ML073540357

2007/09/24-Citizens' Proposed Questions Regarding NRC Staff'S Second Errata to Their Testimony

ML073540357
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	09/24/2007
From:	Webster R Grandmothers, Mothers & More for Energy Safety, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, New Jersey Environmental Federation, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG), Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter
To:	Abramson P, Barrata A, Hawkens E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, RAS 14810
Download: ML073540357 (4)

Text

CONFfBDE44TlA.

FOR ~A~SLB E*ES ONLY4 PAIOR TO9 SEPTEM BER 27, 2007z L%/ DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA December 19, 2007 (9:55am)NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative.

Judges: E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station))))Docket No. 50-219) September 24, 2007))C CITIZENS' PROPOSED QUESTIONS REGARDING NRC STAFF'S SECOND ERRATA TO THEIR TESTIMONY PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.

In accordance with an oral ruling and Order from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the "Board") on September 20, 2007, these proposed questions for the Board to ask the NRC Staff are submitted on behalf of Nuclear Information and Resource.Service, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc., Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Sierra Club, and New Jersey Environmental Federation (collectively "Citizens").

1¢/n)1 T~vn~cz~~

S~Y- o17 PROPOSED QUESTIONS Purposes One purpose of the questioning is to establish why the Staff changed their testimony to say that a safety factor of 2.0 is not a requirement.

In addition, Citizens seek to clarify whether this change indicates that the NRC Staff believe the drywell shell may not meet the ASME code. In addition, Citizens seek to clarify the exact nature of the GE model that was incorporated into the UFSAR and clarify how the NRC Staff assessed the extent of corrosion and what their latest position is.II. Proposed Questions A. Panel 2: Acceptance Criteria 1. Your testimony contained numerous statements that the ASME code required a safety factor of 2.0 during refueling, but you have now changed those statements.

Do you think those initial statements were wrong?2. If yes, why are they wrong and did you regard these misstatements as significant?

If not, why did you correct your testimony?

3. Please clarify exactly what you mean when you say the ASME code has"provisions" for a safety factor of 2.0. (NRC Initial Test. at A5)4. Please clarify what you mean when you say the ASME Code "specified" a safety factor of 2.0. NRC Rebuttal Test. at A12(d), p 2 9 5. If the ASME code "specifies" a factor of 2.0, wouldn't a failure to achieve a factor of 2.0 be a problem?6. If not, does that mean the plant need not meet the ASME code provisions for a safety factor or 2.0, or are you saying the ASME code can be interpreted not to require a safety factor of 2.0?7. Who decided that it was necessary for you to change your testimony?

8. Dr. Hartzman, in your sur-rebuttal testimony at A48 you have clarified that the GE local thinning model used a 3 foot by 3 foot cutout that straddled two bays and that this shape occurs in every alternate Bay. Does that mean that GE actually modeled half of the 3 foot by 3 foot cutout in each Bay?2

9. If not, please draw a diagram showing exactly how the symmetry assumed in the model works to simulate all the Bays?10. If the model uses 4.5 sq. ft. cutout shapes in each Bay, doesn't that mean the local area acceptance criterion should restrict the area in each Bay to less than 4.5 sq. ft.?11. Please explain.12. Referencing Dr. Hausler's latest extrapolations for the data in Bay 13 (Hausler Sur-rebuttal Test. at E. 61, Fig. 4) there is a severely corroded area at the edge of the Bay. What acceptance criterion is applied to this area? If the plot is correct, does Bay 13 meet that acceptance criterion?

13. Please explain.B. Panel 3: Available Margin 14. Mr. Asher, in NRC Staff Rebuttal Test. at A40 (p14), you state that your conclusion regarding the extent of corrosion was not based solely on AmerGen's internal grid measurements.

a. What do you currently believe is the largest contiguous area that is thinner than 0.736 inches in any one Bay?b. How did you derive this estimate?c. In light of the change in Dr. Hartzman's understanding of the GE model, in each Bay shouldn't we only accept an area thinner than 0.736 inches that is smaller than 3 feet by 1.5 feet?d. If not, why not?e. Are you confident that the extent of corrosion is within the local area acceptance criterion?

f. Please estimate the statistical confidence you place in your conclusion.

g. What is your conclusion based upon?15. Do you now believe that the drywell shell could have an effective factor of safety of less than 2.0 during refueling?

3 1CON6FWENTIAL

-tFOR ASLB E S tL PR eftve ftor of bingles t, 2.00 16. What is the likelihood of the effective factor of safety being less than 2.0?Respectfully submitted Richard Webster, Esq RUTGERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC Attorneys for Petitioners Dated: September 24, 2007 4