ML073540361
| ML073540361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/25/2007 |
| From: | Webster R Grandmothers, Mothers & More for Energy Safety, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, New Jersey Environmental Federation, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG), Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS), Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter |
| To: | Abramson P, Anthony Baratta, Hawkens E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, RAS 14811 | |
| Download: ML073540361 (3) | |
Text
............ O.......EYE ONL PRO SEFTEMvBER 27. 2007 TO,,,.*v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY December 19, 2007 (9:55am)
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Before Administrative Judges: ADJUDICATIONS STAFF E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-219 AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC )
OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR )
GENERATING STATION )
) September 25, 2007 License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear )
Generating Station
)
CITIZENS' PROPOSED QUESTIONS REGARDING ORAL TESTIMONY ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In accordance with an oral ruling from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the "Board") on September 24, 2007, these proposed questions for the Board to ask NRC Staff and AmerGen witnesses are submitted on behalf of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, JerseyShore Nuclear Watch, Inc., Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, New Jersey Sierra Club, and New Jersey Environmental Federation (collectively "Citizens").
1
]Te-m p JAt=zY*Ecy-ý 6L -5:cy-0 C2.
.C",FDENrTIAL*
. .. - FOR ASLB BYES OINLY _RKIOR TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2on07 v PROPOSED QUESTIONS Purposes The purpose of the questions is to clarify the oral testimony provided on the first day of the Subpart L hearing concerning the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ("Oyster Creek").
II. Proposed Questions
- 1. Dr. Hartzman did you testify that the ASME requires a safety factor of 2.0 for modifications?
- 2. If yes, should a more stringent standard apply to a modification that is done deliberately to the plant structure versus one that has occurred inadvertently?
- 3. NRC Staff, referencing Dr. Hausler's latest extrapolations for the data in Bay 13 (Hausler Sur-rebuttal Test. at E. 61, Fig. 4) there is a severely corroded area at the edge of the Bay. What acceptance criterion is applied to this area? If the plot is correct, does Bay 13 meet that acceptance criterion?
- 4. Please explain.
- 5. AmerGen, do you acknowledge that inclusions in the steel plates have been observed in the UT testing?
- 6. AmerGen, referencing AmerGen Ex. 44 figure for Bay 19, have you checked whether the coincident points indicated on the plot actually match in terms of thickness?
- 7. AmerGen, referring to AmerGen Ex. 44, how have the data on the plot been referenced to the same spatial datum?
- 8. John Hawkins and Scott Erickson, please describe precisely what UT measurements were taken at each external location and which of those measurements were recorded.
- 9. Mr. Tamburro, before the sand was removed, was it possible to access the lower two thirds of the sand bed to take UT measurements?
2
C-&ýrfT.if OR ALB EYES ONLY .... R.TO S E...... 27,P,-
Respectfully submitted Richard Webster, Esq RUTGERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC Attorneys for Petitioners Dated: September 25, 2007 3