ML13081A749

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC Staff'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Part 3: Contention NYS-6/7 (NON-EQ Inaccessible Medium and Low Voltage Cables)
ML13081A749
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/22/2013
From: Roth D
NRC/OGC
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 24272, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML13081A749 (33)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR/286-LR

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 2 and 3) )

NRC STAFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART 3: CONTENTION NYS-6/7 (NON-EQ INACCESSIBLE MEDIUM AND LOW VOLTAGE CABLES)

David E. Roth Counsel for NRC Staff March 22, 2013

i Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 II. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2 A. Procedural History of NYS-6/7 .............................................................................................. 2 B. Prehearing Submissions and Orders .................................................................................... 4 III. FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................................................................................... 5 A. General Legal and Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................... 5

1. Scope of this Proceeding ...................................................................................................... 5
2. License Renewal Requirements ............................................................................................ 6 B. Staff Guidance ...................................................................................................................... 6 C. Burden of Proof ..................................................................................................................... 8 IV. NYS CONTENTION 6/7 .......................................................................................................... 8 A. Statement of Issue ................................................................................................................ 8 B. Witnesses ............................................................................................................................. 9
1. New York's Witness ........................................................................................................... 9
2. Entergy's Witnesses ........................................................................................................ 10
3. Staff's Witnesses ............................................................................................................. 11 C. IPEC's Power Cable AMP................................................................................................... 12
1. Description of the Power Cable AMP .............................................................................. 12
2. Implementing Procedure for the AMP .............................................................................. 13
3. Sufficiency of the Cable Reliability Program as an AMP Addressing Moisture................ 14
4. Board Findings................................................................................................................. 23 D. Alleged Omission of AMP for Thermal Effects .................................................................... 23
1. Evidence .......................................................................................................................... 23
2. Board Findings................................................................................................................. 26 E. The Need for A License Condition for the Cable Reliability Program ................................. 26
1. Evidence .......................................................................................................................... 27
2. Board Findings................................................................................................................. 28 F. Summary of Board Findings of Fact on NYS-6/7 ................................................................ 28 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ...................................................................................................... 29

1 March 22, 2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247-LR/ 50-286-LR

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 2 and 3) )

NRC STAFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART 3: CONTENTION NYS-6/7 (NON-EQ INACCESSIBLE MEDIUM AND LOW VOLTAGE CABLES)

)

I. INTRODUCTION 3.1 In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.1209 and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards scheduling Orders,1 the NRC Staff (Staff) hereby submits its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (Proposed Findings or PFF) for Part 3: Contention NYS-6/7 (Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium and Low Voltage Cables).

3.2 The Staffs Proposed Findings are set forth in ten separate filings, as follows:

Part 1: Overview and Regulatory Standards; Part 2: Contention NYS-5 (Buried Piping and Tanks);

Part 3: Contention NYS-6/7(Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium and Low Voltage Cables);

Part 4: Contention NYS-8 (Transformers);

Part 5: Contention NYS-12C (Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis Decontamination and Cleanup Costs);

Part 6: Contention NYS-16B (SAMA Analysis Population Estimates);

Part 7: Contention NYS-17B (Real Estate Values);

Part 8: Contention NYS-37 (No-Action Alternative);

1 See (1) Scheduling Order (July 1, 2010), at 19; (2) Order (Scheduling Post-Hearing Matters and Ruling on Motions to File Additional Exhibits) (Jan. 15, 2013) at 1; and (3) Order (Granting Parties Joint Motion for Alteration of Filing Schedule (Feb. 28, 2013).

2 Part 9: Contention RK-TC-2 (Flow Accelerated Corrosion); and Part 10: Contention CW-EC-3A (Environmental Justice).2 3.3 In Part 3 of the Staffs Proposed Findings, set forth below, the Staff addresses the issues raised in Contention NYS-6/7 (Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium and Low Voltage Cables). For the reasons set forth herein, the Staff submits that Contention NYS-6/7 should be resolved in favor of license renewal for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3.

II. BACKGROUND A. Procedural History of NYS-6/7 3.4 This proceeding concerns the license renewal application (LRA) for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3 or Indian Point), which was submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. (Entergy or Applicant) on April 23, 2007, on behalf of itself, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC.3 3.5 On May 11, 2007, the NRC published a notice of receipt of the Indian Point LRA,4 and on August 1, 2007, the NRC published a notice of acceptance for docketing and notice of opportunity for hearing on the LRA.5 On October 18, 2007, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) was established to rule on petitions for leave to intervene and hearing requests, 2

The Staff utilized a unique number designator for each separate Part of the Proposed Findings, whereby all paragraphs in Part 1 are consecutively numbered 1.__; all paragraphs in Part 2 are consecutively numbered 2.__, etc. Accordingly, all paragraph numbers in this Part commence with the number 3.1 3

See NUREG-1930, Vols. 1-2, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Nov. 2009) (SER) (Ex. NYS000326A), at 1-2.

4 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for an Additional 20-Year Period, 72 Fed. Reg. 26,850 (May 11, 2007).

5 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64 for an Additional 20-Year Period, 72 Fed. Reg.

42,134 (Aug. 1, 2007).

3 and to preside over any proceeding that may be held.6 Petitions for leave to intervene were then timely filed by various petitioners, including the State of New York (New York or NYS).7 3.6 On July 31, 2008, the Board granted, inter alia, New Yorks petition to intervene and admitted many of its contentions concerning the LRA or the Environmental Report (ER) incorporated therein.8 3.7 New York alleged that the LRA lacked a specific plan and sufficient details with respect to its proposed aging management program ("AMP") for non-EQ inaccessible medium-voltage cables and non-EQ inaccessible low-voltage cables.9 3.8 In its initial ruling on standing and contentions, the Licensing Board admitted contentions NYS-6 and NYS-7 filed by the State of New York, which it restated as follows:

NYS-6: The License Renewal Application For IP2 And IP3 Fails To Comply With The Requirements Of 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21(a) And 54.29 Because Applicant Has Not Proposed A Specific Plan For Aging Management Of Non-Environmentally-Qualified Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cables And Wiring For Which Such Aging Management Is Required.10 and NYS-7: The License Renewal Application For IP2 And IP3 Fails To Comply With The Requirements Of 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.21(a) And 54.29 Because Applicant Has Not Proposed A Specific Plan For Aging Management Of Non-Environmentally Qualified 6

Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 72 Fed. Reg. 60,394 (Oct. 24, 2007).

7 See New York State Notice of Intention to Participate and Petition to Intervene (NY Petition)

(Nov. 30, 2007).

8 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3),

LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43 (2008) 9 Id. at 82 & 84.

10 Id. at 82.

4 Inaccessible Low-Voltage Cables And Wiring For Which Such Aging Management Is Required.11 3.9 The Board consolidated NYS-6 with NYS-7 into a single contention -- NYS-6/7.12 B. Prehearing Submissions and Orders 3.10 NYS did not formally seek to amend NYS-6/7 in response to the LRA amendments. The Board did not issue any subsequent orders directed at NYS-6/7.

3.11 On December 15, 2011, New York filed State of New York's Initial Statement of Position along with supporting exhibits and the testimony of Earle C. Bascom, III.13 The State did not dispute that an AMP has been provided by Entergy, but asserted that the AMP was not sufficiently specific and detailed.14 Additionally, in its statement of position and testimony the State asserted for the first time that the LRA omits any plan to manage the effects of other localized adverse environments (e.g. "excessive heat").15 3.12 On March 29, 2012, Entergy filed its statement of position and supporting Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Alan B. Cox, Roger B. Rucker, Thomas S. McCaffrey and Howard G. Sedding with supporting exhibits, wherein it disagreed with the deficiencies alleged by NYS.16 On March 30, the NRC Staff filed its Statement of Position and the Testimony of 11 Id. at 84.

12 Id.

13 State of New Yorks Initial Statement of Position, Contentions NYS-6 and 7 (Dec. 15, 2011).(Ex. NYS000135) ("NYS Statement of Position on NYS-6/7"); Prefiled Written Testimony of Earle C. Bascom III Regarding Contentions NYS-6 and 7 at 5 (NYS Testimony on NYS-6/7) (Ex. NYS000136).

14 NYS-6/7 Statement of Position (Ex. NYS000135) at 1-2.

15 NYS Statement of Position on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NYS000135) at 25-28; NYS Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NYS000136) at 6 ("In addition, Entergy has not provided any plan to manage the effects of aging on non-EQ inaccessible low and medium voltage power cables that are exposed to other localized adverse environmental conditions, such as excessive heat.").

16 Entergys Statement Of Position Regarding Contentions NYS-6/NYS-7 (Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium- And Low-Voltage Cables) (Ex. ENT000232); Testimony of Applicant Witnesses Alan B. Cox, Roger B. Rucker, Thomas S. McCaffrey, and Howard G. Sedding Concerning Contentions NYS-6/7 (Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium- and Low-Voltage Cables) (Ex. ENT000233) (Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7).

5 NRC Staff witnesses Cliff K. Doutt and Duc Nguyen, with exhibits, providing the staffs view that no deficiencies were present in the cable aging management program.17 3.13 On June 29, 2012, NYS filed a revised statement of position, along with the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Earle C. Bascom III.18 III. FINDINGS OF FACT A. General Legal and Regulatory Requirements19

1. Scope of this Proceeding 3.14 The scope of the license renewal process is limited.20 The safety reviewand any associated license renewal adjudicatory proceedingfocuses on the detrimental effects of aging posed by long-term reactor operation.21 Applicants must demonstrate reasonable assurance that the effects of aging will be adequately managed so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis ("CLB") for the period of extended operation.22 Entergy originally designated the testimony as non-public, but later re-designated the testimony as public and re-filed ENT000233 on September 21, 2012 as ENTR000233.

17 NRC Staff's Statement of Position Regarding NYS 6/7 (Ex. NRC000076); NRC Staff Testimony Of Cliff Doutt and Duc Nguyen Concerning NYS Contention 6 And 7 (Lack Of A Specific Plan For The Aging Management Of Non-Environmentally-Qualified Inaccessible Medium And Low-Voltage Cables And Wiring) (Ex. NRC000077) ("Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7").

18 State of New York's Revised Statement of Position Regarding Contentions NYS-6 and NYS-7 (Ex. NYS0000410) ("Revised NYS SOP on NYS-6/7)"; Pre-Filed Written Rebuttal Testimony of Earle C.

Bascom III Regarding Contentions NYS-6 and NYS-7 (Ex. NYS0000411) ("NYS Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-6/7").

19 A discussion of the legal and regulatory standards is set forth in greater detail in the "NRC Staffs Proposed Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law Part 1: Overview And Regulatory Standards" which the Staff is filing separately and is hereby incorporating by reference herein.

20 Nextera Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-05, 75 NRC __ (March 8, 2012) (slip op. at 2) (citing N.J. Envtl. Fedn v. NRC, 645 F.3d 220, 224 (3d Cir. 2011)).

21 Id.

22 Id. at 3.

6

2. License Renewal Requirements 3.15 Sections 54.21 and 54.29 of 10 C.F.R. Part 54 set forth the standards governing renewal of a plants operating license.

3.16 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a), Entergy is required to demonstrate that its programs will be effective in managing the effects of aging on inaccessible non-EQ power cables during the period of extended operation so that the intended functions will be maintained consistent with the CLB.

3.17 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 54.29, as pertinent to NYS-6/7, a renewed license may not be issued unless actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to the effects of aging on the inaccessible non-EQ power cables such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the CLB.

B. Staff Guidance 3.18 The Commission has provided detailed regulatory guidance for license renewal applicants regarding the means by which they may demonstrate their compliance with the requirements in 10 C.F.R. Part 54. Principal among the guidance documents are:

(1) NUREG-1800, Rev. 1, Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, (Sept. 2005) (Ex. NYS000195)

(SRP-LR, Rev. 1),23 and (2) NUREG-1801, Rev. 1, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, (Sept. 2005) (Ex. NYS000146A-C) (GALL Report, Rev. 1).24 3.19 The Commission has ruled that a license renewal applicant who commits to implement an AMP that is consistent with the corresponding AMP in the GALL Report has 23 NUREG-1800 was updated during the course of the proceeding. See NUREG-1800, Rev. 2 (Dec. 2010) (Ex. NYS000161) ("SRP-LR, Rev. 2").

24 NUREG-1801 was updated during the course of the proceeding. See NUREG-1801, Rev. 2, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report (Dec. 2010) (GALL Report, Rev. 2) (Ex.

NYS000147A-D).

7 demonstrated reasonable assurance under 10 C.F.R. § 54.29(a) that the aging effects will be adequately managed during the period of extended operation.25 3.20 The GALL Report provides the following ten program elements as touchstones for the Staff's evaluation of the adequacy of aging management programs: (1) Scope of Program, (2) Preventive Actions, (3) Parameters Monitored/Inspected, (4), Detection of Aging Effects, (5) Monitoring and Trending, (6) Acceptance Criteria, (7) Corrective Actions, (8)

Confirmation Process, (9) Administrative Controls, and (10) Operating Experience. NUREG-1801 Vol. 1, Rev. 1 (Ex. NYS000146A) at 2-3; NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 (Ex. NYS00147A) at 6.

3.21 The GALL Report, Rev. 1, includes AMP XI.E3 "Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cables Not Subject To 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements," addressing the ten factors with respect to medium voltage (2 kV to 35 kV) cable. GALL Report, Rev. 1, (Ex.

NYS000146C) at XI E-7 to XI E-9. The "Scope of Program" element of the AMP states, This program applies to inaccessible (e.g., in conduit or direct buried) medium-voltage cables within the scope of license renewal that are exposed to significant moisture simultaneously with significant voltage. Significant moisture is defined as periodic exposures to moisture that last more than a few days (e.g., cable in standing water). Periodic exposures to moisture that last less than a few days (i.e., normal rain and drain) are not significant.

Significant voltage exposure is defined as being subjected to system voltage for more than twenty-five percent of the time. The moisture and voltage exposures described as significant in these definitions, which are based on operating experience and engineering judgment, are not significant for medium-voltage cables that are designed for these conditions (e.g., continuous wetting and continuous energization is not significant for submarine cables).

GALL Report, Rev. 1, (Ex. NYS000146C) at XI E-8.

3.22 In GALL Report, Rev. 2, the NRC expanded the scope of AMP XI.E3 and renamed the AMP as "Inaccessible Power Cables Not Subject to 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental 25 Nextera Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 2), CLI-12-05, __ NRC __, __, (March 8, 2012) (slip op. at 18) (citing Vermont Yankee, CLI-10-17, 72 NRC at 36; Oyster Creek, CLI-08-23, 68 NRC at 467-68.) In Seabrook, the Commission was addressing a Board's ruling on a contention remarkably similar to NYS-6/7. See Seabrook, CLI-12-05, __ NRC at __ (slip op. at 1).

8 Qualification Requirements" reflecting that the AMP now covers both medium and low voltage cables (together "power cables"). See GALL Report, Rev. 2 (EX NYS000147D) at XI E3-1 to XI E3-5. Accordingly, the voltage limits and the 25% voltage exposure criteria have been changed, such that the first element, "Scope of Program," now states:

This AMP applies to all inaccessible or underground (e.g., in conduit, duct bank, or direct buried) power cables (greater than or equal to 400 volts) within the scope of license renewal exposed to adverse environments, primarily significant moisture. Significant moisture is defined as periodic exposures to moisture that last more than a few days (e.g., cable wetting or submergence in water). Submarine or other cables designed for continuous wetting or submergence are not included in this AMP.

GALL Report, Rev. 2, (Ex. NYS000147D) at XI E3-2.26 C. Burden of Proof 3.23 Generally, an applicant has the burden of proof in a licensing proceeding. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.325. The applicant bears the burden of proof on the question of whether the LRA should be issued.27 But the challenger has the burden of going forward with evidence to buttress its contention, and if the challenger introduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, then the burden then shifts the applicant to provide sufficient rebuttal to satisfy the Board that it should reject the contention as a basis for denial of the permit or license.28 IV. NYS CONTENTION 6/7 A. Statement of Issue 3.24 The issue raised in NYS-6/7 is whether Entergy's LRA contains information sufficient to demonstrate that the effects of aging of non-EQ inaccessible medium voltage and 26 As discussed in SSER at 379 (ex. NYS000160), Entergy's supplemented its LRA by, inter alia, including low-voltage cables within the program, which is one of the changes to AMP XI.E3 in GALL Report Rev. 2.

27 See AmerGen Energy Co. LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Generating Station),

CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 269 (2009), affd sub nom. N.J. Envtl. Fedn v. NRC, 645 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2011)

(quoting Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-123, 6 AEC 331, 345 (1973).

28 Id.

9 low voltage cables will be adequately addressed so that the intended functions will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis for the period of extended operation. See Indian Point, LBP-08-13, 68 NRC at 86.

B. Witnesses 3.25 Evidentiary hearings on NYS-6/7 were held on December 12, 2012. A total of seven witnesses appeared on behalf of Entergy, the Staff, and NYS, as set forth below. All of the witnesses were found to be qualified to present testimony on the matters they addressed.

Prefiled direct and rebuttal testimony was submitted by each of the witnesses. All of the witnesses also provided oral testimony in response to questioning by the Board.

1. New York's Witness 3.26 The State presented one witness: Earl Bascom III, P.E. Mr. Bacom is an engineering consultant. Bascom Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NYS000136) at 1. He has years of experience with underground cables transmission and distribution systems. Id. at 2-3. He holds an Associate of Science degree in Engineering Science from Hudson Valley Community College, a Bachelor of Science and Master of Engineering degrees in Electric Power Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and an MBA degree from the State University of New York at Albany. Id. at 2.

3.27 Mr. Bascom was retained by New York State to review Entergy's discussion in its LRA of the aging management of non-environmentally qualified inaccessible low and medium voltage power cables at Indian Point Units 2 and 3 that are exposed to adverse localized environments, and to assess whether Entergy has demonstrated that it will adequately manage the effects of aging on those cables so that the cables will perform their intended function during the license renewal period. Id. at 3.

3.28 The Board finds Mr. Bascom to be qualified as an expert witness on the subject of aging management programs for inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables.

10

2. Entergy's Witnesses 3.29 The Applicant presented a panel of four witnesses in support of its position on NYS 6/7. They were: (1) Mr. Alan B. Cox, (2) Mr. Roger B. Rucker, (3) Mr. Thomas S.

Mccaffrey, and (4) Dr. Howard G. Sedding 3.30 Mr. Allen Cox is a Technical Manager directly involved in preparing the LRA and developing or reviewing AMPs for IP2 and IP3, including the Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cable Program and the Non-EQ Insulated Cables and Connections Program. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 2. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Oklahoma and an MBA from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and has more than 34 years of experience in the nuclear power industry. Id. at 1-2. The Board finds Mr. Cox to be well-qualified as an expert witness on the subject of aging management programs for inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables.

3.31 Mr. Roger Rucker is a self-employed Engineering Consultant with over 22 years of work experience, most of which has been in the nuclear power industry. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 3. He has personal knowledge of the development of the LRA, including the Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cable Program and the Non-EQ Insulated Cables and Connections Program, and has been involved in the ongoing implementation of those same programs at Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC). Id. at 4. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Arkansas and is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Arkansas. Id. at 3. The Licensing Board finds Mr. Rucker to be qualified as an expert witness on the subject of aging management programs for inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables.

3.32 Mr. Thomas S. McCaffrey is the Design Engineering Manager at IPEC, where he is responsible for the design engineering staff that maintains the IP2 and IP3 design bases and performs plant modifications for the station. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233)

11 at 5. He is familiar with the procedure that implements the license renewal AMP for underground non-EQ medium-voltage cables. Id. at 5-6. He holds a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Electrical Engineering from the State University of New York - Maritime College, and is a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of New York. Id. at 5. The Board finds Mr.

McCaffrey to be well-qualified as an expert witness on the subject of aging management programs for inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables.

3.33 Dr. Howard G. Sedding is Department Manager, Electrical Safety & Testing at Kinectrics Inc. (formerly Ontario Hydro Research Division), in Toronto, Canada. ENTR00233 at

6. Dr. Sedding was retained by Entergy to provide his expert services in connection with contention NYS-6/7. Id. at 8. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland; a Master of Science degree in Crystallography from the University of London; and a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics from Brighton Polytechnic (now the University of Brighton) in Brighton, England. Id. at 7. The Licensing Board finds Dr. Sedding to be very well-qualified as an expert witness on the subject of aging management programs for inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables.
3. Staff's Witnesses 3.34 The Staff presented a panel of two witnesses concerning this contention:

(1) Mr. Clifford Doutt and (2) Mr. Duc Nguyen.

3.35 Mr. Clifford Doutt is employed as a Senior Electrical Engineer the Division License Renewal in the NRC=s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR@). Clifford K. Doutt Statement of Professional Qualifications (Ex. NRC000078) at 1. Mr. Doutt holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering Technology, Lake Superior State University. Id. at 1.

Mr. Doutt served as the electrical technical lead for activities related to gathering additional information from Entergy concerning the Indian Point LRA and its treatment of inaccessible low and medium voltage power cables. Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 2. Mr.

12 Doutt wrote the electrical portion of NUREG-1930, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Supplement No. 1, (Aug. 2011) (Ex. NYS000160) ("SSER"). Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 2-3.

The Board finds Mr. Doutt to be qualified as an expert witness on the subject of aging management programs for inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables.

3.36 Staff Witness Duc Nguyen is an electrical engineer in the Division of License Renewal (DLR) in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 1. Mr. Nguyen was an audit team member for the license renewal safety audit at Indian Point. Id. at 3. He also authored portions of NUREG-1930, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, (Nov. 2009)(Ex. NYS00326A- NYS00326F) including section 3.0.3.1.6, Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cable Program and section 3.0.3.1.7, Non-EQ Instrumentation Circuits Test Review Program. Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 3. The Board finds Mr.

Nguyen to be qualified as an expert witness on the subject of aging management programs for inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables.

C. IPEC's Power Cable AMP

1. Description of the Power Cable AMP 3.37 In its LRA, Entergy provided its "Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium Voltage Cable Program" (LRA Sections A.2.1.22, A.3.1.22, and B.1.23 (Ex. ENT00015B)) and its "Non-EQ Insulated Cables and Connectors Program" (LRA Sections A.2.1.24, A.3.1.24 and B.1.25 (Ex.

ENT00015B)). According to Entergy's witnesses, Entergy's programs followed the guidance in NUREG-1801, and the IPEC programs identified in LRA Sections B.1.23 and B.1.25 were the programs described in NUREG-1801, Rev. 1, Sections XI.E3 and XI.E1 with no exceptions.

Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 34.

3.38 Entergy's witnesses further testified as to how Entergy amended the LRA by, inter alia, including low-voltage power cables (400V to 2kV) in the Non-EQ Inaccessible

13 Medium-Voltage Cable Program. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 37; see also letters dated March 28, 2011 (Ex. NYS000151), and July 7, 2011 (Ex. NYS000153). To this end, Entergy's witness testified that the AMP was further enhanced through inclusion of a variety of steps being taken as part of Entergy's CLB, in accordance with Entergy EN-DC-346 "Cable Reliability Program" (Ex. ENT000237). Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex.

ENTR00233) at 35-36. These enhancements include removal of the "significant voltage exposure criterion," including lower-voltage cables, increasing manhole inspections, and using cable test results to feed-back into testing frequency decisions. Id.

3.39 Entergy's witnesses testified that the program name was not changed after low-voltage cables were added to the scope of the "Medium-Voltage" program. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 14. Entergy's witnesses testified that the AMP, as amended, was consistent with Section XI.E3 of the GALL Report, Rev. 2. Id.

2. Implementing Procedure for the AMP 3.40 Entergy's witnesses stated that the AMP described in LRA Section B.1.23 will be implemented using fleet procedure EN-DC-346 "Cable Reliability Program" (Ex. ENT000237).

Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 37.

3.41 According to Entergy's witnesses, EN-DC-346 was developed from, inter alia, the following key documents: (1) NEI 06-05, Medium Voltage Underground Cable White Paper (Apr.

2006) (Ex. ENT000234); (2) EPRI 1021070, Medium Voltage Cable Aging Management Guide, Rev. 1 (Dec. 2010) (Ex. ENT000238); (3) EPRI 1020805, Plant Support Engineering: Aging Management Program Guidance for Medium-Voltage Cable Systems for Nuclear Power Plants (June 2010) (Ex. NYS000158); and (4) EPRI 1020804, Plant Support Engineering: Aging Management Program Development Guidance for AC and DC Low-Voltage Power Cable Systems for Nuclear Power Plants (June 2010) (Ex. ENT000240). Entergy Testimony on NYS 6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 37.

14 3.42 Entergy's Cable Reliability Program is intended to provide the means to manage underground medium voltage (MV) and low voltage (LV) power cables that are (1) safety related, (2) non-safety related but whose failure could affect safety related equipment, or (3) serving equipment that is within the scope of the maintenance rule. EN-DC-346, Rev. 2, "Cable Reliability Program" (effective June 14, 2011) (Ex. ENT000237) at 3; see also EN-DC-346, Rev.

3, (effective April 30, 2012) (Ex. ENT000583) at 4 (same).29 License renewal commitments related to underground MV and LV power cables are included in the Cable Reliability Program.

Id.

3.43 The Indian Point Cable Reliability Program elements include:

(a) A combination of program activities with the basic goal of ensuring that underground MV and LV power cables are capable of performing their intended function(s).

(b) Confirming that maintenance practices, testing, and trending are sufficient to ensure that cables will perform their intended function(s).

(c) Confirming that manhole maintenance practices and trending water levels are sufficient to keep the cables from submergence as applicable or evaluation should be performed to determine cable insulation and support integrity.

EN-DC-346, Rev. 2, (Ex. ENT000237) at 3; see also EN-DC-346, Rev. 3, (Ex. ENT000583) at 4 (same).

3. Sufficiency of the Cable Reliability Program as an AMP Addressing Moisture 3.44 It is New York's position that EN-DC-346 (Ex. ENT000237) is adequate in that it directs Entergy to gather all the essential details needed in an AMP with respect to the effects of aging caused by exposure of the cables to significant moisture -- the age, length, insulation and shield type of the relevant cables, cable condition monitoring tests, trending of test results, condition monitoring test acceptance criteria, and the required corrective actions. NYS Revised 29 EN-DC-346 was revised during the course of the proceeding. See Tr. at 4073. None of the parties indicated that any of their testimony concerning EN-DC-346 Rev. 2 (Ex. ENT000237) was inapplicable to EN-DC-346 Rev. 3 (Ex. ENT000583).

15 SOP on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NYS000410) at 3. As described below, the evidence and testimony of all parties supports this assertion.

a. Entergy's Position 3.45 Entergy's witness testified that Entergy's Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cable Program described in LRA Section B.1.23 incorporates the ten program attributes from the GALL Report, Rev. 1,Section XI.E3 (Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cables Not Subject To 10 CFR 50.49 Environmental Qualification Requirements) (Ex. NYS00146C) at XI E-8 to XI E-9.

Testimony of Entergy on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 37. Furthermore, regarding the amended program, Entergy's witnesses concluded that Entergys revised program is consistent with the program described in Section XI.E3 of NUREG-1801, Rev. 2. Id. These conclusions were supported by the following:

(1) Scope of Program 3.46 Entergy's witness stated that the scope of the Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cable Program includes below-grade (buried or underground) in-scope medium voltage (2kV-35kV) and low-voltage (400V-2kV) power cables exposed to significant moisture (all below-grade cables are assumed to be exposed to significant moisture). Testimony of Entergy on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR000233) at 18 Table 1 "Overview of Cable Aging Management Programs Relevant to NYS-6/7."

3.47 Entergy provided the list of cables30 within the program. See IPEC Medium-Voltage In-Scope Cable List (Ex. ENT000243) and IPEC Low-Voltage In-Scope Cable List (Ex.

ENT000242).

(2) Preventive Actions 3.48 Entergy's witnesses stated that the Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cable Program includes require periodic actions to minimize cable exposure to significant moisture, 30 NYS witness Mr. Bascom does not dispute the adequacy of the list of cables within the program. Tr. 4055-4056.

16 such as inspecting for water collection in cable manholes and removing water as needed.

Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 64.

3.49 In accordance with EN-DC-346, Rev. 2 (Ex. ENT000237) at 20-21, Entergy performs regular preventive maintenance activities, during which it opens manholes, inspects them for water, and pumps any standing water out of the manholes. Id. at 39. These preventive maintenance activities are performed at frequencies ranging from once a month to once every four months (depending on the specific manhole).Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 64.

3.50 Entergy's procedure on Manhole Preventive Maintenance Frequencies (Mar.

2012) (Ex. ENT000248) lists those IPEC manholes containing cables that are subject to regular preventive maintenance activities. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 39.

3.51 Entergy's witness stated that the program is consistent with NUREG-1801, Rev.

2 at XI E3-3 (Ex. NYS00147D), in that possible actions include, but are not limited to, installation of permanent drainage systems or sumps, installation of water-level monitors/alarms, more frequent cable testing or manhole inspections, checking cable/splices for anomalies, and replacing degraded sections of cable. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 64.

(3) Parameters Monitored/Inspected 3.52 According to Entergy's witnesses, the Cable Reliability Program is comprehensive and contains the required elements of a credible and robust methodology for cable aging management, including periodic manhole monitoring/dewatering and cable testing, or the extended twenty-year renewal period. Testimony of Entergy on NYS-6/7 (Ex.

ENTR00233) at 43-44. For example, inspections of manholes for water collection are performed based on plant-specific experience, and that experience is fed back into the program.

Id. at 36. The program includes an appropriate six-year testing frequency, which is consistent with the NRC's recommendations in NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 at XI E3-2 (Ex. NYS00147D). Id. at 39-40.

17 3.53 Entergy's witnesses explained that, based upon the design and operating characteristics of the cables, this six-year frequency is adequate and is consistent with the Staff's guidance in the GALL report. Id. at 45. The GALL report explains that the six-year period is an adequate period to monitor performance of the cable and take appropriate corrective actions since experience has shown that although a slow process, aging degradation could be significant. NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 at XI E3-2 (Ex. NYS00147D).

(4) Detection of Aging Effects 3.54 Entergy's witness note that Entergy's program in EN-DC-346, Rev. 2 at 14-18 (Ex. ENT000237) specifies the use of certain tests for shielded medium-voltage cables based on industry recommendations and operating experience, but permits use of other industry-recommended methods for condition monitoring and aging assessment of shielded medium-voltage cables subject to long-term wetting. Testimony of Entergy on NYS-6/7 (Ex.

ENTR00233) at 70. These are appropriate tests for medium voltage tests, and such testing is supported by the power industry and in particular the nuclear industry. Id. at 70.

3.55 Regarding lower voltage cables, Entergy's witnesses note that the effect of aging on low-voltage cables is addressed by consideration of the cable and its connected load. Id. 70.

As specified in EN-DC-346 (Ex. ENT000237) at 19-20, inspection, testing, and monitoring practices include visual inspection of cable terminations and periodic insulation resistance/motor current analysis of cables and connected equipment. Id. The use of insulation resistance measurements should be effective to monitor for the effects of aging for low-voltage cables. Id.

(5) Monitoring and Trending 3.56 Entergy's witnesses testified that trending is recognized as the most effective deployment of diagnostic tests. Tr. at 4127. Trending allows detection of deterioration over time. Id. at 4128. Because the cable systems tends to degrade slowly, trends developed from tests performed at a six-year frequency are sufficient. Id. at 4130-4131. The monitoring requirements in EN-DC-346, Cable Reliability Program, Rev. 2 (Ex. ENT000237).are

18 consistent with recommendations in the GALL Report, (NUREG-1801,Section XI.E3), Sandia, and industry guidance documents. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 14.

3.57 The IPEC Cable Reliability Program, EN-DC-346, Rev. 2 (Ex. ENT000237) at 9, defines trending as [a]n analysis of cable information over time for the purpose of predicting cable degradation or failures. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 72. The Cable Reliability Program specifically requires the applicant to confirm that: (1) maintenance practices, testing, and trending are sufficient to ensure that cables will perform their intended function(s); and (2) manhole maintenance practices and trending water levels are sufficient to prevent prolonged submergence of power cables. Id.

3.58 Entergy's experiences with trending data from the tests of inaccessible cables have been good (although there is a limited pool of test results). Tr. at 4137-4138.

3.59 Even under hypothetical, beyond design elevated cable temperature, Entergy will be able to detect and determine when those cables would fail prior to their failure, based upon the trended test data. Tr. at 4138.

(6) Acceptance Criteria 3.60 Entergy's witness testified that the acceptance criteria for tests are necessary, in that they determine when Entergy will undertake further actions to investigate potential degradation. Tr. at 4137.

3.61 Entergy's witnesses explained that the particular specific medium-voltage and low-voltage cable tests and acceptance criteria selected by Entergy are appropriate for their intended purposes. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 45. Furthermore, Entergys procedure, EN-DC-346, Rev. 2 (Ex. ENT000237) at 14, 18, permits the use of industry-recommended methods at the time the tests are performed, and thereby allows for any necessary adjustments to cable testing methods and acceptance criteria as the state-of-the-art evolves. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 45.

19 3.62 The test acceptance criteria for medium-voltage cables are based on, and consistent with, industry guidance. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 71.

The test acceptance criteria for low-voltage cables are also provided. Id.

3.63 Entergy's practice of having acceptance criteria defined by the specific type of test performed and the specific cable tested is consistent with the program described in Section XI.E3 of NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 (Ex. NYS00147D).

(7) Corrective Actions 3.64 Under its program, Entergy will evaluate any degradation detected during testing under the IPEC Corrective Action Program. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 42 & Tr. at 4137. Specifically, Entergy will evaluate and take any necessary corrective actions in accordance with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 and Entergy procedure EN-LI-102, Corrective Action Process, Rev. 17 (Dec. 8, 2011) (Ex. ENT000249). Id. at 42. Such an evaluation would consider the significance of the test or inspection results, the operability of the component, the reportability of the event, the extent of the concern, the potential root causes for not meeting the test or inspection acceptance criteria, the corrective actions required, and actions to minimize the likelihood of recurrence. Id. at 42.

3.65 Consistent with NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 at XI E3-3 (Ex. NYS00147D), possible corrective actions include, but are not limited to, installation of permanent drainage systems or sumps, installation of water-level monitors/alarms, more frequent cable testing or manhole inspections, checking cable/splices for anomalies, and replacing degraded sections of cable.

Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 64.

(8) Confirmation Process 3.66 The confirmation process element for license renewal AMPs consists of follow-up actions to verify that the corrective actions implemented are effective in preventing a recurrence.

NUREG-1801, Rev. 2, (Ex. NYS00147D) at A-1 ("Quality Assurance for Aging Management Programs").

20 3.67 Entergy's LRA states that the confirmation process is part of the corrective action program (CAP) and includes reviews to assure that proposed actions are adequate, tracking and reporting of open corrective actions, and review of corrective action effectiveness.

LRA Appendix B Section B.0.3 (Ex. ENT00015B) at page B-2.

3.68 The IPEC confirmation process is consistent with NUREG-1801. LRA Appendix B Section B.0.3 (Ex. ENT00015B) at page B-2.

(9) Administrative Controls 3.69 Entergy's LRA states that administrative controls are implemented in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. LRA Appendix B Section B.0.3 (Ex.

ENT00015B) at page B-3.

3.70 The Entergy Quality Assurance Program applies to safety-related structures and components, and administrative (document) controls for both safety-related and nonsafety-related structures and components are accomplished per the existing document control program. LRA Appendix B Section B.0.3 at page B-3 (Ex. ENT00015B).

(10) Operating Experience 3.71 Entergy's LRA notes that site procedures require reviews of site and relevant industry operating experience as the site continues operation through the license renewal period. LRA Appendix B Section B.0.3 at page B-3 (Ex. ENT00015B).

3.72 Entergy's witnesses provided evidence as to how Entergy considered industry operating experience when developing and amending its AMP, as shown by its decision to include low-voltage cables. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 14, 36.

3.73 Entergy's witnesses confirmed that the operating experience at IPEC support the planned testing frequency. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 40.

Furthermore, program in the LRA was revised to address recent operating experience. Id. at 60.

21 3.74 Entergy's witnesses testified that, based on operating experience, there have not been failures or faults of medium-voltage or low-voltage power cables due to wetting or submergence or aging effects. Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 13, 40, 66, 41.

3.75 According to Entergy's witnesses, the operating experience element of the program is consistent with NUREG-1801, Rev. 2 at XI E3-2 (Ex. NYS00147D). Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 45.

b. Staff's Position 3.76 Based on its review of IP2 and IP3s LRA, as supplemented, the results of the AMP Audit and the AMR Audit, which included interviews with the Applicants technical Staff, as well as the Applicants responses to the Staffs request for additional information, the Staff determined that the Applicants 10 program elements are consistent with the GALL Report AMP elements. Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 16 (citing NUREG-1930 at 3-33 (ex. NYS00326B) & SSER at 3-9 (ex. NYS000160)).

3.77 The Staff's witnesses, Mr. Doutt and Mr. Nguyen, described how the Staff did not simply take the Applicant at its word, but instead drew its own independent conclusion as to whether the Applicants programs are adequate. Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 27.

3.78 To reach its conclusion, the Staff reviewed the LRA including the AMPs and commitments described therein, and asked formal "requests for additional information" ("RAIs")

when appropriate. Id. Additionally, the Staff conducted a scoping and screening methodology audit at IP2 and IP3, which focused on ensuring that the Applicant had developed and implemented adequate guidance to conduct the scoping and screening of SSCs in accordance with the methodologies described in the LRA and the requirements of the 10 C.F.R. § 50.54. Id.

3.79 The Staff's testimony described the audit and review process, in which it audited and reviewed selected aging management reviews (AMRs) and associated AMPs, and time-

22 limited aging analyses (TLAAs) developed by the Applicant to support its LRA for IP2 and IP3, as documented in the Staff's Audit Report for Plant Aging Management Programs and Reviews

("AMP Audit Report") (ex. ENT000041). Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 14.

3.80 During the on-site AMP audit, the Staff audited Applicant records supporting the Applicants conclusion that the program elements (1) scope of program, (2) preventive actions, (3) parameters monitored or inspected, (4) detection of aging effects, (5) monitoring and trending, and (6) acceptance criteria, are consistent with the corresponding elements in the GALL Report AMP (Ex. ENT00041) at 4-5. Id.. The Staff verified that elements (1) through (6) of the Non-EQ Inaccessible Medium-Voltage Cable Program are consistent with the corresponding elements of AMP XI.E3, in the GALL Report. Id. (citing AMP Audit Report (Ex. ENT000041) at 23. The Staff's witnesses further described how the Staff found elements (7) corrective actions, (8) confirmation process, and (9) administrative controls to be acceptable as documented in the SER Section 3.0.4. Id. at 15. The Staff's review of Element (10) operating experience is documented in section 3.0.3.1.6 of the Staffs SER ((Ex.

NYS000326C) pages 3-31 to 3-32) (confirming the "operating experience" program element satisfied the recommendations in the GALL Report, Rev. 1, and the SRP-LR, Rev. 1); see also Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 14.

c. New York's Position 3.81 NYS's Witness Mr. Bascom testified that he read Entergy's Statement of Position regarding Contention NYS-6 and 7, Entergy is witnesses, and associated exhibits, NYS Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-6/7, and the NRC Staff's Statement of Position, testimony, and associated exhibits at 1-2.

3.82 Mr. Bascom reviewed Entergy's Cable Reliability Program EN-DC-346 (Ex.

ENT000237). Id. at 2. Based upon his review, Mr. Bascom testified that the Cable Reliability Program, if followed, will adequately manage the effects of aging caused by the exposure of

23 "underground" non-EQ low and medium voltage power cables exposed to significant moisture.

Id.

4. Board Findings 3.83 By overwhelming evidence, and recognizing the agreement among all parties, the Board finds that Entergy's AMP to address non-EQ inaccessible power cables is sufficient to assure proper aging management with respect to moisture. The LRA committed to develop such a program, and Entergy has done just that by adopting its Cable Reliability Program EN-DC-346.

D. Alleged Omission of AMP for Thermal Effects 3.84 While accepting the AMP with respect to moisture as discussed above, NYS maintained that Entergy's AMP was deficient for failing to consider heating of cables caused by ohmic heating or heat sources near the cables (including mutual heating caused by nearby cables). This issue is addressed below.

1. Evidence
a. New York's Position 3.85 In his rebuttal testimony, Mr. Bascom asserted Entergy's AMP is deficient because it does not manage the aging effects caused by heat or thermal stress. See NYS Rebuttal Testimony on NYS 6/7 (Ex. NYS000411) at 2. Such heat can lead to insulation breakdown. Id. at 4-5.

3.86 Mr. Bascom testified that certain cables will experience mutual heating, but the extent cannot be determined without additional information and characterization. NYS Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NYS0000411) at 7; see also NYS Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex.

NYS000136) at 32 (suggesting retrofitting temperature sensors along cables).

3.87 While Mr. Bascom testified that there should be some effort to evaluate if thermal aging could be occurring at the plant (Tr. at 4158) he does not believe that it has been an issue at IP2 and IP3, but instead thinks the LRA should show that thermal aging was considered. Id.

24 3.88 Mr. Bascom testified that he is not aware of any example of thermal aging within the nuclear industry. Tr. at 4159.

b. Entergy's Position 3.89 Entergys witnesses stated that a special AMP to address heat is not needed, for the following reasons: (1) there are no heat sources near the cables of interest; (2) potential cable degradation caused by internal (ohmic) heating of below-grade cables, if it occurs, is a design issue, not an aging issue; and (3) regardless of whether insulation damage was caused by heat or moisture, the IPEC Cable Reliability Program (EN-DC-346) would detect the damage.

Entergy Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. ENTR00233) at 78.

3.90 Regarding the first topic (heat sources) Entergy's witness Mr. McCaffrey testified that he reviewed all of the site drawings and did not identify any external heat source for the underground cables, or any "hot spots" affecting the cables. Tr. at 4105.

3.91 As for the second topic (ohmic heating), Mr. McCaffrey testified that he reviewed a number of design calculations, and they all properly followed the appropriate design standards and addressed soil temperature and cable heating. Tr. at 4108. Mr. McCaffrey then testified that the plant's design is the first line of defense against ohmic heating concerns. Id. at 4115.

3.92 Dr. Sedding testified that his company performs forensic analysis of cables similar to Entergy's, and has not seen any failures caused by ohmic heating. Tr. at 4116. He concluded that initial design, and operating within that initial design, prevents ohmic heating concerns. Id. at 4117-4119.

3.93 As for the third topic (detection of degradation) Entergy's witnesses testified that the testing performed as part of the cable reliability program would detect degraded insulation regardless of the cause of the degradation. Tr. at 4115. Even if the cables were being operated above their design basis, Entergy's programs would flag the potential failure. Id. at 4138.

25

c. Staff's Position 3.94 The Staff's witnesses testified that, based on experience and research, the they do not support the thermal concerns expressed by Mr. Boscom. Tr. at 4151. Mr. Nguyen views Mr. Bascom's claims that the non-EQ inaccessible medium voltage and low voltage cables will be exposed to excessive heat as "not credible." Id. at 4151.

3.95 The Staff testified that the NRC's significant research in the area of license renewal reviews and aging concerns has not shown the issues of concern to Mr. Bascom (e.g.

thermal resistivity preventing heat dissipation, above-design ambient temperatures, mutual heating) to problematic at operating plants. Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 25-26. Thus, thermal aging issue isn't an issue of concern for inaccessible non-EQ power cables. Id. at 26.

3.96 The Staff's witness also stated that (1) there are no heat sources near the cables of interest; (2) potential cable degradation caused by internal (ohmic) heating of below-grade cables, if it occurs, is a design issue, not an aging issue; and (3) regardless of whether insulation damage was caused by heat or moisture, the program would detect the degradation.

3.97 On the first topic (heat sources), the Staff's witness testified that external heat sources are not typically located near inaccessible non-EQ power cables. Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 27; see also tr. at 4150.

3.98 As to the second topic (ohmic heating), the Staff testified that the cables were designed for their installed environments, thus ohmic heating has not been a significant aging mechanism. Staff Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NRC000077) at 27.

3.99 Staff witness Mr. Nguyen testified that proper design of the plant prevents cables from exceeding their design limits. Tr. at 4148. Issues such as mutual heating and ohmic heating are addressed through design. Id. at 4150. Additionally, there is conservatism inherent in the design, and the cables do not typically operate for long periods at their design maximums.

Id. at 4150. If a licensee changes the loading for a cable, then it must re-design the cable. Id.

26 3.100 Furthermore, as part of the license renewal review, the NRC Staff does not re-review (i.e. question) the design. Tr. at 4148. Mr. Nguyen noted that should Mr. Bascom determine that a cable's design is inadequate, the NRC provides a process in 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 whereby Mr. Bascom may bring his concern to the Commission. Id. at 4149.

3.101 On the last topic -- the ability of the program to detect aging regardless of the source of aging, Staff witness Mr. Doutt testified that the tests which Entergy proposes would detect thermal aging. Tr. at 4154.

2. Board Findings 3.102 The overwhelming evidence shows that the original design of the cables considered the thermal conditions to which cables are exposed.

3.103 In the end, the Board was only presented with speculation that some design issue might have been overlooked, and that the omission would lead to thermal aging. See e.g.

NYS Rebuttal Testimony on NYS-6/7 (Ex. NYS000411) at 7 (stating the extent of heating cannot be determined without characterization). But no example of any thermal-aging failure of the cables of interest was brought to the Board's attention.

3.104 To the contrary, the evidence presented by the Staff and by Entergy demonstrates that thermal aging is not an aging effect that requires managing for the cables of interest.

3.105 In the alternative, assuming arguendo that an area of "excessive heat" does exist, the evidence supports a conclusion that Entergy's program will detect aging.

3.106 Accordingly, the Board finds no evidence to support a finding that Entergy must include an AMP to address heat-aging of non-EQ medium and low voltage cables.

E. The Need for A License Condition for the Cable Reliability Program 3.107 NYS argued for the first time on rebuttal that adherence to Entergy's Cable Reliability Program must be imposed on Entergy as a condition in its renewed license so that it cannot be changed without prior NRC approval. Revised NYS SOP on NYS-6/7 (Ex.

27 NYS0000410) at 6. NYS asserted that otherwise the program could not provide the requisite reasonable assurance under 10 C.F.R § 54.29. Id.

1. Evidence 3.108 None of the witnesses, including New York's witness Mr. Bascom, directly addressed this argument in their pre-filed testimony and rebuttal.

3.109 Nonetheless, during the hearing, the Board explored the extent to which the Entergy's Cable Reliability Program would become part of the license.

a. New York's Position 3.110 NYS's witness Mr. Bascom expressed concern about the ability of Entergy to modify the implementing procedures "at will." Tr. at 4072-4073. Mr. Bascom did not significantly elaborate his reasoning.
b. Entergy's Position 3.111 Entergy's witness Mr. Cox testified that FSAR supplement lists the essential elements of the AMP.31 Tr. at 4071-4072. But the FSAR supplement doesn't identify specific tests, and instead allows for a menu of tests or a proven test. Id. at 4076. Thus Entergy can select which of those specific tests to perform without requiring prior NRC approvals as long as Entergy follows the 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 process provided in the regulations. Id. Mr. Cox described the change process as an established process, with appropriate technical and regulatory reviews, rigorous, and that it is in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.59. Id. at 4189.

3.112 By contrast, Mr. Cox described the detailed implementing procedure is separate from the AMP description contained in the FSAR supplement. Id. at 4075. Mr. Cox stated that Entergy's procedure change process requires Entergy to screen any changes to the 31 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(d), each LRA must contain " An FSAR supplement. The FSAR supplement for the facility must contain a summary description of the programs and activities for managing the effects of aging and the evaluation of time-limited aging analyses for the period of extended operation determined by paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, respectively."

28 implementing procedures to determine if the potential changes involve any activity described in the FSAR. Id. Entergy's witness Mr. McCaffrey elaborated further, describing steps and documentation involved with making changes to the implementing procedures. Id. at 4083.

c. Staff's Position 3.113 Staff witness Mr. Nguyen testified that Entergy's FSAR supplement lists the commitments associated with Entergy's cable reliability program. Tr. at 4070. In addition, staff witness Mr. Doutt explained that in making changes to the program described in UFSAR, Entergy would have to consider 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 to determine if changes required NRC notification and/or prior NRC approval. Id. at 4180-4182.
2. Board Findings 3.114 The Board finds no evidence to support NYS's concern that the Cable Reliability Program must be incorporated in a license condition. NYS has presented to evidence to support the need for such a condition, and we are aware of no reason to do so.

3.115 In making this finding, the Board notes that Entergy has already implemented revisions of EN-DC-346 (e.g., Rev. 2 and Rev. 3) under its current operating license. See EN-DC-346, Rev. 2 (Ex. ENT000237) & Rev. 3 (Ex. ENT000583). The Board sees no reason why the existing regulations and change processes (e.g., 10 C.F.R. § 50.59) would not suffice during the period of extended operation to control any changes in the AMP, especially considering that Entergy is using (and changing) this program currently as part of its CLB.

F. Summary of Board Findings of Fact on NYS-6/7 3.116 The LRA, as amended, is sufficient in its descriptions of the AMP to address inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables. The LRA, as amended, meets the ten elements of an AMP described in the GALL Report, Rev. 2.

3.117 Procedure EN-DC-346, which implements Entergy's Cable Reliability Program will also used to implement the AMP to address the cables of interest. Even if the LRA was to

29 be viewed as originally deficient for its promise to develop a program, Entergy has moved past the promise stage by developing EN-DC-346.

3.118 There is no evidence that "excessive heat" is a cognizable concern for the cables of interest, because the design of the plant precludes the cables from being located where they are exposed to "excessive heat."

3.119 Entergy should continue to be allowed to make appropriate revisions to its Cable Reliability Program using the change processes in 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3.120 The Board has considered all of the evidence presented on NYS 6/7, the filings of the parties in this proceeding, the exhibits received in evidence and the transcript of the proceeding. Based on a review of the entire record in this proceeding, the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the parties, and the findings of fact set forth above, which are supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record, the Board has decided all matters in controversy concerning this contention in favor of Entergy and reaches the following conclusions.

3.121 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a), Entergy is required to demonstrate that its AMP will be effective in managing the effects of aging on in-scope inaccessible power cables not subject to 10 C.F.R. § 50.49 environmental qualification requirements during the period of extended operation. Entergy is required to demonstrate that the cables will be adequately managed so that the intended functions will be maintained consistent with the CLB during the period of extended operation, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3).

3.122 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 54.29, as pertinent here, a renewed license may not be issued unless actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to the effects of aging on inaccessible non-EQ low and medium voltage cables, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the CLB.

30 3.123 Entergy has demonstrated that the Cable Reliability Program will adequately manage the effects of aging of underground non-EQ low and medium voltage power cables (i.e.

power cables) exposed to significant moisture such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the CLB.

3.124 Entergy is not required to provide an AMP to address the aging effects caused by heat or thermal stress on on-EQ below-grade low and medium voltage power cables, because the hypothesized thermal stresses are precluded by the designs of IP2 and IP3. Thus, the AMP would be addressing factors outside the scope of the CLB and is therefore unnecessary under the Commission's regulations.

3.125 All issues, motions, arguments, or proposed findings presented by the parties, that are not addressed herein have been found to be without merit or unnecessary for the Boards decision on NYS 6/7.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

David E. Roth Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-2749 E-mail: David.Roth@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of March 2013

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) Docket Nos. 50-247/286-LR

)

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.305 (as revised), I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART 3:

CONTENTION NYS-6/7 (NON-EQ INACCESSIBLE MEDIUM AND LOW VOLTAGE CABLES) dated March 22, 2013, have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above- captioned proceeding, this 22nd day of March, 2013.

/Signed (electronically) by/

David E. Roth Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415-2749 E-mail: david.roth@nrc.gov

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML13081A749&oldid=2065987"