ML061740058
| ML061740058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/2006 |
| From: | Young M A NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| M Young, NRC/OGC, 310-415-1523 | |
| References | |
| 50-271-LR, ASLBP 06-849-03-LR, RAS 11862 | |
| Download: ML061740058 (21) | |
Text
1 See Letter from William F. Maguire, Entergy, to U.S. NRC, dated January 25, 2006(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ("ADAMS") Accession Nos. ML 060300082,ML060300085, ML060300086). ("Application" or "Environmental Report"). The application wassupplemented by letters dated March 15, 2006 (ML06080023), and May 15, 2006 (ML061380079).June 22, 2006UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter of)
)ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC)Docket No. 50-271-LR and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC)
)(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))NRC STAFF ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR HEARING OF NEW ENGLAND COALITIONINTRODUCTIONPursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission("Staff") hereby answers the "New England Coalition's Request for Hearing, Demonstration of Standing, Discussion of Scope of Proceeding and Contentions," dated May 26, 2006. ("Petition"). As discussed below, the Staff does not contest the standing of the New England Coalition ("NEC" or "Petitioner") to seek a hearing in this matter. Further, for the reasons set forth below, the Staff does not object to the admission of NEC's proposed Contentions 1-2 provided they are limited to the bases raised that are adequately supported and within thescope of license renewal. The Staff objects to the admission of Contentions 3-6.BACKGROUNDBy letter dated January 26, 2006, as supplemented March 15, 2006, Entergy VermontYankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, "Entergy" or "Applicant")
submitted an application, under 10 C.F.R. Part 54, to renew Operating License No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station ("VYNPS").
1 The proposed renewal wouldauthorize the Applicant to operate VYNPS for an additional 20 years beyond the current 2 The Staff has already responded to NEC's motion to adopt contentions. See NRC StaffAnswer to New England Coalition Notice of Adoption of Contentions or Alternative Motion to AdoptContentions, dated June 15, 2006.expiration date of March 21, 2012.
See "Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; [VYNPS]: Notice ofAcceptance of Docketing of the Application and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Renewal of Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for an Additional 20-Year Period," 71 Fed.Reg. 15220 (Mar. 27, 2006). In response to the notice of acceptance for docketing and opportunity for hearing published in the Federal Register , id., NEC timely filed an interventionpetition on May 26, 2006, proffering six contentions.
See Petition for Leave to Intervene,Request for Hearing, and Contentions, at 10-26. NEC subsequently sought permission toadopt contentions filed by the Vermont Department of Public Service and the MassachusettsAttorney General. New England Coalition's Notice of Adoption of Contentions, or in the Alternative, Motion to Adopt Contentions, dated June 5, 2006.
2 On June 8, 2006, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established to presideover the proceeding.
See "Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board," 71 Fed. Reg.34,397 (June 14, 2006). DISCUSSIONA. StandingAny person who requests a hearing or seeks to intervene in a Commission proceedingmust establish standing by showing that the person or organization has (or will suffer) a distinctand palpable harm (injury-in-fact) within the zone of interests arguably protected by the governing statute, the injury is traceable to the challenged action, and the injury is redressibleby a decision in the proceeding. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83,103-104 (1998); Kelley v. Selin, 42 F.3d 1501, 1508 (6th Cir. 1995); Private Fuel Storage, LLC(Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318, 323 (1999). See also 3 The officer and members also claim that they will be harmed by the 20 percent power uprateamendment. See, e.g., Petition at Exhibit1, ¶ 7, and Exhibit 2, ¶ 4. The subject matter of the instantproceeding is not the licensing action authorizing the extended power uprate. That uprate is the subjectof a separate, ongoing licensing proceeding. See Notice of Hearing and of Opportunity to Make Oral orWritten Limited Appearance Statements Concerning Proposed Uprate), Docket No. 50-217-OLA, datedApril 10, 2006, 71 Fed. Reg. 19,549 (Apr. 14, 2006).10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d). An organization may satisfy the standing criteria of 10 C.F.R.§ 2.309(d)(1) based on either its own interests or those of its members. An organization that seeks "representational standing" must identify at least one member (by name and address) who has standing to participate, demonstrate how that member may be affected by the licensing action, and show that the organization is authorized to request a hearing on behalf of that member. GPU Nuclear, Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-6, 51 NRC193, 202 (2000). The Staff does not contest NEC's demonstration of standing as an organization orrepresentational standing based on the interests of members that reside near the facility. NECstates that its headquarters and property are located within the VYNPS Emergency Planning Zone, the organization's purpose is to oppose nuclear hazards and advocate alternatives to nuclear power, and the organization is concerned that the proposed license renewal could increase the risk and consequences of an offsite radiological release, impact the value of its property and impair its activities.
See Petition at 2-3. NEC also provides statements by anofficer and four members (identified by name and address) who authorize the filing of thepetition and similarly claim the proposed license renewal could increase the risk and consequences of an offsite radiological release, affect property values and impair their activities.
See Petition at 3-5 and Exhibits 1-5 (declarations of Pamela Long, Sarah Kotkov,Sally Shaw, David Deen, and Mary King).
3 NEC and its members are located within 10-25miles of VYNPS and thus satisfy the geographical proximity test for standing in this proceeding. See Sequoyah Fuels Corp. & Gen. Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 75 n.22(1994). B. Legal Standards Governing the Admission of ContentionsTo gain admission to a proceeding as a party, in addition to satisfying the criteria forstanding, a petitioner must submit at least one admissible contention that meets therequirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).
See 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). The regulations require apetitioner to:(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised orcontroverted;(ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of theproceeding;(iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findingsthe NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding;(v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions whichsupport the requestor's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specificsources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and(vi) Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with theapplicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).Although the Commission recently revised its Rules of Practice in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the provisions of § 2.309 "incorporate the longstanding contention supportrequirements of former § 2.714 - no contention will be admitted for litigation in any NRCadjudicatory proceeding unless these requirements are met." Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182, 2,221 (Jan. 14, 2004). The Commission has emphasized that itsrules on contention admissibility establish an evidentiary threshold more demanding than a mere pleading requirement and are "strict by design." Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (MillstoneNuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001). Failure to comply withany of these requirements is grounds for dismissing a contention. See Private Fuel Storage
,L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318, 325 (1999).Each contention should refer to the specific documents or other sources of which thepetitioner is aware and upon which he or she intends to rely in establishing the validity of the contentions. Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358 (citing Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee NuclearStation, Units 1, 2, & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 333 (1999)). A petitioner must submit morethan "'bald or conclusory allegation[s]' of a dispute with the applicant," but instead "must 'read the pertinent portions of the license application, . . . and . . . state the applicant's position andthe petitioners opposing view.'" Millst one, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358 (quoting Final Rule, "Rulesof Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings - Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process," 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,171, 33,170 (Aug. 11 1989). "The reach of a contentionnecessarily hinges upon it terms coupled with its stated bases." Public Serv. Co. of N.H.(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-899, 28 NRC 93-97 (1988), aff'd sub nom.Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 899 (1991). See alsoDuke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1& 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 379 (2002). An issue raised by a contention is material if itsresolution makes a difference in the outcome of the proceeding. 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,172. The scope of a license renewal proceeding is limited in both safety and environmentalareas. The scope of Commission review determines the scope of admissible contentions in a renewal hearing absent a Commission finding of special circumstances under 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.335 (formerly § 2.758).
"Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal; Revisions [Final Rule],"60 Fed. Reg. 22,461, 22,482 n.2. Review of safety issues is limited to "a review of the plantstructures and components that will require an aging management review for the period of extended operation and the plant's systems, structures and components that are subject to anevaluation of time-limited aging analyses." Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-02-26, 56 NRC 358, 363-64 (2002) (citationsomitted) (emphasis in original). See also Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone NuclearPower Station, Units 2 & 3), LBP-04-15, 60 NRC 81, 90 (2004), aff'd, CLI-04-36, 60 NRC 631(2004); Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2),CLI-98-14, 48 NRC 39, 41 (1998); 10 C.F.R. §§ 54.4, 54.21(a), (c). License renewal focuseson the potential detrimental effects of aging that are not routinely addressed by ongoingregulatory oversight programs. Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear GeneratingPlant, Units 3 & 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3 (2001).The scope of the environmental review is also limited in accordance with 10 C.F.R.§§ 51.71(d) and 51.95(c). See Turkey Point, 54 NRC at 11-13. Consideration of environmentalissues in the context of license renewal proceedings is specifically limited by 10 C.F.R. Part 51 and by the NRC's "Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal ofNuclear Plants" (NUREG-1437) ("GEIS").
Id. A number of environmental issues potentiallyrelevant to license renewal are classified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B as "Category 1" issues, which means that "the Commission resolved the[se] issues generically for all plants and those issues are not subject to further evaluation in any license renewal proceeding." Turkey Point, LBP-01-06, 53 NRC 138, 152-53, aff'd, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC at 11. The remaining issues, designated as "Category 2" in Appendix B, must be addressed by an applicant in its environmental report, and in the NRC's supplemental environmental impactstatement for the facility at issue pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.71(d) and 51.95(c).
Id.C.Staff Response to NEC's Proffered Contentions NEC's contentions are somewhat difficult to discern because, contrary to 10 C.F.R.§ 2.309, not every contention is set off as a separate statement of the issue of law or fact to be 4 Dr. Jones provides no information to support his statement that water temperature increaseswill achieve this level in this short period. See Petition at Exhibit 7, ¶ 6.raised or controverted and NEC does not specifically label the bases for its contentions.
SeePetition at 10-26. Nevertheless, the Staff has attempted to discern the issues raised and the basis for each issue based on the discussions provided. Contention 1:Whether Entergy's Environmental Report sufficiently assesses theimpacts of increased thermal discharges over the requested twenty-year license renewal. [
See Petition at 13]NEC asserts that this issue is within the scope of the proceeding, specific to theapplication and is material to a finding the NRC must make under NEPA.
Id. NEC isconcerned about a one degree increase in the Connecticut River's temperature and notes that the renewal application contains a statement that thermal discharge effects is a Category 2issue for plants with once through cooling systems. See id. at 11 citing License RenewalApplication, Environmental Report at 4-16. NEC disputes the Applicant's statement that theimpact of the increased discharge temperature is small since operational and temperature limits are established in the VYNPS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. See Petition at 11; Environmental Report at 4-17 to 4-18. NEC relies on the opinion of Dr. Ross Jones, a Ph.D. in ecology/evolutionary biologyfrom Northwestern University, and contends that: 1) water temperature is "critical for American shad and other species" and that one degree increase in current thermal discharges could adversely impact American shad and cause further decline in the species over the next twenty years; 2) the relative importance of thermal discharge and other environmental factors is unknown; 3) recent studies show increased temperatures can adversely affect the physiology and behavior of American shad; 4) an episodic increase in temperature from 68 F to 77 Fover 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> and an increase from 68 F to 86 F has adverse impacts; 4 and 5) the impact onaquatic species is not assessed in the Environmental Report; and 6) a study of the effect of 5 As required by 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3), Entergy submitted a copy of its then current NPDESpermit, which set forth the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements. See License RenewalApplication, Appendix E (ML060300086). That permit was amended in March 2006 to authorize a onedegree increase in thermal discharge from June 16, through October 14, and included a limitation thatVYNPS take action to reduce average hourly temperatures that exceed 85 F. The permitting authorityconcluded (a) that the authorized limits would assure the protection and propagation of a balancedindigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife and (b) that there the proposed increase would haveno significant impact on aquatic biota. See Amended NPDES Permit 3-1199, dated March 30, 2006 &attached Fact Sheet (revised March 2006) at 4-7. thermal discharges on the American Shad's life cycle, as well as unspecified components of theConnecticut River ecology, should be part of Entergy's environmental report and monitoring.
See Petition at 10-14 & Exhibit 6, Declaration of Dr. Ross T. Jones, Ph.D., at 3-7.The Staff does not object to the admission of this contention to the extent that it allegesthat the Application does not contain an assessment of the impact of a one degree increase inthermal discharges on American shad during the renewal period. The Environmental Report, submitted in January 2006, did not include the discharge permit that authorizes the one degreeincrease and assesses the impacts of such increase, but indicates that the amended permit request was pending.
See Environmental Report at 4-18.
5 Dr. Jones cites studies to supportthe position that shad are sensitive to water temperatures during migration, spawning andjuvenile growth and opines that a one degree increase thermal discharge (combined with atmospheric warming and other pollution) "may adversely impact American Shad and cause further decline over the next twenty years," but does not squarely address why the impacts of the one degree increase would significantly differ from impacts under the prior discharge permit. See Petition, Exhibit 6 at 3-6. Thus, it does not appear that Dr. Jones raises a genuinedispute regarding Entergy's conclusion that, after 30 years of data regarding the impact of its facility on fish and shellfish populations, the impact from heat shock during the license renewalperiod would be SMALL.
See Environmental Report at 4-19. In addition, Dr. Jonesacknowledges that recent Connecticut River studies show a "dramatic decline" in the population 6 The Commission distinguishes contentions that merely allege an omission of information fromthose that make specific substantive challenges to how particular information is discussed in anapplication. Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1& 2), CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 382-83 (2002). Where contentions allege the "omission of particularinformation or an issue from an application, and the information is later supplied by the applicant . . . thecontention is moot." Id. at 383.size of American shad, but the "relative importance of thermal discharges and otherenvironmental factors is not yet known." In essence, he questions whether the impact of a one degree increase has been assessed and wants further study of the impact on the American shad's life cycle, but he does not provide information that disputes Entergy's conclusion that theimpact would be SMALL.
See Exhibit 6 at 6-7. Therefore, any basis challenging the adequacyof Entergy's assessment should be rejected. The contention basis that remains, however, is the alleged absence of an assessment of the impacts of the discharge temperature increase, which can be cured by submission of the amended permit.
6NEC's general assertions about the impact on other aquatic species are not sufficientlysupported because the affected species are not identified. Thus, this basis for the contentionmust be rejected as lacking specificity. Entergy also specifically states that Part IV of its NPDES permit requires monitoring ofAmerican shad.
See Application at 4.4.5.2 (at 4-18). To the extent NEC seeks to have theNRC impose requirements for environmental monitoring of shad or other aquatic species, itsclaim is not redressible in this proceeding because the NRC does not have the authority toimpose such conditions. See Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1and 2), ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702, 704 & n.6, 706-15 (1978) (Federal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq., assigns the responsibility for water pollutioncontrol criteria and regulating polluters to the Environmental Protection Agency and the States). Any concerns about the adequacy of monitoring for American Shad are not admissible in this proceeding. Contention 2: Entergy's license renewal application does not include anadequate plan to manage aging of key reactor components due to metal fatigue during the period of extended operation. [
SeePetition at 14]As a basis for this contention, NEC asserts that contrary to the requirements of10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a) and 54.21(c)(iii), the components listed in Table 4.3-3 of the Applicationwill crack due to metal fatigue before the year 2032 and that fatigue and failure are agingphenomena that result from cyclic mechanical and thermal stresses.
See Petition at 14-17. NEC also claims that "[f]ailure from fatigue" can lead to pipe ruptures, component malfunction, and loose piece metal migration, which can interfere with safe operation of the facility. Id. at 15. At bottom, NEC asserts that the statement in the Application that Entergy will either (1) refine its fatigue analyses to lower the predicted cumulative usage factor (CUF) to less than 1.0, (2) manage fatigue by an NRC-approved inspection program targeted at affected locations, or(3) replace the affected location is "vague, incomplete and lacking in transparency."
SeePetition at 15-16 citing Application at 4.3-7. NEC also claims an adequate program would include a monitoring plan with a "clear inspection schedule."
See Petition at 16. NEC refers to the Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld (Exhibit 7) at ¶¶ 4-14 to support its position. Dr.
Hopenfeld, a mechanical engineer with a doctorate in engineering, asserts that the Applicationindicates that components will crack from cyclic fatigue during license renewal and that a smallleak, if undetected, would either result in pipe rupture or cause a component to malfunction, break up or form loose parts.
See Exhibit 7 at ¶¶ 1-2, 4-7. He argues that unless thermal-hydraulic computer codes are properly benchmarked, calculation of cyclic stresses could havelarge uncertainties and the predicted CUF values in Tables 4.3.3 may be understated.
Id.at ¶ 9. Dr. Hopenfeld also asserts that Entergy's proposal to refine its fatigue analysis indicates that Entergy used analytical techniques that are "arbitrarily" adjusted, and argues that theApplication does not include information about the analytical techniques used to predict CUF values. See Exhibit 7 at 10-11. Dr. Hopenfeld further claims that Entergy should (1) performstress analysis to determine whether components should be repaired, replaced or monitored, (2) specify the frequency of monitoring or inspection, and (3) provide information about how the frequency of inspection will be determi ned. See id. at ¶ 13. The issue of aging effects is within the scope of license renewal, but the contention issupported by a thin basis. NEC does not provide any substantive information regarding why it believes the program is inadequate other than to identify alleged omissions from the application- lack of information on how CUF values were calculated, the frequency of monitoring and inspection, and criteria for determining the inspection frequency. NEC does not provide any information that shows the thermal-hydraulic computer codes used by Entergy to calculate a CUF value were not properly benchmarked or that shows Entergy would "arbitrarily" adjust its calculations. Thus, these bases for the contention are not supported with the requisitespecificity and should be rejected. The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention provided it is limited to thefollowing bases, i.e., whether Entergy has provided information on how CUF values arecalculated and whether Entergy's aging management plan includes a monitoring plan with an inspection schedule and criteria for the inspection frequency. Subsequent Entergy submissions, however, may render this contention moot. See Catawba, CLI-02-28, 56 NRC at 383. Contention 3:Entergy's license renewal application does not include anadequate plan to monitor and manage aging of the steam dryer during the period of extended operation, as required by 10 C.F.R.
§ 54.21(a)(3). [
See Petition at 17]As a basis for this contention, NEC asserts that the steam dryer is a reactor vesselcomponent that is subject to aging management review pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a), thatthe dryer must remain functional during design basis events (DBEs) in accordance with 10 C.F.R. §50.49(b)(ii), and that flow velocity and increased flow induced vibrations associatedwith the 20% power uprate can cause the dryer to break up and introduce loose parts into the reactor system.
Id. at 17-18. NEC further asserts that Entergy's proposed monitoringtechniques are not adequate to detect crack propagation growth in that they rely on calculationsof computer models - - the Computational Fluid Dynamic Model and Acoustic Circuit Model.
Petition at 17 citing Application at 3.1.2.2.11 and Table 3.1.2-2. NEC relies on statements by Dr. Hopenfeld that: 1) the loose parts problem at QuadCities after 20% power uprate was caused by the increased flow velocity and flow-induced vibrations; (2) even if Entergy manages cracking in the steam dryer consistent with current guidance in NUREG-1801, "Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report, Revision 1 (September2005) ("GALL Report"), GE-SIL-644, and possible future evaluation guidance under the BWR Vessels and Internals Project (BWRVIP), Entergy's proposed monitoring techniques are inadequate because they are not based on actual measurements of crack initiation and growth, but "unproven computer models and moisture monitors which only identify existing damage;"
and (3) Entergy has not demonstrated that the dryer will stay in tact during the renewal period.
See Petition at Exhibit 7, Declaration of Dr. Joram Hopenfeld at ¶¶ 15-20.This contention raises an issue within the scope of renewal to the extent that itquestions whether the two computer models provide an adequate basis for monitoring of crack propagation and growth in the steam dryer to assure it can perform its function during the renewal period. NEC's contention is not adequately supported, however, becauseDr. Hopenfeld's conclusory opinions regarding the Computational and Fluid Dynamic Model and the Acoustic Circuit Model are not sufficient to raise a genuine dispute with the Application. Hedoes not provide information to support his position that Entergy's monitoring techniques are not based on actual measurements of crack initiation or growth, or that the computer models 7 Dr. Hopenfeld argues that the two models used by Entergy were not benchmarked againstproperly scaled dryers. See Exhibit 7 at ¶ 19 (citing Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 528 thMeeting Transcript [on VYNPS Extended Power Uprate Application], dated December 7, 2005, at 9,12-14, 25, 29, 60). The cited pages, however, do not contain statements that the models were notproperly benchmarked. In fact, statements made during the meeting indicate that Entergy confirmedcrack propagation projections by determining that previously identified cracks had not grown, modifiedits dryers to ensure their structural integrity, added a measurement system to detect acoustic loads (theprimary source of dryer degradation) and identified additional indications during a 2004 inspections dueto the use of enhanced inspection techniques. See id. at 8-16, 27-30. used are unproven.
7 "[N]either mere speculation nor bare or conclusory assertions, even by anexpert, . . . will suffice to allow admission of a proffered contention." Exelon Generation Co.,LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site), LBP-04-17, 60 NRC 229, 241(2004). Apetitioner's failure to provide an explanation regarding the bases for a proffered contention requires that it be rejected.
Id. at 242 (citing Arizona Public Serv. Co. (Palo Verde NuclearGenerating Station, Units 1, 2 &3), CLI-91-12, 34 NRC 149, 155 (1991)). Therefore thiscontention should be rejected for a lack of an adequate basis. Contention 4:Entergy's license renewal application does not include anadequate plan to monitor and manage aging of plant piping due to flow-accelerated corrosion during the period of extended operation as required by 10 C.F.R. § 54.21(a)(3). [
See Petition at 18]As a basis for this contention, NEC asserts that flow-accelerated corrosion is an agingphenomenon that must be managed as indicated by Staff guidance. Petition at 18 citing GALL Report. Relying on statements by Dr. Hopenfeld, NEC asserts that the use of the computermodel, CHECKWORKS, which is recommended in the GALL Report (and Dr. Hopenfeld assumes Entergy will use) to determine the scope and frequency of in-service inspections ofcomponents susceptible to flow-accelerated corrosion, is improper because the 20% uprate changes plant parameters such that the model cannot be use to determine the inspectionfrequency without 10-15 years of inspection data.
See Petition at 18-19 and Exhibit 7 at ¶¶ 22-24. Dr. Hopenfeld further asserts that (a) CHECKWORKS is not a mechanistic code, but an empirical code that can be used so long as velocity and coolant chemistry do not change"drastically," (b) CHECKWORKS "must be updated continuously with plant-specific data from inspections" and (c) that 10-15 years of inspection data is needed to predict pipe wall thinning since the wall thinning rate from flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) is not constant with time and a "considerable number of cycles are needed to establish the FAC rate on a given componentat a particular plant."
Id. at ¶ 24. The issue raised by this contention is whether use of CHECKWORKS is appropriate todetermine the scope and frequency of inspections to manage aging effects caused by FAC. Dr. Hopenfeld's conclusory assertions that 10-15 years of site-specific inspection data is required for CHECKWORKS are unsupported and provide no basis for this contention.
SeeClinton, supra, at 241. The GALL Report indicates that CHECKWORKS was developed andbenchmarked using data from many plants and that the model is used to identify the mostsusceptible locations within a given piping system.
See GALL Report,Section XI.M17. Entergystates that, consistent with GALL, its flow-accelerated corrosion program is based on EPRI Report NSAC-202L-R2 guidelines for an effective program that predicts, detects, and monitors FAC in plant piping and other pressure retaining components.
See Application, Appendix B,B.1.13 (at B-47). The GALL Report also indicates that the FAC program relies on the foregoing EPRI guidelines and that CHECKWORKS is acceptable because it provides a bounding analysis and that an inspection schedule based on the results of a predictive code like CHECKWORKS provides reasonable assurance that structural integrity will be maintainedbetween inspections.
See GALL Report at XI M-61 to XI M-62. Dr. Hopenfeld's conclusoryopinions do not provide a adequate basis to question the use of CHECKWORKS. Therefore, the contention does not raise a genuine dispute concerning the Application and should berejected. 8 NEC, however, does not attach those documents to its Petition. Contention 5:The license renewal application does not include an adequate plan to manage and monitor aging of the condenser, a key plant component necessary to mitigate the release of radioactive gases during an accident at the plant. [
See Petition at 19]As a basis for this contention, NEC claims that the Application does not address theactual condition of the condenser and erroneously claims that an aging management program for the condenser is not needed. Petition at 19-20 citing Application at Table 3.4.2-1 and page3.4-26, plant-specific note 401. NEC relies on statements by Arnold Gundersen, a formerreactor operator and nuclear licensee vice president, and documents produced in discovery during a Vermont Public Service Board proceeding indicating that the condenser is degraded by corrosion and stress cracking, for its position that the condenser "may be unreliable to mitigate the consequences of an accident at Vermont Yankee even at the present time."
See Petitionat 20 & Exhibit 8, Declaration of Arnold Gundersen Supporting New England Coalition's Petition for Leave to Intervene, Request for Hearing, and Contentions, dated May 26, 2006.
8Mr. Gundersen similarly asserts that the steam condenser is a well-worn component thatwill not likely withstand the stresses of the extended power uprate through 2012 or continuedoperation during the renewal period; the LRA fails to acknowledge the degraded condition of the condenser; large cr acks have been identified and repaired stemming from bracing and welddeficiencies such that it will not prevent the flow of radioactive gases in the event it is needed tomitigate the consequences of an accident. Exhibit 8 at ¶¶ 9 34. Mr. Gundersen also asserts that summertime operation of VYNPS at extended uprate conditions will increase condenserbackpressure and result in high-cycle fatigue of the condenser, and that none of the discoverydocuments in the State proceeding indicate that the condition has been analyzed or that Entergy will take compensatory measures to avoid backpressure. ¶ 30. 9 See, e.g., Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358 (petitioners must read pertinent portions of theapplication).While NEC has identified a dispute with the Applicant concerning the appropriateness ofnote 401 with respect to the condenser's ability to perform a plateout function in the event of aMSIV leakage, NEC ignores the fact that the Application (at 3.4-2) also states that the MainCondenser and MSIV Leakage Pathway components will be under aging managementprograms to manage the effects of aging, (i.e., Flow-Accelerated Corrosion, System Walkdown, Water Chemistry Control - BWR, and Water Chemistry Control - Closed Cooling Water). Thus, it is not apparent that NEC has fulfilled its obligation to examine publicly available information.
9 In addition, Mr. Gundersen's complaint that discovery documents in the State proceeding failedto show whether Entergy has properly addressed condenser integrity concerns (see Exhibit 8at ¶¶20, 25, 30) does not indicate a dispute concerning an Application pending before theNRC. NEC does not explain why backpressure should be avoided or provide any basis for itsposition that a "corroded" condenser could not perform its plate out function. To the extent thatMr. Gundersen is concerned that degradation of the condenser is a safety issue for current operation of the facility, that the issue is outside the scope of the license renewal review, andthus inadmissible in this proceeding.
See 10 C.F.R. § 54.30 (matters indicating lack ofreasonable assurance during the current license term are not part of license renewal review). Therefore, the contention either raises an issue that is outside of the scope of licenserenewal or la cks an adequately specific basis. Thus, the contention fails to raise a genuinedispute concerning a material issue and should be rejected.Contention 6:The Application does not include an adequate plan to monitor andmanage aging of the primary containment boundary adequate to assure the public health and safety for the twenty-year term of the proposed license [renewal], as required by 10 C.F.R.
§ 54.21(a)(3). [see Petition at 21] As a basis for this contention, NEC claims that the drywell is a component of thecontainment boundary that is subject to aging management review and relies on Entergy summary reports and the Application to conclude that the plan does not address "areas of theprimary containment that are difficult to inspect, maintain and repair due to limited access" and that those areas may experience pitting and crevice corrosion which may "diminish" the capacity of the primary containment to perform its function. NEC specifically cites Application, Table 2.4-1 at page 2.4-13, which indicates that the drywell shell's intended function is to serveas flood barrier, missile barrier, pressure boundary, shelter or protection, and support for Criterion (a)(1) equipment.
See Petition at 21. NEC also quotes Entergy's discussion at3.5.2.2.1.4 of the Application, which concludes that significant corrosion of the drywell shell isnot expected due to monitoring of cracks in the concrete under the Structures MonitoringProgram, and the drywell steel shell and the moisture barrier where the drywell shell becomes embedded in the drywell concrete floor are inspected in accordance with the Containment In-service Inspection (IWE) Program and Structures Monitoring Program.
See Petitionat 21-22.In addition, NEC asserts that (1) Entergy does not provide information that wouldexclude the presence of moisture at the sand cushion or concrete encasement interfaces with the drywell shell, resulting from leaks, spills or intermittent condensation, see id. at 22, (2) twosummary reports indicate moisture and corrosion in these areas and the fact that there is a two-inch gap between the concrete and the drywell shell, see Petition at 22-24, and (3) theprograms listed in 3.5.2.2.1 do not provide for inspecting below the sand cushion and theinterstices between the shell and the concrete and that the program has been ineffective inmanaging corrosion, see id. at 25. NEC further notes that Staff guidance recognizes thatcorrosion is a concern for early BWR containments and that managing corrosion in difficult to inspect areas of the drywell is a valid technical issue that is being addressed at Oyster Creek. See id. at 25-26 and Exhibit 9, "Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff GuidanceLR-ISG-2006-01: Plant -Specific Aging Management Program for Inaccessible Areas of BoilingWater Reactor Mark I Steel Containment Drywell Shell," dated May 3, 2006 [71 Fed. Reg.27,010 (May 9, 2006)]. Contention 6 raises an issue within the scope of the proceeding, but does not raise agenuine dispute concerning the application. The two condition reports indicate the previous presence of corrosion.
See Petition at 22-25. NEC apparently was not aware that asupplement to the Application provided additional information concerning the lower drywell and indicates that there is no discernible loss of drywell shell thickness.
See Letter from TedSullivan, dated May 15, 2006 (ML061380079), Attachment 1 at 7. Thus, it has not met itsburden to show a dispute with the Applicant. In addition, NEC cannot rely on Staff guidance concerning managing inaccessible areas of the drywell shell as a basis for a contention in this proceeding unless it can provide reasonably specific information that shows a genuine dispute regarding the existence of corrosion in the VYNPS drywell. The mere existence of a staff concern does not provide a basis for a contention. See Duke Power Co. (Oconee Station, Units1, 2&3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 336-37 (1999) (issuance of requests for additional informationdoes not provide a basis for a contention). In summary, because Contentions 3-6 lack the necessary basis, support, andspecificity or fail to state a genuine dispute on a material issue of law or fact within the scope of the proceeding, they are not admissible and should be rejected. The Staff does not oppose theadmission of Contentions 1-2, provided they are limited to the adequately supported bases thatare within the scope of this license renewal proceeding. CONCLUSIONBecause NEC has demonstrated standing to intervene, and at least one admissiblecontention, the NEC petition should be granted. Respectfully submitted, /RA/Mitzi A. YoungCounsel for NRC StaffDated at Rockville, Marylandthis 22nd day of June 2006 UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDIn the Matter of)
)ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT YANKEE, LLC) and ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. )Docket No. 50-271-LR )
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station))CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that copies of the "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR HEARING OFNEW ENGLAND COALITION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by electronic mail with copies by deposit in the NRC's internal mail system byelectronic mail, with copies by U.S. mail, first class, as indicated by an asterisk, this 22nd day of June, 2006.Administrative JudgeAlex S. Karlin, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ask2@nrc.govAdministrative JudgeThomas S. Elleman*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 5207 Creedmoor Road, #101 Raleigh, NC 27612 E-mail: elleman@eos.ncsu.eduOffice of Commission AppellateAdjudication Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAmail@nrc.govAdministrative JudgeRichard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: rew@nrc.govOffice of the SecretaryAttn: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.govSarah Hofmann, Esq.* Special Counsel Department of Public Service 112 State Street - Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 E-mail: sarah.hofmann@state.vt.us Diane Curran, Esq.*Harmon, Curran, Spielberg
& Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1726 M Street, NW., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.comRonald A. Shems, Esq.*Karen Tyler, Esq.
Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders, PLLC 91 College Street Burlington, VT 05401 E-mail: rshems@sdkslaw.com Ktyler@sdkslaw.comCallie B. Newton, Chair*Gail MacArthur Lucy Gratwick Marcia Hamilton Town of Marlboro Selectboard
P.O. Box 518 Marlboro, VT 05344 E-mail: cbnewton@sover.netmarcialynn@ev1.netMarcia Carpentier, Esq.Jonathan M. Rund, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mxc7@nrc.govJmr2@nrc.govAnthony Z Roisman, Esq.* National Legal Scholars Law Firm 84 East Thetford Rd.
Lyme, NH 03768 E-mail: aroisman@nationallegalscholars.comMatthew Brock, Esq.*Assistant Attorney General Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, Room 1813 Boston, MA 02108-1598 E-mail: matthew.brock@ago.state.ma.usDan MacArthur, Director*Town of Marlboro Emergency Management
P.O. Box Box 30 Marlboro, VT 05344 Email: dmacarthur@igc.orgDavid R. Lewis, Esq.*Matias F. Travieso-Diaz Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com matias.travieso-diaz@pillsburylaw.com/RA/
Mitzi A. YoungCounsel for NRC StaffDated at Rockville, Marylandthis 22nd day of June 2006