ML061420388

2006/05/17-NRC Staff'S Initial Statement of Position Concerning NEC Contention 3

ML061420388
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	05/17/2006
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
S. Turk, NRC/OGC, 301-415-1533
Shared Package
ML	List: ML042920090 ML043130289 ML051800134 ML053120186 ML053620213 ML061420388 ML080440226
References
50-271-OLA, ASLBP 04-832-02-A, RAS 11661
Download: ML061420388 (13)

Text

May 17, 2006UNITED 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))NRC STAFF'S INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITION CONCERNING NEC CONTENTION 3 The NRC Staff ("Staff") submits this "Initial Statement of Position" purs uant to10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(1), and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's "Revised Scheduling Order" ("Scheduling Order") dated April 13, 2006, at 3. The Staff is filing, simultaneouslyherewith, the "NRC Staff Testimony of Richard B. Ennis, Steven R. Jones, Robert L. Pettis, Jr.,George Thomas, and Zeynab Abdullahi Concerning NEC Contention 3" ("Large Transient Testing Testimony"). For the reasons set forth herein and in the Staff's Large Transient Testing Testimony filed herewith, the Staff submits that a careful evaluation of New EnglandCoalition ("NEC") Contention 3 demonstrates that this contention is wholly lacking in merit.

Accordingly, the Staff respectfully submits that NEC Contention 3 should be resolved in favor ofissuance of the extended power uprate ("EPU") license amendment requested by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., (collectively referred to herein as "Entergy" or "Applicant") for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station ("VermontYankee"). 1 "New England Coalition's Request for Hearing, Demonstration of Standing, Discussion ofScope of Proceeding and Contentions," dated August 30, 2004, at 11. The basis for this contention wasidentified as "the Declaration of Arnold Gunderson under Exception to Large Transient Testing [ExhibitD] and further testimony to be provided at the hearing . . ." Id; see also "Declaration of Arnold Gundersonin Support of Petitioners' Contentions," dated August 30, 2004, at 3-5.INTRODUCTIONThis proceeding concerns the application filed by Entergy for an amendment to theVermont Yankee operating license, to authorize an increase in the maximum power level by approximately 20%. Petitions for leave to intervene and contentions were subsequently filed by the State of Vermont Department of Public Service and NEC. Among the contentions filed byNEC was its Contention 3.

1 On November 22, 2004, the Licensing Board, admitted NECContention 3, which, as admitted and restated by the Licensing Board, stated as follows: "thelicense amendment should not be approved unless Large Transient Testing is a condition of the Extended Power Uprate." Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C., and Entergy NuclearOperations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-04-28, 60 NRC 548, 580(2004). The Board has ruled that the scope of NEC Contention 3 is limited to two large transient tests: the main steam isolation valve ("MSIV") closure test and the turbine generator load rejection test. Memorandum and Order, "Clarifying the Scope of NEC Contention 3," April 17, 2006, slip op. at 2.In admitting NEC Contention 3, the Licensing Board relied on the August 30, 2004declaration of Arnold Gunderson ("Gunderson Declaration"). LBP-04-28, 60 NRC at 571-72. Mr. Gundersen argued that Entergy's plan to not perform large transient testing at EPU conditions "cannot be justified as good engineering practice nor is it in accord with staff positions interpreting NRC regulation." Gundersen Declaration at 3. Specifically,Mr. Gundersen asserted that: (1) the Applicant's citation of operational experience in the nuclear industry does not justify taking an exception to performing large transient testing for 2 During the April 20, 2006 teleconference, Administrative Judge Baratta specifically requestedthat the parties address this issue. Tr. at 899-903.Vermont Yankee at EPU conditions; (2) Vermont Yankee's own experience with generator loadrejections at 100% of the original licensed power level does not demonstrate that there will beadequate plant performance during transients at EPU conditions; (3) periodic testing of SSCs during steady-state plant operation does not confirm performance characteristics of the SSCs required for appropriate transient response; and (4) "Entergy ignores the NRC staff's decision inthe case of the Duane Arnold EPU application." Gundersen Declaration at 3-5. Additionally, in its December 23, 2005 Answer to Entergy's Motion for SummaryDisposition, NEC included a declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld ("Hopenfeld Declaration"),

which questioned whether the transient analysis code relied upon by Entergy in its application was properly benchmarked for EPU conditions.

2 Finally, Administrative Judge Barattarequested testimony regarding qualification of the "ODYN" code and mechanical stress calculations with respect to transients experienced during EPU operations. Tr. at 899-904. The NRC Staff has carefully considered each of the allegations made in the Gundersondeclaration, as well as issues raised in the Hopenfeld declaration, in support of this contention.

The Staff's detailed evaluation of those matters is set forth in the Staff's Large Transient Testing Testimony attached hereto. For the reasons set forth therein, as summarized below, the Staff submits that those allegations are entirely lacking in merit.DISCUSSIONA. Legal and Regulatory RequirementsThe Commission's requirements with respect to the need to perform large transienttesting as part of the testing program for the Vermont Yankee EPU are described in the Staff's testimony filed herewith. Specifically, as set forth in the Staff's Final SE for the Vermont Yankee EPU amendment, the applicable legal standard for review of the NRC Staff's approval of Entergy's "Justification for Exception to Large Transient Testing" for the Vermont YankeeEPU is Criterion XI, "Test Control," of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, which states:A test program shall be established to assure that all testing required todemonstrate that structures, systems, and components ("SSCs")

willperform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures which incorporate the requirements and acceptance limits contained in applicable design documents. The test program shall include, as appropriate, proof tests prior to installation, preoperational tests, and operational tests during nuclear power plant or fuel reprocessing plant operation, of structures, systems, and components. Test procedures shall include provisions forassuring that all prerequisites for the given test have been met, that adequate test instrumentation is available and used, and that the test isperformed under suitable environmental conditions. Test results shall be documented and evaluated to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B. Criterion XI. Therefore, the applicable legal basis against which the exception to large transient testing should be evaluated is the regulatory requirement thatthe test program demonstrate that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service.

See Staff's LargeTransient Testing Testimony at 8.The NRC's Review Standard RS-001, "Review Standard for Extended Power Uprates,"Revision 0 (December 2003) (NRC Staff Exhibit A) references Standard Review Plan ("SRP")Section 14.2.1, "Generic Guidelines for Extended Power Uprate Testing Programs" (NRC StaffExhibit B), for plant-specific reviews of EPU testing plans. The Staff's review of an applicant's justification for an exception from large transient testing utilizes the criteria set forth in subsection III.C.2 of SRP Section 14.2.1. Those criteria include: previous operatingexperience; introduction of new thermal-hydraulic phenomena or identifi ed system interactions;facility conformance to limitations associated with analytical analysis methods; plant stafffamiliarization with facility operation and trial use of operating and emergency operatingprocedures; margin reduction in safety analysis results for anticipated operational occurrences; guidance contained in vendor topical reports; and risk implications. SRP Section 14.2.1at 7-10. The Staff's decision regarding large transient testing is one aspect of its finding, pursuant to subsection IV of SRP Section 14.2.1, of reasonable assurance that the testprogram satisfies the requirements of Criterion XI, of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.

Id.at 8-9.

B.Staff WitnessesThe NRC Staff's Large Transient Testimony presents the opinions of a panel of fivehighly qualified witnesses, as follows: (1) Richard B. Ennis, a Senior Project Manager in the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("

NRR");(2) Steven R. Jones, a Senior Reactor Systems Engineer in the Division of Systems Safety, NRR; (3) Robert L. Pettis, Jr., a Senior Reactor Systems Engineer in the Division ofEngineering; (4) George Thomas, a Senior Reactor Systems Engineer in the Division of Safety Systems, NRR; and (5) Zeynab (Zena) Abdullahi, a Senior Reactor Systems Engineer in theDivision of Safety Systems.

Id. at 1-2.As described in his testimony, Mr. Ennis serves as the Staff's Project Manager for theVermont Yankee EPU license amendment. As part of his official responsibilities, Mr. Enniscoordinated the Staff's evaluation of the Vermont Yankee EPU application, and coordinated theStaff's preparation of the Final SE and the EPU license amendment, which the Staff issued on March 2, 2006.

Id. at 4.As described in his testimony, Mr. Jones is responsible for evaluating the functionalrequirements, design, and performance of auxiliary, support and balance-of-plant systems(main steam and turbine, feedwater and condensate, diesel generator support, auxiliaryfeedwater, spent fuel pool cooling, circulating water, open and closed cycle cooling water, andreactor coolant leakage detection systems) for both current and planned nuclear plants. Healso evaluates design features and methods for protection of essential systems and 3 See "Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to AmendmentNo. 229 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and EntergyNuclear Operations, Inc., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Docket No. 50-271" (March 2, 2006)(ADAMS Accession No. ML060050028) (non-proprietary version). The Staff intends to offer the non-proprietary version of the Final SE into evidence during the hearing, inasmuch as NEC's representativehas declined to execute a non-disclosure affidavit as required to obtain proprietary information in theproceeding. The Staff may also offer into evidence a proprietary version of the Final SE, with distributionlimited to the Licensing Board and parties entitled to receive proprietary information.components from the effects of internal and external flooding, internally and externallygenerated missiles, and postulated pipe breaks outside containment.

Id. at 2. With respect tothe Vermont Yankee EPU application, Mr. Jones supervised the Staff's safety review of balance-of-plant systems, including the Staff's technical evaluation of the effects of the proposed EPU on balance-of-plant systems. These technical reviews are described in Sections2.5 and 2.12 of the Staff's Draft SE and Final SE.

3 Id.As described in his testimony, Mr. Pettis is responsible for the technical review of EPUand license renewal amendment requests.

Id. at 2. With respect to the Vermont Yankee EPUapplication, Mr. Pettis coordinated the NRC Staff's review of the overall power uprate testing program, including preparation of Section 2.12 in the Staff's Draft SE and Final SE.

Id.As described in his testimony, Mr. Thomas is responsible for reviewing and evaluatingdesign, process design parameters, and performance of reactor thermal-hydraulic systems forboiling water reactor ("BWR") designs, including advanced reactor designs and combined operating licenses associated with the reactor coolant system and normal and emergency corecooling systems under steady-state, transient, and accident conditions. He is also responsiblefor reviewing the analysis of anticipated operational occurrences, postulated accidents, andactual operating experience from the viewpoint of systems operation and transient dynamics.

Id. at 3. With respect to the Vermont Yankee EPU application, Mr. Thomas conducted thereactor systems review of the transient analyses submitted by the Applicant for the Vermont 4 "Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, GE Nuclear Energy LicensingTopical Report, NEDC-33004P, Revision 1," (March 31, 2003). NRC Staff Exhibit C includes §§ 3.4and 10.5.Yankee EPU, including preparation of Section 2.8.5 in the Staff's Draft SE and Final SE.

Id. at 4.As described in her testimony, Ms. Abdullahi is responsible for evaluating the technicalmerits of applications requesting changes to the operation of nuclear power plants, and evaluating the impacts of the proposed changes on reactor response during steady state, transient and accident conditions.

Id. at 3. With respect to the Vermont Yankee EPUapplication, Ms. Abdullahi conducted the Staff's review of the analytical methods used toperform the reactor neutronic and thermal/hydraulic analysis. This review is discussed in Section 2.8.7 in the Staff's Draft SE and Final SE.

Id. at 5.C. The Concerns Raised in NEC Contention 4 are Without MeritThe Staff's testimony presents its conclusion that the Vermont Yankee test programprovides reasonable assurance that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service under EPUconditions.

Id. at 24. The bases for this conclusion are described in detail in the testimony.General Electric Licensing Topical Report ELTR-1, issued in 1999, provided genericguidelines for GE BWR EPUs. ELTR-1 required an MSIV Closure test for EPUs to be performed for uprates of more than 10% above any previously recorded MSIV closure data. It also required a generator load rejection test for uprates of more than 15% above any previous generator load rejection transient data. The approach described in ELTR-1 was based on the assumption that the maximum reactor operating pressure would be increased under EPU conditions.

Id. at 9. GE subsequently sought and received NRC approval of a newer EPU approach thatdoes not increase the maximum reactor operating pressure. GE Licensing Topical Report NEDC-3300P-A, Revision 4, dated July 2003, "Constant Pressure Power Uprate."

4 Id. at 10. 5 This discussion is relevant to the first criterion described in subsection III.C.2 of SRP Section14.2.1, "previous operating experience."The Vermont Yankee EPU is based upon the CPPU approach. GE provided a genericjustification for not performing large transient testing as part of the CPPU approach. The NRC Staff approved the CPPU approach, but stated that exceptions from large transient testingwould be considered on a plant-specific basis.

Id. at 10. Consistent with the guidance providedin SRP 14.2.1, the Staff found that the performance of large transient tests was not necessaryto demonstrate that SSCs important to safety would perform acceptably in service.

Id. at 11.Industry operating experience supports the conclusion that power uprates are unlikely toproduce new or unexpected phenomena in response to anticipated transients. These plants experienced large transient events following EPU implementation and no anomalies were recorded in the plant's response. This outcome supports the conclusion that EPUs at facilitiesof similar design are unlikely to produce new or unexpected phenomena in response to anticipated transients.

Id. at 12. The facts show that Entergy's description of industry operatingexperience provides reasonable assurance that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service.

5Vermont Yankee's own experience also supports the conclusion that the plant willrespond as designed in response to transients at EPU conditions. Vermont Yankee experienced a generator load reject in 2004, after many of the physical modifications for the EPU had been implemented. No significant anomalies were seen in the plant's response. The Vermont Yankee operating experience supports the conclusion that the plant will res pond asdesigned to transients at EPU conditions.

Id. at 12-13. The facts show that Entergy'sdescription of Vermont Yankee's operating experience provides reasonable assurance that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service.Periodic testing of SSCs during steady-state plant operation can confirm performancecharacteristics of SSCs required for appropriate transient response.

Id. at 15. Technical Specification ("TS") surveillance testing conducted pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 50.36(c)(3) assuresthat TS limiting conditions for operation ("LCOs") are met. A TS LCO must be established for each item meeting four criteria, including:Criterion 2:A process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initialcondition of a design basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier. Criterion 3:A structure, system, or component that is part of the primary successpath and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier.10 C.F.R. § 50.36(c)(2)(ii). When an LCO is met, the associated SSC is considered to be operable and provides assurance that the SSC is capable of performing its specified function, as assumed in the plant's safety analysis (which includes transient analysis).

Id. at 14. Therefore, the facts demonstrate that periodic testing of SSCs can provide reasonable assurance that they will perform satisfactorily in service.The methodology used to evaluate mechanical stresses on various components subjectto increased loading under EPU conditions is included in the Staff SE for the CPPU topical report, dated March 31, 2003.

See note 4 above.

Id. at 15. Specifically, Section 3.2 of theCPPU SE discusses reactor pressure vessel and its internals and Section 3.4 discusses piping systems and associated components. The VY EPU Final SE discusses details regarding howstresses were analyzed for the reactor pressure vessel and its internals (other than the steam dryer) in Section 2.2.3, for the steam dryer in Section 2.2.6, and for pipi ng systems andcomponents in Section 2.2.2.

Id. at 15.Contrary to NEC's assertion, requests for additional information ("RAIs") associated withthe Staff's review of the Duane Arnold EPU application are not relevant to this procedure. TheDuane Arnold EPU application was based on the General Electric licensing topical report (ELTR-1), which requires an MSIV closure test and a generator load rejection test as part of the 6 See "Safety Evaluation for the General Electric Topical Report Qualification of the One-Dimensional Core Transient Model for Boiling Water Reactors NEDO-24154 and NEDE-24154-P,"(June, 1980). EPU test program. The Vermont Yankee EPU is based on GE's Constant Pressure PowerUprate ("CPPU") topical report, which included a generic determination to not require large transient testing. The NRC's safety evaluation of the CPPU approach did not approve theCPPU's generic determination to not require large transient testing, however, it indicates that the NRC will examine these requests on a plant-specific basis.

Id. at 16. This plant-specificreview of the justification for exception to large transient testing is performed through analysis of the criteria listed in subsection III.C.2 of SRP Section 14.2.1, in order to reach the conclusion that the Vermont Yankee test program provides reasonable assurance that SSCs will performsatisfactorily in service.

Id. at 8-9.As part of its justification for not performing large transient testing, Entergy stated thatthe MSIV closure pressurization transient analysis (that bounds the load reject without bypass pressurization event) had been performed at Vermont Yankee for the EPU conditions using the ODYN code. The results of this analysis showed the response of the plant to this bounding transient to be acceptable.

Id. at 18. The One Dimensional DYNamic Core Transient model("ODYN") code has been qualified by comparing its predicted response to actual data.

Id.at 18-20. In response to Judge Baratta's inquiry, it should be noted that ODYN is a best estimate code.

Id. at 21. The NRC Staff reviewed the integral test results and found thatODYN demonstrates good prediction against existing test data.

Id. at 20-21. It was approvedfor application to transients including generator load reject and MSIV closure.

6 Id. at 17. Subsequent to the initial comprehensive assessment of the ODYN performance, GE incorporated improved analytical methods and revised specific models that provided input to ODYN. The revised ODYN code set comparison to PB-2 yielded closer predictions than theoriginal comparison.

Id. at 21.Several boiling water reactors ("BWRs") that implemented EPUs have experiencedtransient events, specifically, Hatch Units 1 and 2, Liebstadt (KKL), and Dresden Unit 3. One licensee has reported that these plants responded as expected, without indicating significantchanges in the fidelity of the analytical models and codes at EPU conditions.

Id. at 21-23.Comparisons of ODYN against plant data at EPU conditions show reasonable assurance that it will simulate plant response. Id. at 23-24. The facts show that the ODYN code has beenproperly benchmarked for modeling EPU operations and is appropriate for use in demonstrating reasonable assurance that SSCs will perform satisfactorily in service.CONCLUSIONIn summary, NEC Contention 3, which contends that the Vermont Yankee EPU shouldnot be granted without requiring large transient testing, (i.e, MSIV closure and turbine generatorload rejection), is without merit. The test program meets the requirements of Criterion XI, "Test Control," of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. For the reasons discussed above, the two large transient tests addressed in NEC Contention 3 are not required to demonstrate that SSCs willperform satisfactorily in service. Respectfully submitted, /RA/Steven C. HamrickSherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC StaffDated at Rockville, Marylandthis 17 th day of May, 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 (1) "NRC STAFF'S INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITIONCONCERNING NEC CONTENTION 3," and (2) "NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF RICHARD B.ENNIS, STEVEN R. JONES, ROBERT L. PETTIS, JR., GEORGE THOMAS, AND ZEYNAB ABDULLAHI CONCERNING NEC CONTENTION 3," 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 bye-mail as indicated by a double asterisk (**), this 17 th day of May, 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

) Jered J. Lindsay, Esq.**Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: JJL5@nrc.gov

)Sarah Hofmann, Esq.**Special Counsel Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: sarah.hofmann@state.vt.usJay 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.comAnthony Z. Roisman, Esq.**National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.

Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.comJohn M. Fulton, Esq.Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601Raymond Shadis**Staff Technical Advisor New England Coalition

P.O. Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556 E-mail: shadis@prexar.com, shadis@ime.net/RA/ Steven C. HamrickCounsel for NRC Staff