ML061670092: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML061670092
| number = ML061670092
| issue date = 06/14/2006
| issue date = 06/14/2006
| title = 2006/06/14-NRC Staff'S Response to the Initial Statements of Position Filed by Other Parties
| title = NRC Staff'S Response to the Initial Statements of Position Filed by Other Parties
| author name = Turk S E
| author name = Turk S
| author affiliation = NRC/OGC
| author affiliation = NRC/OGC
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:June 14, 2006UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter of)
{{#Wiki_filter:June 14, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                   )
)ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,)Docket No. 50-271-OLA   LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR)   OPERATIONS, INC.)ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA
                                                  )
)(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE INITIALSTATEMENTS OF POSITION FILED BY OTHER PARTIES In the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's "Revised Scheduling Order" ("Order") datedApril 13, 2006, the Licensing Board directed the parties, inter alia, (a) to file, on May 17, 2006,"initial written statements of position and written testimony with supporting affidavits," and (b) to file, on June 14, 2006, "written responses and rebuttal testimony with supporting affidavits" in response to the initial statements of position and testimony that have been filed by otherparties. Order at 3. The NRC Staff ("Staff") hereby submits this response in accordance withthe Licensing Board's Order.The Staff has reviewed the initial statements of position and testimony filed by EntergyNuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Applicant")
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE,                   )         Docket No. 50-271-OLA LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR                         )
and the New England Coalition ("NEC"), on May 17, 2006. The Staff has determined that norebuttal is necessary with respect to the initial statements of position and testimony filed by the Applicant on NEC Contentions 3 and 4. Further, NEC did not file any initial testimony on NEC 1 NEC did not file any initial testimony on NEC Contention 4, referring instead to the Declarationfiled by its expert in support of the contention's admission. See "New England Coalition's [NEC's]Statement of Position," dated May 17, 2006, at 6; "Declaration of Dr. Ross B. Landsman Supporting[NEC]'s Alternate Cooling System Contention," dated September 19, 2005. The Staff has previouslyaddressed Dr. Landsman's Declaration in its initial testimony on this contention, and no further responseto that Declaration is required at this time. See "NRC Staff Testimony of David C. Jeng, Steven R.Jones and Richard B. Ennis Concerning NEC Contention 4," dated May 17, 2006, at 10-27.
OPERATIONS, INC.                               )         ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA
2 See "NRC Staff Testimony of Richard B. Ennis, Steven R. Jones, Robert L. Pettis, Jr., GeorgeThomas, and Zeynab Abdullahi Concerning NEC Contention 3," dated May 17, 2006.
                                                  )
3 The transcript of the ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Waterford, held on January 26, 2005,appears at ADAMS Accession No. ML050400613; the transcript of the ACRS full Committee meeting onWaterford, held on February 10, 2005, appears at ADAMS Accession No. ML050490332.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)             )
4 See generally, Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),LBP-82-100, 16 NRC 1550, 1572 (1982). Contention 4, and the Staff has determined that no rebuttal is necessary with respect to theinitial statement of position filed by NEC on NEC Contention 4.
NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL STATEMENTS OF POSITION FILED BY OTHER PARTIES In the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Revised Scheduling Order (Order) dated April 13, 2006, the Licensing Board directed the parties, inter alia, (a) to file, on May 17, 2006, initial written statements of position and written testimony with supporting affidavits, and (b) to file, on June 14, 2006, written responses and rebuttal testimony with supporting affidavits in response to the initial statements of position and testimony that have been filed by other parties. Order at 3. The NRC Staff (Staff) hereby submits this response in accordance with the Licensing Boards Order.
1 The Staff has previously addressed NEC's claims with respect to the need for largetransient testing, presented in NEC Contention 3, 2 and believes that no further testimony by theStaff with respect to those claims is required. With respect to NEC's initial statement of position on NEC Contention 3, the Staff notes that NEC cites extensively from the transcript of meetingsheld by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ("ACRS") Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena on January 26, 2005, and by the ACRS full Committee on February 10, 2005. See NEC's Statement of Position, at 9-12 and 12-14.
The Staff has reviewed the initial statements of position and testimony filed by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Applicant) and the New England Coalition (NEC), on May 17, 2006. The Staff has determined that no rebuttal is necessary with respect to the initial statements of position and testimony filed by the Applicant on NEC Contentions 3 and 4. Further, NEC did not file any initial testimony on NEC
3  NEC asserts that thosediscussions before the ACRS and ACRS Subcommittee "mirror" NEC's concerns and "provide a suggested conceptual framework for continued adjudicatory exploration of the topic before thisBoard."  Id. at 9. NEC's assertion and its reliance on the ACRS transcripts cited in its Initial statement ofPosition should be disregarded. First, the meetings cited by NEC pertained to the Waterford Nuclear Power Station - a large, pressurized water reactor ("PWR")
 
4 - not the Vermont YankeeNuclear Power Station. Whatever thoughts or concerns may have been expressed by any  5 See Letter from Graham B. Wallis, ACRS Chairman, to NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz,  
Contention 4, and the Staff has determined that no rebuttal is necessary with respect to the initial statement of position filed by NEC on NEC Contention 4.1 The Staff has previously addressed NECs claims with respect to the need for large transient testing, presented in NEC Contention 3,2 and believes that no further testimony by the Staff with respect to those claims is required. With respect to NECs initial statement of position on NEC Contention 3, the Staff notes that NEC cites extensively from the transcript of meetings held by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena on January 26, 2005, and by the ACRS full Committee on February 10, 2005. See NECs Statement of Position, at 9-12 and 12-14.3 NEC asserts that those discussions before the ACRS and ACRS Subcommittee mirror NECs concerns and provide a suggested conceptual framework for continued adjudicatory exploration of the topic before this Board. Id. at 9.
NECs assertion and its reliance on the ACRS transcripts cited in its Initial statement of Position should be disregarded. First, the meetings cited by NEC pertained to the Waterford Nuclear Power Station - a large, pressurized water reactor (PWR)4 - not the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Whatever thoughts or concerns may have been expressed by any 1
NEC did not file any initial testimony on NEC Contention 4, referring instead to the Declaration filed by its expert in support of the contentions admission. See New England Coalitions [NECs]
Statement of Position, dated May 17, 2006, at 6; Declaration of Dr. Ross B. Landsman Supporting
[NEC]s Alternate Cooling System Contention, dated September 19, 2005. The Staff has previously addressed Dr. Landsmans Declaration in its initial testimony on this contention, and no further response to that Declaration is required at this time. See NRC Staff Testimony of David C. Jeng, Steven R.
Jones and Richard B. Ennis Concerning NEC Contention 4, dated May 17, 2006, at 10-27.
2 See NRC Staff Testimony of Richard B. Ennis, Steven R. Jones, Robert L. Pettis, Jr., George Thomas, and Zeynab Abdullahi Concerning NEC Contention 3, dated May 17, 2006.
3 The transcript of the ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Waterford, held on January 26, 2005, appears at ADAMS Accession No. ML050400613; the transcript of the ACRS full Committee meeting on Waterford, held on February 10, 2005, appears at ADAMS Accession No. ML050490332.
4 See generally, Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
LBP-82-100, 16 NRC 1550, 1572 (1982).
 
persons at the Waterford meetings were not presented with respect to Vermont Yankee, and it can not be known whether or to what extent those views would apply to the facility and license amendment application at issue in this proceeding. Moreover, regardless of any individuals views that may have been expressed with respect to Waterford, it is beyond dispute that the ACRS issued a letter fully recommending approval of the Vermont Yankee extended power uprate license amendment - and the ACRS specifically found that large transient testing at Vermont Yankee is not warranted.5 Second, the Waterford discussions cited by NEC are not subject to questioning by the Board or parties, and NEC has not proffered as witnesses any of the persons whose names appear in the transcripts of the Waterford ACRS meetings.
Accordingly, it is not possible to properly understand the speakers meaning or the context of any statements which may be of interest to NEC; lacking a proper sponsoring witness, the transcripts do not provide probative, admissible evidence in this proceeding.6 CONCLUSION The Staff has previously set forth its views concerning NEC Contentions 3 and 4 in the Staffs initial statements of position and Staff testimony filed on May 17, 2006. The Staff 5
See Letter from Graham B. Wallis, ACRS Chairman, to NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz,  


==Subject:==
==Subject:==
"Vermont Yankee Extended Power Uprate," dated January 4, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No.ML060090125). The ACRS concluded, in pertinent part, that "the Entergy application for the extendedpower uprate at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) should be approved," and that "Loadrejection and main steam isolation valve closure transient tests are not warranted. The plannedtransient testing program adequately addresses the performance of the modified systems."  Id. at 1. Further, the ACRS stated as follows (Id. at 4): Entergy does not plan to undertake large transient tests, such as a mainsteam isolation valve closure that would result in a reactor trip. Suchtests would not directly address confirmation of the performance ofsystems changed to support EPU. The ACRS concurs with the staffsassessment that the large transient tests are not warranted.
6  See, e.g., Public Service Co. Of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-930 NRC 331, 354 n.28 (1989); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),ALAB-905, 28 NRC 515, 525 (1988).persons at the Waterford meetings were not presented with respect to Vermont Yankee, and itcan not be known whether or to what extent those views would apply to the facility and licenseamendment application at issue in this proceeding. Moreover, regardless of any individual's views that may have been expressed with respect to Waterford, it is beyond dispute that the ACRS issued a letter fully recommending approval of the Vermont Yankee extended power uprate license amendment - and the ACRS specifically found that large transient testing atVermont Yankee is not warranted.
5  Second, the Waterford discussions cited by NEC are notsubject to questioning by the Board or parties, and NEC has not proffered as witnesses any of the persons whose names appear in the transcripts of the Waterford ACRS meetings.
Accordingly, it is not possible to properly understand the speaker's meaning or the context of any statements which may be of interest to NEC; lacking a proper sponsoring witness, the transcripts do not provide probative, admissible evidence in this proceeding.
6CONCLUSIONThe Staff has previously set forth its views concerning NEC Contentions 3 and 4 in theStaff's initial statements of position and Staff testimony filed on May 17, 2006. The Staff  respectfully submits that NEC Contentions 3 and 4 should be resolved in favor of issuance ofthe requested license amendment, for the reasons described in the Staff's initial testimony and statements of position filed on May 17, 2006. Sincerely,/RA/Sherwin E. TurkCounsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Marylandthis 14th day of June, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter of)
)ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE)Docket No. 50-271-OLA  LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR)  OPERATIONS, INC.)ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA
)(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL STATEMENTS OFPOSITION FILED BY OTHER PARTIES", in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class; or as indicated by an asterisk
(*), by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system; and by e-mail asindicated by a double asterisk (**), this 14 th day of June, 2006.Alex S. Karlin, Chair**Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.govDr. Anthony J. Baratta**Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ajb5@nrc.govLester S. Rubenstein**Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 4760 East Country Villa DriveTucson, AZ 85718 E-mail: lesrrr@comcast.netOffice of the Secretary**ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications  Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.govOffice of Commission Appellate    Adjudication*
Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.**Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 (E-mail: jmr3@nrc.gov
)  Marcia Carpentier, Esq.**Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC  20555-0001 (E-mail: MXC7@nrc.gov
)Terence A. Burke**Associate General Counsel Entergy Services, Inc.
1340 Echelon parkway Jackson, MS 39213 E-mail: tburke@entergy.comJay E. Silberg, Esq.**Matias Travieso-Diaz, Esq.**
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 2300 N St., NW Washington, DC  20037-1128 E-mail: jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com, and matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.comRaymond Shadis**Staff Technical Advisor New England Coalition


P.O. Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 E-mail: shadis@prexar.com, shadis@ime.netJohn M. Fulton, Esq.Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Vermont Yankee Extended Power Uprate, dated January 4, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060090125). The ACRS concluded, in pertinent part, that the Entergy application for the extended power uprate at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) should be approved, and that Load rejection and main steam isolation valve closure transient tests are not warranted. The planned transient testing program adequately addresses the performance of the modified systems. Id. at 1.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601/RA/                                                             Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff}}
Further, the ACRS stated as follows (Id. at 4):
Entergy does not plan to undertake large transient tests, such as a main steam isolation valve closure that would result in a reactor trip. Such tests would not directly address confirmation of the performance of systems changed to support EPU. The ACRS concurs with the staffs assessment that the large transient tests are not warranted.
6 See, e.g., Public Service Co. Of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-9 30 NRC 331, 354 n.28 (1989); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-905, 28 NRC 515, 525 (1988).
 
respectfully submits that NEC Contentions 3 and 4 should be resolved in favor of issuance of the requested license amendment, for the reasons described in the Staffs initial testimony and statements of position filed on May 17, 2006.
Sincerely,
                                                        /RA/
Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of June, 2006
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of                                  )
                                                  )
ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE                    )            Docket No. 50-271-OLA LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR                        )
OPERATIONS, INC.                              )            ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA
                                                  )
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)            )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL STATEMENTS OF POSITION FILED BY OTHER PARTIES", in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class; or as indicated by an asterisk
(*), by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system; and by e-mail as indicated by a double asterisk (**), this 14th day of June, 2006.
Alex S. Karlin, Chair**                          Dr. Anthony J. Baratta**
Administrative Judge                              Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel          Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23                                  Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001                        Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov                              E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov Lester S. Rubenstein**                            Office of the Secretary**
Administrative Judge                              ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel          Mail Stop: O-16C1 4760 East Country Villa Drive                    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tucson, AZ 85718                                  Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: lesrrr@comcast.net                        E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate                    Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.**
Adjudication*                                    Law Clerk Mail Stop: O-16C1                                Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001                        U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: jmr3@nrc.gov)
 
Marcia Carpentier, Esq.**                    Terence A. Burke**
Law Clerk                                    Associate General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel      Entergy Services, Inc.
Mail Stop: T-3F23                            1340 Echelon parkway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission          Jackson, MS 39213 Washington, DC 20555-0001                    E-mail: tburke@entergy.com (E-mail: MXC7@nrc.gov)
Jay E. Silberg, Esq.**                      Raymond Shadis**
Matias Travieso-Diaz, Esq.**                Staff Technical Advisor Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP        New England Coalition 2300 N St., NW                              P.O. Box 98 Washington, DC 20037-1128                    Edgecomb, ME 04556 E-mail: jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com, and    E-mail: shadis@prexar.com, shadis@ime.net matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com John M. Fulton, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601
                                                      /RA/
Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff}}

Latest revision as of 03:42, 14 March 2020

NRC Staff'S Response to the Initial Statements of Position Filed by Other Parties
ML061670092
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 06/14/2006
From: Sherwin Turk
NRC/OGC
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
S Turk, NRC/OGC, 301-415-1533
References
50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-OLA, RAS 11785
Download: ML061670092 (6)
v • d • e


Text

June 14, 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR )

OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL STATEMENTS OF POSITION FILED BY OTHER PARTIES In the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards Revised Scheduling Order (Order) dated April 13, 2006, the Licensing Board directed the parties, inter alia, (a) to file, on May 17, 2006, initial written statements of position and written testimony with supporting affidavits, and (b) to file, on June 14, 2006, written responses and rebuttal testimony with supporting affidavits in response to the initial statements of position and testimony that have been filed by other parties. Order at 3. The NRC Staff (Staff) hereby submits this response in accordance with the Licensing Boards Order.

The Staff has reviewed the initial statements of position and testimony filed by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Applicant) and the New England Coalition (NEC), on May 17, 2006. The Staff has determined that no rebuttal is necessary with respect to the initial statements of position and testimony filed by the Applicant on NEC Contentions 3 and 4. Further, NEC did not file any initial testimony on NEC

Contention 4, and the Staff has determined that no rebuttal is necessary with respect to the initial statement of position filed by NEC on NEC Contention 4.1 The Staff has previously addressed NECs claims with respect to the need for large transient testing, presented in NEC Contention 3,2 and believes that no further testimony by the Staff with respect to those claims is required. With respect to NECs initial statement of position on NEC Contention 3, the Staff notes that NEC cites extensively from the transcript of meetings held by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena on January 26, 2005, and by the ACRS full Committee on February 10, 2005. See NECs Statement of Position, at 9-12 and 12-14.3 NEC asserts that those discussions before the ACRS and ACRS Subcommittee mirror NECs concerns and provide a suggested conceptual framework for continued adjudicatory exploration of the topic before this Board. Id. at 9.

NECs assertion and its reliance on the ACRS transcripts cited in its Initial statement of Position should be disregarded. First, the meetings cited by NEC pertained to the Waterford Nuclear Power Station - a large, pressurized water reactor (PWR)4 - not the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Whatever thoughts or concerns may have been expressed by any 1

NEC did not file any initial testimony on NEC Contention 4, referring instead to the Declaration filed by its expert in support of the contentions admission. See New England Coalitions [NECs]

Statement of Position, dated May 17, 2006, at 6; Declaration of Dr. Ross B. Landsman Supporting

[NEC]s Alternate Cooling System Contention, dated September 19, 2005. The Staff has previously addressed Dr. Landsmans Declaration in its initial testimony on this contention, and no further response to that Declaration is required at this time. See NRC Staff Testimony of David C. Jeng, Steven R.

Jones and Richard B. Ennis Concerning NEC Contention 4, dated May 17, 2006, at 10-27.

2 See NRC Staff Testimony of Richard B. Ennis, Steven R. Jones, Robert L. Pettis, Jr., George Thomas, and Zeynab Abdullahi Concerning NEC Contention 3, dated May 17, 2006.

3 The transcript of the ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Waterford, held on January 26, 2005, appears at ADAMS Accession No. ML050400613; the transcript of the ACRS full Committee meeting on Waterford, held on February 10, 2005, appears at ADAMS Accession No. ML050490332.

4 See generally, Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),

LBP-82-100, 16 NRC 1550, 1572 (1982).

persons at the Waterford meetings were not presented with respect to Vermont Yankee, and it can not be known whether or to what extent those views would apply to the facility and license amendment application at issue in this proceeding. Moreover, regardless of any individuals views that may have been expressed with respect to Waterford, it is beyond dispute that the ACRS issued a letter fully recommending approval of the Vermont Yankee extended power uprate license amendment - and the ACRS specifically found that large transient testing at Vermont Yankee is not warranted.5 Second, the Waterford discussions cited by NEC are not subject to questioning by the Board or parties, and NEC has not proffered as witnesses any of the persons whose names appear in the transcripts of the Waterford ACRS meetings.

Accordingly, it is not possible to properly understand the speakers meaning or the context of any statements which may be of interest to NEC; lacking a proper sponsoring witness, the transcripts do not provide probative, admissible evidence in this proceeding.6 CONCLUSION The Staff has previously set forth its views concerning NEC Contentions 3 and 4 in the Staffs initial statements of position and Staff testimony filed on May 17, 2006. The Staff 5

See Letter from Graham B. Wallis, ACRS Chairman, to NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz,

Subject:

Vermont Yankee Extended Power Uprate, dated January 4, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060090125). The ACRS concluded, in pertinent part, that the Entergy application for the extended power uprate at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY) should be approved, and that Load rejection and main steam isolation valve closure transient tests are not warranted. The planned transient testing program adequately addresses the performance of the modified systems. Id. at 1.

Further, the ACRS stated as follows (Id. at 4):

Entergy does not plan to undertake large transient tests, such as a main steam isolation valve closure that would result in a reactor trip. Such tests would not directly address confirmation of the performance of systems changed to support EPU. The ACRS concurs with the staffs assessment that the large transient tests are not warranted.

6 See, e.g., Public Service Co. Of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-9 30 NRC 331, 354 n.28 (1989); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),

ALAB-905, 28 NRC 515, 525 (1988).

respectfully submits that NEC Contentions 3 and 4 should be resolved in favor of issuance of the requested license amendment, for the reasons described in the Staffs initial testimony and statements of position filed on May 17, 2006.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 14th day of June, 2006

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

)

ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE ) Docket No. 50-271-OLA LLC and ENTERGY NUCLEAR )

OPERATIONS, INC. ) ASLBP No. 04-832-02-OLA

)

(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFFS RESPONSE TO THE INITIAL STATEMENTS OF POSITION FILED BY OTHER PARTIES", in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class; or as indicated by an asterisk

(*), by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions internal mail system; and by e-mail as indicated by a double asterisk (**), this 14th day of June, 2006.

Alex S. Karlin, Chair** Dr. Anthony J. Baratta**

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.gov E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov Lester S. Rubenstein** Office of the Secretary**

Administrative Judge ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16C1 4760 East Country Villa Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tucson, AZ 85718 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: lesrrr@comcast.net E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.**

Adjudication* Law Clerk Mail Stop: O-16C1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: jmr3@nrc.gov)

Marcia Carpentier, Esq.** Terence A. Burke**

Law Clerk Associate General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Entergy Services, Inc.

Mail Stop: T-3F23 1340 Echelon parkway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jackson, MS 39213 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: tburke@entergy.com (E-mail: MXC7@nrc.gov)

Jay E. Silberg, Esq.** Raymond Shadis**

Matias Travieso-Diaz, Esq.** Staff Technical Advisor Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP New England Coalition 2300 N St., NW P.O. Box 98 Washington, DC 20037-1128 Edgecomb, ME 04556 E-mail: jay.silberg@pillsburylaw.com, and E-mail: shadis@prexar.com, shadis@ime.net matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com John M. Fulton, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601

/RA/

Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML061670092&oldid=2584363"