ML062850575

2006/10/12-LB Order (Transmitting Redacted Version of Transcript from Proprietary Session)

ML062850575
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	10/12/2006
From:	Karlin A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Byrdsong A T
References
50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-0LA, RAS 12357
Download: ML062850575 (35)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCKETED USNRC October 12, 2006 (12:OQpm))

OFFICE OF SECRETARY Before Administrative Judges: RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Alex S. Karlin, Chairman Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Lester S. Rubenstein SERVED October 12,2006 In the Matter of ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C. and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. Docket No.

50-271 -0LA ASLBP NO. 04-832-02-OLA October 12, 2006 (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ORDER (Transmitting Redacted Version of Transcript from Proprietary Session) On September 14, 2006, the Board held a closed session of the evidentiary hearing for the purpose of questioning witnesses about information in documents claimed to be proprietary by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy).'

On September 27, 2006, we ordered Entergy to submit proposed redactions to the transcript of the proprietary session that would protect the proprietary information, and on October 4, 2006, Entergy did so. The Board adopts Entergy's proposal. A redacted version of ' No party challenged Entergy's claim that the documents were proprietary.

2 the transcript for the closed session is enclosed as an attachment to this order and shall be incorporated into the record. It is so ORDERED. FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD2 Alex S. Karlin ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland October 12,2006 Copies of this order were sent this date by Internet e-mail transmission to representatives for (1) licensees Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee L.L.C., and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; (2) intervenor New England Coalition of Brattleboro, Vermont; and (3) the NRC Staff.

Entergy's Proposed Redactions (Redacted Materials Blacked Out) Official Transcript of Proceedings(PR1VATE ) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSlON Title: Hearing ITMO Entergy Nuclear PROPRIETARY SESSION Docket Number:

50-271 -0LA; ASLBP No.: 04-832- 02-OLA Location:

Newfane, Vermont Date: Thursday, September 14,2006 Work Order No.: N RC-1247 Pages 1 579-1 6 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL +++++ YANKEE L.L.C. and : Docket No. 50-271-OLA NUCLEAR OPERATIONS INC., : ASLBP NO. 04-832-02-OLA (Vermont Yankee Nuclear : Power Station) Thursday, September 14, 2006 The above-entitled hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. at the Windham County Superior Court, 2nd floor Courtroom, 7 Court Street, Newfane, Vermont. BEFORE: ALEX S. KARLIN, Chair ANTHONY J. BARATTA Administ rat ive Judge LESTER S. RUBENSTEIN Administrative Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l7n7\ 37A.AA11 IAlACUlNCTT\hl n 3NUlK17nl

,.nrn.r noC.l,"rncr mm APPEARANCES

On Behalf of the Licensee:

MATIAS E. TRAVIESO-DIAZ, ESQ. SCOTT VANCE, ESQ. of: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 (202) 663-8142 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ. STEVEN C. HAMRICK, ESQ. of: Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 0-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-1533 ALSO PRESENT : MARCIA CARPENTIER, ESQ., ASLBP Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

\nlncultdcTnhl n r 3~n~.?7ni NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. wAcuihcTnhl n r mnn~.?7ni 1 2 3 4 1581 I-N-D-E-X EXAMINAT ION I EXAMINATION BY THE LICENSING BOARD PANEL OF: CRAIG NICHOLS and JOSE CASILLAS

................

1581 , /%TI1 72AAA22 wnuw n~~lrnrncc rnm 1:56 p.m. CHAIR KARLIN: We are now in the confidential proprietary session of the hearing on the uprate for Entergy's application for the uprate. We'd like to call to the stand the Entergy witnesses again, please, Mr. Casillas and Mr. Nichols. ( Pause. ) CHAIR KARLIN: Let me once again remind you that you're under oath and please remember that as we ask you these questions.

Okay. Judge Baratta? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. In reading the constant pressure power uprate document I was a little bit confused about a couple of statements that appeared in there. And really what I was confused about was that the -- it appeared -- and it may be my misreading of it, so bear with me -- that it talked about doing And it also talked about doing Could you maybe describe that a little bit and help clarify my understandinq?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. \AIACUINCT~M n r mnn.~~7nr l.nllll nol~mmc. mm

, And so, every time the plant is refueled a limited set of FSAR cases are dir,ectly calculated using the projected fuel characteristics of the'next fuel cycle. And so, that is done all the time. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

And that's normally what's done regardless af whether it's an uprate or -- WITNESS CASILLA: That is correct. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Yes.

WITNESS CASILLA: And certainly if there is a change of some

-- there is actually quite often changes made to the plant that do not involve any kind of a licensing action. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Right. WITNESS CASILLA

Positions, characteristics, positions of valves, characteristics, and so on. And so, all of that is updated as well as set points. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA

What I'm referring to is page five where it reads, for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW IAIACUI~ICT~~I n r mnnz.?mq I~~I~~I nn~lrnmrc mm WITNESS CASILLA: Correct. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA

See that . , there?, CHAIR KARLIN: What document?

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: I'm sorry, that is the CPPU update. WITNESS CASILLA:

Correct. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: And that is - - sorry, the exhibit number 'escapes.

WITNESS NICHOLS: Entergy Exhibit 30. WITNESS CASILLA: Yes, Entergy Exhibit

30. CHAIR KARLIN: All right, great.

And they're going to be factored into the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

\AIACUINCT~N n r 7mn~.77n$

1585 specific calculation of the cycle when it comes up in the future. And, as you can tell, you know, the EPU process takes quite a long time. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. WITNESS CASILLA: However, other parts that would -- go ahead.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

Well, I wanted to, other parts wouldn't

-- WITNESS CASILLA: Correct. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: -- for example, be included. Could you be specific as to -- WITNESS CASILLA: What is done? WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

Was there anything in connection

-- specifically, was there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 17n7l374A471

\AlACUlhlCTnhl n r 7flnnG.17n.1 ma.., no~lm-E mm anything in connection with an MSIV or a -- WITNESS CASILLA: Yes. The MSIV I overpressure

-- excuse me. I ) CHAIR KARLIN: Pardon me. . (Audience interruption.)

ADMINI STRAT IVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay, and what about the turbine trip? WITNESS CASILLA: The turbine trip and the ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

All riqht. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Now, and they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE..

N.W. IAI~CUI~ICT~I n r 3nnn~.?7nl wn.n.r nol~mm.. mm have been done now? WITNESS CASILLA: Oh yes. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: I gather the specific difference that we would see at Vermont Yankee is the degree of bypass. Well, of course, that doesn't come into play there. WITNESS CASILLA:

Exactly. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: I'm sorry, forget that question.

WITNESS CASILLA: ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. \AlACUlhlCTnhl n r 9llMK77nl unsn., n'nlmrncc

~nm ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Without bypasses.

WITNESS CASILLA: Correct. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Right. Okay. Let me see if I have anything more on that. Just bear with me for a second ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

Can I ask an intervening question? WITNESS CASILLA: Sure, please.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

This is nothing related.

It seems to me you operate on the power of flow curve and you have rod positions. And the thrust of the question is the hydraulic stability issue. Under EPU conditions are you going to operate differently? Do you have a different regime on startup to follow the curve?

Or is it essentially the same? WITNESS CASILLA: Well, the region of low stability margin happens to incrase slightly for EPU. But the practice of starting up and avoiding the regions is the same.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W 17n% 77AAA77 \AlACUlhlCTnhl n r 7Nn6.77n.I mnmu nodmmcc mm 1589 methodology is the same and the rationale? WITNESS CASILLA: Correct.

Yes, the rationale is the same.

And they will avoid it in startups. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN: I was wondering if it really shifted the curve. And not really. WITNESS CASILLA: It shifts it very small amount because the fuel design, in order to have the core operate at the 120, as you would imagine, is a little more reactive.

And so, it will tend to indirectly affect the stability margins.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN: So you do this with a larger burnable poison load? WITNESS CASILLA:

A lot more, right. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

A lot more than this? WITNESS CASILLA: Yes, because -- ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN

Are you using lithium? WITNESS CASILLA: Excuse me? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN

Are you using lithium oxide?

What do you use? WITNESS CASILLA: No just gadolinium.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. IAIACUI~ICT~~I n r 7nnn~?-lnr Ill,nu n~2~mmr~ mm 1590 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN

Oh , gadolinium.

WITNESS CASILLA: Yes. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN: Okay.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Yes, I guess what we just talked about is there, just for the record so we know where it is, on page six of the CPU document, the Exhibit that we already cited.

There's a statement that appears towards the top of that page, about the middle of the second WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

That would be the -- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. IAIACUINCT~M n r ~nnn~.77nr ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. The CPPU approach, referring to page eight, is achieved by just increasing the overall core, thermal power and flow. Is that through the core?

WITNESS CASILLA: Which? Where is it? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

I lost my space, sorry. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

I think the question speaks for itself. WITNESS CASILLA:

What is the question?

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: According to this document, the increase is achieved.

First you don't increase the pressure. WITNESS CASILLA: Correct.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: What you do though is you increase the core power. WITNESS CASILLA: Correct.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

Obviously.

And you also increase the core flow. Is that correct? NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. \A~\ACUI~ICT~~I n r 7nMG.77n.1

\.....I -*lrnnre Mrn 1592 WITNESS ,CASILLA:

Well, increase it in an -- not in an absolute sense, but in an average sense, if you will. If I may draw a picture, I can. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

You can just draw it. You increase the heat generation rate WITNESS CASILLA: This is showing what I can graph here, what we call the operating plant. Power, that's a function of flow. And I can put here the 100 percent and 100 percent value, which is where the plant currently operates.

And I can put here 120, 100 percent where the plant will operate after the uprate. And we have, if you will, a normal what we call minimum flow characteristic and then an increase in flow. And I'll just draw here. The plant will follow this path to reach the 100 percent power, being able to oeprate at low flow and at high flow and having this boundary here of operatin, which we call a rod line. So when they operate now up here, they are limited to this boundary also. This boundary has approximately constant Boyd fraction.

And so the characteristics are very, very similar. Ass you increase flow you increase power. And so the balance is -- so this is -- so you do increase NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. INACUI~ICT~~I n r mnn~.vnq ,.n.fi., nodrnmcc mrn 1593 flow along with power. But you're not allowed to operate in this region.

So you have lost, if you will, some flexibility of operation. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

Is that how your minimum power to flow ratio if you went below the rod line? CHAIR KARLIN: May I ask a clarifying question?

WITNESS CASILLA: Yes. CHAIR KARLIN: You referred to that as the rod line. WITNESS CASILLA:

Correct. CHAIR KARLIN: Okay, how is that spelled?

R-0-D line? WITNESS NICHOLS: Control line. CHAIR KARLIN: Control line, okay. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN: Your control rods are fixed in a BWR. CHAIR KARLIN: I just wanted the Court NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. \AIACUI~ICT~~I n r ?nnn~.?mq ,la.n., no3tmrrrcc mm Reporter to be able to get that down. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN

Oh, okay. Sorry. MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ:

Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this to my own witness. But, could you ask Mr. Casillas to summarize in words if he can what he described to you graphically so it will be on the record? CHAIR KARLIN: Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Could you?

The Court Reporter, that's not going to be in the evidence.

So, could you describe in words something that will appear in a narrative. WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes. What I have made is an illustration of what is called the power to flow operating map for a boiling water reactor. And it illustrates how when the reactor increases power on a constant rod line it maintains its characteristics constant. That is, it does not increase in Boyd while it increases in power. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

What I was referring to was the statement, by the way, that appears along page nine that briefly describes the CPU approach. Again, that's that same reference where it says the CPPU approach to power uprate by increasing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W l%l?\ 77A.AA17 \AlACUlhlCTnhl n P 7nnnK.77nl

~an~na~ n~~lmrncc mm 1595 core power density to core thermal power increase.

I want to get the details of that in light I of what you said about the core flow yesterday.

I 8. think you may have answered that. . ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

And not . , necessarily germane to the EPU, but I'll ask it anyway. You alluded to the fact that you're trying to negotiate a way from your creepings up the power flow curve to crossing the BWR stability columns. Are you saying you now, for my identification, you now know what the problem is a little better and how to avoid it? WITNESS CASILLA: The problem? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

Yes. WITNESS CASILLA: What problem? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

The EPR stability.

WITNESS CASILLA: Well -- ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

You know, that's why you're creeping up the power flow curve. Do you want to answer it? WITNESS CASILLA: No, the -- certainly the loss of core flow range is an important flexibility that boiling water reactors need to operate efficiently.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. \AldCUlhlCTnhl n r 7MnK27nI And so, we're in the process of restoring that range. But restoring that range involves a lot I of technical challenges. ,

• ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

And you had -- . .,, WITNESS CASILLA: And one of them is stability. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN

-- little piece of insight that -- we can move on. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Going to page 12, there was a statement that I was curious as to what is meant by that. Just prior to section 1.6 conclusions there's a statement that appears at the very end of that paragraph.

And I don't know what this refers to. It says this is a difference in approach from previous power uprate submittals.

Could you explain what that's referrinq to? ( Pause. ) WITNESS CASILLA:

This part of the NRC's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. \AlACUlhlCTnhl r 3nM6.77nI 1.nan.8 no4mrncc mm ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. I just didn't quite understand what this was referring to.

WITNESS CASILLA: Right.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: I think you already answered that one. And that one too. I think that's probably all I had on Entergy Exhibit 30P. Do you have any? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

Just an understanding EPU. Is your MAPLHGR the same? WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes. CHAIR KARLIN: What? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

Mass of average heat in linear heat generation range. It's a term of -- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W IAI~CUINCT~~I n r mnn~.?7nq 1598 CHAIR KqRLIN: Well, what's the acronym? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

M-A-P-L-H-G-R. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

Okay, that's the same. But your average linear heat generation over the axial portion of a fuel rod is increased a little bit. WITNESS CASILLA: Yes, the MAPLHGR value, sorry, the limit is derived from a loss of coolant limits remained the same. So the peak value that the NE-1 node in the core is allowed to operate. It remains unchanged while the average increases. And so, EPU requires a lot more control on peaking designing the core with flatter peaking.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

So your heat flux over the full length of a rod is increased a little bit? WITNESS CASILLA:

If it's a peak rod. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:

Not the peak. WITNESS CASILLA: Yes, on the average it is. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. \AIACUI~,ICT~~,I n r ?~n~.mnr I.A.A.~ n~~lmrrrc

~m ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN: Yes.

I'm just trying to get a feel for how you achieved the power density increase. I didn't read the sales brochure. WITNESS CASILLA:

Okay. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RUBENSTEIN: Thank you. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay.

If we could turn to, I believe it's exhibit 32P, qualification of one dimensional core transient model ODYN for boiling water reactor, supplement one, volume four. WITNESS NICHOLS: Volume four? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

four. WITNESS NICHOLS:

Exhibit 32? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: yes. CHAIR KARLIN: Thirty-two P? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

you said yesterday in this volume Yes, volume Yes. I think there was a comparison of ODYN calculations to MSIV closure. WITNESS CASILLA:

No. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Sorry. WITNESS CASILLA: No, this was to flow, MSIV closure being a pressure transient.

It was the basis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE . N W \AIACUI~ICTT)~I n r ?nnn~.?7nq I.AL~ n~~~mrn~~

mrn 1600 for approval for, pressure transient, given by the qualification to the three Peach Bottom tests. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Right. WITNESS CASILLA:

This volume extends the, was provided in support of qualifying ODYN to non pressurization transients such as flow related transients and others level inventory.

And so this provides that qualification. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: All right, I see. Okay. WITNESS CASILLA:

There is an internal GE report which we provided that includes a comparison to an MSIV closure. And that's the one that we

-- ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay, is that an exhibit? WITNESS CASILLA: Yes, that's an exhibit. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. I must have misunderstood you as to what exhibit it was. WITNESS CASILLA: It's Exhibit

34. WITNESS NICHOLS: Thirty-four P. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Thirty-four?

WITNESS CASILLA: Yes. Is that the entitled qualification of the ODYN

-- I assume MO means mod five. WITNESS CASILLA: Actually, the M and the V NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W INACUINCTA~I n r ~nnn~.?mq LM.~.~ n~drnrncc

,-arm that proceed 05 are internal nomenclatures that indicate M is for motor recirculation, variable motor I speed recirculation in BWRs. #, And V is for valve flow control recirculation plants. So this is for ODYN version ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

Okay. CHAIR KARLIN: Try to speak up if you could, please. WITNESS CASILLA: Okay.

CHAIR KARLIN: I just wanted to confirm that it was the same document I was looking at. Could you briefly point me to the comparisons and maybe just very briefly summarize them that would be pertinent to the discussion? WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes., I will take your attention to table 1-1 in page 1-2. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay, table 1-1. That's a summary of the qualification cases. WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes. So this is a series of cases by which we are qualifying internally this new model. And the very first on is a Hatch MSIV closure case.

And in there we say the key parameters, the objectives for this, using this test, is the dome NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. i?n7\ 77A4A71 WACUI~KTO~I n r ?nnn~.77n'l llnln.l n~l~mrncc rnm pressure and the water level.

And so, the comparison to that -- I ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: And that's because of an MSIV closure, those are the two critical . WITNESS CASILLA: Correct, , yes. The power doesn't go anywhere.

So you will see that in pages 2- 2 and 2-3. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

Okay, on page 2-2, this is a plot of the dome pressure versus time. And the test data is the solid line, is that correct? WITNESS CASILLA: The test data is the solid line, correct. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay.

And then there's two ODYN results. WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes,, one is '05 and the other one is '06. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. So I assume in the -- is it -- could you describe the difference between those two?

WITNESS CASILLA: Models? ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: As far as the importance of this transient. WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes, this version was being derrived to improve the water level predictions.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W IAlOCUlhlCTnhl n r 71lM&.?7ll?

ana an st nnolrnm~c mm 1603 And the key to the water level prediction had to do with the annulus modeling.

So we wanted to add more nodes there and be able to capture the level more discrete set of nodes. And, as an improvement of that, also it has improved the back end of the pressure rise as we briefly discussed earlier.

And so, in fact, you can see that the pressure of the new code, of the '05 code is an improvement over the '06. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

The other way around, isn't it? It looks like it's over '05. WITNESS CASILLA:

Right. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

I know the numbers look the sae. WITNESS CASILLA:

I know. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. In figure 2-2, could you describe what -- WITNESS CASILLA:

Yes, figure 2-2 is the water level comparison. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

Now, what -- well, is this in the core region?

Is it collapsed?

Is it a mixture? WITNESS CASILLA:

No, this is the two phase, what we believe is the two phase mixture.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W nn7\ 37~ nn?? IMACUINCT~N n r mnn~ 771-11 ...... , ",dm- Mm ADMINIST,RATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay, two phase mixture level. WITNESS CASILLA:

Two phase mixture in the annulus, right. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Oh, in the annulus, okay . WITNESS CASILLA: Correct, measured, the measured level.

And so, we have the measured in the predited. And that's the comparison. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Did you attempt to make any -- did you make any attempts to model the level instrumentation? Because there is a disparity between even the later version of the code and the earlier version, between the later version of the code and the test data that is not insignificant.

So this is the instrument as we believe it existed in the plant. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. So you did try to model the instrumentation then? WITNESS CASILLA:

Correct, it's all in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. \AlACYlhlCTnhl n I- 7MIX.77n.l

$.n.~., no$lmrmc mm there. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. WITNESS CASILLA: The level has always presented challenges. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: I understand.

I won,'t go any further with that. Okay.

So, based on1 that, your conclusion for

-- what you were doing was a developmental assessment, I guess is what we'll call it. WITNESS CASILLA:

Correct, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: For this particular as opposed to -- WITNESS CASILLA:

Version. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: -- licensing arena type of assessment, is that correct?

WITNESS CASILLA: Yes, and of course, in the case of the MSIV design event, the pressure is the more pertient parameter for application.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Because, even though the tracking level was not as good as one would like, you're still, I assume, at these levels well above the top of active

-- WITNESS CASILLA: Oh yes, significantly, right. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: And, Mr. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N W ~~CUI~ICT~~I n r ~nnn~.~ni ,an.nn, no~~mrn.c rnm Nichols, do you know, are these the same Hatch transients that were discussed in the LERs, or maybe - I - eithe'r one of you. I'm not sure. , 3 WITNESS NICHOLS: I don't believe so. . WITNESS CASILLA: No, this MSIV closure is the cycle one Hatch test.

It was not an unplanned event. It was a -- WITNESS NICHOLS: This was not an EPU event. It was from 1983. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA: Okay. All right. I think that's it. CHAIR KARLIN: ~11 right, that's it then. Okay. Thank you. You all may step down. (Pause. ) CHAIR KARLIN: All right, we are completing this session, the proprietary session. It's less than an hour. So I think that worked pretty well. And we appreciate the witnesses' patience on this. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BARATTA:

Do you want to give them ten minutes to see if they have any questions that they would ask? We said we would. CHAIR KARLIN: Well, I guess we did. We did say that if there were any follow-up questions that you would like to suggest that we ask arising from the questions we just asked. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE , N W 17n~ 71.4~~11 ~AIACUI~ICT~~I n r mnn~.?mi '."I"., no~lmmcc Mm MR. TRAVIESO-DIAZ:

I don't believe so. MR. TURK: No, Your Honor. CHAIR KARLIN: All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. I did want to give you that opportunity.

You can take a break if you wanted to think about it. But, I think if we can proceed, that's great.

What we'll do now is break and re-convene at ten of. That's about an hour. Ten of three we will reconvene.

That's 20 minutes. That's a goodly amount of time. And we'll finish up, hopefully for the day at that time. So, okay.

Thank you. We will adjourn at this time. (Whereupon, at 2 : 34 p.m. the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE . N.W. IAlACUlhlCTnhl n f' 3nnnF..77fl.(

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) ) ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE L.L.C. ) and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. ) ) ) (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ) 1 Docket No. 50-271 -0LA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB ORDER (TRANSMITTING REDACTED VERSION OF TRANSCRIPT FROM PROPRIETARY SESSION) have been served upon the following persons by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.

Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Alex S. Karlin, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta Lester S. Rubenstein Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 4270 E Country Villa Drive Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Tucson, AZ 8571 8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq. Raymond Shadis Steven C. Hamrick, Esq. New England Coalition Office of the General Counsel P.O. Box 98 Mail Stop 1 5 D21 Edgecomb, ME 04556 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-000 1

Docket No. 50-271 -OM LB ORDER (TRANSMITTING REDACTED VERSION OF TRANSCRIPT FROM PROPRIETARY SESSION)

John M. Fulton, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd. Lyme, NH 03768 Jonathan M. Rund, Esq. Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Sarah Hofmann, Esq. Special Counsel Department of Public Service 11 2 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 Jay E. Silberg, Esq. Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq. Scott A. Vance, Esq.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1 128 Terence A. Burke, Esq. Associate General Counsel Entergy Services, Inc.

1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213 7 Office of thaecretary bf the conjhissidn Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1 2th day of October 2006