ML071280629
| ML071280629 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/04/2007 |
| From: | Polonsky A AmerGen Energy Co, Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP |
| To: | Abramson P, Barrata A, Hawkens E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-219-LR, ASLBP 06-844-01-LR, RAS 13575 | |
| Download: ML071280629 (57) | |
Text
~/~6/35 75 DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION May 4, 2007 (4:22pm)
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Before Administrative Judges:
E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta
)
In the Matter of: ) May 4, 2007
)
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC )
) Docket No. 50-219 (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear )
Generating Station) )
)
AMERGEN MOTION TO STRIKE In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a) and this Board's Order of May 1, 2007,1 AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen) moves to strike portions of "Citizens' Answer Opposing AmerGen's Motion for Summary Disposition" (April 26, 2007)
(Answer). 2 As demonstrated below, Citizens' Answer and the supporting Memorandum of Dr. Rudolf Hausler (Hausler Memorandum) go well beyond the limited issue in contention. They impermissibly raise issues that this Board has repeatedly and unambiguously excluded from the scope of this proceeding. They also raise new issues that are outside the scope of the contention. Citizens had an obligation to amend their contention if they wished to raise these new issues. Accordingly, the Board should strike Order (Granting AmerGen's Request for Leave to File Motion to Strike) (May 1, 2007)
(unpublished).
Citizens are Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Jersey Shore 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.
I-WA/2742402 "TP[a'-te- =0-ec/ y- 0
the portions of the Answer and the Hausler Memorandum specified in MTS Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.3 I. PREVIOUSLY REJECTED ISSUES MUST BE STRICKEN Citizens' Answer and the Hausler Memorandum impermissibly raise three issues that this Board has excluded from this proceeding on numerous occasions; namely, challenges to: (1) the acceptance criteria; (2) AmerGen's methods for analyzing UT results in the sand bed region; and (3) the scope of UT monitoring (i.e., where the UT measurements are taken).
A. Citizens' Fifth Attempt to Litigate Acceptance Criteria Must Be Rejected Citizens are once again challenging the minimum thickness acceptance criteria for the sand bed region of the drywell shell. 4 This represents an impermissible attempt to litigate,for thefifth time, those acceptance criteria. The Board explicitly excluded from the admitted contention any challenge to the existing acceptance criteria,5 and has repeatedly rejected each of Citizens' four untimely attempts to litigate this issue.6 The justifications for each portion to be stricken are indicated in the Exhibits, according to the following legend:
(1) Statements disputing the local area acceptance criteria (see § I.A., below);
(2) Statements disputing the statistical methods for analyzing the UT results (see
§ I.B.,below);
(3) Statements disputing the spatial scope of UT monitoring (see § I.C., below); and (4) Statements addressing the October 2006 UT results (see § II below).
See, e.g., Answer at Section III.A; Hausler Memorandum at 7-8.
_5 Memorandum and Order (Granting Petition to File a New Contention), LBP-06-22, 64 N.R.C.,
slip op. at 10-14 (Oct. 10, 2006).
See Memorandum and Order (Denying New Jersey's Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene, and Granting NIRS Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene), LBP-06-11, 63 N.R.C. 391, 398 (2006) (rejecting the challenge to the acceptance criteria raised in "Motion for Leave to Add Contentions or Supplement the Basis of the Current Contention" (Feb. 7, 2006);
LBP-06-22, slip op. at 14 (rejecting two challenges to the acceptance criteria raised in "Petition to Add a New Contention" (June 23, 2006) at 4 (June 23 Petition) and "Supplement to Petition to (footnote continued) 2
Unfortunately, the Board is called upon once again to rule on a pleading that has been filed in flagrant disregard of Board Orders in this proceeding.
Citizens seek to mask their most recent challenge by arguing that the local area acceptance criterion has become "more stringent.7 Yet this challenge is identical to a challenge this Board rejected in LBP-06-22. Specifically, in their June 23 Petition Citizens sought to argue, among other things, that "AmerGen had changed the acceptance criteriafor measurements that showed that the steel shell was already thinner than the initial 0.736 inch criterion."' The Board found that argument untimely then, and it is therefore impermissible for Citizens to raise it again at this late date.
Citizens also now argue that use of the local area acceptance criterion (as described in AmerGen's Motion for Summary Disposition) "could not be justified," and they list various reasons why they think that is the case.- Citizens, however, are prohibited from arguing that these criteria are unacceptable, as the Board recently reiterated that such arguments are precluded from litigation in this proceeding.-L° B. Citizens Are Not Permitted to Litigate the Methods for Analyzing UT Results Citizens also devote portions of their Answer and the Hausler Memorandum to once again challenge AmerGen's methods for analyzing the results of UT of the drywell Add a New Contention" (July 25, 2006) at 17-22 (July 25 Supplement); Memorandum and Order (Denying Citizens' Motion for Leave to Add a Contention and Motion to Add a Contention) at 6 (April 10, 2007) (unpublished) (April 10, 2007 Order) (rejecting the challenge to the acceptance criteria raised in "Motion for Leave to Add a Contention and Motion to Add a Contention" (Feb.
6, 2007)).
Answer at 6.
8 LBP-06-22, slip op. at 11 (quoting June 23 Petition at 16) (emphasis added).
2 Answer at 7.
LO April 10, 2007 Order at 6.
3
shell in the sand bed region.11 This includes a challenge to the analysis of UT data from 1992, as well as UT data from the most recent refueling outage in October 2006. For example, they state that AmerGen's "procedure" for "evaluating the 1992 external
[ultrasonic testing] results" is "highly arbitrary" and "masked the full extent of the 12 corrosion.
Such a claim mirrors Citizens' June 23 Petition, in which they argued, among other things, that "the average of the individual [UT] measurements taken in each grid is used to analyze the corrosion rates, leading to artificially low estimates of uncertainty;
[and] it omits from the mean some of the thinnest points in the grids, leading to artificially high estimates of the current mean thickness."'1 3 The Board, of course, ruled that part of the Petition outside the scope of the admitted contention.1 4 Citizens' efforts to wedge it back into this proceeding under guise of their Answer is exemplary of their lack of discipline and the above-cited disregard for this Board's Orders.
C. Citizens Are Not Permitted to Litigate the Scope of UT Citizens devote portions of the Hausler Memorandum to once again challenge the scope of UT monitoring (i.e., where the UT measurements are taken). For example, Dr.
Hausler states:
[S]ince the outside of the drywell in the sandbed region had been coated in 1992, corrosion in the upper regions of the sandbed (i.e. where monitoring is being proposed) has become less relevant because water accumulations (the R See, e.g., Answer at Section III.B. & C; Hausler Memorandum at 8-10.
L2 Answer at 8; see also Hausler Memorandum, passim.
13 LBP-06-22 at 33-34 (citing June 23 Petition at 11-12).
L Id. at 36.
4
primary causes for corrosion) will now more likely_ occur towards the bottom of the former sandbed region.-
The Board, however, has already ruled that this argument may not be litigated in this proceeding. 16 II. NEW ARGUMENTS ARE PRECLUDED Section III.C of Citizens' Answer presents arguments based on alleged deficiencies in the 2006 UT measurements and in AmerGen's methods for analyzing these measurements. Yet, since the Board admitted Citizens' contention on October 10, 2006, Citizens have not amended their contention to address the results of the UT measurements taken during the subsequent October 2006 outage or the revisions to AmerGen's License Renewal Application submitted to the NRC in December 2006 addressing those results.17 The Board in Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility), LBP-04-9, 59 N.R.C. 286 (2004), faced a similar fact pattern. The Board had admitted a contention based on DCS' initial Application, but DCS then revised the Application. DCS subsequently filed a motion for summary disposition. In response, the intervenor challenged new information that was part of DCS' revised application.
The Board granted summary disposition, finding that intervenor "should have been well aware of the Board's expectation that late-filed contentions or late-filed amended L Hausler Memorandum at 1.
16 LBP-06-22 at 36.
L Letter, from Michael P. Gallagher, AmerGen, to NRC Document Control Desk, "Information from the October 2006 Refueling Outage Supplementing AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen)
Application for a Renewed Operating License for Oyster Creek Generating Station," (Dec. 3, 2006).
5
contentions should be filed promptly following the issuance of any documents containing significant new or different information."'18 Citizens chose not to file any late-filed amendments to their contention after AmerGen submitted its revised Application in December 2006 to incorporate the results of the 2006 outage. Accordingly, AmerGen limited its Motion for Summary Disposition to Citizens' arguments as admitted by the Board in LBP-06-22. The Board should not permit Citizens to raise these issues now in an Answer to a Motion for Summary Disposition, when they had approximately five months to do so as an amendment to their contention. By doing so in their Answer for the first time, they prevent AmerGen and the Staff from providing any substantive reply. This is akin to including information in a reply brief that was not raised in an initial pleading, which the Commission has ruled is impermissible.19 As a result, arguments addressing this new information are beyond the scope of the admitted contention, and should be stricken.2° 18 LBP-04-9, 59 N.R.C. at 292 (emphasis added).
L9 LouisianaEnergy Servs., L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-25, 60 N.R.C. 223 (2004)
(upholding the Board's refusal to consider arguments presented for the first time in reply briefs, because "the reply briefs constituted a late attempt to reinvigorate thinly supported contentions by presenting entirely new arguments").
LO See also PrivateFuel Storage, L.L. C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-99-23, 49 N.R.C. 485, 493 (1999) ("Given there is not a material dispute over th'e present status of the application," intervenors' arguments challenging the revised application would "favor ... the admission of a new contention" rather than preclude summary disposition.).
6
III. CONCLUSION Because Citizens' Answer and the supporting Hausler Memorandum present issues that the Board previously has rejected and/or that are beyond the scope of the admitted contention and its bases, the Board should strike the portions of Citizens' Answer and the Hausler Memorandum indicated on the markups attached to this Motion as MTS Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.
Respectfully submitted, Donald J. Silverman, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5502 dsilverman@morganlewis.com ksutton@morganlewis.com apolonsky@morganlewis.com J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Exelon Corporation 4300 Warrenville Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Phone: (630) 657-3769 Bradley.Fewellgexeloncorp.com Dated in Washington, D.C. COUNSEL FOR AMERGEN ENERGY this 4th day of May 2007. COMPANY, LLC 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of: ) May 4, 2007
)
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC )
) Docket No. 50-219 (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear )
Generating Station) )
)
.)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "AmerGen Motion to Strike" were served this day upon the persons listed below, by E-mail and first class mail, unless otherwise noted.
Secretary of the Commission* Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel One White Flint North Mail Stop - T-3 F23 11555 Rockville Pike U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@.nrc.gov) (E-mail: erh@nrc.gov)
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson Anthony J. Baratta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 (E-mail: pbagnrc.gov ) (E-mail: aib5@nrc.gov) 1-WA/2743877.1
John A. Covino Office of Commission Appellate Valerie Anne Gray Adjudication**
Division of Law U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Permitting and Counseling Section Washington, DC 20555-0001 P.O. Box 093 Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625 (E-mail: iohn.covino(dol.lps.state.ni.us) Richard Webster (E-mail: valerie. gray(idol.lps.state.ni.us) Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102-5695 (E-mail: rwebster@kinoy.rutgers.edu)
Suzanne Leta Paul Gunter NJPIRG Nuclear Information and Resource Service 11 N. Willow Street 1424 16th Street, NW Trenton, NJ 08608 Suite 404 (E-mail: sleta(2nipirg.org) Washington, DC 20036 (E-mail: pgunter@nirs.org)
Mitzi A. Young Debra Wolf Mary C. Baty Law Clerk Office of the General Counsel, 0-15D21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (E-mail: may(nrc.gov) Washington, DC 20555-0001 (E-mail: mcb 1(2nrc.gov) (E-mail: dawi @nrc.gov)
- Original and 2 copies
- First Class Mail only
)(aphael P. RIyler 2
MTS Exhibit 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
E. Roy Hawkens, Chair Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of )
) April 26, 2007 AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC )
) Docket No. 50-0219-LR (License Renewal for the Oyster Creek )
Nuclear Generating Station) )
)
CITIZENS' ANSWER OPPOSING AMERGEN'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Jersey Shore 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" or "Petitioners") oppose the summary disposition motion (the "Motion") filed by AmerGen Energy Co. LLC ("AmerGen") on legal and factual grounds.
The facts show that summary disposition is inappropriate. AmerGen seeks summary disposition even though its own analyses, despite some inconsistency, showed that margins are' narrower. than 0.064.inches and-potentialcoir'sion ratesmare greater than0 017' iniches per year The combination of these two facts leads to a conclusion that a measurement frequency of every 4 years is too long, because corrosion in excess of the margin could occur in less than 4 years.
For the purposes of summary disposition, the facts must be construed in favor of Citizens. Thus, these two facts alone indicate that summary disposition is inappropriate at this time.
In addition, as a matter of law, summary disposition is also unavailable to AmerGen based on its pleadings. Where there is a clash of expert opinion, summary disposition is only possible where one expert's opinion is so flawed that it would be inadmissible at trial. Here, AmerGen has failed to show that the opinions of Citizens' expert are flawed. It has also proffered an affidavit regarding acceptance criteria and available margin that is contradicted by documents in the record that were written by the affiant. At this stage, AmerGen's testimony on these issues should therefore be disregarded as unreliable. Because AmerGen has failed to present any other testimony regarding the available margin, as a matter of law it has failed to meet its burden to show that there are no open issues for adjudication.
In fact, discovery in this proceeding has confirmed that there are currently four main open issues for adjudication: .i) what are thie accept* c eriteria tha*tmst be metbyth thickness results*,fromtheuti ( tetingin.tes bedregionoithe d e ell At th,,- ter*,
Creek Nuclearr.)Generating Station (" Creek" ii) when the results from the UT testing are compared to the acceptance criteria, what is the iimum margniii) how fast could corrosion [
occur between inspections; and iv) what frequency of UT testing is required to ensure that required safety margins would be maintained during any extended license renewal period.
AmerGen's inconsistent statements and methods mean that there are open issues concerning all of the above. Ini addition-, -tljý lattoino ro iizts exprt sosta mre a incorr~ectly ýclaimed thait a small numiber~bf metasuremenits'fo th itroof thadbe' repres~ent the beaior of 'eeifirreIon.'
CtAreful analyi of the dat culysost~ thee 2
me~asurements actually~tendto ,verestimatethe average thi e'ss'of the sandhedbreodn., Thus, margin,.ulationr egarding ., av0rage4 thckness ¬ use the iteiorimeasurements alon'ei When Citizens proffered the contention, they alleged that the margin could be as low as 0.026 inches. AmerGen continues to allege that the margin is 0.064 inches. pitie*nslav( nobw compared the latst~esuts w~thithe latest acceptance cntena for average thidless the;thickness; oi flca reas tat. -`are les%ha ".736inche"thick and, the thickniess ofvery F~~l~da~s average tiic.essthe known margin at .95%,confidenceis' O.044,iche less; becausethe ,2&4 uncertanty, u4e mean thiclnes ,mea.srem'nt is plus o mtnus,0.,2 ihches at 95% /oroidenceiý adth~es aiments may overestimated Arage-tfickiiess;!FRihr~oe usni esat externall cthsk me....me sin ze1n'ith n iui copaedtoeaergethiciness acceptance_ riterion is on-y 014 ictis* 95% onfidence Fo .................
1 e4 that are grater. th aroun two.nchendimeter," but less tha 12 inches by .12 inches, theqcurrent margin is hii.ly uncertain but mayalready
`less be than Zero., Forvery, lo6a---------that are I ta t ru tw nce _Aý _ý thko n i9 confideneec a~ lo}esstha. ze&,P eendg:t..tatiýica! approachtaken, to esti ate theI thii~nest pint ondie d-rywe'll:sýhelf>ý The potential future corrosion rate in case of corrosive conditions occurring is also poorly defined, but Citizens' expert estimated that it could be around 0.017 inches per year, while AmerGen's expert has assumed it could be as high as 0.039 inches per year. Thus, assuming that AmerGen can establish some margin, the appropriate monitoring frequency could be more than once per year. The current proposed monitoring frequency is once every four years. Thus, the contention alleging that monitoring frequency is inadequate cannot be dismissed summarily.
3
With regard to the corrosion rate, AmerGen states that the 2006 results show that corrosion at 0.017 inches per year has not been occurring. That is irrelevant because Citizens did not state that corrosion had been occurring at that rate. Instead, Citizens asserted that corrosive conditions could occur between inspections during any extended licensed period of operation because the protective coating is at or close to the end of its life and water could be present.
AmerGen has neither denied that corrosive conditions could occur in the future, nor that corrosion could occur at a significant rate under such conditions. Thus, AmerGen has failed to show that the potential for significant future corrosion is not an issue.
The required monitoring frequency is a function of the available margin and the potential corrosion rate. The combination of open, issues regarding the *acpeptan '_eiit te avilabl margins and the corrosion rate mean that the contention, which concerns appropriate monitoring frequency, cannot be dismissed through summary disposition. Instead these issues must be adjudicated through a hearing or, at minimum, clarified through further document disclosure and discussion between the parties.
STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Undisputed Issues This proceeding concerns AmerGen's ability to ensure that the drywell shell, which forms the primary containment system at the Oyster Creek, does not corrode below acceptable safety margins during any extended period of licensed operation beyond April 2009, when the Plant is currently scheduled to close. The containment system is a safety critical component whose failure could lead to the inability to contain products from a nuclear accident and, under certain circumstances, could even initiate a nuclear accident.
4
II. Specific Factual Issues Already Decided By The ASLB Citizens already demonstrated a basis for their initial contention about the lack of adequate UT testing. As recognized by the ASLB in its decision admitting the initial contention, Citizens had ample basis for the following points:
i) water could intrude into the sand bed region in the future, leading to corrosive conditions on the outside of the drywell shell, LBP-06-07 at 36; ii) the epoxy coating that was applied to protect the sand bed is now beyond its rated life and may be deteriorating, id. at 31, 36; iii) corrosion could occur even if the epoxy coating had not visibly deteriorated, id., at 36-37 In the decision admitting the current contention the Board reaffirmed its findings, stating that the existence of a corrosive environment was a possibility. LBP-06-22 at 15.
III. Factual Errors Made By AmerGen In the Motion and the affidavits AmerGen makes a number of factual errors about the acceptance criteria, the remaining margins, and Citizens' statement about corrosion rates. This Section details these errors and thereby illustrates that many of the "facts" asserted by AmerGen are in dispute.
A., The Local Area Acceptance Criterion Is In Dispute.
Vj Ith~regar& to. the acceptaice, criteria, AmnerG .eIn:allIIIeges .tha.t,Ithe "local0 are] vrg thicknsIscite rIi16 ni 0. 536-i nche's fora 1 Isquar foot ara but th.e total1 ~rea that 6nb.thinnerl tfan 0.736 inches is nine suare feet. Affidait of PeterTamburro, dated.March 26, 2007M (TapdburromAf1fe'*at Tj 20122,*2*epa. adlded)s.q asis e thoweve,3Ctaff ins the Saf EvaltiationleRport ("SER"'),q'pote AmnetGen stating ~that th Ielocal acpnecrterion ~"ca n be aplied. to sm~all areas (less than 12 ' by 12')-which are les than0.73"tic olnga h small,12," byi2 7 area is at least 0.536 inches thick." Oyse Crek jER 4-56(ac 07 5
- .c tne2tn* :,is,,a.applicablefo'r area:,pgr t6 2x f2.') iitizens' Ex. 8a*t
'aAN 2 mchemtii~~~ ecn one yqe, fo~"ndthir averq tliciess w easgfef~tiýýý.5 ci s hEinai~t NRCStaf tdatedAn 5, 2006,E NC~ at1 J (aat etML060960563)(eiphis ad i*.i ohito n Mr.Ed).Tm Tanburro's Affidawt, nerGen.s statemeintsand.ose, of.he affign' hself, directly,
- ontriadi*t" itpioffered th affida'vt and state that e:t loal actacptanc..ctenon "onlyapphiesto, smallareasthaiifeet are lesstl one squate *mniea coiine!ided. that jtje local area a~cctineari teff meant thtndtiguos* area tht ai~ethni;e than 0,736.fimche sioul~dbe lessquan,onersquaie foot n areaI. ed eGen docients Wlhdiahtualy pU.nss6ted to showeth6at theIy.a,thiner than 0.736i*h*es ar lssthn 2 nce sqa e. mrep x tahdt Answe dated arcih[Aa,~ 06(19
,The*, la:*!,..tesicakulations*,,0:*
detailing
"" **-:;""the:)'U
- howv T'measurementS"
' [ "*"":have *been,":*:
accepted-" 1 sho: ..4....
v th*
rat" since Citizens madeheir content-ion :the loeal area aeeptace criterion has become mor stringent:; In0mid-2006,' Ameren applied:a !oea!-.thick siies.s crterion :of 0.636 ,inchesto areas th~at thn .9~i~hs hikardshllb n lrertandhgl 6"'zns 8- E'X.wie",acl~r Ac 7ept3ce Report') at 5 Most I ecentlyti*nec*me2Q0 6; ierIti appie the following E31O-04 inches, at1w; sJA1,at 1r e.This E3oc 0-04acep.tan areacse Th.,'iaA
- S en.
gnr abl ta,moe n9resO AsWrne~
ngent thn,dhanthedohropuowr ll'thrto-ae orwari 6
by Dr. Haiislerj(An~isd 0rv~il by hWin iiesPofrd ,xire)a adihiiied contention~ Th sedniore form I~n 'Ation' oft Ici etheCcetaizercrriteribpivde*'s fýluie supp~r for th ntenti6' the arg c gci~e~dpusin hsno stiingt criterii6 will inevitabljiy iierta ryitsý ~tmtd Ii ,:adof dsojssing heyanousap aeth j tlhias actually usI to~eri whthr~h 206U~eu '~ame ~cetbe xireha~iie htt~ tal allowable area tliaV is tiiertia . 76 ind e j~isni ie - ur ~i n u n X fa ¶~2 - 3 A~s o x &
Affier~e n'so doct'nients" dontaict this ~asserton.; Quiter, ftif Amer enfihad acuap use c~teio~itc~ld sch ot~j~ifedA uiform thiný so 36,71'inhesi b-~ r byArnerten to xctlysatisfy *the AMSE c'riteria. Citizens" Ex ANG2a -9 aiuroAEa
¶17. In-addition as Mt., Tamb'urro himselfhtd 'hn iesuaefoaratinrhn Ex.
NO a~2. hus, Ainer cno~how aiit a nin'e square foot~areithinn~er thani 0.736 cpd requireiqiqqtq.fý,is-dapears -to:ha~been one; o co~en ~ br~ yhn autoretAN 8in arc; 006.ý Fromihe-tiffihgjitapp~As tha l-f acpan ri# te has lbecome more stigitoer the l~astyy~inAjsp ns _ &conce~rnsIt ist~herefore~hotP surprising that Mr." abros iffidavit fails4 -6 gie any xampes~of ac~tual -use,ofth'e purported localý area acc66eptance criterion ofiiesqae f~eetthinniý thn0.76l inces "Thiisbcuets pupre criterion has nee enaplied in practicd.JIstead, this"m~ore l'ax verion :of the' localý araacetne criterion appe ars to have. ben cn'octed 64olely fr thisi litigation.
7
nsuniaAeGns w 'umns icate at N~~r' Ta ro iu i -in Io rrect in his
,assertions aboutt~he 1oc6afarea acceptance c~rt~erion.Althioughi AeGen claimsthat Dr.?Haiisler was mistakeniabout the local acceptance criterion, Tamrburr6 Aff.' at ¶¶ 21-22,'s&one of AnierGen's docum~ents inidicat'e that Dr. Hausler was, correct'and others showjtlat the applied, criterion is now actuallyrMore striijgent than before. Thus, one issue thiat reqursajdcto or, ~at minimum, firthedocumnt-ieiit i sth roe statementof the 1oca area acceptarice B. Te Meusiirewents For Ea-lu ati'on Ag-a'inst T"-e Aeptiaii~e Cr1teria Are' In~
Dispute In adidition to-the'disp t j b u the ~ t n e iieijonI~ to use, Cti e s h v raised mrany factuall issues with the ingi the h eh~luae.I evahi~iatiiig the 1,9 xenlrsls instead of uising the atual measuremhents', AnerGen used an aidjustedresult based, on some casts that had been taken of the dimples in the external dryweVIZ surfae.
Eg. 192 Aceptance Report at33-39. 'At th tinnest'Tcation easureti
,pocde chaiged the evaluationhchsfoi ii~,e.f which is Wvhat was mea'sured byr UT,t 6 0.673, inche's. Id. at 39.' The. report furthersttdta hstikes"ol ~nevtv~
e§it qvefr n"area o, 6 6 inche's. " Id t36 DrHu1 Aealnimiiý r examined this~piolc dure~in~de~ta in"~ernUm. 4ated uhe,23,2006,
("Hausle June Me o" wvhich suppqrtqd the contenition~ r.:Ias~ro the j~oeueo'be "hghly arbitrary" and opined that itImnas ked .the full e~xtent ofithe corrosion. Hausler June Memo at -14. fIndeed, even AmerGen app~ears t6'have realized thakthd rceir used bv AmerGen for te1992 reut sltjsiid~ause tb~cpaierpItfrte2Orsiitsdoes not utilii zeý the .aprai used i192 ldaton C-1302-1 87-E,310-041_
8
.sta~t~eth.at theaeas fthat weriot meGsured\were thicker than sthemarhattwerehmeasure17
'externally:. *Transcript from Januai i,:l8; 2007,ACRS meeting at<201 ;ildeed*,byi,,esign, the d99 mea ur men s eres*ppOsed ,tobe t ake~ t tle thiinn s p ii s::C l u
- C -17 02- 187-'7 E3I0-04x',. JtA.hat48'. .Unfortuaotely,; be'ause the !Ocaonsof&te po Ints easmeurad 1992 Were notmrarked on the c9ating*,.thgxact 1catlons culd not be re1peated: Ex. SJA I! at, 48,; see' show.. thatat
".some AmerGen. oiarne viponts ~ Ba yt ;'-I"5,7and"" 1.9readigs oiiff~N ntl' nnd&.'. innu{ the a:0.025 inchtha'ea aii0d noinmal location'tof the-point. §E~t SJA 2 :Attachiment 4.at 8, 1'67,18 20>- striktingly,-in Bay 15[*
readings w'ere! as .muclh as 0.0068 inches :less.,than, the recorded' value .Id t-16 -iml ry:l ~ y w9 re.re mae eilts o' were up t0.07 inchesmore thann mmum-meure . .value:
. I.. at
- 20. AerGen4 Ex,. at 5-f>rba :e lo.cated point 'an..~i~ rhel.rdU&e 10cat!0nal ,uncertain*tj if the minimumn o.av.eragre~radimg :is reslt arc systematically repor;t.ed. 4nalcorcM athi Gen*E. 4 at Sl.' case,;cbaeeaub. theobjiectie
.was to findo mlnimum vahues, AmerGen should have~ reporte d :the minimum re~ading obtained in 2006 as the,:
measureent for evaluation and-marked tiat point as thebaselne. Its failure to do so means th4at:1 the statistical evfluation offwhethderong1ing corrksion' was:ocding was comnprominsed, because the 2006 res~ults were overstated. .Furtrrn~or~e, m~ign calculaitonbsedb
- nnth.e ,overstated*
C. Margins Are Less Than 0.021 Inches AmerGen asserts that the minimum margin is 0.064 inches, calculated by subtracting the average of the measurements taken from the 6 inch by 6 inch grid in Bay 19 from the 0.736 9
inches acceptance criterion for the average thickness. Tamburro Aft. at 6. However, this statement is inconsistent with AmerGen's own documents. The minimum margin compared to the average thickness criterion evaluated by AmerGen to date was actually taken from the external results in Bay 11 in 1992. This showed a mean thickness of 0.792 inches, 1992 Acceptance Report at 5, 30, yielding a margin of 0.056 inches. Using the latestVresults taken in Bay 11, that average has*..nowb
,,decreased. to', 0.783': inches:.
... Seex:.SJA2. .Attachment. 4' page .
Thus, if AmerGen had determined the acceptability oftteý atest$exteral rsu tsý using the approach that it used in September of 2006 to ealuate the 1992 results, itiwould ltave found the, minimum margin to be 0.047 inches- Furzthermo~re. 'the mean of te minimum. data~measumred at, eachpoint n Bay.15 is *.768 inches, yielding a miiiimrnun gi f iehes,.
i0n032 c Thusg AnierGen hasfailed to accurately describe the results of6ts owcalculationasaiid hasa, inconsistently.applied the acceptance criteria to the external datia
- `addition;. these margin~ calculation~s above are oIveriy, smlistic, because tliey't~akeý"no K-
,4cutof the'uncertinty of-the m~easuriementsLookin is'ti at th~e mandatagathiered fromw the 49-poit grids, Amerd~en has ,admnitted that iirz t ak ~ am. to evrineo h en of these data, SER t 4-55, butjit has failed to so do for the mostpart. One exception is that in' taking account of the variability of the mean of the measured data in the trtence, Am en subtracted' 0.02 inches before it compared the mean to theacceptance criterin.l S* e.g. Ex. SJA`,,
Taking a morenrigorous account ofte vaance of the means requires explit:
consideration of the number of measurements avail7tble. b For the data fii the-interior '.grid [
location lt9Awhch AmerGen used to claim that the margnish .04ihe;te stadard devation isaround .006inches, SJA l at 50,;givipg rise to a'standard deviation in the mean of 10
0.02 ,mie es sh~ould be~subtracted&7m~n margSbainied~t tae acouintf othe, uniiertaiU, in 2&
data: quoted by AxerG-*n as thebisbassfr* it :etirate of rnmum ,m'i-.agincould pnily. show that:
the margi.n i thatnBas is geaterO0.44'inchdsat 95 confiden&
Unfortunately, as Dr.HUaus~ler shows ,comPreleisiyely,the Teom gr ids meas.ued theI interior are not reparesentative of theimean surface and may ovrest mate the mean tickness.
oftthe t theexternal data inaddio tte gibd6d Forinthe external measu previd, d agefrtqto theaasin oofnn inirum thsc16iss a'ndtose d of daa.
hethextena H ~y for the1, h~staidad raist sean evitoo imhpes t1*y*ssuse0i,7gt50o- tens 69 t rcenTstie is 206fte-nima m.04sinred. froms teigt pvhointsa poitswee ishver oneiataveraeaurdthoeyererogisanar dvitinrf te mand n
'is ft wasnmae'206... 1hee nh.Teeoe th~cdeslowe 9 0 , r ausler ishow that,
,' the avr thickes re ari itt~ ntBa 1 i 0014inhe ith 95%confiene Moe~g damaHalle,_ a p orivatinofi oth rqieey,, i` theorr-ectew 0.7
'adramatioe:ally, in y15 the lowern percntil of s5 na ftercorecteddt is 0.73 1ons ihhswih 'elowt the*ý6"ý accptale iiit f 0736inces.
.t, th&y loa arne, criri-Iqp , most reetonuan recearath
.. 4]
Turin the re thinnerthan 0.t73 W inches tobe thicker ha 0.693inches and smaller thaii 6 iches by, 6 inchfs' T
In 1992, the thinnest area meas.red wsQ06lS8 i.nche s, which AterGen stare could extend overg 11
a ,61inch byj&. 6-mr~ d:,- ~ Ek.3L at'36.` yenjth~cfce" result, which was evaluiated1 against he~olt local area.cnitenon*,*'as* gien as 0.673 iche.s!:Id.. Thus ,',if erGencomar th* 1992 r sulthtotie nt local area1criterion, it appea that itwol be~lillated.;
The 20.06 resultsare even'wors.- The. thi'ckhess ii thesamelocationmieAuredin 1992 asI
-0.618 inclies was measured in 2006 as 0:602 inches-, Ex. SJA 2*-Attachnient 4t1;4t,t4 However, it appears tht in contrast, to the approachqtaken in'Septemberof 2006 l regard to the acceptan*e;
~oth9e~enjrslsfo l9,24ij'heAi~ ~t ,ompre the 2006 _xenfb~ts~h ith the'
- loar'ea oel*ara'ceptan~ee~cnternon.3 ac& -Coiiir A*eA'~nEx"!Yit: 1647W 35-36&wfth:SA: a t 48-49
' >m Are- ,,:s Citiens areuni'aware'of anyj fication for htis 'omission.*
dii a et a n r a f r u i -q in ethiimertl _h'Ut oatý6
- crnteon stated ialculation'C1 0 2O4nce 8.E310-041. Ex.:SJA* at ln, a~hiiiit rEmdai unclear4howAmýre1decided e.to accept ihesd~e'rult Sirnm.arlymBay I*,4e9r.n previouslycIcu at' dta 4 inch by 4 inchatreai ad[a ayerage. *tidkess of 0.692 inches.: erGen En . 3.at 17Ex.'NC 3 at49. Depending on thi -
thic1ness "the2 , 2inch strip, surrounding this,4 by' area, this"zne mayjust havemet the latest enoa di tetatlocal a nce critenon 9n ter992esultwearund 0.02 inhe tineronaverage41-d jhj49rsILte E.. J 2,Ata.en..t .Thii i ~ ~ thi
~ are~ quite~ pS-il Ae J'A-hatA' ihe'4 or ea lagr
`leayniziedo
-4.is~yhie the exat rarinuknonit is clear tat te maggin comaetoheoalcepne iern' must be at dih 'narrow, buit that ifa nt been qstimated byr meren In smmay, inc CiIzesn hi con-tenn , teloarea ac'6tiieptan' crtron s becomeimore strg*,niit,.while _e "measuredticknie's has decreaed:&Thus, the latest reports and
, V-1 12
results confirm that, at best, margins are razor thin and are less than the 0.021 inches which Citizens calculated when they proffered the contention. In contrast, AmerGen has not produced any new justification for its long disputed assertion that the margin is actually 0.064 inches.
D. There Is Potential For Significant Future Corrosion AmerGen is being inconsistent about the potential for future corrosion. thi fltest-acceptpiance rep0rt tdhe*.
20Q6:.extPemndata. prp, e ierGe pcom thepoimts'measured inm 992' w-th&th .se sured i2006. :Itf~uridotat thlatgest appaent corrosibnirate w 0.034 in~hes*
peyear.E-,x.SJA at4,.It thenEcalcylJtedAthat a s ratete:thinnest measured,.poitowou measuiemet Ai rn 's ed.0 Inar bec.0ta.e notohat5nhatbik red n0&II.teeedcddt-ae fov r the prpas ofanother the drwitilation hl etween has aAlngd 26they gnot dox roudndoexefaexeasremntsprdn*whm2ears2o Ie' of t, ins'pectiono th r a o thof that theotinn alulati Cnt t3this 10t041 wh3inchstated, tht anther 0.6o1inhofreported.Usingtethinnestpomen i ntme thur years ton stateofthat1 "provid suchi~ a at uld not occur if the prture.tv coatinbgr 6.additionA. data."E. SJA tat 49. ffails.
They alofai thi mnion ha While AmerGen' s experts reasonably show that corrosion at a rate of 0.017 inches per year has not occurred over large areas of the drywell shell between 1992 And 2006, they do not state that such a rate could not occur if the protective coating fails. They also fail to mention that NRC staff has admitted that it is possible that some corrosion could occur from the inside. SER In fact, inspection of the results shows that the thinnest measurement at this location was 0.663 inches, not the 0.681 inches reported. Using the thinnest point measured at this location, as was apparently done in 1992, would therefore yield a corrosion rate of 0.04 inches per year.
Applying this rate and a single point uncertainty of 0.04 inches to the thinnest measured result in Bay 13 of 0.602 inches would mean that the very acceptance criterion for areas of less than 2 inches in diameter could be violated in just under 2 years.
13
at 4-51. Indeed, it was this possibility that led AmerGen to commit to further external UT monitoring in 2008. Id. at 3-138.
To illustrate the potential for corrosion from the outside, using a set of assumptions that included a corrosion rate of 0.039 inches per year, Mr. Gordon estimated that if the coating failed and moisture got to the metal surface, metal loss could be up to 0.042 inches in the 56 weeks following an outage. Affidavit of Barry Gordon, dated March 26 2007 at ¶ 18. Thus, Mr.
Gordon appears to believe that additional corrosion at an appreciable rate could occur if the coating fails and wet conditions are present. This concurs with Citizens' belief. The difference is that because Citizens believe that that the margins are, at best, less than 0.042 inches, Citizens conclude that a monitoring frequency of every 4 years is too long. Indeed, even if Mr. Tamburro were correct that the minimum margin is 0.064 inches, a possibility that 0.042 inches could be lost each outage if coating decay commences would still indicate that monitoring should be undertaken every outage.
Mr. Cavallo in his affidavit does not dispute that deterioration of the coating could occur, indeed he admits that it is possible that repair of the coating might be necessary at some point.
Affidavit of Jon R. Cavallo, dated March 26, 2007 at ¶ 22. He also states that the inspection frequency is once every four years. Id. at ¶ 20. In addition, Citizens have previously alleged that enough moisture to cause corrosion could be present at the surface of the drywell shell without water running in the drains. Finally, AmerGen has never been able to definitively trace the source of all the water in the drywell to the refueling cavity and has admitted that it has not yet been able devise a way to ensuie that the refueling cavity does not leak. Transcript from ACRS Meeting on Feb. 1, 2007 at 217-222. In addition to the refueling cavity, water on the exterior of 14
the drywell could come from condensation during an outage and from the equipment pool. Thus, AmerGen has not ruledout the possibility of corrosion developing between inspections.
ARGUMENT I. Legal Standards For Summary Disposition Summary disposition is only possible "if the filings in the proceeding, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law." 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.1205(c), 2.710(d)(2). Prior NRC opinion has held that summary disposition motions under 10 C.F.R. § 2.749 (the equivalent rule prior to the revision of 2004) should be evaluated under the same standards as motions made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56. Advanced Med. Sys., Inc, CLI-93-22, 38 N.R.C. 98, 102 (1993).
Under this rule, the moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Because the burden of proof is on the movant, the evidence submitted "must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party." Id. Where a moving party shows a lack of a material dispute, the party opposing summary disposition must respond by setting forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue. 10 C.F.R. § 2.710(b). A genuine issue is one in which "the factual record, considered in its entirety, must be enough'in doubt so that there is a reason to hold a hearing to resolve the issue." ClevelandElec. Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-83-46, 18 N.R.C. 218, 223 (1983).
Generally, under Rule 56, summary dispositions may not rest on credibility determinations. Leonard v. Dixie Well Service and Supply, Inc., 828 F. 2d 291, 294 (5th Cir.
1987). Thus, conflicting opinions from experts generally preclude summary disposition.
15
However, such a conflict may be illusory, if the opinion of one expert would not be admissible at trial. Therefore, if the opinions of two experts appear to conflict with each other and there is no dispute that could be raised without the expert testimony, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 may be used to help decide whether summary disposition is appropriate. Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savanna River Mixed Oxide Fuel FabricationFacility), LBP-05-04, 61 N.R.C. 71, 80-81, (2005) ("DCS"). This rule permits a witness, qualified as an expert, to testify to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence if 1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, 2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and 3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Generally, testimony that is based on a "reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand" will be admitted. Daubertv. Merrill Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1973). Evidence based upon "scientifically valid principles" will meet this burden. Id. Federal courts have applied Rule 702 liberally, favoring the admission of expert testimony to assist the trier of fact.
DCS at 15, citing Kannankeril v. Terminix Int'l, 128 F. 3d 802, 806 (3rd Cir. 1997).
Thus, where there are material disputes based on sound expert opinion summary disposition in unavailable as the Commission has stated:
Where there is disagreement among competing experts over material facts, summary judgment may not be appropriate if it would require the trier of fact to untangle the expert affidavits and decide which experts are more correct. In that case, a hearing, if permitted by the applicable procedures, is the appropriate forum for the trier of fact to weigh the competing expert opinions on material facts.
DCS at 15; see also Schering Corp v. Geneva Pharm. 339 F. 3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003) citing Continental Can v. Montsanto, 948 F. 2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (resolution of disputed fact requiring expert opinion is improper on summary judgment); Spirit Airlines v.
Northwest, 431 F. 3d 917, 931 (6th Cir. 2005) ("Our precedents hold that if the opposing party's 16
expert provides a reliable and reasonable opinion with factual support, summary judgment is inappropriate."); Scharfv. U.S. Atty Gen., 597 F. 2d 1240, 1243 (9th'Cir. 1979) ("The affidavit in support of this theory was hardly convincing, but it required the court to resolve an issue of fact based on conflicting expert testimony. This is not the court's function on summary judgment."); Sierra v. El Paso Gold Mines, 421 F. 3d 1133, 1150 (10th Cir. 2005) ("There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the source of pollutants discharged at the portal, and summary judgment was not appropriate.")
As discussed in more detail below, summary disposition at this stage is inappropriate because AmerGen's motion for summary disposition does not meet the movant's burden to show that there are no material issues in dispute. Moreover, the contention was supported by the record and by Dr. Rudolf Hausler's affidavit, which was based upon the facts in the record and use scientifically valid methods to assess the evidence available. Sine the contention was admitted, the evidence showing that the contention raised multiple genuine disputes of material fact has only increased.
II. Summary Disposition Is Inappropriate As A Matter Of Law AmerGen, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact, even when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Citizens. Adickes
- v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). It has failed to do so. This contention was admitted by the ALSB because sufficiently reliable evidence was presented in the form of references to the record and an expert affidavit to prove that genuine disputes of material facts existed.
Memorandum and Order, ASLB, LBP-06-07, Feb. 27, 2006 and Memorandum and Order, ASLB, LBP-06-22, Oct. 10, 2006. Alihough AerGen attempteo. to prioffer new'f.actsW;-
qoncernig the localarea, a tance criterion and the potential for future corrosion, its assertions about the formed are contradicted by the record, while its critical assertion about the latter was 17
made by someone who is not qualified to provide an expert option on the issue, was unsupported by the record, and contradicted AmerGen's other experts. Thus, AmerGen's current motion does not contain sufficient new information to eliminate the need for a hearing and to allow the contention to be adjudicated by summary disposition.
In particular, AmerGen relies upon the affidavit of Mr. Peter Tamburro to attempt to show that there is no material dispute regarding the current margin available. However, his affidavit is inadequate for this purpose because, as shown in detail in the Statement of Facts, pp 5-7, Mr. Tamburro's testimony regarding the local area acceptance criterion is contradicted by the record.
Furthermore, AmerGen relies upon Mr. Tamburro's affidavit to assert that a corrosion rate of 0.017 inches could not occur in the future, Tamburro Aff. at ¶ 38, but Mr. Tamburro's opinion regarding future corrosion rates is not admissible because AmerGen has failed to show that Mr. Tamburro is a corrosion expert. He cannot therefore offer hypothetical opinions about future corrosion. Moreover, Mr. Tamburro's opinion in this regard is inconsistent with the documents he has prepared that are in the record. While he denies that a corrosion rate of 0.017 inches is possible, he asserts that another round of external UT measurements would be prudent within two years to "provide additional data," because he calculated that the maximum localized historic corrosion rate was 0.0335 inches per year. Ex. SJA 1 at 49.
In contrast to Mr. Tamburro, AmerGen's corrosion experts, Mr. Barry Gordon and Mr.
Jon R. Cavallo, fail to foreclose the potential for future corrosion. Mr. Gordon estimated that if the external coating failed and moisture reached the metal surface, metal loss could be up to 0.042 inches in 56 weeks. Affidavit of Barry Gordon, dated Mar. 26, 2007 at¶ 18. Thus, Mr.
Gordon's opinion admits the possibility of additional corrosion at an appreciable rate.
18
Mr. Cavallo also admits that deterioration of the outer coating could occur and that repair of the coating might be required in the future. Affidavit of Jon R. Cavallo, dated Mar. 26, 2007 at
¶ 22. Mr. Cavallo also admits that the current inspection frequency is once every f6ur years. Id.
at ¶ 20.
In conclusion, summary disposition is inappropriate as a matter of law. Even without any new opinion from Dr. Hausler, summary disposition would be inappropriate because the Board has already decided that Citizens have properly raised the contention and AmerGen has not shown that Dr. Hausler's opinion in support of the contention is no longer supported by the record. Thus, AmerGen's argument for summary disposition does not even properly allege that there are no genuine material issues to be adjudicated.
In particular, AmerGen has failed to produce any admissible testimony to explain why it has selected the current monitoring frequency of every four years andAnrenhasalsoj'ailed ]
to properly address ttie issues of the6local6aceptance criterion and the potential corrosion rate.
Onaoci~~ngte~o'nsiste"i dies inh eord.o(9hn te a i crinon, A 6erGen hasactually addedoto the dispute by proff grinveg, orsnrb£thii cSrterion that [-
is contradicteq by the.record. Without resolving this dispute, it"s"irmpossiblgt ealculate the current'magin.
Furthermore, while only one of AmerGen's affiants, Mr. Tamburro, attempted to raise a dispute with Dr. Hausler regarding the potential future corrosion rate under corrosive conditions, his opinion on this issue failed to provide any support and was outside the scope of his expertise.
In contrast, Mr. Gordon and Mr. Cavallo, AmerGen's other experts, failed to foreclose the possibility that significant corrosion could occur between inspections. Indeed, AmerGen's decision to put in place an ongoing monitoring program illustrates that it also believes that future 19
corrosion could occur. Thus, as a matter of law, AmerGen has failed to meet its burden to show that corrosion to beyond safety requirements could not occur within the 4 year interval between inspections. Therefore, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB" or "Board") should dismiss AmerGen's motion for summary disposition as inadequate as a matter of law.
Il1. The Contention Continues To Be Soundly Based On The Record And The Opinions of Dr. Hausler Having shown that AmerGen has failed even properly allege a lack of material dispute, this Section shows that the evidence supporting the contention has in fact strengthened during this proceeding. Thus, even if AmerGen had met its burden of properly alleging a lack of material dispute, AmerGen's motion for summary disposition would still need to be dismissed because the material disputes that the Board identified when it admitted the contention have not been resolved.
Citizens' assertions about the disputed issues continue to be soundly based on the record in this proceeding and on the opinions of Dr. Rudolf H. Hausler.
The ASLB in its opinions admitting the contention currently in dispute and the previous admitted contention, accepted Dr. Hausler as a qualified expert. (See Memorandum and Order, ASLB, LBP-06-07, p. 44, FN 33, Feb. 27,2006 and Memorandum and Order, ASLB, LBP-06-22,
- p. 21, FN 14, Oct. 10, 2006). In admitting the contentions, the Board found Dr. Hausler's opinions to be sufficiently reliable and supported by the record. Thus, there is now no question about his qualifications and it is clear that his memoranda were based squarely on the record.
The only way in which AmerGen could obtain summary judgment at this time would be to show that further discovery has shown that the factual support previously offered for the.
contention has become inadequate. This Answer and Dr. Hausler's new opinion provide specific citations to the record illustrating that far from contradicting the opinions contained in Dr.
Hausler's June 23, 2006, Memorandum, the additional discovery shows that that opinion was 20
entirely reasonable and reliable, and the contention continues to be fully supported by the record and Dr. Hausler's opinion.
In fact, as discussed on pp 5-12 above, far from weakening the factual foundations of the contention, further discovery has actually strengthened its basis. Since Citizens filed their motion to add the current contention, Ari ieia` s mae te lcal a*"adteeaxc'e cnterin= mo*e' "trin
' C ,n addiion; theh late~st esults,.takeniin Octobdr 2006, ShFr that the d'rYwell, sll is now, hifiine':i athuthie":199 ?etaýsl rements indicated,.ý Thus m%~n r o vn ~rovrtathey ia were whien C i, , filedthetention.
AmerGen's motion for summary disposition actually reads more like an attack on the basis of the contention, which is somewhat quixotic, because that basis has already been accepted by the Board and is therefore resjudicata. The only way that such an approach could be successful is if record evidence had emerged after the contention was admitted that eliminated the original basis. Here, this approach must fail, because the opposite has happened. As the Statement of Facts shows, the record evidence is now even more favorable to Citizens than it was when the contention was admitted. Thus, to be consistent with its prior decision to admit the contention, this Board must dismiss the Motion for Summary Disposition.
IV. Summary Disposition Is Inappropriate Because Many Material Issues Are In Dispute The Statement of Facts illustrated that many material issues are in dispute. Strangekl*
instead ofshowing a..lack of mater i a disputes, tlia dsoughittsi Mo6tion i'orS ay Dispsition AerGehas* ctually-
.- ,attempted- tcrateamaterial-"'- - .dispute about th local. araacceptance criterionithat mUst be metby-the tlkness results fromithe UT testing in tesand. ed region of the drywell. Furthermore, .the mminium margin available when the UT testing results are1" compared to the icceptance ci-teria remains-in ,diipute, as does the potential extent and rate of 21
future corrosion. As a consequence, the frequency of UT testing to ensure that the thickness of the drywell does not fall below safety requirements during any extended license renewal period is in dispute. Adding together the potential for corrosion to occur in the future from both the outside and the inside, Citizens continue to assert that a four year interval between UT measurements is too long. if"and wh Citizens are able to aertin hoA ehas computed the margmis for all the areas that are thinner than .736,inches, but largerthan2minches:1&
in diane~ter,ý theywill "b6,a :tO proid a m~ore, acura e,,estiiate'o te appropprate ionitoring feuncy As the Board has already found, and this pleading further illustrates, Citizens' arguments about these disputes are soundly based upon the record and admissible scientific testimony. On a motion for summary disposition, the Board should view the facts in the light that is most favorable for Citizens. Therefore, as a matter of fact, because there are genuine disputes about many material issues, summary disposition is inappropriate.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the ASLB should dismiss AmerGen's Motion for Summary Disposition.
Respectfully submitted Richard Webster, Esq RUTGERS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC Attorneys for Citizens Dated: April 26, 2007 22
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-0219-LR AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC )
) ASLB No. 06-844-01-LR (License Renewal for the Oyster Creek )
Nuclear Generating Station) ) April 26, 2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karen Hughes, of full age, certify as follows:
- 1. I am a paralegal at the Rutgers Environmental Law Center (RELC). The RELC represents Citizens in this matter.
- 2. I hereby certify that on April 26, 2007, I caused Citizens response to a summary disposition to be served via email and U.S. Postal Service on the following:
Secretary of the Commission (Email and original and 2 copies via U.S Postal Service)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff Email: HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV Administrative Judge
- E. Roy Hawkens, Chair (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Email: erh@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. Paul B. Abramson (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Email: pba@nrc.gov 1
Administrative Judge Dr. Anthony J. Baratta (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Email: aib5@(nrc.gov Law Clerk Debra Wolf (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 DAWl(nrc.gov Office of General Counsel (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Email : OGCMAILCENTER@NRC.GOV Mitzi Young (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: may@nrc.gov Ma*y C. Batty (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: 0-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: mcbl@nrc.gov Alex S. Polonsky, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Morgan, Lewis, &Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Email: apolonsky@morganlewis.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Morgan, Lewis, &Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Email: ksuttona2morganlewis.com 2
Donald Silverman, Esq. (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Email: dsilverman@morganlewis.com J. Bradley Fewell (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Exelon Corporation 200 Exelon Way, Suite 200 Kennett Square, PA 19348 bradley.fewell@exceloncorp.com John Covino, DAG (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 E-mail: john.corvino@dol.lps.state.nj.us Valerie Gray (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Street P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NJ 08625 E-mail: valerie.gray@dol.lps.state.nj .us.
Paul Gunter (Email and U.S. Postal Service)
Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912-4446 Email: pgunter@nirs.org Edith Gbur (Email)
Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc.
364 Costa Mesa Drive. Toms River, New Jersey 08757 Email: gburl@comcast.net Paula Gotsch (Email)
GRAMMIES 205 6h Avenue Normandy Beach, New Jersey 08723 3
paulagotsch@verizon.net Jeff Tittel (Email)
New Jersey Sierra Club 139 West Hanover Street Trenton New Jersey 08618 Email: Jeff.Tittel@sierraclub.org Adam Garber (Email)
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group 11 N. Willow St, Trenton, NJ 08608.
Email: agarber@nipirg.org Peggy Sturmfels (Email)
New Jersey Environmental Federation 1002 Ocean Avenue Belmar, New Jersey 07319 Email: psturmfels@cleanwater.org Michele Donato, Esq. (Email)
PO Box 145 Lavalette, NJ 08735 Email: mdonato@micheledonatoesq.com Signed:
Katd Hughes Dated: April 26, 2007 4
MTS Exhibit 2 CORRO-CONSULTA 8081 Diane Drive Rudolf H. Hausler Kaufman, TX 75142 Tel: 972 962 8287 (office) rudyhau@msn.com Fax: 972 932 3947 Tel: 972 824 5871 (mobile)
MEMORANDUM To: Richard Webster, ESQ April 25, 2007 Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic 123 Washington Street Newark, NJ, 07102 From: Rudolf H. Hausler
Subject:
Update of Current Knowledge Regarding the State of Integrity of OCNGS Drywell Liner and Comments Pertaining to Aging Management Thereof Summary The proposed aging management plan for the Oyster Creek Drywell Liner, as proposed by AmerGen, is being .discussed., It isshown.thatthe UTI'monitoring
,locations (6 by, 6,inch g'rids inside the Iryvll)'aIs defined in-1 80:ii rinot l representautve of thecorrosion, whliichlhad (cfcurreintheandb'edregion.
" Fu~rthermoe, iii&&~heoutside of thedy l ithsabdrgo'hdben no coio upperregions the dbe(i.e
,monitoringisbemgproposed) hasbecomeless releva bcause, water accmultios (he. ýriiry aus Is~f~r brrin) ,will now m'ore~likel~y*pecur toarsotomofte he orers gdedrein,- b orso
" The primary cause for additional damage to the drywell by continued corrosion will be the formation of defects in the epoxy coating.
" Since there is no way to assess the rate of deterioration of a coating, which for all intents and purposes is already past its useful life, the frequency of inspections must be increased because the coating could fail at any time.
- These changes represent a completely new paradigm for the drywell aging management. The entire program, which had been in use since1987 or 1998, needs rethinking. The best approach would be to make use of continuous moisture monitors and possible online corrosion monitors (it is possible to monitor electrochemical potentials as indications of the onset of corrosion) to supplement the UT testing.
" Frequency of monitoring depends on the remaining safety margins. It is therefore important to gain understanding of the areal extent of the existing corrosion 1
damage.ýBased on the hlmited understandingof the extent ofocgailykthare the Li ryd~elll.shell could alreadybe no measurements.(UT-ineasurements)tienotth'ebe 'best, hmeasure'toudre'to. a'era Yefge
- thiekiiess,of the whole sandbed regi6ii'beda0*s&,he hipiienit'self ha i~certainty
'at6ched&At miitnmum thei lower' 95% clonfideric'e4limit of the meanfh., a,. 'numb"er*,
,of Trmeasurements"over thatý;area~should beemplo'ed' a onbtween thfese - ahuesw'tWithfr&eý,'afet~y,: criter~ia' shows thttenaigin's"K.'e'b'eco nVe r tlii in the. areas xwl ere an'lssessment is possibleand&that therefore frequent:
monitoig, needs,..o.. intttd1 rsr. It ut~..br~ot s prevented:.!
I. Background Since severe corrosion had been found in the late 1980's in the "sand bed area" of the drywell liner containing the nuclear reactor at the Oyster Creek power generating station, much work has gone into assessing the degree of the damage and modeling the effects of the damage on the integrity of the vessel. Since the drywell liner is a vital safety component, and in light of the pending application for re-licensing reactor operations for another 20 years, the questions surrounding the integrity of the drywell liner have come to the front and center of the stage once again.
There is no question that deterioration of the surface of the drywell shell will continue at some rate over time. Thus, at some point in the future the liner may no longer serve its intended function. This memorandum discusses how to estimate the residual life of the liner and plan an appropriate aging management program around such an estimate.
The bases for such considerations must necessarily be:
" The current state of deterioration of the liner, i.e. the extent of corrosion and how well has it been estimated in the past.
- The criteria by means of which serviceability is ascertained and the remaining margins to condemning the vessel
" The estimated potential future corrosion rate
" And finally the combination of remaining margin and potential rate of deterioration defines the minimum frequency of inspection.
While all of the above items have been estimated and hard numbers have been proffered and written in granite, there is, as will be shown below, great uncertainty surrounding all of the assertions, which have been used by Exelon/AmerGen to support its current approach of taking UT measurements once every four years in the sandbed region.
II. Current Knowledge Regarding the True State of Deterioration.
2
After corrosion had been found in the sandbed area a concerted effort was made to assess the corrosion rate in order to project the life of the structure. The tools in this effort were ultrasonic measurements (UT) at well-defined locations. In order to assure repeatability of the measurements, a template was constructed containing 49 openings for placement of the UT transducer. The 49 openings were spaced 1 inch apart over a 6 by 6 inch square. This 6 by 6 inch grid was placed repetitively at the inside of the drywell liner just below the vent pipe where the inside curb was lowered from about 2 feet to just over 9 inches (see Figure 1). In this manner, every bay was monitored systematically at intervals over the past 20+ years.') In 1992 the sand was removed from the sandbed, and all steel surfaces as well as the sandbed floor were coated with an epoxy resin. UT measurements using the 6 by 6 inch grid performed in 1992, 1994, 1996 and 2006, always at exactly the same position, indicated that within the accuracy of the test (measuring procedure) the continued corrosion was at most small.
That should not be surprising because a) the outside steel surface was now coated, b) water would not accumulate against the vessel at the location were the measurements were made because of the drains in the sandbed floor, and c) if corrosion were to commence it would most likely be at imperfections in the coating near the sandbed 2
floor where indeed, standing water could be present (see discussion below).
There are however a number of additional monitoring techniques that were used. In 1986 trenches were dug in the reactor floor in bays 17 and 5 to a depth about equal to the sandbed floor on the outside. It is noted that these trenches were not dug in the bays where the most severe corrosion had been observed. These trenches enabled the operator to perform UT measurements below the sandbed surface (prior to removal) from the inside. Additionally, after the sandbed had been removed, and upon visual inspection of the corroded areas, UT and other thickness measurements were made from on the outside of the drywell in the sandbed area. It was believed at that point that the most corroded areas had been selected visually for these measurements. As a consequence of all these measurements the operator AmerGen assured the NRC that the locations where the "grid measurements" had been performed were quite representative of the corrosion that had occurred on the outside of the drywell in the sandbed area (Ref. 4).
We take ie>iah*this**te w isa ent. lntsupportofthisscontention, an effort, was made to show graphicl* the remainingwall thickness observed in all ofthese various locations Thus Figurie2 showsby way of example the rermainigiyall thicknIess, from the 2006 UT measurements made with the 6 inch help of 6gby grids as a function ofelevation in the trenc1h of Bay 17 It is understood asis described in Ref.
3 that 6, such grids were placed one on, top of the other in the trench in order to capture the corrosion from the bottom to the top of the, sandbed. Hence if the bottomi of the trench had the, elevation ~about{ 9 feet, then the top of the 6 grids would have had "elevation of abouit12~ fet which~p according~ toP c df S7 Bays were monitored only with 1 by 6 inch templates - probably placed in the horizontal direction -
Bay I was among those, even though Bay I was one of the most corroded Bays.
2 Note that this region is above the concrete floor but just above or below the epoxy coating above the concrete and so is part of the sandbed region, not the embedded region.
3
the;sandbed andis least 91nc
.measurements from the'inside(
howeveri the top of the trench n
.good:margin sgri than the inside mieasurements fro'mthe trench'i Tih~erfist sti ing,6o6servat-ion.i~s th-dt the',eorro'sionitsmost :severe, at the-top, almost,
,unifor i. se'he m itir td h thtesandbed anda, aain somhewhatamre selereatthev Irý,,bottom In ohrwo~rds,, oiesce~s alreadyinit!Iis presentation4 tha it would dfficu t singleout one sm m f 6hi grid and claim' it to be'representativo the corrosio -having ofaurreby incthe sandbed ~area.' " fte~orso~ vn curd i l In Figure 3 an effort is being made towcompare taverage remaining wal.lthicki.ess from trench mneasuremnents (averaged over the, horizontal direction) with the average
~of~the 6 by 6 grid measu~rement from~the inside and the direct UT measurements frnj, the outide"A0. graphed inttis figure ar~e the avei agesof the outside mheasuremhents~
forhe thre zoe fr wich data are reported (ef-.5).*AWat one can see is that theL averages for the, grid. an~d the treiich data' overlap q'uite. well at the same elevation.
,:lvations However, theths~
av erge!'~outside mes ennsae'infcnl lwra opal iprobably because-the.choice of location'or tlhie5teraF mesreet wa eieaeybae towards thimspots ma6yismidFggurei 4e see..the spreadofthe 6by(,me~msie-id measurements!
- tsuperimposed on the ayerages of the otherxnmeasurem'ents.
"Conclusion: What th1e superposition *othie UOTmeasu rementsmi Bay 17 demonstratesýis tlat wall loss ranges from zero*to 33.7perce'nt, however, only, the, trench and outside measurements come close to represent the most severe, corrosion at the-highest elevations. The ienside grid measurements give a' distortedpicture; It should also be remembered that the grid measurements at the inside curb cutout as well as those in thei trench are only 6 inches wide. One
- 3) AmerGen suggested that the "dimples" are about 0.5 inches in diameter (Ref. I pg. 4)
- 4) For the outside measurement averages had to be used in the graphical representations because exact elevations (or coordinates) of each point were not known. We only had the classifications into Zones as had been described in Ref. 5.
4
2,3 &4 indkitins tohowfarerius s crroionmay page) have -freadaýlterallfiyaround the -,iai ee'T -_
gure5a f Bfor ay y 3:lpr6bably,
,33
,the.second 6 w9',ostorroded ba, apaft fom Bay, The averages fMr the external?
measurements for eachdzonk arefirly ilmilar a the 95z/limitsfo Uthee datAj ispread. There is'95, per¢'probabiy fdr the deepest-penetration to be-of te, order of48 . , of the orignal xwall thicknss The superositiOn of the internal rid da-shows a higher average and anarrower dstr-ibiton of the data spreadAgaionei recognizes that the internal6 by 6 inc h.grid-measurements, do not represent the worst, cor drn--egra dati*n, Fiall*An,7Figure 6,we show the distributiOnofthifie extearna measurementsfor Bafor .
,oe6§evsthat.tthe,95/a loe 1limit~of th e'aasra saon 40% of the%
'6rtiginatma.l thickness, or indeedfat remainingiwall tnicknesst'of450'mlS .which is:
`6e4 in`hcbe low*the required san edbom d ickness' for the Designir ressureq and)
Teiieperature.- Because theexternal sampling i Bay, 1was designed to capture the'
,thinnne~spopintstisilis. a conservative etimate 6ftiýe minimrumWall[thckress's Howeeg en te ge eofdconfidence'thattle dr3el'stells
- readyto wljtlstan d accident pressures and tle'uncertaintcreatedf btlieSp~arsedatat
'set I'bei-eve,that a c6nserv is r'eqUi'edihin;tlhis-case-I Conclui'sloiThe, deterioration;of.thle d yi~line at Oyster Creelt has been,
'examindnin various ways by U measu rements. Th-ese were in part systematki
,thickiess mieasurements hi. predeterniiedm locations U(6'y 6 inch' grids placed'on
- the side of the d;r'ellua curb cutS'-see Fig. 1, and ln-trenchesdugbelow'
'thelinside floor toa depth-roughl ,equal'to he outside sandbe&dfloor).Theseý measurements we`re suppiemnmeted *by'residualwa-ll;thieýessm-easurements pierformedion teoutslde ofthe drywel in: locations where',"visually" it had, been
'determined'thatitedeepest pits werejocated.ý(It must-belintejrected at thisi Dlhtnt Athat Pit of 600 mils cannot be'di'stinguished visujallyfoibi api o nl.Th~e lo'cation'of these m~easurements i's thietefoi~rerathe ar~bitrary, b!t wasj stmdnet~ 6 thel mesrmnsiýaet~'
- Al1ekxtemahl,:U measurements had been summarized by `A AffmerGen (Re'7):
purpose of determining, them inimum !safety,iginasg!,ti aviailble' In or6dier to better.,
understandthe prevailingcorrosion mechanismthe data had. been, separatedjinw zones ,corresponding to inreasgelevaion abovete sandbed, floori(zone1:,
9 4 .;zone 2:94.. .tol 3 zone *3: 10:3 -to 12- 3 ,"andzone 4>. 10:3 ): The data:
o0btain`edind 992ad2006ý werecombined, iand statisticly:"iianalyzed for thei, followinig.
three effects:, a)'the two'etsof measuremenis separated'bytime (and probably!
method.ig)or.in-s trum tai6n),,b) th:eff66t,of the .elevati6o',' and`)Adifferences:i' the.b*s.
is no:signficn effect of the tifie (Flg.7a). Wh'il6ethere-is7aj decr1e9as9e'o*19,:glil5ete~h,ý,l992 and '2006, this ,diferences,not, statistically..
5
significanthwethinftheivaribil ýftieýdata-Thddifferences betweenthie zones L23,
,however. ares"gtliP Z>gniican one 2siyarytfr tltiemost .corros'ie zone. .When tte bsay' aire compared, one finds as expeted, that s'ome,.bays have experienced lttleorrosion i;
,,contrast to, others.:TlheJu*ipotance oft*ese observationsl:11 agai to-the fact'dthat:.e intehsity1 fcoir6sionis a clea`rfnci I eatn i may lead to doubtful coneclusins In 2006 the valldity of sgmeof tfeextemalI UT measurements' wasb4 measu nd th off'if A' Thse peasurmg ar tn olgallcatlons es eva2luated in Fiaiire8 O~f9 451 and BaJ9- A~dditiohaI,4dia ;Hct IA:;Bays 9,, F51 had'bnide ntidie'd,as up," ,hence'addiia f'ridow, s identified as 2006 up anrid 2006. down w~ere .'comfipared,w.ith:-th6 orlgina1 2006 data Iti
.turns out for By-19 for instaineethat theUT penetrations :identified as 2006 up wered' s*ignificantly loer tliar'the .measur.ements of ;1992 w*ith:iaptobabi~lity'of better than*,
95/Thedifference bet. enthe.1992 !and 2006:up daa :is9.1..ch.Smilarlyfor Bay 5,onepy f:i that the. 2006mup ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~datau
,,,c-, ~ ,,., arersignficantly
,..' .<- .!, lower., ;':than - the,,'orlglnal-'-*" 1,* r:,' 1992 11 ...data by ab~ut .0 06inches,'although this difference. s not significnt-at the;ý5 levelFo e Baiy, 1 there is"practicaly no diffferencebetween the 2006..and' the.1992, data sets
- bcause of thetwo or three rmeasurements in'tlhenon- orroded areas..Surdmmarizing ee resultsm Table n that the wer 95%0confidenc6. lilmits'f6r Bays..l 15`,!,
'are marginallywithin they0736-ich lmit- Since one does notkh.owexactly.whow extensivethe* 'cancer of corrosin" inthe sand, bed area really".'s;. it ls-p.-. thisinterpretation in.perspective, with the4assessments m4de'by AnkGerhi ';arivel-toarea itefia for tinned areas (see*.discussi.onbelow)
Týi!Ps'ut emd wit ,rg4~r~dsT to,,the evaluati~on of~hh'eý ffie~srints'.:Alb n'jeasrene'nts'are point measurements;, aide~dýIthoii h ate 61psqlyvspaced.,itijs,
- pvihls,-ýdfiut,' e'stinate thd~rabea o !which'th~eieasugc orrosion',
have occurred.,Thi'sis'all Spenetratlonimay, the more sofor.,the; external'measurements.:
iFfth6lne6oe 'th&;pit distribution* has;been 'assumed to: be randombor Gaussian Lii Arne eniwose tdodisrdgard oýtoutliers'7,which, were two :standarddviatitons from"the' meani.(of49.points) as erroneous or atypical measurements (Ref. 6;g :16). However,.
thie the,%
distibutin.o'f d": stri i
p~pit depth
- 'ti"6 .'n, 2'bf ,,
is not necessarily
": : t.-kily'*;*
normalbzutcan
. :'n:.- i'",,
be.ponentil
, l: 2 ":-'U;t,'c"at, ;)'"'e: : n. ti:,' .: .,:
depend ngonwthe sensitivityof the measuring technique. It-is therefdre totally:,
nadm§iissible from a statisticalrpoitof View t dwiscard..orrdisregard outliers forl which theire Is-no. plhvsi&al explanation"'
'it has ibeen:observedin the, oilfieldfOr.nstance,that:wall.penetrationm-ay bccur, in pipelines as single,eventis totally zinredictedandunpredi~tible:by"statistic meagns;:.one singleeventi within 18 miles after'6months surrounded'ypr t.cafly oign su ,rface s"','m.'ay Pittingon metal surfacemay be consideredrandombifthe sur.undingpn-6nment'
'is uniform* homogpenousý,andclearly identifiable; b
ýmetatiare*inibiot
..' -:::,, ." ;,?...' ikely;. .- randbolý'didtribute'd:'(There
.;,: "- " ",.'7-E,*o,'
- ,. 1::: . e'.aefcourse
'- .. ,- t *,,v . ,. - ::!many .r; weli'.l"kown;
,'*"; .,.' : I, .'.-'7 arguments against this,; sucha, boriented 'iclusins ;d6e to' metalworking,' hove the, "
ahrgument wit.i tigiit I s.,t Assum tossirnpi~fý,t'he`;iir.' t wite In 'ofite sandbed tliere' AS i oronfies's DeCause,-.f the predidtdable'dcreasei'P g~
6
inresig eptaderlklyuvn w tercotntaswell Thi noogneity i.s illustrat-ed fi Figuie'2, where one can seegreater corrOslonttack tardht6*i~f.
sanddata show thatin Bay lthe corrosion 1eobewcthe ventp~pe:
meoi.band oficreased corrosin:Thisband. appears to 5el:*al out:
6.7 e ng d h a dealthough the owestf resIdii:aalll thickess:'
'(0 669)"it fiundmuc* h `eper',in the sandbe0d,(ef.R 3)'$Tese data shown nuAeisl Invussiona*sou ijvr,81ý isc JSl*n clearly deonbnstrate howidifficult it is to ass'esS andppendices h tent 'ofthe damaged are'as as is Inecessar`&for comlpiarison w.ith the lntegri criterii-or' instance, the dataEgathered in Bayj1 'in ,2006 (and previous*years)i represer bdt,:a small'fractio llid f h overalldry ell4ner. ace exposed o 1I" surflidtoptl*d .t
,'sndbed dviro enm tand no arunt onctadis p the pit distriution, seen b.B 1 (Fig ~5). Furth rm or~e", a h, a h em e easurements wicnhasses ste1corrosi o' n'-,
-Bay, 1 areiall poit measurements 1ne-naspont and one hasno,way of:o asseing _*aseslnhwemer the* pits areoaslocal as thfrfesenat s sin fctvthethin areas extend, om one measurement tothenext I belive thatwhenassessng theextent o seere orrsion reviewers shouldassume te at~themeasuredpoi*t s: connect unless.other;,
measurementssh"othisntto be the-case:.
HIL. 'The Fitiiess for Use C,*itriai GE's origiaallcaiculatti'ns .stiopulated that i*;,f all, UT.wallthickriess measueiments in
'one~'ayKwere' above 736 mfsi~flie bay would be evaluatedas acceptable.:In bay's
.whNre, rieasuti ents' were le *'736`- ils:m dejtailedev'& altia"Iio h had'td b6, p fqrffdd7.(Ref 4" pg 11and R&ef. 1 pg.'4).'
Sukiequentalatca ns detemined thatf a . fthi s tofB53'6'mls'i-tlie theoretical loadfactoi/eigenvIie" ou'd'be ed ucd.:bi 5%'. Theý
'ff6'd6F~t ip'ted' that 'the-l §q' str'a was ýsurudebaita t
,(Re'f;.1,*pg.,6) ,over, a frther,onefoot area,'iThis additimnalareao6fr eduthjicess-contributed to th6 reduced.dload factor h'ice 'al]o the.stipulated7sa1fey factorSi'Sili'r' Calculations were: peftffraned for a'reducti6nifhthe'Lsq.t*hareao.t*636 mi ss'in ilchl
'casethe&theoetical load factorand bucklilnýstes !qwdbrducedbv 3.99/o.
,.Th'ere.'area'numiber of questions that do asein the context Pf theseVcalculatIonsand
'their,1apphcatmntothe prese n,tituation~ofthen OC drwelllihner.We:-Would hike to-nmake- it' lea**r 0m6theoitsetlthat we are'In no posifonoeri-hes§66alcuati6ns'
'and.&areadily/dispo6se t6o accepttheirveacity ad` results ..We-vould' '.howeverjike to note_ dfthese results to.putt iherllptatenS i pr r perspectie.y, AmerGenAmer(n statesthaf GE estabished these tcnteri ' asac6eptaiinc criteria for the minium thlclnes for the dwell6toperfoirm f its.irtended.
function.,Th-at. is:'incoriect6, GE:modeled the d&weI I!but tehe:operator'then derived,'Acceptandce'&'criteria.. For.,e:ample, GE`Gcalclated both thý'5'36 inch 1oC :'ahickessandlth& 636*local thicdeseSwith the' same assumtions and' i'te!tretded. tfh' isse, reasusnto.dtheiieurent.localarea. riterl.a
'ccep"tance'*
7
'2.Itis alsono, learhowth,criteria dealwtare belýw 736 mils*
'While the'aceptance criteria' -efiaoever orcera
,felll]-defined t qy 9 ur tnrea &eometrfs,.
- 'one cannot, lmmedlatiylrelate~theset.otb errgeometres a cin reial life."
Now"' anew criterion hscreptin which would reinder .pte Ref.164(j'g;11 4: p 1, of,) f5) states that fan 'ardaiSls,thn .736 kichehs*~
is less an' 0*,3 thatf1's* the tha-taeashl, 6týOi ar-ia be'*greateethanO. 693'ihches C'-132,17-320-024.-has thick'andshall e' no', largerthan 6-inch,'
&reviously~posondaae'a, by6 kchidee,,
_themgitd~b -
anearea~6, o in by13 and withihn the;, uncertaintesof measurement such,an reafihefieaur mMmtd
.aqo,ests,10ayi* i:iiqt:
L A9in~
ahhihi thanifirh 0k-tt mee'hl thai g4retrthan 0 490 iniches thick'and.shall be'no
- At. present ifýwe asu mðat the' extema'l~pomits nmeaSoured: in Ba* :1iereisetjhe-,
surface, it appears that aiound. 2sq. ft clusteredt around points 7, 15- 6;and>F1-:s less thlhnii0.693Yinches, in tliickne~ss .'In. additibn, over 4[s coffntai*nin~g poinits 1q2 ;q *,
8,114 .6,1154" and 5 appears;t~o be :lessthan 0736"iches maverage tckess
.Simllarly;,in-Bay-1. arouind. 4sq ft4emcompassing ots 12, 5 134 12,3 and 11 apeatbe tlah less th0:6ics inJIaverag ucla how:
- lGca athantrtheseOhesti dd wteAcdbptablýe en e ltst ement of the
,Satstics'avbeen, ucs a1 impprtant toput the iýeo'f statiktics in.perspective as wvell'l.Basically there are thee kinds of variabhlities inthe UT measurements as 'theyhave beenaucseda First threree'i the variabiliteofthe instrument.r .The manufacturer usually specifies the instrument error iff the. case of modern UT insgtruIme~nts of the *'orer of Io ofIthe thic kness toIbe' imeasud.The error usually is gien as a stand whch wardidevation means that the, I5/u cofcirc liisfrte~nkd Tmeasurement is +- 2% of wall thicknepss';-
in the presenttcase about /1 20 mils Thisi th**,varia ityone would find if a, calibration block.was measured say. 10'times.ý The nektVariability' is a lot'.more:
'dfficult to define: Ithas.to-do withthieýplacement of the sensor in thetmarx finding*
tihe samesp6otoveragain;.holding the senisorin the ýsamedirection (verticalto the surface). eachtime;ý etc.' This, variability.(oi variance) :is additive .to the inStrumental variability..Fnally the thing to bemeasured ,vares in thickness as wellTs lastý
,Vari.tbilityis'precisel y the response that i'sidesired&B&cause the*rehave been no planned duplcate :measurements:'(Unless'one wiere'Ao assume that sinc&192-no, corrosion0occurred) one cann6t asse. either-the variabilit-y:offthe'istrimetet'no* hei variability of themeasuring tec iqque. However, it'is fair: tosaý'that the.,v riabiity of asingle, measurement overall '(Le. the combhationofthe lnstuentali.varlance a tle. vardnce (ifthe&technique) are larger thanthe manufacturer stated:standard 8
deviation probably double.W*tith atf assumptio n& oeiight, expect ay ;100i mneasurements' of' a,.singlet'ation ditribtedabot 1t5ý thiei rean With d.a95',
M'lsmght lie. an~hre be -een-760'and_840 milsandtl.i* prpbably an optimistic ir -l _vhebt"en - n _ Ts
.Now, .tnas been-assumed'iat thae pittnigphnomenon. obSe d,at :thleOyster CrekeK,*
dAiwelfihfer- the Sa ocumrig 6cbedurfregfonkiWas tly idiit hia6iner; It has?
b~eeApohite*out that thi is' ve. lhkelynotthae'a&Nve'ttheekss;: lets just assumie)
- ',that GausslanpstatlStlCSymlghtp'beapphcayle,.s'mply, becausetheyt re.easy to calculate&
ýand .r . th&, 6ýesl'th~~6d'lfbi~ ~
wi-'. ' Av&
are. easily understood:If onemeasureswith" sigle measiirements as'was'
'idone'n all- UT measurements a inumber.of locatinpssay, by means of a'dgr (template), oneobtainsa series of&data reflecting the yariation oftmetal thick*ss oy e agivenarea At this,ot'it is important to, understind thatthese measurementfare:'
h not members of a common univer'se WichA`nf be averaged to obtainanaverag'ý`
measuirementimore truly ,characteristic of the uniVwersethan',an individual.'
measurementi Rather eachmeasurementisi a representatlveof4a differentumnixere
.&e. representingj d'offkrennipttlgoklnetics.; Hence it-really'does:not make much sens to average 'these measurements. and say that ow.'
average this-is the-corrosion rate". Rather.on.nieedst'ocharacterize theYvarlabilt of' the, results and supernmpohseonto theim'thetinstrumiente ror. -Hence if a specifi&
measurementis, say',756 mils,.it is with 9'5 proba4biliiy somewhere between 716 and
,796,mils§ Therefore; i* order to beodn'the con'servative side one'would conmpare, the 716 mils the he Singlelpoit aceeeptan..critey. rather"i thkah the reporedo
-measurementU urtermore,(us verAgeofthe 'to represntt'e'entre'suace:is
~problematic foer . First; supposeall.,hesenrs, -.sreasonshad :been 1lced at te low points.in he, Pitsr Inthat; case the estimated average Would be.lower, than the. tie[ J aeragev:surfac.. oreinmportantly f ,in fact thecofroddedsur ace is' ik*ieaolf lall:
sif~icý;ho6W does onie~ded tvr~he thibfiso\v~~t-the-'sur-fac&6 a whni ac'h1 qfi asn~it~fies~rmený.Withiti,the-sp~hericail deDr'e.s~si~oýns?ý.,.
ICdearlYtheý:'entire aiproar h is r6blematicafidperhaps. th qsaving gracejis thlatlth design codes'equire, ma'rge'safet'tmarkgin'. Nevertheless; in this'cas'e'"w,'eni'it has-beefn 2&
shown that iii some situatioinsthicknessmeasureients, have been obsetved well "
beiow 693 mils.(+/- 40,mils)'ahhd belw t6**o0'th(e 490-mi.boufidai(fith 95%
certainty) -moredethit~d iia'sureinents ard~neeed.
ItihasaiS*ob-een sh0wn'thAt the 6 by. 6grid mea'surem*nts ý( *e the, b6inc n Oatrix-,'mea§ r6me d*S ot. represent the *lreiti6 orroded atedss. (Ref.: 4*':* ree of 2thikj2OO6:es' dai. bf 106 extei liobatiohs,shov's ll the Measzuredlbýýal thicknesses meert hcomti-aS'*e bt d Nnparison of this;'new data to the, 2 inmfo"rrso montoin lastth ocluion 'that the 1"9 moniteoriocations vessel in the sandbed.). This statement is patently.;wrong.vHoweVer~, Iti*srnottproideareeseniv. only:"
9
wrong beca~u'setie'mesuremnentsin thfle trenches and ihe external naserenents.do ntagr Wihthe: g'tidý' aýsuer~iinten.1:i-nnitdHngl cain) ts.1orn,
,because 'c6rrosiio; if itw-ere't6oa(celerate.,sigiflicantly, would -nowý more ikqIey'6ccu rK near. the, bottomiof the sand bed t th top as he casawas wtlfitie'sandbe i' Pin*~e; 12 3 '
of ayerages buti rather*,whei tremes,, lnmls. case extreinmelthisn.areas;,ln thinssense, itissuggested:thi aniabilityof the corrosion aataý(sorea'd rro depts" an .....
- c. alcUlatetheI l ,iIt or ithe, ,mos-ihl e ly, th nne st 'a~re~asiý'ý H enceýif:
n: average of 10 meacuremi 'ecific area results in-athtki'dSS6Pof.750" inchesj.withý variabiiityf(st ion) fiorthe average of0D.3 ne "I
95%-confidence lIiimit fio~rth Wuld b~e 069-(O07F'--.Q>
,fn t i s ense8 .til e ext e ma edm s~u r~e mh e nts :o t-~va §l! s .L 5 an il b enAe xaY FT &
ý.ard~t
. Cras aýiebl',show~,.'at:leda r U de*leatBay tf erehs nCotnddgonalmargn'f rýcontlnued, V. Corrosion Underneath Coating It is pretty well established that corrosion underneath an intact epoxy coating, especially a two-layer coating, will be immeasurably small. If it were to occur it would be of the rate of either oxygen or water diffusion through the coating, and either process is very slow.TF l o;.4§, w ean*ave said-bef6r*'eco6iroti6n' is~nibfe, likely to:occ urnear .the, of the. sandredeabooe q,epoxyi So.at..g..o. the fidor asW-e monit"rgpotm doutb e fore.F6 i SFo
- ieasoii' al'iA&the curtenf
-olctm's~isgnifican~t corr sloi. nno .matter. howOfeiý*
meas~ureme~ntsl ar beiige rfrid L-I The' entire paradiginiorthet' d ell agpgirinanagementprog pgamrn~rieds ,tobe'haged, as, we4hVealsp itedcouit~bef6re.
10
What is clear is that any defects in the coating will lead to corrosion damage, provided that there is water present. Hence, the first line of defense is to make sure that there is no water present. This is easier said than done since leaks have occurred before and condensation has also been an issue. Since one still is not sure where the water may be coming from one can safely assume that water could be present at some time in the future and at least during each outage.
The second line of defense is to make sure that the coating is intact. Originally the coating life was quoted as being 10 years. Then AmerGen increased the coating life to 15 years, since the 10 years have already elapsed. However, a 15 year coating life will bring its end of service up to September of this year, hence the coating life has to be 20 years, or at least into the next twenty years of service. All of this has been documented in AmerGen literature. Now, we know that the coating on the floor has suffered damage. The most recent inspection has shown that the coating on the floor was cracked in some bays along with the concrete of the former sandbed floor (Ref.
- 6) 5). The cause was attributed to the concrete "shifting and breaking up". However, the other possibility that the coating failed (it was applied too thick to begin with) whereupon water entered the cracks in the concrete, which were there dating back to construction, was not considered '-Nverthelessýý!it-has been establishW1din tie 2006) inspeCtion that.the,'flboorhad. brokeup*p and that watei, haddentered' the racks __
',underineiath the e6at.; TAhi* is a~dagerous situation;,eeause nowwater* can migrate ntconrete undere htheconcrete *s..teel interface
" AS aP" onsequence, corrosionv can. ocu ieither above' or below the floor leve wheri it had7 en .es, a is ed previously.
- y means of measure imtsfromnthetre cie sit considerable corrosion had ocacurre .a t ,occ in thos e~aIt~is doubtful :that U-T imasurements in the tre*cheisinmBays 17\ould p,, orae theentie:7svstemiesslnce'ti r;14
'Other baýyýprest.ltS vworse problems;7 Coatings are never 100 % perfect. There are always holidays present, albeit perhaps few. AmerGen has chosen to discount that possibility on the grounds that two layers of coatings had been applied. While extensive qualification of the coating had occurred in 1992 in a mock-up outside the system, and while test coatings were extensively tested for holidays, such tests, albeit standardized and very easy to perform, were never performed once the coating had been applied in the sandbed area. Rather AmerGen insists that relying on visual observations is sufficient. WeliI
,-visual observati'ii did notf6 thefbpast, 14sy[earstevealthe defects' iniheeoti 'on'the; flooruntil 2006andthereisno tellingjust how" 'mu daage maaveocurre oneun e t(atlng~had been foundmin perect*c tonsin lnl 99 19964
, 2000;
- andisO,.on,6:uhtil 2006when it-was fountd.broke ii *p The coating is apparently colored gray. It is said that visual inspection will reveal damage and rust if it occurs. That is true after the deterioration has become 5)"During visual inspection of the drywell vessel's exterior coating in the sandbed region (Bays 1, 7, 9, 15) areas were observed to have voids. ... To prevent water from seeping underneath the epoxy, an expandable
(?) sealer is required for the seams/voids.
11
noticeable, however, the question is not whether the coating has already failed, it is how much damage might occur between inspections after the coating fails.
For that reason it is held that a four-year inspection cycle is not enough by a long shot. First, one needs to monitor for water continuously. As experience has shown on the interior, water can easily percolate through the concrete, as has indeed happened and the operator still does not know where it comes from.
Second1 1 h need-to-b5e' eshed wief sul'seut-damagej Tmostfikely'to occure, Leonlhefrme sandbe4 floondeln thecrease between the_ [
,floor aand the outside~ofjtie~1lier.*
I don't want to go into the mechanism of corrosion once a defect has occurred other than to say the following: Once a defect (crack, pinhole, holiday etc) provides access for water to the steel surface underneath, corrosion begins slowly, hardly noticeable from the surface. However, as corrosion progresses the coating will start to crack,.
opening up a larger defect. (Thick coatings crack more easily than thin ones).
Corrosion will progress underneath the coating and cause larger blisters, which may or may not be seen visually, but can be detected with simple test methods referenced earlier. The question of course is how rapidly will corrosion occur, and what is a reasonable time interval for inspection. I venture to say that nobody knows the answer to the first question with any certainty. It is therefore a matter of making a reasonable assumption, as I did previously. Overall, the applicant must now deal with the uncertainty is has created by taking very few UT measurements over space and time and relying on ad hoc methods for detection of moisture and coating degradation.
Because we are dealing with a primary safety containment for a nuclear reactor, the uncertainties must be resolved against the applicant to ensure that a reasonable assurance of safety is maintained.
Kaufman, April 25, 2007 12
References
- 1. GPU Nuclear Calculation Sheet C-1302-187-5320-024, 1993, page 7 of 117
- 2. Affidavit of Peter Tamburro before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Docket No 50-219, March 26, 2007
- 3. AmerGen Passport Document 005546049 07 (AR A2152754 E09), page 5, November 11, 2006
- 4. AmerGen Calculation sheet C-1302-187-E310-041, 2006, page 4 of 55
- 5. AmerGen Calculation Sheet C-1302-187-5300-01
- 6. OCLR R00014655 Schematic Cross Section through Sandbed Area (not to size) Figure 1 Cutout to Elev. 11' Only around Vent lines 20 " Diameter Access Hole Reactor Floor / through concrete containment Elev. 10'3" for Sandbed removal Area of UT Measurements Below and to the Side of Vent Lines about 6" to 8" 13
4 (entire figure)
ý.Figu.r'e 2 Wall Thickness Measurements in Trench of Bay 17 2006 data 1200 1100 a
1000 900
.S 800 E
0) 700 600 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 approx. bottom of sandbed Elvation from bottom of Trench (inches 14
12 & 4 (entiref Comparison of Various Thickness Measurements in Bay 17 lgqre*3g 2006 data 1200 1100
- "1000 -e- 4"* "- . ." ; ,.,<
I 900 .
.E *.
.E 800 E
- Ave Wall Thickness Measured in Trench 700 - - 'Nominal Wall Thickness
- - 'Average External Wall Thickness Measurements
-Grand Average of internal Grid data 600 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Elevation from Bottom of Trench (inches) 15
2 & 4 (Figures 4 & 5) ]
Fig ure'4 Comparison of Various Thickness Measurements in Bay 17 2006 data 1200 1100 E 1000 900 800
--.--- Ave Wall Thickness Measured in Trench
- - Nominal Wall Thickness 700
- - 'Average External Wall Thickness Measurements
- Horizontal averages for Internal Grid Data
-Grand average of internal grid data 600 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Elevation from Bottom of Trench (inches)
Fig6Ue 5 External 2006 UT Measurements in Bay 13 averages and 95% limits of data spread 1200 1000 Co 800 2
" 600
. 400 E
o) 200 0
110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 Elevation (inches) 16
2 & 4 (entire fi External UT Measurements 2006 in Bay I Averages and 95% limits of data spread 1400 1200 It - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7 points rn asured with 1 by 7 1000 Inonzontal gna.
800 600 Ix 400
-Average Zone I 200 -Average Zone 2
-Average Zone 3
_AverageZone4 n
110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 Elevation (inches) 17
r~igui~ 2 &4Z(ntiefre Statistical Analysis of all External UT Measurements I Figure 7b I NýI Comments: Figure 7a: Comparison between measurements 11992 and 2006 show no significant difference. The means from 1992 and 2006 show a bias of 0.018 inches, but the bias is statistically not significant despite of the many data points. Fig. 7b: The comparison between the "zones" (elevations) is significant. Zones 1 is significantly different from zones 2 and 3. For zone 4 there are not enough data for statistical significance. Fig. 7c: Some bays, red ones, are significantly different from the black ones.
18
Figure 8: External UT Measurements in Bay 15 2 & 4 (Figures 8 9)
RomainWallThickByPointMaas Renrain Wall Thick By Year 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 Ah~ ('4..'.
0.90 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.70 All Pairs 1 10 11 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 1992 2006 2006 do.-rr Tukay-Kranrne Tukey-Krarner 2006 op Point Meaas 0.05 Year 0.05 IV Meanos Comparisons
- O~neay Anona I Sonnmraryof Fit The up measurements are Each point has been measured multiple Analysis of Varance significantly diff.
times. Some points (red) are Means for Onsway Arroa from the others significantly different from other points Means. Comparisons i (black). Pitting is not uniform.
Figure 9: External'UT Measurements in, Bayl.j.
Resid Wall Thick By Point Resid Wall Thick By Year 1.2 112 1.1 1.1 "
1.0 - *. . .1. -
M0.9- .
S0.8 -o 1 0.7- 0.7 I 1 10 12 14 16 18 2 20 22 3456789 1992 2006 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Tukey-Kramer Tukey-Kramer Point 0.05 Year 0.05 Oneway Anova Oneway Anova
~Means Comparisons )
n i Variance Means for Oneway Anova Means Comparrsons ýj 19
- Figure_10:-External UTrneasurements :in Bay 19) xk _e_ 0 _ a _tnF enetl 12 &4 (Figure 10 &Table 1 Again one finds that the "up" measurements are significantly lower from the 1992 measurements.
T able I Average Remaining Wall Thickness Measured Externally in the Sandbed Region by UT Bay 1992 2006 2006-up 2006 down Average Std Dev Average Std Dev Average Std Dev Average Std Dev 1 0.822 0.027 0.8 0.027 15 0.825 0.014 0.814 0.014 0.808 0.018 0.768 0.0184 19 0.907 0.025 0.848 0.026 0.837 0.26 0.807 0.026 95 % Confidence Limits of lowest significant measusrements Bay 1 0.746 Bay 15 0.731 Bay 19 0.755 20