ML15020A740
| ML15020A740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/2015 |
| From: | Lodge T Beyond Nuclear, Don't Waste Michigan, Michigan Safe Energy Future - Shoreline Chapter (MSEF), Nuclear Energy Information Service |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-255-LA, Pending, RAS 27097 | |
| Download: ML15020A740 (20) | |
Text
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA NUCLEAR REG ULATORY COMMISSION Before the At om ic Saf ety and Licensin g Board I n the Matter of
- Enterg y Nuclea r Ope rations, I nc.(Palisades Nuc lear Plant)Oper ating L icense Amendment Reque st) Docke t No. 50-255
)) January 20, 2015) *****PETITIONERS' COMB INED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED PETITION TO INTERV ENE AND FOR A PUBLIC ADJUDICATION HEA RING OF ENTERGY LICENSE AMENDMENT RE QUEST FOR A UTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT 10 CFR
§50.61a, 'ALTERNATE F RAC TURE TOUGHNESS R EQUIREME NTS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST PR ESS URIZED THER MAL SH OCK EV ENTS'Now come Be y ond Nuclea r ("BN"), D on't Waste Michig an ("DWM"), Michig an Safe Energ y Future - Shoreline Chapte r ("MSEF"), and the Nuc lear Energ y I nformation Servic e ("N EI S") (he rea fter c ollectively called "Petitioners"), a nd reply in support of their "A mended Petition t o I nterve ne and f or a Public Adjudica tion Hear ing of Enterg y L icense Request for Authorization to I mplement 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a, 'A lternate Fr actur e Toug hness Requireme nts for Protection Ag ainst Pressurized Therma l Shock Events.'" Spec ifically , Petitioners respond in opposition t o "Enter g y's Answe r Opposing Petition t o I nterve ne and Re quest for H ear ing"("Ente rg y Answer") a nd the "NRC Staff Answ er to Petition to I nterve ne and Re quest for a Hea ring Filed by Be y ond Nuclea r, Don't Waste Michig an, Michig an Safe Energ y Future-Shoreline Chapter , and the Nuc lear Energ y I nformation Servic e" ("NRC Answer
").I. INTRODUCTION The NRC Staff a nd Enterg y Nuclea r Ope rations, I nc. ("Enterg y") ha ve set for th by way of answe r to the Petition, a threadba re ta pestry of misrepre sentations, unsupported attorne y opinions passed of f as e x pert c ontradictions, and ba re a ssertions of wha t the 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a alter nate fra cture toughne ss require ments for prote ction ag ainst pressurized therma l shock eve nts supposedly mean, a ll as part of a strateg y aimed at ke eping Palisades Nucle ar Plant ("
PNP") in opera tion as the most embrittled reac tor pressur e vesse l in the America n nuclea r industry. I t is not a positive attribute to be identified a s an outlier among the most thermal shock-e ndang ere d rea ctor pre ssure ve ssels. Yet as this memorandum will show, Palisades is truly in a ca teg ory of its own, wher e it has bec ome the butt of g allows humor at the Advisory Commi ttee on Rea ctor Safeg uards. Petitioners see nothing f unny about Palisades as a laug hingstoc k, and believe that they should be g rante d an opportunity to expl ore the dang ers of Palisades' e mbrittlement problem throug h sworn witnesses in a n eff ort to avoid serious future drama.II. RESPONSES T O THE STAFF ANSWER A. Standing The NRC Staff a g ree s that Petiti oners ha ve esta blished standing, a lthough they advanc e the quaint but bizarre a rg ument that the one-pag e dec lara tions submi tted by individuals li ving within the 50-mile dang er r adius around Palisade s must articulate c laims in the one-page standing declarations themselves which ra ise admissible contentions. Staff Answe r p. 5 fn. 15.
Given that Petitioners ar e re prese nted by counsel who submitted on their be halves a 21-pag e enumer ation of g rounds for a hear ing, a long w ith evidentiary attachme nts, including a serious, expert-supported c ontention, the ASL B c an disreg ard the Staff's f ussiness, resolve its dissonant positions and find that Petit ioners have demonstrated suf ficient g rounds for sta nding to a llow them to proce ed to the admissibility question.
B. Claimed Impe rmissible Chall enges to NRC Regulations The NRC Staff launc hes (Staff Answer p. 14) into the objection that Petitioners "fa il[] t o specify any particula r def iciency in the L AR, . . . raise[] num erous matter s that are not the subject of the instant L AR and ar e bey ond the per missibl e scope of this proce eding , and . . .
constitute[]
an impermissible cha lleng e to the Commissi on's re g ulations." To bac k up this asser tion, the Staff cites a host of statements made by Petitioners' expert, Arnold Gunde rsen, which it claims impermissibly challeng e NRC reg ulations.1 So the Staff attempts to shut down this l icense amendment inter vention by arg uing tha t mere disag ree ment with the calc ulations, methods and assemblag e of da ta being submitt ed for a presumably discretionar y 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a ruling from the Dir ector of Nuc lear Reac tor Reg ulation is heresy ag ainst the reg ulatory reg ime. The Staff
's interpre tation is a spoof of the rule; 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a c lear ly contemplates a discretionar y deter mination by the Dire ctor of For exa m ple , see Sta ff Answe r a t p. 17: "Fo r e xample, a r ecu rr ing th eme in t he P et it ion er s'1 ar gum ent s i s t hat Pal is ade s s houl d no t b e a ll owed to use § 50.61a bec aus e § 50.6 1a, unl ike § 5 0.61 , re li es on 'est imates' a nd l acks 'sci ent if ic ri gor.' T his ar gum ent , howe ver, ch al le nges § 5 0.61 a, n ot Ent er gy's LAR." And St af f An swer at 18: "T he P et it ion er s' exp er t, Dr. Gund er sen , m akes t his ar gum ent suc ci nct ly, 'Unt il a n ew ca psu le sa m ple is re m oved an d an al yz ed, the ana lyti cal as sumpti ons cr eat ed f or the pr opos ed l ic ens e a m end m ent ar e un abl e t o be vali dat ed a nd veri fi ed.' Nowhe re , howe ver, do th e Pet it ion er s po int to any pr ovisi on i n t he NRC's r ule s t hat impose suc h a re qui re m ent. T o t he c ont ra ry, by ar guing tha t s om e a ddi ti ona l r equ ir ement must b e i m pos ed t o en abl e Pa li sad es to use th e a lt er nat e re qui re m ent s i n § 5 0.61 a, t he P et it ion er s a re , in fa ct , ch al le nging the ade qua cy of t he r ule it sel f, r at her tha n t he a deq uac y of Ent er gy's li cen se amendm ent re que st."And St af f An swer at pp. 18-19: "T he P et it ion er s' ar gum ent th at Ent er gy m ust re m ove sur veill anc e c aps ule s f rom the re act or bef ore usi ng § 50.6 1a t hus cha ll enges t he r ule , whi ch d oes not re qui re th e r emov al of add it ion al sur veill anc e c aps ule s be yond th ose wit hdr awn u nde r t he P ar t 5 0, Appen dix H wit hdr awal sc hed ule."And St af f An swer at p. 2 0: "T he P et it ion er s' app ar ent cha ll enge t o t he a ppr oved ca psu le wit hdr awal sc hed ule is in admissi ble , as it re la te s t o a pri or app roval pur sua nt to 10 C.F.R. Pa rt 50, Appen dix H, not th e a m end m ent at is sue in th is pr oce edi ng.Th e Pe ti ti one rs m ay not use th is amendm ent pro cee din g as a b ackdoor to fi le a c hal le nge to the app roved modif ie d wi thd ra wal sc hed ule."
NRR. W here there is discretion vested in the r eg ulator, diffe renc es of opinion, interpre tation, and expert ana ly sis are le g itimate bases for challeng ing the decision bec ause the decision is potentially arr ived at in an a dversa rial manne
- r. See , for e x ample, § 50.61a( c)(1) (RT MAX-X values a ssessment "must specify the base s for the pr ojected va lue of RT M A X-X for e ach r eac tor vessel beltline mater ial, including the assumptions reg arding future pla nt opera tion"); § 50.61a ( c)(2) ("Ea ch license e shall per form an e x amination and an a ssessment of flaw s in the rea ctor vessel beltline as r equire d by para g raph (e) of this section" - a nd (e) require s disclosure of te sts perf ormed but, ag ain, detailed e x planation of the me thodology underly ing N DE unce rtainties assumptions, and adjustments must be disclosed. This is merely a re cog nition that even 2 objective da ta, once interpre ted, may be examined to asce rtain the objec tivity or inappropr iate bias which may have oc curr ed in the mea ns of ana ly sis which have be en applied to it.
I ndeed, the final sec tion of § 50.61a, subsec tion (f)(7), require s that "The lice nsee shall repor t any information that sig nificantly influence s the RT M A X-X value to the Dir ector in acc ordanc e with the re quirements of pa rag raphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of this section." The require ment clea rly introduces subjec tive judgme nt and choice into the decision of wha t data is to be provided to the D irec tor of NRR. Henc e for Petitioners to provide their expert's c ritique of the means by which the § 50.61a investiga tion was conduc ted, and the w eakne sses or biase s in the under ly ing da ta, assumptions and manipulations of information ca nnot be construe d as a§ 50.61a sa ys in p ar t: "T he metho dol ogy to ac cou nt for NDE-re la te d un cer ta int ie s must b e ba sed 2 on s ta ti st ic al dat a f rom the qua li fi cat ion te st s a nd a ny othe r t est s t hat m eas ure th e di ff er enc e be twe en t he act ual fl aw s ize an d t he NDE det ect ed f la w si ze. Lic ens ees who a dj ust th ei r t est dat a t o ac cou nt for NDE-re la te d un cer ta int ie s t o veri fy conf ormance wit h t he val ues in T abl es 2 an d 3 s hal l p re par e a nd s ubmit t he m et hodo logy used to est imate t he NDE unc er ta int y, the s ta ti st ic al dat a us ed t o ad j ust th e t est dat a a nd a n exp la nat ion of how t he d at a was ana lyzed for re view an d ap pro val by the Dir ect or in acc ord anc e wi th par agraph s (c)(2) and (d)(2) of thi s s ect ion."
frontal a ssault on the reg ulatory citadel, but must instead be se en, for purposes of the admissibili ty deter mination, as an expose' of the f laws ca used by stray ing a way from knowa ble scienc e.C. Surveillance Data Disputes The Staff persists in the arg ument that "sister plant surve illance da ta," viz., scientific evidenc e of e mbrittlement from completely differ ent ty pes of nuc lear rea ctors, ca n be compa red, apples-to-apples, with destruc tive testing da ta g leane d from metal c oupons retrie ved fr om the Palisades RPV. The Staff ur g es that the § 50.61a (10) de finition of "surveillanc e data" includes other plants' infor mation within it s sweep, a nd that ever y ref ere nce to surve illance da ta automatically means not just Palisades, but other plants.
Only throug h such a misleading 3 insistence ca n the Staff pr oclaim (Staff Answer pp. 21-22) that "
I f these [§ 50.61a(f
)(6)] criteria are met, the rule r equire s the applica nt to use the surveillanc e data to verify that its predicted ref ere nce te mpera tures ar e appr opriate."But no matter how obfusca tory its arg uments, the Staff c annot g et ar ound the fa ct that 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a(f
)(6)(i) re quires that "(A) The surveillance materia l must be a hea t-specif ic M AX-X match for one or more of the mate rials for w hich RT is being calc ulated." G underse n has attested to the lac k of proof that the metals fr om the various RPVs match.
The Staff manipulates eng ineer Gunder sen's testimony by selec tively citing (Staff Answer p. 21) his observa tion that "an exhaustive revie w of NRC reg ulations has not unveiled any reg ulations that allow for such c omparisons, and no re cord of scientific va lidation of such Sta ff Answe r p. 21: "T hus , when ever t he t er m 's urvei ll anc e da ta' i s us ed i n § 5 0.61 a, i t i ncl ude s 3 sur veill anc e da ta fr om ot her pl ant s."
methodology
." The Staff then ter ms this an inappropriate c halleng e to NRC reg ulations and, adding injury to that insult , acc uses Gunder sen and Petitioners (Staf f Answe r p. 22) of say ing"that Enter g y should not be allowed to ana ly ze sister-plant data a t all."But the Staff omits t o respond -
delibera tely , one must conclude - to Gunder sen's fur ther opinion, cited at Petitioners' Amende d Petition p. 15, where in a se ction entitled "The Comparable Plants Are Not Apples-to-A pples Comparisons," Gunde rsen of fer s these conclusions:
These pla nts, which he say s "thus far have not e x hibited significa nt signs of rea ctor meta l embrittlement," ar e poor c ompara bles bec ause. . . the dra matically differ ent nuclea r cor e desig n and oper ational power char acte ristics make a n acc urate compar ison imposs ible. The diff ere nce be tween the Westinghouse nuc lear core s and the Combustion Enginee ring nuclea r cor e impacts the neutron f lux on eac h rea ctor ve ssel, thus making a n acc urate compar ison of neutron bombar dment and embr ittlement impos sible.Id. at p. 10, ¶ 27.
I t is thus m isrepre sentative for the Staff to maintain that Gunde rsen did not cr itique the surveillance samples from other plants acc ording to § 50.61a(f)
(6) c riteria.Even if the A SL B w ere to conclude tha t Arnold Gunder sen wa s incorre ct in asser ting that no rule g overns the c omparison of Palisades' embrittlement data w ith that from other nuc lear rea ctors, a c ontention about a matter not cover ed by a spec ific rule ne ed only alleg e that the matter poses a signific ant safe ty problem. That is suffic ient to raise a n issue under the g ener al require ment for ope rating licenses, 10 C.F.R. § 50.57(a)(3), for a finding of re asonable assura nce of oper ation without endang ering the hea lth and safe ty of the public.
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclea r Station, Units 1 & 2), L BP-82-116, 16 NRC 1937, 1946 (1982).
Related to this dispute, the Staff points out (Staff Answe r p. 19 fn. 80) that Arnold Gunder sen incorr ectly attributed to the ACRS these statements - "
the use of a ll possibl e phy sical samples is important to an acc urate outcome" . . . "
the vehicle for doing that is doing a statistical compar ison of a par ticular re actor's plant specific surveillance data with the g ener al trends."
Petitioners acknowle dg e that they mistakenly believed the se we re state ments made by a member of the Advisory Commi ttee on Rea ctor Safe g uards, a nd they admit their err or. The spe aker is the principal NRC staff e x pert on e mbrittlement, Mark Kirk of the NRC Office of Reg ulatory Resear ch and long time point person on this iss ue. Kirk is the pr imary author of § 50.61a , so coming from him, the ac knowledg ment that the use of "
all possible phy sical samples is important to an ac cura te outcome" bolsters Petitioners' ca se eve n more than if it we re a statement by an ACRS member being briefe d by an NRC staff e x pert.D. Staff Pretensions At Expertise After dispensing w ith the Staff's dising enuous conte ntion that every expert conclusion proff ere d by Petitioners is an impermissible challeng e to NRC reg ulations, an underly ing wea kness to the ag ency's ar g uments is ex posed: the NRC Staff has not met Petitioners' e x pert's conclusions with its own ex pert e vidence. Presumably , qualified NRC eng ineer s are vetting Enterg y's L icense Amendment Reque st, but they
're nowher e in sig ht in the Staff's Answe r.I nstead, the Staff
's tactic is to float unsupporte d conclusions, faux expert repr esenta tions, tender ed via law y ers. For example, the Staff cr iticiz es Arnold Gunde rsen's testimony on the subject of e rror band over lap at its Answer , p. 25 in this way
- The Petitioners asse rt that it is difficult to compare the data f rom Palisades with data f rom four othe r plants, bec ause of the nee d to assure tha t the "20% e rror band[s]"overla p. Acc ording to the Petitioners, 'To compar e this differ ent data w ithout assurance that the 1
ó varia nce [sic] from eac h plant overla ps the other plants lac ks scientific validity.' I n addition, in discussing the diff ere nces in flux and fluenc e fr om cy cle-to-cy cle at Palisades, the Petitioners ar g ue that it is 'mathematica lly implausible' that the nee ded deviation was obta ined. The Petitioners ther efor e ar g ue that additional testing and analy sis is needed to 'support r elicensur e.'But in fa ct, Gunder sen stated a scientific c riticism with reg ulatory-violation overtones, i.e., that there is a nee d for c onsistency in comparing the 20% e rror band among the sister plants and that under 10 C.F.R. §50.61a, Enterg y has not made tha t showing. B y its very construction, Gunder sen's opinion is predica ted on ade quate f acts take n from the L icense Amendment Reque st ("L AR"): Whil e '[a] 1ó analy sis appear s to be binding w ithin the Palis ades da ta, . . . the NRC lowers the bar when c omparing data f rom similar sister plants that are included in Enterg y's ana ly sis of the Palisades re actor vessel without requiring the same 1
ó varia nce with Palisades.'
Id. at p. 12, ¶ 32. Gunde rsen a dds: 'There can be no assura nce tha t the 20% er ror ba nd at Palisades enc ompasses the 20% e rror band at the Robinson or I ndian Point pl ants. To compar e this differ ent data w ithout assurance that the 1
ó varia nce f rom eac h plant overla ps the other plants lac ks scientific va lidity.' Id. at p. 12, ¶ 33.
Amended Petition p. 18.
I n support of the c ontinuity and consistenc y of Petitioners' conte ntion, their expert Gunder sen found that ther e is "e x traordina ry varia bility betwee n the neutron f lux acr oss the nuclea r cor e in this Combus tion Engine ering rea ctor" beca use of a "flux variation of as much as 300% be tween the 45-deg ree seg ment and the 75-deg ree seg ment," ca lling it "mathema tically implausible that a 20% devia tion is poss ible when the ne utron flux i tself var ies by 300%." Id. at p. 12, ¶ 34. Gunde rsen's final opinion on this poi nt is: The Westinghouse Analy sis delineates that a 20% var iation is mandatory , y et the eff ective f luence varia bility can be as hig h as 300%, ther efor e, the analytical data does not support relicensure without destructive testing and complete embrittlement analysis of additional capsule samples
.Gunder sen Report a t p. 16, ¶ 39.
At another place in the Staff Answe r, at pp. 26-27, the Staff proje cts a scie ntific conclusion without g oing to the tr ouble of sponsoring it through a n expert:
. . . [I]n t heir a rg ument conce rning flux varia bility at Palisades and the difficulty in assuring the nec essar y standard de viation, the Petitioners and Dr. G underse n do not provide a ny basis for their asser tion that fluence cannot be predic ted bec ause the fluenc e per c y cle c hang es. Signific antly , the Petitioners do not point to any thing in the a pplication which would indicate that Enterg y failed to c onsider the va riability betwee n cy cles whe n compar ing me asure d data with ca lculational data in the L AR.Which unidentified eng ineer ing e x pert law y er f or the NRC Staff is testify ing he re tha t "the fluenc e per cy cle c hang es"? Tec hnical ana ly ses offe red in e vidence must be sponsored by an expert who c an be examined on the reliability of the fa ctual asse rtions and soundness of the sc ientific opinions found in the docume nts. Southern Cal. Edison C
- o. (San Onofr e Nuc lear Gene rating Station, Units 2 & 3), A L AB-717, 17 NRC 346, 367 (1983), c iting Duke Power Co. (Will iam B.McGuire Nuclea r Station, Units 1 & 2), AL AB-669, 15 NRC 453, 477 (1982).
See Clev eland Elec. I lluminating C
- o. (Perr y Nuclea r Power Plant, Units 1 &
2), AL AB-443, 6 NRC 741, 754-56 (1977);
Philadelphia Elec. Co. (L imerick Ge nera ting Station, Units 1 & 2), A L AB-836, 23 NRC 479, 494 n.22 (1986);
Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (Seabr ook Station, Units 1 & 2), AL AB-891, 27 NRC 341, 350-51 (1988). The Staff has omitted to sponsor its ex pert opinions throug h a bona fide expert witness, which under mines - not just at this poi nt in their Answer , but at other place s - the validity of their a rg uments ag ainst admissibil ity.Testimony based upon "
subjective be lief or unsupporte d specula tion" rathe r than the "methods and pr ocedur es of sc ience ," and not g rounded upon suf ficient fa cts or data to be the product of a pply ing r eliable pr inciples and methods to the fa cts ca nnot suffice as evide nce of the merits in a licensing dispute.
Duke Cogema Stone &
W ebster (Savanna h River Mix ed Oxide Fuel Fa brica tion Fac ility), L BP-05-4, 61 NRC 71, 98-99 (2005). Ne ither mere specula tion nor bare or conclusory asser tions, even by an expert, which a lleg e that a ma tter should be conside red, c an suffice to cause admission of a prof fer ed conte ntion. USEC, Inc. (Am. Centrifug e Plant), CL I-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 472 (2006);
Fansteel, Inc
. (Muskog ee, O klahoma Site), CL I-03-13, 58 NRC 195, 203 (2003). Pre sumably the NRC Staff is likewise bound, in opposing pr offe red c ontent-ions, to avoid mere spe culation and ba re/c onclusory asser tions, and worse f or them, they identify no expert making such asse rtions. Consequently , the pena lty for the Staf f's re peate d uses of lawy ers a s proxy embrittlement experts in its Answer should be for feiture of their a rg uments. E. Claimed Irrelev ance/Unc hallenged Earlier Licensing Dec isions The Staff repe atedly eng ag es in a ploy , trea ting Petitioners' e videntiary ref ere nces w hich tend to prove tha t 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a has be en improvidently or incorr ectly invoked, instead, a s out-of-bounds f acts whic h Petitioners may not use. For instance:
Finally , in Section I V.C.3 of the Amende d Petition, t he Petitioners ar g ue that fluenc e data from Surveillanc e Capsule A-60, which wa s excluded from the lice nsee's surveillance prog ram in the e arly 1980s, exceede d the "1ó varia tion" [si c] describe d above. T he Petitioners maintain that this data would have shown that Palisades must be shut down, and that disreg arding Capsule A-60 distorts the ana ly tical basis for c ontinued opera tion. However , as is the ca se with many of Petitioners' ar g uments, their conc erns with Capsule A-60 ha ve no re levanc e to the pre sent proce eding. Enterg y is not rely ing on Capsule A-60 a t any point in it s L AR. Capsule A-60 wa s deleted f rom the Reac tor Vesse l Surveillance Capsule Prog ram ove r 30 y ear s ag o, and the Rea ctor Ve ssel Surveillance Coupon Removal Schedule wa s modified to provide the option of re moving a n equivalent capsule instead of the pr imary capsule in a sepa rate licensing action.Staff Answe r p. 27. This is the Staff's a ttempt to transform a pur ely evidentiar y observa tion into a re g ulatory brick wa ll. By arg uing tha t Capsule A-60 is "irr eleva nt" as ha ving be en "de leted"from the surve illance pr og ram 30 y ear s ag o, the Staff obviously hopes to conc eal e vidence. That evidenc e ar g uably showed that the de g ree of RPV embrittlement in the 1980' s was g rea tly advanc ed, g iven the then-short opera tional ag e of the rea ctor. I n a similar vein, Enter g y proposes to proce ed throug h the 16 y ear s from 2003 to 2019 without testing a c oupon, which is rathe r akin to throwing out an inconvenie ntly reve latory test result that might prove the too-fr ag ile-to-opera te state of Palisade s' RPV. By ref err ing to Capsule A
-60, Petitioners are both pointing to evidenc e that mig ht be per tinent, as well as a lerting the L icensing Boa rd to an ong oing c ourse by Enterg y to evade scientific va lidation of the true c ircumstance s of embrittlement of the Palisade s RPV. By conce aling , or not pursuing , scientific e vidence now, Enterg y can move with less controve rsy to the probabilistic assessment, mostly-theore tical path af forde d by 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a.E. Misconstrued Ev identiary Value Of The LAR-EM A The NRC Staff ofte n defe nds by taking a discursive view of Petitioners' e vidence , piece mealing it down to disj oint facts, followe d by the asser tion that such anomie is bey ond the reg ulatory pale. Tha t remains true respe cting the ruc kus raised by the Staff f rom Petitioners' ref ere nce to a L icense Amendment Reque st pertaining to revisions of the Equivale nt Marg ins Analy sis for Palisades.
Arnold Gunde rsen notes (Gunder sen De clar ation ¶ 46) that . . . prior eva luations sugg est that three portions of the nucle ar r eac tor vessel will not meet the NRC require d 50 ft-lb ductility stress limit. I t also appea rs, from the f ive documents attac hed to the L AR, that Westinghouse ha s re-analy zed and manipulated the Palisades data so tha t the final ca lculations keep the rea ctor ve ssel within the reg ulatory acc eptable r ang e above the minimum 50 ft-lb ductili ty stress limit.
Gunder sen consider s the L AR EMA reque st to be "re d flag" evide nce tha t "Enterg y is proposing to opera te its Palisades NPP well outsi de the nor m by proposing to re-a naly ze the deter iorating metallurg ical conditions without using the r eadily available phy sical samples that a re de signe d specific ally for this purpose."
Id. at ¶ 48. And the rein lies the distinction betwee n Petitioners and the Staff: it is of evidentiar y value to point out that Enterg y is eng ag ed in a wide r ca mpaig n to, once a g ain, move the g oal posts back by raising the per missibl e limits for embrittlement so that the astonishingly serious shatter capa biliti es of the Palisade s RPV remain ca mouflag ed in alleg ed reg ulatory protec tions. I rre spective of the "se para te" pe ndency of the EMA lice nse ame ndment reque st, the reque st involves the very same RPV. Petitioners' expert may rig htfully expose the fac ts on which the re quest is based, a nd their per tinence to this hea ring petition.
F. The Lack Of Thermal Shield Is Re levant Ev idence Petitioners have the sa me re sponse conc erning the Staff' s bickering that mentioning the lack of a ther mal shield is not relevant to whe ther super ficial pa perw ork re quirements have been met conce rning 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a. Petitioners ar e urg ing none of wha t the Staff alleg es - that is, Petitioners are not try ing to pr edica te a c ontention on what Palisades' pr ior owner should have done. The lack of a ther mal shield emphasizes the unfetter ed neutr on fluenc e to which the RPV has bee n continuously exposed for over 43 y ear s. I t tends to prove that a sc ience-base d reg ulatory deter mination of Palisades' embr ittlement may be pre fer able to the use of proba bilist ic risk assessment in the cir cumstance s of this reac tor.G. Prior License Ame ndments Enabling More Em brittl eme nt Are Rele vant Evide nce For the Staff to ser iously posit that the mult iple past incre ases of the "trig g er te mpera ture"(the Staff
's term) a re not a dmissibl e evide nce is laug hable. The ir objection per tains to the forthcoming adjudication of this matter w hich should be held. I t is incumbent upon an expert to disclose the base s for his/her opinion. Quite ra tionally , Arnold Gunde rsen's analy sis was that the date a t which the trig g er te mpera ture wa s exceede d kept g etting long er. The rollbacks we re of the date a nd also the temper ature. The pa ttern of those r ollbacks is of importance to scrutinizi ng and understanding the pending
§ 50.61a applica tion. Too, a 230 deg ree s F. incr ease in the trig g er tempera ture ove r 43+ y ear s is releva nt information. The re g ulation - 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a(d)
(1) -makes it rele vant: Whenever there is a signif icant cha ng e in projec ted values of RT M A X-X , so that the prev ious value, the c urrent value, or both value s, exc eed the scree ning criteria before the ex piration of the plant operating license
- or upon the license e's r equest for a cha ng e in the expiration date for ope ration of the f acility; a re-asse ssment of RT M A X-X values documented c onsistent with the requireme nts of para g raph (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this section must be submitt ed in the for m of a lice nse ame ndment for r eview a nd approva l by the Direc tor. (Emphasis adde d).III. Responses To E ntergy's Answ er A. Standing Enterg y hints that there is no meaning ful relief that would follow a de cision adver se to its interests on the L icense Amendment Reque st. Enterg y Answer at p. 14/37 of .pdf. Give n the stag e of Palisade s' oper ating life and the sever e, undenia ble embrittlement of the r eac tor pressur e vessel, it is possibl e that the ASL B c ould overturn or deny rec ourse to Enter g y under 10 C.F.R. §50.61a, which w ould force a dec ision on the util ity to undertake the anne aling of the RPV, or perha ps, if the ec onomics of that re medy wer e prohibitive, for the re actor to be per manently shutdown, and dec ommissi oned. I f the for mer re lief we re or dere d or followed f rom a de nial of §50.61a ame ndment, Petitioners would benef it from safe ty enhanc ements to Palisades' ope rations. I f the latter relief occur red, the y would benef it even more since the r isks from decommissioning would principally attend mana g ement of spe nt fuel at the r eac tor site as we ll as the clea nup of radioa ctive conta mination.Enterg y urg es that the Petitioners ar e not entitled to rely on the "pr ox imity presumption" to establish standing. Eve n if the ASL B w ere to acc ept the proposition that a throug h-wa ll crac k or shatter ing of the Palisades RPV cannot c onceiva bly form the he art of a dang erous nuc lear rea ctor a ccide nt, residenc e or a ctivities within 10 m iles of a f acility (and in one case 17 miles from a f acility) have been f ound sufficie nt to establish standing in a c ase involving the proposed expansion in capac ity of a spe nt fuel pool.
See V ermont Y ankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Ve rmont Yanke e Nuc lear Power Station), L BP-87-7, 25 NRC 116, 118 (1987);
see also Florida Power &
Light C o. (St. L ucie Nuc lear Power Plant, Unit 1), L BP-88-10A, 27 NRC 452-454-55 (1988)
, aff'd, AL AB-893, 27 NRC 627 (1988);
Carolina Pow er & Light C o. (Shear on Har ris Nuclea r Power Plant), L BP-99-25, 50 NRC 25, 29-31 (1999);
Northeast Nuclear Energy Co. (Millstone Nuclea r Power Station, Unit 3), L BP-00-2, 51 NRC 25 (2000). May nard K aufma n, one of the individuals who has provided a decla ration and is re prese nted by Michig an Safe Energ y Future-Shoreline Chapter , lives within 10 mi les of Palisades. B ette Pierman, r epre sented by Be y ond Nuclea r, lives within 15 miles. Gail Sny der, r epre sented by Nuclea r Ener g y I nformation Servic e, camps a nd picnics on prope rty she owns about 15 miles fr om Palisades. At least these thr ee intervening org anizations thus overcome a reduc ed ra dius (Alice Hir t, repre sented by Don't Waste Michiga n, lives 35 miles from the re actor). I n a proc eeding revie wing an extended powe r uprate application, an or g anization had repr esenta tional standing w here its repre sentative members e ach lived w ithin 15 mi les of the plant.
Entergy Nucle ar Vermont Y ankee , L.L.C. and Entergy Nucle ar Operations, Inc. (Ve rmont Yanke e Nuc lear Power Station), L BP-04-28, 60 NRC 548, 553-54 (2004).
Moreove r, re sidence within 30-40 mil es of a rea ctor site has be en held to be suf ficient to show the re quisite interest in raising safe ty questions.
Virginia Electric &
Power Co. (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 & 2), AL AB-146, 6 AEC 631, 633-634 (1973); Louisi ana Power &
Light C o. (Waterf ord Steam Elec tric Station, Unit 3), AL AB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n.6 (1973)
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie I sland Nucle ar G ener ating Plant, Units 1 & 2), AL AB-107, 6 AEC 188, 190, 193, reconsid. den
., AL AB-110, 6 AEC 247, af f'd, CL I-73-12, 6 AE C 241 (1973); Florida Power and Li ght Co. (St. L ucie Nuc lear Power Plant, Unit 1), L BP-88-10A, 27 NRC 452, 454-55 (1988), aff'd on other grounds , AL AB-893, 27 NRC 627 (1988).
Turning to Enterg y's other standing objections, the utility sug g ests (Enter g y Answer p. 13/37) that Petitioners are making a g ener al objection to the plant's ope rations. That is incorr ect. The c ontention raised by Petitioners is quit e par ticular, in that it is an objection to any further wea kening of pre ssurized thermal shock ("
PTS") safe ty standards. The chain of causa tion which Enterg y maintains has not been ma de is that if there wer e a PTS eve nt, it could cause RPV fa ilure and cor e meltdown, ac companied by containment fa ilure, followed by cata strophic ra dioactivity rele ase. Saf ety conce rns which c arr y the potential for of fsite conse quence s enable standing.Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. (Perr y Nuclea r Power Plant, Unit 1), CL I-93-21, 38 NRC 87, 95-96 (1993). I n ruling on claims of "pr ox imity standing ," the Commission determines the ra dius bey ond which it believes the re is no long er a n "obvious potential for of fsite conse quence s" by"taking into account the na ture of the proposed a ction and the sig nificanc e of the radioa ctive source." Entergy Nucle ar Operations and Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC (Palisades Nuc lear Plant), CL I-08-19, 68 NRC 251, 254 (2008).
Petitioners submit here that a pre ssurized thermal shock-c aused f ailure of a re actor pressure vessel ra ises an "obvious potential for offsite c onsequenc es." Eve n in license amendment c ases involving alleg ations of manag ement's lack of the require d char acte r and competenc e, ther e is dee med to be an obvious potential for offsite c
ónsequenc es, so standing is analog ous to that in an opera ting lice nse ca se. Florida Power and Li ght Co. (St. L ucie Nuc lear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL I-89-21, 30 NRC 325 (1989).
IV. CONCLUSION There is no ge nuine issue but that Petitioners have suc cessf ully established standing based on the prospec ts of a throug h-wa ll accide nt from the extraordinar y state of e mbrittlement of the Palisades RPV. The N RC S taff ha s not sincere ly proven tha t any of the opinions and conclusions proff ere d by Petitioners' expert witness comprise a n impermissible attack on NRC reg ulations. The historical evide nce of the incre asing ly sever e and a dvance pressurized ther mal shock conc ern a t Palisades which is cited by Petitioners and throug h their expert constitutes fac ially rele vant evidenc e and ma y not be discar ded mer ely beca use of e arlier reg ulatory decisions which touch upon it.
Finally , two additional fac ts warr ant the ASL B to note the sever ity of the PTS problem at Palisades and the c ompanion matter of the still rathe r unsettled, inchoa te nature of NRC reg ulations gove rning embrittlement, notwithstanding the e x istence of 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.61 and 50.61a. A. ACRS Subcommittee Minutes One is the da rk view ma intained by cer tain members of the Advisory Commi ttee on Reac tor Safeg uards, Me tallurg y and Rea ctor F uels subcommittee, manife sted in rec ent offic ial transcr ibed minutes of Subcommittee proce eding s. On Octobe r 16, 2014, this colloquy took place: MEMBER B ANERJ EE: Yes, but I mean wha t is special about Palisades?
That's what I was g oing to a sk.MR. KI RK: W ell, there are so many things that a re spe cial about Palisade s.MEMBER B ANERJ EE: There's nothing spec ial about Palisades, thoug h, than y ou exposed it t o a lot of risk?
MR. KI RK: A highe r leve l of embrittlement, y es.Offic ial Transc ript of Proce eding s, ADAMS No. ML14296A342, pp. 30-31 (pp. 31-32 of 168 on.pdf counte r). Also: CHAI RMAN BA L L I NGER: Where is Palisades in 80 y ear s if y ou can c onvert that to fluence
?MR. KI RK: W ell, it's proba bly over he reish.CHAI RMAN BA L L I NGER: Okay
.MR. KI RK: Right. I know that doesn' t go w ell into the transcr ipt but that's probably about the ac cura cy.CHAI RMAN BA L L I NGER: But it' s less than one times ten to the minus six , let us hope.MR. KI RK: Yeah.Id., p. 32 (33 of 168 on .pdf counter).And additionally
- MR. KI RK: W e don't - we didn' t incorpora te a g ener ic way to deal with flaw s that don't meet the fla w tables.CHAI RMAN BA L L I NGER: That' s why I was kind of ping ing on y ou about the Palisades and B eave r Va lley and how -
wher e they wer e likely to ge t hung up.
MR. STEVENS: Our experience , and we did look at better than a dozen flaw evalua tions or - I
'm sorry , inspection results for pla nts that we we re a ble to look at throug h submitt als or par t of the re view of the NRR activity associate d with ext ending RPV inspection from 10 to 20 y ear s, and our e x perie nces w e have y et to see a ny plants that challeng e the f law tables in this rule.
So another re ason I think we chose a re alistic not to address that comment is first off is a lot of differ ent possibilit ies on flaws tha t could exis t that might cha lleng e those limits, and then se cond, we just didn't see -
it seemed to us that to have a fair pr obability that that would occur so we didn' t see the ne ed to spend the r esourc e to cha se that bec ause our experience was we don't see pe ople having trouble satisfy ing the flaw r eg s.Id., pp. 54-55 (pp. 55-56 of .pdf c ounter).Finally: MR. KI RK: So, y ou know, that' s the other thing and that' s why we tend to de fer to the g ener ic trends is there
's rea lly just not t hat much plant-spe cific da ta to g o on, in most case s.I f in some other unive rse, whic h we don't exi st in, there wa s a hundre d plant-spec ific data points I think, y ou know, quite clea rly we'd just use that trend. B ut that's not what we ha ve.So, really , we're looking here for the limited data -
we're looking at the limited data that we have to f lag big inc onsistencies betwe en the e mbrittlement trends in a particula r vesse l weld plate f org ing w ith what we use. Id., p. 60 (61/168 of .pdf)
.B. The NRC Staff
's Unannounce d Succor For Em brittl ed Nuclear Power Plant Owners W hen Compliance Ev en W ith § 50.61a Is A Bridge Too Far I n the end, f or extremely-embrittled RPVs, 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a contains a n obscure , littl e-noticed by pass provision wher eby the NRC Direc tor of NRR may allow selec ted embrittled rea ctors to oper ate be y ond the PTS scree ning c riteria. A t the 619th Meeting of the Advisory Commi ttee on Rea ctor Safe g uards, Ma rk Kirk of the Off ice of Nuclea r Reg ulatory Resear ch and the principa l author of 10 C.F.R. § 50.61a, prese nted a slide show, "
Tec hnical B rief on Reg ulatory Guidance on the Alterna tive PTS R ule (10 C.F.R. § 50.61a
)." O fficia l Transc ript of Procee dings, A DAMS No. ML14321A542, commenc ing a t p. 202/268 of .pdf. The slide a t p.242 of the tra nscript contains the f ollowing infor mation: Use of 10 CF R 50.61a PTS screening criter ia re quires submittal for re view and approva l by Direc tor, NRR.For plants that do not satisfy PTS S cre ening Criteria, plant-spe cific PTS assessment is requir ed.Must be submitt ed for revie w and a pproval by Direc tor, NRR.Guidance is not provided for this case Subsequent requir ements (i.e., afte r submittal) are define d in para g raph (d) of 10 CFR 50.61a. (Empha sis suppli ed).Thus even a s the NRC St aff and Enter g y castig ate Petitioners for not strictly following pleading require ments and flay public repr esenta tives for "
impermissibly
" tra mpling on reg ulations which are "strict by desig n," the a g ency quietly maintains "pre ssurized thermal shock reg ulatory relief valve" thera py for de serving nuclea r powe r plant cor porations which a ppear s to be outside the Atomic Ene rg y Act and unc halleng eable by the public..
/s/ Terry J. L odg e Terr y J. L odg e (O H #0029271) 316 N. Michig an St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 (419) 255-7552 Fa x (419) 255-7552 Tjlodge 50@y ahoo.com Counsel for Petitioners UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA NUCLEAR REG ULATORY COMMISSION Before the At om ic Saf ety and Licensin g Board I n the Matter of
- Enterg y Nuclea r Ope rations, I nc.(Palisades Nuc lear Plant)Oper ating L icense Amendment Reque st) Docke t No. 50-255
)) January 20, 2015) *****CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE I here by cer tify that copies of the fore g oing "PETI TI ONERS' COMBI NED REPL Y I N SUPP ORT OF A MENDED PETI TI ON TO I NTERVENE A ND F OR A PUBL I C ADJUDI CATI ON HEA RI NG OF ENTERGY L I CENSE AMENDMENT REQUE ST FOR AUTHO RI Z ATI ON TO I MPL EMENT 10 CFR §50.61a, '
AL TERNATE F RACTURE TOUGH NESS REQUI REMENTS FOR PROTECTI ON AGA I NST PRES SURI Z ED THERMAL SHOCK EVENTS" wa s serve d by me upon the par ties to this proceeding via the NRC's Electronic I nformation Exchang e sy stem this 20th day of January , 2015. /s/ Terry J. L odg e Terr y J. L odg e (O H #0029271) 316 N. Michig an St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 (419) 255-7552 Fa x (419) 255-7552 Tjlodge 50@y ahoo.com Counsel for Petitioners