes.

8 MS. DEAN: Okay, thank you.

9 MR. SIPOS: Your Honors, John Sipos for the 10 State of New York.

11 First question is to Ms. Green. During the 12 four years that you were the Safety Project Manager 13 for the Indian Point License Renewal application, what 14 version of GALL did you apply to the license renewal 15 application?

16 MS. GREEN: For the entire time we applied 17 GALL Revision 1.

18 MR. SIPOS: Thank you. And, Mr. Holston, 19 since you've come on board to I believe the Indian 20 Point project in January 2011, or thereabouts, what 21 version of GALL have you applied to the Indian Point 22 license renewal application?

23 MR. HOLSTON: We used GALL Rev. 2, although 24 as we document in that Footnote 3 that we covered 25 during the testimony, we considered the significant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3924 1 attributes of GALL Rev. 2, AMP XI.41 in developing our 2 RAI questions.

3 MR. SIPOS: And, Mr. Biagiotti, a question 4 for you. On Monday, you testified about repairs under 5 the Corrective Action program or CAP. And you 6 mentioned, I believe, I think I heard you say that it 7 would incorporate an ASME standard in various 8 engineering or technical reviews. My question is this, 9 among the other reviews or criterias you mentioned was 10 a reference to seismic loads. Do you recall that 11 testimony yesterday?

12 MR. BIAGIOTTI: To be clear, I did not 13 address repairs. I talked about how to do a remaining 14 life or a Fitness for Purpose analysis.

15 MR. SIPOS: Oh, okay.

16 MR. BIAGIOTTI: And yes, we do take into 17 account seismic loads when we get to the point that 18 we're doing a finite element analysis. And that was 19 part of the progression I discussed.

20 MR. SIPOS: Yes, thank you. And when were 21 those seismic loads established? What decade?

22 MR. FAGG: Can I just lodge an objection as 23 beyond, far beyond the scope of the admitted 24 Contention, and beyond the scope of anything that we 25 have --

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3925 1 JUDGE McDADE: The objection is noted.

2 Answer the question, if you can.

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Again, I was talking about 4 the progression of how it would happen. We have never 5 actually performed this because it's not been 6 required.

7 MR. SIPOS: Have you had occasion to do it 8 at any other facility, any other --

9 MR. BIAGIOTTI: My firm does do those type 10 of calculations, yes.

11 MR. SIPOS: And when you're performing the 12 ASME review, and the finite element analysis where do 13 you go to get the seismic load?

14 MR. AZEVEDO: I was -- excuse me. I was the 15 one that referred to ASME Section 11.

16 MR. SIPOS: Excuse me, Your Honor. I 17 appreciate that, Mr. Azevedo, and I will have 18 questions, but I believe Mr. Biagiotti is the one who 19 first mentioned the seismic loads yesterday. I'm just 20 trying to find out -- okay. Mr. Biagiotti, where would 21 you go to obtain those seismic loads that you were 22 going to apply in the finite element analysis?

23 MR. BIAGIOTTI: I am not a practitioner of 24 that. Again, I mentioned my company does that, and 25 that is part of the progression.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3926 1 MR. SIPOS: Okay. Mr. Holston, coming back 2 to you. Discussing the release of radiologic fluid 3 from buried pipes, would you agree that the release of 4 radiological fluid from buried pipes could contribute 5 to a violation of federal or state drinking water 6 standards?

7 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I would object for 8 the same -- Sherwin Turk. It's out of scope, and the 9 Board has ruled that the question of radioactive leaks 10 and health impacts is beyond the scope of the 11 contention. That's part of your ruling on scope, Your 12 Honor.

13 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Your objection is 14 noted. Can you answer the question?

15 MR. HOLSTON: Okay. Could you repeat it now 16 since --

17 MR. SIPOS: Yes, sir. I'll give it another 18 shot. Mr. Holston, would you agree that the release of 19 radiological fluids from a buried pipe could 20 contribute to a violation of federal or state drinking 21 water standards?

22 MR. HOLSTON: I'm going to have to tell you 23 I don't have the level of expertise to respond to that 24 type of question. There are other Staff members within 25 the Commission that would answer that question.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3927 1 MR. SIPOS: And have you in your experience 2 with Constellation or at the Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission, Mr. Holston, have any experience 4 concerning the decommissioning of a nuclear power 5 plant complex?

6 MR. TURK: Objection on scope, Your Honor.

7 JUDGE McDADE: I'm not really sure I can 8 understand how that can lead to something we need to 9 decide. Can you explain the purpose for the question?

10 MR. SIPOS: Yes, Your Honor. I'm trying to 11 determine -- there's been discussion about functions 12 and how these pipes operate. I believe in various NRC 13 documents there's been a discussion with respect to 14 leaking pipes about the consequences, the consequences 15 in the present time frame, but also in a later time 16 frame concerning decommissioning. I believe NRC 17 documents have spoken to this, and it's a very -- I'm 18 not going to loiter here on this area. I would just -

19 - I just had a single question about it. I'm trying to 20 determine, and I'd like to ask Mr. Holston if the 21 release of radiological fluids from buried underground 22 pipes could complicate decommissioning or make it more 23 expensive?

24 MR. FAGG: And would join in the Staff's--

25 JUDGE McDADE: I'm going to sustain the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3928 1 objection.

2 MR. SIPOS: And, Mr. Holston, could a leak, 3 or could the release of radiological fluids from a 4 buried pipe impact plant workers?

5 MR. TURK: Objection on scope, Your Honor.

6 JUDGE McDADE: Sustained.

7 MR. SIPOS: And, Your Honor, I just -- just 8 for rules of the road here, I don't know, I just would 9 like to know that we take exception with that, and 10 I'll move on.

11 JUDGE McDADE: And, again, I mean our focus 12 here in the scope of this contention has to do with 13 the adequacy of the Aging Management Plan, and whether 14 or not it performs its intended function. And we have 15 heard testimony as to whether that intended function 16 is to prevent leaks, or is to prevent having to do 17 with the pressure barrier. Let's leave it there. As 18 far as conclusions to be drawn from that, you can 19 certainly argue it in your post trial briefs, but I 20 think questioning these witnesses about that is 21 outside the scope of what they've testified to, and 22 the admitted contention.

23 MR. SIPOS: Mr. Holston, yesterday you 24 mentioned that there were a few issues that NRC Staff 25 did not pursue with respect to a response to an RAI.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3929 1 Do you recall that reference yesterday?

2 MR. HOLSTON: That doesn't sound familiar.

3 If you can you give me more context, I'd certainly try 4 to answer your question.

5 MR. SIPOS: Without going back to my notes, 6 I believe it was yesterday morning you were just 7 discussing the RAI process. You said there were some 8 matters that you hadn't -- that the Staff hadn't 9 followed up on. I was just trying to determine what 10 those were.

11 MR. TURK: And let me note that that's not 12 consistent with my recollection of the testimony.

13 There is no statement like that.

14 JUDGE McDADE: Well, it doesn't matter what 15 your recollection is at the moment, it matters what 16 the witness' recollection is. And you asked a 17 question, he said he doesn't recall it. If you can 18 specifically focus his attention so he does recall it, 19 then you can follow up, and if not, we move on.

20 MR. SIPOS: And, Your Honor, I tried, and 21 then Mr. Turk objected. And then I think Mr. Holston 22 was actually ready to provide an answer to my second 23 question.

24 MR. HOLSTON: If your question and my 25 statement was in context of the GAP Analysis the Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3930 1 did when GALL Rev. 2 was issued, that's possibly what 2 it was, when we issued GALL Rev. 2 we did a GAP 3 analysis for all the current applicants, and then we 4 pursued Requests for Information on the critical 5 aspects of the Interim Staff -- I'm sorry, in the GALL 6 Rev. 2. So, in relation to that, I can give you a 7 couple of examples. We didn't pursue any questions for 8 cathodic protection for Indian Point given that at the 9 time they only had cathodic protection on their city 10 water line, a very small portion of their entire in-11 scope piping.

12 There are details on fire pump jockey 13 monitoring in the GALL Rev. 2. The Applicant did not 14 select that option to use fire pump jockey monitoring, 15 so we didn't ask him any details on that.

16 MR. SIPOS: Thank you. Next set of 17 questions goes to Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee, I believe you 18 testified that you maintain almost a living or I think 19 the term today was holistic documents that captures 20 experience regarding pipes at Indian Point. And you've 21 also testified about some previous, specifically I 22 believe a 2007 auxiliary steam line leak, and the 2009 23 Indian Point 2 condensate storage tank leak.

24 There was also -- my notes reflect that 25 you also referenced a circulating water system issue, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3931 1 and my first question is, can you describe that a 2 little bit more? I didn't quite follow your testimony.

3 Was that another leak?

4 MR. LEE: During -- yes, during the spring 5 2012 refueling outage there was a Unit 2 outage where 6 they did some PM cleaning of these circulating water 7 discharge lines to the main condensers. These are 84-8 inch lines. The workers go in and they basically clean 9 the internal surfaces of the piping which is bitumasic 10 coated. And in that process of performing the 11 cleaning, they identified in three of those lines, 12 because there's 21-26, in three of the lines they 13 identified through-wall leaks. And each one was 14 identified in a CR, so they were entered into my 15 program. It was obvious that the corrosion mechanism 16 or the failure mechanism was internal erosion of the 17 bitumastic coating leading to erosion of the metal.

18 So, there was an ID failure basically. But I annotate 19 my program document, my SEP basically to note that for 20 the record, and for trending, I guess.

21 MR. SIPOS: And just for the record when 22 you use the term PM, I thought I heard a phrase in 23 your answer, but I just want to make sure. Could you 24 say that for the record, what that PM refers to?

25 MR. LEE: Preventive Maintenance.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3932 1 MR. SIPOS: Okay. And you mentioned that 2 there were 84-inch in diameter?

3 MR. LEE: 84-inch diameter discharge pipes.

4 MR. SIPOS: So, in addition the aux steam 5 line, the CST line from 2009, what you've just 6 referred to from the spring 2012 outage, are you aware 7 of any other leaks that have occurred at Indian Point 8 1, 2, or 3 from buried pipes?

9 MR. LEE: There was also an opportunistic 10 inspection of a city water line the spring, in the 11 spring -- no, it was actually late summer, or 12 midsummer this year, and there was a leak identified 13 on a 1-inch city water line that serves a non-code 14 portion of that system. So, city water is within a 15 scope of license renewal, but this service, particular 16 service, this 1-inch line was serving basically a 17 makeup to a tank, so it was not a code function, a 18 safety-related function in any way.

19 MR. SIPOS: And did you say it was not a 20 code, C-O-D-E function?

21 MR. LEE: C-O-D-E, yes.

22 MR. SIPOS: Okay, thank you. Any other 23 leaks other than those, I believe we have four now on 24 the list?

25 MR. LEE: Okay. There was a CR also written NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3933 1 about the same approximate time frame as that -- I 2 think I said it was August of this year. I'm looking 3 at notes and it's actually June of this year, but it 4 was a sanitary sewer line that had leaked. It was 5 actually -- the failure mechanism was actually a 6 linear -- an axial crack. I think the piping appeared 7 to be copper, so -- but that's, again, that's a non-8 safety, a non-code line.

9 MR. SIPOS: Any other than those five?

10 MR. LEE: No.

11 MR. SIPOS: Thank you. Your Honor, Ms. Dean 12 has a brief question before I go on to another 13 witness.

14 JUDGE McDADE: Ms. Dean.

15 MS. DEAN: Thank you. Mr. Holston, I -- one 16 of your answers to one of Mr. Sipos' questions 17 surprised me, and I've just been running it through my 18 mind. I just want to understand. He -- Mr. Sipos asked 19 if you were applying GALL Rev. 1 or Rev. 2. Based on 20 your Footnote 3, I expected you to say Rev. 1, and you 21 said Rev. 2. Could you -- and earlier today you also 22 testified both that Entergy's Aging Management Program 23 was not consistent with GALL Rev. 2 because standing 24 alone it did not apply cathodic protection, but then 25 when you take it into the context of the ISG you felt NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3934 1 it did comport because they had instituted additional 2 inspections. But you then went on later in the day to 3 state that they were not consistent with the ISG 4 because, for example, they had not -- and by "they" I 5 mean Entergy, Entergy had not submitted a 6 justification for their lack of cathodic protection as 7 the ISG requires. Could you resolve those what I 8 perceive to be discrepancies?

9 MR. HOLSTON: Certainly. I'm going to try 10 to do them each, and if I forget just give me the one 11 I missed.

12 MS. DEAN: Thank you.

13 MR. HOLSTON: So, first off, Entergy 14 applied to GALL Rev. 1. That's what they are evaluated 15 to, that's AMP XI.M34. However, given that GALL Rev.

16 2 came out while there were still open applicants on 17 the board, including other plants besides Entergy, we 18 looked at -- the tasking to the Staff was to take 19 okay, anywhere there's industry operating experience 20 that we use to base the changes in the AMP on, the 21 AMPs on, and that's all the AMPs across GALL Rev. 2, 22 we want you to do a GAP analysis and address the 23 critical aspects. So, based on the fact that we saw 24 differences in the level of operating experience 25 across the industry from 2005 to 2009 in relation to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3935 1 buried pipe, that met the criteria for following up 2 and asking RAI questions that did not bring them to 3 conformance or consistency with GALL Rev 2. It was to 4 address those key aspects based on the operating 5 experience, so the questions related to the operating 6 experience we saw. We saw backfill issues, we asked 7 questions on backfill. We saw coating issues, we asked 8 questions on coating.

9 Second question, given that Entergy 10 applied the GALL Rev. 1 they had no obligation to 11 write to us and state we're taking exception to 12 cathodic protection because cathodic protection was 13 not a recommendation within GALL Rev. 1 AMP 34 they 14 applied with. So, we as the Staff wrote the question 15 saying but -- accomplishing the same objective. What's 16 your justification for not having cathodic protection 17 and will your pipe meet its intended function without 18 that. And do you need me to go back to New York State 19 exhibit number or anything where we asked that?

20 MS. DEAN: No, I'm following everything 21 you're saying. Thank you.

22 MR. HOLSTON: Okay. And did I miss a part 23 of the question?

24 MS. DEAN: No. The question, you said 2005 25 to 2009. Why was it that relevant time period you were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3936 1 looking at?

2 MR. HOLSTON: The GALL Rev. 1 was issued in 3 2005.

4 MS. DEAN: And then Rev. 2 came out.

5 Gotcha. Okay.

6 MR. HOLSTON: And Rev. 2 actually came out 7 in December 2010, so I should have said 2010 not 8 2009. I apologize.

9 MS. DEAN: Okay. Am I cutting you off, or 10 I just have one quick follow-up and then I'm all set.

11 So, at this point would Staff's position be that 12 Entergy's Aging Management Program for buried and 13 underground pipes is sufficient because it meets GALL 14 Rev. 1?

15 MR. HOLSTON: Did you say sufficient or 16 deficient?

17 MS. DEAN: Sorry, sufficient.

18 MR. HOLSTON: Sufficient. We said that if 19 you go to the Safety Evaluation Report, and that's an 20 important issue so I can briefly get to that. We said 21 that their program was sufficient -- this is the 22 Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report for four 23 reasons. First, the Applicant's risk-informing their 24 piping locations, so they're looking at piping, of all 25 those 94 inspections, they're going to look at those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3937 1 that are most likely to corrode or most likely to have 2 a consequence, that they're sampling for soil for 3 corrosivity, and if they have corrosive soil they will 4 increase their inspections by 24. The steel pipe is 5 coated. And, of course, the fourth bullet relates back 6 to the predominant number of the inspections that 7 didn't show any issues in backfill, but the fact that 8 they're going to do 94 plus 24 inspections, those are 9 the four bases for the finding that the program was 10 reasonable to insure the intended function of all 11 buried piping systems. I apologize for that complexity 12 but it wasn't a straight --

13 MS. DEAN: One or the other.

14 MR. HOLSTON: It's M34, it's not M41.

15 MS. DEAN: Okay.

16 MR. HOLSTON: They're in effect a GALL Rev.

17 1.5 plant kind of --

18 MS. DEAN: I see. Okay. I think --

19 MR. TURK: May we note just for the record, 20 Your Honor, that's New York State Exhibit 160. And if 21 Mr. Holston can point to where in that report he's 22 referring?

23 MR. HOLSTON: I'm reading from page 3.4 at 24 the top, the four topmost bullet, 3-4.

25 MS. DEAN: Okay, I think that answers my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3938 1 question. I had been looking this as though it had to 2 be one or the other, and I think your explanation that 3 you're looking at a hybrid, if I could characterize it 4 that way, between 1 and 2 helps me. Thank you.

5 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, that's correct.

6 JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Sipos.

7 MR. SIPOS: Your Honor, I have some 8 questions for Mr. Azevedo, and I'm going to stand just 9 since I can't see him when I'm sitting down, if that's 10 all right.

11 Mr. Azevedo, I think on a previous 12 occasion you and I have met in connection with the 13 Independent Safety Review Board that Dr. Todreas and 14 Maureen Helmer chaired back in 2007 and `8. Do you 15 recall that report?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: I recall the report. I don't 17 recall meeting you.

18 MR. SIPOS: I won't be -- my feelings are 19 not hurt. And that panel recommended that Indian Point 20 actually conduct inspections of the buried pipes at 21 Indian Point. Correct?

22 MR. AZEVEDO: That's correct.

23 MR. SIPOS: And a quick question about the 24 Corrective Action Program. On average, approximately 25 how many open issues are in the Corrective Action NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3939 1 Program for the Indian Point facilities at any time?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: I have no idea.

3 MR. SIPOS: And did the Independent Safety 4 Report call attention to the number of open issues in 5 the Corrective Action Program?

6 MR. AZEVEDO: It may have, but I was not 7 involved with that portion of the ISG.

8 MR. SIPOS: And you were also a member of 9 the Root Cause Analysis Team for the Indian Point Unit 10 2 Condensate Return Line Leak. Correct?

11 MR. AZEVEDO: I was involved. I was not a 12 member of the team, but I was interviewed.

13 MR. SIPOS: Okay. Could we -- Mr. Welkie, 14 could we call up New York Exhibit 179, and 15 specifically page 2, PDF 2. So, this is a listing of 16 the team members, and just so I understand it, rather 17 than -- I believe P&C Engineering, your name appears 18 there along with Mr. Lee. And that's because you were 19 interviewed, not because you were on the Root Cause 20 Analysis Team?

21 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. I was talking, if you 22 look at the cover sheet, I believe I was just -- I was 23 not one of the individuals that signed the cover 24 sheet, but I was involved.

25 MR. SIPOS: Okay. Right.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3940 1 MR. AZEVEDO: I was interviewed, I was part 2 of that, yes.

3 MR. SIPOS: Okay. And following the 4 discovery on February 15th, 2012 of the leak of the 5 IP2 condensate storage line, Entergy declared the CST 6 pipe inoperable. Correct?

7 MR. AZEVEDO: I believe that what we did 8 was we declared -- did you say the CST pipe? We 9 declared the CST tank inoperable, not the pipe. That's 10 my recollection, but I'm just going off recollection.

11 MR. SIPOS: Just let me double check. And, 12 Mr. Welkie, if we could go to page 26 of 39, and 13 specifically the second paragraph. Could you blow that 14 up? And, Mr. Azevedo, could you read the first 15 sentence there in that second paragraph?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: "Based on the cause of the 17 corrosion, the review of the IPEC buried piping 18 program has been determined that all buried coating 19 carbon steel piping could be susceptible to the same 20 corrosion mechanism since the same materials and 21 construction practices used to install the CST return 22 pipe have been used in other systems."

23 MR. SIPOS: Thank you. Your Honor, I don't 24 have any further questions.

25 JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thank you. Ms. Sutton, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3941 1 Mr. Fagg?

2 MR. FAGG: This is Mr. Fagg. I will start 3 off, and my colleagues weigh in if they need to when 4 I'm done. Let's pick up, if we could, just with the 5 last set of questions Mr. Sipos asked Mr. Lee there, 6 and then we'll go back to some of the stuff we talked 7 about earlier in our proceedings.

8 Mr. Lee, you recall Mr. Sipos asked you 9 about some additional events beyond the two that we 10 spent a lot of time talking about over the last two 11 days. Do you recall that?

12 MR. LEE: Yes.

13 MR. FAGG: Okay. Those additional events 14 that Mr. Sipos asked you about, given that we have a 15 stipulation that external corrosion is beyond the 16 scope here, given that if a pipe has no possibility of 17 carrying radioactive fluids in it, it's not of 18 interest to the contention. And given that if a pipe 19 has no safety-significance, it's beyond the scope. Do 20 any of those additional matters that you talked about 21 with Mr. Sipos relate to the matters that are before 22 us today?

23 MR. LEE: I mentioned two leaks, one in the 24 city water line, and a sewerage -- sanitary sewer 25 line. Those are apparently -- clarification on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3942 1 question. Are you asking whether or not these were 2 failures of scoping within license renewal systems?

3 MR. FAGG: Yes.

4 MR. LEE: They are not.

5 MR. FAGG: Thank you. Okay, let's go back 6 and I'm going to go roughly in sort of the chronology 7 of how we addressed some matters that I wanted to 8 follow-up very briefly on. And the first question, I 9 guess, will be to Mr. Azevedo.

10 There's been a lot of discussion of the 11 50.59 process, and the screening process, and I'm not 12 going to revisit all of that. But I want to just make 13 sure the record is clear for a couple of aspects of 14 the screening process. You're familiar with the 15 screening process for 50.59?

16 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, I am.

17 MR. FAGG: Is that screening process 18 documented?

19 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, it is.

20 MR. FAGG: Okay. Are those documents 21 maintained by the company?

22 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, they are.

23 MR. FAGG: Okay. So, if the company were to 24 make a determination on this initial screening, would 25 the documentation of that determination be maintained NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3943 1 at the site and available for review?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, it would.

3 MR. FAGG: Okay. And if the NRC were to 4 come in at some future point and decide that they 5 disagreed with that screening mechanism, would there 6 be a way for the NRC to assess the determination that 7 was made by the company and review it, and/or take 8 action if warranted?

9 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.

10 MR. FAGG: Okay. Does the NRC audit the 11 50.59 process?

12 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, the NRC audits the 50.59 13 process on an annual basis.

14 MR. FAGG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Azevedo.

15 Let me turn, if I could, to Mr. Cox. Again, we've 16 talked at great detail about the FSAR, about the 17 various programs, and the interrelationships and 18 cross-references. And, again, I'm not going to go back 19 to all of that, but I wanted to step back and ask sort 20 of a more fundamental question, Mr. Cox.

21 The scheme that exists with respect to 22 license conditions, the license renewal application, 23 the Aging Management Program, the FSAR, all of that 24 that we've talked about in some detail, from the 25 operation of the plant perspective, are there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3944 1 advantages to that scheme, or is it just we do it 2 because that's the way we've always done it?

3 MR. COX: I think there are advantages.

4 I've been in the business of operating nuclear power 5 plants for over 35 years now. This is a system that's 6 been proven throughout that time, and evolved to the 7 point where it is today. It gives us a good --

8 treating these commitments as part of the FSAR gives 9 us a good balance between having something that's 10 enforceable and then also having the flexibility to 11 make changes where it's necessary. My experience has 12 been that the vast majority of changes that are made 13 to programs such as the buried pipe program or changes 14 that are made to reflect evolving knowledge of the 15 industry to improve the way we do things to make us 16 have a better program. So, I think the flexibility 17 that's offered by keeping the high-level requirements 18 for the program in a SAR and allowing the details of 19 how you're going to do that to be controlled in 20 documents that are more readily changed given the 21 change under appropriate controls for evaluating 22 safety impacts and effectiveness of the change, that 23 that's an effective system to insure that we have an 24 effective program and gives us the flexibility to 25 continue to make improvements in that program.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3945 1 MR. FAGG: Thank you, Mr. Cox. If I could 2 turn now to Dr. Duquette.

3 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, sir.

4 MR. FAGG: And thank you. I just wanted to 5 clarify what I thought I heard you testify to 6 yesterday, I guess. And, in particular, there were a 7 couple of questions involving New York State 151. And 8 if I could prevail upon or request that maybe we pull 9 that up. It was an RAI response. And if we go to page 10 9 of that document. And there were -- it was 6A, B, 11 and C. Do you recall there was a dialogue with the 12 Board with respect to this response, Dr. Duquette?

13 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, I do.

14 MR. FAGG: Okay. I just wanted to make sure 15 that the record is clear. It refers to in 6B to a 16 minimum of two locations at least 3-feet below the 17 surface. Do you see that phrase?

18 DR. DUQUETTE: I do.

19 MR. FAGG: Okay. Now, I just want to make 20 sure we're clear. You understand, do you not, that the 21 excavations are not the top 3-feet of the surface, 22 it's at least 3-feet, 3-feet or deeper. Are we on the 23 same page on that?

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Of course.

25 MR. FAGG: Okay. And then it says to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3946 1 near the pipe. I'm sorry. I've lost my place here, 2 but, yes, near the in-scoping piping. And we're on the 3 same page; that is near the piping in-scope. Correct?

4 DR. DUQUETTE: That's what the document 5 says, yes.

6 MR. FAGG: Okay. Let me -- thank you, Dr.

7 Duquette. Let me turn, if I could, to Mr. Cavallo.

8 There was a little bit of a dialogue about removing 9 coating from pipes. Do you recall that yesterday?

10 MR. CAVALLO: Yes, I do.

11 MR. FAGG: Could you just briefly elaborate 12 from your perspective and with your expertise upon the 13 process or advisability of removing undegraded coating 14 from pipes?

15 MR. CAVALLO: If a piping coating exhibits 16 no visual anomalies and by lightly tapping indicates 17 no delamination, the only reason that I would consider 18 removing acceptable coating to expose a substrate is 19 if it was required for me to do, for instance, an 20 ultrasonic examination of the pipe wall itself to 21 determine the wall thickness.

22 MR. FAGG: Okay. So, any suggestion that 23 you should be removing coatings other than in the 24 circumstances you've describe, what would your opinion 25 be?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3947 1 MR. CAVALLO: It would be worse than not 2 necessary.

3 MR. FAGG: Okay, thank you, Mr. Cavallo.

4 Can I turn back, and I apologize for skipping around 5 amongst all the witnesses, but like I said, it's the 6 order the issues came up. Let's go back to you, Mr.

7 Azevedo.

8 We've talked about the inspections, and in 9 particular the ones that involved some of the problems 10 in great detail. I'd like to step back, though, and 11 have you comment, if you could, more generally about 12 the nature of the findings, if you could summarize 13 them of the inspections that have been taken to date 14 of in-scope buried piping?

15 MR. AZEVEDO: We have done a significant 16 number of inspections. I don't have the numbers the 17 top of my head, if I had mentioned them before. And we 18 have looked at the --

19 MR. FAGG: Let me ask you to slow down, if 20 I could, for the court reporter's sake, if not mine.

21 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, I'm sorry.

22 MR. FAGG: Thanks.

23 MR. AZEVEDO: We have done a significant 24 number of inspections, by that I mean direct visual 25 inspections by excavating the pipe and looking at the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3948 1 condition of the soil, condition of the coating, and 2 taking UT measures where appropriate. And aside from 3 the 2009 leak, we have found no significant issues on 4 these other locations that we inspected, also 5 considering the leaks that Mr. Lee just went over.

6 But, in general, the soil has been good, the coating 7 has been in generally good condition, and we found no 8 significant issues.

9 MR. FAGG: Have these additional 10 inspections caused you to be more or less worried, if 11 you will, about the state of buried piping at Indian 12 Point?

13 MR. AZEVEDO: The results of these 14 inspections have given me assurance that the buried 15 pipes at Indian Point are in good condition and will 16 perform their intended function.

17 MR. FAGG: Have the inspections turned up 18 pervasive examples of, for example, large rocks in the 19 backfill?

20 MR. AZEVEDO: If that was the case, we 21 would have entered that into the Corrective Action 22 Program. We would take whatever appropriate actions to 23 deal with that. That could be digging up additional 24 pipe, that could be replacing the fill, whatever the 25 appropriate action, that's what we would take.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3949 1 MR. FAGG: Okay. And I take it from your 2 answer that -- the first part of my question was have 3 the inspections found those kinds of indications?

4 MR. AZEVEDO: No, they have not.

5 MR. FAGG: And then I think you anticipated 6 and answered the second part of my question, is what 7 would you do if the inspections did turn that up? And 8 is that what you just described?

9 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.

10 MR. FAGG: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Azevedo.

11 Sort of a related question, I guess, with respect to 12 these inspections. When we were discussing these, I 13 think it was first thing this morning according to my 14 notes, talking about the documentation of these 15 inspections, we referred to the Corrective Action 16 Program, which you've just described. Just so the 17 record is clear, are there inspection reports that are 18 also generated?

19 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. The inspectors that 20 perform the inspections also write a report.

21 MR. FAGG: Okay. And I think my colleague, 22 Mr. O'Neill, read some of those into the record. Do 23 vendors document inspections that they perform in the 24 course of the work they might do for the site?

25 MR. AZEVEDO: All inspections are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3950 1 documented in inspection reports.

2 MR. FAGG: Okay. And are those documents 3 maintained by the company?

4 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.

5 MR. FAGG: And the Board's indulgence, bear 6 with me one moment. Still with you, Mr. Azevedo, this 7 morning I have it as about 11:00 if that helps, there 8 were references to the inspections of pipes, buried 9 pipes that might not be in license renewal, but that 10 might have or contain radioactive fluids. Are those 11 sorts of pipes covered by the inspection program 12 that's implemented at the plant?

13 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.

14 MR. FAGG: Okay. And are there any 15 differences in the way that they -- those sorts of 16 inspections are treated; for example, if indicia are 17 found that warrant further follow-up action?

18 MR. AZEVEDO: All pipes at IPEC are covered 19 by the program, and they're all treated the same.

20 MR. FAGG: Okay, thank you. I'd like to 21 turn back, if I could, to Dr. Duquette briefly.

22 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, sir.

23 MR. FAGG: Okay. Dr. Duquette, do you 24 recall -- again, this was before the lunch break today 25 but some questions about the PCA report?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3951 1 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, I think so.

2 MR. FAGG: Okay. Do you recall Mr. Azevedo 3 testifying about the steps that the company had taken 4 with respect to I think it was the four, either three 5 or four recommendations in the PCA report?

6 DR. DUQUETTE: I don't recall specifically 7 what his testimony was, but I remember his testifying 8 about it, yes.

9 MR. FAGG: Okay. Do you -- well, let me put 10 just a finer point on it. Is it your contention that 11 the company did not appropriately incorporate or 12 address, or take the recommendations contained in the 13 PCA report?

14 DR. DUQUETTE: Could you define which PCA 15 report? I think there are at least two.

16 MR. FAGG: Well, which one were you 17 referring to in your original testimony in December of 18 2011? And if you need to look at that, we can pull it 19 up. I'd point you to pages 22 and 23 of your original 20 filed testimony.

21 DR. DUQUETTE: That would have been the 22 first report, the first PCA report. That's the only 23 one I had, of course, at the time. The second one 24 wasn't issued until April 2012.

25 MR. FAGG: Okay, let's put the 2012 one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3952 1 aside for the moment. Do you contend that the 2008 2 report was not appropriately addressed or responded to 3 by the company?

4 DR. DUQUETTE: I would like to see the 5 recommendations of that report before I respond to 6 that.

7 MR. FAGG: Okay. Let's go to New York State 8 178, and I think page 17 of the PDF. Yes.

9 DR. DUQUETTE: Could you roll that up just 10 a little bit, please, so I can read the rest of the 11 recommendations?

12 MR. FAGG: Keep on scrolling. I'm sorry, 13 page 19 of the PDF.

14 DR. DUQUETTE: Oh, I'm sorry.

15 MR. FAGG: There's a set of bullet points 16 under the discussion and recommendations, and if we 17 could scroll on down.

18 DR. DUQUETTE: Certainly, Recommendation 1 19 was certainly performed. There was a section of the 20 pipe that was cathodically protected because of the 21 possibility of stray current corrosion.

22 MR. FAGG: Do we need to go to the next 23 page?

24 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, please. I don't really 25 think that that first bullet under number 7, I haven't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3953 1 seen any documentation that that's being done, provide 2 a progressive evaluation of cathodic protection needs 3 for high-priority piping services on a zone basis. I 4 don't think that that -- as far as I know that's not 5 being done for all of the piping under consideration.

6 MR. FAGG: Okay. And anything else you want 7 to say about your position with respect to these 8 recommendations?

9 DR. DUQUETTE: Well, if there's another set 10 of recommendations I'd like to at least take a look at 11 them.

12 JUDGE McDADE: Dr. Duquette, would you like 13 to read this whole set of recommendations before you 14 starting answering, and the context before you start 15 answering questions about it?

16 DR. DUQUETTE: That might be a very good 17 idea. Thank you, sir.

18 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. If you'd just read it, 19 and then when you need to scroll down just ask Mr.

20 Welkie to scroll down.

21 DR. DUQUETTE: Could you scroll up to the 22 next -- oops, a little too far, I think. No, that's 23 fine. Next page, please. The last recommendation is 24 what's being recommended for the inspection program.

25 It says, "These zones can be determined by excavation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3954 1 and inspection of existing pipe." But it has to do 2 with the implementation of an inspection program, so 3 I think the middle bullet is not -- as far as I know 4 is not being done. There is not a -- at least I 5 haven't seen documentation on a study to determine 6 what it would take to apply cathodic protection to all 7 of the piping that is within the scope of the 8 contention.

9 MR. FAGG: Okay. Anything else before I 10 move on from you, Dr. Duquette?

11 DR. DUQUETTE: I think that's fine for now.

12 MR. FAGG: Thank you very much. Staying 13 with the same document and the same question, let me 14 turn to the Entergy panel. And I don't know whether 15 this is for Mr. Biagiotti or Mr. Azevedo, but can you 16 comment on the company's addressing or not addressing 17 the recommendations of the PCA report?

18 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, to the three 19 recommendations, the one in question I believe is the 20 progressively evaluate cathodic protection needs for 21 high-priority piping system on a zone basis. We have 22 done that. We have installed cathodic protection the 23 Unit 2 CST lines as we discussed earlier today. We are 24 in the process of installing cathodic protection to 25 Unit 3 CST lines, as we discussed earlier today. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3955 1 we have plans to install cathodic protection to Unit 2 2 service water lines in 2013.

3 MR. FAGG: Okay. Is it a valid criticism to 4 say that the company ignores what its retained 5 consultants tell it in this area?

6 MR. AZEVEDO: No.

7 MR. FAGG: Okay. Sticking with you, Mr.

8 Azevedo, Dr. Duquette referred to an April 2012 PCA 9 inspection report. Have you had a chance to take a 10 look at that report?

11 MR. AZEVEDO: I have.

12 MR. FAGG: Can you comment on what the 13 company's reaction to or steps taken in response to 14 that report have been or will be?

15 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, that report has two 16 recommendations and we are implementing those 17 recommendations. Would you like me to go through them?

18 MR. FAGG: If you could just identify them 19 briefly for the record.

20 MR. AZEVEDO: Okay. The first one is 21 perform an annual inspection of the cathodic 22 protection system, and that's being done by the system 23 engineer. Also, the second one says the owner shall 24 monitor and log rectifier outputs, that's also being 25 done by the system engineer.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3956 1 MR. FAGG: Thank you, Mr. Azevedo.

2 MS. DEAN: Mr. Fagg, it's Janice Dean for 3 the State. Could I ask if you don't mind for the 4 exhibit number, if there is one, of the progressive 5 evaluation that Mr. Azevedo just referenced?

6 MR. FAGG: It's not an exhibit. My 7 understanding is it was disclosed in Entergy log 8 number 9405. And we would have no objection to making 9 it an exhibit. It was first mentioned and alluded to 10 by Dr. Duquette.

11 MS. DEAN: Okay, thank you.

12 MR. FAGG: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I identify 13 the right document?

14 MR. O'NEILL: Entergy Document 9405 is 15 actually the April 26th, 2012 PCA report.

16 MS. DEAN: Okay. I can't see --

17 JUDGE McDADE: I'm sorry, excuse me. Mr.

18 O'Neill, what document number was that?

19 MR. O'NEILL: The document that I'm 20 referring to is the April 26, 2012 PCA report.

21 JUDGE McDADE: Right. And what was the 22 number?

23 MR. O'NEILL: Yes. And, again, that's 24 Entergy Log Number 9405, so it was disclosed but it is 25 not an exhibit in this proceeding. I can give you the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3957 1 full title if that would be helpful.

2 JUDGE McDADE: No, that's fine.

3 MS. DEAN: I think the document that the 4 State's witness was unfamiliar with was the 5 progressive evaluation, though, that Mr. Azevedo said 6 Entergy had done. Is there a number on that one?

7 MR. FAGG: I don't have it handy. And I'm 8 not sure I heard that part of the testimony, so we'll 9 have to -- Mr. Azevedo, maybe you can clarify, but I 10 didn't hear --

11 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, let me repeat what the 12 recommendation says. The recommendations says, 13 "Progressively evaluate cathodic protection needs for 14 high-priority piping systems." We have done that and 15 we have installed cathodic protection in some systems, 16 as I discussed.

17 MR. FAGG: And maybe to address Ms. Dean's 18 inquiry here, is there some separate document that was 19 created as a result of this?

20 MR. AZEVEDO: I don't know what -- if we 21 have separate documents. I know that we did guided 22 wave inspections as a result of those inspections 23 results. We determine we needed cathodic protection 24 and we have been installing it.

25 MR. FAGG: And has -- was that process NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3958 1 you've just described a progressive evaluation?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, I would say it is 3 because we focus on the zones that we needed to focus 4 on.

5 MR. FAGG: Thank you, Mr. Azevedo.

6 MS. DEAN: Thank you.

7 MR. FAGG: Next question for Mr. Holston 8 for the Staff, just a quick clarification. On the 9 current guidance that exists today, and I think we 10 established what was the Interim Staff Guidance is no 11 longer in draft form, it's now in final form. But just 12 to be clear, does the current guidance require 13 cathodic protection at a nuclear power plant?

14 MR. HOLSTON: No, it does not.

15 MR. FAGG: Okay. Just a handful more here 16 quickly to Mr. Biagiotti. We've heard some testimony 17 today I believe to, although some yesterday perhaps, 18 as well, to testing for resistivity and moisture, has 19 there been other testing done for other potential 20 contributing factors for corrosion?

21 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, there has. When 22 laboratory soil samples are collected and analyzed, 23 they undergo a broader spectrum of analysis which 24 would include resistivity, moisture, pH, various 25 anions and cations, chloride contents, and so on.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3959 1 There's a suite, and that is available.

2 MR. FAGG: Okay. And is that data being 3 utilized or is it planned to be utilized by the 4 company?

5 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, it is.

6 MR. FAGG: Thank you.

7 Next question is for Ms. Green from the 8 Staff.

9 Can you see me?

10 There was some discussions earlier today 11 about program basis documents. Do you recall that?

12 MS. GREEN: Yes, I do.

13 MR. FAGG: And you described some of your 14 own involvement with those documents.

15 Can we call up Entergy 581?

16 Is that a document that is familiar to 17 you, Ms. Green?

18 MS. GREEN: I know that it's a, an 19 exhibit, and I looked through it briefly to help 20 prepare with, for my testimony with regard to IP1 21 piping.

22 MR. FAGG: Okay. Is this the document 23 that you utilized as part of the program basis 24 document during your role as the PM that you described 25 earlier?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3960 1 MS. GREEN: Not this specific document.

2 This document was developed in June of this year, I 3 understand, but this document is similar to program 4 basis documents that we do review during our audits.

5 I was trying to explain to the judges who 6 asked about whether or not, where can they find the 7 program basis document to which we refer. And the one 8 that we reviewed during the audit is not entered into 9 evidence. But I knew of this one, and I was referring 10 to this one when I said something similar had been 11 developed.

12 MR. FAGG: Okay. And just again, for the 13 record, this is in evidence in this proceeding as 14 Entergy Exhibit --

15 JUDGE McDADE: Five eighty-one.

16 MR. FAGG: Five eighty-one; thank you.

17 Okay. Thank you, Ms. Green.

18 Mr. Biagiotti, the red dots -- I have some 19 questions about the red dots.

20 Exhibit 5-B, which was the photograph of 21 the plant, and we had all the different colored dots 22 on there?

23 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, sir.

24 MR. FAGG: Okay. And then the other 25 representation that we looked at was the figure out of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3961 1 the APEC report, which were the recommended excavation 2 locations. Do you recall that?

3 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes, sir. Figure 4-2.

4 MR. FAGG: And those were also colored 5 red.

6 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Conveniently.

7 MR. FAGG: Yes. Here's my question. I 8 wanted to make sure the record is clear about the 9 relationships of those two.

10 For Figure 5-B of the Entergy testimony --

11 I believe it's 373 -- are those red dots identical to 12 the red dots in the figure showing recommended 13 excavation locations? And if not, can you explain the 14 relationship of those two?

15 MR. BIAGIOTTI: Yes. When I began the 16 discussion on the APEC survey, I kind of purposely 17 started with reviewing some information out of the 18 appendix on the methodology. And I went through and 19 said there was this four bullets in appendix page A-2 20 that we look at, a combination of area potential and 21 earth current information to gauge severity and 22 concerns.

23 Figure 5-B in the testimony was just 24 depicting the earth current perspective of it.

25 Elsewhere in the actual APEC report, the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3962 1 fire protection specialist interprets all the data and 2 had determined that the site on the CST -- sorry --

3 the Unit 2 transformer yard location, which has been 4 referred to as Dig 1 in Figure 4-2 actually was a 5 little more significant in his interpretation.

6 So, fundamentally, the four digs that are 7 listed in Figure 4-2 in the APEC report are an 8 amalgamation of both the current assessments that we 9 did show just to give you some perspective in 10 testimony 5-B, Figure 5-B. But ultimately, it's a 11 combination of both the area potential considerations 12 and the earth current considerations. And that's what 13 ends up being the prioritized results that you find in 14 the end of the APEC report.

15 MR. FAGG: Okay. So, at least to my 16 untrained eye, it looked like one of the recommended 17 excavation locations was not one sort of on top of one 18 of the red dots from figure 5-B. Is that the 19 expectation?

20 MR. BIAGIOTTI: That's very well the case.

21 I mean the point is the recommended sites consider all 22 the things that are important when we look at it. It 23 was potentially -- well, it's not potentially; it's 24 analysis of data -- so, yes, some of the sites were 25 because of earth current considerations, but there was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3963 1 at least one site that was more, significant based on 2 area potential perspective.

3 MR. FAGG: All right. Thank you, Mr.

4 Biagiotti.

5 Last couple of questions on cathodic 6 protection for Mr. Azevedo.

7 First, just a quick one -- is there a 8 cathodic protection engineer today at IPEC?

9 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. That's the system 10 engineer.

11 MR. FAGG: Right, okay. And in just a 12 sentence or two, describe what his or her 13 responsibilities are.

14 MR. AZEVEDO: Well, one of the things is 15 to monitor and trend the results of this system.

16 MR. FAGG: All right. And then the final 17 question, Mr. Azevedo. During the break, would you 18 have a chance to sort of look at, a little bit more, 19 the historic cathodic protection that existed at the 20 plant prior to Entergy being the operator?

21 And did you want to offer any additional 22 clarifications or observations on that?

23 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes. Judge Wardwell was, 24 was asking about the five original locations listed in 25 the FSAR, and I stated that those five locations had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3964 1 been retired. And that was correct.

2 However, I should have stated that for the 3 bearing piles and for the sheet pilings, a system, a 4 new system was installed in 2000. So that's the 5 omission that I made, and I want to correct that.

6 MR. FAGG: Thank you, Mr. Azevedo, and to 7 the Board. We have no further questions.

8 JUDGE McDADE: Does Staff?

9 MR. TURK: Yes, Your Honor. I do have 10 questions -- roughly 20 minutes. Most of them will be 11 really just fact witnesses, with your permission.

12 First of all, with respect to testimony 13 yesterday, I have one question to Dr. Duquette.

14 Your testimony addresses the leakage 15 that's been detected at the site so far, and you 16 indicate, in your opinion, that the leakage reflects 17 a failure of systems. Is that correct?

18 DR. DUQUETTE: Yes, that's correct.

19 MR. TURK: And that's because you define 20 failure to represent a leakage from a pipe.

21 DR. DUQUETTE: That's correct.

22 MR. TURK: If you were to accept the 23 Staff's and Entergy's definition that a failure means 24 the pipe would not meet its intended pressure boundary 25 function, would that you resolve your concern, if you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3965 1 were to accept that definition?

2 DR. DUQUETTE: No. It would not resolve 3 my concern because I, I think I testified two or three 4 times that I think Entergy was lucky. I think that 5 the small hole that resulted in the leak could easily 6 have been a much larger hole, which would have 7 compromised the function of the pipe.

8 And so corrosion, if it's, it's spread 9 broadly enough, will compromise the, the ability of 10 the pipe to perform whatever needs. If it's the fire 11 protection system, for example, you will not get the 12 pressure you need at the end of the hose. If it's, if 13 it's isolate nuclear materials, it will not isolate 14 those.

15 I think that we, we spent a lot of time 16 talking about that leak because of was some data that 17 we had, but I think a larger leak operator could 18 easily have gone undetected, which would have resulted 19 in compromising the ability of the pipe to maintain a 20 pressure boundary.

21 MR. TURK: Thank you.

22 Mr. Holston, having heard Dr. Duquette's 23 answer, would you explain whether you believe the ISG 24 in its final form that we've been discussing aims to 25 prevent a failure of the system?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3966 1 MR. HOLSTON: The ISG's basis is to 2 provide reasonable assurance that intended functions 3 of buried piping and underground piping systems will 4 be met.

5 MR. TURK: Ms. Green, there was some 6 testimony today about the current licensing basis. I 7 just want to clarify for the record, when an applicant 8 puts into their UFSAR certain commitments, as has 9 occurred here, what effect does that have on the 10 current licensing basis when the license is renewed, 11 if it is renewed?

12 MS. GREEN: Once the license is renewed, 13 our regulations require that they submit an update to 14 their USFAR in accordance with 50.71(e). At that 15 time, it would become part of their current licensing 16 basis.

17 MR. TURK: Mr. Azevedo, in some of your 18 testimony today, you talked about procedure changes 19 that that go through the 50.59 process.

20 Are you familiar with how the nuclear 21 industry utilizes the 50.59 process in general?

22 MR. AZEVEDO: I am.

23 MR. TURK: And is the Indian Point use of 24 the process similar to what is done throughout the 25 industry?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3967 1 MR. AZEVEDO: It's similar to what's done 2 throughout the industry.

3 MR. TURK: And looking at procedures --

4 we've been talking about the procedures that relate to 5 buried piping inspection -- are many different AMPs 6 for Indian Point that have procedures associated with 7 them?

8 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes.

9 MR. TURK: Can you give us an estimate of 10 the volume of those procedures, either the number of 11 procedures or the pages that would be involved if all 12 those procedures were to be placed into a UFSAR?

13 MR. AZEVEDO: I couldn't give you a 14 number. I can tell you it's a lot.

15 MR. TURK: Can you give us a range or 16 scale? Are we talking thousands of pages?

17 MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, it's, it would be 18 thousands of pages, yes.

19 MR. TURK: Mr. Holston, earlier today, in 20 response to questions by Judge Wardwell, I believe, 21 you indicated that it's the procedures that control.

22 I think that was the terminology.

23 Did you mean to exclude the UFSAR from 24 your answer?

25 MR. HOLSTON: I did not mean to exclude NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3968 1 the UFSAR from my answer.

2 The procedures are what, on a day-to-day 3 basis, engineering craft planners use to execute the 4 program. However, those procedures, there are 5 portions of those procedures that have a basis within 6 the updated file safety analysis report that become 7 current license basis requirements.

8 MR. TURK: And if you look at 10 CFR 9 50.59, which I believe you have a copy of in front of 10 you -- perhaps I should address this to Ms. Green.

11 Just to make it clear on the record as 12 we're sitting here today, 50.59(b) -- I'm sorry; (c) 13 -- well, I think I've handed you my copy.

14 There is a reference in 50.59 to 15 procedures that are identified in the UFSAR; correct?

16 If you look at on 50.59(a)(5).

17 MS. GREEN: Well, 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1) says, 18 "A licensee may make changes in the facility as 19 described in the final safety analysis report, as 20 updated, make changes in the procedures as described 21 in the final safety analysis report, as updated, and 22 conduct tests or experiments not described in the 23 final safety analysis report, as updated, without 24 obtaining license amendment pursuant to 50.90 only if" 25 -- and then it lists eight criteria.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3969 1 MR. TURK: So, if a procedure is listed in 2 the UFSAR, they can, the licensee would not be able to 3 make a change to that procedure unless they first go 4 through this evaluation process listed in the 5 regulation.

6 MS. GREEN: And answer -- correct -- and 7 answer negatively to all eight.

8 MR. TURK: And if a procedure is not 9 specifically called out in the UFSAR, would that be a 10 procedure that the licensee could change through its 11 own process without using the 50.59 process?

12 MS. GREEN: Correct. But as Entergy has 13 testified, they go through a screening first.

14 MR. TURK: And they would then have to 15 determine whether or not there is a significant 16 question associated with making the change.

17 MS. GREEN: Correct.

18 MR. TURK: And what is the terminology 19 that's used in that regard? Is it whether they find 20 a significant safety issue? Do you recall the 21 terminology?

22 MS. GREEN: I think that's what Mr.

23 Azevedo said.

24 MR. TURK: Is that correct? What is the 25 screening criterion that you use to determine whether NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3970 1 a procedure requires a 50.59 review?

2 MR. AZEVEDO: Yeah, the, the screen asks 3 whether the change has an adverse impact, any adverse 4 impact.

5 And if the answer is yes, then we go to 6 50.59 evaluation, in which the questions now talk 7 about more than minimal increase or decrease in 8 safety.

9 But the initial screening is any adverse 10 impact.

11 MR. TURK: Mr. Holston, some of the 12 questions today related to the draft ISG, and I 13 believe you stated you were the author of the draft 14 ISG.

15 MR. HOLSTON: That is correct.

16 MR. TURK: Were you also the author of the 17 final ISG?

18 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir.

19 MR. TURK: And the final ISG, I believe, 20 we've proffered into evidence as Exhibit 162, NRC 162.

21 MR. HOLSTON: I don't recall the number, 22 but it was moved into evidence. That is correct.

23 MR. TURK: Okay. And in general, what 24 respect to the matters we've heard testimony about 25 these past two days, is the final ISG consistent with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3971 1 the draft ISG?

2 MR. HOLSTON: The final ISG is consistent 3 with the draft ISG. The changes were just, you know, 4 minor details that were based upon public public, went 5 through the public comment process.

6 MR. TURK: As between the final ISG and 7 the GALL revision 2, can you explain that 8 relationship? What, what is the standing of GALL 9 revision 2, AMP -- I'm sorry -- AMP XI M41 now that 10 you've issued the final ISG?

11 MR. HOLSTON: AMP XI M41 is contained in 12 its entirety in the ISG, and it replaces that which is 13 published in the GALL revision 2 document.

14 MR. TURK: There was one point I believe 15 Ms. Dean focused on.

16 In your oral testimony today, you did 17 state, as I recall, that you found the plant, you 18 reviewed the plant against revision 2 and that was a 19 mistake; it was reviewed against revision 1 initially.

20 MR. HOLSTON: Yes. The plant was reviewed 21 against revision 1, specifically AMP XI M34. Do you 22 want me to expound on that a little bit?

23 MR. TURK: Please.

24 MR. HOLSTON: Yeah, and then we looked at 25 the, the critical changes that occurred with GALL NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3972 1 revision 2 and AMP XI M41 and issued *RAIs to have the 2 applicant address how their program would be 3 consistent with those critical aspects, but not in the 4 entirety of AMP XI M41.

5 MR. TURK: And your testimony indicates 6 that you found that *Indian Point Units 2 and 3 7 license mill AMP is consistent with the final ISG.

8 MR. HOLSTON: Could you restate that 9 question, please?

10 MR. TURK: Yes. Does your testimony 11 address whether or not Indian Point is consistent with 12 the final ISG?

13 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, it does.

14 MR. TURK: Judge Wardwell was asking some 15 questions about the extent to which we rely upon 16 additional inspections.

17 Is the program of additional inspections 18 the only basis for your finding of the Indian Point MP 19 to be adequate?

20 MR. HOLSTON: No, sir. It is not.

21 MR. TURK: What else do you find in there 22 that gives you confidence?

23 MR. HOLSTON: What gives me confidence is 24 that pip inspection locations are based on risk 25 ranking so that those areas that are most susceptible NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3973 1 to corrosion or most significant in their impact are 2 looked at over other locations that are not as 3 significant.

4 That the piping systems are coated.

5 That the applicant will conduct soil 6 sampling and augment their inspection program based 7 upon those soil sampling results, in addition to the 8 increased number of instructions. But the increased 9 number of instructions is just a piece of the total of 10 that program.

11 MR. TURK: The fact that the Indian point 12 witnesses have testified about the corrective action 13 program, is that a part of your finding of reasonable 14 assurance?

15 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir; it is. And I 16 refer specifically to the applicant's updated final 17 safety analysis report supplement, which says, "If 18 trending within the corrective action program, 19 identifies susceptible locations, the areas with a 20 history of corrosion problems are evaluated for the 21 need for additional inspection, alternate coding, or 22 replacement."

23 So, again, the program's not just based on 24 expert inspections. It's based upon trending and then 25 taking corrective actions based upon those trending NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3974 1 results in their corrective action program.

2 MR. TURK: And you indicated that you've 3 been evaluating or you have evaluated the AMPs for 4 various other plants. Correct?

5 MR. HOLSTON: Correct.

6 MR. TURK: The varied piping AMPs?

7 How many plants did you say you reviewed 8 or are reviewing?

9 MR. HOLSTON: Somewhere at, I've reviewed 10 a total of somewhere around -- I'm probably not going 11 to give you the same number I gave half an hour ago --

12 but it's around 12 to 15 programs I've evaluated.

13 MR. TURK: and how does the Indian Point 14 AMP stack up against the other ones that you've 15 reviewed?

16 MR. HOLSTON: I, I said earlier today that 17 their program is more robust than several other 18 programs where the plant either didn't have cathodic 19 production or portions of the piping system were not 20 provided with cathodic protection at those plants.

21 MR. TURK: There was testimony today about 22 an EPRI document, which I believe is New York Exhibit 23 167. And in that department, there was a statement 24 that was referred to by Dr. Duquette in his testimony.

25 Could we call that up on the screen, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3975 1 please, New York 167? And let's go back to that same 2 page. I believe it was page 6-1. I'm hoping this is 3 the document -- here we go.

4 Do you see that recommendation which 5 reads, "Where the risk of failure is unacceptable, 6 preventive and mitigative options should be 7 implemented"?

8 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir. I do.

9 MR. TURK: When you read that statement 10 about the risk of failure, how do you understand that?

11 MR. HOLSTON: The risk of failure us 12 unacceptable. It refers to me that the system could 13 not perform its intended function during the period of 14 extended operation.

15 MR. TURK: And in that statement, they 16 used the word 'risk'. Is that the same thing as the 17 potential for failure?

18 MR. HOLSTON: The risk of failure would 19 both be the potential for failure and the consequences 20 of that failure.

21 MR. TURK: And the potential would be 22 something that might be demonstrated by, for instance, 23 repeated findings of corrosivity or degradation in the 24 pipes.

25 MR. HOLSTON: If there were repeated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3976 1 findings of degradation in piping systems, that would 2 be an indicator of the increase that, of a failure of 3 a system to perform its intended function, yes.

4 MR. TURK: And I take it you don't read 5 this the same way as Dr. Duquette, to indicate that if 6 the potential for a leak exists, that's failure.

7 MR. HOLSTON: I do not believe that 8 leakage is equitable to failure.

9 (Whereupon, there was a long pause on the 10 record.)

11 MR. TURK: Either Mr. Holston or Ms.

12 Green, there was a question earlier about the amount 13 of prescriptiveness in the AMP in XI M41. I assume 14 this would apply as well to the ISG since you said 15 that the ISG replaces the AMP 41.

16 Does the fact that there's that much more 17 prescriptive language in this document mean that this 18 is a more significant safety issue to be addressed 19 than the issues that address the other AMPs?

20 MR. HOLSTON: No. That is not the case.

21 There are many other piping systems that are above 22 grade that are equally if not more significant than 23 buried piping systems. I'll give you some examples --

24 the reactor coolant pressure boundary that's managed 25 by other programs.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3977 1 MR. TURK: So, Mr. Holston, how would you 2 explain the fact that you did use so much prescriptive 3 language in this AMP?

4 MR. HOLSTON: Well, again, there's, 5 there's a lot of language in there because we are 6 addressing three preventive measures. That's a bit 7 more than, than most other AMPs have.

8 So, for example, fuel oil chemistries, you 9 know, the preventive measure is ensuring that you 10 don't have water in your fuel oil or your sediment.

11 You can't address cathodic protection, backfill, and 12 coatings that simply.

13 In addition, we were really addressing 14 four subsets of system structures or components. In 15 that, I mean there was buried pipe, underground pipe, 16 buried tanks, underground tanks. You can't address 17 tanks the same way you address pips or piping; you 18 can't address buried components the same way you can 19 address underground components.

20 So, in effect, that just multiplies the 21 volume of material that's in amp.

22 MR. TURK: You indicated that are the 23 author of the ISG.

24 MR. HOLSTON: Yes, sir.

25 MR. TURK: To be clear, were you also the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3978 1 author of XI M41 in the GALL rev. 2?

2 MR. HOLSTON: No. I was the peer. There 3 was another individual on Staff that was the author of 4 AMP XI M41.

5 MR. TURK: To some extent, is it possible 6 that the amount of prescriptiveness in the ISG relates 7 to who the author is and how that author writes?

8 MR. HOLSTON: I would say that's an, 9 that's a good conjecture. I've been known throughout 10 my career to like a lot of detail in documents, and so 11 does that other individual, even though he's not here 12 to defend or refute that statement. But that's just 13 our nature.

14 MR. TURK: Your Honor, thank you very much.

15 I don't think we have anything more.

16 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Anything before --

17 and I take it nobody else has anything, so we're all 18 set.

19 Anything to take up before we break until 20 tomorrow morning at eight o'clock?

21 MS. SUTTON: Nothing further, Your Honor.

22 JUDGE McDADE: New York?

23 MS. DEAN: No, Your Honor.

24 JUDGE McDADE: Riverkeeper?

25 MS. BRANCATO: No, Your Honor.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

3979 1 JUDGE McDADE: Clearwater?

2 MS. RAIMUNDI: No, Your Honor.

3 JUDGE McDADE: Westchester?

4 MR. INZERO: No, Your Honor.

5 JUDGE McDADE: From the Staff?

6 MR. TURK: No, Your Honor.

7 JUDGE McDADE: Okay. For your planning 8 purposes, the witnesses for six and seven need to be 9 here tomorrow. The witnesses for eight need not be 10 here tomorrow, but you should plan to have them here 11 Thursday morning.

12 We are in recess.

13 Thank you.

14 (Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 6:38 15 p.m.)

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proceeding: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 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

ML12355A119

Text

Title:

Navigation menu

Search