ML15335A537

From kanterella
Revision as of 17:31, 2 June 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hearing Transcript, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, November 16, 2015, Pages 4755-5001
ML15335A537
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 11/16/2015
From:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, NRC-2016, RAS 28597
Download: ML15335A537 (248)
v • d • e


Text

Official Transcript of ProceedingsNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Indian Point Nuclear Generating StationDocket Number:50-247-LR and 50-286-LRASLBP Number:07-858-03-LR-BD01 Location:Tarrytown, New York Date:Monday, November 16, 2015Work Order No.:NRC-2016Pages 4755-5001NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.Court Reporters and Transcribers1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 234-4433 4755UNITED STATES OF AMERICA1U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION2+ + + + +3BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD4+ + + + +5________________________________6In the Matter of:  : Docket No.7ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. : 50-247-LR8(Indian Point Nuclear Generating : 50-286-LR9Station, Units 2 and 3)  : ASLBP No.10________________________________ : 07-858-03-LR-BD0111Monday, November 16, 20151213Doubletree Tarrytown14Westchester Ballroom15455 South Broadway16Tarrytown, New York1718 19BEFORE:20LAWRENCE G. MCDADE, Chairman21MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge22RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge2324 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4756APPEARANCES:1On Behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2Commission:3DAVID E. ROTH, ESQ.4SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.5BRIAN HARRIS, ESQ.6of:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission7Office of General Counsel8Mail Stop 15 D219Washington, D.C. 2055510david.roth@nrc.gov11sherwin.turk@nrc.gov12brian.harris@nrc.gov13301-415-2749 (Roth)14301-415-1533 (Turk)15301-415-1392 (Harris)1617On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.:18KATHRYN M. SUTTON, ESQ.19PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.20RAPHAEL "RAY" KUYLER, ESQ.21of:Morgan, Lewis & Brockius, LLP221111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.23Washington, D.C. 2000424202-739-5738 (Sutton)25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4757202-739-5796 (Bessette)1202-739-5146 (Kuyler)2ksutton@morganlewis.com3pbessette@morganlewis.com4rkuyler@morganlewis.com56On Behalf of the State of New York: 7JOHN J. SIPOS, ESQ.8LISA S. KWONG, ESQ.9MIHIR A. DESAI, ESQ. 10of:New York State11Office of the Attorney General12Environmental Protection Bureau13The Capitol14Albany, New York 1222415brian.lusignan@ag.ny.gov1617On Behalf of Riverkeeper Inc.:18DEBORAH BRANCATO, ESQ.19of:Riverkeeper, Inc.2020 Secor Road21Ossining, New York 1056222800-21-RIVER23info@riverkeeper.org2425NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4758On Behalf of Westchester County:1CHRISTOPHER INZERO, ESQ.2Assistant County Attorney3of:Westchester County Government4148 Martine Avenue5Room 6006White Plains, New York 106017914-995-200089On Behalf of the State of Connecticut:10ROBERT D. SNOOK, ESQ.11Assistant Attorney General12of:Office of the Attorney General13 State of Connecticut1455 Elm Street15Hartford, Connecticut 0614116860-808-502017 robert.snook@ct.gov1819On Behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company:20RICHARD J. COLDREN, ESQ.21of:Westinghouse Electric Company221000 Westinghouse Drive23Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 1606624412-374-664525NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4759T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S1Opening Remarks and Introductions.......47612Witnesses Sworn................47643Administrative Matters:4 Documents/Public and Non-Public Domain...47645 Exhibits Discussion.............47696 Preliminaries/Discussion TLAAs and GALL...47797Clarifications8July 2010 plant-specific AMP......48369Appendix A description of AMPs.....483910Time-limited aging analyses discussion....484111Contention 2512Preliminary comments..........408613Discussion...............40931415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4760E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S1Entergy's2Exhibit Nos. DocumentID Rec'd3R681, R682, R683, R689, R690 47694681, 682, 683, 689, 690 Withdrawn5R727, R728 and R72947696727, 728 and 729Withdrawn7R31, R184, R186, R195, R5294770831, 184, 186, 195, 529Withdrawn910 11NRC's12Exhibit Nos. DocumentID Rec'd13R101, R104, R105, R118, R147, and R161477114101, 104, 105, 118, 147, and 161Withdrawn1516847711617New York's18Exhibit Nos. DocumentID Rec'd19577, 578, and 5794773 --20580, 5814776 --2122 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4761P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S1(12:00 p.m.)2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we'll now go on3the record. We're here in the matter of Entergy4Nuclear Operations Inc., Indian Point Nuclear5Generating Plant, Units 2 and 3, License Renewal. 6These are Docket Numbers 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR.7My name is Lawrence McDade, an8Administrative Judge. With me are Michael Kennedy,9and Richard Wardwell, also Administrative Judges with10the ASLB, paid. What I would like to do initially is11for the record, have counsel indicate who represents12who. We'll start at my left, Mr. Turk for NRC.13MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm14Sherwin Turk with the Office of General Counsel at15NRC. To my left is David Roth. And to his left is16Brian Harris. And Mr. Harris will be representing the17staff with respect to Contention 25 today.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. For Entergy?19MR. BESSETTE: Good morning Your Honor,20this is Paul Bessette from Morgan Lewis representing21Entergy. On my left is Kathryn Sutton. And on my22right is Ray Kuyler.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. For24New York?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4762MR. SIPOS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 1John Sipos, Assistant Attorney General for the State2of New York. On my left, or on your right as you're3looking me, is Assistant Attorney General, Lisa Kwong. 4And on my right is Assistant Attorney General, Mihir5Desai.6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And Riverkeeper?7MS. BRANCATO: Yes, good afternoon, Your8Honor. Deborah Brancato, Staff Attorney for9Riverkeeper.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And with you Ms.11Brancato?12MS. BRANCATO: This is Riverkeeper's13expert, Dr. Joram Hopenfeld.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you. Let's get15started with the witnesses. And we'll just go from16you know, your right to left.17MR. LOTT: My name is Randy Lott. I'm a18consulting engineer with Westinghouse Electric,19appearing on behalf of Entergy as an expert witness.20MR. COX: My name is Alan Cox. I'm a21Consultant for License Renewal for Entergy.22MR. AZEVEDO: My name is Nelson Azevedo. 23I'm an Engineering Supervisor of the plant.24MR. DOLANSKY: My name is Bob Dolansky. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4763I work at Indian Point for Entergy.1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we have some2Entergy people in the second row. Let's get them to3identify themselves before we move to NRC.4MR. STROSNIDER: I'm Jack Strosnider. I'm5a Consultant for Entergy on License Renewal.6MR. GRIESBACH: I'm Tim Griesbach. I'm7Senior Associate with Structural Integrity Associates. 8And I'm a Consultant, expert witness for Entergy.9MR. GRAY: I'm Mark Gray. I'm a Principal10Engineer from Westinghouse on behalf of Entergy.11MR. GORDON: I'm Barry Gordon. Associate12with Structural Integrity and I'm an expert witness13for Entergy.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Dr. Hiser?15DR. HISER: I'm Allen Hiser, Senior Level16Advisor for License Renewal Aging Management at the17NRC.18MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler, Senior19Materials Engineer for the NRC.20MR. LAHEY: Richard Lahey, Professor21Emeritus from RPI.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And Dr.23Hopenfeld, you're not going to be testifying on 25. 24But why don't you introduce yourself at this point?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4764DR. HOPENFELD: I am Joram Hopenfeld. I'm1a Consultant for Riverkeeper.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. At this --3MR. STEVENS: Your Honor, Gary Stevens,4Senior Materials Engineer with the NRC.5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm sorry, Mr. Stevens. 6At this point, would all the witnesses please rise,7including Dr. Hopenfeld? What we want to do is to8swear you. The testimony you give will be under oath. 9Will you please raise your right hands?10Will you swear or affirm subject to the11penalties for perjury that the testimony you'll give12at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth,13and nothing but the truth?14(Chorus of I do.)15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Please be seated.16Now we're going to be having documents17presented during the course of this hearing. Most of18which are public documents that are already in the19public domain. Available to the public on the20electronic hearing docket through the NRC. There are21also certain documents that are non-public which22contain proprietary information.23When a document is called up, Mr. Welkie24will bring up the public document. If for some reason25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4765any witness needs to refer to the non-public document,1they need to so state. At that point we will put the2non-public document up only for counsel and the3witnesses. It will not be available to the public.4If not only referring to the document in5order for reference, but also if you need to testify6with regard to specifics of the non-public documents. 7Don't just do it okay, because that's going to have to8be done at a closed session. And what we would ask9you to do is to the degree possible, avoid discussing10proprietary information.11And in many instances, if not all12instances, you'll be able to discuss it for example,13if a cumulative use factor is approaching one or14exceeds one that testimony may be sufficient for our15purposes. If you feel that you actually need to get16into specific proprietary information, please stop and17state that. So that we can then defer your answer on18that particular question to the end.19And the end of a particular session where20if necessary we'll take up documents that are21proprietary in nature and need to remain non-public.22MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, Kathryn Sutton23on behalf of Entergy. And I've spoken with Mr.24Coldren who's here representing Westinghouse. Given25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4766the logistics and the layout of this room we have1concerns that even the proprietary documents that are2being shown to the witnesses, can be viewed by members3of the public.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, well I mean,5here's the situation. I mean the document itself is6proprietary only to the degree that you can actually7read it. There's a separation between the witnesses8and the individuals who are in the public. That9although they would be capable of seeing that there's10a document on the screen, it's inconceivable to me11that they would be able to read the document.12Let's start with these rules. In the13event a non-public document comes up, and there is an14issue with that regard, to raise the objection at that15point in time. And also one thing I did want, that I16was remiss, we do have a representative of17Westinghouse here that many of the proprietary, most18of the proprietary documents are Westinghouse19documents. Would the representative from20Westinghouse, identify yourself for the record?21MR. COLDREN: Yes, Your Honor. Richard22Coldren, Electric Property Counsel for Westinghouse.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And then we also24have representatives of interested Government Agencies25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4767from Connecticut.1MR. SNOOK: The Assistant Attorney2General, Robert Snook for Connecticut.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And Westchester County?4MR. INZERO: Yes. Good afternoon, Your5Honor. Christopher Inzero, Assistant County Attorney6for the County of Westchester.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Are there any8other representatives of interested Government9Agencies who have appeared?10(No audible response.)11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, apparently not. 12In the event that we do need to break for a non-public13session, only individuals who have signed non-14disclosure agreements that are on file can be present15in the room. So I would direct that anyone who has16not signed a non-disclosure agreement, if they are a17representative of a party, they need to do so. Or18understand that if we do have a non-public session,19it'll be necessary for them to withdraw from the room.20MR. TURK: Your Honor, Sherwin Turk.21CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes, Mr. Turk.22MR. TURK: I just note that there is a23video camera. I don't know if it's a member of the24press or who's filming? But that camera would be able25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4768to zoom in on documents on the screen. So it may be1appropriate to have some instructions for the2videographer in terms of what they can film or not3film.4CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, I mean I believe5that they would understand that they would, it would6be a breech for them to zoom in on a non-public7document. If we do have a non-public document to come8up, we will give very specific instructions so that9that will not occur. But thank you for raising that,10Mr. Turk. I appreciate it.11MR. SIPOS: Excuse me Your Honor, John12Sipos --13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.14MR. SIPOS: -- for the State of New York. 15Good afternoon. There are also some pending motions16--17CHAIRMAN McDADE: Oh, Yes.18MR. SIPOS: And I was just wondering if19Your Honor wished to either take those up, or hear20additional presentations on those?21CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, I mean we're going22to take them up here before we get started on the23testimony. And the testimony today is going focus on24Contention 25. You know the allegation that there's25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4769an inadequate Aging Management Program for certain1reactor vessel internals, perhaps others. We will2discuss that here shortly. There is a bit of a3carryover with 26 and 38 as well.4But before we get started with the5specifics on 25, we're going to be asking some general6questions having to do with TLAAs and the GALL.7We have certain things to take up before8we get started. First of all, we received last week9certain corrected documents from Entergy. There was10no objection. There was Entergy 727, 728, and then11revised Entergy 681, 682, 683, 689, 690, and 729. So12those documents are admitted.13(Whereupon, the above-referred to14documents were received into evidence as Entergy15Exhibits No. 727, 728, and revised Entergy Exhibits16R681, R682, R683, R689, R690, and R729.)17The original documents have been revised. 18The documents are stricken, so that it will only be19the revised documents that are part of the record.20Other issues with regard to the current21status of exhibits. The following exhibits need to be22stricken and based on the exhibit list that we have. 23The reason these are being stricken is because there24have been revised documents already submitted.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4770So it will be the revised document. So1for example Entergy 31 will be stricken, and replaced2by Entergy R31. And that goes with Entergy 31, 184,3186, 195, 529, and NRC 101, 104, 105, 118, 147, and4161.5(Whereupon, the above-referred to6documents were received into evidence as Entergy7Exhibits No. R31, R184, R186, R195, and R529.)8CHAIRMAN McDADE: We also have an issue9Entergy Exhibit list does not indicate that there are10both public and non-public exhibits for Entergy11616,678, 679, 698, and 699. When at the conclusion of12the hearing you submit a revised exhibit list, it13should show, reflect that there are both public and14non-public versions of those documents filed.15The same with the Staff documents, 168,16196, and 197.17Another is a question, the staff indicated18that NRC document 102, and 148 were superseded by 168. 19Does that mean that the staff is withdrawing 102 and20148?21MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor. The testimony22and the superseding documents covers both Contention2326 and 38.24CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, so we receive 16825NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4771and strike 102 and 148.1(Whereupon, the above-referred to document2was received into evidence as NRC Exhibit No. 168.)3CHAIRMAN McDADE: There's also an4indication Riverkeeper did not file redacted versions5161, 162, and 163. Does Riverkeeper intend to file6redacted versions of those documents? Those were7testimony.8MS. BRANCATO: Yes, Your Honor. At the9time of the submission, Entergy had not provided10redacted versions to which the testimony responded to. 11So we had not done that at the time, but Riverkeeper12would like to file redacted versions.13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and that reflect14again on the revised exhibit list that you file at the15conclusion of the hearing. That we have the non-16public version which we will use in rendering our17decision, but there should be a public version filed18as well.19MS. BRANCATO: Yes.20CHAIRMAN McDADE: All right. In New York21state exhibits, New York 369 is a multipart public and22non-public document. Only the non-public exhibit is23multipart. The public version is a single exhibit and24does not have an A and B version. And that should be25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4772reflected on the revised.1I believe those are all the issues that we2have with regard to exhibits. Does anybody have3anything further with regard to exhibits, not counting4the exhibits that were submitted last Friday by the5state of New York?6(No audible response.)7CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, apparently not. 8We have a couple of motions. We had a motion to9remove the proprietary designation on ten documents. 10It was filed by New York. When we originally11addressed this, there was an appeal pending on a12similar motion. That appeal has been resolved. In13light of the result of that appeal, the motion to14remove the proprietary designation for those ten15documents is denied.16There was a motion filed on Friday, last. 17It was a motion to admit five documents, New York 57718to 581. The first two are demonstrative exhibits19prepared by Dr. Lahey, 579 is demonstrative exhibit20filed by Dr. Duquette, and submitted by him. Those at21this point are marked only for identification. They22are not received in evidence. They may or may not be23referred to, is my understanding. Is that they24basically fall in the same category as the discussion25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4773of a white board that they could refer to, if it is1necessary to answer our questions.2But if at this point, all they will be is3marked for identification.4(Whereupon, the above-referred to5documents were marked as New York Exhibit Nos. 577,6578, 579 for identification.)7CHAIRMAN McDADE: The other two we have8Exhibit 580 which is a paper that was presented at an9International Symposium in August of 2007, having to10do with stress corrosion cracking and the immunity to11stress corrosion cracking. And may or may not exist12with Alloy 690 and its metal welds. And also a13discussion that the growth rate for cracking, even if14it is not immune, is very low. The mid ten to the15ninth millimeters or lower.16And there's also a slide presentation from17I believe June of 2014, 23 slides discussing the same18general area.19Question to New York, we received your20motion on Friday. We received a reply from Entergy on21Sunday. We're here in the later part of 2015, this is22a document from 2007 that although on point appears23cumulative to other documents that you've submitted.24Why should we receive these documents at25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4774this late point, and why is it not unfair to the1witnesses from Entergy and the NRC staff to be2presented with these documents on the eve of their3testimony? Mr. Sipos, or anyone from New York.4MR. SIPOS: Yes, John Sipos for the state5of New York.6Taking the second document first, 7Document 581, that is an NRC document or is a8presentation to NRC from a year ago. And in the9preparation for this hearing, Dr. Duquette reviewed10that document and found that it would be germane to11what he might, may be testifying about and the issues12that are at the fore in Contention 38.13So it is a document that is not a14surprise. It has existed and it ties into the 201415EPRI report that is also at issue in Contention 38. 16And so in going through the citations and in preparing17for it, Dr. Duquette and the state disclosed that18document. I believe we disclosed it a week ago and19made it available. So the state submits there is20little if any prejudice to Entergy or NRC staff21regarding that.22As to Document, or is it proposed Exhibit23580, the Andresen article, there are also citations I24believe in the 2014 EPRI report, references to Dr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4775Andresen and some of the work that he has done in this1area. And again, in reviewing testimony, reviewing2the documents and preparing for this hearing, Dr.3Duquette believed that it was germane.4We did disclose it. We disclosed it a5week ago. And it's possible that he may refer to it. 6So we submit that there is good cause. We would have7preferred to have presented them earlier, the state8would have. But they were disclosed and the state's9position is that there is little if any prejudice.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. From the11standpoint of the Board, we've been dealing with you12know, with hundreds of pages of testimony and13literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of pages14of exhibits over a period of years at this point in15time. And these documents as I said, were received16just simply last Friday.17The witnesses who arrive here today,18probably would not have been made aware of the19existence of these documents or the intended use of20these documents by New York until today.21At this point we are not going to receive22the documents in evidence. If, you know, although I23do have to say although we're not receiving them into24evidence, they have been submitted. And they have25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4776been read by the Board.1(Whereupon, the above-referred to2documents were marked as New York Exhibits No. 580 and3581 for identification.)4So you know, the information that's5contained in that, is contained in the minds of the6Members of the Board. Even though the documents are7not received in evidence and would not be referred to8specifically in any initial opinion that the Board9would issue.10The point made by Entergy in their reply11is getting these this late, it just simply, not that12these are not potentially relevant documents, but that13Dr. Duquette could have brought this to the attention14of Counsel for New York and Counsel for Entergy and15the Board months, if not years ago.16MR. SIPOS: Could I just respond briefly,17Your Honor?18I take your point about the volume of19exhibits. I think there's more than 625 exhibits in20Track 2. There have been several thousand documents21disclosed, 580 and 581 I think, each are less than 3022pages as I said. We disclosed them last week and23Contention 38 you know is a few days off.24We would again, the state would25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4777respectfully submit that we have tried to be collegial1with Entergy on the documents that they have2presented. There has been a steady stream of3disclosures from Entergy over the past two weeks,4including documents that go to cumulative use factors.5And we have not objected to those.6CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. The documents7that were submitted by Entergy last week and received,8681, 682, 683, 689, 690, 729, these were all revised9documents were they not?10MR. SIPOS: Yes, they were to correct11mistakes or discrepancies in the calculations12apparently.13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, at this point this14580 and 581 are not received. And having been late15filed, if during the course of the hearing their16relevance as opposed to cumulative effect becomes more17relevant, the Board might reconsider. But at this18point, the Board is you know, upset that at this late19in the proceeding we're getting these documents20offered into evidence.21And given you know, reading through them22it doesn't appear that any new ground is reached in23them that cannot be discussed by Dr. Duquette and Dr.24Lahey in their testimony and through the other25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4778exhibits that have already been received.1That said, before we proceed further, from2the NRC staff is there any other administrative3matters that you wish for the Board to address?4MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.5MR. KUYLER: Not from Entergy, Your Honor.6CHAIRMAN McDADE: From New York?7MR. SIPOS: No, Your Honor.8CHAIRMAN McDADE: Riverkeeper?9MS. SUTTON: No, Your Honor, thank you.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and two other11preliminaries. We've got a lot of people here and a12lot of people speaking. Most of the testimony that13has been received has been submitted jointly by14several witnesses. When we ask a question in most15instances, it will not be directed to a specific16individual, although in some instances it will be.17It will be for example, a witness18addressed to New York right now, would be to Dr.19Lahey, almost by default. Well, not almost. But to20the others, would you please in answering a question,21before you do, state your name. You can decide which22one of you is going to be answering the question. But23before you do, just state your name and say that this24is Dr. Allen Hiser for the NRC staff. This is Mr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4779Alan Cox for Entergy. Just so we have on the record1who it is specifically who's making the2representation.3Likewise, if Counsel makes a statement,4again to make it clear for the record, the Court5Reporter's got a lot to do, he may not know all of you6by face at this point in time, so please just state7your name before you begin the statement and we'll8move on from there.9Okay that said, as I indicated what we10wanted to do before we get into a lot of the substance11raised by Contention 25 is to discuss generally some12issues relating TLAAs and the GALL.13Before we do that, Judge Kennedy, do you14have anything further to take up before we move on?15JUDGE KENNEDY: I do not.16CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Wardwell?17JUDGE WARDWELL: No.18CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Kennedy.19JUDGE KENNEDY: As Judge McDade stated20earlier, this is Judge Kennedy, I should follow the21Chair's guidance. So this is Judge Kennedy. In22looking over the contentions, the Board saw some23common threads that went across more than one24contention. So we have couple of leading edge issues25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4780that we wanted to address before we got into the meat1of any particular contention.2You could argue, I drew the short straw. 3I have the first two overarching issues, which for4want of a better characterization we called,5compliance with GALL, and TLAAs versus AMPs.6We're going to take up the compliance with7GALL first. And I have a series of questions that8I'll direct to either the staff or to Entergy, at9least that's my initial first cut at it.10I don't know who the best witness is, as11Judge McDade has pointed out. I am under the12presumption that the best witness is in the room, but13if not, let's identify that and we'll deal with it. 14And so I will issue a question in the direction of15either Entergy or the staff. And I'll leave it to you16folks to select the most appropriate person to answer,17or persons. Identify yourself, and provide an answer.18I'll ask my Board mates, if they have a19follow-up questions to the initial question, that they20chime in, identifying themselves as we go. And pose21any follow-up questions.22Our hope is that by addressing some of23these issues that go across more than one contention,24that we can be a little more efficient as we address25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4781issues during each individual specific contention. I1ask you to bear with us. Some of this ground may have2been plowed under Track 1, if you all were here with3us. But we thought it would be good for a complete4record to try to revisit it and see how it all holds5together today.6And that in particular in the area of7compliance with GALL. We did a lot of this under8Contention Track 1, but I think we've amplified the9questions and I think we're interested in putting10together a consistent record at this time.11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Kennedy, this is12Judge McDade again. There was one other13administrative matter that I forgot to raise and I14apologize for the interruption.15This is going to be a long hearing. We16anticipate we're probably going to be going until 617o'clock or so this evening. We will probably be18taking one or two breaks during the course of the day. 19But if any witness, for any reason, needs a break. 20Don't sit there and suffer in silence. You know, let21us know and we can arrange to take a break.22The same goes for Counsel, although you23know each party, most parties are represented by24multiple people, so it may be possible for you know25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4782Counsel to step out and have their colleagues1continue. But again, primarily for the witnesses, you2know if for any reason you do need a break, let us3know. And we will make arrangements for it. Judge4Kennedy.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Taking a break, drink some6water.7Let's start with compliance with GALL. 8Again from my perspective, the adequacy of individual9aging management programs is at issue here in these10contentions. So I thought it would be useful to just11start some general discussion on GALL, compliance with12GALL, and a number of side issues that go along with13that.14It's my belief that in responding to15challenges to the adequacy of a particular aging16management program, to provide reasonable assurance17that the effects of aging will be adequately managed18so that the intended functions of components and scope19for license renewal will be maintained consistent with20the current licensing basis.21For the period of extended operation,22again embedded in the regs, the commission has23concluded that an aging management program that is24consistent with GALL provides the requisite assurance,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4783requisite reasonable assurance.1They go on to say that the NRC staff does2not take the applicant's word on this, but rather asks3them to confirm that a particular program is4consistent with GALL. So that's where I'm starting5from and I'm going to go through a series of6questions. But that's sort of the overarching7hypothesis here. Is that, this consistence with GALL8is an important issue in trying to deal with the9adequacy of any particular aging management program.10So let me first direct a question to11Entergy, and we'll see how this works. You guys get12to select. I'm interested in confirming what version13of GALL was used to develop the license renewal14application for Indian Point, Units 2 and 3?15MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy. 16The version of GALL that was in effect when we17developed the licensed renewal application at Union18Point, was Rev 1.19JUDGE KENNEDY: Rev 1 of GALL?20MR. COX: Right.21JUDGE KENNEDY: So then I guess to the22staff, what version of GALL is used to review the23application for the Indian Point license renewal?24DR. HISER: This is Dr. Allen Hiser for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4784the NRC. The staff used Revision 1 for the GALL to1review the Indian Point application because we issued2Revision 2 of GALL in the midst of that review. We3then directed requests for additional information to4Entergy based on the operating experience that the5staff had accumulated in developing Revision 2 of6GALL.7So at that point, we had Indian Point8address the operating experience that supported the9changes in GALL Revision 2.10JUDGE KENNEDY: And so, do I take that to11mean that the, as you use the term "operating12experience" in the interim between Rev 1 of GALL and13Rev 2 of GALL was important information and needed to14be addressed as part of the Indian Point license15renewal application?16DR. HISER: This is Dr. Allen Hiser again.17JUDGE KENNEDY: Sorry, should have18directed the question.19DR. HISER: And yes, that is correct that20the positions were addressed during the review of the21license renewal application.22JUDGE KENNEDY: Did that affect, Dr.23Hiser, did that affect any of the aging management24programs that are at issue here in these contentions25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4785in front of us at Track 2?1DR. HISER: Yes, I would say that it at2least addressed or resulted in changes to the aging3management program for reactor vessel internals. It's4a very difficult, actually it's a very difficult5question to answer because initially in Revision 1 of6GALL, there was no AMP for reactor vessel internals. 7There was a commitment process that was used.8JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. I9will probably, I'm sure we're going to get into that10as we get into the specific contention.11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Just if I could, this is12Judge McDade. Dr. Hiser, we've heard that originally13it was prepared, the license renewal application,14looking at Revision 1 of GALL. Is it the position of15the NRC staff that as we sit here today, the license16renewal application as amended, is consistent with17Revision 2 of GALL? Or is it in anyway inconsistent18with Revision 2, or deficient pursuant to Revision 2?19DR. HISER: I don't believe that we had20done a full accounting of the differences between the21license renewal application for Indian Point in22Revision 2 of GALL. So from that perspective, I would23say that the application is likely a hybrid. Portions24that were not, that the staff did not direct requests25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4786for additional information to Entergy would still be1consistent with Revision 1.2Whether those are entirely consistent with3Revision 2, I would expect that they are. But we did4not make that comparison. What I can tell you is that5the staff's review really is consistent with Revision62 of the GALL report.7And so the, and in terms of, the GALL8report has certain positions that are advocated for9aging management. And what we did with the request10for additional information was to ensure that the11operating experience that was reflected in GALL12Revision 2, was accounted for by the applicant in its13application.14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, the Commission has15determined that if an AMP is consistent with GALL that16it is adequate. Is it the staff's position, the17Commission position at this point, that in order for18an AMP that we are reviewing today in November of 201519that it needs to be consistent with the current20emendation of GALL, Revision 2?21DR. HISER: Not entirely. I guess what I22would say is that the GALL AMPs are not requirements.23What is required is adequacy of aging managements, of24aging effects for the, in this case, reactor vessel25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4787internals.1In general, a plant, an applicant that2indicates that it will implement a GALL AMP, after3verification by the staff that they in effect are4implementing the GALL AMP, there is a presumption that5that provides reasonable assurance.6Applicants may propose alternatives to the7provisions that are in the GALL AMPs. And from that8position the staff, in the case of say Indian Point,9where the application is prepared with Revision 1. 10The staff has issued Revision 2. The staff tries to11bridge the operating experience and other differences12between the two to ensure the adequacy of the proposed13aging management by the applicant.14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, thank you.15JUDGE KENNEDY: So Dr. Hiser, I'm sensing16some conscious determination on the part of the staff17that as changes are made from GALL Rev 1 to GALL Rev182 that if there was an ongoing, I guess sticking with19the Indian Point Units, if there was some issues that20were identified in that new information between Rev 121and Rev 2, how did the staff decide which, they'd have22to go through all of the new information, all the23applicable new information? How did you decide what24to focus on?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4788DR. HISER: Well, the staff issued a1Regulatory Issue Summary in 2014. I believe it was22014 that identified the operating experience that3formed the basis for changes to Rev 2 of the GALL4report. And using that as a basis, we then evaluated5license renewal applications that were on file at that6point in time. And identified areas where we thought7that the applicant needed to provide additional8information.9And after that review, then we issued REIs10to, in this case, Indian Point.11JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, just for the12record. Is that an exhibit that has been entered for13this proceeding? It doesn't sound familiar.14DR. HISER: It may have been 2012, and I'd15have to --16JUDGE KENNEDY: I can give you some time17to look that up. We can move forward and you can18check on it. I'd be curious to know. I don't19remember seeing that in the exhibit list. But it20sounds important.21MR. COX: Judge Kennedy.22JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Cox.23MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy. 24Let me add just a little bit of a clarification. The25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4789regulatory information summary that Dr. Hiser refers1to, didn't cover every single change between GALL Rev21 and Rev 2. It did point out the areas that were3considered most significant by the staff in Rev 2. 4And those were the areas that were the focus of the5regulatory information summary and of the REIs that6followed that.7JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Cox is it fair to ask8you, would it be your opinion that, or your testimony9that the important issues identified in that10regulatory information summary were addressed as REIs11to Entergy and then responded to?12MR. COX: I believe that would be correct.13JUDGE KENNEDY: Are you aware of any that,14it sounds like you are not aware of any that were not15responded to?16MR. COX: That's correct. I'm not aware17of any that were not. I'm not, I don't have all of18them committed to memory but I'm not aware of any19significant issues that were identified in the20regulatory information summary that were not addressed21through REIs.22JUDGE KENNEDY: If a particular REI wasn't23responded to, how would that evidence itself, I guess24let's start with Mr. Cox since you were -- would there25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4790be a record of that? Are the responses to REIs1tracked in a process that's transparent to the public?2MR. COX: The responses to REIs are3submitted to the staff as a public document.4JUDGE KENNEDY: Again just for the record,5and maybe I'll go back to Dr. Hiser, what's the6current version, revision level of GALL?7DR. HISER: Right now for the document8overall, is Revision 2. There are certain issues,9certain AMPs where we have supplemented the guidance10in GALL through Interim Staff Guidance or LR-ISG11documents. Reactor vessel internals is one case that12that has occurred.13JUDGE KENNEDY: Ultimately we would14potentially see, that maybe Dr. Hiser, this isn't too15speculative? Are we heading to a Rev 3 of GALL, is16that how this seems to be working?17DR. HISER: It's another difficult -- this18is that one --19JUDGE KENNEDY: That's fine. I'm not sure20it's that important. I'm just curious if we've, it's21been, this proceeding has been going on since 2007 and22we've worked our way through at least one revision to23GALL. I'm not sure if there weren't two, but it24sounds like we started with Rev 1 and we're at Rev 2. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4791But operating history seems to keep being accumulated.1DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. The2situation that we are with license renewal3applications is such that Revision 3 would only apply4to a handful of plants. And because we have Revision52 with the supplements, with the ISGs, I don't believe6the staff will expend the resources to update that.7JUDGE KENNEDY: Understand.8MR. KUYLER: Your Honor.9JUDGE KENNEDY: Where are we?10MR. KUYLER: This is Ray Kuyler for11Entergy. Just the Regulatory Issue Summary that we12were just talking about is RIS 2011-05. It's Entergy13Exhibit 192.14JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm sorry, 192?15MR. KUYLER: Entergy Exhibit 1-9-2,16000192.17CHAIRMAN McDADE: Thank you.18JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.19Trying to move forward, maybe pick some20different topics. Within, in looking at the license21renewal application, it appears that the aging22management programs are organized into, for want of a23better term, "categories". And one of the categories24appears to be, "Consistent with GALL". And again,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4792we're back to that consistent with GALL.1What does it mean? I'm going to start2with Entergy first. What does it mean to be3consistent with GALL? That term is difficult to grasp4at least from my perspective. I guess I'll take5anybody that wants to start. I think we're going to6have some discussion on consistency.7MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy. 8I'll start with that question. When we say consistent9with GALL, we are saying that we are doing, as you all10described the program, if we say we're consistent with11GALL, our program does the same things that the GALL12program recommends.13And we would have the same preventive14actions, the same detection of aging effects, methods15that are defined, the same acceptance criteria would16be the same if we were going to say our program was17consistent with GALL.18If there are exceptions we would say it's19consistent with GALL with exceptions and we would20identify those exceptions.21JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I take that to mean22if GALL has a specific acceptance criteria or a23specific inspection criteria or methodology, to be24consistent with GALL you'd have to use those criteria,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4793those inspection techniques?1MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.2JUDGE KENNEDY: So if you substituted3something, is that where you get into, you started to4use the word enhancement or exception? What would be5the process to move off of consistent with GALL?6MR. COX: We took an exception to, let's7say the acceptance criteria in GALL, we would propose8an alternative acceptance criteria along with a9technical justification for why that was an10appropriate acceptance criteria to effectively manage11the effects of aging.12JUDGE KENNEDY: And that would be listed13as an exception?14MR. COX: That would be listed as an15exception. The program descriptions in Appendix B of16the license renewal application have a section where17they identify whether there are exceptions to the18program.19JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe to, Mr. Cox is20you'd like to answer, what would then be an21enhancement be, in the context of consistent with22GALL?23MR. COX: In the context of consistency24with GALL, an enhancement would be a change that if we25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4794had an existing program at Indian Point, and we1determined that there was a particular aspect of that2program that was not consistent with GALL, an3enhancement would be a commitment to make a change in4that program to where it is now consistent with GALL.5JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe to the staff,6what from your perspective is the impact or import of7a licensee declaring their aging management program is8consistent with GALL?9DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, what10consistency with GALL means is that the applicant is11implementing the program that is nearly identical to12what is in the GALL.13JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess that's the thing14that, at least the Board is struggling with. That the15word consistent has a definition. But when we have16this discussion from a technical perspective, the -ly17words start to creep in. We're trying to get our arms18around how much latitude a licensee may have in,19although still being consistent with GALL, could do it20differently.21In other words is there a, and I guess22I'll try and just, Dr. Hiser, is there a delta around23consistent such that if the delta gets too large it24becomes an exception or an enhancement? I guess I'm25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4795really struggling with how much, I mean it's not1verbatim. Is it verbatim compliance with what's in2GALL? Is it word for word what's in GALL?3DR. HISER: At one level it is. When an4applicant identifies an AMP is consistent with GALL. 5We do an audit or an AMP consistency audit. And we go6to the applicant site and we at one level compare7their AMP to what's in GALL, word for word.8If there are things that are missing then9we discuss with the applicant why the difference10exists. If it is a significant difference, and I11think the delta really is very small, then we would12ask them at REI, and pursue them justifying that. And13maybe at that point that would be identified as an14exception to GALL.15JUDGE KENNEDY: And --16CHAIRMAN McDADE: Jim, just if a --17JUDGE KENNEDY: Go ahead.18CHAIRMAN McDADE: This is Judge McDade,19just to clarify for myself here, that an applicant20submitting an application does not need to have or21even reference GALL with their AMP. But if they22don't, then they have to demonstrate that the plan23that they have will in fact adequately manage the24effects of aging.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4796If in fact they take advantage of the GALL1and they not only represent, but demonstrate that2their AMP in fact is consistent with all of the3parameters of GALL, then there is a presumption that4the plan is adequate.5On the other hand if they don't address or6demonstrate that they are consistent with GALL, then7they have to independently demonstrate the adequacy of8the aging management. Am I correct in that regard?9DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser, yes I10would say that yes, you are correct.11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, now when you have12a situation here with the hybrid, where submitted13under Revision 1, reviewed in part under Revision 2. 14From our standpoint, it's not just a representation15that it's consistent with GALL. Do we need to find16that it's consistent with Revision 2 in order to have17that presumption of adequacy?18If it's not, if we can't find that it's19consistent with Revision 2, do we have to aside from20GALL, independently evaluate the adequacy of the aging21management?22DR. HISER: I guess what I would say is23that if the determination is made that it is24consistent with Revision 2 of GALL, then there's a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4797presumption that it provides reasonable assurance. If1we are unable to find that it is consistent with2Revision 2 of GALL, then we would make a sort of on3its own merits, evaluation of whether the program is4adequate to provide reasonable assurance.5So the consistency with GALL is one way to6provide a presumption of reasonable assurance. If7it's a plant specific program, we do have a more8laborious process that we need to go through to9demonstrate that it provides reasonable assurance.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: And that's what you've11done in SER Supplement 2, that in certain instances12you've determined that it's consistent with GALL 2. 13And in other instances you have determined that it,14even though not consistent with GALL 2, nevertheless15provides adequate assurance of aging management. Is16that correct?17DR. HISER: Are you speaking specifically18for the reactor vessel internals parameters?19CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.20DR. HISER: I guess I'd like to ask Jeff21to address that.22MR. POEHLER: Mr. Jeffrey Poehler for the23NRC. Actually for the reactor internals aging24management program submitted by Entergy, we used for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4798guidance for the staff's review we used the Interim1Staff Guidance related to reactor internals,2LR-ISG-2011-04. And that --3CHAIRMAN McDADE: Sorry, can you repeat4the cite?5MR. POEHLER: Yes, LR-ISG-2011-04. And6basically that Interim Staff Guidance updated the7guidance of GALL Revision 2, specifically related to8reactor internals. Mostly just to recognize that the9approved version of MRP-227-A had been issued in 2012.10In practice there's not, there weren't a11lot of changes from GALL Rev 2 in that guidance. So12but we did use the, so that represented the most up-13to-date NRC guidance for reactor vessel internals. So14that was what we used when we evaluated the ten15elements of the aging management program for reactor16internals.17JUDGE WARDWELL: This is Judge Wardwell.18Considering we opened this door, with Dr. Kennedy's19permission, I'd like to explore this a little bit more20as an example of the application of GALL.21Mr. Cox, when you submitted your22application for this license renewal, when dealing23with the reactor vessels internals, what did you24submit at the time of, in 2007? Because there was no25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4799-- let me ask you this question, there wasn't an AMP1in GALL 1 for reactor vessel internals. Is that2correct?3MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy. 4That is correct. There was no AMP. There was5direction in the, or guidance, recommendations, in the6GALL report that said for reactor vessel internals an7applicant should provide a commitment to participate8in the industry efforts that were evaluating aging9management of the vessel internals.10And to implement the resulting programs11and guidance that came out of that industry effort as12part of, you know to manage the effects of aging on13the vessel internals.14It was essentially commitment, I believe15it was Commitment 30 in Indian Point license renewal16commitments that said we would follow that industry17work and implement the results of that program.18JUDGE WARDWELL: And so then I turn to NRC19staff, Dr. Hiser or your partner, you reviewed the20commitment then in regards to your initial approval. 21What happened subsequently when GALL 2 came out, was22that you used this internal staff guidance to then23measure their commitment with GALL 2? Or how did you24review it?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4800DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. When the1main driving force that created a change in GALL and2with the Indian Point application, was the industry3submittal of MRP-227 Rev 0 report. The staff review4of that report and subsequent safety evaluation. And5then the industry submittal of MRP-227-A report. That6provided for the first time an acceptable aging7management program for reactor vessel internals for8PWRs.9Based on that the staff, actually prior to10that issuance, the staff put into GALL Revision 2, an11AMP for reactor vessels internals that we believed12would be consistent with MRP-227-A. However, that was13about a year before 227-A was submitted and based on14that, we ended up putting together the LR-ISG that Mr.15Poehler described.16So that then the AMP for reactor vessel17internals was consistent with MRP-227-A.18JUDGE WARDWELL: Which in turn was19consistent or mirrored what was in Rev 2 in regards to20the AMP for vessel internals that was contained21therein?22DR. HISER: Well at that point when we23issued the LR-ISG that Mr. Poehler mentioned, that24superseded the reactor vessel internals AMP that was25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4801in Revision 2 of GALL. So that became the staff1position on what an acceptable aging management2program was for reactor vessel internals, was conveyed3through the LR-ISG.4JUDGE WARDWELL: But still the, if a plant5was doing it new now, they would look at still Rev 26of GALL and that AMP that's in Rev 2 of GALL. And7then the guidance is how that AMP is really8implemented. Is that correct?9DR. HISER: I have to apologize because I10get hung up with Revision 2 versus the ISG. The11Revision 2 that is the printed book, that version of12the AMP is no longer valid. The version that is in13the LR-ISG, that is the official staff position.14JUDGE WARDWELL: But that, so you're15saying if I understand you correctly, GALL 2 at least16in reactor vessel internals, the AMP that's contained17therein has been modified and replaced by that which18is contained in the ISG. Is that what you're saying?19DR. HISER: That is correct. And there20are several other AMPs that are similar to that, that21there are LR-ISG documents that supersede the printed22version of GALL Revision 2.23CHAIRMAN McDADE: This is Judge McDade. 24I just want to before we move on, clarify something25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4802for myself here because I'm getting a little beyond. 1You make reference to MRP-227-A which just so I can2find it again, that's NRC document 114 A through F. 3So when we go later.4What is the genesis of that? It's a5material and reliability program. How was that6generated?7DR. HISER: That was generated from an8almost decade long industry activity to develop aging9management guidance for reactor vessel internals.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: So it's an industry11generated document?12DR. HISER: Yes.13CHAIRMAN McDADE: And then how is it used14by the NRC in reviewing the adequacy of the plan, of15the aging management?16DR. HISER: Well it was used by the NRC17first, after acceptance of the report through the MRP-18227-A designation. We use that as the basis for what19we thought, what we consider to be an effective aging20management program for reactor vessel internals.21MR. COX: Judge McDade. This is Alan Cox. 22Could I add a clarification here?23CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.24MR. COX: I think it might help to add a,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4803to give a little bit of a time line to help explain1how this evolved. The Rev 1 of GALL report was issued2in 2005. Indian Point submitted the initial license3renewal application in 2007. I believe about 2009 the4initial Rev 0 of the industry document, MRP-227 was5issued. That initial version I believe, and Dr. Hiser6can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that7was the basis for the aging management program that8was put into GALL Revision 2.9It was a draft, it had not been through10formal NRC review yet, but it was the closest thing11that we had. So that became Rev 2. After NRC12completed their review and accepted MRP-227 it was13reissues as MRP-227-A.14CHAIRMAN McDADE: That was what, December15of 2011?16MR. COX: That's right. And then because17it now, you know it provided things that were -- there18weren't a lot of changes but there were some changes19that were different from what Rev 0 had.20The NRC issued the ISG to basically bring21GALL Rev 2 up to date to what was in MRP-227-A as it22was approved. So that was kind of the sequence of23events that led to where we are now. So if we were24doing a license renewal application today, like we're25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4804doing one on the PWR down in Louisiana, we're looking1at the ISG as the latest staff guidance for that2particular reactor vessel aging management program.3That's a little bit of the history, the4time line of how that evolved to where we are today.5CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and is that6consistent with your recollection, Dr. Hiser?7DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.8CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, Judge Wardwell.9JUDGE WARDWELL: When you've done your10final review of, as you did your final review for11reactor vessel internals, have you considered the12review that's in the ISG as a, consistency with GALL13as a consistency with GALL with additions, or14enhancements, or as a site specific AMP?15DR. HISER: We would consider an AMP that16matches what is in the LR-ISG to be the consistent17with GALL version.18JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you consider19their, Entergy's AMP for reactor vessel internals to20be one that is GALL 2? Or is a site specific one that21you had to compare and evaluate the details of their22program to see if it is consistent with GALL 2, which23as it's been updated in the ISG?24DR. HISER: I would say that it is one25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4805that is consistent with Rev 2, as embodied in the LR-1ISG. But we still needed to verify that it was, that2the Indian Point program was consistent with what was3in the LR-ISG. We didn't just take their word for it4that they said we are consistent with GALL. So you5know we should, our program is acceptable.6JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Kennedy, will you7move along please with the rest of this program?8JUDGE KENNEDY: I'll try to get us moving9here again.10So does all of that, I guess this all11started with the consistent with GALL discussion, and12now we get to the reactor vessel internals which as I13understand what Judge Wardwell was asking. He's14really trying to ask is reactor vessel internals15current aging management program that's been approved16for Indian Point, viewed as consistent with GALL?17And I thought I just heard you say, that18it is. Is that what I heard, Dr. Hiser?19DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, yes. It is20consistent with GALL.21JUDGE KENNEDY: So when Entergy writes22their next application, they would list their reactor23vessel internals as being a program consistent with24GALL? And I'll let Dr. Cox, or Mr. Cox answer since25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4806he's writing an application.1MR. COX: We would say that, this is Alan2Cox for Entergy, we would say that they program was3consistent with GALL as modified by ISG 2011-04.4JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.5JUDGE WARDWELL: And so you wouldn't6consider it a plant specific GALL, it is a GALL, it is7an AMP that's consistent with GALL 2?8MR. COX: That's correct. For it to be a9plant specific AMP, it would be an AMP that is not10based on a industry wide guidance document. The ISG,11while it's not, it's a revision to GALL, it's not12actually GALL Rev 2. It is still a generic industry13guidance document. So when you compare, it's not14going to be plant specific. Because it's going to be15compared to a generic document.16MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian17Harris for the staff. The license renewal interim18staff guide I believe that Mr. Poehler was referring19to, is NRC Exhibit 214.20JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.21Dr. Hiser, you may have already answered22this question but in my opening remarks I indicated23that the Commission expects the staff to not take the24applicant at their word, but to verify that the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4807particular aging management program is consistent with1GALL. How does the staff perform and document that2verification or confirmation process?3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The staff4for AMPs that are consistent with GALL, performs an5on-site audit at the applicant's facility. And we6compare first of all their program, element by7element, to what is in the GALL report. And then we8also look at plant specific operating experience and9things like that to verify that the AMP appropriately10bounds the conditions at the plant.11JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, is that audit12process also cover AMPs that are not consistent with13GALL? I mean is it, it's not, is it limited to a14consistent with GALL aging management programs?15DR. HISER: In general, it would cover16AMPs that are consistent with GALL, and also programs17that are consistent with enhancements, or with18exceptions.19The only case that it would not cover,20would be a plant specific AMP.21JUDGE KENNEDY: And where is this22document? Did you, Dr. Hiser, did you let us know23where this document --24DR. HISER: It is documented in the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4808staff's audit reports. For Indian Point they were1Exhibits within, that we cited within our testimony.2JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, is that3evidence itself at all in the Safety Evaluation Report4for the Indian Point license renewal application?5DR. HISER: Yes, that would be cited6within the SER.7JUDGE KENNEDY: So it is incorporated by8reference. Is that, or is it, I mean is it --9DR. HISER: It is, I believe there are10critical elements are described in the SER. And then11it is referenced within the SER.12JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I guess moving13away from consistent with GALL, let me try another14couple of questions here.15Within the Indian Point license renewal16application, commitments for future actions are17proposed. I guess I'm curious if the Board could hear18from Entergy first, how these commitments are19monitored and controlled from the licensee's20perspective?21Entergy first.22MR. COX: I'll start, and if any of the23plant folks have anything to add, they can add. This24is Alan Cox for Entergy. But Entergy has a process25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4809for regulatory commitment management.1We would enter those commitments into that2system. It's essentially a database. Identify what3the commitment is? When it has to be done? Who's4responsible for doing it? And then it would be5tracked within that database to ensure that, if it6gets accomplished as described and by the date by7which it was due.8JUDGE KENNEDY: So there's an internal9plant process to control the regulatory commitments. 10How are they documented and I'll say tabled with the11staff? I mean is the staff aware other than the12application, what the level of commitment is and what13it is?14MR. COX: Well it is, it's submitted with15the letter, I mean the commitment is a written letter16to the staff. You know so it is provided to them in17a letter.18Typically we would, if we had an REI that19we responded to that resulted in a change to the20commitment, we would update that commitment. And21typically submit the entire commitment list associated22with the license renewal application as an attachment23to the letter that responded to that particular REI,24or REIs.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4810JUDGE KENNEDY: So if Entergy completes1one of these commitments. In other words they've, at2least in the licensee's mind, they've completed the3actions that they committed to do. How is that4communicated to the staff?5MR. COX: It's largely an internal6documentation, except for license renewal, there is a7provision to notify the NRC when we completed all of8the commitments. There's not an individual9notification for each commitment. But there is a10notification that says we've completed all the11commitments, or all the commitments that are due. For12instance before the period of extended operation.13I wouldn't want to say all, license no14commitments because there's a few of them are not due15until sometime after the PEO. But there is a16notification to the staff before the PEO, that the17commitments that are due before the PEO have been18completed.19JUDGE KENNEDY: And does that notification20of the staff contain any details of the completion21process? I mean is it literally just a letter that22says at this point in time, we've completed all the23commitments prior to, you entering the period of24extended operation, or some example like that?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4811MR. COX: I believe it's not much more1than that. It would be a list I believe that shows2commitments that have been completed.3MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider4for Entergy. If I could expand on this response just5a little bit. I think it's worth noting that the NRC6also has an inspection procedure that they implement7to verify commitments prior to entering the extended8period of operation. And they have inspection9procedures during operation where they look at10commitments. So they do get at that through the11inspection process.12The other thing I wanted to note with13regard to the capturing, tracking, and enforcement of14commitments is that it's my understanding that the15staff plans to have a license condition that would16require that the commitments be put into the updated17final safety analysis report. So they will be18incorporated in that report and tracked. And can only19be modified under the provisions by which you can20change that report, which is 50 59.21JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you, sir.22Maybe I'll open it up to the staff and if23they themselves have anything to add to this process24since they're a part of it?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4812DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Actually1we have, the normal process that is followed is as Mr.2Cox mentioned, applicants or license renewal holders3at that point, would send us a letter that indicates4they've completed their commitments prior to the plant5entering the period of extended operation. We would6implement an inspection by the region. It would7verify that the completion of each of the commitments.8JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm curious about9this license condition and about commitments and when10that take place. Is that once the renewed licenses11are granted? When does that process kick off? Where12the commitments are incorporated into something like13the UFSAR?14DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Normally,15well when the renewed license is issued is when the16conditions apply to the plant. If we do not issue a17license, there is no license condition because it's18out of process at that point.19JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe Dr. Hiser, in the20interim between I guess in this case, the extreme21interval of when the license application was submitted22and all the evolutions of commitments up until today. 23What is the process for tracking, monitoring24commitments before this license condition evolution?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4813DR. HISER: The process would be that1changes made to the application, and commitments are2considered a part of the application, would be3submitted to the NRC as an amendment to the4application.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Mr. Cox, how does6that tie into your regulatory commitments? Are we7talking about the same thing here? Or is there a8subtlety here that may be missing, or I may be9missing?10MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy. 11There is a, I guess you could make a commitment to12the, I'm trying to describe the difference between the13normal process and license renewal. There's really14not a lot of difference.15The license renewal application, the fact16that that's under review adds another layer if you17will, of review. Those commitments as Dr. Hiser18indicated are submitted with the application as an19amendment to the application. They're also still20tracked internally in the database that I described21earlier. It's the regulatory commitments, so you22really kind of have a twofold process.23The one thing I didn't mention earlier, is24the internal regulatory commitment management process25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4814is based on an industry guidance that was developed by1the Nuclear Energy Institute. I believe it's NEI29904, which is an industry guideline on how to manage3regulatory commitments. And that guideline, I believe4is endorsed by the NRC staff.5CHAIRMAN McDADE: If I could just to6clarify in my own mind here, to make sure I understand7it correctly. Dr. Hiser, what is the FSAR?8DR. HISER: It's the Final Safety Analysis9Report.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and how are the11commitments incorporated into the FSAR?12DR. HISER: They're incorporated as one of13the appendices to the FSAR.14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and how does that15FSAR then relate to the ongoing current licensing16basis?17DR. HISER: That is one part of the18current licensing basis.19CHAIRMAN McDADE: So these commitments are20captured in the FSAR, which then in turn is captured21in the CLB, which is the overarching document for the22continued operation of the plant. Is that correct?23DR. HISER: That is an overarching24classification of documents for the plant.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4815CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, thank you. Judge1Kennedy.2JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I think I'm,3I don't know where to direct this. Let's talk a4little bit about Appendix A and Appendix B of the5application. If I remember correctly, Appendix A6contains aging management program descriptions. And7there's some discussion -- this is going to get long.8Let's see if I can make a question out of this.9All this discussion about commitments and10stuff made me think about Appendix A and Appendix B. 11Appendix B, let me ask the question to Mr. Cox. 12Appendix B contains the descriptions of the Indian13Point aging management programs. Is that true?14MR. COX: That's correct.15JUDGE KENNEDY: And Appendix A to the16license renewal application contains?17MR. COX: Appendix A also contains18descriptions of the programs. In some cases they're19not as much detail as in Appendix B. It's a summary20level of the program. It's intended to include all21the key elements that are necessary to ensure that we22have an effective program.23In addition, Appendix A also has a24discussion of the evaluation that was performed of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4816time limited aging analysis for license renewal. And1that becomes, that's the Appendix to the FSAR that Dr.2Hiser referred to.3That will be incorporated into the FSAR. 4Essentially for Indian Point it was done prior to the5entry into the period of extended operation. 6Typically it's done the next, it's updated, the FSAR,7after you receive the renewed license.8JUDGE KENNEDY: So the, do I take that to9mean the material that's placed in Appendix A is where10the long lasting descriptions of the aging management11programs are contained?12MR. COX: Yes. That would be correct.13JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's the material14that, is that the material that is under some level of15control then? What's the level of control over those16descriptions if it makes it to the final safety17analysis report?18MR. COX: Well the final safety analysis19report is indicated as a current licensing basis20document. Changes to that can be made under 10 CFR2150.59. If it meets those criteria in that part of the22regulations.23JUDGE KENNEDY: So the 10 CFR 50.5924process would be the controls over changes to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4817descriptive material of the aging management program?1MR. COX: Yes, sir. That's correct.2JUDGE KENNEDY: This is a question that I3struggle with all the time. It's unclear to me, and4I guess I'll start with the NRC staff. Why there's a5difference between, there appears to be in reading in6particular the Indian Point license renewal7application, a difference between what's in Appendix8A and what's in Appendix B. And I've always wondered9why they weren't just a mirror of each other.10I guess could you help enlighten the Board11as to why that would be the case? Or what's the12rationale and how does the staff determine that what's13in Appendix A is acceptable?14DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Appendix15A is the UFSAR supplement that the applicant proposes16to describe the aging management programs and TLAA17resolutions. So that becomes a part of the current18licensing basis.19Appendix B provides a description of the20AMPs, which for AMPs consistent with GALL tends to be21a very short summary. If there are exceptions, if22there are enhancements, then those are described in23Appendix B.24Appendix B is more the information that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4818the staff reviews as a part of its assessment of the1adequacy of the AMP.2Appendix A, the UFSAR supplement, is what3will go into the UFSAR and provides the licensing4basis description of the AMP that then is controlled5through the 50.59 process.6JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's the7nexus of my problem. Is how do you determine what8goes in the Appendix A documentation, which appears at9least to me, to be under a level of control that's10regulatory driven? And there's a lot of precedence on11how it is to be handled, and it's transparent best as12anything can be.13So I struggle with how the staff14determines what goes where. And if you could help15enlighten us it would help me a bunch.16DR. HISER: What goes into Appendix A, and17into the UFSAR is what staff believes sufficient18information to provide adequate control of the AMP. 19So we look for sufficient description of the program20and the essential elements of the program such that2150.59 would be an effective way to control changes to22that.23JUDGE KENNEDY: Does that have any24synergism with the GALL description? I'm trying to25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4819see you know a pathway from GALL which from one1argument, if you did verbatim compliance with GALL,2you'd have reasonable assurance. And then there's the3Appendix B description which could capture that.4And then Appendix A which puts that, some5subset of that information, or all of it, under a6level of control. I'm trying to really get7comfortable with how that, determinations are made. 8And we end up with Appendix A that has a measure of,9I perceive to be a good strong measure of controls on10the information?11DR. HISER: As I said, Appendix B is what12we review within the application. And the Commission13determined that for AMPs, that applicant AMPs that are14consistent with GALL, that the applicant could provide15a very short description of what is in the AMP.16The staff then performs an audit to verify17that AMPs identified as consistent with GALL, we18verify that they are in fact consistent, or identify19discrepancies.20Appendix A is just intended to provide21enough information that the applicant, or at that22point, license renewal holder, could not make23significant changes to the program that could affect24the effectiveness of the program. So it's to provide25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4820a measure of controls over that.1So they really are different purposes I2guess is what I'm trying to say.3JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't want to put words4in your mouth, but I heard you use the word5effectiveness of the aging management program. Is6that a level of the criteria that's being used to7determine the sufficiency of material in Appendix A?8DR. HISER: Well, when I said9effectiveness, I guess I did not mean in a, sort of in10detail by detail way. But more in an overall sense11that the effectiveness of the program would not be12compromised by changes.13JUDGE KENNEDY: You can see what I'm, well14maybe you can't. What I'm trying to get at is, I want15to get to the answer of the question, is there16sufficient, how do I convince myself there's17sufficient material in Appendix A that all the right18stuff is under a measure of control? That I at least19perceive to be adequate? And I'm trying to figure out20how the staff determines that?21DR. HISER: Well, in part we do that by22looking at prior applications, the level of detail23that's provided in Appendix A. We also just make an24engineering assessment of what is sufficient level of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4821detail. The applicant could put the entire ten1element program into their FSAR. But we don't believe2that that's necessary to do. We believe that would be3excessive.4JUDGE KENNEDY: Would I expect to find all5the critically characteristics that have been6displayed in Appendix B carried forward into Appendix7A?8DR. HISER: I believe that our intent is9to capture the things that we believe are critical in10Appendix A.11JUDGE KENNEDY: From the material that's12in Appendix B?13DR. HISER: Correct. Or in general about14the program. Because again, Appendix B may not, it15may be very, some overarching summary description. So16we may actually have more detail in Appendix A in some17cases.18JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.19MR. COX: Judge Kennedy. This is Alan20Cox. I might add just a little bit to that. It might21be helpful to look at the specifics for this22particular program. If you look at Appendix A, it23refers you to the MRP-227-A. There's not a lot of24discussion in there but it does tie you to that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4822program.1If you go to the GALL report description2in Appendix B, you would have, you go to the GALL3report, or the ISG program that's referenced from4Appendix B, you would find a lot of MRP information5that's broken out into the individual ten elements of6the program.7So I guess the differences there, it's all8incorporated in Appendix A as a reference to MRP-227-9A. You go to Appendix B, that's broken out and10spelled out in more detail. But there's nothing new,11there's nothing in Appendix B that's not covered under12MRP-227-A, which is what Appendix A ties the Indian13Point program to.14MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider15for Entergy. I'd like to add a little bit to this16too. And maybe if I can describe the overall17framework for you.18I think you need to recognize first the19hierarchy of documents. So you have the updated final20safety analysis report which is as Dr. Hiser21indicated, includes that information that the NRC22staff concludes is appropriate to show, demonstrate23reasonable assurance.24But you can imagine to implement that,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4823there's a whole lot of lower tier documents all the1way down to plant operating procedures. And it's not2practical or necessary to put all of those in the3updated FSAR.4That said, part of your question if I5understood it was related to control of, what controls6is over all these documents then. And one of the7things I wanted to point out when we mentioned 50.598earlier, is that the nuclear plant, when they go to9make a change in a procedure, even some of these lower10tier documents, they can't just unilaterally make that11change without first looking at it to see if it needs12to be evaluated under 50.59.13So if it could potentially, if a change in14a low level procedure, an implementation procedure,15could change something that's as described in the16updated final safety analysis report, then they need17to put it through 50.59 evaluation.18So all the way down to those implemented19procedures, there is a strong level of control in20terms of how they can be changed, and how they're21managed.22JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's what I23was concerned about. Depending on what level of24detail you put in Appendix A, governs how broad the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 482450.59 process could be in terms of level of control. 1Now if what Mr. Cox is saying is something like MRP-2227-A is incorporated by reference, that adds a lot of3detail to Appendix A. And I guess I'm going to ask4Mr. Cox if that's what he intended to say?5MR. COX: Yes, that's exactly what I was6intending to say.7JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, that helps a bunch. 8I mean I think that clears some of my concern up. 9Because sometimes you look at, if I look at these10Appendix A write-ups, they seem somewhat devoid of11detail. But if the intent is to incorporate by12reference, or if the actual practice is incorporation13by reference, I see this as a much broader set of14controls.15And I'm trying to look at it more say from16New York State's perspective, who has concerns about17how transparent this is to the public. And that to me18goes right to the heart of what's in Appendix A. 19That's where it all starts. At least from my20perspective.21MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider22for Entergy. So I'm looking at Appendix A and it23starts off saying, this program relies on24implementation of MRP-227-A. It's called out25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4825specifically here that that's what the program is1based on.2JUDGE KENNEDY: That helps. Thank you. 3And with that, I don't have any additional questions4on GALL. So I'll either turn it over to my colleagues5if they have any follow-up questions.6CHAIRMAN McDADE: I don't, not on this7overarching issue.8JUDGE KENNEDY: And then on behalf of all9assembled, I'm wondering if it's time for a break? I10have no idea what time it is, so.11CHAIRMAN McDADE: It's about 1:30. Would12a ten minute break be adequate? Does anyone require13more than ten minutes?14JUDGE KENNEDY: I think a ten minute break15would be great.16CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, why don't we break17now? We'll be back in ten minutes at 1:40.18(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went19off the record at 1:29 p.m. and resumed at 1:43 p.m.)20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we're back on the21record. Okay, first of all, let me ask do any counsel22have any matters to take up before we get back to23taking testimony?24MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris for the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4826staff. No, Your Honor.1MR. KUYLER: Ray Kuyler for Entergy. No,2Your Honor.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Mr. Sipos?4MR. SIPOS: John Sipos, State of New York. 5Not at this time.6MS. BRANCATO: And Deborah Brancato for7Riverkeeper. No, Your Honor. Thank you.8JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Dr. Hiser, you have9some clarification?10DR. HISER: I have clarifications. One of11them may make it more difficult to understand but it's12more consistent with the record I guess.13Initially the AMP that was submitted by14the Applicant was submitted July 2010 as a plant-15specific AMP.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Now, is this all AMPs or17you're referring to the reactor vessels?18DR. HISER: Only reactor vessel internals,19and what I will say for the next little bit is only20for the reactor vessel internals program. So that21program was submitted as a plant-specific program. 22Had ten elements. At that point GALL Revision 2 had23not been issued, so that's why it was a plant-specific24program.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4827JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's because GALL11 didn't contain any AMP in it for reactor vessel2internals. Is that correct?3DR. HISER: That is correct.4JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.5DR. HISER: Yes. Let's see. Subsequent6to that, we issued our Revision 2. Then through a7letter, let's see, the Exhibit Number is NYS 496,8which is Entergy Letter NL-12-037, they revised that9plant-specific AMP, and although they did not say it10was consistent with the LR-ISG, the staff realized11that it, in effect, was consistent.12MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler of the13staff. Yes, well, in February 2012 the LR-ISG had not14even been issued yet, but GALL Rev. 2 had been issued15but the Applicant did not cite GALL Rev. 2 because it16still referred to it as a plant-specific program but17one that was, that they did claim consistency with the18guidance in MRP-227-A.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Again, you said this20letter was NL-12-037?21MR. POEHLER: Correct.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.23DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser again. 24Earlier I answered a question about how we evaluate25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4828AMPs that are consistent with GALL and cited an audit1and then an audit report that summarizes the results2of the audit.3Because of the sequencing, the timely4sequencing of the AMP for reactor vessel internals for5Indian Point, there is no AMP consistency audit6report. Instead, the staff's evaluation is provided7in SER, Supplement 2.8There is an audit report that describes9the staff's evaluation of some of the applicant action10items and that is summarized in an audit report, so11there is a report for that. I do not have the exhibit12number for that right now but we could find that.13MR. POEHLER: It was NRC Exhibit 216, 2-1-146.15JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's for this16modified audit report, is that correct?17MR. POEHLER: Right, and that audit18report, it was limited in scope to some calculations19that supported some of the plant-specific action items20so it wasn't an overall, was not an overall audit of21the program compliance, just limited, narrow aspects.22JUDGE WARDWELL: And, Dr. Hiser, could you23get me the locations, the citing within the various24sections in case there's more than one in the SER25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4829where this is described for the reactor vessels1internals? You don't have to do it now but get it for2us later.3DR. HISER: We'll do that. I guess the4other thing that I wanted to clarify was regarding the5Appendix A descriptions of AMPs.6We have in the SRP-LR document, NUREG-71800, Rev. 2, we have descriptions of the AMPs that8the staff uses as examples for what should be in9Appendix A of the applications. So those are examples10of what the staff considers to be sufficient11information to assure adequate controls over the AMP.12When the staff reviews the application, we13compare what is in SRP-LR with Appendix A from the14application to ascertain that the application is15sufficient.16JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, that makes me17think of a question. So that's the standard review18plan for license renewal that you're referencing?19DR. HISER: That's correct.20JUDGE KENNEDY: For these descriptive21summaries?22DR. HISER: That's correct. And in the23case of this program, that SRP-LR discussion would be24in the LR-ISG for the reactor vessel internals25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4830program.1JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. I guess what comes2to mind is as GALL has evolved from Rev. 0 to Rev. 13to Rev. 2, has the standard review plan document4changed accordingly and, if not, how do I interpret5the value of that summary material for AMPs that have6undergone significant change over time?7DR. HISER: I have not done a comparison8from Rev. 0, Rev. 1, Rev. 2. I know for the reactor9vessel internals program, the FSAR supplement in Rev.101 was a description of the commitment in effect, that11the plant would participate in industry programs and12then would implement the program that came out of13those industry activities. Clearly then the LR-ISG14provided a more robust description of the program.15JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and let me just to17make sure, as time sequence goes here, you're18referring to the aging management audit report. That19report is dated August of 2015, or is that, it says a20submission date on it. Your index indicates October21of 2014 but the report itself has a date of August222015. I'm just trying to figure out for time sequence23of where it fits in. Is it from October 2014 or24August of 2015?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4831MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler from1the staff. Are you referring to the Exhibit 216, NRC2216 for the audit report?3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.4MR. POEHLER: Yes, the audit itself was5actually performed in 2013 I believe and --6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, it's indicated7April of 2013 for the dates of the audit.8MR. POEHLER: Right, and I think the9actual audit report was possibly not issued until10sometime in 2014 but I can't remember the exact dates11but it was prior to the supplemental safety evaluation12report being published.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Okay, and that14would have been October of 2014, approximately?15MR. POEHLER: Correct.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.17JUDGE KENNEDY: R2 of the overarching18questions. This is Judge Kennedy. Again, I drew the19short straw.20We'd like to entertain some discussion21over time-limited aging analyses. Again, the22testimony and the exhibits for a couple of these23contentions, time-limited aging analyses seem to play24a role and it occurred to us that it would be useful25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4832to have some general discussion before we start the1contention-specific questions.2Again, I'll try to address it, hopefully3to a person this time but, if not, we'll try starting4with organizational affiliations and work our way to5specifics.6Time-limited aging analysis, as I7mentioned, play a role in the testimony for this Track82 hearing and, for that reason, since it goes across9a couple of contentions, we thought we'd start with10it.11Let's start at the highest level and maybe12start with Entergy. Could you describe for us what a13time-limited aging analysis is in regard to the14license renewal process?15MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy. 16I could describe that. In general terms, there are17some places in the testimony, I'm looking at the NRC18staff testimony here, where they give a detailed19discussion of it out of the --20JUDGE KENNEDY: Are you looking at the21response to Question 16?22MR. COX: I am.23JUDGE KENNEDY: If possible, Mr. Welkie,24could you put up Page 23 from NRC 197, and hopefully25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4833it's not all redacted because it should be regulation.1I was going to use that later, Mr. Cox, so we might as2well put it up. Sorry, did I give you the wrong page3number?4MR. COX: Question 16.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.6MR. POEHLER: Your Honor, Page 23?7JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, that's correct. 8That's it right there.9MR. POEHLER: That's it. Would you like10to use this in answering the TLA question, Mr. Cox?11MR. COX: Sure. This is Alan Cox with12Entergy. As it says here on the screen, a TLAA is an13analysis that meets these six criteria that are listed14here.15The first is it has to involve system16structures or components that are within the scope of17license renewal. The second considers the effects of18aging. The third, it involves time-limited19assumptions defined by the current operating term, for20example, 40 years. The fourth is the analysis was21determined to be relevant by the licensee in making a22safety determination.23Criteria five involves conclusions or24provides the basis for conclusions related to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4834capability of the SSC, system, structure, or1component, to perform its intended function as2identified in 10 CFR 54.4 bravo. And lastly, it has3to be contained or incorporated by reference in the4plant's current licensing basis.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Now let's look at a couple6of these. Can we leave that up there, Mr. Welkie?7Looking at Number 3 in this list here of8characteristics of a time-limited aging, "involved9time-limited assumptions." Mr. Cox, what is that10referring to and if you would have an example it would11be useful.12MR. COX: Most of the TLAAs are involved13in these contentions and the Track 2 contentions are14involving fatigue analyses.15Fatigue analyses are based on a number of16cycles. The numbers of cycles that are used in those17analyses are estimates or assumptions that are18considered to be based on what numbers would be19anticipated to be incurred by the plant during a 40-20year period of operation. That becomes the tie. 21That's the assumption. It assumes a certain number of22cycles that is based on a 40-year operating period.23JUDGE KENNEDY: And the Bullet Number 6,24"are contained or incorporated by reference in the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4835current licensing basis." If I turn that around, if1it isn't currently in the current licensing basis,2that makes it not a TLAA? Are there none?3MR. COX: Yes, that's correct. That's the4way I would read that sixth criteria.5JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I take that further? 6Does that mean that TLAAs are not performed as part of7license renewal? They're contained somewhere else?8MR. COX: Let me try to clarify that a9little bit. The TLAA is an existing analysis so it10would not be performed for a license renewal. The11license renewal rule requires an evaluation of the12TLAAs, which is what's discussed in the next paragraph13here of this page.14So the TLAA itself is an existing15analysis. The evaluation is required for license16renewal, which may involve a revision of that analysis17to extend the time period for which it's applicable.18JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's go through these19little I, little two I, little, I, ii, and iii. So a20TLAA fits in one of those bins, I, ii, or iii? Is21that the way I should think of this?22MR. COX: The evaluation of TLAAs has to23be, has to demonstrate that you meet one of those24three options.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4836JUDGE KENNEDY: And you only meet one of1them? Are they mutually exclusive? So if a TLAA fits2in Bucket 1, you're done?3MR. COX: I think in general that's true. 4There is, you know, some variations. For example, we5could say that if we do a fatigue analysis that says6a component was good for 40 years or for 60 years,7maybe looked at the additional 20 years of operation8in that same analysis, maybe based on the number of9transients that we're experiencing, we are not going10to exceed that assumed number in 60 years.11We could look at that and say, well, that12TLAA is valid for the period of extended operation in13accordance with the single I there.14What we do, we actually take it a little15bit further than that. Because those are estimates,16projections are not actionable. I mean, it's not17truly based on a calendar. When you get to the end of1860 years, you don't know that you've met those19assumptions. It depends on how fast, you know, it20depends on the rate of accrual of the transient.21So we have credited, for the fatigue22TLAAs, we also credit, or in lieu of single I, we23credit triple I. We credit the fatigue monitoring24program, primarily as a way to monitor the number of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4837transients that are occurring as you operate the plant1to make sure that we don't exceed those numbers that2were assumed at the end of the, for the end of the3period of extended operation.4JUDGE KENNEDY: So using that example, I5guess when I first looked at this I came away with the6sense that if it fell into the first bucket, that7aging management wouldn't be part of the process.8MR. COX: I think, in general, in the9purest sense of the word, that would be true but, like10I said, this case, it's not, you know, the number of11transients is not strictly a function of how long you12operate the plant. It's an estimate based on what's13expected during a typical operating cycle.14And because there are variations from15plant to plant as far as how well the plant is16operated and how many transients you incur, we've17credited the program to monitor those occurrences to18make sure the assumptions remain valid for the 60-year19period.20JUDGE KENNEDY: And you use the example of21metal fatigue I guess, and so this is the cumulative22usage factor calculation. Is that what falls into23this?24MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4838JUDGE KENNEDY: And so I thought I heard1you say that even though it maybe would be valid for2the period of extended operation, you really, the3application considers it more of a third bullet?4MR. COX: That's correct.5JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's actually, even6though it's projected to remain valid for the period7of extended operation, it is within an aging8management program. Is that the way I should take9that?10MR. COX: That's correct. For the fatigue11analyses, that is true. It's a little bit of a hybrid12because it is, it's not purely based on the number of13years but it is based on the number of transients that14are experienced.15JUDGE KENNEDY: What does it mean to be16projected to the end of the period of extended17operation and what's a good example of that type of18TLAA, or time-limited aging analysis?19MR. COX: I guess if we used fatigue20analysis as an example, if we had an analysis that21said you're going to -- Let's just pick a number. 22Let's say you could have 100 heat-ups and cool-downs23in the analysis and your TLAA or your CUF would still24be valid at the end of the period of extended25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4839operation.1If you determined that 100 was a valid2number that you would not expect to exceed after 603years of operation, you could say that was a single I.4If you saw, based on your operating5history, that you're probably going to go up to 1206heat-ups and cool-downs at the end of 60 years, then7you would redo that analysis to use 120 cycles instead8of 100 and you could say that you have projected the9analysis to the end of the period of extended10operation.11JUDGE WARDWELL: That doesn't make much12sense to me. It sounds like both were projections. 13I don't see how you get a single I. Aren't you still14projecting? You just made a different assumption in15your projection.16DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I guess17the difference is in the first one your projection18validates the current analysis of record, so it19validates the adequacy of the COB analysis.20If the projection, as Mr. Cox mentioned,21indicates that the value will go higher, so your22assumptions are no longer valid, then double I23indicates that you would have to reevaluate that24analysis to demonstrate that it still is accurate.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4840JUDGE WARDWELL: Explain to me again how1with fatigue a TLAA could possibly fall within I2because it seemed to me we'll be always projecting, as3Mr. Cox said, the number of transients, not the time4of years.5It's not important, the time of years. 6It's the number of transients. So it's a rate of7transients really and it's always a projection. 8You'll never know truth until you experience it.9MR. COX: Judge Wardwell, let me try that. 10I mean, you're right. They both involve projections11but in the first case, the single I, you're not12revising the analysis to incorporate a different13projection. You've done the work outside of the14analysis to project the number of transients and,15based on that projection, that analysis remains valid16without revision.17But if you read the words, it says "the18analysis is projected." That's not to say, you know,19on single I analysis remains valid based on your20projection of the transients but you're not changing21the analysis.22In the second one, you're actually doing23a projection of the analysis to use a different number24based on projection of the number of cycles.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4841JUDGE WARDWELL: So the analysis you're1referring to is not the calculation that was done in2the TLAA but the analysis of the TLAA? Is that what3you were saying?4MR. COX: The analysis that's done in the5TLAA is looking at, in my first example it would say6100 heat-ups and cool-downs. That's in the analysis.7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, where did this 1008come from? We're going to have to jump me right back9down because as soon as you start saying that I got to10know where did -- Okay, here we are. You're preparing11your license renewal application --12MR. COX: The 100 is a --13JUDGE WARDWELL: -- and you've done TLAAs,14okay, for fatigue all along, correct?15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, if I could16interrupt here because I'm getting more confused17rather than, you know, more clear on this.18JUDGE WARDWELL: So you interrupting is19going to help us?20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No.21JUDGE WARDWELL: We need help.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: For Mr. Cox, as you23answer the question -- Correct my misinformation and24my misconception here. I had viewed I as the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4842situation where you anticipated there'd be 1001transients.2ii is a situation where you look at it and3you determine in the period of extended operation4there won't be 100 transients but there'll be 2005transients. So you now have to project given the6increased number of transients in the period of7extended operation. Have I just --8MR. COX: Yes, let me start that.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Explain how I got so far10off the path.11MR. COX: The TLAAs that we're talking12about, if we talked about the first one on the -- You13know, and the 100 number, Judge Wardwell, is a14hypothetical number. That's what I just made up.15So assuming that the analysis evaluated16100 transient, that analysis was done probably during17the initial plant design, so that was done 35 years18ago and it's an assumption.19So we look at the projection of cycles20based on operating history and we say at the end of 6021years I'm still going to be less than 100. That22original analysis does not change. It's still valid23for the period of extended operation.24JUDGE WARDWELL: Hold right here. So what25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4843you said is at this point your analysis that you1conducted during the design or even subsequently2during operations up to this point, up to the original3licensing date, that's the end of your license,4current license, you had always used 100.5And at this point in time, if you look6forward to license renewal and determine that it was7still going to be less than 100, then it would be an8I.9MR. COX: That's correct.10JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, great. Now, I'll11move ahead. Yes, good.12So now, under ii, all you did is now at13that same point in time while you're preparing your14license application, you now say, oh, gee, it's going15to go up to 160. That would be a double I.16MR. COX: Right, that would require a17revision or a projection of that analysis. That18original analysis is no longer going to remain valid19for the 60-year period. It's going to have to be20revised. We're going to have to calculate a new21cumulative usage factor and we're going to have to22show that it still remains less than one.23JUDGE WARDWELL: And if it does, if this24wasn't a fatigue example, you would be off the hook25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4844from doing aging management, right? Either I or1double I took place.2MR. COX: Right, you would essentially3have an analysis that says for this 60-year period4this particular aging effect is not an aging effect5requiring management.6JUDGE WARDWELL: But with fatigue that's7a special case where you actually are doing it because8you just don't know how many transients. It's always9going to be an unknown. It's not based on years. 10It's just based on how many of these you happen to11have and it could be a wrong projection.12MR. COX: That's correct.13MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider14for Entergy. I'd just like to suggest that this15conversation, to me, demonstrates exactly why it makes16sense to manage fatigue through an aging management17program, which is what Entergy is doing, meaning that18they will be looking at the number of cycles and19making sure that it meets their analysis.20So they have chosen Option 3 and it makes21sense for the reasons that you're talking about. The22simple example, if I could --23JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me interject24because we're interested in questioning and, as your25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4845colleague just spoke, Mr. Cox, why have these i's and1double i's and triple i's, why don't we just jump to2aging management for everything we do?3MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider4for Entergy. If I could just finish my comment there. 5The example I was going to give, which is not related6to these contentions, but consider, if you will, a7piece of equipment that's qualified for a 20-year life8and then it has to be replaced.9That doesn't fall in the, I guess in the10scope of license renewal perhaps, but if you have11something like that, you can't look at it and say this12is going to be good for 60 years. I know that I have13to do something earlier, but.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Cox, would you have15a comment on why would we bother with i and double i?16MR. COX: Well, again, I think in this17case, in the case of fatigue analyses, it's important18to recognize that it's not strictly based on the19calendar.20If you had another kind of analysis --21Let's say you had a corrosion rate that you knew was22going to be a constant every year for 60 years and in23that case you could say if I apply that corrosion rate24for 60 years I still meet the acceptance criteria. I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4846projected the analysis. It still shows I have1adequate minimum wall thickness. So in that case, the2single i or the double i would be applicable.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Have any of the pieces of4equipment or system structures or components that do5qualify for license renewal been screened out based on6TLAAs, i.e., as falling under i or double i knowledge?7MR. COX: Yes, that's not quite the same8as screened out. In screened out, we would consider9that to be where you apply the criteria of whether10it's active or passive or long-lived or short-lived.11But as far as TLAAs go, there are TLAAs12described in the license renewal application that have13been demonstrated acceptable in accordance with the14single i or the double i.15JUDGE WARDWELL: That's a better way to16word it than the screening. Thank you.17MR. COX: Embrittlement TLAAs on the18reactor vessel is a good example. Those are typically19projected. You reevaluate, recalculate the fluence20expected at the end of 60 years and you show that the21associated embrittlement analyses are going to be22valid at 60 years in accordance with the double i.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And those are items such25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4847as, like, the upper support plate assembly, the upper1core plate, the core barrel. Is that what you're2talking about?3MR. COX: No, what I was talking about in4that last example is the actual reactor vessel itself,5not the internals but the reactor vessel that's6subject to the upper-shelf energy requirements in 107CFR, what is it, 50.60?8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, but what about the9reactor vessel internals? There are reactor vessel10internals that have been --11JUDGE WARDWELL: Get to that.12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Going to get to that? 13Okay.14MR. COX: Yes. Those --15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Judge Wardwell is going16to get to that, so let me defer.17JUDGE WARDWELL: In excruciating detail18I'm afraid, though I am looking forward to it. The19audience, I think, is even more excited than me.20JUDGE KENNEDY: So going back to i and ii,21did I understand, using the example of embrittlement22or the reactor vessel itself, if that fell in either23i or ii, would that mean it's not subject to aging24management?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4848MR. COX: It would mean that that1particular aging effect does not require an aging2management program.3JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And that's why, at4least it sounded to me like that's why this has these5categories, so that you could bin them. It sounds6like what you just testified, that -- Under metal7fatigue, even though i or ii may be a calculation that8has either been done before or redone, it would still9be managed for aging or at least monitored for cycles.10MR. COX: That's correct and it's not, I11mean, it's not actually managing the aging effect12directly as much as it is monitoring the numbers of13transients that are assumptions in the analyses to14make sure that those assumptions remain valid and,15therefore, the analysis remains valid.16JUDGE KENNEDY: One more question, Mr.17Cox, before we turn to the staff because, these re-18analyses or calculations that are done under Item ii,19are those done as part of license renewal or is that20done somewhere else? The little i.21MR. COX: Those calculations or those22projections would be done as part of the evaluation of23TLAAs for license renewal.24JUDGE KENNEDY: For license renewal. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4849Okay.1Going back to cumulative usage factors, is2every cumulative usage factor a TLAA?3MR. COX: I would say the analysis that4calculated the cumulative usage factor would be a5TLAA.6JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's, I have7my own internal confusion over that terminology and it8shows up when I read the testimony. Maybe you could9amplify that a little bit so we can get some clarity10to what a CUF, which sounds like a calculation, and a11TLAA, which is a calculation, and what's the12relationship between those two?13MR. COX: Okay. The CUF is the result of14the fatigue calculation. Fatigue calculation, which15is the TLAA, calculates the cumulative usage factor,16compares that to the acceptance criteria, which is171.0, and that's how you would determine whether that18calculation is valid. So the CUF is a product of a19TLAA or a fatigue analysis, which is a TLAA.20JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that saying I wasn't21confused, that they are the same thing?22MR. COX: I mean, it's a subtle23difference. It's the analysis in one case and it's24the result of the analysis. The CUF is a result of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4850the TLAA.1JUDGE KENNEDY: I think the reason I'm2spending a little bit of time on it, maybe more than3I should, but in some of the responses to the4testimony under the contentions it seems like there's5an attempt to put some of this out of reach as being6within the current licensing basis and not being done7as part of license renewal and I'm trying to find8where that line is.9It would seem to me in metal fatigue that10they're all in. I guess that's what it looked to me11like. They were all calculations that were needed for12license renewal and part of the license renewal13process.14MR. COX: Yes, this is Alan Cox again with15Entergy. Let's take the single i example or case for16an example. You have an analysis that's based on an17example I used, 100 heat-ups and cool-downs. Okay,18that's a current licensing basis analysis. That was19done as part of the plant design.20So we're not changing any of the21assumptions. We're not changing anything about that22analysis. All we're doing is evaluating that analysis23to see if it remains valid for the period of extended24operation by looking at the operating history of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4851plant and projecting the number of cycles.1So that's what we intended by any2references to saying that's part of the current3licensing basis, is that those assumptions and the way4you calculated fatigue is all defined in the current5licensing basis. We're not changing that for that6particular calculation.7You know, so that's why we're saying it's8CLB. It's not part of license renewal. It's not9changed due to license renewal.10JUDGE KENNEDY: So the single i items11would be viewed as current licensing basis and not12challengeable within a license renewal proceeding?13MR. COX: Yes and, again, it's a little14bit of a hybrid here because we're saying that even15for the single i we're using the program to manage the16number of cycles but we're still not touching the17original analysis or changing, you know, even on a18double ii we're not changing necessarily the methods19that are used to calculate fatigue from what's defined20in the current licensing basis by references to the21applicable parts of the ASME Code, for example.22JUDGE KENNEDY: Would the double ii CUFs23be challengeable as part of or subject to challenge as24part of the license renewal proceeding? I mean, is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4852that the line? Is it little i versus double ii or1single i versus double ii as being the boundary even2though they're -- I think Dr. Hiser seems to want to3say something here. We'll get to you. We'll see if4they got a --5MR. COX: In my opinion on this, even if6you changed the calculation, if you still followed7procedures and processes that were established as part8of the CLB, those processes and procedures would not9be subject to challenge as part of license renewal.10JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that the same as saying11the CUF values would not be challengeable, whether12they're single i or double i?13MR. COX: I think the result of the14calculation would be the CUF values that you're15referring to and I think that would be the conclusion16that I would reach, is that those are not subject to17challenge because they are done using the same methods18that were established as part of the CLB.19JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you, Mr.20Cox. Dr. Hiser, would you like to add to this21discussion? I know it's not your application but --22DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Actually23I would say the NRC would consider any TLAA to be24challengeable, whether it's single i, double i, or25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4853triple i, because the applicant must make certain1assumptions and evaluations as a part of that2determination and clearly those would be, you know, we3challenge them as we review the application and so4from that perspective I think they certainly would be5subject to challenge.6Now, I mean, just to be clear, the7methodology used to do the calculation, to do the8analysis, would not be subject to challenge.9The input value of, in using Mr. Cox's10examples of heat-up and cool-down cycles, that would11be where the challenge really would be because the12methodology is current licensing basis and that is not13challenged.14The time-limited aspect of the analysis,15which would be the input heat-up and cool-down number16of cycles, that would be the part that would be17subject to challenge in this case.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Dr. Hiser, and,19again, I just want to make sure I'm hearing what20you're saying.21Under i, the method isn't challengeable22but if they're saying initially it's good for 10023cycles, they have to demonstrate that it's not going24to exceed 100 cycles during the period of original and25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4854extended operation.1On the other hand, if it is going to2exceed 100 cycles during the period of extended3operation, then you go to double i and make a4determination as to whether or not the analysis5demonstrates that with the additional cycles it will6remain, you know, valid, using this CUF that it'll7still be below one as an example. Am I correctly8understanding what you're saying?9DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.11JUDGE KENNEDY: With that, I have no12further questions on TLAAs. My board mates may have13some.14JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not sure I heard, 15I'll ask Dr. Hiser again just to make sure I heard16this last bit correctly. Would the initial 10017transient cycles be challengeable also? You may have18answered that but, if not, I want to make sure that is19answered.20DR. HISER: The original 100 in the21original analysis would not be. The demonstration22under single i that the number of expected transients23will remain below 100, that would be challengeable.24JUDGE WARDWELL: That's what I meant to25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4855ask. Thank you.1MR. COX: And this is Alan Cox with2Entergy. I might add to that, for the case of fatigue3analyses, that's the reason why we credit the triple4i. We credit the fatigue monitoring program because5that's what we're going to use to make sure that that6100 number does remain valid and is a good projection.7DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. Just to8clarify one thing as well, the fatigue monitoring9program is required in the tech specs by the10applicant, so that program is there regardless of11license renewal or regardless of TLAAs. The plant is12required to monitor transients and compare with13assumptions that are listed in the tech specs as well.14So this is one situation, as Mr. Cox15mentioned, that they can demonstrate, using single i16or double i, that the analysis is acceptable, but they17still are required by tech specs to continue to verify18that those assumptions are still met.19JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it fair to say20they're more than assumptions too? I mean, they are21estimates based on some operating experience or22evaluation or --23DR. HISER: You know, they really are24projections. In the case of fatigue cycles,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4856applicants will determine the number of cycles up to1some point in time.2Normally around the date that they submit3the application, they will evaluate the trends from4that and then project forward what they expect to be5the case at 60 years, so it is a projection.6I guess assumption I took in the manner of7an analysis has certain assumptions. Maybe input8value is what I should have used, that that input9value is what is used in the analysis.10MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy. 11I guess one more point of clarification on that, at12the time these analyses were first performed back in13the early '70s they were estimates. There wasn't a14lot of operating history you could use to project what15you're going to have after 40 years. Nobody had been16operating for that long. There was very little17operating experience to go by so, in essence, they18were --19JUDGE WARDWELL: True --20MR. COX: -- educated guesses about or21estimates about what cycles would be necessary to22qualify that component.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Good point.24JUDGE KENNEDY: I ceded the floor, sir.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4857JUDGE WARDWELL: So I think now we're1going to move on to our first contention that we're2going to address. That's Contention 25.3Couple little introductory comments I4might make before we get started here. We've read all5the testimony so we're familiar with what you've6offered.7Generated some questions to help clarify8some of what we read. Many times I'll be asking, and9other judges will too I'm sure, yes/no questions. 10We're not trying to trick you.11Oh first of all, the entire panel for 2512ceded? Is that correct? We're all set with that,13right? This is the 25 panel, all right.14We're not trying to trick you with yes/no15questions. More often than not, it is just a question16to help confirm what we understood you were saying or17advocating within the, usually, in my case, on18something I'm going to quote out of your testimony.19Don't think you need to elaborate on those20yes/no's. Just answer them as yes and no and, as part21of that, I'll let you know the topics I'm planning to22cover so that you can be comforted that, yes, you23don't have to cover everything right now with these24yes/no questions. There will be times to elaborate25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4858more on any position you have.1But, again, I'm just trying to fix a point2mostly with some of those and, just for time3constraints, try to stay with yes or no because4usually it's just trying to fix an obvious point more5often than not.6Sometimes I may interrupt you in your7response. Don't be crushed. Don't take it8personally. More often than not it's because I wasn't9clear with my question.10And if I find that you're wandering off,11I can see that obviously I haven't made myself clear12so I want to interrupt you and try to ask it another13way to bring you back to where I'm trying to go with14this to help complete the record, which is what I'm15trying to do with these questions that I have on 25.16Also, I'd like to hold down any offers to17provide additional testimony from other witnesses18besides the ones that I am questioning. You know, if,19in fact, we're confused, we certainly will ask for20that.21If you have a burning desire -- And,22again, this is for time constraints because otherwise23we'd be here for a long time and some of the times I24think with Track 1 we did get too much off course with25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4859some discussion that was more than that was needed.1If you do have a burning desire that you2just, and this is I just have too much to offer here3that I cannot sit still, well, jot it down and get it4to your counsel and they'll be able to offer it as5questions at the end of each of these sessions to6offer those up and then we can look at them and say,7oh, yes, gee, we should have asked that so that we8will seek that information through those questions.9And if nothing else, they can, you know,10add it to the findings of facts or conclusions of law,11so there is a way to get something in that you might12have a burning desire to offer, but we will generally13ask the additional questions we need if we're confused14as we go along here and that will allow us to do it15the most efficiently.16Under 25, I'll just read a synopsis, one17of the synopses that I saw offered and get everyone18familiar again with what we're covering here. Twenty-19five says that "Entergy's license renewal application20does not include an adequate plan to monitor and21manage the effects of aging due to embrittlement of22the reactor pressure vessels and the associated23internals."24New York State submitted a declaration in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4860support of the additional bases identifying concerns1with, among other things, that declaration discussing2the synergistic effects of embrittlement and fatigue3and efficiencies in the visual and remote examination4techniques that Entergy and industry had proposed to5employ as part of the aging management program for the6embrittlement of reactor internals.7As part of this, I will be asking8questions and discussing just the general adequacy of9these AMPs, you know, related to the reactor pressure10vessel and the internals. Talk then about synergistic11degradation. Follow that up with talking about the12full range of transient shock loads that may or may13not influence that degradation. Discuss the14adequacies of inspections, and then finish it up with15preventive actions, corrective actions and acceptance16criteria, so that's where we're going with this.17And with that, I think I'll start off with18talking about the general adequacy of the AMP and19reference to start with Entergy's Exhibit 616.20Oh and by the way, all my references are21to non-public documents. I don't believe I've asked22any questions, relayed anything that had been redacted23by the various parties within those testimonies.24So if we do pull up an exhibit, it will be25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4861the redacted exhibit and it'll show up in the process1as we pull up any testimony that we may want to ask a2question about and then we'll proceed from there on3how to address that, but hopefully it hasn't happened.4But I just wanted to notify you now that,5yes, I have referenced as far as page numbers and6various answers from your testimony the public version7of it, the non-public version of it, I'm sorry, in8regards to, although I don't think the page numbers9change but I just wanted to reference that anyhow.10So Entergy's Exhibit 616, testimony for11Question and Answer 51 on Page 27, the question and12answer on Page 55 for 29, and the question and answer13for 64 on Page 33 where within those sections --14And you don't have to look them up. I'm15going to read to you what I'm interested in and that's16the case here in all of these. I'll be reading what17I'm interested in and then ask questions about that. 18So it's better just listen for now, and then if you19need to see it, we can call it up.20But within those groups of areas, Entergy21notes that while State's initial pleadings in 2007 on22this contention focused primarily on the reactor23pressure vessel rather than the reactor vessel24internals, following the admission of Contention New25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4862York State 25, Entergy submitted several reactor1vessel-related amendments to clarify its license2renewal application, revise the description of how3Entergy would address the then proposed alternative4pressurized thermal shock, or the PTS rule, and noted5the closure of certain reactor pressure vessel-related6commitments.7The State, however, has never amended New8York State 25 to address or challenge these updates. 9This is, again, Entergy's statement, not mine.10Going on with Entergy's statement, they11say that, instead, the State has shifted its focus to12reactor vessel internals.13Specifically, in Entergy's opinion, in Dr.14Lahey's pre-file testimony and the State's statements15of position on this contention, Dr. Lahey and the16State do not allege any specific deficiencies in17Entergy's license renewal application regarding18reactor pressure vessels.19And I'll start off with Entergy and ask20are the AMPs for the reactor vessel internals and the21reactor pressure vessels one and the same or are they22covered by different AMPs?23MR. KUYLER: Your Honor, if I may, this is24Ray Kuyler for Entergy. I believe Your Honor has been25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4863reading from the Statement of Position, the legal1brief that Entergy submitted, rather than our witness2testimony.3JUDGE WARDWELL: I think the question and4answers on Page 51 of 27 and 55 of 29 and 64 of 335cover those same topics. This wasn't a quote. This6was just a statement that I gathered from those but,7so anyone from Entergy who would like to answer that.8MR. COX: Could you repeat your question9one more time, Your Honor?10JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, I'm interested in11are the, is the reactor pressure vessel covered by the12same AMP as the reactor vessel internals?13MR. COX: No, it's not.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you. NRC15statement, Testimony 197, Answer 10 to Page 20 states,16quote, this is the NRC speaking, "The reactor vessel17internals also do not include any pressure or boundary18component such as reactor pressure vessels. These19components are addressed in other programs," which20seem to support Entergy's answer that we just21received.22Entergy's Testimony Exhibit 616, Answer2364, Pages 33 to 34, and this I will quote, says that24"with regard to the reactor pressure vessels, Dr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4864Lahey briefly alludes to some of his prior claims1regarding the reactor pressure vessel when he refers2to the, quote, 'variance' that was, quote, 'endorsed'3by the ACRS to permit continued operation with reactor4pressure vessels end-of-life Charpy upper-shelf USE,5and I believe that's the capital U, capital S, capital6E, values that are less than 50 foot pounds.7In his 2015 testimony, Dr. Lahey also8refers to certain documents discussing branch9technical position regarding the initial fracture10toughness of reactor pressure vessel materials,11suggesting that certain reactor pressure vessel12embrittlement analyses may be non-conservative.13The staff then goes on to say that "but14Dr. Lahey and the state stop short of asserting," I15mean, sorry, that's Entergy, and 616 goes on to say16"but Dr. Lahey and the state stop short of asserting17any specific deficiencies in Entergy's license renewal18application regarding the reactor pressure vessels."19And I'll direct this to Dr. Lahey. Are20there any other locations, besides what I just said,21that Entergy said that you were referred to reactor22pressure vessels where you feel you have challenged23the AMP for reactor pressure vessels within your24testimony?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4865DR. LAHEY: Thank you, Your Honor. This1is Richard Lahey, a witness for New York State. We2did, in fact, starting in 2007 I believe, raise the3issue of certain plates in the pressure vessel which4were either going to violate the upper-shelf criteria5--6JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Excuse me, I'm7interested in your testimony that you submitted now8for the current issue --9DR. LAHEY: Yes.10JUDGE WARDWELL: -- not what you did11before.12DR. LAHEY: Interestingly my testimony has13been pretty consistent for the last eight years, but14the answer is there are a few plates in the pressure15vessel which have some problems with pressurized16thermal shock.17JUDGE WARDWELL: And where did you cite18those in your testimony?19DR. LAHEY: Which testimony?20JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, where did you cite21that in any of your testimony that you've provided22here?23DR. LAHEY: Well, in fact, I think in the242007 I cited it first and then in others I've said,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4866but if you just let me finish --1JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.2DR. LAHEY: -- I can tell you why it was3not a big deal for me, because this is an area that4has been of great importance to the U.S. NRC since day5one, pressure vessel integrity, and I felt very6comfortable that they had their arms around this7problem and there was not too much I could add to it,8other than bring it to the attention of the board.9And the fact is there have been some BTP1053 issues in terms of how you determine the11embrittlement of these things that are related. But12I feel really comfortable the NRC is on top of this,13so compared to my other issues, this has not been14highlighted in my testimony.15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: The focus of your16testimony is on the reactor vessel internals and the17adequacy of the aging management for those reactor18vessel internals, correct, doctor?19DR. LAHEY: That's certainly true because20of how that impacts the possibility of core cooling,21adequacy of core cooling, because my overall concern22is safety. That's what I've been doing all my life. 23And so anything related to that is what I'm concerned24with and what I've focused on in my testimony.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4867JUDGE WARDWELL: So you would agree that1then the heart of your contention for 25 now deals2with the reactor vessel internals, and specifically3I'm going to pull out from your testimony 482 on Page478, Lines 14 through 21, where you summarize that and5just want to confirm if there's anything else extra6you'd like to add to this list.7DR. LAHEY: Do you want me to look that8up?9JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I'm going to read it10for you right here now so that you don't have to do.11One, the synergistic effect on degradation12and integrity of reactor pressure vessel internals of13radiation-induced embrittlement, corrosion, and14fatigue was one of your issues.15The second issue was the potential for16unanticipated failure of reactor vessel internals due17to a severe seismic event or accident-induced thermal18and/or pressure shock loads.19Three, the implications of the failure of20the reactor pressure vessel internal structure21components and fittings on post-accident core22coolability.23And then citing another area was your same24testimony, Exhibit 482 on Page 40, Lines 1 through 4,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4868that, quote, "Highly embrittled and fatigued reactor1vessel internal components may not have signs of2degradation that can be detected by an inspection but3such weakened components could, nonetheless, fail as4a result of severe seismic event or thermal pressure5shock loads." Is that a fair assessment of your main6points of your contention?7DR. LAHEY: Yes, Your Honor.8JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. And without9getting into any inadequacies associated with the10RVIs, is it fair to say then that we can move forward11with only looking at the reactor vessel internals and12that the pressure vessel itself is no longer an issue13with this contention?14DR. LAHEY: I would leave that up to New15York State. I told you how I feel about the issue.16JUDGE WARDWELL: But as I heard --17DR. LAHEY: I mean, my primary concern is18with the impact of failed reactor pressure vessel19internals on core coolability.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, and there's no21longer a need to address anything else with you as far22as testimony you'd like to provide in addition in23regards to the pressure vessel itself?24DR. LAHEY: Well, I've told you the issue25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4869is the plates which are, in fact, the wall of the1pressure vessel. And at some point in time, they are2going to exceed the pressurized thermal shock criteria3and the implications of that are not good, but it's4well-known and I think the NRC is totally on top of5that issue as far as I'm concerned.6JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you very much.7DR. LAHEY: Maybe they could say they're8not, but I doubt it.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Hiser, are you on top10of those plates for the pressure vessel itself?11DR. HISER: I am technically on top of12them, yes.13JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. Thank you.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Not physically on top of15them.16DR. HISER: I'm in Tarrytown, New York17right now.18JUDGE WARDWELL: Top of the world. It19doesn't get any better than this, does it?20DR. HISER: No, sir.21JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You were under oath when23you said it doesn't get any better than this.24(Laughter.)25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4870JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's turn to these AMPs1again and a little bit of this may be a repeat from2what we've managed to cover already but we'll see3where we are with that.4NRC's testimony, Exhibit 197, Answer 1145on Page 72, states that "The IP2 and IP3 RVI," that's6for reactor vessel internals, "AMP consists of a7program description describing the ten elements of the8AMP. A program description was initially submitted on9July 14th, 2010, and was revised in a letter dated10February 17th, 2012." And here you're citing New York11State's Exhibit 496, which is the letter NL-12-037 and12Attachment 1.13Entergy, do you agree that the program14description of Entergy's AMP for reactor vessels15internals is attached to Entergy's letter NL-12-037 in16New York State's Exhibit 496?17MR. DOLANSKY: This is Bob Dolansky with18Entergy. Yes.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. And, Dr.20Lahey, do you agree that that is their AMP for reactor21vessel internals?22DR. LAHEY: As I understand it, yes.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. For anyone24with NRC, where have -- I think you've already been25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4871tasked to answer this but I'll answer it again. Where1have you addressed the ten elements of GALL for the2RVI AMP in your SER? Is that one of those ones that3I asked you earlier to get for me at some time?4MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler for5the staff. The ten elements are addressed in the6supplement to the SER. It's NUREG-1930, Supplement 2.7JUDGE WARDWELL: And if you have the8section numbers and can get that for us later, that's9fine. It just --10MR. POEHLER: I don't have the exact11section number at the moment. I can get it for you.12JUDGE WARDWELL: The only reason I ask you13is not because I'm lazy. Well, that is part of the14reason, but oftentimes there are sections we're not15aware that really apply to that when you look at16something like the table of contents and that's why I17just want to make sure that you're telling me where I18should be looking for the SER for things like that.19And when I ask this question in other20areas, that's why I do it, whether it's for New York21or any expert. I may ask you where is that actually22stated and that's because I don't want to assume I23know every place that it might be stated within a24given document.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4872MR. POEHLER: Yes, Dr. Hiser just pulled1up the citation. It's Section 3.0.3.3.9 of NUREG-21930, Supplement 2.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you very much.4MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian5Harris for the staff. Can we just let that reflect6that it's NYS 507, I believe is the Exhibit number for7the supplemental safety evaluation report.8JUDGE WARDWELL: Better yet. That's9great. Thanks. Yes, I really appreciate any of those10cites that you provide. It always helps the record as11we go through the transcript. That's welcomed12interruption by the way.13MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: If I could clarify for15myself, that was Section 3.0.3.0.9. Is that --16DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. 173.0.3.3.9, Page 3-13 of Supplement 2.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you. Thank you.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Staying with the staff,20we kind of skirted this but I think I'm going to ask21it anyhow because it says it a little more directly22too.23From a technical standpoint, is24consistency with GALL, containing the ten program25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4873elements, in and of itself enough or is more depth1analysis of the adequacy of the described program in2the AMP needed for you to reach the conclusion that3the intended functions of the passive reactor vessel4internals within the scope of license renewal will be5maintained?6DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, the staff. 7In and of itself, consistency with the ten elements is8not sufficient. The applicant must demonstrate that9the components at the applicant site that are covered10by the AMP are consistent and they also must11demonstrate that operating experience is consistent. 12So they have to provide a context that shows that the13AMP really is responsive to the aging management needs14at the facility.15JUDGE WARDWELL: And is that response16documented in the SER also in at least some summary17form or so someone can understand what you went18through in your interactions with the staff to provide19this demonstration that the ten elements are being20addressed?21DR. HISER: I'm not sure that we can point22to a specific place within the SER because I think it23really is embedded within the evaluation in the SER of24each of the elements and in the applicant action25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4874items.1JUDGE WARDWELL: That was my question. I2didn't mean to ask you to point me to a page number. 3I just asked you as a standard practice that you4incorporate those interactions within your narratives. 5Thank you.6I'll ask Dr. Lahey, have you looked over7the ten elements of the GALL in the submittal that was8provided in Attachment 1 of that letter, and do you9see any area where you feel there is inconsistencies10associated with what's required by law?11DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, this is Richard12Lahey again. I have looked it over. I have concerns13about synergisms, and to understand how I feel, at14some point I need to give you some overview of why I'm15saying what I'm saying but I don't know it's the right16time. If you just want --17JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I think you have. 18You provided your testimony in 482. Isn't that your19overview?20DR. LAHEY: Well, it's part of it but I21think --22JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, that should be. 23That's what we're interrogating here. That should be24all of it if, I mean, that's what you've submitted for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4875your testimony and now we're getting elaborations on1that overview that you provided.2DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, if you understood3everything I said, that's fine.4JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, no, don't get me --5I've got a lot of questions for you. Don't worry6about that. I just want to make sure you're aware7that your testimony has been submitted as pre-filed8testimony and we're not here to create more testimony. 9We're here to explore the details of your testimony,10and so that testimony is the overview of your position11and we're just exploring the details of that.12DR. LAHEY: Yes, Your Honor.13JUDGE WARDWELL: And along those lines,14those items I just read in regards to the heart of15your contentions where I went through each one of16those issues that you've summarized from your17testimony, if you ever want to refer to those again in18a general sense to caveat a response to my question,19just go ahead and call them synergism et al. or20something like that, so you don't have to worry. 21We'll know you're referring to all of those that we22just covered previously.23So if I ask you a question about was this24suitable or something like that, you can say with the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4876exception of the synergism, et al., we see no other1differences or I see no other differences or something2like that. Do you get what I'm driving at? So you3don't have to repeat the caveat.4I understand what your concerns are and so5you can express those again just by that symbolic6representation if you feel the need to whenever I ask7you a question.8DR. LAHEY: Okay. Thank you, sir.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. Entergy's Exhibit10616 again, Answer 133, Page 82, says that the IPEC RVI11AMP, as updated, relies upon the extensive industry12research document in MRP-227-A and MRP-228 and in the13many reports supporting these documents where you're14citing to New York State, again 496, NL-12-037,15Attachment 1.16Entergy's testimony Answer 119, Page 74,17talks more about this EPRI materials reliability18programs. That's the MRP, of MRP-227-A which is19entitled "Pressurized Water Reactor Internal20Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines," and states that21it is the NRC-approved version of EPRI's guidance on22the aging management for reactor vessel internals.23Entergy's Testimony 116 Exhibit again,24Answer 133, Page 83, goes on, and I quote, that "the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4877RVI AMP has three principal components. One,1examinations and other inspections along with a2comparison of data to examination acceptance criteria3as defined in MRP-227-A and MRP-228, two, a resolution4of indications that exceed examination acceptance5criteria by entering them into the applicant's6corrective action program, and, three, monitoring and7control of reactor primary coolant water chemistry8based on industry guidelines."9And I guess I'd ask staff if you agree10with Entergy's statement that the MRP-227-A is the11NRC-approved version of EPRI's guidance and what12you're approving it for. What does that approval13mean? What's the significance of it?14MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler, the15staff. Yes, we agree that MRP-227-A is the approved16version of the MRP-227 topical report.17JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's all it is, is18the approved version of that report? It doesn't19approve that report for anything else?20MR. POEHLER: No, it approves basically21our safety evaluation, approved that report to be used22as the basis for plant-specific reactor vessel23internals aging management program or I should, aging24management programs and inspection programs.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4878JUDGE WARDWELL: A plant specific or a1generic plant? I would think it would be the2opposite.3MR. POEHLER: Yes, plant specific because4any individual plant that needs to develop a reactor5vessel internals aging management program can now use6the framework of MRP-227-A to develop that program.7But what this does is it makes the plant-8specific programs consistent with the generic9guidance, so it's generic guidance for individual10plants to use.11DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. And I12think the main thing, it is a generic program. Plant-13specific applicability is demonstrated, in part,14through the action items, A/LAI, that are --15JUDGE WARDWELL: A/LAI.16DR. HISER: Yes, licensee --17JUDGE WARDWELL: Is that correct?18DR. HISER: Yes, applicant/licensee action19items, yes.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there a way to21pronounce that acronym? I'm going to call it "a lay,"22is that all right with you?23DR. HISER: Yes.24JUDGE WARDWELL: Does anyone else use25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4879anything else different, because I can't go A/LAI1anymore.2DR. HISER: We can just call them action3items. How about that?4JUDGE WARDWELL: That would work.5DR. HISER: Okay.6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But before we move on,7if you could explain to me, the MRP-227-A was8developed by industry for a particular purpose. What9is the nature of the NRC staff's review of that10document and how then is it used by the NRC staff in11determining the adequacy of aging management?12DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The13purpose of the AMP is to demonstrate adequacy of aging14management for reactor vessel internals. The NRC15approved that report, approved the methodology in its16safety evaluation for the report. That safety17evaluation was then incorporated in the -A version,18MRP-227-A, as a topical report that is acceptable to19the NRC staff.20When we then implemented that report into21the LR-ISG to modify the AMP for reactor vessel22internals, that is where the NRC determined that that23methodology was acceptable for license renewal24applicants.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4880CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes, but how does the1NRC go about doing that? What is the nature of your2review? I mean, is it simply a read through and3subjecting that to the technical expertise of your4staff? Is there a period of, you know, the equivalent5of the RAI situation that you have on a license6renewal?7I'm just trying to understand what is it8the ARC ExpressScribe staff does with MRP-227-A to9effectively put its imprimatur on it as a guide for10AMP compliance?11DR. HISER: Okay. Yes, this is Dr. Hiser. 12What we did was a detailed technical review, and items13that we believed were not appropriately addressed in14the report or that we had questions about we asked15RAIs and went through a question and answer sequence16to get to the point that we had no more questions on17the adequacy of the report.18This was part of the topical report review19which is a standard process that we use to review20industry reports that try to address generic issues,21such as adequacy of aging management for vessel22internals.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And is that process part24of what caused the metamorphosis from 227 to 227-A?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4881DR. HISER: That's correct, yes.1JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, this is Judge2Kennedy. Is there a staff safety evaluation document3that's issued for an approved topical report?4DR. HISER: Yes there is. In general,5there is and for this one there was a safety6evaluation. In addition, we had, I believe it was a7revision to the SE for MRP-227.8JUDGE KENNEDY: Would that be the ultimate9culmination of the staff's review of that industry10document?11MR. POEHLER: Almost. I just wanted to12clarify that. So when the industry, so we issued our13safety evaluation. Then EPRI takes that and includes14it in the approved version of the topical report.15They also had to make some changes to the16topical report, that the staff had included conditions17in our final safety evaluation that related to changes18that we wanted to see made in the final version of19MRP-227.20EPRI made those changes. Then they21submitted to us the final -A version. And at that22point, the staff still had to verify that those23promised changes had been made.24And then at that point, I believe we25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4882issued a letter that said it's good to, you know, we1agree that you made all the changes so, and at that2point they were able to publish the -A version.3JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you.4JUDGE WARDWELL: And are the lists of the5RAIs that were generated documented anywhere, either6in the SE or the industry document in the MRP?7MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler from the8staff. Yes, the RAIs are included as an appendix to9the -A version.10JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, the whole RAI is,11not just the --12MR. POEHLER: The RAI letters and the13responses. There were four rounds of RAIs so those14are all included as appendices, although they're not15all, every RAI is not explicitly discussed in the16staff's safety evaluation.17JUDGE WARDWELL: But they're physically18attached to the MRP-A?19MR. POEHLER: Correct.20JUDGE WARDWELL: MRP-227-A?21MR. POEHLER: Correct.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Mr. Poehler, just24to, for my point to clarify for the record, when you25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4883mention EPRI, that's the Electric Power Research1Institute, which is what?2MR. POEHLER: The Electric Power Research3Institute is the organization that developed the MRP-4227-A or Rev. 0 and -A report, specifically the5materials reliability program, which is, you know, a6sub-program of EPRI that specifically deals with7pressurized water reactor vessel materials integrity8issues.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and it's a non-10governmental entity that is supported by the electric11power industry.12MR. POEHLER: Correct.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And in preparing this14document, it works in conjunction with the NRC to15determine appropriate guidelines for AMPs here, for16reactor vessel internals.17MR. POEHLER: In preparing the document,18it was, you know --19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Their goal was to come20up with a proposal and the proposal is then reviewed21by the NRC, the goal being to have the NRC put its22imprimatur on it after a technical review that23requires them to answer questions and modify their24proposals. Is that correct?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4884MR. POEHLER: That's correct.1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. Thank2you, Mr. Poehler.3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Just to4add one thing to what Jeff said, the RAI, RAIs5themselves and the MRP responses are in, I'm not sure6if it's Enclosure or Appendix B to MRP-227-A, so the7full record is provided there in the report.8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Which does bring to mind10another general comment I was going to make early on. 11We sometimes focus more time on one group of witnesses12than the other. Don't also take that personally, that13you're feeling slighted or that you're feeling you're14getting beat up on. It's strictly how, where the15questions come up from.16And usually, it's been my experience at17least, that we do spend more time on staff and18Entergy, the applicant, staff and the applicant,19because they are the ones defending from the20allegations that have been made.21And so that's why we end up challenging22you more than we seem to with, oftentimes, witnesses23for the intervenors, and if that ends up to be the24case here, that's not necessarily unusual. It just is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4885what it is based on the questions that we come up1with, so that was a comment I forgot to mention2earlier, general comment.3And back to that, I wanted to ask Dr.4Lahey whether he disagreed with any of those principal5components of Entergy's RVI AMP, and I think it's been6long enough that I'm going to have to repeat them7again for you unless you remember them. I'd like to8repeat them again to make sure you know what I'm9asking.10All I'm asking about is do you have any11disagreement with Entergy's statement that the RVI AMP12has three principal components and that is, one, the13examinations and other inspections along with a14comparison of data to examination acceptance criteria15as defined in MRP-227-A and MRP-228 and then, two,16resolution of indications that exceed examination17acceptance criteria by entering them into the18applicant's corrective action program, and, three,19monitoring and control of reactor primary coolant20water chemistry based on industry guidelines. Do you21agree those are three principal components of22Entergy's RVI?23DR. LAHEY: This is Richard Lahey again. 24I certainly agree but I have problems with the MRP-25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4886227-A, which it is based on.1JUDGE WARDWELL: And I assume you'll be2able to refer back to that when we cover each of those3other topic areas where that differs from that, rather4than just open up a general discussion.5DR. LAHEY: Fine. Great, thanks.6JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC's Exhibit 197, Answer7114, Page 72, in addition to the program description,8quote, "The IP2 and IP3 RVI AMP consists of an9inspection plan initially submitted on September 28th,102011, and a revised version consistent with MRP-227-A11was submitted on February 17th, 2012."12And now for this inspection plan, citing13New York State's Exhibit 496-NL-12-037, Attachment 2,14Entergy's Exhibit 616, Answer 134, Page 83, and I15quote, states that, "The reactor vessel," excuse me,16"The RVI inspection plan provides additional details17on inspections to be covered under the RVI AMP," and,18again, citing that Attachment 2.19And I guess I'll ask Dr. Lahey, did you20have a chance to look over that inspection plan and21were those basic contents provided in Attachment 2 of2212-037 for their inspection plan?23DR. LAHEY: The inspection, excuse me,24this is Richard Lahey again. The inspection plan25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4887that's associated with MRP-227-A? Is that what you're1asking about?2JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.3DR. LAHEY: I have read that in detail,4yes.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay well, yes, and that,6do you agree, has -- No, I'm sorry. I'm getting into7the next question relating to the contents of that.8Entergy's testimony, Exhibit 616, Answer9134, Page 83, states that the reactor vessel10inspection plan provides additional details on the11inspections to be conducted under the RVI AMP,12including, one, the type of examinations; two, the13level of examination qualification; three, the14schedule of initial inspection and frequency of15subsequent inspections; four, the criteria for16sampling and coverage; five, the criteria for17expansion of scope if unanticipated indications are18found; six, the acceptance criteria; seven, the19methods for evaluation of examination results that do20not meet the acceptable criteria; seven, provisions to21update the program based on industry-wide results;22and, eight, contingency measures to repair, replace,23or mitigate beyond the information set forth in the24RVI AMP.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4888And, again, without getting into the1adequacies with which they addressed those particular2items, Dr. Lahey, do you agree that those components3were in the inspection plan?4DR. LAHEY: This is Richard Lahey again. 5I heard you say reactor vessel rather than reactor6vessel internals, is that correct?7JUDGE WARDWELL: You probably heard8correct. I probably misspoke, so it's reactor vessel9internals. If I ever say reactor vessels, it's10probably reactor vessel internals from now on but,11yes, I meant reactor vessel internals. I'm sorry.12DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir, I agree that that's13what they're doing.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay and, Dr. Lahey,16it's your contention not that these aren't addressed17but they're not adequately addressed in a number of18instances. Is that correct?19DR. LAHEY: I think this document that20they use is a very well-done document. It's21inspection based and that's only part of it, so it's22necessary but it's certainly not sufficient in my23view. Thank you.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you, Dr. Lahey.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4889JUDGE WARDWELL: Back to staff, there are1various Westinghouse reports that came up in the2testimony and I jotted down WCAP 13587, 14577, 15030,315270, 16156, 16211, 17096, 17894, 17901. Could you4briefly summarize what's in all -- No.5(Laughter.)6JUDGE WARDWELL: What I'm interested in is7--8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Ten words or less.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. How do these10reports fit into your assessment of the adequacy of11Entergy's RVI AMP? What role do they play and of what12significance are they?13MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler. 14Just to clarify the question, were those referenced in15MRP-227-A or in the staff's testimony on New York16State 25?17JUDGE WARDWELL: We ask the questions. 18You can't ask us questions.19(Laughter.)20JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not sure where I got21these from. I just know they've cropped up and I had22any reference to Westinghouse report. I was23interested and they seemed to have a significant24influence on something that you've done. And I was25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4890just wondering how do they fit in? What role do they1play? How should we consider them?2I believe all of those are, well, I'm not3sure whether they're exhibits or not. I didn't go to4look for an exhibit number but I know they've come up,5and is this new to you? Have you never heard of any6of these reports, or would you like me to ask Entergy7and --8MR. POEHLER: Well I can answer for --9This is Jeffrey Poehler of the staff. So one of the10ones that you mentioned was WCAP 17096. Is that11correct?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, that was one. WCAP13just call it.14MR. POEHLER: Just using that as an15example, that's another topical report that was under16review by the NRC staff. It was kind of related to17MRP-27-A and, you know, that's a document that18provides methodologies for performing engineering19evaluations when you find, if you were to find20degradation in reactor vessel internals that exceeds21the acceptance criteria of MRP-227-A.22So the staff was concurrently reviewing23that at the time period that they were reviewing24Entergy's reactor vessel internals aging management25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4891program, but those WCAP reports are not, they're not1directly relied upon in our review of 227-A.2Another one that I think I heard you3mention was WCAP 14577.4JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.5MR. POEHLER: And that one was a6Westinghouse report that addressed some of the same7issues as MRP-227-A, aging management, for aging8management of reactor internals and --9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Mr. Poehler, let10me interrupt here for a second just by way of11background for my edification. Can you explain to me12what a WCAP report is, what the genesis is, how13they're developed, and then how they're used by the14NRC in their evaluation of MRP-227?15JUDGE WARDWELL: That's just what I asked16earlier --17MR. POEHLER: And so, yes.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I didn't follow --19JUDGE WARDWELL: -- in a terrible way.20MR. POEHLER: Those reports were not21direct components. They're not components of MRP-227-22A. There were some supporting EPRI reports.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, first, how are24they generated? Who --25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4892MR. POEHLER: They're generated by1Westinghouse Electric Company as technical reports and2sometimes those are submitted to NRC for review and3approval as topical reports and sometimes they're not.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Are they submitted to5EPRI as part of the development of MRP-227 or are they6submitted to the NRC after MRP-227 has been7circulated?8MR. POEHLER: I don't know if they're9submitted to EPRI. But to the NRC they're not, we did10not have any WCAPs that were submitted to directly11support the MRP-227 review.12The one that I mentioned, the 17096, was13submitted subsequently to MRP-227, Rev. 0. So it's a14completely independent topical report that the NRC was15reviewing separately.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, submitted to the17NRC by who, by Westinghouse?18MR. POEHLER: The WCAP 17096 was, I19believe, submitted by EPRI and on behalf of the PWR20Owners Group and Westinghouse, but I believe EPRI was21the entity that actually submitted it, so.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. So, again, I'm23just trying to get on the record here how these24reports are developed and used and correct me if I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4893have a misinterpretation.1You've got a MRP-227. It is out there. 2It's submitted, not the A. This is not the final,3that it is prepared by an industry group. Various4entities in the industry, such as Westinghouse, have5an interest in getting this right.6They prepare a document such as this WCAP717096 which is then used to provide technical support,8technical accreditation, as you were, for the9underlying EPRI document which can be then evaluated10by the NRC for whatever value you view it might have. 11You may view it very helpful. You may view it not be12helpful. Is that correct?13MR. POEHLER: Well, this is Jeffrey14Poehler of the staff.15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And I realize I went on16there. Some of what I said may have been right and17some of it may have been wrong. Don't just say yes if18a lot of it is wrong.19MR. POEHLER: For the specific example of20WCAP 17096, that was not a supporting document that21was necessary for the staff's review of MRP-227. It22would be something that would be used by licensees in23conjunction or with their MRP-227-A inspection program24if they needed to do engineering evaluations of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4894conditions that they found. But we didn't rely, we1certainly didn't rely upon that for approval of 227-A.2DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The3sequence is MRP-227-A. Plants go to implement it. 4They find some indication. Maybe it exceeds5acceptance criteria. Put that in the corrective6actions program.7MRP 17096 is one method they can use under8corrective actions to determine whether it's9acceptable or what other corrective actions they may10need to take. So it's independent time-wise and11process-wise really of MRP-227-A.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you provide any of13these WCAPs as testimony as an exhibit to the best of14your knowledge?15DR. HISER: Yes, I believe we did. NRC16200 is WCAP 17096.17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And how about the1814577?19DR. HISER: I do not remember other than20doing a --21MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian22Harris for the staff. WCAP 14577, I think it's Rev.231-A, is Exhibit NYS 341.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you very much, Mr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4895Harris. Maybe we can turn to Entergy who's --1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm sorry. Could you2repeat that?3MR. HARRIS: It's New York State 341.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: 341. Thank you.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Would someone from6Entergy like to shed some light on what are these7Westinghouse reports and answer the question Judge8McDade provided so eloquently?9MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. This is10Nelson Azevedo for Entergy. The MRP 227 was written11by EPRI in MRP specifically which is a subgroup of12EPRI but a lot of analysis in the additional13evaluations were required to develop MRP-227 and also14for the implementation details.15And there's another industry group called16the PWR Owners Group. I actually sit on both of these17groups, and the PWR Owners Group develops a lot of18these WCAPs that you're talking about, both for19implementing the requirements in MRP-227 and20performing evaluations that supports MRP-227. So21that's a separate organization, PWR Owners Group, that22supports the development of these guidelines.23JUDGE WARDWELL: And have you provided any24of these WCAPs as exhibits to this proceeding?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4896MR. AZEVEDO: Yes we have, Your Honor.1JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Anything more2on that? You comfortable?3NRC Exhibit 197, Answer 114, Page 72,4quote, "The inspection plan contains tables specifying5the inspections for primary expansion and existing6program components and tables containing the7acceptance and expansion criteria for these8components.9"The inspection plan also contains10Entergy's proposed resolution of the Applicant/license11action items" these are these A/LAIs or A lays or just12action items as we'll call them from here on in, "from13the staff's final safety evaluation of MRP-227, Rev.140."15And I guess I'll start with the staff. 16What makes a component a primary component, an17expansion component, or existing component and how18does it fit into the inspection program?19MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of20the staff. So a primary component is a component that21was judged either most likely to experience some form22of degradation such as tracking, for example, and/or23also, you know, a higher safety risk component.24So those primary components are those25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4897components that will be inspected as part of the1initial and subsequent inspections under MRP-227-A or,2you know, any inspection program that is based on 227-3A.4You inspect the primary components within5two refueling outages at the beginning of the period6of extended operation and every ten years thereafter7for the majority of the primary components.8Expansion components are those that are9the next tier of components. They're somewhat less10susceptible to degradation and/or lower risk, and11expansion components would only be inspected if a12primary component that is linked to it, in other words13one that has the similar degradation mechanisms,14materials, et cetera, experiences degradation.15So the expansion component may never be16inspected unless its associated primary component17first experiences degradation. So the primary18components are considered the lead components for19degradation.20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm sorry. They're21considered what?22MR. POEHLER: The lead.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Lead?24MR. POEHLER: Leading indicators basically25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4898of degradation as compared to the expansion1components.2And then existing program components are3components that were determined to be adequately4managed by existing programs.5Generally the most common existing program6is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler7and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 11, in-service8inspection program. We'll just call that the in-9service inspection program from now on.10But that's something that is required by11the ASME Code, which is incorporated by reference into12NRC regulations, and the plants do that every ten13years and they have been doing that since day one.14But basically what that program does is15visual inspections of the internals, but there were16certain components where the type of visual inspection17that's done was considered adequate to manage aging so18MRP-227 took credit for those inspections for certain19components, so those will be inspected as well,20basically on the same timing as the primary.21JUDGE WARDWELL: You said the same22sequence, the ten-year sequencing.23MR. POEHLER: The ten-year interval,24depending on when the plant's Section 11 inspections25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4899are scheduled, which typically they would, plants will1try to have those coincide with the augmented2inspections that are done under MRP-227-A.3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I just4want to clarify one thing. The expansion components5are inspected if the inspections of the primary6components, if the results exceed the expansion7criteria that are in MRP-227-A and also in the8Applicant's AMP.9JUDGE WARDWELL: You said expansion10criteria. You mean acceptance criteria or --11DR. HISER: No, expansion criteria.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Say your sentence over13again. I'm sorry.14DR. HISER: Okay. The expansion15components are examined if the primary component16inspections, if the results exceed the expansion17criteria that are in the Applicant's inspection plan.18So you do the primary inspection. If you19have no findings, you're finished until the next20inspection. If you find degradation, you go to the21expansion criteria. If it exceeds the expansion22criteria, then you do the expansion inspections.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and we've been24going for about, almost two hours now since our last25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4900break and it may be appropriate to take another ten-1minute break. Does anyone believe they need more than2ten minutes?3(No audible response.)4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, apparently not. 5And before we break, just one thing while it's still6on my mind and before I lose it here.7You've got a list, Table 5-2, where the8primary 5-3 would be expansion components, 5-4 would9be existing program components. Can you explain10briefly how you determine whether something should be11in the primary as opposed to the expansion components? 12Just what's the process on --13DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I guess we14didn't determine whether they should be in one or the15other. I mean, the industry program did that. We16reviewed it and determined that we agreed with the17binning that was done of the components just to18clarify that.19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and what's the20nature of that vetting?21MR. POEHLER: The nature of the binning22that was done -- This is Jeffrey Poehler of the staff. 23So the binning that was done by EPRI in developing24these recommendations was basically, they used a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4901process -- Well, initially they did screening of the1components to determine which aging mechanisms were2applicable.3Then they took those results and they did4a process called failure modes, effects, and5criticality analysis, or FMECA, and basically that6process looks at all the different ways a component7can fail and what the consequences would be if a8individual component is to fail as far as the9functions of the reactor vessel internals, the various10safety functions.11And based on that process, the components12were given an initial ranking and that was basically13the, they were given a ranking like A, B, C with C14being the, you know, most likely to, most critical15components I guess.16And then there was, some additional17analyses were done by EPRI to refine the initial18binning so there were some initial, more detailed19engineering analyses done on certain components. And20after that, they came up with the final rankings or21the final binning of primary expansion existing22programs and --23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And then did the NRC24conduct a de novo review of those conclusions or did25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4902you rely on EPRI's conclusions unless they were1demonstrably faulty?2MR. POEHLER: We did review that process3and EPRI submitted, the MRP, EPRI MRP submitted4several supporting reports that contained some of the,5you know, the detailed analysis that went into this.6So there were a series of technical7reports that were submitted to the staff for8information to support our review of MRP-227. So we9did review those reports to some degree and so, no,10yes, we didn't just accept the industry's or EPRI's11determination. In fact --12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, you kind of had a13throwaway phrase there. You said "to some degree." 14Before that, it sounded like the review was rather15extensive and then you described it as "to some16degree," which suggests less than. Which is it or did17I read more into it than was intended?18MR. POEHLER: Yes, perhaps but, you know,19did we, yes, did we review every component in detail? 20I cannot answer that question.21CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Would it be accurate to22say that some of them were obvious, that it's only the23stuff on the fringes that could be, you know, could go24to Table 2 as opposed to Table 3?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4903MR. POEHLER: And, you know, we --1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Is that correct, that2those are the ones that got the in-depth review and3the others that were obvious got less of a review,4received less of an in-depth review?5MR. POEHLER: Some of them were obvious6and, yes, in some cases the staff challenged some of7the binning, the final binning for some of these8components.9And we included conditions. We included10conditions for certain components, saying you need to11elevate this component from expansion to primary, for12example, because we did have concerns about the safety13significance of certain components. So, yes, we14didn't just accept without question what EPRI had15done.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. Do you17have anything before we break?18JUDGE WARDWELL: No.19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's 3:35. Why don't we20break until 3:45.21(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went22off the record at 3:35 p.m. and resumed at 3:46 p.m.)23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, the hearing will24come to order. Judge Wardwell.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4904JUDGE WARDWELL: Getting back to where we1left off, we were talking about the primary expansion2in existing components. And in addition to getting3various components into one of those sitements, the4inspection plan contains Entergy's proposed resolution5of the Applicant's license action items.6And I've asked the Staff if they could7explain a little bit more about what these ALIs are8and how they are used in either your evaluation of9MRP-227 or in your review of the Aging Management Plan10for vessel internals?11MR. POEHLER: This is Jeff Poehler of the12Staff.13So there were eight Applicant licensee14action items. And so those were included in the15staff's safety evaluation of MRP-227-A, or MRP-227. 16They were included generally for things where for a17licensee or Applicant that wanted to reference18MRP-227-A, that there would be some plant-specific19technical evaluation that was needed to be done that,20in addition to just following the recommendations of21MRP-227-A.22So these were things that weren't23addressed in sufficient detail or have a24plant-specific aspect that couldn't be addressed25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4905generically in -- by the topical report 227-A.1And an example of that is Action Item 12where it's -- it requests the Applicants or licensees3to confirm the plant-specific applicability of4MRP-227-A.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Is it your position that6if a plan addresses these action items that then by7definition they're AMP will be site-specific enough to8provide a demonstration that the -- of aging9management for these items?10MR. POEHLER: Yes, that's one important11component. The other is just verifying that they are,12they're -- the inspections that they have -- the13inspections that they're doing under their plan are14consistent with the inspections that are specified in15MRP-227-A for their particular design.16JUDGE WARDWELL: So are most of these17related to the inspections more than the other part of18the plan or is it evenly distributed?19MR. POEHLER: Yeah, some of them are20related to the inspections. I would say, I would say21most of them are, but.22DR. HISER: Just sort of -- this is Dr.23Hiser -- just sort of skipping through 1 and 2, 124relates to the applicability of the MRP-227-A to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4906plant. So is the plant within the parameters that1were considered in development for the report?2JUDGE WARDWELL: And what are those3approximate parameters that would make a plant4eligible or not eligible?5DR. HISER: One of them relates to core6power density.7One relates to the top of the -- distance8from the top of the active fuel to the bottom of the9upper core plate.10The third one relates to heat generation11within the core.12JUDGE WARDWELL: And if a plant didn't13meet those, then in fact 227 is inapplicable or?14DR. HISER: Well, then we would expect the15plant to propose additional actions. For example,16maybe they would include more components under primary17category or something along those lines. But they18would then need to take some additional actions beyond19what is in the base program in MRP-227-A.20JUDGE WARDWELL: All right. You were21stepping us through the ALIs. Do you still want to go22over it or did you -- you were hoping I wouldn't23remember something you can't remember all of? That's24fine if you don't.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4907DR. HISER: Well, those are two in1particular that really don't relate directly to change2-- well, they both I guess in reality could relate to3changes in the inspection activities.4Action Item 2 then is components not5covered in the generic evaluation of MRP-227-A, or6potentially different materials that were used from7within 227-A.8JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.9Commitment 30: could you talk a little10bit about that? What did the Applicant agree to and11has that been fulfilled and now moot?12MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of13the Staff.14So commitment 30 was the commitment15originally made in the license general application for16Indian Point where they committed to follow the17industry program when it was issued, basically18implement the industry program within a certain time19frame of that program being issued.20And that, we do consider it to have been21fulfilled by their submission of their Aging22Management Program and inspection, inspection plan;23and as modified, you know, as approved by the Staff24through our review process which, you know, basically25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4908as documented in the Supplemental Safety Evaluation1Report NUREG 1930, Supplement 2.2JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I went to 1930,3Supplement 2, would I be able to see a statement that4commitment 2 has been fulfilled or something along5those lines?6MR. POEHLER: Yes, I believe so. I think7I would have to check the conclusions but I believe8there is a statement to that effect.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You were talking about11commitment 30?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I thought you said so.14JUDGE WARDWELL: I may have said something15different but I started off that way this last time I16said it. I don't know. We'll check the transcript.17Let's talk a little bit about the18adequacies of the RVI.19New York's Exhibit 482, their testimony on20page 51, lines 7 through 10, and I quote, "A21systematic safety evaluation of the degraded pressure22vessel internals is needed to identify the limiting23structures, components and fittings that need to be24repaired or replaced before the onset of extended25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4909operations."1And in response to that, Entergy's Exhibit2616 on page -- Answer 128, page 79, says that "The3guidelines in MRP-227 are based on a systematic4evaluation of degradation of mechanisms, including5multiple concurrent mechanisms, the resulting aging6effects, including combination of effects, and7consequences that identify the limiting RVI8structures, components and fittings."9They go on in Answer 129 to say, "Based on10a considerable body of research and operating11experience, MRP-227-A provides Aging Management12guidelines, defines inspections to detect the effects13of aging, and recommends methods to evaluate aging14effects. As described..." And then it goes on and15describes it further in Answers 121 to 129, pages 7516to 80.17Entergy also then in their Answer 201,18page 135, states that "The guidelines in MRP-227-A19were developed through a systematic evaluation of all20RVIs and all potential aging effects on those RVIs,21including combined effects caused by multiple aging22mechanisms."23And I guess my question for you, Dr.24Lahey, is do your criticisms mostly relate to what25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4910Entergy omitted or missed in its RVI AMP rather than1proffering any evidence that challenges specific2aspects of the engineering work that was expanded --3expended to develop MRP-227?4DR. LAHEY: So can I talk about synergisms5now or? Richard Lahey. I'm aching to talk about6synergy.7JUDGE WARDWELL: I know it. Hold off for8just about another half hour and then I think we'll be9able to rock and roll with details.10DR. LAHEY: Okay.11JUDGE WARDWELL: But I need time --12DR. LAHEY: I think they missed the boat,13to your specific question, they did not, when they14evaluated the degradation they do not take into15account all the effects.16JUDGE WARDWELL: And as the synergism et17al. statement that's there?18DR. LAHEY: Right.19JUDGE WARDWELL: And exclusive of that20though, looking at -- I guess my heart of my question21is, what they did do, do you have challenges in22regards to what they did do, not what they did not do? 23Not the inadequacies or what's missing out of that but24the fact of do you have any specific criticisms in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4911your testimony in regards to the specific actions that1they did take in this systematic evaluation that they2claimed has been performed as part of MRP-227?3DR. LAHEY: I certainly do, Your Honor. 4But I have to talk about synergisms to tell you what5those are.6JUDGE WARDWELL: It's related to that7then?8DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.9JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fine. That's10fine.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Well, Doctor, if you12could, I mean there's a couple of aspects to this.13One, as I understand it, your -- you focus14on the fact that this is an inspection program and15that inspection alone is inadequate?16DR. LAHEY: Yes.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: They need something more18than inspection. Okay.19Focusing just on the inspection aspect of20the program, are there specific areas that you view as21inherently deficient in the method of inspection?22DR. LAHEY: It's Richard Lahey again.23Yes, sir. There are some very specific24things where it appears that just the visualization25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4912techniques they're using would not be sufficient. But1quite frankly, my real concern is the things that are2the biggest problem you don't see until they happen. 3All right. They occur. They're happening right along4but you're not able to determine the level of5degradation based on the techniques that they're6using.7That's the real concern. That's the8synergism concern.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Are there10inspection techniques that they could use that they're11not using that would solve that problem?12DR. LAHEY: They're aware of the issue and13they claim they can't, for example, determine the14level of embrittlement. They don't know how to do15that in situ. So --16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You don't disagree with17them on that, do you?18DR. LAHEY: No, I don't. But I, I think19the other thing they're missing is it's not just20sufficient to do inspection, there needs to be21complementary analysis, particularly when you look at22such things as earthquake events or shock load events23which can really disrupt and relocate some of these24key structures.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4913And if you then wind up with an uncoolable1geometry, I can tell you you're in deep trouble. 2That's what I've been doing all my life. And, and3this is what I am concerned about.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Winding up in deep5trouble?6DR. LAHEY: You're in deep trouble if you7don't, if you don't maintain an intact geometry8because you really don't know where things are going9and what of blockages may occur and what it means in10coolability.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And from my standpoint,12and I'm sure Judge Wardwell is going to get into this13later, is, is to bifurcate things for the moment. And14accepting your premise that no inspection program15standing alone would be sufficient, but just looking16at the inspection program that is there, to focus on17what you view as the defects in the existing18inspection program by way of what they inspect, how19they inspect, how often they inspect, baseline those20kinds of issues with regard to the -- your view of21deficiencies in the existing inspection program22without accepting that standing alone inspection is23sufficient?24DR. LAHEY: Well, for most of them I think25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4914they're, they're good. It's very well thought through1and screened.2However, for instance for some of the3bolts which they don't have the ability to determine4the degradation until it's to a certain percentage,5and in fact, on the interval where they inspect there6can be bolts missing. And the concern is if you then7have an event which pops out, which unzips a lot of8the other bolts, you have a vary distorted geometry. 9You have no idea what's going to be happening to the10materials and what it will do for core coolability.11So for the bolting, I have serious12concerns.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But on a couple of14those, Doctor, for example the baffle former bolts.15DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: They indicate that, one,17there will be cracking that is observable before you18get anywhere close to failure.19Secondly, that even if there were a20failure, there is so much redundancy built in that you21could have 50 percent of the bolts crack and fail and22it wouldn't adversely affect the operation of the23facility. And on others, like the Clovis bolts, they24indicate that even -- that once the facility is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4915operational that they never serve a function, so if1they would fail it wouldn't have an adverse impact.2So with regard to those that you address,3why is that a safety issue?4DR. LAHEY: Well, I read the same thing5you did but I don't come to the same conclusion that6they did.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I haven't come to a8conclusion yet.9DR. LAHEY: Right.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm just asking you to11criticize their conclusion.12DR. LAHEY: My, my concern is, number 1,13they can have up to 30 percent cleavage of a bolt14before they can detect it with ultrasound. That's15what they found.16They also have found in other reactors,17bolts that have failed. It's not a hypothetical18event; it happens. And it's because their highly19irradiated, and irradiated-assisted stress cores, and20cracking and other events, fatigue, cause these21failures to occur.22If you look at the analysis, it's really23a steady state analysis for why you have enough24redundancy to keep operating. If you then look at a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4916accident which puts significant loads and pops the1other bolts, you no longer have an intact geometry. 2And once your baffles are going anywhere, it's bad3news.4That's, that's where I'm at. I'm not, I'm5not in the steady state mode, I'm in an actuative6mode. That's what I'm looking at.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But you're8talking still about design-basis accidents?9DR. LAHEY: Not just. Earthquake events10can do the same thing if they're severe enough.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But as your12testimony is right now that with regard to inspection13techniques, for example, the VT-3, you don't have14specific suggestions to change that or criticisms of15why that doesn't serve the purpose proffered by16Entergy?17DR. LAHEY: Are you only talking about the18inspection part of it? Because --19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Right now.20DR. LAHEY: -- my concern is the lack of21analysis, the complementary analysis part.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Well, Dr.23Wardwell is going to get into that in great detail24later. But right now just on the inspection.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4917DR. LAHEY: Well, the inspection program.1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.2DR. LAHEY: Yeah, I have, I have concerns3about the inspection technique being adequate for the4bolting. And there's some other components where the5visualization technique they're using is not, in my6view, sufficient. But more or less I think what7they're doing, other than those specific things, is a8good thing, it's a usable thing, but not sufficient.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Essential but not10sufficient?11DR. LAHEY: Right. Necessary. As the12mathematicians say, necessary but not sufficient.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Judge Wardwell.14JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC in your Exhibit 19715testimony, Answer 122 to page 74 says that the16"MRP-227-A relies on PWR water chemistry control to17prevent or mitigate aging effects that can be induced18by corrosion aging mechanisms. For instance, loss of19material induced by general corrosion, pitting20corrosion, crevice corrosion, or stress corrosion21cracking of any of its forms." Some of the acronyms22that are used are SCC, PWSCC and IASCC. And probably23there's a way to pronounce those, but we'll find out24as we move through here.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4918Anyhow, section Roman Numeral XI.1M16A of1the Interim Staff Guidance, which we talked about2earlier, 2011/04, further states that the "reactor3coolant water chemistry is monitored and maintained in4accordance with the water chemistry program as5described in GALL AMP Section XI.M2, 'Water6Chemistry.'7My question for Entergy: have you8implemented a water chemistry water control program at9IP-2 and 3?10MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. I'm sorry,11this is Nelson Azevedo for Entergy.12The Indian Point water chemistry program13does follow the AMP requirements.14JUDGE WARDWELL: And how long ago did you15implement that? And could you describe the program16generally, what its function is and how, what benefit17you gain out of that program?18MR. AZEVEDO: I can describe some19portions. I'm not a chemist so I cannot go into the20details.21But I can tell you from the '70s and the22'80s Indian Point has been following the23recommendations of the EPRI for water chemistry. That24program, as I understand, has evolved over the years.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4919As far as getting details, I'm not sure if1anybody in the Entergy panel can add to that.2MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.3I will add that there's been several4revisions of the EPRI water chemistry guidelines. The5EPRI guidelines are the industry guidelines and6recommendations for a chemistry program for a nuclear7reactor. And those have been revised several times8over the years.9And typically a plant will upgrade their10program to align with the latest version.11JUDGE WARDWELL: I think you may be too12worried that we want to know too much technical13detail.14What's the basic goal of the program? 15What water are you chemistrizing? What's the purpose16of any chemistry controls that you're putting on and17how does that help your operations?18MR. GORDON: This is Barry Gordon from19Entergy.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Where are you?21MR. GORDON: I'm right here.22JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm kidding. I'm23kidding.24MR. GORDON: I don't even have a sign. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4920You know?1JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.2MR. GORDON: Respect I guess.3Anyway, the water chemistry is to min --4basically to minimize all forms of corrosion,5including stress corrosion cracking. And what's6unique about or more favorable for Indian Point is7that they're doing an excellent job on controlling8their water chemistry, and exceeding even the9guidelines that are required by, by the water10chemistry guidelines.11For example, they have the recommended12level -- we'll just talk about one technical factor13here -- of dissolved hydrogen in the plant, is between1425 and 50 --15JUDGE WARDWELL: Of hydrogen or oxygen?16MR. GORDON: Hydrogen. Hydrogen.17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.18MR. GORDON: We don't want oxygen in19there.20It's between 25 and 50 cc's per kilogram. 21It's an unusual unit but that's what they use.22And at Indian Point they're up -- the23higher level the more benefit you have, minimizing24corrosion. And Indian Point is actually running at25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4921the higher level. They're running at 42.5 cc's per1kilogram. So that's beneficial.2Also, in IP, Indian Point Unit 2 they are3adding zinc to their water, which is also beneficial4to minimizing corrosion. And otherwise they just have5general things like lithium hydroxide, things like6that, which are just to minimize general corrosion of7the material.8JUDGE WARDWELL: You say you don't want9oxygen. What do they do to not have oxygen?10MR. GORDON: They have excess hydrogen11present. And also during start-up they put hydrozine12in there which consumes, it consumes oxygen. It's a13de-aerated environment, unlike the BWR.14JUDGE WARDWELL: I'll ask anyone from15Entergy, and we can stay with you if you are the best16that can answer it, what types of data do you see, do17you have any quantification of your reduction in your18corrosion issues at the plant? Do you have any19parameter that helps guide you in quantifying how20helpful this really is.21MR. GORDON: This is Barry Gordon from22Entergy again.23They do keep track of the dissolved24hydrogen. They keep track of how much zinc is in the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4922water. And all the chemical controls that are1required by the PWR water chemistry guidelines.2But the performance of the plant has been3exceptional. If you look at their alloy 600 thermally4treated steam generator tubing it's, they've hardly5plugged anything and most of it was conservatively6plugged. They've had very good results.7JUDGE WARDWELL: Most of it was8conservatively plugged when? And at this plant or is9this --10MR. GORDON: At this plant.11JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.12MR. GORDON: You know, you're allowed 1013percent. And they've done a very small percentage of14it. And usually it's because they found something15going on and said, well, we'll be conservative and16we'll do all the tubes around it, even though it's17really they're just being very conservative how they18deal with it.19The performance has been outstanding at20this facility relative to stress corrosion cracking. 21And that's a good measure that the water chemistry22control is doing its job.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Lahey, did you review24anything in regards to the water chemistry program25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4923and/or have any comments in regards to its1effectiveness in helping to control one of the aspects2that you were concerned about, that is corrosion?3DR. LAHEY: I didn't specifically review4the water chemistry program. It's my opinion based on5other input that I have had over the years that Indian6Point is run very well in that regard. And overall7it's a tight plant, what we call a tight plant.8JUDGE WARDWELL: And wouldn't that go a9long ways to controlling some of those aspects of that10particular failure effect, if you will, of any11component for aging?12DR. LAHEY: Are you going back to the13bolts now?14JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, of anyone, just the15fact that the water chem -- isn't there some benefits16gained on though from the water chemistry program in17regards to aging effects on this location?18DR. LAHEY: Yeah, there's definitely19benefits gained. And, you know, when we talked about20the bolts which were failing, they're failing by21irradiation-induced stress corrosion and cracking,22just because of their location. But it's not a show23stopper. I mean those are things you can easily24replace.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4924So it's a very doable thing to fix that1problem.2JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Let me go back a4second just to make sure I understand.5The water chemistry control program is6something separate and apart from the Aging Management7Program for the reactor vessels' internals; correct?8MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.9It's treated and described as a separate10program. The reactor vessel internals program does11have a reference that refers to that program and says12that it is an effective preventive action. So it's,13I mean it's a matter of semantics. It's not described14as part of the reactor vessel internals program but15it's applicable to all the reactor vessel internals.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: When you use the term17"preventive action" is it more accurate to say it18ameliorates the condition rather than prevents, you19still have the potential for stress corrosion cracking20regardless of the water chemistry; isn't that correct?21MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.22It's treated and described as a separate23program. The reactor vessel internals program does24have a reference that refers to that program and says25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4925that it is an effective preventive action. So it's,1I mean it's a matter of semantics. It's not described2as part of the reactor vessel internals program but3it's applicable to all the reactor vessel internals.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: When you use the term5"preventive action" is it more accurate to say it6ameliorates the condition rather than prevents? You7still have the potential for stress corrosion cracking8regardless of the water chemistry; isn't that correct?9MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But if you don't11have a well-controlled water chemistry, then that12potential for stress corrosion cracking is greater?13MR. COX: That's correct.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And, Dr. Lahey,15is it your position that given this potential for16stress corrosion cracking along with other aging17mechanisms that there is a risk that is not adequately18identified by the inspection program that exists? Is19that your view?20DR. LAHEY: Could you rephrase the21question, Your Honor?22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I don't know if I could23rephrase it but I could repeat it.24DR. LAHEY: Yes, please do. Are you25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4926asking do I think the water chemistry program is1beneficial to mitigate stress corrosion cracking?2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And I believe your3answer to that is yes?4DR. LAHEY: Yes, I do.5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But that even6though they do have a effective water control program7that it doesn't eliminate the potential for stress8corrosion cracking; is that correct?9DR. LAHEY: Yeah, there's different types10of stress corrosion cracking. And it doesn't11eliminate all of them.12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Regardless of the water13chemistry?14DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And you're not16saying that the stress corrosion cracking standing17alone is the basis for your opinion with regard to the18adequacy of the AMP? You're saying that it's "a"19factor?20DR. LAHEY: It's a factor and perhaps not21even the primary factor.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And Judge23Wardwell will get to it in a second, but before we24move on, just very quickly could you tell me in your25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4927view what in sequence are the most significant1factors? You said this is water -- stress corrosion2cracking is not one of the more significant.3What is the most significant and sort of4working your way down through various of these aging5mechanisms?6DR. LAHEY: Can I have a few minutes to do7that?8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I don't know. Let's9start --10JUDGE WARDWELL: Not now.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Judge Wardwell12will get to that later, so.13DR. LAHEY: Okay. We need to talk about14silos to answer your question.15JUDGE WARDWELL: Because I want to finish16on this topic area before we move into the next one.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No, that's fine. It's18just, you know, there are big silos and there are19little silos, and I just want to find out which silos20contain the largest problem.21JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC's testimony 197,22Exhibit 197, Answer 85, page 61, in industry review of23the MRP-227, Revision 0, "The NRC staff identified24eight action items that must be addressed by the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4928Applicants or licensees --" And these are these1action items we talked about earlier. "-- in order to2apply the methodology of the topical report Aging3Management of the Reactor Vessel Internals at a4particular plant."5And I guess I just want to confirm that --6two things from Staff -- I want to confirm that those7ALIs have been incorporated into the most recent8version of MRP-227-A, Revision 1, issued on December916th, 2011?10MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler from11the Staff.12Yes, the action items have been13incorporated in -- well, they're incorporated in the14Staff's safety evaluation which is included in the15MRP-227-A.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So where they're17really documented and incorporated is in your SE18rather than in the MRP-227 text of the body, if you19will?20MR. POEHLER: That's correct.21JUDGE WARDWELL: And included as an22appendix in the SE?23MR. POEHLER: That's correct.24JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4929For Dr. Lahey. In regards to these action1items, exclusive of 7 which I believe deals with the2specific analysis of cast austenitic stainless steel,3which we will talk about later, so exclusive of that4do you have any -- well, let me ask you, have you had5a chance to review those Action Items 1 through 8, are6familiar with them and have any comment on them?7DR. LAHEY: I don't remember them by8heart, Your Honor. If we can --9JUDGE WARDWELL: No, but I just want to10make sure that exclusive of 7, are there any others11that jumped out at you as something that related to12your issues associated with their Aging Management13Plan?14DR. LAHEY: I'd have to look at them to15know. I just don't remember them that well.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Nothing jumped out at you17though with regards to that?18DR. LAHEY: Honestly, I'd have to look at19them to give you a good answer.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy's testimony21Exhibit 616, Answer 169, page 109, and I quote,22"During the development of MRP-227-A, EPRI23appropriately considered combination of aging effects,24including potential synergistic effects that could25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4930affect the reactor vessel internals. As the NRC Staff1concluded in its safety evaluation of MRP-227-A, EPRI2considered 'individual or synergistic effects of3thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement'4and 'loss of pre-load due to either individual or5synergistic contributions from thermal and6irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation.'"7Dr. Lahey, do you agree that EPRI8considered combination of aging effects and that Staff9reviewed these and concluded that potential10synergistic effects were considered?11DR. LAHEY: To the extent that you have12described it there they did. But they did not look at13the effect of an accident type load on a weakened14structure, both fatigue-weakened or embrittled with15the various embrittlement mechanisms. As far as I16could tell, that was not at all considered.17JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I heard you18correctly, you believe that the synergistic effects19had been looked at with the exception of the loading20associated with what you called seismic and shock21loads; is that a fair assessment of your position?22DR. LAHEY: Well, you talked about, for23example, the relaxation of spring loads. And they24definitely did look at that and the effect of some of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4931these synergistic effects. But what I am concerned1with hasn't been looked at.2JUDGE WARDWELL: So the synergistic3effects they looked at aren't the synergistic effects4that you believe should be looked at?5DR. LAHEY: They're somewhat the same but6for a whole different application.7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And how do yours8differ and how do they -- how would you apply them as9opposed to how they apply them?10DR. LAHEY: Well, for example, if we're11talking about reactor vessel internals.12JUDGE WARDWELL: That's where we are.13DR. LAHEY: Okay. One of the problems14that I see is that when they look at fatigue they do15not --16JUDGE WARDWELL: At the what? I'm sorry.17DR. LAHEY: When they look at fatigue --18JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, fatigue.19DR. LAHEY: -- fatigue in their20structures, they do not take into account any21embrittlement, what the effect of embrittlement is on22the fatigue. They assume that once the fatigue will23go just like it goes for ductile material, until the24crack, until the crack occurs, is one. And then the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4932crack will propagate more rapidly if it's embrittled.1Actually, if you have a shock load, a2highly fatigued structure will fail well before that,3well before they see surface cracks. And that's4exactly what the light water reactor sustainability5program is doing right now. I mean they're working on6the report right now with Argonne.7JUDGE WARDWELL: You just stated that a8highly fatigued component will?9DR. LAHEY: If you hit it, if you hit it10with a shock load. Do you know what I mean by a shock11load?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no. Tell me what13you mean by a shock load.14DR. LAHEY: All right. I mean I can show15you a picture but try this.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Just tell me.17DR. LAHEY: You've seen people that do18karate that put bricks across. And you can stand on19them, you can sit on them. And then you get back and20if you hit it with an impulsive load, real snap, it21will break a dozen bricks, not just one, which would22support the weight of the intensity.23So it's a impulsive load. And if you want24to see a picture I can do that.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4933JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I think I've got a1clear view.2DR. LAHEY: Okay.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Unless one of the other4Board members has a question.5DR. LAHEY: It's a lot more than the6static load. So when, when I've asked about this in7the past the response that has come back, this is no8problem because we have shown that the loads are, you9know, the static loads can be withstand -- withstood10by the structure, even if it's embrittled. But it's11a lot different when you hit it with a shock load.12And that's what I'm worried about because13of the location.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry. Sorry to15interrupt. You just used the word "embrittled"16though. That's different than fatigue, isn't it?17DR. LAHEY: Yeah. But what I said is if18you embrittle a structure, a reactor vessel internal,19and then do the fatigue analysis, right now they do20them quite separately, all right. They're in two21different silos and they don't interact. And then the22third silo is the shock loads.23So when they do the safety analysis it's24implicitly assumed that the geometry is intact. And25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4934I can tell you I spent lots of decades working on the1coolability of light water reactors for intact2geometries. I was involved in the Loft Program and3all the programs for the NRC and whoever. And as long4as you maintain the cool geometry the engineered5safety systems work. That's what they're designed6for.7Once you lose the intact geometry, all8bets are off. That's, that's what I'm concerned with. 9They're not looking at, they're not looking at just a10fatigue-weakened structure, and you hit it, it can11snap before you have any cracks.12They're not looking at an embrittled13structure, and it can, it can snap well before you14reach the fatigue limit. And they're all synergistic,15and it's not taken into account right now. That's the16concern.17So I, you know, I really like the18structure that we're doing now. It's a compliant19structure and I think it has a lot of advantages20because it makes people do things in a consistent way21and you eliminate falling through the cracks with22important things. But it only works with everything23that's on the list. If you have things that aren't on24the list, they're not going to get done. They're not25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4935required to be done and they're not done.1And so what I'm concerned about are things2that aren't on the list. That's what I've been trying3to bring.4JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Let me just make5sure I understand you correctly.6You believe, it's your position, is it7not, that a fatigued structure component or the SSC,8a fatigued internal if we're talking about reactor9vessel internals, so we can eliminate -- we can focus10on those, that as it fatigues it may very well have11values that show that it's, for instance if we're12using the CUF as a parameter, which we'll get into in1326 in more depth, below 1, that's still adequate. But14you believe, it's your position that if a shock load15hits it, that could still fail at CUF values below 1;16is that correct? Without any embrittlement.17DR. LAHEY: That's correct.18JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.19DR. LAHEY: Because there's lots of20micro-cracks in there. It is being weakened. And if21you hit it hard enough it will break. And that's, as22I said, they're doing those systematic fatigue23structure tests for light water reactor sustainability24right now. And they will, they will show this.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4936And so my concern is somehow we're not1taking this into account in our safety analyses right2now.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And then,4likewise, you believe that as the material embrittles,5likewise it will be more susceptible, it will be fine6until a shock load comes in and then that also will7have a -- lose its intended function?8DR. LAHEY: Exactly, Your Honor.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And --10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So if I can before you11move on, I just want to make sure I understand. When12you talk about neutron embrittlement, in 10 words or13less can you explain exactly what you mean?14DR. LAHEY: Well, it's not just neutron,15it can also be, depending on the material, it can have16a different embrittlement mechanism. But let's say17you have high energy neutrons that are hitting the18atoms, they're knocking them out of their lattice19position. And if you go to the end of life for the20period of extended operations, you're talking 75 to21several 100 displacements per atom. That is, every22atom in the lattice has been knocked out of the23lattice 100 times.24So it's a very beat up material. It25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4937doesn't have the properties of a ductile material1anymore.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And perhaps I'm not3using the appropriate technical term, but does this4necessarily affect the toughness of the metal?5DR. LAHEY: It affects the ductility, the6fracture toughness, you know, the propagation of the7metal; it will propagate cracks easier. It also -- do8you know what the stress-strain curve looks like?9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.10DR. LAHEY: Okay. The normal stress11versus strain curve is, you know, goes up to the yield12stress, the element stress. When you irradiate it, it13hardens it. And so it goes into a higher peak but it14can't take much strain. So if you go to a large15enough strain, you're gone.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay.17DR. LAHEY: That's the concern.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Now, when you're talking19about these shock loads, are you talking about shock20loads within the design basis to have this effect or21only shock loads that are beyond the design basis?22DR. LAHEY: No, the shock loads can be,23for example, a very severe thermal shock load is a24steam line break, coupled with the scram so you're25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4938really sucking energy out of the system and you're1putting a lot of cold water shock into the core and2hitting those internals hard.3Or you could have --4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So you're saying within5design basis?6DR. LAHEY: Oh yes. The various accidents7are sufficient to do it, depending on how weakened it8is. I mean as you, as you go on in time it gets more9and more susceptible to these types of failures.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: If I can, just two more11quick questions before I turn it back over to Judge12Wardwell.13Can you explain to me, to make sure I14understand, what is irradiation enhanced stress15relaxation?16DR. LAHEY: Irradiation enhanced stress17relaxation is if you have a -- as I understand it, if18you have a residual stress in a material and it's19irradiated, that this can relax the stress.20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And how do you21evaluate the level of embrittlement?22DR. LAHEY: How do you evaluate it?23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.24DR. LAHEY: Well, you calculate the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4939fluence. The fluence is the neutron flux, the high1energy neutrons times the time. So you integrate that2for how long you've been running. And then you use3cross-sections, what we call cross-sections to look at4the interaction of the neutrons with the material. 5And then from that you can determine the damage and,6therefore, the embrittlement.7JUDGE WARDWELL: So we've got the fatigue8that may, may be influenced by thermal. And let me9ask you one question about the shocks.10What about normal transience? Do those11provide enough shock to hurt either the -- to fail12either a fatigued member or an embrittled member?13DR. LAHEY: Probably you want to wait14until we talk about 26, because I've got a lot of nice15figures to show and talk about all of that. But the16answer is yes, --17JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is in your18testimony?19DR. LAHEY: -- they can have an effect.20JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's in your21testimony on 26?22DR. LAHEY: Yes. And I have some nice23visual aids I think will help.24JUDGE WARDWELL: And where was I with that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4940now? Yes, we have the fatigued and we've got the1embrittled. What about the embrittled under a2transient, would that -- is that considered a shock3for embrittled materials, sufficient enough shock?4DR. LAHEY: Take two benches and you put5a copper pipe across it and hit it; it will break.6Take the same two benches, put a candy7cane across it; it's gone.8So, well, I don't know if that translates9into that, into the recording. But if it's brittle it10can't take shock loads because of the way the stress11strains are --12JUDGE WARDWELL: So you're concerned about13these vessel internals under normal transience?14DR. LAHEY: Yes.15JUDGE WARDWELL: I mean operational16transience I should say.17DR. LAHEY: Yes. Not every one, but yes. 18Some important ones that can lead to loss of a19coolable geometry. See, bottom line for me is, is the20plant safe? That's, that's why I'm involved in all21this; right? And when I look at things --22JUDGE WARDWELL: I think we're all here23for that.24DR. LAHEY: -- which say it's not for sure25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4941it's safe, I worry about it. And I'd like to see it1on the list. I'd like to see the NRC with on top of2that --3JUDGE WARDWELL: What would be "it"? You4said you'd like to see "it" on the list; what is "it"5you want to see on the list? And what list is this?6DR. LAHEY: I'd like to break the silos7and have things instead of issue 25, 26 and 38, it's8issue. And the issue is they're all going on9together.10JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And that's where11your synergism comes in --12DR. LAHEY: Exactly.13JUDGE WARDWELL: -- is in between fatigue14and embrittlement. Is there anything else in regards15to it?16DR. LAHEY: Well, and safety, the safety17analysis.18JUDGE WARDWELL: It's the safety analysis19for under fatigue and embrittlement.20DR. LAHEY: Right.21JUDGE WARDWELL: And you said how it would22affect fatigue and how it would affect embrittlement. 23Where does a synergism come in?24DR. LAHEY: The synergism has to do with,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4942for example, if you have an embrittled material --1we're talking about embrittlement now -- and you do a2analysis of fatigue, they don't take it into account3at all until right at the end when it already fails.4JUDGE WARDWELL: So you believe it will be5less resistant to fatigue as it embrittles?6DR. LAHEY: All the data shows that if you7have low amplitude -- I mean high amplitude/low cycle8fatigue you reduce the cycles for failure and it can9be significant, yes.10JUDGE WARDWELL: And what data are you11citing for this?12DR. LAHEY: Well, I've cited three or four13references in the, in my testimony. And I've also14cited some of the work that they're doing at Argonne15where the people at Argonne are saying the same thing16really.17JUDGE WARDWELL: But could you, you know,18tomorrow focus me towards those specific ones that19you're thinking of --20DR. LAHEY: Sure.21JUDGE WARDWELL: -- and so to refresh your22memory in regards to where you cite them in your23testimony and --24DR. LAHEY: I have them. I could look25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4943them up for you and tell you, yes.1JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. I just don't want2to take the time now to do it.3DR. LAHEY: Right.4JUDGE WARDWELL: And so the synergism5comes in that you think it's worse with a combination6of the two than just the additive of the two effects7in regards to the potential problem?8DR. LAHEY: Absolutely. And it's three,9because now once you have that going on, you hit it10with the shock load and that's the concern.11JUDGE WARDWELL: Considering you've been12dealing with this for all your career -- and I assume13your career was probably about as long as mine was, so14we can say it might be a fairly long career --15DR. LAHEY: Yeah.16JUDGE WARDWELL: -- that have you noticed17this effect actually occurring in existing plants?18DR. LAHEY: Have I noticed?19JUDGE WARDWELL: Of the same age.20DR. LAHEY: I think the reason -- well,21that's a very good question, Your Honor. This is22Richard Lahey, so I'm sorry to not identify myself.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no, once you get on24you don't have to worry. They've got you.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4944DR. LAHEY: It's an interesting question1because there have been remarkably few fatigue2failures in nuclear reactors. But it's not accident. 3They -- when we designed, I used to be in charge of4safety in thermohydraulics, R&D and reactor physics,5all that at GE. All right. And when we designed6these nuclear reactors we designed them for a certain7life. And we put margin in. And they profited by8that design.9So there's no, you know, there's not a lot10of those kind of failures.11But if you now start looking at going12beyond what the design life is and start fiddling away13at the margins until you get into really safety14margins, that concerns me a lot. And we'll talk about15that tomorrow I guess.16JUDGE WARDWELL: I guess I want to fix17once more, and do you believe that MRP-227 doesn't18look at the systematic effects, the synergistic19effects associated with fatigue and embrittlement? Is20that your position, that the synergistic effects21they're talking about are different than the ones that22you are concerned with?23DR. LAHEY: They have certain components24that they're applying that logic to. But it's not25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4945carried over to others because the analyses that are1of concern don't take that into account. They just2don't consider it. That's, that's what I'm worried3about. And they're not considering it. It's a well4done study focused on inspection, so it's sort of like5you detect things after the fact.6I'm worried about you don't see anything7and then you have some sort of load that you don't8expect, and all hell breaks loose. That's what I'm9worried about.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Dr. Lahey, one11thing. And again, Dr. Wardwell has given you certain12homework to do that he wants to discuss tomorrow. One13of the things I'd like to have you look at overnight: 14in the safety evaluation for MRP-227, and that's the15NRC document 115A at page 4, they talk about the16impact of the synergistic contributions from various17factors.18And what I'd like to do is have you review19that specifically. And perhaps tomorrow we can talk20about it as of what you think they're missing there.21DR. LAHEY: Can I ask, do we have it with22us?23MR. SIPOS: Yes, I believe we do.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes, it's NRC-114.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4946DR. LAHEY: Yeah. I just, I mean I have1mountains of stuff. We've been working on this for2eight years back at the ranch.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: We all have mounds. I'm4sure Mr. Sipos has it. And if not, we can provide it.5DR. LAHEY: Okay. Be happy to.6MR. SIPOS: More mountains, Your Honor?7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No. Just the 114A.8MR. SIPOS: Very good.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But if you'd like a10mountain, we can give you a mountain.11MR. SIPOS: I believe we have it.12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.13JUDGE WARDWELL: I guess I'll turn to14Entergy because that was the testimony I was quoting. 15Answer 169, page 109, where you state that16"EPRI considered individual or synergistic effects of17thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement and18loss of pre-load due to either individual or19synergistic contributions from thermal and20irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation."21Does -- how does that apply to the types22of synergism that Dr. Lahey is bringing up, that being23a synergistic effect between fatigue and24embrittlement?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4947DR. LOTT: Well, I --1JUDGE WARDWELL: Now you can introduce2yourself.3DR. LOTT: Yes, I'm sorry. My name is4Randy Lott. I'm here on behalf of Entergy.5I don't think that that particular6statement did relate to fatigue --7JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry, I can't --8Could you get close to it and try to talk a little9slower because I can't, I can't hear you very well.10DR. LOTT: I don't believe that statement11that you read refers particularly to fatigue and12irradiation embrittlement, it related to stress13relaxation, the loss is corroding both.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.15DR. LOTT: And its impact on the16assumption of the component.17In the particular case, and just even18within the screening criteria that was used, whenever19you identified, for instance, a bolt that would be --20JUDGE WARDWELL: A what?21DR. LOTT: A bolt.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.23DR. LOTT: A threaded fastener. That is24potentially subject to irradiation such that the load,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4948the pre-load on the bolt, which is critical to its1function might relax. We took that same component and2we screened it in for concerns about fatigue and3concerns about wear because we felt that with the loss4of pre-load we'd have an impact on the ability of the5component to survive those particular concerns.6JUDGE WARDWELL: But can you point me to7where you believe MRP-227 does look at fatigue versus8embrittlement synergistically? And what steps are you9doing within the Aging Management Program to address10the concerns that you just heard Dr. Lahey express?11DR. LOTT: First of all, the relationship12that is within the structure of the document to look13at fatigue and embrittlement is that the loss to14fracture toughness limits the size of the crack that15would be acceptable in the component. So when we look16at acceptance criteria for fatigue cracking, it's17based on the ability of the component to withstand the18type of design basis loads that Dr. Lahey just19discussed.20In other words, we have not changed our21requirement to survive the design basis load, but if22a component has a fatigue crack, that would degrade --23or decrease the ability to withstand those loads.24JUDGE WARDWELL: But how do you address25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4949the potential fatigued member that may not be over its1ultimate resistance just yet but is also embrittled2and then receives such a transient shock that between3the two effects --4DR. LOTT: Well, yeah, I'm --5JUDGE WARDWELL: -- it now doesn't perform6its intended function?7DR. LOTT: Again, I don't know of any8evidence of there being a significant loss in the9ability of a component prior to the initiation or10prior to its exceeding effectively it's CUF equals 111value of an decreasing ability to withstand loading.12So I don't, I don't think we did agree13with the particular statement about fatigue weakening. 14We have looked at other things in those data in our15testimony related to the effect of irradiation on16fatigue life. And in general, I think for most of the17irradiated internals you'll find that they operate in18a region where fatigue life is not impacted19significantly by irradiation.20JUDGE WARDWELL: And does this mean that21you've had -- there's data in your testimony in22regards to the change in fatigue durability as a23material is brittled?24DR. LOTT: I think most of the data that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4950they were talking about there is probably the same1data that Dr. Lahey just referred to. And I think it2would probably be good for us to discuss that tomorrow3or whenever you want to discuss it. But I don't --4we'd have to pull up the references at this point.5JUDGE WARDWELL: You'd have -- what was6the end of that sentence?7DR. LOTT: I said I -- unless you want to8pull out the references and begin that discussion now.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Between fatigue and the10durability under embrittled materials in regards to11their fatigue strength, are you saying that's part of1226 rather than 25 or?13DR. LOTT: Well, I think you just had the14discussion. You asked Dr. Lahey about the impact of15fatigue and irradiation on the life of the component. 16And he discussed it with that there was released data17about the fatigue life, the CUF, effective of18allowable number of cycles and strain related to the19irradiation of a component.20Again, it's really the fatigue data that's21available that we're talking about.22DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, this is the data23you asked me to bring tomorrow, those references.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And we may get to it25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4951tomorrow. We may get to it after tomorrow, but.1DR. LAHEY: Okay.2JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me allow Staff to3chime in with any comments they might have just to4complete the loop, I guess, in regards to hearing what5he said in regards to the fatigue durability, if you6will, as the material embrittles.7MR. STEVENS: This is Gary Stevens of the8NRC Staff.9I'm a little confused by some of the10conversation because I do hear crack initiation,11propagation, embrittlement and Charpy specimens. And12so my response is going to be related to crack13initiation and the CUF types of analyses that are14done. I'm assuming that's kind of where you're going15with your questioning.16As Mr. Lott has pointed out, there is not17much data with respect to crack initiation under18irradiated conditions available. The Staff in our19research has looked at a lot of that or what is20available. And generally speaking, in general terms21irradiation tends to increase the mechanical strength22of materials, increases yield strength, ultimate23strength. And those kind of changes tend to increase24the fatigue life of materials.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4952JUDGE WARDWELL: At all strains?1MR. STEVENS: Generally, yes. It's not2always that way. You can see some data where that's3not observed.4And one of the things you have to be5careful about, for example, some of the data may be at6high temperature, which is not applicable to the7reactors we're talking about here. So the general8lack of data is inconclusive completely as to what the9effects might be. There's not enough data to evaluate10specifically factors for irradiation.11Based on what we've seen, generally we see12an improvement in life. And some of the exhibits13demonstrate that. And we have concluded as of now14there's not enough information for us to say that15there's an effect that isn't covered by the standard16fatigue calculations that are done in accordance with17ASME code.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Mr. Stevens, as I19understood what Dr. Lahey was saying -- and I may be20wrong, so please correct me if that's the case -- that21it's different with embrittlement reacts differently. 22That even if you have a increase in the metal strength23with a constant load, when you have a shock load you24have a lack of ductility -- and I mispronounced that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4953-- that can cause it to break unexpectedly.1Dr. Lahey, is that -- am I correctly2understanding what you were saying?3DR. LAHEY: Yeah. A shock load can do4significantly more damage than a static load for a5weakened material, either weakened by fatigue or6embrittled, or a combination.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And what Mr. Stevens was8saying is that the data indicates that in many9circumstances it's not weakened by the exposure to10neutrons but rather it's actually strengthened. Is11that correct, Mr. Stevens?12MR. STEVENS: That's correct. With13respect to crack initiation.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Now, does that15matter whether or not the crack initiation is as a16result of a constant pressure or opposed to a shock17load?18MR. STEVENS: No, sir. I mean all cyclic19-- constant load would not contribute to fatigue, it20must be a cyclic load. But all cyclic loads in the21design bay or current licensing basis for normal upset22or test conditions must be evaluated for crack23initiation. If the CLB includes, it would include any24kind of shock loads, those would have to be included25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4954in the calculation.1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So you're saying they2are included in the calculation?3MR. STEVENS: That's correct.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's not just the normal5cycles but all within design basis?6MR. STEVENS: Well, okay, so if there are7shock loads that are in the normal upset or test8condition levels specified by ASME code, they would be9included in the fatigue calculation.10Some of the events that you're describing11-- and that would include, by the way, some form of12seismic events which would, which would be considered13an upset event, and they would be included in the14calculation.15JUDGE WARDWELL: What are those events? 16I didn't understand the word you said.17MR. STEVENS: Earthquake.18JUDGE WARDWELL: Huh?19MR. STEVENS: Earthquake.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, sorry.21MR. STEVENS: There are other events, for22example, some of the local loads and more severe23earthquakes that are considered accident. And the24ASME code requires them to be evaluated but not for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4955fatigue crack initiation.1JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Dr. Hiser's body2language sort of suggested that I was wandering off3the path in an erratic fashion. Do you want to --4DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. I5apologize.6JUDGE WARDWELL: -- put me back in the7right direction.8DR. HISER: I apologize for that because9I was -- there's, I think there's about three10different topics that are on the table. And it's11untangling them I think is very difficult.12What Mr. Stevens was talking about was13effects of irradiation on CUF. And he, I think what14he was saying was that there is minimal effect on CUF. 15And in reality it may retard crack initiation as16modeled by CUF. So neutron embrittlement improves the17fatigue life of the component.18Now, the shock loads only come into effect19not as a part of the evaluation of CUF, but in terms20of you have a structure in its condition and you, you21subject it to a certain load. From that perspective22you need to consider the effects of the load level on23the condition of the material that exists at that24time.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4956If it is -- has a CUF of less than 1, the1Staff believes there are no cracks evident in the2structure that could cause failure. If there was a3crack that existed, then one would properly account4for the reduced fracture toughness due to the neutron5embrittlement of the structure.6So the shock loads would only come into7play at a point in time. It's an impulse load at a8certain point in time.9JUDGE WARDWELL: And does the Aging10Management Plan require analysis of those shock loads11on given vessel internals for materials that have been12embrittled?13MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of14the Staff.15The Aging Management Program does not16require that analysis to be performed of embrittled,17basically a crack to an embrittled component. Because18the Aging Management Program is an inspection-based19program so it performs various inspections to provide20reasonable assurance that there are no cracks in the21components. And without a crack you're not going to22get failure even of an embrittled material.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: As a -- the Aging24Management Program does require a demonstration,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4957right, of functionality, that meets its intended1function. And so is it your statement that the Aging2Management Program doesn't require any calculations to3do that but is relying solely on the inspections to4detect a crack indicative of a potential effect5associated with whatever mechanism caused it?6DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser for the7Staff.8The inspections are intended to preserve9the geometry of the materials, in effect no cracks. 10The Staff believe that no cracks under design basis11loading conditions that the structure will not fail.12If one were to find a crack in one of the13components then one of the evaluation options would be14to look to ensure that that structure with the crack,15with accounting for crack growth during one or more16future cycles, with the embrittled state of the17material -- or actually I won't say embrittled but18with the actual fracture toughness of the material, be19it whatever level of embrittlement it might be, and20you apply the loads and you have to be able to show21that that crack will remain stable.22So from that perspective, if you have a23crack you consider the worst case loads that are in24the design basis, you consider the fracture toughness25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4958of the material that exists at that point in time1projected forward -- maybe you project to 60 years2because you want to demonstrate that it's good for the3rest of the license renewal period. Once you can do4that then you have an assessment of whether the crack5is acceptable or not.6JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I hear you7correctly, this all hinges on the fact that there has8to be a crack before there's any failure?9DR. HISER: My belief is that that is10true. I have not seen evidence of reactor internal11components that has failed without a crack.12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Dr. Lahey, if I could,13as I understood your testimony, you hypothesized that14in embrittled material that is then subject to a shock15load, that you could have a failure even though there16is no discernible cracking prior to that time, no17cracking as far as crack initiation or propagation,18that no visible cracking but highly embrittled19material, that you could have a failure under a shock20load. Is that your theory?21DR. LAHEY: Yes. That -- yes.22And I would -- can I answer just a few of23these things? So I agree wholeheartedly that we need24more data. All right? But the data set that I'll25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4959bring the reference on shows that for low1amplitude/high frequency fatigue that embrittlement2due to radiation, things are even better. Okay?3Because if you look at the stress-strain4curve, you know, you are on the elastic part. But5when you get high amplitude/low cycle fatigue you have6a reduction. Many of the kind of transients we're7talking about when we evaluate life are not high8frequency. They're not flowing vibration, so they're9transients. They're a lower frequency event.10Everybody thinks that more data is needed. 11So but the focus on surface cracks is what the big12difference is. I --13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But, Dr. Lahey,14given the fact that these components are primarily15high grade stainless steel --16DR. LAHEY: Yes.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- is it realistic to18think that you would, without any crack propagation19but simply a shock load could cause failure?20DR. LAHEY: Well, let me tell you. Can I21give you just a Gedankenexperiment and we can see if22we agree or not? All right?23The Gedankenexperiment which is actually24being done or has been done is you now fatigue the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4960metal. Forget about irradiation, just fatigue it. 1And it gets to a CUFen of .1.2And then you do a Charpy test and it has3a certain energy to crack it. And then you --4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And then, excuse me,5what type of test is it? Is that for embrittlement?6DR. LAHEY: Just a fatigue test.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No, but the Charpy test?8DR. LAHEY: The Charpy test is to test it,9what's the strength of the material to fracture? All10right? How much does it take to --11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So under embrittlement12then?13DR. LAHEY: Or damage. I mean I don't14like to call it embrittlement but metal damage due to15fatigue.16So now you go to .5, do the same thing. 17Doesn't change much.18Now you go to .5. Oh, it's different.19.9, a lot less energy needed.20.99, bang-o, you know, it's easy to break.21So that's the difference. I mean the way22it's being looked at now, nothing happens until you23get to the CUF of 1, until you start to see a surface24crack. What I'm concerned with is well before 1.0 on25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4961CUF. If you hit it hard enough, it will break. And1it doesn't have to have a surface crack.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Dr. Hiser, do you3wish to respond?4DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. I'm not5familiar with any experiment such as that with6austenitic stainless steel, be it with fatigue at7different levels of CUF, be it with neutron8embrittlement or any combination thereof. My belief9is CUF is 1.0 or less, it's very unlikely that you10have a surface crack even in the material.11I think your likely incipient to have a12surface crack. Without a surface crack I think you're13unlikely to fail under a shock load or any other kind14of a load that's representative of the kind of15conditions that you'd see in vessel internals for a16PWR plant.17DR. LAHEY: Okay, so --18JUDGE WARDWELL: I would like to get back19to my question. My question to you was, doesn't your,20doesn't the AMP rely on a surface crack in regards to21any evaluation of embrittlement?22DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser.23Yes. That would be when the AMP would24bring into account the neutron embrittlement. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4962Otherwise the way that neutron embrittlement, thermal1embrittlement are managed in this AMP and in others is2through the detection of cracks.3JUDGE WARDWELL: So without a crack those4embrittlements aren't evaluated until a crack occurs?5DR. HISER: I think that's correct.6JUDGE WARDWELL: And they haven't been7evaluated as part of the AMP that's been submitted and8approved by you; correct?9DR. HISER: That's correct.10JUDGE WARDWELL: What is to say why -- I11understand that you haven't seen any data to show the12relationship between the Charpy test and fatigue for13stainless steel, but likewise have you seen any tests14that might indicate this potential where the material15after the additional 20 years of the PEO, right before16you're ready to shut down, is so embrittled that17there's no cracks, but it is so embrittled that a18transient could fail it catastrophically?19Similar to what I imagine I've experienced20myself with rubber bands holding together a bunch of21envelopes. And after digging up a shoe box 30 years22later I look at it and I go, Oh, that's neat. And I23grab them and the whole rubber band disintegrates.24Why couldn't that happen -- and that's the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4963way I picture what Dr. Lahey is talking about -- what1data do you have that shows that can't happen?2DR. HISER: My experience is the same as3yours. I find stuff that's been left away for a4period of time and the rubber band is broken.5Stainless is not rubber bands.6JUDGE WARDWELL: What data do you have on7the stainless steel? Because, likewise, my rubber8band isn't in the middle of a nuclear reactor. What9evidence do you have that that same type of thing10could not be happening over this period of extended11operation that no one's been through yet that would12make for catastrophic failure without the presence of13a crack initially?14DR. HISER: There is data, very high15fluencies, fracture toughness data, that show that the16materials retain ductility. Ductility is all that you17need to resist initiation even of cracks.18So if there is no cracks, really the only19failure mechanism that you have is a tensile overload20of the structure. And with a highly embrittled21material, actually the yield strength is increased22quite a bit, so from that perspective the component23has somewhat gotten more resistant to shock loads24because it now can sustain a higher load before it25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4964fails in a tensile section collapse.1JUDGE WARDWELL: And but likewise it could2have strained enough within that such that it may not3reach that peak; isn't that correct? Isn't that a4possibility?5DR. HISER: If you had, if you had a6crack. And I think fundamentally it comes down to do7you have a crack? If no crack, I believe there is no8impact.9JUDGE WARDWELL: And can you get us a cite10for this data that you're talking about that shows11that highly embrittled materials under -- and I'm not12real up to speed on the fluence, but that is a time13relation type of thing, that's just a total amount of14-- that is time related in regards to the magnitude of15the number means it's been under an influence for a16longer period of time?17Or is it just the rate at which it is18being bombarded? And if so, have those tests been19performed for to simulate 20 additional years of20operation after the initial 40 years, total 60 years?21DR. HISER: The fracture toughness data22normally correlated in terms of fracture toughness is23a function of fluence. And fluence is, it depends on24where you are in the vessel, what the exposure rate25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4965is, things like that.1But we can down that for all internal2components.3JUDGE WARDWELL: But that relationship4that I heard you talk about in regards to the data was5that you have -- I forgot the words you used to6indicate --7DR. HISER: Ductility.8JUDGE WARDWELL: What?9DR. HISER: Ductility.10JUDGE WARDWELL: No, no, I know what11ductility is.12DR. HISER: Oh, sorry.13JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you use a phrase14embrittlement strength or toughened fracture strength? 15Or what's the term you have for embrittlement? You16said, you said you had data relating fluence to what17parameter, other parameter?18DR. HISER: Fracture toughness.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Fracture toughness, okay.20You have data, you believe you have data21related between fluence and fracture toughness. Is22fluence, the fluence parameter is the rate at which23the neutrons are bombarding it? Is that correct? Or24is it the total amount of neutron or --25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4966DR. HISER: Yes. Flux is --1JUDGE WARDWELL: -- neutron embom --2attacking it?3DR. HISER: Yes. Flux is the rate. 4Fluence is the time integrated.5JUDGE WARDWELL: That was my question. 6Okay.7DR. HISER: But again, the level, you8could turn to the spot that I think Jeff will discuss9in terms of -- instead of fluence in terms of time,10but you would have to determine the flux. So it would11depend on where you are in the vessel internals.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. And we'll talk13about that with regards to specific components and14where they are, whether they'd be susceptible to it.15But given, given there are some internals16that are under high influence -- high fluence, sorry,17in the core; right?18DR. HISER: Yes.19JUDGE WARDWELL: And again, my question is20I'm interested in that data that somehow comforts one21to believe that a crack is needed prior to22embrittlement failure, for lack of a better term. You23know, rubber band disintegration, the equivalent of it24in my shoe box.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4967DR. HISER: I would just caution using a1rubber band analogy is off because there's still2ductility. Your rubber band doesn't have ductility3left. That's why, that's why it did break. And my4guess is it probably had cracks in it that ultimately5caused the failure.6JUDGE WARDWELL: And that, that lack of7ductility, whether or not it exists with the stainless8steel would be indicated by those tests that you have9that help support that potential -- help support your10hypothesis. Is that a fair assessment?11DR. HISER: That's correct.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.13DR. LOTT: Your Honor, this is Randy Lott14from Entergy.15JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.16DR. LOTT: I just wanted to point out that17while the data that Mr. Hiser is offering is quite18valuable in terms of showing that the fracture19toughness is still characterizable in science and20ductility in high fluence, in fact if there's not a21crack there's no way to know the fracture toughness of22the material because it's only used to analyze a crack23component.24And I think part of what is protecting us25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4968here from the failures that you're describing, the1unfailed, uncracked component, is really the fact that2the components themselves were designed based on3value, yield stress values and demonstrated in4unirradiated condition that they do not exceed the5stresses that are allowed under the design basis6loads. They will withstand in the unfailed condition7even higher stresses due to the increase in yield8stress without failure.9So, again, the fact that you design to the10unirradiated load limits helps protect us. Again, the11magnitude of these shock loads, as Dr. Lahey calls12them, or the local loads or the seismic loads don't13change with time. It's just the ability of the14material to withstand it that we're interested in.15JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you, Dr. Lott.16If I could go back to Dr. Lahey, I did17stop you from speaking because I was on a --18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Before you do, could I19just say one thing?20A suggestion. We're sort of going back21and forth here among the various witnesses. And a22witness may say ten things, eight of which the other23witnesses agree with. But then by the time we get24back to them they're only going to discuss one of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4969two things they disagree with.1So I don't know if you want to, you know,2as the other witnesses are testifying, to jot down a3note I you want to get back to it. I find little note4cards handy to just jot things down to remind me that,5yeah, let me go back to that. If anyone wants to,6I've got plenty of extra note cards.7But anyway, I know it's, it is challenging8to follow back and forth from my standpoint of exactly9what is being said to who. And, you know, to the10degree there is a disagreement, that might be helpful11to draw your attention back to it.12Judge Wardwell, please.13JUDGE WARDWELL: Which is a good segue14into when I interrupted you, Dr. Lahey, or I started15asking questions as you were starting to speak just16before we started this discussion about embrittlement. 17If you remember what that was you wanted to say,18proceed with it. If not, or even if you do after you19get done with that, then I would appreciate your20comments on any tests you've seen in regard to21fracture toughness versus fluence.22DR. LAHEY: Okay. The last remark I guess23is a good way to start. And, you know, I didn't draw24it but I did the professor thing in the air with the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4970stress-strain. And as it gets hardened, now it moves1up like that and the yield strength and the ultimate2stress gets higher, no doubt as long as you're in that3range with a low strain things are better.4That's why low amplitude/high frequency5experiments are better, even if it's irradiated, in6terms of failure, crack initiation.7If you have a large load, though, and you8go beyond, you know, beyond the ultimate strength with9a high enough strain, it's gone. All right? So it's10not true that things are good once it's highly11embrittled. It depends a lot on what the, what the12strain is, what the amplitude of it is.13And if you have a very large shock -- can14I get you to show this now? Because he said he could15project it. Because if you -- I mean I can't really16draw it with my finger very well. I'm sorry. I tried17and it's too, too ugly.18But if you have --19JUDGE WARDWELL: This is nothing more. 20Let me look at it first before.21DR. LAHEY: It's something you would say22simple spring mass system and showing an impulsive23load, what happens?24Well, anybody who's ever had a course in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4971differential equations, this is an equation you saw,1and that any undergraduate student gets.2JUDGE WARDWELL: It's how the --3DR. LAHEY: It's what the amplitude --4JUDGE WARDWELL: It's the compressibility5of organic soils with fiber decomposition, in case6you're ever interested.7DR. LAHEY: Okay. And the way we, the way8we model elasticity, there's a bunch of them, or9plasticity.10MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, Kathryn Sutton11for the Applicant. What are we about to look at?12JUDGE WARDWELL: At the moment, Ms.13Sutton, I haven't the slightest idea.14MS. SUTTON: Nor do our experts, Your15Honor.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But what we are going to17do, I believe Dr. Lahey feels that this diagram will18--19DR. LAHEY: You know, help them understand20what I'm trying --21CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- help to explain22better, you know, the point that he's trying to make. 23It will be marked as an exhibit for identification.24What is the next New York exhibit, Mr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4972Sipos?1MR. SIPOS: I'm at 82. I believe it's2582. I'll double check, Your Honor.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. So but when we're4done we'll mark it as a -- it's a demonstrative5exhibit. It's not received into evidence. It's the6testimony of Dr. Lahey that we're receiving as7evidence --8DR. LAHEY: Fine.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- and but it will be an10exhibit for identification and part of the record in11that regard.12MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, could the Staff13at least request some copies of it so that we could,14you know, have a chance to evaluate it? Because if it15only shows up here right now, the witnesses may not16have a chance to review it, you know, in full detail.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: What we're going to do18right now, Mr. Welkie is going to put it up. We will19then capture it electronically. And then we can give20everybody as many autographed copies as they want.21DR. LAHEY: Believe me, it's not suitable22for framing.23MR. KUYLER: Your Honor, Ray Kuyler for24Entergy.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4973Entergy would like to note it's objection1to the use of this. This certainly could have been2provided in previous testimony.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Well, we don't know yet. 4I mean it's Dr. Lahey is indicating that this will5help him explain his answer to a question that has6been posed to him. And maybe it will and maybe it7won't. But again, it's the testimony of Dr. Lahey8that we're going to be evaluating.9DR. LAHEY: Yes, I mean if it's hard to10show then we'll -- I'll try to draw it with my finger. 11But, oh, look at that.12Can you all see it? Bring it down a13little if you will. All right, so just a little more. 14So bring it down a little bit. All right.15So what this is is the second order spring16mass dashpot system. So as I say, anybody who's an17engineer solved this equation at one point in their18life. It's the second order ordinary differential19equation. It's F equals ma.20And so what you're doing is you have the21mass of the structure. All right? And then you have22a force on it. And so now I'm going to hit it with a23impulsive force. I could either do it delta function,24but I'm going to do a step change just so you see25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4974where it goes.1The spring has to do with the elasticity2of the metal. The dashpot has to do with the damping.3So if you hit it at time equals 0 with a4force, then what will happen if you, if you look at X5which is the position of the thing, the mass that6you're modeling, versus time, at first it will, it7will go up. And then I would assume it's under8damped, so it will oscillate a bit, and then it will9go to the steady state value which is F over the mass10times the natural frequency squared.11So that's what a static load would be. 12That's where you would be.13But if you hit an impulsive one, you go14way higher. You go much higher. So the strain, the15amplitude is high. And if you're high enough in16amplitude you can fracture your material.17If it's highly weakened, either by18irradiation, by thermal embrittlement, by fatigue,19anything that weakens that material, if it's weak20enough you can break it.21And that's, that's all I was trying to22say. So it's not true that if you harden it, which it23will harden by irradiation, that everything is good. 24Because it depends on what the amplitude is of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4975load that you're hitting it with.1Notice the load. The amplitude is small2relative to the peak. All right? The steady state3amplitude. And that, unfortunately, all the analyses4that I've seen from the last seven years of this stuff5is they're doing steady state kind of loading. Any6time they do accidents they implicitly assume intact7geometry and don't, don't really take into account the8degradation of the material itself.9So that's all I was trying to show.10JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Lahey, this is Judge11Kennedy.12I'm trying to get a handle on this13impulsive loading. I guess if you pick the right load14you'll break anything. How do you tie this load into15the types of loads that are of concern at Indian16Point? I mean are you suggesting they're using the17wrong loads?18DR. LAHEY: It depends on what causes the19load. For instance, if it's a very severe earthquake20and you have a structure and all of a sudden, pang,21you hit it hard you can create this kind of22phenomenon. You will overpower the ability of the23metal to withstand the load.24If it's a local load, you know --25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4976JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess that's what I'm1struggling with. It sounds like you get to pick the2load. And I think there's -- presume there's a set of3rules of engagement here that goes with the design of4this facility. And I'm trying to get to the bottom of5are you suggesting that Entergy is not using the6appropriate loads?7DR. LAHEY: No.8JUDGE KENNEDY: Or are you suggesting9there are loads out there that they need to consider?10JUDGE KENNEDY: Your Honor, I believe that11their safety evaluations consider the various loads,12the various accident type loads. And their seismic13analysis takes into account those type of loads.14What's not done though is the effect of15that on a highly degraded material. I've never seen16anything that looks, that looks at the effect of the17significant shock loads on a degraded material and18what happens after that.19JUDGE KENNEDY: When the NRC Staff was20discussing the ASME code loads, upset conditions and21accident conditions, those loads are different than22the ones you're speaking of?23DR. LAHEY: The type of loads that I heard24them talking about were the normal -- when we were25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4977talking about the FSAR, for example -- 1JUDGE KENNEDY: FSAR?2DR. LAHEY: -- they were the normal local3loads. And I assume then they also would talk about4the seismic loads, yes.5JUDGE KENNEDY: So is there yet another6set of loads that you think needs to be considered7here that aren't currently being considered?8DR. LAHEY: No. My concern is that the9integrity of the various structures, the internals,10the bolts for example, the baffle bolts, when you11apply significant shock loads to them they don't look12at the degradation of the material. That's what I'm13concerned with.14JUDGE KENNEDY: This, this takes us back15to the cracking discussion, doesn't it? Or does it?16DR. LAHEY: Well, I, I'm --17JUDGE KENNEDY: Because I hear they18consider it.19DR. LAHEY: Yeah. But I'm absolutely sure20you can fail structures without a crack. If you hit21it hard enough you'll fail a structure.22JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't think anyone here23will dispute that if you get to pick the load and it24has no basis in anything within the design of this25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4978plant you can probably break it. I think my concern1is that Entergy, the Staff are playing within a2certain set of boundaries --3DR. LAHEY: Right.4JUDGE KENNEDY: -- and the only thing I'm5trying to get to is are you suggesting that there is6something wrong with that boundary?7DR. LAHEY: The loads are fine with me. 8All right? The effect of the loads is what I'm9concerned with.10JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.11JUDGE WARDWELL: So by that do you mean12it's -- you agree that they have incorporated the13loads that should be incorporated into this analysis14of any of the vessel internals?15DR. LAHEY: The safety analysis reports16that I looked at for Indian Point look like they do17all the normal accident evaluations, and similarly18with the seismic. I'm not sure about the new seismic19criteria now. As you may know, that has changed since20the recent earthquake a few years ago. But definitely21they look at that event as well.22JUDGE WARDWELL: And it's your position23that it's the application of those loads, it's the way24they apply those loads to the materials and what they25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4979-- excuse me -- consider for their resistance that is1of the issue?2DR. LAHEY: Do they consider the3degradation of the material to these type of loads? 4And I have seen no evidence that that has occurred.5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And how would they do6that?7DR. LAHEY: How would you do it?8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.9DR. LAHEY: You put, you put the force on10the body and then you have the material properties in11terms of if it's brittle or not or fatigued or not. 12And then see, see if it can withstand it.13JUDGE WARDWELL: Isn't that the lack of14data you understand isn't available?15DR. LAHEY: One of the problems is there's16not enough data to know for sure. But there's enough17data to know that there can be an effect. So normally18you would, because of uncertainty you would put some19sort of uncertainty factor there on their cycles to20failure, until you know for sure.21So some of these things are going to be22done. As I said, the light water reactors'23sustainability program is going to supply the fatigue24stuff.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4980With the embrittlement it's a much more1lengthy process. There's only one place in the2country you can do that. That's in Idaho in their hot3cells. And it's a very long, expensive iterative4process. But eventually we will have all that data.5JUDGE WARDWELL: But lacking that, what6else would you suggest they do at this point?7DR. LAHEY: I would not suggest --8JUDGE WARDWELL: Shut down until that's9done?10DR. LAHEY: No. I, I would not suggest11you just press on. I mean that's basically what,12what's being done.13I would suggest, and I've gotten a lot of14kickback on the suggestion, that some of these things15are easy to fix. You just repair them. It's not a16big ticket in the scheme of things. You get rid of17the problem and don't worry about it because there's18certain things you'll see tomorrow when we talk about19CUFen that are right on the ragged edge and there's20others that aren't.21And similarly in core, you have stuff that22is highly embrittled and stuff that's not.23So nobody's talking about replace24everything. But the key things, get rid of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4981problem. That's my suggestion.1JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me just turn to we'll2start with Dr. Lott and see if he has any other3comments that he might want to make in regards to what4could be done at this point in regards to addressing5the lack of the application of the correct loads that6you had been doing to materials that are both7embrittled and fatigued.8DR. LOTT: I'm not sure I fully understood9all of the things that were just said.10JUDGE WARDWELL: I was counting on you to11sort them all out.12DR. LOTT: I think that as was said13before, we're not here arguing about the loads that14are applied to the components. I think that's part of15the current licensing basis. And I think a lot of16what we discussed about how impulse loads and all that17are already dealt with within our current process.18So we're not talking about that. What19we're talking about, the ability of the component to20withstand those loads and how that may be improved or21degraded over the life of the component.22Again, as I understand it we're talking23about -- we talk about irradiation embrittlement in24broad terms as a bunch of different phenomena. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4982Because it's true, it increases yield stress, it1increases the ultimate stress. It decreases the2ductility, how much stretch there is in the material3before it fails.4Our point with respect --5JUDGE WARDWELL: Does it fail at lower6strains or higher strains or does it vary based on?7DR. LOTT: Well, again, that's a -- you8need to look at the true stress-strain curve I guess9to actually answer that question. What happens in a10normal tensile bar when you pull it under these11conditions is it's a great deal of strain12localization.13So while you might see a normal stainless14steel provide a long, gradual necking process to it,15this steel is kind of localized with a very sharp16neck. And so they do have in an engineering17stress-strain curve exactly the behavior that Dr.18Lahey described: a large increase in the yield stress19and the ultimate stress. And limited amount of20uniform elongation. And then some amount of21additional deformation to failure.22That's typical of highly irradiated23materials.24There's a bunch of things I guess I'd like25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4983to say. Let me just point out to you that not all of1the materials, even in the internals, are highly2irradiated. These very high fluences we're discussing3are pretty much limited to the baffle former and4baffle former bolts. And we can talk about that in5the future, too, if we need to.6So it does not affect a wide range of the7components there.8Again, I think we need to be careful about9this whole discussion of, of what, you know, I don't10know of a phenomena called irradiation weakening. I11know of irradiation-induced decrease in fracture12toughness which, as I said, decreases the ability to13maintain its dimensional stability, whether in part to14withstand fracture or at least the initiation of a15crack, crack, form a crack.16The only, only time that comes into place17is when you have a crack in the component, the18fracture toughness that is decreased. And I do not19believe any of these components are designed to20undergo large strains in the normal application. 21They're not deformed, they're just not deformed that22way so they're never going to fail by these other23brittle mechanisms.24There may be more to that question. I am25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4984not sure what all was implied by it.1MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jeff Strosnider2from Entergy.3I'd like to add something to this on the4notion of this failure of a component without a crack.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, please do.6MR. STROSNIDER: So I think the first7thing to recognize is that if there's no fracture in8it, then the fracture toughness is out of the picture. 9What's dominating the failure mechanism is the10strength.11And as was explained, when these materials12are irradiated the strength goes up. Right? So if13these components could withstand the design basis14loads when they were originally designed under their15original condition without any embrittlement, and it's16governed by strength, when the strength goes up17they're going, they're still going to withstand those18loads. In fact, their load carrying capacity is19increased.20So just logically you would conclude that21they still meet the current licensing basis loads,22which we said include the dynamic factors, et cetera.23Now, what's being confused here is when24they do fail, right -- and this actually Judge Kennedy25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4985was touching on this with his question earlier -- if1you hit it with big enough a load, if you were to take2it to a load higher than the design basis load and3fail it when it's been embrittled, it will show less4ductility than if it were not embrittled. But you5still have to get to that load that's higher than the6design basis loads in order for that to happen.7And oh, by the way, none of these8materials are going to fail like a candy cane. And9when you look at the data that's been discussed in10terms of fracture toughness -- and I think people have11talked about getting to that tomorrow -- you're going12to see that they still have ductility. Right?13Now, let's take the other situation where14you actually have a crack. All right? And as was15explained, in the Aging Management Program if you find16a crack then you will, you could, in fact a crack in17embrittled material will reduce the load bearing18capability. So you have to do an analysis considering19what level the fracture toughness is at because that20now governs failure. And you have to determine if21that crack can be left in service and for how long.22There's one other thing I want to add to23that is that there are analyses that have been done to24look at the critical flaw sizes, critical crack25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4986lengths in these components when they're irradiated. 1They're much larger than the crack sizes that can be2determined with the inspection methods they're using. 3And that's the other piece that you didn't get to but4that's an important part of this.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, we'll be talking6about inspection tomorrow. Yes.7MR. STROSNIDER: Yeah, so you'll get8there.9But the point is none of these materials10are going to, going to fail. Even with the crack in11it, it's not going to fail like the candy cane. It12will still field ductility. That's why they're using13an elastic plastic fraction mechanics analysis method14in these cases.15And if you look at it without a crack,16it's load bearing capability goes up. So the only17logical conclusion is that it's going to withstand the18design basis loads as it did when it was originally19designed.20JUDGE WARDWELL: But doesn't its ductility21drop drastically with age?22MR. GRIESBACH: Your Honor.23MR. STROSNIDER: When it fails it will24show less, less ductility. And this is you could look25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4987at it. I mean if you use undergraduate testing of a1uni-axle tensile bar, if you take low strength and2high strength materials, the more ductile one will3show more, more necking, more elongation.4The one that's the higher strength which5has less ductility will not show as much necking and6it may, it may fail with a flat fracture. But it's7not going to shatter, not these materials.8MR. GRIESBACH: Your Honor, this is Tim9Griesbach for Entergy.10I think we should point out that --11JUDGE WARDWELL: I've got a follow-up12question. And I'm going to forget it if I don't ask13it. In fact, I may have forgotten it already. And14that's why I don't like interruptions if I can avoid15them because it prevents us from getting the answers16we need to make a decision.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Jot it down and we'll18get back to you.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, that's the way to20do it. Except you might as well say it now because21now I've forgotten what I was going to follow up on.22Go ahead.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Now he's forgotten what24he was going to say.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4988MR. GRIESBACH: Thank you.1JUDGE WARDWELL: You may go ahead now that2I've forgotten what I wanted to say. But I want to3point out that's why I want to minimize the4interruptions because when I've got a follow-up5question that I had for your compadre there --6MR. GRIESBACH: Okay.7JUDGE WARDWELL: -- it was right on point8to what he had said. And now it's not on point9anymore. It's been axed from this hearing.10So proceed.11MR. GRIESBACH: What I think we really12would like to point out, though, is the materials that13we're talking about are austenitic stainless steels14for the most part. They're, they're face center15cubic, which means they have much more ductility than16the type of ferritic steels that tend to undergo a17ductile to brittle transition and can be brittle.18So these types of materials don't19experience that type of brittle fracture. Even in the20irradiated condition they still have much ductility21and strength, as we've talked about, and wouldn't fail22in that brittle manner as some people have pointed out23here.24So I think we need to keep that in mind. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4989And the data that we can show you tomorrow will point1that out as well.2JUDGE WARDWELL: And we will be able to3see from that data highly embrittled type of results4that might be indicative of what it would be like in5the reactor after 60 years of operation?6MR. GRIESBACH: The levels of fluence in7the test data is representative of exposure for a8significant period of time in PWR reactors, yes.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Great.10MR. COX: Just one clarifying comment on11that. That the highly, the term "highly embrittled"12--13JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is Mr. Cox;14correct?15MR. COX: That's correct. This is Allen16Cox with Entergy.17When you say "highly embrittled" that's18one of those words that ends with "l-y" and it could19have a number of meanings. What Mr. Griesbach said is20that we'll have data that's based on the fluence21that's experienced at the end of 60 years. That does22not necessarily equate to highly embrittled or highly23irradiated.24JUDGE WARDWELL: I stand corrected. The25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4990embrittlement that does occur after 60 years, however1it is. I won't pre-judge that.2I think I remember the question I was3going to ask. So the various internals -- and if4you're not the person to address it to, then fine,5then any of your compadres can pick up on it either,6also. But you made me think of it.7Not all internals are under a tension8load; correct? With normal operations or with shock9loads they're going to be under different types of10load applications?11MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider12for Entergy.13That's true.14JUDGE WARDWELL: And so how is that taken15into effect, because one component may be very16sensitive to corrosional activity based on where it is17and how it may perform. And another would be under18compression, another under shear, another under19bending, another under tension. How is that addressed20in any manner or?21Well, no. In fact let me rephrase that. 22Really that isn't addressed in your AMP because you23don't, you do not evaluate anything until you see a24crack based on this inspection-based AMP; is that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4991correct?1MR. STROSNIDER: So this is Jack2Strosnider for Entergy. And some of my colleagues3here may be able to get into more detail.4But, again, I think if you look at this5logically, when the internals were designed, right,6they were designed to the ASME code section 3. They7were designed to stay in the elastic range. Right?8And various loadings, whether they be compressive or9torsional or thermal, whatever was driving them, they10were included in that original design. And they11haven't changed.12Under the license removal you're assessing13the same loads that were in the original design. So14whatever those loads were, they're still there. 15They're the same. And what's done in the analysis in16the MRP-227 is to use the design basis loads.17So that's the big picture answer. And I18don't know if there's any more detail to add to that. 19I think I need to turn --20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's not that the loads21are different, it's that the ability of the metal to22withstand the loads is different based on23embrittlement and other aging mechanisms. That's what24Dr. Lahey's thesis says.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4992MR. STROSNIDER: Well, Jack Strosnider for1Entergy.2And just what I was trying to explain3earlier is let's take two cases. If there's no crack4in the component, you put the same loads on it and5because it's been embrittled, all right, its strength6has gone up and that's --7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But ductility has gone8down?9MR. STROSNIDER: Yeah. So you have to get10to high enough a load to fail it, all right, before11you're going to see that, that impacted ductility. 12And this was the question that I mentioned earlier13that Judge Kennedy brought up is, sure, if you hit it14with high enough a load it will fail. But we're not15talking about unlimited loads here, we're talking16about loads that are within the design basis.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But isn't what Dr. Lahey18is suggesting is that there's a lack of data to show19the effect of the same loads, these loads that it's20undergone for the past 40 years, that those loads will21not affect the particular item differently because of22the embrittlement and other aging mechanisms and that23there's a lack of data to demonstrate where the24cut-off line is? Is that data available?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4993MR. STROSNIDER: Jack Strosnider for1Entergy.2What I would suggest -- and again my3colleagues can maybe expand on this -- but if you want4to see the impact of embrittlement on the parameter5that controls failure, which is the yield strength,6the yield or the ultimate strength, all you've got to7do is look at the tensile test results. It goes up.8There's lots of tensile tests out there. 9All right? And, you know, that's how we know that10these tensile properties the strength improves, the11strength gets brighter when you irradiate the12material.13JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it your position14that the torsional strength and the compressive15strength and the shear strength and the bending16strength also go up? And does the data support that?17MR. STROSNIDER: My colleague has a18response.19MR. GRIESBACH: Various different --20JUDGE WARDWELL: And to who are we --21MR. GRIESBACH: This is Tim Griesbach for22Entergy.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.24MR. GRIESBACH: You're suggesting that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4994various combinations of loading, be it tension,1torsion, bending, those are all still dependent on the2maximum tensile stress or flow stress to reach3failure. So, yes, that would go up under various4different load combinations without the presence of a5crack.6JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you.7DR. LAHEY: Can I say? I think --8JUDGE WARDWELL: Pardon?9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Before that I think we10ought to go to Staff.11JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.12DR. LAHEY: You'd summarized my feeling13exactly.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Hold it for one minute15and we'll get back to you.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Unless it's something17really quick.18DR. LAHEY: No, I just agreed, if that's19okay, that the essence of the --20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: We always have time for21that.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.23DR. LAHEY: It's just the difference has24to do with what's the integrity of the metal, given25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4995those loads. And the problem is how to quantify it1because of the lack of data.2The only data, if it's available, suggests3these effects. But there's not enough to quantify it? 4So then what do you do? I mean how -- do you just5press on? Or how do you --6JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me make sure I7understand what you're saying. You agree with Entergy8that if the tensile strength goes up then likewise all9the other types of strengths will also go up with10irradiation? Is that what you were saying?11DR. LAHEY: The ductility goes down.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Ductility goes down but13the strength will go up.14DR. LAHEY: It has to do -- it's not just15strength, it's amplitude. You have to look at --16JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. But you agree17with that?18DR. LAHEY: Yes, of course.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, that's good. Thank20you.21DR. LAHEY: Sure.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Staff, do you have any23comments on what we've talked about the last 10, 1524minutes? The same question I asked Dr. Lott. And I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4996forgot what that was. But you must know if you've got1some burning thoughts in your mind that you've jotted2down.3And this will probably pretty much finish4us for the, yeah, for the evening. It will.5DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. Then I6think Gary Stevens has something he would like to add.7I think the, what I articulated maybe 308minutes ago was: no crack, no problem. And I think9that's the case. If the loads don't change, the10ability of the material, even if the ductility drops,11is unchanged. It still will perform its intended12functions. And that's what we're here to assess.13The ductility decrease becomes important14if a crack is found. If they find a crack they would15have to do -- take corrective actions. It will either16be repair, replacement or they would try to use an17engineering evaluation to demonstrate acceptability. 18In that case they would have to consider the true19state of the materials in terms of the embrittlement.20So from that perspective, the ductility21may decrease but it really is not significant until22there's a crack in place.23MR. STEVENS: This is Gary Stevens of the24Staff.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4997I made a bunch of notes as everybody was1talking. And then Mr. Strosnider and Dr. Hiser talked2and a lot of my notes went away. But sometimes if I3say something differently maybe it will have an4impact.5I think the point is that a structure6behaves differently if a crack is present or it's not. 7And how it behaves is measured by different things. 8If a crack is present, where failure might be an9outcome, things like fracture toughness and10embrittlement and those kinds of things are important.11And in those kinds of evaluations -- and12my colleagues who are more intimately familiar with13them or PT-27 can say -- but the acceptance, the14acceptance criteria that's in there and the evaluation15procedures that are done take into account reductions16in toughness, increases in crack propagation due to17embrittlement. It's factored into those analyses.18When a crack is not present, and we look19at crack initiation, as you've heard and I think most20of the parties have agreed, that irradiation tends to21increase the strength of the material. And if it was22okay in the design and the strength goes up, it's okay23under irradiated conditions. If the figure represents24a load that was defined in the CLB, then it was25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4998evaluated.1And I think you also had a question, Judge2Wardwell, on data. And I think we have a couple3different things. There might be some data related to4crack propagation.5With respect to crack initiation, one of6the exhibits, I don't remember the number but it was7I think a New York State exhibit for NUREG CR 69098Rev. 1, that was actually a draft document, section91.3 of that document discussed irradiation on crack10initiation, the available data and what the Staff11research and interpretation of that data has to say.12And that's when I discussed earlier of13there not being a lot of data, and from our14perspective the effects we don't think are15significant, and a lot of our guidance equally applies16to irradiated conditions, it was with respect to crack17initiation.18That's all.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Is this a good place to21break? Okay, I think this may be a good place to22break for this evening. I would propose to come back23tomorrow at 8:30 in the morning.24Does anybody have any administrative25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4999matters to take up before we break?1MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Entergy?3MR. KUYLER: No, Your Honor. Your Honor,4did you say 8:30 or 8:00 tomorrow morning?5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: 8:30.6MR. KUYLER: Thank you, Your Honor.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Mr. Kuyler.8MR. SIPOS: One matter. I'm not sure if9this is on.10One matter, Your Honor. At the outset11today the Board did issue a ruling on the State's12pending motion concerning the withdrawal of13designations for confidential business information. 14And the State is concerned or renews its request that15the Board consider redactions as well.16I don't know that that was addressed. I17just wanted that on the record so that it's absolutely18clear that the State is pursuing that.19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And in that20regard, what I would suggest is if you would submit a21document with proposed redactions. We're saying, at22this point we're saying we're not making the documents23publicly available. From what you just said it24appears that you're suggesting that there are25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5000significant portions of the documents that, while the1Board views the documents themselves should keep the2proprietary designation, you're suggesting that there3are certain portions of it where that's not required4or appropriate.5And if that's the case, you know, submit6those proposed redactions initially to Entergy and7Westinghouse. And if there isn't an agreement, then8to the Board.9MR. SIPOS: Very good, Your Honor. It was10an alternative argument. The State still maintains11its more overarching position. But this was an12alternative argument as well.13We will follow up on it, Your Honor.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And there's two aspects15to that. One is whether or not it's necessary to be16public for the purposes of the evidentiary hearing in17the next couple of days. And the other is, you know,18the sort of overarching concern that you seem to have19that this is the kind of information that should be in20the public sector.21So it's something that even though we22would be done with this evidentiary hearing no later23than COB Friday, you know, it doesn't necessarily24foreclose that that document could be moved to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5001public -- or portions of it, publicly later.1MR. SIPOS: Okay. Other than that, no2other issues from the State.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: From Riverkeeper?4MS. BRANCATO: Just for the record,5Riverkeeper supports the State's position regarding6the confidenti -- or redaction to the confidential7document issue. But other than that, no. Thank you.8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. We9will see you tomorrow, 8:30.10(Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the hearing was11recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, November1217, 2015.)1314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Official Transcript of ProceedingsNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.Indian Point Nuclear Generating StationDocket Number:50-247-LR and 50-286-LRASLBP Number:07-858-03-LR-BD01 Location:Tarrytown, New York Date:Monday, November 16, 2015Work Order No.:NRC-2016Pages 4755-5001NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.Court Reporters and Transcribers1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 234-4433 4755UNITED STATES OF AMERICA1U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION2+ + + + +3BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD4+ + + + +5________________________________6In the Matter of:  : Docket No.7ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. : 50-247-LR8(Indian Point Nuclear Generating : 50-286-LR9Station, Units 2 and 3)  : ASLBP No.10________________________________ : 07-858-03-LR-BD0111Monday, November 16, 20151213Doubletree Tarrytown14Westchester Ballroom15455 South Broadway16Tarrytown, New York1718 19BEFORE:20LAWRENCE G. MCDADE, Chairman21MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge22RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge2324 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4756APPEARANCES:1On Behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2Commission:3DAVID E. ROTH, ESQ.4SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.5BRIAN HARRIS, ESQ.6of:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission7Office of General Counsel8Mail Stop 15 D219Washington, D.C. 2055510david.roth@nrc.gov11sherwin.turk@nrc.gov12brian.harris@nrc.gov13301-415-2749 (Roth)14301-415-1533 (Turk)15301-415-1392 (Harris)1617On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.:18KATHRYN M. SUTTON, ESQ.19PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.20RAPHAEL "RAY" KUYLER, ESQ.21of:Morgan, Lewis & Brockius, LLP221111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.23Washington, D.C. 2000424202-739-5738 (Sutton)25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4757202-739-5796 (Bessette)1202-739-5146 (Kuyler)2ksutton@morganlewis.com3pbessette@morganlewis.com4rkuyler@morganlewis.com56On Behalf of the State of New York: 7JOHN J. SIPOS, ESQ.8LISA S. KWONG, ESQ.9MIHIR A. DESAI, ESQ. 10of:New York State11Office of the Attorney General12Environmental Protection Bureau13The Capitol14Albany, New York 1222415brian.lusignan@ag.ny.gov1617On Behalf of Riverkeeper Inc.:18DEBORAH BRANCATO, ESQ.19of:Riverkeeper, Inc.2020 Secor Road21Ossining, New York 1056222800-21-RIVER23info@riverkeeper.org2425NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4758On Behalf of Westchester County:1CHRISTOPHER INZERO, ESQ.2Assistant County Attorney3of:Westchester County Government4148 Martine Avenue5Room 6006White Plains, New York 106017914-995-200089On Behalf of the State of Connecticut:10ROBERT D. SNOOK, ESQ.11Assistant Attorney General12of:Office of the Attorney General13 State of Connecticut1455 Elm Street15Hartford, Connecticut 0614116860-808-502017 robert.snook@ct.gov1819On Behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company:20RICHARD J. COLDREN, ESQ.21of:Westinghouse Electric Company221000 Westinghouse Drive23Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 1606624412-374-664525NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4759T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S1Opening Remarks and Introductions.......47612Witnesses Sworn................47643Administrative Matters:4 Documents/Public and Non-Public Domain...47645 Exhibits Discussion.............47696 Preliminaries/Discussion TLAAs and GALL...47797Clarifications8July 2010 plant-specific AMP......48369Appendix A description of AMPs.....483910Time-limited aging analyses discussion....484111Contention 2512Preliminary comments..........408613Discussion...............40931415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4760E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S1Entergy's2Exhibit Nos. DocumentID Rec'd3R681, R682, R683, R689, R690 47694681, 682, 683, 689, 690 Withdrawn5R727, R728 and R72947696727, 728 and 729Withdrawn7R31, R184, R186, R195, R5294770831, 184, 186, 195, 529Withdrawn910 11NRC's12Exhibit Nos. DocumentID Rec'd13R101, R104, R105, R118, R147, and R161477114101, 104, 105, 118, 147, and 161Withdrawn1516847711617New York's18Exhibit Nos. DocumentID Rec'd19577, 578, and 5794773 --20580, 5814776 --2122 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4761P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S1(12:00 p.m.)2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we'll now go on3the record. We're here in the matter of Entergy4Nuclear Operations Inc., Indian Point Nuclear5Generating Plant, Units 2 and 3, License Renewal. 6These are Docket Numbers 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR.7My name is Lawrence McDade, an8Administrative Judge. With me are Michael Kennedy,9and Richard Wardwell, also Administrative Judges with10the ASLB, paid. What I would like to do initially is11for the record, have counsel indicate who represents12who. We'll start at my left, Mr. Turk for NRC.13MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm14Sherwin Turk with the Office of General Counsel at15NRC. To my left is David Roth. And to his left is16Brian Harris. And Mr. Harris will be representing the17staff with respect to Contention 25 today.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. For Entergy?19MR. BESSETTE: Good morning Your Honor,20this is Paul Bessette from Morgan Lewis representing21Entergy. On my left is Kathryn Sutton. And on my22right is Ray Kuyler.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. For24New York?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4762MR. SIPOS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 1John Sipos, Assistant Attorney General for the State2of New York. On my left, or on your right as you're3looking me, is Assistant Attorney General, Lisa Kwong. 4And on my right is Assistant Attorney General, Mihir5Desai.6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And Riverkeeper?7MS. BRANCATO: Yes, good afternoon, Your8Honor. Deborah Brancato, Staff Attorney for9Riverkeeper.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And with you Ms.11Brancato?12MS. BRANCATO: This is Riverkeeper's13expert, Dr. Joram Hopenfeld.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you. Let's get15started with the witnesses. And we'll just go from16you know, your right to left.17MR. LOTT: My name is Randy Lott. I'm a18consulting engineer with Westinghouse Electric,19appearing on behalf of Entergy as an expert witness.20MR. COX: My name is Alan Cox. I'm a21Consultant for License Renewal for Entergy.22MR. AZEVEDO: My name is Nelson Azevedo. 23I'm an Engineering Supervisor of the plant.24MR. DOLANSKY: My name is Bob Dolansky. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4763I work at Indian Point for Entergy.1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we have some2Entergy people in the second row. Let's get them to3identify themselves before we move to NRC.4MR. STROSNIDER: I'm Jack Strosnider. I'm5a Consultant for Entergy on License Renewal.6MR. GRIESBACH: I'm Tim Griesbach. I'm7Senior Associate with Structural Integrity Associates. 8And I'm a Consultant, expert witness for Entergy.9MR. GRAY: I'm Mark Gray. I'm a Principal10Engineer from Westinghouse on behalf of Entergy.11MR. GORDON: I'm Barry Gordon. Associate12with Structural Integrity and I'm an expert witness13for Entergy.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Dr. Hiser?15DR. HISER: I'm Allen Hiser, Senior Level16Advisor for License Renewal Aging Management at the17NRC.18MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler, Senior19Materials Engineer for the NRC.20MR. LAHEY: Richard Lahey, Professor21Emeritus from RPI.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And Dr.23Hopenfeld, you're not going to be testifying on 25. 24But why don't you introduce yourself at this point?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4764DR. HOPENFELD: I am Joram Hopenfeld. I'm1a Consultant for Riverkeeper.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. At this --3MR. STEVENS: Your Honor, Gary Stevens,4Senior Materials Engineer with the NRC.5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm sorry, Mr. Stevens. 6At this point, would all the witnesses please rise,7including Dr. Hopenfeld? What we want to do is to8swear you. The testimony you give will be under oath. 9Will you please raise your right hands?10Will you swear or affirm subject to the11penalties for perjury that the testimony you'll give12at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth,13and nothing but the truth?14(Chorus of I do.)15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Please be seated.16Now we're going to be having documents17presented during the course of this hearing. Most of18which are public documents that are already in the19public domain. Available to the public on the20electronic hearing docket through the NRC. There are21also certain documents that are non-public which22contain proprietary information.23When a document is called up, Mr. Welkie24will bring up the public document. If for some reason25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4765any witness needs to refer to the non-public document,1they need to so state. At that point we will put the2non-public document up only for counsel and the3witnesses. It will not be available to the public.4If not only referring to the document in5order for reference, but also if you need to testify6with regard to specifics of the non-public documents. 7Don't just do it okay, because that's going to have to8be done at a closed session. And what we would ask9you to do is to the degree possible, avoid discussing10proprietary information.11And in many instances, if not all12instances, you'll be able to discuss it for example,13if a cumulative use factor is approaching one or14exceeds one that testimony may be sufficient for our15purposes. If you feel that you actually need to get16into specific proprietary information, please stop and17state that. So that we can then defer your answer on18that particular question to the end.19And the end of a particular session where20if necessary we'll take up documents that are21proprietary in nature and need to remain non-public.22MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, Kathryn Sutton23on behalf of Entergy. And I've spoken with Mr.24Coldren who's here representing Westinghouse. Given25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4766the logistics and the layout of this room we have1concerns that even the proprietary documents that are2being shown to the witnesses, can be viewed by members3of the public.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, well I mean,5here's the situation. I mean the document itself is6proprietary only to the degree that you can actually7read it. There's a separation between the witnesses8and the individuals who are in the public. That9although they would be capable of seeing that there's10a document on the screen, it's inconceivable to me11that they would be able to read the document.12Let's start with these rules. In the13event a non-public document comes up, and there is an14issue with that regard, to raise the objection at that15point in time. And also one thing I did want, that I16was remiss, we do have a representative of17Westinghouse here that many of the proprietary, most18of the proprietary documents are Westinghouse19documents. Would the representative from20Westinghouse, identify yourself for the record?21MR. COLDREN: Yes, Your Honor. Richard22Coldren, Electric Property Counsel for Westinghouse.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And then we also24have representatives of interested Government Agencies25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4767from Connecticut.1MR. SNOOK: The Assistant Attorney2General, Robert Snook for Connecticut.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And Westchester County?4MR. INZERO: Yes. Good afternoon, Your5Honor. Christopher Inzero, Assistant County Attorney6for the County of Westchester.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Are there any8other representatives of interested Government9Agencies who have appeared?10(No audible response.)11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, apparently not. 12In the event that we do need to break for a non-public13session, only individuals who have signed non-14disclosure agreements that are on file can be present15in the room. So I would direct that anyone who has16not signed a non-disclosure agreement, if they are a17representative of a party, they need to do so. Or18understand that if we do have a non-public session,19it'll be necessary for them to withdraw from the room.20MR. TURK: Your Honor, Sherwin Turk.21CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes, Mr. Turk.22MR. TURK: I just note that there is a23video camera. I don't know if it's a member of the24press or who's filming? But that camera would be able25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4768to zoom in on documents on the screen. So it may be1appropriate to have some instructions for the2videographer in terms of what they can film or not3film.4CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, I mean I believe5that they would understand that they would, it would6be a breech for them to zoom in on a non-public7document. If we do have a non-public document to come8up, we will give very specific instructions so that9that will not occur. But thank you for raising that,10Mr. Turk. I appreciate it.11MR. SIPOS: Excuse me Your Honor, John12Sipos --13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.14MR. SIPOS: -- for the State of New York. 15Good afternoon. There are also some pending motions16--17CHAIRMAN McDADE: Oh, Yes.18MR. SIPOS: And I was just wondering if19Your Honor wished to either take those up, or hear20additional presentations on those?21CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, I mean we're going22to take them up here before we get started on the23testimony. And the testimony today is going focus on24Contention 25. You know the allegation that there's25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4769an inadequate Aging Management Program for certain1reactor vessel internals, perhaps others. We will2discuss that here shortly. There is a bit of a3carryover with 26 and 38 as well.4But before we get started with the5specifics on 25, we're going to be asking some general6questions having to do with TLAAs and the GALL.7We have certain things to take up before8we get started. First of all, we received last week9certain corrected documents from Entergy. There was10no objection. There was Entergy 727, 728, and then11revised Entergy 681, 682, 683, 689, 690, and 729. So12those documents are admitted.13(Whereupon, the above-referred to14documents were received into evidence as Entergy15Exhibits No. 727, 728, and revised Entergy Exhibits16R681, R682, R683, R689, R690, and R729.)17The original documents have been revised. 18The documents are stricken, so that it will only be19the revised documents that are part of the record.20Other issues with regard to the current21status of exhibits. The following exhibits need to be22stricken and based on the exhibit list that we have. 23The reason these are being stricken is because there24have been revised documents already submitted.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4770So it will be the revised document. So1for example Entergy 31 will be stricken, and replaced2by Entergy R31. And that goes with Entergy 31, 184,3186, 195, 529, and NRC 101, 104, 105, 118, 147, and4161.5(Whereupon, the above-referred to6documents were received into evidence as Entergy7Exhibits No. R31, R184, R186, R195, and R529.)8CHAIRMAN McDADE: We also have an issue9Entergy Exhibit list does not indicate that there are10both public and non-public exhibits for Entergy11616,678, 679, 698, and 699. When at the conclusion of12the hearing you submit a revised exhibit list, it13should show, reflect that there are both public and14non-public versions of those documents filed.15The same with the Staff documents, 168,16196, and 197.17Another is a question, the staff indicated18that NRC document 102, and 148 were superseded by 168. 19Does that mean that the staff is withdrawing 102 and20148?21MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor. The testimony22and the superseding documents covers both Contention2326 and 38.24CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, so we receive 16825NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4771and strike 102 and 148.1(Whereupon, the above-referred to document2was received into evidence as NRC Exhibit No. 168.)3CHAIRMAN McDADE: There's also an4indication Riverkeeper did not file redacted versions5161, 162, and 163. Does Riverkeeper intend to file6redacted versions of those documents? Those were7testimony.8MS. BRANCATO: Yes, Your Honor. At the9time of the submission, Entergy had not provided10redacted versions to which the testimony responded to. 11So we had not done that at the time, but Riverkeeper12would like to file redacted versions.13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and that reflect14again on the revised exhibit list that you file at the15conclusion of the hearing. That we have the non-16public version which we will use in rendering our17decision, but there should be a public version filed18as well.19MS. BRANCATO: Yes.20CHAIRMAN McDADE: All right. In New York21state exhibits, New York 369 is a multipart public and22non-public document. Only the non-public exhibit is23multipart. The public version is a single exhibit and24does not have an A and B version. And that should be25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4772reflected on the revised.1I believe those are all the issues that we2have with regard to exhibits. Does anybody have3anything further with regard to exhibits, not counting4the exhibits that were submitted last Friday by the5state of New York?6(No audible response.)7CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, apparently not. 8We have a couple of motions. We had a motion to9remove the proprietary designation on ten documents. 10It was filed by New York. When we originally11addressed this, there was an appeal pending on a12similar motion. That appeal has been resolved. In13light of the result of that appeal, the motion to14remove the proprietary designation for those ten15documents is denied.16There was a motion filed on Friday, last. 17It was a motion to admit five documents, New York 57718to 581. The first two are demonstrative exhibits19prepared by Dr. Lahey, 579 is demonstrative exhibit20filed by Dr. Duquette, and submitted by him. Those at21this point are marked only for identification. They22are not received in evidence. They may or may not be23referred to, is my understanding. Is that they24basically fall in the same category as the discussion25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4773of a white board that they could refer to, if it is1necessary to answer our questions.2But if at this point, all they will be is3marked for identification.4(Whereupon, the above-referred to5documents were marked as New York Exhibit Nos. 577,6578, 579 for identification.)7CHAIRMAN McDADE: The other two we have8Exhibit 580 which is a paper that was presented at an9International Symposium in August of 2007, having to10do with stress corrosion cracking and the immunity to11stress corrosion cracking. And may or may not exist12with Alloy 690 and its metal welds. And also a13discussion that the growth rate for cracking, even if14it is not immune, is very low. The mid ten to the15ninth millimeters or lower.16And there's also a slide presentation from17I believe June of 2014, 23 slides discussing the same18general area.19Question to New York, we received your20motion on Friday. We received a reply from Entergy on21Sunday. We're here in the later part of 2015, this is22a document from 2007 that although on point appears23cumulative to other documents that you've submitted.24Why should we receive these documents at25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4774this late point, and why is it not unfair to the1witnesses from Entergy and the NRC staff to be2presented with these documents on the eve of their3testimony? Mr. Sipos, or anyone from New York.4MR. SIPOS: Yes, John Sipos for the state5of New York.6Taking the second document first, 7Document 581, that is an NRC document or is a8presentation to NRC from a year ago. And in the9preparation for this hearing, Dr. Duquette reviewed10that document and found that it would be germane to11what he might, may be testifying about and the issues12that are at the fore in Contention 38.13So it is a document that is not a14surprise. It has existed and it ties into the 201415EPRI report that is also at issue in Contention 38. 16And so in going through the citations and in preparing17for it, Dr. Duquette and the state disclosed that18document. I believe we disclosed it a week ago and19made it available. So the state submits there is20little if any prejudice to Entergy or NRC staff21regarding that.22As to Document, or is it proposed Exhibit23580, the Andresen article, there are also citations I24believe in the 2014 EPRI report, references to Dr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4775Andresen and some of the work that he has done in this1area. And again, in reviewing testimony, reviewing2the documents and preparing for this hearing, Dr.3Duquette believed that it was germane.4We did disclose it. We disclosed it a5week ago. And it's possible that he may refer to it. 6So we submit that there is good cause. We would have7preferred to have presented them earlier, the state8would have. But they were disclosed and the state's9position is that there is little if any prejudice.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. From the11standpoint of the Board, we've been dealing with you12know, with hundreds of pages of testimony and13literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of pages14of exhibits over a period of years at this point in15time. And these documents as I said, were received16just simply last Friday.17The witnesses who arrive here today,18probably would not have been made aware of the19existence of these documents or the intended use of20these documents by New York until today.21At this point we are not going to receive22the documents in evidence. If, you know, although I23do have to say although we're not receiving them into24evidence, they have been submitted. And they have25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4776been read by the Board.1(Whereupon, the above-referred to2documents were marked as New York Exhibits No. 580 and3581 for identification.)4So you know, the information that's5contained in that, is contained in the minds of the6Members of the Board. Even though the documents are7not received in evidence and would not be referred to8specifically in any initial opinion that the Board9would issue.10The point made by Entergy in their reply11is getting these this late, it just simply, not that12these are not potentially relevant documents, but that13Dr. Duquette could have brought this to the attention14of Counsel for New York and Counsel for Entergy and15the Board months, if not years ago.16MR. SIPOS: Could I just respond briefly,17Your Honor?18I take your point about the volume of19exhibits. I think there's more than 625 exhibits in20Track 2. There have been several thousand documents21disclosed, 580 and 581 I think, each are less than 3022pages as I said. We disclosed them last week and23Contention 38 you know is a few days off.24We would again, the state would25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4777respectfully submit that we have tried to be collegial1with Entergy on the documents that they have2presented. There has been a steady stream of3disclosures from Entergy over the past two weeks,4including documents that go to cumulative use factors.5And we have not objected to those.6CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. The documents7that were submitted by Entergy last week and received,8681, 682, 683, 689, 690, 729, these were all revised9documents were they not?10MR. SIPOS: Yes, they were to correct11mistakes or discrepancies in the calculations12apparently.13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, at this point this14580 and 581 are not received. And having been late15filed, if during the course of the hearing their16relevance as opposed to cumulative effect becomes more17relevant, the Board might reconsider. But at this18point, the Board is you know, upset that at this late19in the proceeding we're getting these documents20offered into evidence.21And given you know, reading through them22it doesn't appear that any new ground is reached in23them that cannot be discussed by Dr. Duquette and Dr.24Lahey in their testimony and through the other25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4778exhibits that have already been received.1That said, before we proceed further, from2the NRC staff is there any other administrative3matters that you wish for the Board to address?4MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.5MR. KUYLER: Not from Entergy, Your Honor.6CHAIRMAN McDADE: From New York?7MR. SIPOS: No, Your Honor.8CHAIRMAN McDADE: Riverkeeper?9MS. SUTTON: No, Your Honor, thank you.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and two other11preliminaries. We've got a lot of people here and a12lot of people speaking. Most of the testimony that13has been received has been submitted jointly by14several witnesses. When we ask a question in most15instances, it will not be directed to a specific16individual, although in some instances it will be.17It will be for example, a witness18addressed to New York right now, would be to Dr.19Lahey, almost by default. Well, not almost. But to20the others, would you please in answering a question,21before you do, state your name. You can decide which22one of you is going to be answering the question. But23before you do, just state your name and say that this24is Dr. Allen Hiser for the NRC staff. This is Mr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4779Alan Cox for Entergy. Just so we have on the record1who it is specifically who's making the2representation.3Likewise, if Counsel makes a statement,4again to make it clear for the record, the Court5Reporter's got a lot to do, he may not know all of you6by face at this point in time, so please just state7your name before you begin the statement and we'll8move on from there.9Okay that said, as I indicated what we10wanted to do before we get into a lot of the substance11raised by Contention 25 is to discuss generally some12issues relating TLAAs and the GALL.13Before we do that, Judge Kennedy, do you14have anything further to take up before we move on?15JUDGE KENNEDY: I do not.16CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Wardwell?17JUDGE WARDWELL: No.18CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Kennedy.19JUDGE KENNEDY: As Judge McDade stated20earlier, this is Judge Kennedy, I should follow the21Chair's guidance. So this is Judge Kennedy. In22looking over the contentions, the Board saw some23common threads that went across more than one24contention. So we have couple of leading edge issues25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4780that we wanted to address before we got into the meat1of any particular contention.2You could argue, I drew the short straw. 3I have the first two overarching issues, which for4want of a better characterization we called,5compliance with GALL, and TLAAs versus AMPs.6We're going to take up the compliance with7GALL first. And I have a series of questions that8I'll direct to either the staff or to Entergy, at9least that's my initial first cut at it.10I don't know who the best witness is, as11Judge McDade has pointed out. I am under the12presumption that the best witness is in the room, but13if not, let's identify that and we'll deal with it. 14And so I will issue a question in the direction of15either Entergy or the staff. And I'll leave it to you16folks to select the most appropriate person to answer,17or persons. Identify yourself, and provide an answer.18I'll ask my Board mates, if they have a19follow-up questions to the initial question, that they20chime in, identifying themselves as we go. And pose21any follow-up questions.22Our hope is that by addressing some of23these issues that go across more than one contention,24that we can be a little more efficient as we address25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4781issues during each individual specific contention. I1ask you to bear with us. Some of this ground may have2been plowed under Track 1, if you all were here with3us. But we thought it would be good for a complete4record to try to revisit it and see how it all holds5together today.6And that in particular in the area of7compliance with GALL. We did a lot of this under8Contention Track 1, but I think we've amplified the9questions and I think we're interested in putting10together a consistent record at this time.11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Kennedy, this is12Judge McDade again. There was one other13administrative matter that I forgot to raise and I14apologize for the interruption.15This is going to be a long hearing. We16anticipate we're probably going to be going until 617o'clock or so this evening. We will probably be18taking one or two breaks during the course of the day. 19But if any witness, for any reason, needs a break. 20Don't sit there and suffer in silence. You know, let21us know and we can arrange to take a break.22The same goes for Counsel, although you23know each party, most parties are represented by24multiple people, so it may be possible for you know25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4782Counsel to step out and have their colleagues1continue. But again, primarily for the witnesses, you2know if for any reason you do need a break, let us3know. And we will make arrangements for it. Judge4Kennedy.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Taking a break, drink some6water.7Let's start with compliance with GALL. 8Again from my perspective, the adequacy of individual9aging management programs is at issue here in these10contentions. So I thought it would be useful to just11start some general discussion on GALL, compliance with12GALL, and a number of side issues that go along with13that.14It's my belief that in responding to15challenges to the adequacy of a particular aging16management program, to provide reasonable assurance17that the effects of aging will be adequately managed18so that the intended functions of components and scope19for license renewal will be maintained consistent with20the current licensing basis.21For the period of extended operation,22again embedded in the regs, the commission has23concluded that an aging management program that is24consistent with GALL provides the requisite assurance,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4783requisite reasonable assurance.1They go on to say that the NRC staff does2not take the applicant's word on this, but rather asks3them to confirm that a particular program is4consistent with GALL. So that's where I'm starting5from and I'm going to go through a series of6questions. But that's sort of the overarching7hypothesis here. Is that, this consistence with GALL8is an important issue in trying to deal with the9adequacy of any particular aging management program.10So let me first direct a question to11Entergy, and we'll see how this works. You guys get12to select. I'm interested in confirming what version13of GALL was used to develop the license renewal14application for Indian Point, Units 2 and 3?15MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy. 16The version of GALL that was in effect when we17developed the licensed renewal application at Union18Point, was Rev 1.19JUDGE KENNEDY: Rev 1 of GALL?20MR. COX: Right.21JUDGE KENNEDY: So then I guess to the22staff, what version of GALL is used to review the23application for the Indian Point license renewal?24DR. HISER: This is Dr. Allen Hiser for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4784the NRC. The staff used Revision 1 for the GALL to1review the Indian Point application because we issued2Revision 2 of GALL in the midst of that review. We3then directed requests for additional information to4Entergy based on the operating experience that the5staff had accumulated in developing Revision 2 of6GALL.7So at that point, we had Indian Point8address the operating experience that supported the9changes in GALL Revision 2.10JUDGE KENNEDY: And so, do I take that to11mean that the, as you use the term "operating12experience" in the interim between Rev 1 of GALL and13Rev 2 of GALL was important information and needed to14be addressed as part of the Indian Point license15renewal application?16DR. HISER: This is Dr. Allen Hiser again.17JUDGE KENNEDY: Sorry, should have18directed the question.19DR. HISER: And yes, that is correct that20the positions were addressed during the review of the21license renewal application.22JUDGE KENNEDY: Did that affect, Dr.23Hiser, did that affect any of the aging management24programs that are at issue here in these contentions25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4785in front of us at Track 2?1DR. HISER: Yes, I would say that it at2least addressed or resulted in changes to the aging3management program for reactor vessel internals. It's4a very difficult, actually it's a very difficult5question to answer because initially in Revision 1 of6GALL, there was no AMP for reactor vessel internals. 7There was a commitment process that was used.8JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. I9will probably, I'm sure we're going to get into that10as we get into the specific contention.11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Just if I could, this is12Judge McDade. Dr. Hiser, we've heard that originally13it was prepared, the license renewal application,14looking at Revision 1 of GALL. Is it the position of15the NRC staff that as we sit here today, the license16renewal application as amended, is consistent with17Revision 2 of GALL? Or is it in anyway inconsistent18with Revision 2, or deficient pursuant to Revision 2?19DR. HISER: I don't believe that we had20done a full accounting of the differences between the21license renewal application for Indian Point in22Revision 2 of GALL. So from that perspective, I would23say that the application is likely a hybrid. Portions24that were not, that the staff did not direct requests25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4786for additional information to Entergy would still be1consistent with Revision 1.2Whether those are entirely consistent with3Revision 2, I would expect that they are. But we did4not make that comparison. What I can tell you is that5the staff's review really is consistent with Revision62 of the GALL report.7And so the, and in terms of, the GALL8report has certain positions that are advocated for9aging management. And what we did with the request10for additional information was to ensure that the11operating experience that was reflected in GALL12Revision 2, was accounted for by the applicant in its13application.14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, the Commission has15determined that if an AMP is consistent with GALL that16it is adequate. Is it the staff's position, the17Commission position at this point, that in order for18an AMP that we are reviewing today in November of 201519that it needs to be consistent with the current20emendation of GALL, Revision 2?21DR. HISER: Not entirely. I guess what I22would say is that the GALL AMPs are not requirements.23What is required is adequacy of aging managements, of24aging effects for the, in this case, reactor vessel25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4787internals.1In general, a plant, an applicant that2indicates that it will implement a GALL AMP, after3verification by the staff that they in effect are4implementing the GALL AMP, there is a presumption that5that provides reasonable assurance.6Applicants may propose alternatives to the7provisions that are in the GALL AMPs. And from that8position the staff, in the case of say Indian Point,9where the application is prepared with Revision 1. 10The staff has issued Revision 2. The staff tries to11bridge the operating experience and other differences12between the two to ensure the adequacy of the proposed13aging management by the applicant.14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, thank you.15JUDGE KENNEDY: So Dr. Hiser, I'm sensing16some conscious determination on the part of the staff17that as changes are made from GALL Rev 1 to GALL Rev182 that if there was an ongoing, I guess sticking with19the Indian Point Units, if there was some issues that20were identified in that new information between Rev 121and Rev 2, how did the staff decide which, they'd have22to go through all of the new information, all the23applicable new information? How did you decide what24to focus on?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4788DR. HISER: Well, the staff issued a1Regulatory Issue Summary in 2014. I believe it was22014 that identified the operating experience that3formed the basis for changes to Rev 2 of the GALL4report. And using that as a basis, we then evaluated5license renewal applications that were on file at that6point in time. And identified areas where we thought7that the applicant needed to provide additional8information.9And after that review, then we issued REIs10to, in this case, Indian Point.11JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, just for the12record. Is that an exhibit that has been entered for13this proceeding? It doesn't sound familiar.14DR. HISER: It may have been 2012, and I'd15have to --16JUDGE KENNEDY: I can give you some time17to look that up. We can move forward and you can18check on it. I'd be curious to know. I don't19remember seeing that in the exhibit list. But it20sounds important.21MR. COX: Judge Kennedy.22JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Cox.23MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy. 24Let me add just a little bit of a clarification. The25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4789regulatory information summary that Dr. Hiser refers1to, didn't cover every single change between GALL Rev21 and Rev 2. It did point out the areas that were3considered most significant by the staff in Rev 2. 4And those were the areas that were the focus of the5regulatory information summary and of the REIs that6followed that.7JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Cox is it fair to ask8you, would it be your opinion that, or your testimony9that the important issues identified in that10regulatory information summary were addressed as REIs11to Entergy and then responded to?12MR. COX: I believe that would be correct.13JUDGE KENNEDY: Are you aware of any that,14it sounds like you are not aware of any that were not15responded to?16MR. COX: That's correct. I'm not aware17of any that were not. I'm not, I don't have all of18them committed to memory but I'm not aware of any19significant issues that were identified in the20regulatory information summary that were not addressed21through REIs.22JUDGE KENNEDY: If a particular REI wasn't23responded to, how would that evidence itself, I guess24let's start with Mr. Cox since you were -- would there25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4790be a record of that? Are the responses to REIs1tracked in a process that's transparent to the public?2MR. COX: The responses to REIs are3submitted to the staff as a public document.4JUDGE KENNEDY: Again just for the record,5and maybe I'll go back to Dr. Hiser, what's the6current version, revision level of GALL?7DR. HISER: Right now for the document8overall, is Revision 2. There are certain issues,9certain AMPs where we have supplemented the guidance10in GALL through Interim Staff Guidance or LR-ISG11documents. Reactor vessel internals is one case that12that has occurred.13JUDGE KENNEDY: Ultimately we would14potentially see, that maybe Dr. Hiser, this isn't too15speculative? Are we heading to a Rev 3 of GALL, is16that how this seems to be working?17DR. HISER: It's another difficult -- this18is that one --19JUDGE KENNEDY: That's fine. I'm not sure20it's that important. I'm just curious if we've, it's21been, this proceeding has been going on since 2007 and22we've worked our way through at least one revision to23GALL. I'm not sure if there weren't two, but it24sounds like we started with Rev 1 and we're at Rev 2. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4791But operating history seems to keep being accumulated.1DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. The2situation that we are with license renewal3applications is such that Revision 3 would only apply4to a handful of plants. And because we have Revision52 with the supplements, with the ISGs, I don't believe6the staff will expend the resources to update that.7JUDGE KENNEDY: Understand.8MR. KUYLER: Your Honor.9JUDGE KENNEDY: Where are we?10MR. KUYLER: This is Ray Kuyler for11Entergy. Just the Regulatory Issue Summary that we12were just talking about is RIS 2011-05. It's Entergy13Exhibit 192.14JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm sorry, 192?15MR. KUYLER: Entergy Exhibit 1-9-2,16000192.17CHAIRMAN McDADE: Thank you.18JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.19Trying to move forward, maybe pick some20different topics. Within, in looking at the license21renewal application, it appears that the aging22management programs are organized into, for want of a23better term, "categories". And one of the categories24appears to be, "Consistent with GALL". And again,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4792we're back to that consistent with GALL.1What does it mean? I'm going to start2with Entergy first. What does it mean to be3consistent with GALL? That term is difficult to grasp4at least from my perspective. I guess I'll take5anybody that wants to start. I think we're going to6have some discussion on consistency.7MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy. 8I'll start with that question. When we say consistent9with GALL, we are saying that we are doing, as you all10described the program, if we say we're consistent with11GALL, our program does the same things that the GALL12program recommends.13And we would have the same preventive14actions, the same detection of aging effects, methods15that are defined, the same acceptance criteria would16be the same if we were going to say our program was17consistent with GALL.18If there are exceptions we would say it's19consistent with GALL with exceptions and we would20identify those exceptions.21JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I take that to mean22if GALL has a specific acceptance criteria or a23specific inspection criteria or methodology, to be24consistent with GALL you'd have to use those criteria,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4793those inspection techniques?1MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.2JUDGE KENNEDY: So if you substituted3something, is that where you get into, you started to4use the word enhancement or exception? What would be5the process to move off of consistent with GALL?6MR. COX: We took an exception to, let's7say the acceptance criteria in GALL, we would propose8an alternative acceptance criteria along with a9technical justification for why that was an10appropriate acceptance criteria to effectively manage11the effects of aging.12JUDGE KENNEDY: And that would be listed13as an exception?14MR. COX: That would be listed as an15exception. The program descriptions in Appendix B of16the license renewal application have a section where17they identify whether there are exceptions to the18program.19JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe to, Mr. Cox is20you'd like to answer, what would then be an21enhancement be, in the context of consistent with22GALL?23MR. COX: In the context of consistency24with GALL, an enhancement would be a change that if we25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4794had an existing program at Indian Point, and we1determined that there was a particular aspect of that2program that was not consistent with GALL, an3enhancement would be a commitment to make a change in4that program to where it is now consistent with GALL.5JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe to the staff,6what from your perspective is the impact or import of7a licensee declaring their aging management program is8consistent with GALL?9DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, what10consistency with GALL means is that the applicant is11implementing the program that is nearly identical to12what is in the GALL.13JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess that's the thing14that, at least the Board is struggling with. That the15word consistent has a definition. But when we have16this discussion from a technical perspective, the -ly17words start to creep in. We're trying to get our arms18around how much latitude a licensee may have in,19although still being consistent with GALL, could do it20differently.21In other words is there a, and I guess22I'll try and just, Dr. Hiser, is there a delta around23consistent such that if the delta gets too large it24becomes an exception or an enhancement? I guess I'm25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4795really struggling with how much, I mean it's not1verbatim. Is it verbatim compliance with what's in2GALL? Is it word for word what's in GALL?3DR. HISER: At one level it is. When an4applicant identifies an AMP is consistent with GALL. 5We do an audit or an AMP consistency audit. And we go6to the applicant site and we at one level compare7their AMP to what's in GALL, word for word.8If there are things that are missing then9we discuss with the applicant why the difference10exists. If it is a significant difference, and I11think the delta really is very small, then we would12ask them at REI, and pursue them justifying that. And13maybe at that point that would be identified as an14exception to GALL.15JUDGE KENNEDY: And --16CHAIRMAN McDADE: Jim, just if a --17JUDGE KENNEDY: Go ahead.18CHAIRMAN McDADE: This is Judge McDade,19just to clarify for myself here, that an applicant20submitting an application does not need to have or21even reference GALL with their AMP. But if they22don't, then they have to demonstrate that the plan23that they have will in fact adequately manage the24effects of aging.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4796If in fact they take advantage of the GALL1and they not only represent, but demonstrate that2their AMP in fact is consistent with all of the3parameters of GALL, then there is a presumption that4the plan is adequate.5On the other hand if they don't address or6demonstrate that they are consistent with GALL, then7they have to independently demonstrate the adequacy of8the aging management. Am I correct in that regard?9DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser, yes I10would say that yes, you are correct.11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, now when you have12a situation here with the hybrid, where submitted13under Revision 1, reviewed in part under Revision 2. 14From our standpoint, it's not just a representation15that it's consistent with GALL. Do we need to find16that it's consistent with Revision 2 in order to have17that presumption of adequacy?18If it's not, if we can't find that it's19consistent with Revision 2, do we have to aside from20GALL, independently evaluate the adequacy of the aging21management?22DR. HISER: I guess what I would say is23that if the determination is made that it is24consistent with Revision 2 of GALL, then there's a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4797presumption that it provides reasonable assurance. If1we are unable to find that it is consistent with2Revision 2 of GALL, then we would make a sort of on3its own merits, evaluation of whether the program is4adequate to provide reasonable assurance.5So the consistency with GALL is one way to6provide a presumption of reasonable assurance. If7it's a plant specific program, we do have a more8laborious process that we need to go through to9demonstrate that it provides reasonable assurance.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: And that's what you've11done in SER Supplement 2, that in certain instances12you've determined that it's consistent with GALL 2. 13And in other instances you have determined that it,14even though not consistent with GALL 2, nevertheless15provides adequate assurance of aging management. Is16that correct?17DR. HISER: Are you speaking specifically18for the reactor vessel internals parameters?19CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.20DR. HISER: I guess I'd like to ask Jeff21to address that.22MR. POEHLER: Mr. Jeffrey Poehler for the23NRC. Actually for the reactor internals aging24management program submitted by Entergy, we used for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4798guidance for the staff's review we used the Interim1Staff Guidance related to reactor internals,2LR-ISG-2011-04. And that --3CHAIRMAN McDADE: Sorry, can you repeat4the cite?5MR. POEHLER: Yes, LR-ISG-2011-04. And6basically that Interim Staff Guidance updated the7guidance of GALL Revision 2, specifically related to8reactor internals. Mostly just to recognize that the9approved version of MRP-227-A had been issued in 2012.10In practice there's not, there weren't a11lot of changes from GALL Rev 2 in that guidance. So12but we did use the, so that represented the most up-13to-date NRC guidance for reactor vessel internals. So14that was what we used when we evaluated the ten15elements of the aging management program for reactor16internals.17JUDGE WARDWELL: This is Judge Wardwell.18Considering we opened this door, with Dr. Kennedy's19permission, I'd like to explore this a little bit more20as an example of the application of GALL.21Mr. Cox, when you submitted your22application for this license renewal, when dealing23with the reactor vessels internals, what did you24submit at the time of, in 2007? Because there was no25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4799-- let me ask you this question, there wasn't an AMP1in GALL 1 for reactor vessel internals. Is that2correct?3MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy. 4That is correct. There was no AMP. There was5direction in the, or guidance, recommendations, in the6GALL report that said for reactor vessel internals an7applicant should provide a commitment to participate8in the industry efforts that were evaluating aging9management of the vessel internals.10And to implement the resulting programs11and guidance that came out of that industry effort as12part of, you know to manage the effects of aging on13the vessel internals.14It was essentially commitment, I believe15it was Commitment 30 in Indian Point license renewal16commitments that said we would follow that industry17work and implement the results of that program.18JUDGE WARDWELL: And so then I turn to NRC19staff, Dr. Hiser or your partner, you reviewed the20commitment then in regards to your initial approval. 21What happened subsequently when GALL 2 came out, was22that you used this internal staff guidance to then23measure their commitment with GALL 2? Or how did you24review it?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4800DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. When the1main driving force that created a change in GALL and2with the Indian Point application, was the industry3submittal of MRP-227 Rev 0 report. The staff review4of that report and subsequent safety evaluation. And5then the industry submittal of MRP-227-A report. That6provided for the first time an acceptable aging7management program for reactor vessel internals for8PWRs.9Based on that the staff, actually prior to10that issuance, the staff put into GALL Revision 2, an11AMP for reactor vessels internals that we believed12would be consistent with MRP-227-A. However, that was13about a year before 227-A was submitted and based on14that, we ended up putting together the LR-ISG that Mr.15Poehler described.16So that then the AMP for reactor vessel17internals was consistent with MRP-227-A.18JUDGE WARDWELL: Which in turn was19consistent or mirrored what was in Rev 2 in regards to20the AMP for vessel internals that was contained21therein?22DR. HISER: Well at that point when we23issued the LR-ISG that Mr. Poehler mentioned, that24superseded the reactor vessel internals AMP that was25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4801in Revision 2 of GALL. So that became the staff1position on what an acceptable aging management2program was for reactor vessel internals, was conveyed3through the LR-ISG.4JUDGE WARDWELL: But still the, if a plant5was doing it new now, they would look at still Rev 26of GALL and that AMP that's in Rev 2 of GALL. And7then the guidance is how that AMP is really8implemented. Is that correct?9DR. HISER: I have to apologize because I10get hung up with Revision 2 versus the ISG. The11Revision 2 that is the printed book, that version of12the AMP is no longer valid. The version that is in13the LR-ISG, that is the official staff position.14JUDGE WARDWELL: But that, so you're15saying if I understand you correctly, GALL 2 at least16in reactor vessel internals, the AMP that's contained17therein has been modified and replaced by that which18is contained in the ISG. Is that what you're saying?19DR. HISER: That is correct. And there20are several other AMPs that are similar to that, that21there are LR-ISG documents that supersede the printed22version of GALL Revision 2.23CHAIRMAN McDADE: This is Judge McDade. 24I just want to before we move on, clarify something25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4802for myself here because I'm getting a little beyond. 1You make reference to MRP-227-A which just so I can2find it again, that's NRC document 114 A through F. 3So when we go later.4What is the genesis of that? It's a5material and reliability program. How was that6generated?7DR. HISER: That was generated from an8almost decade long industry activity to develop aging9management guidance for reactor vessel internals.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: So it's an industry11generated document?12DR. HISER: Yes.13CHAIRMAN McDADE: And then how is it used14by the NRC in reviewing the adequacy of the plan, of15the aging management?16DR. HISER: Well it was used by the NRC17first, after acceptance of the report through the MRP-18227-A designation. We use that as the basis for what19we thought, what we consider to be an effective aging20management program for reactor vessel internals.21MR. COX: Judge McDade. This is Alan Cox. 22Could I add a clarification here?23CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.24MR. COX: I think it might help to add a,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4803to give a little bit of a time line to help explain1how this evolved. The Rev 1 of GALL report was issued2in 2005. Indian Point submitted the initial license3renewal application in 2007. I believe about 2009 the4initial Rev 0 of the industry document, MRP-227 was5issued. That initial version I believe, and Dr. Hiser6can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that7was the basis for the aging management program that8was put into GALL Revision 2.9It was a draft, it had not been through10formal NRC review yet, but it was the closest thing11that we had. So that became Rev 2. After NRC12completed their review and accepted MRP-227 it was13reissues as MRP-227-A.14CHAIRMAN McDADE: That was what, December15of 2011?16MR. COX: That's right. And then because17it now, you know it provided things that were -- there18weren't a lot of changes but there were some changes19that were different from what Rev 0 had.20The NRC issued the ISG to basically bring21GALL Rev 2 up to date to what was in MRP-227-A as it22was approved. So that was kind of the sequence of23events that led to where we are now. So if we were24doing a license renewal application today, like we're25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4804doing one on the PWR down in Louisiana, we're looking1at the ISG as the latest staff guidance for that2particular reactor vessel aging management program.3That's a little bit of the history, the4time line of how that evolved to where we are today.5CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and is that6consistent with your recollection, Dr. Hiser?7DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.8CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, Judge Wardwell.9JUDGE WARDWELL: When you've done your10final review of, as you did your final review for11reactor vessel internals, have you considered the12review that's in the ISG as a, consistency with GALL13as a consistency with GALL with additions, or14enhancements, or as a site specific AMP?15DR. HISER: We would consider an AMP that16matches what is in the LR-ISG to be the consistent17with GALL version.18JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you consider19their, Entergy's AMP for reactor vessel internals to20be one that is GALL 2? Or is a site specific one that21you had to compare and evaluate the details of their22program to see if it is consistent with GALL 2, which23as it's been updated in the ISG?24DR. HISER: I would say that it is one25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4805that is consistent with Rev 2, as embodied in the LR-1ISG. But we still needed to verify that it was, that2the Indian Point program was consistent with what was3in the LR-ISG. We didn't just take their word for it4that they said we are consistent with GALL. So you5know we should, our program is acceptable.6JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Kennedy, will you7move along please with the rest of this program?8JUDGE KENNEDY: I'll try to get us moving9here again.10So does all of that, I guess this all11started with the consistent with GALL discussion, and12now we get to the reactor vessel internals which as I13understand what Judge Wardwell was asking. He's14really trying to ask is reactor vessel internals15current aging management program that's been approved16for Indian Point, viewed as consistent with GALL?17And I thought I just heard you say, that18it is. Is that what I heard, Dr. Hiser?19DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, yes. It is20consistent with GALL.21JUDGE KENNEDY: So when Entergy writes22their next application, they would list their reactor23vessel internals as being a program consistent with24GALL? And I'll let Dr. Cox, or Mr. Cox answer since25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4806he's writing an application.1MR. COX: We would say that, this is Alan2Cox for Entergy, we would say that they program was3consistent with GALL as modified by ISG 2011-04.4JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.5JUDGE WARDWELL: And so you wouldn't6consider it a plant specific GALL, it is a GALL, it is7an AMP that's consistent with GALL 2?8MR. COX: That's correct. For it to be a9plant specific AMP, it would be an AMP that is not10based on a industry wide guidance document. The ISG,11while it's not, it's a revision to GALL, it's not12actually GALL Rev 2. It is still a generic industry13guidance document. So when you compare, it's not14going to be plant specific. Because it's going to be15compared to a generic document.16MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian17Harris for the staff. The license renewal interim18staff guide I believe that Mr. Poehler was referring19to, is NRC Exhibit 214.20JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.21Dr. Hiser, you may have already answered22this question but in my opening remarks I indicated23that the Commission expects the staff to not take the24applicant at their word, but to verify that the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4807particular aging management program is consistent with1GALL. How does the staff perform and document that2verification or confirmation process?3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The staff4for AMPs that are consistent with GALL, performs an5on-site audit at the applicant's facility. And we6compare first of all their program, element by7element, to what is in the GALL report. And then we8also look at plant specific operating experience and9things like that to verify that the AMP appropriately10bounds the conditions at the plant.11JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, is that audit12process also cover AMPs that are not consistent with13GALL? I mean is it, it's not, is it limited to a14consistent with GALL aging management programs?15DR. HISER: In general, it would cover16AMPs that are consistent with GALL, and also programs17that are consistent with enhancements, or with18exceptions.19The only case that it would not cover,20would be a plant specific AMP.21JUDGE KENNEDY: And where is this22document? Did you, Dr. Hiser, did you let us know23where this document --24DR. HISER: It is documented in the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4808staff's audit reports. For Indian Point they were1Exhibits within, that we cited within our testimony.2JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, is that3evidence itself at all in the Safety Evaluation Report4for the Indian Point license renewal application?5DR. HISER: Yes, that would be cited6within the SER.7JUDGE KENNEDY: So it is incorporated by8reference. Is that, or is it, I mean is it --9DR. HISER: It is, I believe there are10critical elements are described in the SER. And then11it is referenced within the SER.12JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I guess moving13away from consistent with GALL, let me try another14couple of questions here.15Within the Indian Point license renewal16application, commitments for future actions are17proposed. I guess I'm curious if the Board could hear18from Entergy first, how these commitments are19monitored and controlled from the licensee's20perspective?21Entergy first.22MR. COX: I'll start, and if any of the23plant folks have anything to add, they can add. This24is Alan Cox for Entergy. But Entergy has a process25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4809for regulatory commitment management.1We would enter those commitments into that2system. It's essentially a database. Identify what3the commitment is? When it has to be done? Who's4responsible for doing it? And then it would be5tracked within that database to ensure that, if it6gets accomplished as described and by the date by7which it was due.8JUDGE KENNEDY: So there's an internal9plant process to control the regulatory commitments. 10How are they documented and I'll say tabled with the11staff? I mean is the staff aware other than the12application, what the level of commitment is and what13it is?14MR. COX: Well it is, it's submitted with15the letter, I mean the commitment is a written letter16to the staff. You know so it is provided to them in17a letter.18Typically we would, if we had an REI that19we responded to that resulted in a change to the20commitment, we would update that commitment. And21typically submit the entire commitment list associated22with the license renewal application as an attachment23to the letter that responded to that particular REI,24or REIs.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4810JUDGE KENNEDY: So if Entergy completes1one of these commitments. In other words they've, at2least in the licensee's mind, they've completed the3actions that they committed to do. How is that4communicated to the staff?5MR. COX: It's largely an internal6documentation, except for license renewal, there is a7provision to notify the NRC when we completed all of8the commitments. There's not an individual9notification for each commitment. But there is a10notification that says we've completed all the11commitments, or all the commitments that are due. For12instance before the period of extended operation.13I wouldn't want to say all, license no14commitments because there's a few of them are not due15until sometime after the PEO. But there is a16notification to the staff before the PEO, that the17commitments that are due before the PEO have been18completed.19JUDGE KENNEDY: And does that notification20of the staff contain any details of the completion21process? I mean is it literally just a letter that22says at this point in time, we've completed all the23commitments prior to, you entering the period of24extended operation, or some example like that?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4811MR. COX: I believe it's not much more1than that. It would be a list I believe that shows2commitments that have been completed.3MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider4for Entergy. If I could expand on this response just5a little bit. I think it's worth noting that the NRC6also has an inspection procedure that they implement7to verify commitments prior to entering the extended8period of operation. And they have inspection9procedures during operation where they look at10commitments. So they do get at that through the11inspection process.12The other thing I wanted to note with13regard to the capturing, tracking, and enforcement of14commitments is that it's my understanding that the15staff plans to have a license condition that would16require that the commitments be put into the updated17final safety analysis report. So they will be18incorporated in that report and tracked. And can only19be modified under the provisions by which you can20change that report, which is 50 59.21JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you, sir.22Maybe I'll open it up to the staff and if23they themselves have anything to add to this process24since they're a part of it?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4812DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Actually1we have, the normal process that is followed is as Mr.2Cox mentioned, applicants or license renewal holders3at that point, would send us a letter that indicates4they've completed their commitments prior to the plant5entering the period of extended operation. We would6implement an inspection by the region. It would7verify that the completion of each of the commitments.8JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm curious about9this license condition and about commitments and when10that take place. Is that once the renewed licenses11are granted? When does that process kick off? Where12the commitments are incorporated into something like13the UFSAR?14DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Normally,15well when the renewed license is issued is when the16conditions apply to the plant. If we do not issue a17license, there is no license condition because it's18out of process at that point.19JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe Dr. Hiser, in the20interim between I guess in this case, the extreme21interval of when the license application was submitted22and all the evolutions of commitments up until today. 23What is the process for tracking, monitoring24commitments before this license condition evolution?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4813DR. HISER: The process would be that1changes made to the application, and commitments are2considered a part of the application, would be3submitted to the NRC as an amendment to the4application.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Mr. Cox, how does6that tie into your regulatory commitments? Are we7talking about the same thing here? Or is there a8subtlety here that may be missing, or I may be9missing?10MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy. 11There is a, I guess you could make a commitment to12the, I'm trying to describe the difference between the13normal process and license renewal. There's really14not a lot of difference.15The license renewal application, the fact16that that's under review adds another layer if you17will, of review. Those commitments as Dr. Hiser18indicated are submitted with the application as an19amendment to the application. They're also still20tracked internally in the database that I described21earlier. It's the regulatory commitments, so you22really kind of have a twofold process.23The one thing I didn't mention earlier, is24the internal regulatory commitment management process25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4814is based on an industry guidance that was developed by1the Nuclear Energy Institute. I believe it's NEI29904, which is an industry guideline on how to manage3regulatory commitments. And that guideline, I believe4is endorsed by the NRC staff.5CHAIRMAN McDADE: If I could just to6clarify in my own mind here, to make sure I understand7it correctly. Dr. Hiser, what is the FSAR?8DR. HISER: It's the Final Safety Analysis9Report.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and how are the11commitments incorporated into the FSAR?12DR. HISER: They're incorporated as one of13the appendices to the FSAR.14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and how does that15FSAR then relate to the ongoing current licensing16basis?17DR. HISER: That is one part of the18current licensing basis.19CHAIRMAN McDADE: So these commitments are20captured in the FSAR, which then in turn is captured21in the CLB, which is the overarching document for the22continued operation of the plant. Is that correct?23DR. HISER: That is an overarching24classification of documents for the plant.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4815CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, thank you. Judge1Kennedy.2JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I think I'm,3I don't know where to direct this. Let's talk a4little bit about Appendix A and Appendix B of the5application. If I remember correctly, Appendix A6contains aging management program descriptions. And7there's some discussion -- this is going to get long.8Let's see if I can make a question out of this.9All this discussion about commitments and10stuff made me think about Appendix A and Appendix B. 11Appendix B, let me ask the question to Mr. Cox. 12Appendix B contains the descriptions of the Indian13Point aging management programs. Is that true?14MR. COX: That's correct.15JUDGE KENNEDY: And Appendix A to the16license renewal application contains?17MR. COX: Appendix A also contains18descriptions of the programs. In some cases they're19not as much detail as in Appendix B. It's a summary20level of the program. It's intended to include all21the key elements that are necessary to ensure that we22have an effective program.23In addition, Appendix A also has a24discussion of the evaluation that was performed of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4816time limited aging analysis for license renewal. And1that becomes, that's the Appendix to the FSAR that Dr.2Hiser referred to.3That will be incorporated into the FSAR. 4Essentially for Indian Point it was done prior to the5entry into the period of extended operation. 6Typically it's done the next, it's updated, the FSAR,7after you receive the renewed license.8JUDGE KENNEDY: So the, do I take that to9mean the material that's placed in Appendix A is where10the long lasting descriptions of the aging management11programs are contained?12MR. COX: Yes. That would be correct.13JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's the material14that, is that the material that is under some level of15control then? What's the level of control over those16descriptions if it makes it to the final safety17analysis report?18MR. COX: Well the final safety analysis19report is indicated as a current licensing basis20document. Changes to that can be made under 10 CFR2150.59. If it meets those criteria in that part of the22regulations.23JUDGE KENNEDY: So the 10 CFR 50.5924process would be the controls over changes to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4817descriptive material of the aging management program?1MR. COX: Yes, sir. That's correct.2JUDGE KENNEDY: This is a question that I3struggle with all the time. It's unclear to me, and4I guess I'll start with the NRC staff. Why there's a5difference between, there appears to be in reading in6particular the Indian Point license renewal7application, a difference between what's in Appendix8A and what's in Appendix B. And I've always wondered9why they weren't just a mirror of each other.10I guess could you help enlighten the Board11as to why that would be the case? Or what's the12rationale and how does the staff determine that what's13in Appendix A is acceptable?14DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Appendix15A is the UFSAR supplement that the applicant proposes16to describe the aging management programs and TLAA17resolutions. So that becomes a part of the current18licensing basis.19Appendix B provides a description of the20AMPs, which for AMPs consistent with GALL tends to be21a very short summary. If there are exceptions, if22there are enhancements, then those are described in23Appendix B.24Appendix B is more the information that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4818the staff reviews as a part of its assessment of the1adequacy of the AMP.2Appendix A, the UFSAR supplement, is what3will go into the UFSAR and provides the licensing4basis description of the AMP that then is controlled5through the 50.59 process.6JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's the7nexus of my problem. Is how do you determine what8goes in the Appendix A documentation, which appears at9least to me, to be under a level of control that's10regulatory driven? And there's a lot of precedence on11how it is to be handled, and it's transparent best as12anything can be.13So I struggle with how the staff14determines what goes where. And if you could help15enlighten us it would help me a bunch.16DR. HISER: What goes into Appendix A, and17into the UFSAR is what staff believes sufficient18information to provide adequate control of the AMP. 19So we look for sufficient description of the program20and the essential elements of the program such that2150.59 would be an effective way to control changes to22that.23JUDGE KENNEDY: Does that have any24synergism with the GALL description? I'm trying to25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4819see you know a pathway from GALL which from one1argument, if you did verbatim compliance with GALL,2you'd have reasonable assurance. And then there's the3Appendix B description which could capture that.4And then Appendix A which puts that, some5subset of that information, or all of it, under a6level of control. I'm trying to really get7comfortable with how that, determinations are made. 8And we end up with Appendix A that has a measure of,9I perceive to be a good strong measure of controls on10the information?11DR. HISER: As I said, Appendix B is what12we review within the application. And the Commission13determined that for AMPs, that applicant AMPs that are14consistent with GALL, that the applicant could provide15a very short description of what is in the AMP.16The staff then performs an audit to verify17that AMPs identified as consistent with GALL, we18verify that they are in fact consistent, or identify19discrepancies.20Appendix A is just intended to provide21enough information that the applicant, or at that22point, license renewal holder, could not make23significant changes to the program that could affect24the effectiveness of the program. So it's to provide25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4820a measure of controls over that.1So they really are different purposes I2guess is what I'm trying to say.3JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't want to put words4in your mouth, but I heard you use the word5effectiveness of the aging management program. Is6that a level of the criteria that's being used to7determine the sufficiency of material in Appendix A?8DR. HISER: Well, when I said9effectiveness, I guess I did not mean in a, sort of in10detail by detail way. But more in an overall sense11that the effectiveness of the program would not be12compromised by changes.13JUDGE KENNEDY: You can see what I'm, well14maybe you can't. What I'm trying to get at is, I want15to get to the answer of the question, is there16sufficient, how do I convince myself there's17sufficient material in Appendix A that all the right18stuff is under a measure of control? That I at least19perceive to be adequate? And I'm trying to figure out20how the staff determines that?21DR. HISER: Well, in part we do that by22looking at prior applications, the level of detail23that's provided in Appendix A. We also just make an24engineering assessment of what is sufficient level of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4821detail. The applicant could put the entire ten1element program into their FSAR. But we don't believe2that that's necessary to do. We believe that would be3excessive.4JUDGE KENNEDY: Would I expect to find all5the critically characteristics that have been6displayed in Appendix B carried forward into Appendix7A?8DR. HISER: I believe that our intent is9to capture the things that we believe are critical in10Appendix A.11JUDGE KENNEDY: From the material that's12in Appendix B?13DR. HISER: Correct. Or in general about14the program. Because again, Appendix B may not, it15may be very, some overarching summary description. So16we may actually have more detail in Appendix A in some17cases.18JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.19MR. COX: Judge Kennedy. This is Alan20Cox. I might add just a little bit to that. It might21be helpful to look at the specifics for this22particular program. If you look at Appendix A, it23refers you to the MRP-227-A. There's not a lot of24discussion in there but it does tie you to that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4822program.1If you go to the GALL report description2in Appendix B, you would have, you go to the GALL3report, or the ISG program that's referenced from4Appendix B, you would find a lot of MRP information5that's broken out into the individual ten elements of6the program.7So I guess the differences there, it's all8incorporated in Appendix A as a reference to MRP-227-9A. You go to Appendix B, that's broken out and10spelled out in more detail. But there's nothing new,11there's nothing in Appendix B that's not covered under12MRP-227-A, which is what Appendix A ties the Indian13Point program to.14MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider15for Entergy. I'd like to add a little bit to this16too. And maybe if I can describe the overall17framework for you.18I think you need to recognize first the19hierarchy of documents. So you have the updated final20safety analysis report which is as Dr. Hiser21indicated, includes that information that the NRC22staff concludes is appropriate to show, demonstrate23reasonable assurance.24But you can imagine to implement that,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4823there's a whole lot of lower tier documents all the1way down to plant operating procedures. And it's not2practical or necessary to put all of those in the3updated FSAR.4That said, part of your question if I5understood it was related to control of, what controls6is over all these documents then. And one of the7things I wanted to point out when we mentioned 50.598earlier, is that the nuclear plant, when they go to9make a change in a procedure, even some of these lower10tier documents, they can't just unilaterally make that11change without first looking at it to see if it needs12to be evaluated under 50.59.13So if it could potentially, if a change in14a low level procedure, an implementation procedure,15could change something that's as described in the16updated final safety analysis report, then they need17to put it through 50.59 evaluation.18So all the way down to those implemented19procedures, there is a strong level of control in20terms of how they can be changed, and how they're21managed.22JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's what I23was concerned about. Depending on what level of24detail you put in Appendix A, governs how broad the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 482450.59 process could be in terms of level of control. 1Now if what Mr. Cox is saying is something like MRP-2227-A is incorporated by reference, that adds a lot of3detail to Appendix A. And I guess I'm going to ask4Mr. Cox if that's what he intended to say?5MR. COX: Yes, that's exactly what I was6intending to say.7JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, that helps a bunch. 8I mean I think that clears some of my concern up. 9Because sometimes you look at, if I look at these10Appendix A write-ups, they seem somewhat devoid of11detail. But if the intent is to incorporate by12reference, or if the actual practice is incorporation13by reference, I see this as a much broader set of14controls.15And I'm trying to look at it more say from16New York State's perspective, who has concerns about17how transparent this is to the public. And that to me18goes right to the heart of what's in Appendix A. 19That's where it all starts. At least from my20perspective.21MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider22for Entergy. So I'm looking at Appendix A and it23starts off saying, this program relies on24implementation of MRP-227-A. It's called out25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4825specifically here that that's what the program is1based on.2JUDGE KENNEDY: That helps. Thank you. 3And with that, I don't have any additional questions4on GALL. So I'll either turn it over to my colleagues5if they have any follow-up questions.6CHAIRMAN McDADE: I don't, not on this7overarching issue.8JUDGE KENNEDY: And then on behalf of all9assembled, I'm wondering if it's time for a break? I10have no idea what time it is, so.11CHAIRMAN McDADE: It's about 1:30. Would12a ten minute break be adequate? Does anyone require13more than ten minutes?14JUDGE KENNEDY: I think a ten minute break15would be great.16CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, why don't we break17now? We'll be back in ten minutes at 1:40.18(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went19off the record at 1:29 p.m. and resumed at 1:43 p.m.)20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we're back on the21record. Okay, first of all, let me ask do any counsel22have any matters to take up before we get back to23taking testimony?24MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris for the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4826staff. No, Your Honor.1MR. KUYLER: Ray Kuyler for Entergy. No,2Your Honor.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Mr. Sipos?4MR. SIPOS: John Sipos, State of New York. 5Not at this time.6MS. BRANCATO: And Deborah Brancato for7Riverkeeper. No, Your Honor. Thank you.8JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Dr. Hiser, you have9some clarification?10DR. HISER: I have clarifications. One of11them may make it more difficult to understand but it's12more consistent with the record I guess.13Initially the AMP that was submitted by14the Applicant was submitted July 2010 as a plant-15specific AMP.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Now, is this all AMPs or17you're referring to the reactor vessels?18DR. HISER: Only reactor vessel internals,19and what I will say for the next little bit is only20for the reactor vessel internals program. So that21program was submitted as a plant-specific program. 22Had ten elements. At that point GALL Revision 2 had23not been issued, so that's why it was a plant-specific24program.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4827JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's because GALL11 didn't contain any AMP in it for reactor vessel2internals. Is that correct?3DR. HISER: That is correct.4JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.5DR. HISER: Yes. Let's see. Subsequent6to that, we issued our Revision 2. Then through a7letter, let's see, the Exhibit Number is NYS 496,8which is Entergy Letter NL-12-037, they revised that9plant-specific AMP, and although they did not say it10was consistent with the LR-ISG, the staff realized11that it, in effect, was consistent.12MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler of the13staff. Yes, well, in February 2012 the LR-ISG had not14even been issued yet, but GALL Rev. 2 had been issued15but the Applicant did not cite GALL Rev. 2 because it16still referred to it as a plant-specific program but17one that was, that they did claim consistency with the18guidance in MRP-227-A.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Again, you said this20letter was NL-12-037?21MR. POEHLER: Correct.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.23DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser again. 24Earlier I answered a question about how we evaluate25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4828AMPs that are consistent with GALL and cited an audit1and then an audit report that summarizes the results2of the audit.3Because of the sequencing, the timely4sequencing of the AMP for reactor vessel internals for5Indian Point, there is no AMP consistency audit6report. Instead, the staff's evaluation is provided7in SER, Supplement 2.8There is an audit report that describes9the staff's evaluation of some of the applicant action10items and that is summarized in an audit report, so11there is a report for that. I do not have the exhibit12number for that right now but we could find that.13MR. POEHLER: It was NRC Exhibit 216, 2-1-146.15JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's for this16modified audit report, is that correct?17MR. POEHLER: Right, and that audit18report, it was limited in scope to some calculations19that supported some of the plant-specific action items20so it wasn't an overall, was not an overall audit of21the program compliance, just limited, narrow aspects.22JUDGE WARDWELL: And, Dr. Hiser, could you23get me the locations, the citing within the various24sections in case there's more than one in the SER25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4829where this is described for the reactor vessels1internals? You don't have to do it now but get it for2us later.3DR. HISER: We'll do that. I guess the4other thing that I wanted to clarify was regarding the5Appendix A descriptions of AMPs.6We have in the SRP-LR document, NUREG-71800, Rev. 2, we have descriptions of the AMPs that8the staff uses as examples for what should be in9Appendix A of the applications. So those are examples10of what the staff considers to be sufficient11information to assure adequate controls over the AMP.12When the staff reviews the application, we13compare what is in SRP-LR with Appendix A from the14application to ascertain that the application is15sufficient.16JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, that makes me17think of a question. So that's the standard review18plan for license renewal that you're referencing?19DR. HISER: That's correct.20JUDGE KENNEDY: For these descriptive21summaries?22DR. HISER: That's correct. And in the23case of this program, that SRP-LR discussion would be24in the LR-ISG for the reactor vessel internals25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4830program.1JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. I guess what comes2to mind is as GALL has evolved from Rev. 0 to Rev. 13to Rev. 2, has the standard review plan document4changed accordingly and, if not, how do I interpret5the value of that summary material for AMPs that have6undergone significant change over time?7DR. HISER: I have not done a comparison8from Rev. 0, Rev. 1, Rev. 2. I know for the reactor9vessel internals program, the FSAR supplement in Rev.101 was a description of the commitment in effect, that11the plant would participate in industry programs and12then would implement the program that came out of13those industry activities. Clearly then the LR-ISG14provided a more robust description of the program.15JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and let me just to17make sure, as time sequence goes here, you're18referring to the aging management audit report. That19report is dated August of 2015, or is that, it says a20submission date on it. Your index indicates October21of 2014 but the report itself has a date of August222015. I'm just trying to figure out for time sequence23of where it fits in. Is it from October 2014 or24August of 2015?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4831MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler from1the staff. Are you referring to the Exhibit 216, NRC2216 for the audit report?3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.4MR. POEHLER: Yes, the audit itself was5actually performed in 2013 I believe and --6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, it's indicated7April of 2013 for the dates of the audit.8MR. POEHLER: Right, and I think the9actual audit report was possibly not issued until10sometime in 2014 but I can't remember the exact dates11but it was prior to the supplemental safety evaluation12report being published.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Okay, and that14would have been October of 2014, approximately?15MR. POEHLER: Correct.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.17JUDGE KENNEDY: R2 of the overarching18questions. This is Judge Kennedy. Again, I drew the19short straw.20We'd like to entertain some discussion21over time-limited aging analyses. Again, the22testimony and the exhibits for a couple of these23contentions, time-limited aging analyses seem to play24a role and it occurred to us that it would be useful25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4832to have some general discussion before we start the1contention-specific questions.2Again, I'll try to address it, hopefully3to a person this time but, if not, we'll try starting4with organizational affiliations and work our way to5specifics.6Time-limited aging analysis, as I7mentioned, play a role in the testimony for this Track82 hearing and, for that reason, since it goes across9a couple of contentions, we thought we'd start with10it.11Let's start at the highest level and maybe12start with Entergy. Could you describe for us what a13time-limited aging analysis is in regard to the14license renewal process?15MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy. 16I could describe that. In general terms, there are17some places in the testimony, I'm looking at the NRC18staff testimony here, where they give a detailed19discussion of it out of the --20JUDGE KENNEDY: Are you looking at the21response to Question 16?22MR. COX: I am.23JUDGE KENNEDY: If possible, Mr. Welkie,24could you put up Page 23 from NRC 197, and hopefully25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4833it's not all redacted because it should be regulation.1I was going to use that later, Mr. Cox, so we might as2well put it up. Sorry, did I give you the wrong page3number?4MR. COX: Question 16.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.6MR. POEHLER: Your Honor, Page 23?7JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, that's correct. 8That's it right there.9MR. POEHLER: That's it. Would you like10to use this in answering the TLA question, Mr. Cox?11MR. COX: Sure. This is Alan Cox with12Entergy. As it says here on the screen, a TLAA is an13analysis that meets these six criteria that are listed14here.15The first is it has to involve system16structures or components that are within the scope of17license renewal. The second considers the effects of18aging. The third, it involves time-limited19assumptions defined by the current operating term, for20example, 40 years. The fourth is the analysis was21determined to be relevant by the licensee in making a22safety determination.23Criteria five involves conclusions or24provides the basis for conclusions related to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4834capability of the SSC, system, structure, or1component, to perform its intended function as2identified in 10 CFR 54.4 bravo. And lastly, it has3to be contained or incorporated by reference in the4plant's current licensing basis.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Now let's look at a couple6of these. Can we leave that up there, Mr. Welkie?7Looking at Number 3 in this list here of8characteristics of a time-limited aging, "involved9time-limited assumptions." Mr. Cox, what is that10referring to and if you would have an example it would11be useful.12MR. COX: Most of the TLAAs are involved13in these contentions and the Track 2 contentions are14involving fatigue analyses.15Fatigue analyses are based on a number of16cycles. The numbers of cycles that are used in those17analyses are estimates or assumptions that are18considered to be based on what numbers would be19anticipated to be incurred by the plant during a 40-20year period of operation. That becomes the tie. 21That's the assumption. It assumes a certain number of22cycles that is based on a 40-year operating period.23JUDGE KENNEDY: And the Bullet Number 6,24"are contained or incorporated by reference in the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4835current licensing basis." If I turn that around, if1it isn't currently in the current licensing basis,2that makes it not a TLAA? Are there none?3MR. COX: Yes, that's correct. That's the4way I would read that sixth criteria.5JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I take that further? 6Does that mean that TLAAs are not performed as part of7license renewal? They're contained somewhere else?8MR. COX: Let me try to clarify that a9little bit. The TLAA is an existing analysis so it10would not be performed for a license renewal. The11license renewal rule requires an evaluation of the12TLAAs, which is what's discussed in the next paragraph13here of this page.14So the TLAA itself is an existing15analysis. The evaluation is required for license16renewal, which may involve a revision of that analysis17to extend the time period for which it's applicable.18JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's go through these19little I, little two I, little, I, ii, and iii. So a20TLAA fits in one of those bins, I, ii, or iii? Is21that the way I should think of this?22MR. COX: The evaluation of TLAAs has to23be, has to demonstrate that you meet one of those24three options.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4836JUDGE KENNEDY: And you only meet one of1them? Are they mutually exclusive? So if a TLAA fits2in Bucket 1, you're done?3MR. COX: I think in general that's true. 4There is, you know, some variations. For example, we5could say that if we do a fatigue analysis that says6a component was good for 40 years or for 60 years,7maybe looked at the additional 20 years of operation8in that same analysis, maybe based on the number of9transients that we're experiencing, we are not going10to exceed that assumed number in 60 years.11We could look at that and say, well, that12TLAA is valid for the period of extended operation in13accordance with the single I there.14What we do, we actually take it a little15bit further than that. Because those are estimates,16projections are not actionable. I mean, it's not17truly based on a calendar. When you get to the end of1860 years, you don't know that you've met those19assumptions. It depends on how fast, you know, it20depends on the rate of accrual of the transient.21So we have credited, for the fatigue22TLAAs, we also credit, or in lieu of single I, we23credit triple I. We credit the fatigue monitoring24program, primarily as a way to monitor the number of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4837transients that are occurring as you operate the plant1to make sure that we don't exceed those numbers that2were assumed at the end of the, for the end of the3period of extended operation.4JUDGE KENNEDY: So using that example, I5guess when I first looked at this I came away with the6sense that if it fell into the first bucket, that7aging management wouldn't be part of the process.8MR. COX: I think, in general, in the9purest sense of the word, that would be true but, like10I said, this case, it's not, you know, the number of11transients is not strictly a function of how long you12operate the plant. It's an estimate based on what's13expected during a typical operating cycle.14And because there are variations from15plant to plant as far as how well the plant is16operated and how many transients you incur, we've17credited the program to monitor those occurrences to18make sure the assumptions remain valid for the 60-year19period.20JUDGE KENNEDY: And you use the example of21metal fatigue I guess, and so this is the cumulative22usage factor calculation. Is that what falls into23this?24MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4838JUDGE KENNEDY: And so I thought I heard1you say that even though it maybe would be valid for2the period of extended operation, you really, the3application considers it more of a third bullet?4MR. COX: That's correct.5JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's actually, even6though it's projected to remain valid for the period7of extended operation, it is within an aging8management program. Is that the way I should take9that?10MR. COX: That's correct. For the fatigue11analyses, that is true. It's a little bit of a hybrid12because it is, it's not purely based on the number of13years but it is based on the number of transients that14are experienced.15JUDGE KENNEDY: What does it mean to be16projected to the end of the period of extended17operation and what's a good example of that type of18TLAA, or time-limited aging analysis?19MR. COX: I guess if we used fatigue20analysis as an example, if we had an analysis that21said you're going to -- Let's just pick a number. 22Let's say you could have 100 heat-ups and cool-downs23in the analysis and your TLAA or your CUF would still24be valid at the end of the period of extended25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4839operation.1If you determined that 100 was a valid2number that you would not expect to exceed after 603years of operation, you could say that was a single I.4If you saw, based on your operating5history, that you're probably going to go up to 1206heat-ups and cool-downs at the end of 60 years, then7you would redo that analysis to use 120 cycles instead8of 100 and you could say that you have projected the9analysis to the end of the period of extended10operation.11JUDGE WARDWELL: That doesn't make much12sense to me. It sounds like both were projections. 13I don't see how you get a single I. Aren't you still14projecting? You just made a different assumption in15your projection.16DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I guess17the difference is in the first one your projection18validates the current analysis of record, so it19validates the adequacy of the COB analysis.20If the projection, as Mr. Cox mentioned,21indicates that the value will go higher, so your22assumptions are no longer valid, then double I23indicates that you would have to reevaluate that24analysis to demonstrate that it still is accurate.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4840JUDGE WARDWELL: Explain to me again how1with fatigue a TLAA could possibly fall within I2because it seemed to me we'll be always projecting, as3Mr. Cox said, the number of transients, not the time4of years.5It's not important, the time of years. 6It's the number of transients. So it's a rate of7transients really and it's always a projection. 8You'll never know truth until you experience it.9MR. COX: Judge Wardwell, let me try that. 10I mean, you're right. They both involve projections11but in the first case, the single I, you're not12revising the analysis to incorporate a different13projection. You've done the work outside of the14analysis to project the number of transients and,15based on that projection, that analysis remains valid16without revision.17But if you read the words, it says "the18analysis is projected." That's not to say, you know,19on single I analysis remains valid based on your20projection of the transients but you're not changing21the analysis.22In the second one, you're actually doing23a projection of the analysis to use a different number24based on projection of the number of cycles.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4841JUDGE WARDWELL: So the analysis you're1referring to is not the calculation that was done in2the TLAA but the analysis of the TLAA? Is that what3you were saying?4MR. COX: The analysis that's done in the5TLAA is looking at, in my first example it would say6100 heat-ups and cool-downs. That's in the analysis.7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, where did this 1008come from? We're going to have to jump me right back9down because as soon as you start saying that I got to10know where did -- Okay, here we are. You're preparing11your license renewal application --12MR. COX: The 100 is a --13JUDGE WARDWELL: -- and you've done TLAAs,14okay, for fatigue all along, correct?15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, if I could16interrupt here because I'm getting more confused17rather than, you know, more clear on this.18JUDGE WARDWELL: So you interrupting is19going to help us?20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No.21JUDGE WARDWELL: We need help.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: For Mr. Cox, as you23answer the question -- Correct my misinformation and24my misconception here. I had viewed I as the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4842situation where you anticipated there'd be 1001transients.2ii is a situation where you look at it and3you determine in the period of extended operation4there won't be 100 transients but there'll be 2005transients. So you now have to project given the6increased number of transients in the period of7extended operation. Have I just --8MR. COX: Yes, let me start that.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Explain how I got so far10off the path.11MR. COX: The TLAAs that we're talking12about, if we talked about the first one on the -- You13know, and the 100 number, Judge Wardwell, is a14hypothetical number. That's what I just made up.15So assuming that the analysis evaluated16100 transient, that analysis was done probably during17the initial plant design, so that was done 35 years18ago and it's an assumption.19So we look at the projection of cycles20based on operating history and we say at the end of 6021years I'm still going to be less than 100. That22original analysis does not change. It's still valid23for the period of extended operation.24JUDGE WARDWELL: Hold right here. So what25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4843you said is at this point your analysis that you1conducted during the design or even subsequently2during operations up to this point, up to the original3licensing date, that's the end of your license,4current license, you had always used 100.5And at this point in time, if you look6forward to license renewal and determine that it was7still going to be less than 100, then it would be an8I.9MR. COX: That's correct.10JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, great. Now, I'll11move ahead. Yes, good.12So now, under ii, all you did is now at13that same point in time while you're preparing your14license application, you now say, oh, gee, it's going15to go up to 160. That would be a double I.16MR. COX: Right, that would require a17revision or a projection of that analysis. That18original analysis is no longer going to remain valid19for the 60-year period. It's going to have to be20revised. We're going to have to calculate a new21cumulative usage factor and we're going to have to22show that it still remains less than one.23JUDGE WARDWELL: And if it does, if this24wasn't a fatigue example, you would be off the hook25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4844from doing aging management, right? Either I or1double I took place.2MR. COX: Right, you would essentially3have an analysis that says for this 60-year period4this particular aging effect is not an aging effect5requiring management.6JUDGE WARDWELL: But with fatigue that's7a special case where you actually are doing it because8you just don't know how many transients. It's always9going to be an unknown. It's not based on years. 10It's just based on how many of these you happen to11have and it could be a wrong projection.12MR. COX: That's correct.13MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider14for Entergy. I'd just like to suggest that this15conversation, to me, demonstrates exactly why it makes16sense to manage fatigue through an aging management17program, which is what Entergy is doing, meaning that18they will be looking at the number of cycles and19making sure that it meets their analysis.20So they have chosen Option 3 and it makes21sense for the reasons that you're talking about. The22simple example, if I could --23JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me interject24because we're interested in questioning and, as your25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4845colleague just spoke, Mr. Cox, why have these i's and1double i's and triple i's, why don't we just jump to2aging management for everything we do?3MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider4for Entergy. If I could just finish my comment there. 5The example I was going to give, which is not related6to these contentions, but consider, if you will, a7piece of equipment that's qualified for a 20-year life8and then it has to be replaced.9That doesn't fall in the, I guess in the10scope of license renewal perhaps, but if you have11something like that, you can't look at it and say this12is going to be good for 60 years. I know that I have13to do something earlier, but.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Cox, would you have15a comment on why would we bother with i and double i?16MR. COX: Well, again, I think in this17case, in the case of fatigue analyses, it's important18to recognize that it's not strictly based on the19calendar.20If you had another kind of analysis --21Let's say you had a corrosion rate that you knew was22going to be a constant every year for 60 years and in23that case you could say if I apply that corrosion rate24for 60 years I still meet the acceptance criteria. I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4846projected the analysis. It still shows I have1adequate minimum wall thickness. So in that case, the2single i or the double i would be applicable.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Have any of the pieces of4equipment or system structures or components that do5qualify for license renewal been screened out based on6TLAAs, i.e., as falling under i or double i knowledge?7MR. COX: Yes, that's not quite the same8as screened out. In screened out, we would consider9that to be where you apply the criteria of whether10it's active or passive or long-lived or short-lived.11But as far as TLAAs go, there are TLAAs12described in the license renewal application that have13been demonstrated acceptable in accordance with the14single i or the double i.15JUDGE WARDWELL: That's a better way to16word it than the screening. Thank you.17MR. COX: Embrittlement TLAAs on the18reactor vessel is a good example. Those are typically19projected. You reevaluate, recalculate the fluence20expected at the end of 60 years and you show that the21associated embrittlement analyses are going to be22valid at 60 years in accordance with the double i.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And those are items such25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4847as, like, the upper support plate assembly, the upper1core plate, the core barrel. Is that what you're2talking about?3MR. COX: No, what I was talking about in4that last example is the actual reactor vessel itself,5not the internals but the reactor vessel that's6subject to the upper-shelf energy requirements in 107CFR, what is it, 50.60?8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, but what about the9reactor vessel internals? There are reactor vessel10internals that have been --11JUDGE WARDWELL: Get to that.12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Going to get to that? 13Okay.14MR. COX: Yes. Those --15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Judge Wardwell is going16to get to that, so let me defer.17JUDGE WARDWELL: In excruciating detail18I'm afraid, though I am looking forward to it. The19audience, I think, is even more excited than me.20JUDGE KENNEDY: So going back to i and ii,21did I understand, using the example of embrittlement22or the reactor vessel itself, if that fell in either23i or ii, would that mean it's not subject to aging24management?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4848MR. COX: It would mean that that1particular aging effect does not require an aging2management program.3JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And that's why, at4least it sounded to me like that's why this has these5categories, so that you could bin them. It sounds6like what you just testified, that -- Under metal7fatigue, even though i or ii may be a calculation that8has either been done before or redone, it would still9be managed for aging or at least monitored for cycles.10MR. COX: That's correct and it's not, I11mean, it's not actually managing the aging effect12directly as much as it is monitoring the numbers of13transients that are assumptions in the analyses to14make sure that those assumptions remain valid and,15therefore, the analysis remains valid.16JUDGE KENNEDY: One more question, Mr.17Cox, before we turn to the staff because, these re-18analyses or calculations that are done under Item ii,19are those done as part of license renewal or is that20done somewhere else? The little i.21MR. COX: Those calculations or those22projections would be done as part of the evaluation of23TLAAs for license renewal.24JUDGE KENNEDY: For license renewal. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4849Okay.1Going back to cumulative usage factors, is2every cumulative usage factor a TLAA?3MR. COX: I would say the analysis that4calculated the cumulative usage factor would be a5TLAA.6JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's, I have7my own internal confusion over that terminology and it8shows up when I read the testimony. Maybe you could9amplify that a little bit so we can get some clarity10to what a CUF, which sounds like a calculation, and a11TLAA, which is a calculation, and what's the12relationship between those two?13MR. COX: Okay. The CUF is the result of14the fatigue calculation. Fatigue calculation, which15is the TLAA, calculates the cumulative usage factor,16compares that to the acceptance criteria, which is171.0, and that's how you would determine whether that18calculation is valid. So the CUF is a product of a19TLAA or a fatigue analysis, which is a TLAA.20JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that saying I wasn't21confused, that they are the same thing?22MR. COX: I mean, it's a subtle23difference. It's the analysis in one case and it's24the result of the analysis. The CUF is a result of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4850the TLAA.1JUDGE KENNEDY: I think the reason I'm2spending a little bit of time on it, maybe more than3I should, but in some of the responses to the4testimony under the contentions it seems like there's5an attempt to put some of this out of reach as being6within the current licensing basis and not being done7as part of license renewal and I'm trying to find8where that line is.9It would seem to me in metal fatigue that10they're all in. I guess that's what it looked to me11like. They were all calculations that were needed for12license renewal and part of the license renewal13process.14MR. COX: Yes, this is Alan Cox again with15Entergy. Let's take the single i example or case for16an example. You have an analysis that's based on an17example I used, 100 heat-ups and cool-downs. Okay,18that's a current licensing basis analysis. That was19done as part of the plant design.20So we're not changing any of the21assumptions. We're not changing anything about that22analysis. All we're doing is evaluating that analysis23to see if it remains valid for the period of extended24operation by looking at the operating history of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4851plant and projecting the number of cycles.1So that's what we intended by any2references to saying that's part of the current3licensing basis, is that those assumptions and the way4you calculated fatigue is all defined in the current5licensing basis. We're not changing that for that6particular calculation.7You know, so that's why we're saying it's8CLB. It's not part of license renewal. It's not9changed due to license renewal.10JUDGE KENNEDY: So the single i items11would be viewed as current licensing basis and not12challengeable within a license renewal proceeding?13MR. COX: Yes and, again, it's a little14bit of a hybrid here because we're saying that even15for the single i we're using the program to manage the16number of cycles but we're still not touching the17original analysis or changing, you know, even on a18double ii we're not changing necessarily the methods19that are used to calculate fatigue from what's defined20in the current licensing basis by references to the21applicable parts of the ASME Code, for example.22JUDGE KENNEDY: Would the double ii CUFs23be challengeable as part of or subject to challenge as24part of the license renewal proceeding? I mean, is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4852that the line? Is it little i versus double ii or1single i versus double ii as being the boundary even2though they're -- I think Dr. Hiser seems to want to3say something here. We'll get to you. We'll see if4they got a --5MR. COX: In my opinion on this, even if6you changed the calculation, if you still followed7procedures and processes that were established as part8of the CLB, those processes and procedures would not9be subject to challenge as part of license renewal.10JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that the same as saying11the CUF values would not be challengeable, whether12they're single i or double i?13MR. COX: I think the result of the14calculation would be the CUF values that you're15referring to and I think that would be the conclusion16that I would reach, is that those are not subject to17challenge because they are done using the same methods18that were established as part of the CLB.19JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you, Mr.20Cox. Dr. Hiser, would you like to add to this21discussion? I know it's not your application but --22DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Actually23I would say the NRC would consider any TLAA to be24challengeable, whether it's single i, double i, or25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4853triple i, because the applicant must make certain1assumptions and evaluations as a part of that2determination and clearly those would be, you know, we3challenge them as we review the application and so4from that perspective I think they certainly would be5subject to challenge.6Now, I mean, just to be clear, the7methodology used to do the calculation, to do the8analysis, would not be subject to challenge.9The input value of, in using Mr. Cox's10examples of heat-up and cool-down cycles, that would11be where the challenge really would be because the12methodology is current licensing basis and that is not13challenged.14The time-limited aspect of the analysis,15which would be the input heat-up and cool-down number16of cycles, that would be the part that would be17subject to challenge in this case.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Dr. Hiser, and,19again, I just want to make sure I'm hearing what20you're saying.21Under i, the method isn't challengeable22but if they're saying initially it's good for 10023cycles, they have to demonstrate that it's not going24to exceed 100 cycles during the period of original and25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4854extended operation.1On the other hand, if it is going to2exceed 100 cycles during the period of extended3operation, then you go to double i and make a4determination as to whether or not the analysis5demonstrates that with the additional cycles it will6remain, you know, valid, using this CUF that it'll7still be below one as an example. Am I correctly8understanding what you're saying?9DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.11JUDGE KENNEDY: With that, I have no12further questions on TLAAs. My board mates may have13some.14JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not sure I heard, 15I'll ask Dr. Hiser again just to make sure I heard16this last bit correctly. Would the initial 10017transient cycles be challengeable also? You may have18answered that but, if not, I want to make sure that is19answered.20DR. HISER: The original 100 in the21original analysis would not be. The demonstration22under single i that the number of expected transients23will remain below 100, that would be challengeable.24JUDGE WARDWELL: That's what I meant to25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4855ask. Thank you.1MR. COX: And this is Alan Cox with2Entergy. I might add to that, for the case of fatigue3analyses, that's the reason why we credit the triple4i. We credit the fatigue monitoring program because5that's what we're going to use to make sure that that6100 number does remain valid and is a good projection.7DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. Just to8clarify one thing as well, the fatigue monitoring9program is required in the tech specs by the10applicant, so that program is there regardless of11license renewal or regardless of TLAAs. The plant is12required to monitor transients and compare with13assumptions that are listed in the tech specs as well.14So this is one situation, as Mr. Cox15mentioned, that they can demonstrate, using single i16or double i, that the analysis is acceptable, but they17still are required by tech specs to continue to verify18that those assumptions are still met.19JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it fair to say20they're more than assumptions too? I mean, they are21estimates based on some operating experience or22evaluation or --23DR. HISER: You know, they really are24projections. In the case of fatigue cycles,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4856applicants will determine the number of cycles up to1some point in time.2Normally around the date that they submit3the application, they will evaluate the trends from4that and then project forward what they expect to be5the case at 60 years, so it is a projection.6I guess assumption I took in the manner of7an analysis has certain assumptions. Maybe input8value is what I should have used, that that input9value is what is used in the analysis.10MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy. 11I guess one more point of clarification on that, at12the time these analyses were first performed back in13the early '70s they were estimates. There wasn't a14lot of operating history you could use to project what15you're going to have after 40 years. Nobody had been16operating for that long. There was very little17operating experience to go by so, in essence, they18were --19JUDGE WARDWELL: True --20MR. COX: -- educated guesses about or21estimates about what cycles would be necessary to22qualify that component.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Good point.24JUDGE KENNEDY: I ceded the floor, sir.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4857JUDGE WARDWELL: So I think now we're1going to move on to our first contention that we're2going to address. That's Contention 25.3Couple little introductory comments I4might make before we get started here. We've read all5the testimony so we're familiar with what you've6offered.7Generated some questions to help clarify8some of what we read. Many times I'll be asking, and9other judges will too I'm sure, yes/no questions. 10We're not trying to trick you.11Oh first of all, the entire panel for 2512ceded? Is that correct? We're all set with that,13right? This is the 25 panel, all right.14We're not trying to trick you with yes/no15questions. More often than not, it is just a question16to help confirm what we understood you were saying or17advocating within the, usually, in my case, on18something I'm going to quote out of your testimony.19Don't think you need to elaborate on those20yes/no's. Just answer them as yes and no and, as part21of that, I'll let you know the topics I'm planning to22cover so that you can be comforted that, yes, you23don't have to cover everything right now with these24yes/no questions. There will be times to elaborate25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4858more on any position you have.1But, again, I'm just trying to fix a point2mostly with some of those and, just for time3constraints, try to stay with yes or no because4usually it's just trying to fix an obvious point more5often than not.6Sometimes I may interrupt you in your7response. Don't be crushed. Don't take it8personally. More often than not it's because I wasn't9clear with my question.10And if I find that you're wandering off,11I can see that obviously I haven't made myself clear12so I want to interrupt you and try to ask it another13way to bring you back to where I'm trying to go with14this to help complete the record, which is what I'm15trying to do with these questions that I have on 25.16Also, I'd like to hold down any offers to17provide additional testimony from other witnesses18besides the ones that I am questioning. You know, if,19in fact, we're confused, we certainly will ask for20that.21If you have a burning desire -- And,22again, this is for time constraints because otherwise23we'd be here for a long time and some of the times I24think with Track 1 we did get too much off course with25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4859some discussion that was more than that was needed.1If you do have a burning desire that you2just, and this is I just have too much to offer here3that I cannot sit still, well, jot it down and get it4to your counsel and they'll be able to offer it as5questions at the end of each of these sessions to6offer those up and then we can look at them and say,7oh, yes, gee, we should have asked that so that we8will seek that information through those questions.9And if nothing else, they can, you know,10add it to the findings of facts or conclusions of law,11so there is a way to get something in that you might12have a burning desire to offer, but we will generally13ask the additional questions we need if we're confused14as we go along here and that will allow us to do it15the most efficiently.16Under 25, I'll just read a synopsis, one17of the synopses that I saw offered and get everyone18familiar again with what we're covering here. Twenty-19five says that "Entergy's license renewal application20does not include an adequate plan to monitor and21manage the effects of aging due to embrittlement of22the reactor pressure vessels and the associated23internals."24New York State submitted a declaration in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4860support of the additional bases identifying concerns1with, among other things, that declaration discussing2the synergistic effects of embrittlement and fatigue3and efficiencies in the visual and remote examination4techniques that Entergy and industry had proposed to5employ as part of the aging management program for the6embrittlement of reactor internals.7As part of this, I will be asking8questions and discussing just the general adequacy of9these AMPs, you know, related to the reactor pressure10vessel and the internals. Talk then about synergistic11degradation. Follow that up with talking about the12full range of transient shock loads that may or may13not influence that degradation. Discuss the14adequacies of inspections, and then finish it up with15preventive actions, corrective actions and acceptance16criteria, so that's where we're going with this.17And with that, I think I'll start off with18talking about the general adequacy of the AMP and19reference to start with Entergy's Exhibit 616.20Oh and by the way, all my references are21to non-public documents. I don't believe I've asked22any questions, relayed anything that had been redacted23by the various parties within those testimonies.24So if we do pull up an exhibit, it will be25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4861the redacted exhibit and it'll show up in the process1as we pull up any testimony that we may want to ask a2question about and then we'll proceed from there on3how to address that, but hopefully it hasn't happened.4But I just wanted to notify you now that,5yes, I have referenced as far as page numbers and6various answers from your testimony the public version7of it, the non-public version of it, I'm sorry, in8regards to, although I don't think the page numbers9change but I just wanted to reference that anyhow.10So Entergy's Exhibit 616, testimony for11Question and Answer 51 on Page 27, the question and12answer on Page 55 for 29, and the question and answer13for 64 on Page 33 where within those sections --14And you don't have to look them up. I'm15going to read to you what I'm interested in and that's16the case here in all of these. I'll be reading what17I'm interested in and then ask questions about that. 18So it's better just listen for now, and then if you19need to see it, we can call it up.20But within those groups of areas, Entergy21notes that while State's initial pleadings in 2007 on22this contention focused primarily on the reactor23pressure vessel rather than the reactor vessel24internals, following the admission of Contention New25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4862York State 25, Entergy submitted several reactor1vessel-related amendments to clarify its license2renewal application, revise the description of how3Entergy would address the then proposed alternative4pressurized thermal shock, or the PTS rule, and noted5the closure of certain reactor pressure vessel-related6commitments.7The State, however, has never amended New8York State 25 to address or challenge these updates. 9This is, again, Entergy's statement, not mine.10Going on with Entergy's statement, they11say that, instead, the State has shifted its focus to12reactor vessel internals.13Specifically, in Entergy's opinion, in Dr.14Lahey's pre-file testimony and the State's statements15of position on this contention, Dr. Lahey and the16State do not allege any specific deficiencies in17Entergy's license renewal application regarding18reactor pressure vessels.19And I'll start off with Entergy and ask20are the AMPs for the reactor vessel internals and the21reactor pressure vessels one and the same or are they22covered by different AMPs?23MR. KUYLER: Your Honor, if I may, this is24Ray Kuyler for Entergy. I believe Your Honor has been25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4863reading from the Statement of Position, the legal1brief that Entergy submitted, rather than our witness2testimony.3JUDGE WARDWELL: I think the question and4answers on Page 51 of 27 and 55 of 29 and 64 of 335cover those same topics. This wasn't a quote. This6was just a statement that I gathered from those but,7so anyone from Entergy who would like to answer that.8MR. COX: Could you repeat your question9one more time, Your Honor?10JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, I'm interested in11are the, is the reactor pressure vessel covered by the12same AMP as the reactor vessel internals?13MR. COX: No, it's not.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you. NRC15statement, Testimony 197, Answer 10 to Page 20 states,16quote, this is the NRC speaking, "The reactor vessel17internals also do not include any pressure or boundary18component such as reactor pressure vessels. These19components are addressed in other programs," which20seem to support Entergy's answer that we just21received.22Entergy's Testimony Exhibit 616, Answer2364, Pages 33 to 34, and this I will quote, says that24"with regard to the reactor pressure vessels, Dr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4864Lahey briefly alludes to some of his prior claims1regarding the reactor pressure vessel when he refers2to the, quote, 'variance' that was, quote, 'endorsed'3by the ACRS to permit continued operation with reactor4pressure vessels end-of-life Charpy upper-shelf USE,5and I believe that's the capital U, capital S, capital6E, values that are less than 50 foot pounds.7In his 2015 testimony, Dr. Lahey also8refers to certain documents discussing branch9technical position regarding the initial fracture10toughness of reactor pressure vessel materials,11suggesting that certain reactor pressure vessel12embrittlement analyses may be non-conservative.13The staff then goes on to say that "but14Dr. Lahey and the state stop short of asserting," I15mean, sorry, that's Entergy, and 616 goes on to say16"but Dr. Lahey and the state stop short of asserting17any specific deficiencies in Entergy's license renewal18application regarding the reactor pressure vessels."19And I'll direct this to Dr. Lahey. Are20there any other locations, besides what I just said,21that Entergy said that you were referred to reactor22pressure vessels where you feel you have challenged23the AMP for reactor pressure vessels within your24testimony?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4865DR. LAHEY: Thank you, Your Honor. This1is Richard Lahey, a witness for New York State. We2did, in fact, starting in 2007 I believe, raise the3issue of certain plates in the pressure vessel which4were either going to violate the upper-shelf criteria5--6JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Excuse me, I'm7interested in your testimony that you submitted now8for the current issue --9DR. LAHEY: Yes.10JUDGE WARDWELL: -- not what you did11before.12DR. LAHEY: Interestingly my testimony has13been pretty consistent for the last eight years, but14the answer is there are a few plates in the pressure15vessel which have some problems with pressurized16thermal shock.17JUDGE WARDWELL: And where did you cite18those in your testimony?19DR. LAHEY: Which testimony?20JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, where did you cite21that in any of your testimony that you've provided22here?23DR. LAHEY: Well, in fact, I think in the242007 I cited it first and then in others I've said,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4866but if you just let me finish --1JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.2DR. LAHEY: -- I can tell you why it was3not a big deal for me, because this is an area that4has been of great importance to the U.S. NRC since day5one, pressure vessel integrity, and I felt very6comfortable that they had their arms around this7problem and there was not too much I could add to it,8other than bring it to the attention of the board.9And the fact is there have been some BTP1053 issues in terms of how you determine the11embrittlement of these things that are related. But12I feel really comfortable the NRC is on top of this,13so compared to my other issues, this has not been14highlighted in my testimony.15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: The focus of your16testimony is on the reactor vessel internals and the17adequacy of the aging management for those reactor18vessel internals, correct, doctor?19DR. LAHEY: That's certainly true because20of how that impacts the possibility of core cooling,21adequacy of core cooling, because my overall concern22is safety. That's what I've been doing all my life. 23And so anything related to that is what I'm concerned24with and what I've focused on in my testimony.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4867JUDGE WARDWELL: So you would agree that1then the heart of your contention for 25 now deals2with the reactor vessel internals, and specifically3I'm going to pull out from your testimony 482 on Page478, Lines 14 through 21, where you summarize that and5just want to confirm if there's anything else extra6you'd like to add to this list.7DR. LAHEY: Do you want me to look that8up?9JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I'm going to read it10for you right here now so that you don't have to do.11One, the synergistic effect on degradation12and integrity of reactor pressure vessel internals of13radiation-induced embrittlement, corrosion, and14fatigue was one of your issues.15The second issue was the potential for16unanticipated failure of reactor vessel internals due17to a severe seismic event or accident-induced thermal18and/or pressure shock loads.19Three, the implications of the failure of20the reactor pressure vessel internal structure21components and fittings on post-accident core22coolability.23And then citing another area was your same24testimony, Exhibit 482 on Page 40, Lines 1 through 4,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4868that, quote, "Highly embrittled and fatigued reactor1vessel internal components may not have signs of2degradation that can be detected by an inspection but3such weakened components could, nonetheless, fail as4a result of severe seismic event or thermal pressure5shock loads." Is that a fair assessment of your main6points of your contention?7DR. LAHEY: Yes, Your Honor.8JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. And without9getting into any inadequacies associated with the10RVIs, is it fair to say then that we can move forward11with only looking at the reactor vessel internals and12that the pressure vessel itself is no longer an issue13with this contention?14DR. LAHEY: I would leave that up to New15York State. I told you how I feel about the issue.16JUDGE WARDWELL: But as I heard --17DR. LAHEY: I mean, my primary concern is18with the impact of failed reactor pressure vessel19internals on core coolability.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, and there's no21longer a need to address anything else with you as far22as testimony you'd like to provide in addition in23regards to the pressure vessel itself?24DR. LAHEY: Well, I've told you the issue25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4869is the plates which are, in fact, the wall of the1pressure vessel. And at some point in time, they are2going to exceed the pressurized thermal shock criteria3and the implications of that are not good, but it's4well-known and I think the NRC is totally on top of5that issue as far as I'm concerned.6JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you very much.7DR. LAHEY: Maybe they could say they're8not, but I doubt it.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Hiser, are you on top10of those plates for the pressure vessel itself?11DR. HISER: I am technically on top of12them, yes.13JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. Thank you.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Not physically on top of15them.16DR. HISER: I'm in Tarrytown, New York17right now.18JUDGE WARDWELL: Top of the world. It19doesn't get any better than this, does it?20DR. HISER: No, sir.21JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You were under oath when23you said it doesn't get any better than this.24(Laughter.)25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4870JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's turn to these AMPs1again and a little bit of this may be a repeat from2what we've managed to cover already but we'll see3where we are with that.4NRC's testimony, Exhibit 197, Answer 1145on Page 72, states that "The IP2 and IP3 RVI," that's6for reactor vessel internals, "AMP consists of a7program description describing the ten elements of the8AMP. A program description was initially submitted on9July 14th, 2010, and was revised in a letter dated10February 17th, 2012." And here you're citing New York11State's Exhibit 496, which is the letter NL-12-037 and12Attachment 1.13Entergy, do you agree that the program14description of Entergy's AMP for reactor vessels15internals is attached to Entergy's letter NL-12-037 in16New York State's Exhibit 496?17MR. DOLANSKY: This is Bob Dolansky with18Entergy. Yes.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. And, Dr.20Lahey, do you agree that that is their AMP for reactor21vessel internals?22DR. LAHEY: As I understand it, yes.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. For anyone24with NRC, where have -- I think you've already been25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4871tasked to answer this but I'll answer it again. Where1have you addressed the ten elements of GALL for the2RVI AMP in your SER? Is that one of those ones that3I asked you earlier to get for me at some time?4MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler for5the staff. The ten elements are addressed in the6supplement to the SER. It's NUREG-1930, Supplement 2.7JUDGE WARDWELL: And if you have the8section numbers and can get that for us later, that's9fine. It just --10MR. POEHLER: I don't have the exact11section number at the moment. I can get it for you.12JUDGE WARDWELL: The only reason I ask you13is not because I'm lazy. Well, that is part of the14reason, but oftentimes there are sections we're not15aware that really apply to that when you look at16something like the table of contents and that's why I17just want to make sure that you're telling me where I18should be looking for the SER for things like that.19And when I ask this question in other20areas, that's why I do it, whether it's for New York21or any expert. I may ask you where is that actually22stated and that's because I don't want to assume I23know every place that it might be stated within a24given document.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4872MR. POEHLER: Yes, Dr. Hiser just pulled1up the citation. It's Section 3.0.3.3.9 of NUREG-21930, Supplement 2.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you very much.4MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian5Harris for the staff. Can we just let that reflect6that it's NYS 507, I believe is the Exhibit number for7the supplemental safety evaluation report.8JUDGE WARDWELL: Better yet. That's9great. Thanks. Yes, I really appreciate any of those10cites that you provide. It always helps the record as11we go through the transcript. That's welcomed12interruption by the way.13MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: If I could clarify for15myself, that was Section 3.0.3.0.9. Is that --16DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. 173.0.3.3.9, Page 3-13 of Supplement 2.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you. Thank you.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Staying with the staff,20we kind of skirted this but I think I'm going to ask21it anyhow because it says it a little more directly22too.23From a technical standpoint, is24consistency with GALL, containing the ten program25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4873elements, in and of itself enough or is more depth1analysis of the adequacy of the described program in2the AMP needed for you to reach the conclusion that3the intended functions of the passive reactor vessel4internals within the scope of license renewal will be5maintained?6DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, the staff. 7In and of itself, consistency with the ten elements is8not sufficient. The applicant must demonstrate that9the components at the applicant site that are covered10by the AMP are consistent and they also must11demonstrate that operating experience is consistent. 12So they have to provide a context that shows that the13AMP really is responsive to the aging management needs14at the facility.15JUDGE WARDWELL: And is that response16documented in the SER also in at least some summary17form or so someone can understand what you went18through in your interactions with the staff to provide19this demonstration that the ten elements are being20addressed?21DR. HISER: I'm not sure that we can point22to a specific place within the SER because I think it23really is embedded within the evaluation in the SER of24each of the elements and in the applicant action25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4874items.1JUDGE WARDWELL: That was my question. I2didn't mean to ask you to point me to a page number. 3I just asked you as a standard practice that you4incorporate those interactions within your narratives. 5Thank you.6I'll ask Dr. Lahey, have you looked over7the ten elements of the GALL in the submittal that was8provided in Attachment 1 of that letter, and do you9see any area where you feel there is inconsistencies10associated with what's required by law?11DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, this is Richard12Lahey again. I have looked it over. I have concerns13about synergisms, and to understand how I feel, at14some point I need to give you some overview of why I'm15saying what I'm saying but I don't know it's the right16time. If you just want --17JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I think you have. 18You provided your testimony in 482. Isn't that your19overview?20DR. LAHEY: Well, it's part of it but I21think --22JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, that should be. 23That's what we're interrogating here. That should be24all of it if, I mean, that's what you've submitted for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4875your testimony and now we're getting elaborations on1that overview that you provided.2DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, if you understood3everything I said, that's fine.4JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, no, don't get me --5I've got a lot of questions for you. Don't worry6about that. I just want to make sure you're aware7that your testimony has been submitted as pre-filed8testimony and we're not here to create more testimony. 9We're here to explore the details of your testimony,10and so that testimony is the overview of your position11and we're just exploring the details of that.12DR. LAHEY: Yes, Your Honor.13JUDGE WARDWELL: And along those lines,14those items I just read in regards to the heart of15your contentions where I went through each one of16those issues that you've summarized from your17testimony, if you ever want to refer to those again in18a general sense to caveat a response to my question,19just go ahead and call them synergism et al. or20something like that, so you don't have to worry. 21We'll know you're referring to all of those that we22just covered previously.23So if I ask you a question about was this24suitable or something like that, you can say with the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4876exception of the synergism, et al., we see no other1differences or I see no other differences or something2like that. Do you get what I'm driving at? So you3don't have to repeat the caveat.4I understand what your concerns are and so5you can express those again just by that symbolic6representation if you feel the need to whenever I ask7you a question.8DR. LAHEY: Okay. Thank you, sir.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. Entergy's Exhibit10616 again, Answer 133, Page 82, says that the IPEC RVI11AMP, as updated, relies upon the extensive industry12research document in MRP-227-A and MRP-228 and in the13many reports supporting these documents where you're14citing to New York State, again 496, NL-12-037,15Attachment 1.16Entergy's testimony Answer 119, Page 74,17talks more about this EPRI materials reliability18programs. That's the MRP, of MRP-227-A which is19entitled "Pressurized Water Reactor Internal20Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines," and states that21it is the NRC-approved version of EPRI's guidance on22the aging management for reactor vessel internals.23Entergy's Testimony 116 Exhibit again,24Answer 133, Page 83, goes on, and I quote, that "the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4877RVI AMP has three principal components. One,1examinations and other inspections along with a2comparison of data to examination acceptance criteria3as defined in MRP-227-A and MRP-228, two, a resolution4of indications that exceed examination acceptance5criteria by entering them into the applicant's6corrective action program, and, three, monitoring and7control of reactor primary coolant water chemistry8based on industry guidelines."9And I guess I'd ask staff if you agree10with Entergy's statement that the MRP-227-A is the11NRC-approved version of EPRI's guidance and what12you're approving it for. What does that approval13mean? What's the significance of it?14MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler, the15staff. Yes, we agree that MRP-227-A is the approved16version of the MRP-227 topical report.17JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's all it is, is18the approved version of that report? It doesn't19approve that report for anything else?20MR. POEHLER: No, it approves basically21our safety evaluation, approved that report to be used22as the basis for plant-specific reactor vessel23internals aging management program or I should, aging24management programs and inspection programs.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4878JUDGE WARDWELL: A plant specific or a1generic plant? I would think it would be the2opposite.3MR. POEHLER: Yes, plant specific because4any individual plant that needs to develop a reactor5vessel internals aging management program can now use6the framework of MRP-227-A to develop that program.7But what this does is it makes the plant-8specific programs consistent with the generic9guidance, so it's generic guidance for individual10plants to use.11DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. And I12think the main thing, it is a generic program. Plant-13specific applicability is demonstrated, in part,14through the action items, A/LAI, that are --15JUDGE WARDWELL: A/LAI.16DR. HISER: Yes, licensee --17JUDGE WARDWELL: Is that correct?18DR. HISER: Yes, applicant/licensee action19items, yes.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there a way to21pronounce that acronym? I'm going to call it "a lay,"22is that all right with you?23DR. HISER: Yes.24JUDGE WARDWELL: Does anyone else use25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4879anything else different, because I can't go A/LAI1anymore.2DR. HISER: We can just call them action3items. How about that?4JUDGE WARDWELL: That would work.5DR. HISER: Okay.6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But before we move on,7if you could explain to me, the MRP-227-A was8developed by industry for a particular purpose. What9is the nature of the NRC staff's review of that10document and how then is it used by the NRC staff in11determining the adequacy of aging management?12DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The13purpose of the AMP is to demonstrate adequacy of aging14management for reactor vessel internals. The NRC15approved that report, approved the methodology in its16safety evaluation for the report. That safety17evaluation was then incorporated in the -A version,18MRP-227-A, as a topical report that is acceptable to19the NRC staff.20When we then implemented that report into21the LR-ISG to modify the AMP for reactor vessel22internals, that is where the NRC determined that that23methodology was acceptable for license renewal24applicants.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4880CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes, but how does the1NRC go about doing that? What is the nature of your2review? I mean, is it simply a read through and3subjecting that to the technical expertise of your4staff? Is there a period of, you know, the equivalent5of the RAI situation that you have on a license6renewal?7I'm just trying to understand what is it8the ARC ExpressScribe staff does with MRP-227-A to9effectively put its imprimatur on it as a guide for10AMP compliance?11DR. HISER: Okay. Yes, this is Dr. Hiser. 12What we did was a detailed technical review, and items13that we believed were not appropriately addressed in14the report or that we had questions about we asked15RAIs and went through a question and answer sequence16to get to the point that we had no more questions on17the adequacy of the report.18This was part of the topical report review19which is a standard process that we use to review20industry reports that try to address generic issues,21such as adequacy of aging management for vessel22internals.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And is that process part24of what caused the metamorphosis from 227 to 227-A?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4881DR. HISER: That's correct, yes.1JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, this is Judge2Kennedy. Is there a staff safety evaluation document3that's issued for an approved topical report?4DR. HISER: Yes there is. In general,5there is and for this one there was a safety6evaluation. In addition, we had, I believe it was a7revision to the SE for MRP-227.8JUDGE KENNEDY: Would that be the ultimate9culmination of the staff's review of that industry10document?11MR. POEHLER: Almost. I just wanted to12clarify that. So when the industry, so we issued our13safety evaluation. Then EPRI takes that and includes14it in the approved version of the topical report.15They also had to make some changes to the16topical report, that the staff had included conditions17in our final safety evaluation that related to changes18that we wanted to see made in the final version of19MRP-227.20EPRI made those changes. Then they21submitted to us the final -A version. And at that22point, the staff still had to verify that those23promised changes had been made.24And then at that point, I believe we25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4882issued a letter that said it's good to, you know, we1agree that you made all the changes so, and at that2point they were able to publish the -A version.3JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you.4JUDGE WARDWELL: And are the lists of the5RAIs that were generated documented anywhere, either6in the SE or the industry document in the MRP?7MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler from the8staff. Yes, the RAIs are included as an appendix to9the -A version.10JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, the whole RAI is,11not just the --12MR. POEHLER: The RAI letters and the13responses. There were four rounds of RAIs so those14are all included as appendices, although they're not15all, every RAI is not explicitly discussed in the16staff's safety evaluation.17JUDGE WARDWELL: But they're physically18attached to the MRP-A?19MR. POEHLER: Correct.20JUDGE WARDWELL: MRP-227-A?21MR. POEHLER: Correct.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Mr. Poehler, just24to, for my point to clarify for the record, when you25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4883mention EPRI, that's the Electric Power Research1Institute, which is what?2MR. POEHLER: The Electric Power Research3Institute is the organization that developed the MRP-4227-A or Rev. 0 and -A report, specifically the5materials reliability program, which is, you know, a6sub-program of EPRI that specifically deals with7pressurized water reactor vessel materials integrity8issues.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and it's a non-10governmental entity that is supported by the electric11power industry.12MR. POEHLER: Correct.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And in preparing this14document, it works in conjunction with the NRC to15determine appropriate guidelines for AMPs here, for16reactor vessel internals.17MR. POEHLER: In preparing the document,18it was, you know --19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Their goal was to come20up with a proposal and the proposal is then reviewed21by the NRC, the goal being to have the NRC put its22imprimatur on it after a technical review that23requires them to answer questions and modify their24proposals. Is that correct?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4884MR. POEHLER: That's correct.1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. Thank2you, Mr. Poehler.3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Just to4add one thing to what Jeff said, the RAI, RAIs5themselves and the MRP responses are in, I'm not sure6if it's Enclosure or Appendix B to MRP-227-A, so the7full record is provided there in the report.8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Which does bring to mind10another general comment I was going to make early on. 11We sometimes focus more time on one group of witnesses12than the other. Don't also take that personally, that13you're feeling slighted or that you're feeling you're14getting beat up on. It's strictly how, where the15questions come up from.16And usually, it's been my experience at17least, that we do spend more time on staff and18Entergy, the applicant, staff and the applicant,19because they are the ones defending from the20allegations that have been made.21And so that's why we end up challenging22you more than we seem to with, oftentimes, witnesses23for the intervenors, and if that ends up to be the24case here, that's not necessarily unusual. It just is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4885what it is based on the questions that we come up1with, so that was a comment I forgot to mention2earlier, general comment.3And back to that, I wanted to ask Dr.4Lahey whether he disagreed with any of those principal5components of Entergy's RVI AMP, and I think it's been6long enough that I'm going to have to repeat them7again for you unless you remember them. I'd like to8repeat them again to make sure you know what I'm9asking.10All I'm asking about is do you have any11disagreement with Entergy's statement that the RVI AMP12has three principal components and that is, one, the13examinations and other inspections along with a14comparison of data to examination acceptance criteria15as defined in MRP-227-A and MRP-228 and then, two,16resolution of indications that exceed examination17acceptance criteria by entering them into the18applicant's corrective action program, and, three,19monitoring and control of reactor primary coolant20water chemistry based on industry guidelines. Do you21agree those are three principal components of22Entergy's RVI?23DR. LAHEY: This is Richard Lahey again. 24I certainly agree but I have problems with the MRP-25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4886227-A, which it is based on.1JUDGE WARDWELL: And I assume you'll be2able to refer back to that when we cover each of those3other topic areas where that differs from that, rather4than just open up a general discussion.5DR. LAHEY: Fine. Great, thanks.6JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC's Exhibit 197, Answer7114, Page 72, in addition to the program description,8quote, "The IP2 and IP3 RVI AMP consists of an9inspection plan initially submitted on September 28th,102011, and a revised version consistent with MRP-227-A11was submitted on February 17th, 2012."12And now for this inspection plan, citing13New York State's Exhibit 496-NL-12-037, Attachment 2,14Entergy's Exhibit 616, Answer 134, Page 83, and I15quote, states that, "The reactor vessel," excuse me,16"The RVI inspection plan provides additional details17on inspections to be covered under the RVI AMP," and,18again, citing that Attachment 2.19And I guess I'll ask Dr. Lahey, did you20have a chance to look over that inspection plan and21were those basic contents provided in Attachment 2 of2212-037 for their inspection plan?23DR. LAHEY: The inspection, excuse me,24this is Richard Lahey again. The inspection plan25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4887that's associated with MRP-227-A? Is that what you're1asking about?2JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.3DR. LAHEY: I have read that in detail,4yes.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay well, yes, and that,6do you agree, has -- No, I'm sorry. I'm getting into7the next question relating to the contents of that.8Entergy's testimony, Exhibit 616, Answer9134, Page 83, states that the reactor vessel10inspection plan provides additional details on the11inspections to be conducted under the RVI AMP,12including, one, the type of examinations; two, the13level of examination qualification; three, the14schedule of initial inspection and frequency of15subsequent inspections; four, the criteria for16sampling and coverage; five, the criteria for17expansion of scope if unanticipated indications are18found; six, the acceptance criteria; seven, the19methods for evaluation of examination results that do20not meet the acceptable criteria; seven, provisions to21update the program based on industry-wide results;22and, eight, contingency measures to repair, replace,23or mitigate beyond the information set forth in the24RVI AMP.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4888And, again, without getting into the1adequacies with which they addressed those particular2items, Dr. Lahey, do you agree that those components3were in the inspection plan?4DR. LAHEY: This is Richard Lahey again. 5I heard you say reactor vessel rather than reactor6vessel internals, is that correct?7JUDGE WARDWELL: You probably heard8correct. I probably misspoke, so it's reactor vessel9internals. If I ever say reactor vessels, it's10probably reactor vessel internals from now on but,11yes, I meant reactor vessel internals. I'm sorry.12DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir, I agree that that's13what they're doing.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay and, Dr. Lahey,16it's your contention not that these aren't addressed17but they're not adequately addressed in a number of18instances. Is that correct?19DR. LAHEY: I think this document that20they use is a very well-done document. It's21inspection based and that's only part of it, so it's22necessary but it's certainly not sufficient in my23view. Thank you.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you, Dr. Lahey.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4889JUDGE WARDWELL: Back to staff, there are1various Westinghouse reports that came up in the2testimony and I jotted down WCAP 13587, 14577, 15030,315270, 16156, 16211, 17096, 17894, 17901. Could you4briefly summarize what's in all -- No.5(Laughter.)6JUDGE WARDWELL: What I'm interested in is7--8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Ten words or less.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. How do these10reports fit into your assessment of the adequacy of11Entergy's RVI AMP? What role do they play and of what12significance are they?13MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler. 14Just to clarify the question, were those referenced in15MRP-227-A or in the staff's testimony on New York16State 25?17JUDGE WARDWELL: We ask the questions. 18You can't ask us questions.19(Laughter.)20JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not sure where I got21these from. I just know they've cropped up and I had22any reference to Westinghouse report. I was23interested and they seemed to have a significant24influence on something that you've done. And I was25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4890just wondering how do they fit in? What role do they1play? How should we consider them?2I believe all of those are, well, I'm not3sure whether they're exhibits or not. I didn't go to4look for an exhibit number but I know they've come up,5and is this new to you? Have you never heard of any6of these reports, or would you like me to ask Entergy7and --8MR. POEHLER: Well I can answer for --9This is Jeffrey Poehler of the staff. So one of the10ones that you mentioned was WCAP 17096. Is that11correct?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, that was one. WCAP13just call it.14MR. POEHLER: Just using that as an15example, that's another topical report that was under16review by the NRC staff. It was kind of related to17MRP-27-A and, you know, that's a document that18provides methodologies for performing engineering19evaluations when you find, if you were to find20degradation in reactor vessel internals that exceeds21the acceptance criteria of MRP-227-A.22So the staff was concurrently reviewing23that at the time period that they were reviewing24Entergy's reactor vessel internals aging management25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4891program, but those WCAP reports are not, they're not1directly relied upon in our review of 227-A.2Another one that I think I heard you3mention was WCAP 14577.4JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.5MR. POEHLER: And that one was a6Westinghouse report that addressed some of the same7issues as MRP-227-A, aging management, for aging8management of reactor internals and --9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Mr. Poehler, let10me interrupt here for a second just by way of11background for my edification. Can you explain to me12what a WCAP report is, what the genesis is, how13they're developed, and then how they're used by the14NRC in their evaluation of MRP-227?15JUDGE WARDWELL: That's just what I asked16earlier --17MR. POEHLER: And so, yes.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I didn't follow --19JUDGE WARDWELL: -- in a terrible way.20MR. POEHLER: Those reports were not21direct components. They're not components of MRP-227-22A. There were some supporting EPRI reports.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, first, how are24they generated? Who --25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4892MR. POEHLER: They're generated by1Westinghouse Electric Company as technical reports and2sometimes those are submitted to NRC for review and3approval as topical reports and sometimes they're not.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Are they submitted to5EPRI as part of the development of MRP-227 or are they6submitted to the NRC after MRP-227 has been7circulated?8MR. POEHLER: I don't know if they're9submitted to EPRI. But to the NRC they're not, we did10not have any WCAPs that were submitted to directly11support the MRP-227 review.12The one that I mentioned, the 17096, was13submitted subsequently to MRP-227, Rev. 0. So it's a14completely independent topical report that the NRC was15reviewing separately.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, submitted to the17NRC by who, by Westinghouse?18MR. POEHLER: The WCAP 17096 was, I19believe, submitted by EPRI and on behalf of the PWR20Owners Group and Westinghouse, but I believe EPRI was21the entity that actually submitted it, so.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. So, again, I'm23just trying to get on the record here how these24reports are developed and used and correct me if I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4893have a misinterpretation.1You've got a MRP-227. It is out there. 2It's submitted, not the A. This is not the final,3that it is prepared by an industry group. Various4entities in the industry, such as Westinghouse, have5an interest in getting this right.6They prepare a document such as this WCAP717096 which is then used to provide technical support,8technical accreditation, as you were, for the9underlying EPRI document which can be then evaluated10by the NRC for whatever value you view it might have. 11You may view it very helpful. You may view it not be12helpful. Is that correct?13MR. POEHLER: Well, this is Jeffrey14Poehler of the staff.15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And I realize I went on16there. Some of what I said may have been right and17some of it may have been wrong. Don't just say yes if18a lot of it is wrong.19MR. POEHLER: For the specific example of20WCAP 17096, that was not a supporting document that21was necessary for the staff's review of MRP-227. It22would be something that would be used by licensees in23conjunction or with their MRP-227-A inspection program24if they needed to do engineering evaluations of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4894conditions that they found. But we didn't rely, we1certainly didn't rely upon that for approval of 227-A.2DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The3sequence is MRP-227-A. Plants go to implement it. 4They find some indication. Maybe it exceeds5acceptance criteria. Put that in the corrective6actions program.7MRP 17096 is one method they can use under8corrective actions to determine whether it's9acceptable or what other corrective actions they may10need to take. So it's independent time-wise and11process-wise really of MRP-227-A.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you provide any of13these WCAPs as testimony as an exhibit to the best of14your knowledge?15DR. HISER: Yes, I believe we did. NRC16200 is WCAP 17096.17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And how about the1814577?19DR. HISER: I do not remember other than20doing a --21MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian22Harris for the staff. WCAP 14577, I think it's Rev.231-A, is Exhibit NYS 341.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you very much, Mr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4895Harris. Maybe we can turn to Entergy who's --1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm sorry. Could you2repeat that?3MR. HARRIS: It's New York State 341.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: 341. Thank you.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Would someone from6Entergy like to shed some light on what are these7Westinghouse reports and answer the question Judge8McDade provided so eloquently?9MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. This is10Nelson Azevedo for Entergy. The MRP 227 was written11by EPRI in MRP specifically which is a subgroup of12EPRI but a lot of analysis in the additional13evaluations were required to develop MRP-227 and also14for the implementation details.15And there's another industry group called16the PWR Owners Group. I actually sit on both of these17groups, and the PWR Owners Group develops a lot of18these WCAPs that you're talking about, both for19implementing the requirements in MRP-227 and20performing evaluations that supports MRP-227. So21that's a separate organization, PWR Owners Group, that22supports the development of these guidelines.23JUDGE WARDWELL: And have you provided any24of these WCAPs as exhibits to this proceeding?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4896MR. AZEVEDO: Yes we have, Your Honor.1JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Anything more2on that? You comfortable?3NRC Exhibit 197, Answer 114, Page 72,4quote, "The inspection plan contains tables specifying5the inspections for primary expansion and existing6program components and tables containing the7acceptance and expansion criteria for these8components.9"The inspection plan also contains10Entergy's proposed resolution of the Applicant/license11action items" these are these A/LAIs or A lays or just12action items as we'll call them from here on in, "from13the staff's final safety evaluation of MRP-227, Rev.140."15And I guess I'll start with the staff. 16What makes a component a primary component, an17expansion component, or existing component and how18does it fit into the inspection program?19MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of20the staff. So a primary component is a component that21was judged either most likely to experience some form22of degradation such as tracking, for example, and/or23also, you know, a higher safety risk component.24So those primary components are those25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4897components that will be inspected as part of the1initial and subsequent inspections under MRP-227-A or,2you know, any inspection program that is based on 227-3A.4You inspect the primary components within5two refueling outages at the beginning of the period6of extended operation and every ten years thereafter7for the majority of the primary components.8Expansion components are those that are9the next tier of components. They're somewhat less10susceptible to degradation and/or lower risk, and11expansion components would only be inspected if a12primary component that is linked to it, in other words13one that has the similar degradation mechanisms,14materials, et cetera, experiences degradation.15So the expansion component may never be16inspected unless its associated primary component17first experiences degradation. So the primary18components are considered the lead components for19degradation.20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm sorry. They're21considered what?22MR. POEHLER: The lead.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Lead?24MR. POEHLER: Leading indicators basically25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4898of degradation as compared to the expansion1components.2And then existing program components are3components that were determined to be adequately4managed by existing programs.5Generally the most common existing program6is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler7and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 11, in-service8inspection program. We'll just call that the in-9service inspection program from now on.10But that's something that is required by11the ASME Code, which is incorporated by reference into12NRC regulations, and the plants do that every ten13years and they have been doing that since day one.14But basically what that program does is15visual inspections of the internals, but there were16certain components where the type of visual inspection17that's done was considered adequate to manage aging so18MRP-227 took credit for those inspections for certain19components, so those will be inspected as well,20basically on the same timing as the primary.21JUDGE WARDWELL: You said the same22sequence, the ten-year sequencing.23MR. POEHLER: The ten-year interval,24depending on when the plant's Section 11 inspections25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4899are scheduled, which typically they would, plants will1try to have those coincide with the augmented2inspections that are done under MRP-227-A.3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I just4want to clarify one thing. The expansion components5are inspected if the inspections of the primary6components, if the results exceed the expansion7criteria that are in MRP-227-A and also in the8Applicant's AMP.9JUDGE WARDWELL: You said expansion10criteria. You mean acceptance criteria or --11DR. HISER: No, expansion criteria.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Say your sentence over13again. I'm sorry.14DR. HISER: Okay. The expansion15components are examined if the primary component16inspections, if the results exceed the expansion17criteria that are in the Applicant's inspection plan.18So you do the primary inspection. If you19have no findings, you're finished until the next20inspection. If you find degradation, you go to the21expansion criteria. If it exceeds the expansion22criteria, then you do the expansion inspections.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and we've been24going for about, almost two hours now since our last25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4900break and it may be appropriate to take another ten-1minute break. Does anyone believe they need more than2ten minutes?3(No audible response.)4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, apparently not. 5And before we break, just one thing while it's still6on my mind and before I lose it here.7You've got a list, Table 5-2, where the8primary 5-3 would be expansion components, 5-4 would9be existing program components. Can you explain10briefly how you determine whether something should be11in the primary as opposed to the expansion components? 12Just what's the process on --13DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I guess we14didn't determine whether they should be in one or the15other. I mean, the industry program did that. We16reviewed it and determined that we agreed with the17binning that was done of the components just to18clarify that.19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and what's the20nature of that vetting?21MR. POEHLER: The nature of the binning22that was done -- This is Jeffrey Poehler of the staff. 23So the binning that was done by EPRI in developing24these recommendations was basically, they used a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4901process -- Well, initially they did screening of the1components to determine which aging mechanisms were2applicable.3Then they took those results and they did4a process called failure modes, effects, and5criticality analysis, or FMECA, and basically that6process looks at all the different ways a component7can fail and what the consequences would be if a8individual component is to fail as far as the9functions of the reactor vessel internals, the various10safety functions.11And based on that process, the components12were given an initial ranking and that was basically13the, they were given a ranking like A, B, C with C14being the, you know, most likely to, most critical15components I guess.16And then there was, some additional17analyses were done by EPRI to refine the initial18binning so there were some initial, more detailed19engineering analyses done on certain components. And20after that, they came up with the final rankings or21the final binning of primary expansion existing22programs and --23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And then did the NRC24conduct a de novo review of those conclusions or did25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4902you rely on EPRI's conclusions unless they were1demonstrably faulty?2MR. POEHLER: We did review that process3and EPRI submitted, the MRP, EPRI MRP submitted4several supporting reports that contained some of the,5you know, the detailed analysis that went into this.6So there were a series of technical7reports that were submitted to the staff for8information to support our review of MRP-227. So we9did review those reports to some degree and so, no,10yes, we didn't just accept the industry's or EPRI's11determination. In fact --12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, you kind of had a13throwaway phrase there. You said "to some degree." 14Before that, it sounded like the review was rather15extensive and then you described it as "to some16degree," which suggests less than. Which is it or did17I read more into it than was intended?18MR. POEHLER: Yes, perhaps but, you know,19did we, yes, did we review every component in detail? 20I cannot answer that question.21CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Would it be accurate to22say that some of them were obvious, that it's only the23stuff on the fringes that could be, you know, could go24to Table 2 as opposed to Table 3?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4903MR. POEHLER: And, you know, we --1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Is that correct, that2those are the ones that got the in-depth review and3the others that were obvious got less of a review,4received less of an in-depth review?5MR. POEHLER: Some of them were obvious6and, yes, in some cases the staff challenged some of7the binning, the final binning for some of these8components.9And we included conditions. We included10conditions for certain components, saying you need to11elevate this component from expansion to primary, for12example, because we did have concerns about the safety13significance of certain components. So, yes, we14didn't just accept without question what EPRI had15done.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. Do you17have anything before we break?18JUDGE WARDWELL: No.19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's 3:35. Why don't we20break until 3:45.21(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went22off the record at 3:35 p.m. and resumed at 3:46 p.m.)23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, the hearing will24come to order. Judge Wardwell.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4904JUDGE WARDWELL: Getting back to where we1left off, we were talking about the primary expansion2in existing components. And in addition to getting3various components into one of those sitements, the4inspection plan contains Entergy's proposed resolution5of the Applicant's license action items.6And I've asked the Staff if they could7explain a little bit more about what these ALIs are8and how they are used in either your evaluation of9MRP-227 or in your review of the Aging Management Plan10for vessel internals?11MR. POEHLER: This is Jeff Poehler of the12Staff.13So there were eight Applicant licensee14action items. And so those were included in the15staff's safety evaluation of MRP-227-A, or MRP-227. 16They were included generally for things where for a17licensee or Applicant that wanted to reference18MRP-227-A, that there would be some plant-specific19technical evaluation that was needed to be done that,20in addition to just following the recommendations of21MRP-227-A.22So these were things that weren't23addressed in sufficient detail or have a24plant-specific aspect that couldn't be addressed25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4905generically in -- by the topical report 227-A.1And an example of that is Action Item 12where it's -- it requests the Applicants or licensees3to confirm the plant-specific applicability of4MRP-227-A.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Is it your position that6if a plan addresses these action items that then by7definition they're AMP will be site-specific enough to8provide a demonstration that the -- of aging9management for these items?10MR. POEHLER: Yes, that's one important11component. The other is just verifying that they are,12they're -- the inspections that they have -- the13inspections that they're doing under their plan are14consistent with the inspections that are specified in15MRP-227-A for their particular design.16JUDGE WARDWELL: So are most of these17related to the inspections more than the other part of18the plan or is it evenly distributed?19MR. POEHLER: Yeah, some of them are20related to the inspections. I would say, I would say21most of them are, but.22DR. HISER: Just sort of -- this is Dr.23Hiser -- just sort of skipping through 1 and 2, 124relates to the applicability of the MRP-227-A to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4906plant. So is the plant within the parameters that1were considered in development for the report?2JUDGE WARDWELL: And what are those3approximate parameters that would make a plant4eligible or not eligible?5DR. HISER: One of them relates to core6power density.7One relates to the top of the -- distance8from the top of the active fuel to the bottom of the9upper core plate.10The third one relates to heat generation11within the core.12JUDGE WARDWELL: And if a plant didn't13meet those, then in fact 227 is inapplicable or?14DR. HISER: Well, then we would expect the15plant to propose additional actions. For example,16maybe they would include more components under primary17category or something along those lines. But they18would then need to take some additional actions beyond19what is in the base program in MRP-227-A.20JUDGE WARDWELL: All right. You were21stepping us through the ALIs. Do you still want to go22over it or did you -- you were hoping I wouldn't23remember something you can't remember all of? That's24fine if you don't.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4907DR. HISER: Well, those are two in1particular that really don't relate directly to change2-- well, they both I guess in reality could relate to3changes in the inspection activities.4Action Item 2 then is components not5covered in the generic evaluation of MRP-227-A, or6potentially different materials that were used from7within 227-A.8JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.9Commitment 30: could you talk a little10bit about that? What did the Applicant agree to and11has that been fulfilled and now moot?12MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of13the Staff.14So commitment 30 was the commitment15originally made in the license general application for16Indian Point where they committed to follow the17industry program when it was issued, basically18implement the industry program within a certain time19frame of that program being issued.20And that, we do consider it to have been21fulfilled by their submission of their Aging22Management Program and inspection, inspection plan;23and as modified, you know, as approved by the Staff24through our review process which, you know, basically25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4908as documented in the Supplemental Safety Evaluation1Report NUREG 1930, Supplement 2.2JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I went to 1930,3Supplement 2, would I be able to see a statement that4commitment 2 has been fulfilled or something along5those lines?6MR. POEHLER: Yes, I believe so. I think7I would have to check the conclusions but I believe8there is a statement to that effect.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You were talking about11commitment 30?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I thought you said so.14JUDGE WARDWELL: I may have said something15different but I started off that way this last time I16said it. I don't know. We'll check the transcript.17Let's talk a little bit about the18adequacies of the RVI.19New York's Exhibit 482, their testimony on20page 51, lines 7 through 10, and I quote, "A21systematic safety evaluation of the degraded pressure22vessel internals is needed to identify the limiting23structures, components and fittings that need to be24repaired or replaced before the onset of extended25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4909operations."1And in response to that, Entergy's Exhibit2616 on page -- Answer 128, page 79, says that "The3guidelines in MRP-227 are based on a systematic4evaluation of degradation of mechanisms, including5multiple concurrent mechanisms, the resulting aging6effects, including combination of effects, and7consequences that identify the limiting RVI8structures, components and fittings."9They go on in Answer 129 to say, "Based on10a considerable body of research and operating11experience, MRP-227-A provides Aging Management12guidelines, defines inspections to detect the effects13of aging, and recommends methods to evaluate aging14effects. As described..." And then it goes on and15describes it further in Answers 121 to 129, pages 7516to 80.17Entergy also then in their Answer 201,18page 135, states that "The guidelines in MRP-227-A19were developed through a systematic evaluation of all20RVIs and all potential aging effects on those RVIs,21including combined effects caused by multiple aging22mechanisms."23And I guess my question for you, Dr.24Lahey, is do your criticisms mostly relate to what25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4910Entergy omitted or missed in its RVI AMP rather than1proffering any evidence that challenges specific2aspects of the engineering work that was expanded --3expended to develop MRP-227?4DR. LAHEY: So can I talk about synergisms5now or? Richard Lahey. I'm aching to talk about6synergy.7JUDGE WARDWELL: I know it. Hold off for8just about another half hour and then I think we'll be9able to rock and roll with details.10DR. LAHEY: Okay.11JUDGE WARDWELL: But I need time --12DR. LAHEY: I think they missed the boat,13to your specific question, they did not, when they14evaluated the degradation they do not take into15account all the effects.16JUDGE WARDWELL: And as the synergism et17al. statement that's there?18DR. LAHEY: Right.19JUDGE WARDWELL: And exclusive of that20though, looking at -- I guess my heart of my question21is, what they did do, do you have challenges in22regards to what they did do, not what they did not do? 23Not the inadequacies or what's missing out of that but24the fact of do you have any specific criticisms in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4911your testimony in regards to the specific actions that1they did take in this systematic evaluation that they2claimed has been performed as part of MRP-227?3DR. LAHEY: I certainly do, Your Honor. 4But I have to talk about synergisms to tell you what5those are.6JUDGE WARDWELL: It's related to that7then?8DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.9JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fine. That's10fine.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Well, Doctor, if you12could, I mean there's a couple of aspects to this.13One, as I understand it, your -- you focus14on the fact that this is an inspection program and15that inspection alone is inadequate?16DR. LAHEY: Yes.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: They need something more18than inspection. Okay.19Focusing just on the inspection aspect of20the program, are there specific areas that you view as21inherently deficient in the method of inspection?22DR. LAHEY: It's Richard Lahey again.23Yes, sir. There are some very specific24things where it appears that just the visualization25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4912techniques they're using would not be sufficient. But1quite frankly, my real concern is the things that are2the biggest problem you don't see until they happen. 3All right. They occur. They're happening right along4but you're not able to determine the level of5degradation based on the techniques that they're6using.7That's the real concern. That's the8synergism concern.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Are there10inspection techniques that they could use that they're11not using that would solve that problem?12DR. LAHEY: They're aware of the issue and13they claim they can't, for example, determine the14level of embrittlement. They don't know how to do15that in situ. So --16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You don't disagree with17them on that, do you?18DR. LAHEY: No, I don't. But I, I think19the other thing they're missing is it's not just20sufficient to do inspection, there needs to be21complementary analysis, particularly when you look at22such things as earthquake events or shock load events23which can really disrupt and relocate some of these24key structures.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4913And if you then wind up with an uncoolable1geometry, I can tell you you're in deep trouble. 2That's what I've been doing all my life. And, and3this is what I am concerned about.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Winding up in deep5trouble?6DR. LAHEY: You're in deep trouble if you7don't, if you don't maintain an intact geometry8because you really don't know where things are going9and what of blockages may occur and what it means in10coolability.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And from my standpoint,12and I'm sure Judge Wardwell is going to get into this13later, is, is to bifurcate things for the moment. And14accepting your premise that no inspection program15standing alone would be sufficient, but just looking16at the inspection program that is there, to focus on17what you view as the defects in the existing18inspection program by way of what they inspect, how19they inspect, how often they inspect, baseline those20kinds of issues with regard to the -- your view of21deficiencies in the existing inspection program22without accepting that standing alone inspection is23sufficient?24DR. LAHEY: Well, for most of them I think25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4914they're, they're good. It's very well thought through1and screened.2However, for instance for some of the3bolts which they don't have the ability to determine4the degradation until it's to a certain percentage,5and in fact, on the interval where they inspect there6can be bolts missing. And the concern is if you then7have an event which pops out, which unzips a lot of8the other bolts, you have a vary distorted geometry. 9You have no idea what's going to be happening to the10materials and what it will do for core coolability.11So for the bolting, I have serious12concerns.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But on a couple of14those, Doctor, for example the baffle former bolts.15DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: They indicate that, one,17there will be cracking that is observable before you18get anywhere close to failure.19Secondly, that even if there were a20failure, there is so much redundancy built in that you21could have 50 percent of the bolts crack and fail and22it wouldn't adversely affect the operation of the23facility. And on others, like the Clovis bolts, they24indicate that even -- that once the facility is25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4915operational that they never serve a function, so if1they would fail it wouldn't have an adverse impact.2So with regard to those that you address,3why is that a safety issue?4DR. LAHEY: Well, I read the same thing5you did but I don't come to the same conclusion that6they did.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I haven't come to a8conclusion yet.9DR. LAHEY: Right.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm just asking you to11criticize their conclusion.12DR. LAHEY: My, my concern is, number 1,13they can have up to 30 percent cleavage of a bolt14before they can detect it with ultrasound. That's15what they found.16They also have found in other reactors,17bolts that have failed. It's not a hypothetical18event; it happens. And it's because their highly19irradiated, and irradiated-assisted stress cores, and20cracking and other events, fatigue, cause these21failures to occur.22If you look at the analysis, it's really23a steady state analysis for why you have enough24redundancy to keep operating. If you then look at a25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4916accident which puts significant loads and pops the1other bolts, you no longer have an intact geometry. 2And once your baffles are going anywhere, it's bad3news.4That's, that's where I'm at. I'm not, I'm5not in the steady state mode, I'm in an actuative6mode. That's what I'm looking at.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But you're8talking still about design-basis accidents?9DR. LAHEY: Not just. Earthquake events10can do the same thing if they're severe enough.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But as your12testimony is right now that with regard to inspection13techniques, for example, the VT-3, you don't have14specific suggestions to change that or criticisms of15why that doesn't serve the purpose proffered by16Entergy?17DR. LAHEY: Are you only talking about the18inspection part of it? Because --19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Right now.20DR. LAHEY: -- my concern is the lack of21analysis, the complementary analysis part.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Well, Dr.23Wardwell is going to get into that in great detail24later. But right now just on the inspection.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4917DR. LAHEY: Well, the inspection program.1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.2DR. LAHEY: Yeah, I have, I have concerns3about the inspection technique being adequate for the4bolting. And there's some other components where the5visualization technique they're using is not, in my6view, sufficient. But more or less I think what7they're doing, other than those specific things, is a8good thing, it's a usable thing, but not sufficient.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Essential but not10sufficient?11DR. LAHEY: Right. Necessary. As the12mathematicians say, necessary but not sufficient.13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Judge Wardwell.14JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC in your Exhibit 19715testimony, Answer 122 to page 74 says that the16"MRP-227-A relies on PWR water chemistry control to17prevent or mitigate aging effects that can be induced18by corrosion aging mechanisms. For instance, loss of19material induced by general corrosion, pitting20corrosion, crevice corrosion, or stress corrosion21cracking of any of its forms." Some of the acronyms22that are used are SCC, PWSCC and IASCC. And probably23there's a way to pronounce those, but we'll find out24as we move through here.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4918Anyhow, section Roman Numeral XI.1M16A of1the Interim Staff Guidance, which we talked about2earlier, 2011/04, further states that the "reactor3coolant water chemistry is monitored and maintained in4accordance with the water chemistry program as5described in GALL AMP Section XI.M2, 'Water6Chemistry.'7My question for Entergy: have you8implemented a water chemistry water control program at9IP-2 and 3?10MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. I'm sorry,11this is Nelson Azevedo for Entergy.12The Indian Point water chemistry program13does follow the AMP requirements.14JUDGE WARDWELL: And how long ago did you15implement that? And could you describe the program16generally, what its function is and how, what benefit17you gain out of that program?18MR. AZEVEDO: I can describe some19portions. I'm not a chemist so I cannot go into the20details.21But I can tell you from the '70s and the22'80s Indian Point has been following the23recommendations of the EPRI for water chemistry. That24program, as I understand, has evolved over the years.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4919As far as getting details, I'm not sure if1anybody in the Entergy panel can add to that.2MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.3I will add that there's been several4revisions of the EPRI water chemistry guidelines. The5EPRI guidelines are the industry guidelines and6recommendations for a chemistry program for a nuclear7reactor. And those have been revised several times8over the years.9And typically a plant will upgrade their10program to align with the latest version.11JUDGE WARDWELL: I think you may be too12worried that we want to know too much technical13detail.14What's the basic goal of the program? 15What water are you chemistrizing? What's the purpose16of any chemistry controls that you're putting on and17how does that help your operations?18MR. GORDON: This is Barry Gordon from19Entergy.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Where are you?21MR. GORDON: I'm right here.22JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm kidding. I'm23kidding.24MR. GORDON: I don't even have a sign. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4920You know?1JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.2MR. GORDON: Respect I guess.3Anyway, the water chemistry is to min --4basically to minimize all forms of corrosion,5including stress corrosion cracking. And what's6unique about or more favorable for Indian Point is7that they're doing an excellent job on controlling8their water chemistry, and exceeding even the9guidelines that are required by, by the water10chemistry guidelines.11For example, they have the recommended12level -- we'll just talk about one technical factor13here -- of dissolved hydrogen in the plant, is between1425 and 50 --15JUDGE WARDWELL: Of hydrogen or oxygen?16MR. GORDON: Hydrogen. Hydrogen.17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.18MR. GORDON: We don't want oxygen in19there.20It's between 25 and 50 cc's per kilogram. 21It's an unusual unit but that's what they use.22And at Indian Point they're up -- the23higher level the more benefit you have, minimizing24corrosion. And Indian Point is actually running at25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4921the higher level. They're running at 42.5 cc's per1kilogram. So that's beneficial.2Also, in IP, Indian Point Unit 2 they are3adding zinc to their water, which is also beneficial4to minimizing corrosion. And otherwise they just have5general things like lithium hydroxide, things like6that, which are just to minimize general corrosion of7the material.8JUDGE WARDWELL: You say you don't want9oxygen. What do they do to not have oxygen?10MR. GORDON: They have excess hydrogen11present. And also during start-up they put hydrozine12in there which consumes, it consumes oxygen. It's a13de-aerated environment, unlike the BWR.14JUDGE WARDWELL: I'll ask anyone from15Entergy, and we can stay with you if you are the best16that can answer it, what types of data do you see, do17you have any quantification of your reduction in your18corrosion issues at the plant? Do you have any19parameter that helps guide you in quantifying how20helpful this really is.21MR. GORDON: This is Barry Gordon from22Entergy again.23They do keep track of the dissolved24hydrogen. They keep track of how much zinc is in the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4922water. And all the chemical controls that are1required by the PWR water chemistry guidelines.2But the performance of the plant has been3exceptional. If you look at their alloy 600 thermally4treated steam generator tubing it's, they've hardly5plugged anything and most of it was conservatively6plugged. They've had very good results.7JUDGE WARDWELL: Most of it was8conservatively plugged when? And at this plant or is9this --10MR. GORDON: At this plant.11JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.12MR. GORDON: You know, you're allowed 1013percent. And they've done a very small percentage of14it. And usually it's because they found something15going on and said, well, we'll be conservative and16we'll do all the tubes around it, even though it's17really they're just being very conservative how they18deal with it.19The performance has been outstanding at20this facility relative to stress corrosion cracking. 21And that's a good measure that the water chemistry22control is doing its job.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Lahey, did you review24anything in regards to the water chemistry program25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4923and/or have any comments in regards to its1effectiveness in helping to control one of the aspects2that you were concerned about, that is corrosion?3DR. LAHEY: I didn't specifically review4the water chemistry program. It's my opinion based on5other input that I have had over the years that Indian6Point is run very well in that regard. And overall7it's a tight plant, what we call a tight plant.8JUDGE WARDWELL: And wouldn't that go a9long ways to controlling some of those aspects of that10particular failure effect, if you will, of any11component for aging?12DR. LAHEY: Are you going back to the13bolts now?14JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, of anyone, just the15fact that the water chem -- isn't there some benefits16gained on though from the water chemistry program in17regards to aging effects on this location?18DR. LAHEY: Yeah, there's definitely19benefits gained. And, you know, when we talked about20the bolts which were failing, they're failing by21irradiation-induced stress corrosion and cracking,22just because of their location. But it's not a show23stopper. I mean those are things you can easily24replace.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4924So it's a very doable thing to fix that1problem.2JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Let me go back a4second just to make sure I understand.5The water chemistry control program is6something separate and apart from the Aging Management7Program for the reactor vessels' internals; correct?8MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.9It's treated and described as a separate10program. The reactor vessel internals program does11have a reference that refers to that program and says12that it is an effective preventive action. So it's,13I mean it's a matter of semantics. It's not described14as part of the reactor vessel internals program but15it's applicable to all the reactor vessel internals.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: When you use the term17"preventive action" is it more accurate to say it18ameliorates the condition rather than prevents, you19still have the potential for stress corrosion cracking20regardless of the water chemistry; isn't that correct?21MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.22It's treated and described as a separate23program. The reactor vessel internals program does24have a reference that refers to that program and says25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4925that it is an effective preventive action. So it's,1I mean it's a matter of semantics. It's not described2as part of the reactor vessel internals program but3it's applicable to all the reactor vessel internals.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: When you use the term5"preventive action" is it more accurate to say it6ameliorates the condition rather than prevents? You7still have the potential for stress corrosion cracking8regardless of the water chemistry; isn't that correct?9MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But if you don't11have a well-controlled water chemistry, then that12potential for stress corrosion cracking is greater?13MR. COX: That's correct.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And, Dr. Lahey,15is it your position that given this potential for16stress corrosion cracking along with other aging17mechanisms that there is a risk that is not adequately18identified by the inspection program that exists? Is19that your view?20DR. LAHEY: Could you rephrase the21question, Your Honor?22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I don't know if I could23rephrase it but I could repeat it.24DR. LAHEY: Yes, please do. Are you25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4926asking do I think the water chemistry program is1beneficial to mitigate stress corrosion cracking?2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And I believe your3answer to that is yes?4DR. LAHEY: Yes, I do.5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But that even6though they do have a effective water control program7that it doesn't eliminate the potential for stress8corrosion cracking; is that correct?9DR. LAHEY: Yeah, there's different types10of stress corrosion cracking. And it doesn't11eliminate all of them.12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Regardless of the water13chemistry?14DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And you're not16saying that the stress corrosion cracking standing17alone is the basis for your opinion with regard to the18adequacy of the AMP? You're saying that it's "a"19factor?20DR. LAHEY: It's a factor and perhaps not21even the primary factor.22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And Judge23Wardwell will get to it in a second, but before we24move on, just very quickly could you tell me in your25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4927view what in sequence are the most significant1factors? You said this is water -- stress corrosion2cracking is not one of the more significant.3What is the most significant and sort of4working your way down through various of these aging5mechanisms?6DR. LAHEY: Can I have a few minutes to do7that?8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I don't know. Let's9start --10JUDGE WARDWELL: Not now.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Judge Wardwell12will get to that later, so.13DR. LAHEY: Okay. We need to talk about14silos to answer your question.15JUDGE WARDWELL: Because I want to finish16on this topic area before we move into the next one.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No, that's fine. It's18just, you know, there are big silos and there are19little silos, and I just want to find out which silos20contain the largest problem.21JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC's testimony 197,22Exhibit 197, Answer 85, page 61, in industry review of23the MRP-227, Revision 0, "The NRC staff identified24eight action items that must be addressed by the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4928Applicants or licensees --" And these are these1action items we talked about earlier. "-- in order to2apply the methodology of the topical report Aging3Management of the Reactor Vessel Internals at a4particular plant."5And I guess I just want to confirm that --6two things from Staff -- I want to confirm that those7ALIs have been incorporated into the most recent8version of MRP-227-A, Revision 1, issued on December916th, 2011?10MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler from11the Staff.12Yes, the action items have been13incorporated in -- well, they're incorporated in the14Staff's safety evaluation which is included in the15MRP-227-A.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So where they're17really documented and incorporated is in your SE18rather than in the MRP-227 text of the body, if you19will?20MR. POEHLER: That's correct.21JUDGE WARDWELL: And included as an22appendix in the SE?23MR. POEHLER: That's correct.24JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4929For Dr. Lahey. In regards to these action1items, exclusive of 7 which I believe deals with the2specific analysis of cast austenitic stainless steel,3which we will talk about later, so exclusive of that4do you have any -- well, let me ask you, have you had5a chance to review those Action Items 1 through 8, are6familiar with them and have any comment on them?7DR. LAHEY: I don't remember them by8heart, Your Honor. If we can --9JUDGE WARDWELL: No, but I just want to10make sure that exclusive of 7, are there any others11that jumped out at you as something that related to12your issues associated with their Aging Management13Plan?14DR. LAHEY: I'd have to look at them to15know. I just don't remember them that well.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Nothing jumped out at you17though with regards to that?18DR. LAHEY: Honestly, I'd have to look at19them to give you a good answer.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy's testimony21Exhibit 616, Answer 169, page 109, and I quote,22"During the development of MRP-227-A, EPRI23appropriately considered combination of aging effects,24including potential synergistic effects that could25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4930affect the reactor vessel internals. As the NRC Staff1concluded in its safety evaluation of MRP-227-A, EPRI2considered 'individual or synergistic effects of3thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement'4and 'loss of pre-load due to either individual or5synergistic contributions from thermal and6irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation.'"7Dr. Lahey, do you agree that EPRI8considered combination of aging effects and that Staff9reviewed these and concluded that potential10synergistic effects were considered?11DR. LAHEY: To the extent that you have12described it there they did. But they did not look at13the effect of an accident type load on a weakened14structure, both fatigue-weakened or embrittled with15the various embrittlement mechanisms. As far as I16could tell, that was not at all considered.17JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I heard you18correctly, you believe that the synergistic effects19had been looked at with the exception of the loading20associated with what you called seismic and shock21loads; is that a fair assessment of your position?22DR. LAHEY: Well, you talked about, for23example, the relaxation of spring loads. And they24definitely did look at that and the effect of some of25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4931these synergistic effects. But what I am concerned1with hasn't been looked at.2JUDGE WARDWELL: So the synergistic3effects they looked at aren't the synergistic effects4that you believe should be looked at?5DR. LAHEY: They're somewhat the same but6for a whole different application.7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And how do yours8differ and how do they -- how would you apply them as9opposed to how they apply them?10DR. LAHEY: Well, for example, if we're11talking about reactor vessel internals.12JUDGE WARDWELL: That's where we are.13DR. LAHEY: Okay. One of the problems14that I see is that when they look at fatigue they do15not --16JUDGE WARDWELL: At the what? I'm sorry.17DR. LAHEY: When they look at fatigue --18JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, fatigue.19DR. LAHEY: -- fatigue in their20structures, they do not take into account any21embrittlement, what the effect of embrittlement is on22the fatigue. They assume that once the fatigue will23go just like it goes for ductile material, until the24crack, until the crack occurs, is one. And then the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4932crack will propagate more rapidly if it's embrittled.1Actually, if you have a shock load, a2highly fatigued structure will fail well before that,3well before they see surface cracks. And that's4exactly what the light water reactor sustainability5program is doing right now. I mean they're working on6the report right now with Argonne.7JUDGE WARDWELL: You just stated that a8highly fatigued component will?9DR. LAHEY: If you hit it, if you hit it10with a shock load. Do you know what I mean by a shock11load?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no. Tell me what13you mean by a shock load.14DR. LAHEY: All right. I mean I can show15you a picture but try this.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Just tell me.17DR. LAHEY: You've seen people that do18karate that put bricks across. And you can stand on19them, you can sit on them. And then you get back and20if you hit it with an impulsive load, real snap, it21will break a dozen bricks, not just one, which would22support the weight of the intensity.23So it's a impulsive load. And if you want24to see a picture I can do that.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4933JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I think I've got a1clear view.2DR. LAHEY: Okay.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Unless one of the other4Board members has a question.5DR. LAHEY: It's a lot more than the6static load. So when, when I've asked about this in7the past the response that has come back, this is no8problem because we have shown that the loads are, you9know, the static loads can be withstand -- withstood10by the structure, even if it's embrittled. But it's11a lot different when you hit it with a shock load.12And that's what I'm worried about because13of the location.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry. Sorry to15interrupt. You just used the word "embrittled"16though. That's different than fatigue, isn't it?17DR. LAHEY: Yeah. But what I said is if18you embrittle a structure, a reactor vessel internal,19and then do the fatigue analysis, right now they do20them quite separately, all right. They're in two21different silos and they don't interact. And then the22third silo is the shock loads.23So when they do the safety analysis it's24implicitly assumed that the geometry is intact. And25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4934I can tell you I spent lots of decades working on the1coolability of light water reactors for intact2geometries. I was involved in the Loft Program and3all the programs for the NRC and whoever. And as long4as you maintain the cool geometry the engineered5safety systems work. That's what they're designed6for.7Once you lose the intact geometry, all8bets are off. That's, that's what I'm concerned with. 9They're not looking at, they're not looking at just a10fatigue-weakened structure, and you hit it, it can11snap before you have any cracks.12They're not looking at an embrittled13structure, and it can, it can snap well before you14reach the fatigue limit. And they're all synergistic,15and it's not taken into account right now. That's the16concern.17So I, you know, I really like the18structure that we're doing now. It's a compliant19structure and I think it has a lot of advantages20because it makes people do things in a consistent way21and you eliminate falling through the cracks with22important things. But it only works with everything23that's on the list. If you have things that aren't on24the list, they're not going to get done. They're not25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4935required to be done and they're not done.1And so what I'm concerned about are things2that aren't on the list. That's what I've been trying3to bring.4JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Let me just make5sure I understand you correctly.6You believe, it's your position, is it7not, that a fatigued structure component or the SSC,8a fatigued internal if we're talking about reactor9vessel internals, so we can eliminate -- we can focus10on those, that as it fatigues it may very well have11values that show that it's, for instance if we're12using the CUF as a parameter, which we'll get into in1326 in more depth, below 1, that's still adequate. But14you believe, it's your position that if a shock load15hits it, that could still fail at CUF values below 1;16is that correct? Without any embrittlement.17DR. LAHEY: That's correct.18JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.19DR. LAHEY: Because there's lots of20micro-cracks in there. It is being weakened. And if21you hit it hard enough it will break. And that's, as22I said, they're doing those systematic fatigue23structure tests for light water reactor sustainability24right now. And they will, they will show this.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4936And so my concern is somehow we're not1taking this into account in our safety analyses right2now.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And then,4likewise, you believe that as the material embrittles,5likewise it will be more susceptible, it will be fine6until a shock load comes in and then that also will7have a -- lose its intended function?8DR. LAHEY: Exactly, Your Honor.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And --10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So if I can before you11move on, I just want to make sure I understand. When12you talk about neutron embrittlement, in 10 words or13less can you explain exactly what you mean?14DR. LAHEY: Well, it's not just neutron,15it can also be, depending on the material, it can have16a different embrittlement mechanism. But let's say17you have high energy neutrons that are hitting the18atoms, they're knocking them out of their lattice19position. And if you go to the end of life for the20period of extended operations, you're talking 75 to21several 100 displacements per atom. That is, every22atom in the lattice has been knocked out of the23lattice 100 times.24So it's a very beat up material. It25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4937doesn't have the properties of a ductile material1anymore.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And perhaps I'm not3using the appropriate technical term, but does this4necessarily affect the toughness of the metal?5DR. LAHEY: It affects the ductility, the6fracture toughness, you know, the propagation of the7metal; it will propagate cracks easier. It also -- do8you know what the stress-strain curve looks like?9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.10DR. LAHEY: Okay. The normal stress11versus strain curve is, you know, goes up to the yield12stress, the element stress. When you irradiate it, it13hardens it. And so it goes into a higher peak but it14can't take much strain. So if you go to a large15enough strain, you're gone.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay.17DR. LAHEY: That's the concern.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Now, when you're talking19about these shock loads, are you talking about shock20loads within the design basis to have this effect or21only shock loads that are beyond the design basis?22DR. LAHEY: No, the shock loads can be,23for example, a very severe thermal shock load is a24steam line break, coupled with the scram so you're25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4938really sucking energy out of the system and you're1putting a lot of cold water shock into the core and2hitting those internals hard.3Or you could have --4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So you're saying within5design basis?6DR. LAHEY: Oh yes. The various accidents7are sufficient to do it, depending on how weakened it8is. I mean as you, as you go on in time it gets more9and more susceptible to these types of failures.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: If I can, just two more11quick questions before I turn it back over to Judge12Wardwell.13Can you explain to me, to make sure I14understand, what is irradiation enhanced stress15relaxation?16DR. LAHEY: Irradiation enhanced stress17relaxation is if you have a -- as I understand it, if18you have a residual stress in a material and it's19irradiated, that this can relax the stress.20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And how do you21evaluate the level of embrittlement?22DR. LAHEY: How do you evaluate it?23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.24DR. LAHEY: Well, you calculate the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4939fluence. The fluence is the neutron flux, the high1energy neutrons times the time. So you integrate that2for how long you've been running. And then you use3cross-sections, what we call cross-sections to look at4the interaction of the neutrons with the material. 5And then from that you can determine the damage and,6therefore, the embrittlement.7JUDGE WARDWELL: So we've got the fatigue8that may, may be influenced by thermal. And let me9ask you one question about the shocks.10What about normal transience? Do those11provide enough shock to hurt either the -- to fail12either a fatigued member or an embrittled member?13DR. LAHEY: Probably you want to wait14until we talk about 26, because I've got a lot of nice15figures to show and talk about all of that. But the16answer is yes, --17JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is in your18testimony?19DR. LAHEY: -- they can have an effect.20JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's in your21testimony on 26?22DR. LAHEY: Yes. And I have some nice23visual aids I think will help.24JUDGE WARDWELL: And where was I with that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4940now? Yes, we have the fatigued and we've got the1embrittled. What about the embrittled under a2transient, would that -- is that considered a shock3for embrittled materials, sufficient enough shock?4DR. LAHEY: Take two benches and you put5a copper pipe across it and hit it; it will break.6Take the same two benches, put a candy7cane across it; it's gone.8So, well, I don't know if that translates9into that, into the recording. But if it's brittle it10can't take shock loads because of the way the stress11strains are --12JUDGE WARDWELL: So you're concerned about13these vessel internals under normal transience?14DR. LAHEY: Yes.15JUDGE WARDWELL: I mean operational16transience I should say.17DR. LAHEY: Yes. Not every one, but yes. 18Some important ones that can lead to loss of a19coolable geometry. See, bottom line for me is, is the20plant safe? That's, that's why I'm involved in all21this; right? And when I look at things --22JUDGE WARDWELL: I think we're all here23for that.24DR. LAHEY: -- which say it's not for sure25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4941it's safe, I worry about it. And I'd like to see it1on the list. I'd like to see the NRC with on top of2that --3JUDGE WARDWELL: What would be "it"? You4said you'd like to see "it" on the list; what is "it"5you want to see on the list? And what list is this?6DR. LAHEY: I'd like to break the silos7and have things instead of issue 25, 26 and 38, it's8issue. And the issue is they're all going on9together.10JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And that's where11your synergism comes in --12DR. LAHEY: Exactly.13JUDGE WARDWELL: -- is in between fatigue14and embrittlement. Is there anything else in regards15to it?16DR. LAHEY: Well, and safety, the safety17analysis.18JUDGE WARDWELL: It's the safety analysis19for under fatigue and embrittlement.20DR. LAHEY: Right.21JUDGE WARDWELL: And you said how it would22affect fatigue and how it would affect embrittlement. 23Where does a synergism come in?24DR. LAHEY: The synergism has to do with,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4942for example, if you have an embrittled material --1we're talking about embrittlement now -- and you do a2analysis of fatigue, they don't take it into account3at all until right at the end when it already fails.4JUDGE WARDWELL: So you believe it will be5less resistant to fatigue as it embrittles?6DR. LAHEY: All the data shows that if you7have low amplitude -- I mean high amplitude/low cycle8fatigue you reduce the cycles for failure and it can9be significant, yes.10JUDGE WARDWELL: And what data are you11citing for this?12DR. LAHEY: Well, I've cited three or four13references in the, in my testimony. And I've also14cited some of the work that they're doing at Argonne15where the people at Argonne are saying the same thing16really.17JUDGE WARDWELL: But could you, you know,18tomorrow focus me towards those specific ones that19you're thinking of --20DR. LAHEY: Sure.21JUDGE WARDWELL: -- and so to refresh your22memory in regards to where you cite them in your23testimony and --24DR. LAHEY: I have them. I could look25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4943them up for you and tell you, yes.1JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. I just don't want2to take the time now to do it.3DR. LAHEY: Right.4JUDGE WARDWELL: And so the synergism5comes in that you think it's worse with a combination6of the two than just the additive of the two effects7in regards to the potential problem?8DR. LAHEY: Absolutely. And it's three,9because now once you have that going on, you hit it10with the shock load and that's the concern.11JUDGE WARDWELL: Considering you've been12dealing with this for all your career -- and I assume13your career was probably about as long as mine was, so14we can say it might be a fairly long career --15DR. LAHEY: Yeah.16JUDGE WARDWELL: -- that have you noticed17this effect actually occurring in existing plants?18DR. LAHEY: Have I noticed?19JUDGE WARDWELL: Of the same age.20DR. LAHEY: I think the reason -- well,21that's a very good question, Your Honor. This is22Richard Lahey, so I'm sorry to not identify myself.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no, once you get on24you don't have to worry. They've got you.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4944DR. LAHEY: It's an interesting question1because there have been remarkably few fatigue2failures in nuclear reactors. But it's not accident. 3They -- when we designed, I used to be in charge of4safety in thermohydraulics, R&D and reactor physics,5all that at GE. All right. And when we designed6these nuclear reactors we designed them for a certain7life. And we put margin in. And they profited by8that design.9So there's no, you know, there's not a lot10of those kind of failures.11But if you now start looking at going12beyond what the design life is and start fiddling away13at the margins until you get into really safety14margins, that concerns me a lot. And we'll talk about15that tomorrow I guess.16JUDGE WARDWELL: I guess I want to fix17once more, and do you believe that MRP-227 doesn't18look at the systematic effects, the synergistic19effects associated with fatigue and embrittlement? Is20that your position, that the synergistic effects21they're talking about are different than the ones that22you are concerned with?23DR. LAHEY: They have certain components24that they're applying that logic to. But it's not25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4945carried over to others because the analyses that are1of concern don't take that into account. They just2don't consider it. That's, that's what I'm worried3about. And they're not considering it. It's a well4done study focused on inspection, so it's sort of like5you detect things after the fact.6I'm worried about you don't see anything7and then you have some sort of load that you don't8expect, and all hell breaks loose. That's what I'm9worried about.10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Dr. Lahey, one11thing. And again, Dr. Wardwell has given you certain12homework to do that he wants to discuss tomorrow. One13of the things I'd like to have you look at overnight: 14in the safety evaluation for MRP-227, and that's the15NRC document 115A at page 4, they talk about the16impact of the synergistic contributions from various17factors.18And what I'd like to do is have you review19that specifically. And perhaps tomorrow we can talk20about it as of what you think they're missing there.21DR. LAHEY: Can I ask, do we have it with22us?23MR. SIPOS: Yes, I believe we do.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes, it's NRC-114.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4946DR. LAHEY: Yeah. I just, I mean I have1mountains of stuff. We've been working on this for2eight years back at the ranch.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: We all have mounds. I'm4sure Mr. Sipos has it. And if not, we can provide it.5DR. LAHEY: Okay. Be happy to.6MR. SIPOS: More mountains, Your Honor?7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No. Just the 114A.8MR. SIPOS: Very good.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But if you'd like a10mountain, we can give you a mountain.11MR. SIPOS: I believe we have it.12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.13JUDGE WARDWELL: I guess I'll turn to14Entergy because that was the testimony I was quoting. 15Answer 169, page 109, where you state that16"EPRI considered individual or synergistic effects of17thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement and18loss of pre-load due to either individual or19synergistic contributions from thermal and20irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation."21Does -- how does that apply to the types22of synergism that Dr. Lahey is bringing up, that being23a synergistic effect between fatigue and24embrittlement?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4947DR. LOTT: Well, I --1JUDGE WARDWELL: Now you can introduce2yourself.3DR. LOTT: Yes, I'm sorry. My name is4Randy Lott. I'm here on behalf of Entergy.5I don't think that that particular6statement did relate to fatigue --7JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry, I can't --8Could you get close to it and try to talk a little9slower because I can't, I can't hear you very well.10DR. LOTT: I don't believe that statement11that you read refers particularly to fatigue and12irradiation embrittlement, it related to stress13relaxation, the loss is corroding both.14JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.15DR. LOTT: And its impact on the16assumption of the component.17In the particular case, and just even18within the screening criteria that was used, whenever19you identified, for instance, a bolt that would be --20JUDGE WARDWELL: A what?21DR. LOTT: A bolt.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.23DR. LOTT: A threaded fastener. That is24potentially subject to irradiation such that the load,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4948the pre-load on the bolt, which is critical to its1function might relax. We took that same component and2we screened it in for concerns about fatigue and3concerns about wear because we felt that with the loss4of pre-load we'd have an impact on the ability of the5component to survive those particular concerns.6JUDGE WARDWELL: But can you point me to7where you believe MRP-227 does look at fatigue versus8embrittlement synergistically? And what steps are you9doing within the Aging Management Program to address10the concerns that you just heard Dr. Lahey express?11DR. LOTT: First of all, the relationship12that is within the structure of the document to look13at fatigue and embrittlement is that the loss to14fracture toughness limits the size of the crack that15would be acceptable in the component. So when we look16at acceptance criteria for fatigue cracking, it's17based on the ability of the component to withstand the18type of design basis loads that Dr. Lahey just19discussed.20In other words, we have not changed our21requirement to survive the design basis load, but if22a component has a fatigue crack, that would degrade --23or decrease the ability to withstand those loads.24JUDGE WARDWELL: But how do you address25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4949the potential fatigued member that may not be over its1ultimate resistance just yet but is also embrittled2and then receives such a transient shock that between3the two effects --4DR. LOTT: Well, yeah, I'm --5JUDGE WARDWELL: -- it now doesn't perform6its intended function?7DR. LOTT: Again, I don't know of any8evidence of there being a significant loss in the9ability of a component prior to the initiation or10prior to its exceeding effectively it's CUF equals 111value of an decreasing ability to withstand loading.12So I don't, I don't think we did agree13with the particular statement about fatigue weakening. 14We have looked at other things in those data in our15testimony related to the effect of irradiation on16fatigue life. And in general, I think for most of the17irradiated internals you'll find that they operate in18a region where fatigue life is not impacted19significantly by irradiation.20JUDGE WARDWELL: And does this mean that21you've had -- there's data in your testimony in22regards to the change in fatigue durability as a23material is brittled?24DR. LOTT: I think most of the data that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4950they were talking about there is probably the same1data that Dr. Lahey just referred to. And I think it2would probably be good for us to discuss that tomorrow3or whenever you want to discuss it. But I don't --4we'd have to pull up the references at this point.5JUDGE WARDWELL: You'd have -- what was6the end of that sentence?7DR. LOTT: I said I -- unless you want to8pull out the references and begin that discussion now.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Between fatigue and the10durability under embrittled materials in regards to11their fatigue strength, are you saying that's part of1226 rather than 25 or?13DR. LOTT: Well, I think you just had the14discussion. You asked Dr. Lahey about the impact of15fatigue and irradiation on the life of the component. 16And he discussed it with that there was released data17about the fatigue life, the CUF, effective of18allowable number of cycles and strain related to the19irradiation of a component.20Again, it's really the fatigue data that's21available that we're talking about.22DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, this is the data23you asked me to bring tomorrow, those references.24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And we may get to it25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4951tomorrow. We may get to it after tomorrow, but.1DR. LAHEY: Okay.2JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me allow Staff to3chime in with any comments they might have just to4complete the loop, I guess, in regards to hearing what5he said in regards to the fatigue durability, if you6will, as the material embrittles.7MR. STEVENS: This is Gary Stevens of the8NRC Staff.9I'm a little confused by some of the10conversation because I do hear crack initiation,11propagation, embrittlement and Charpy specimens. And12so my response is going to be related to crack13initiation and the CUF types of analyses that are14done. I'm assuming that's kind of where you're going15with your questioning.16As Mr. Lott has pointed out, there is not17much data with respect to crack initiation under18irradiated conditions available. The Staff in our19research has looked at a lot of that or what is20available. And generally speaking, in general terms21irradiation tends to increase the mechanical strength22of materials, increases yield strength, ultimate23strength. And those kind of changes tend to increase24the fatigue life of materials.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4952JUDGE WARDWELL: At all strains?1MR. STEVENS: Generally, yes. It's not2always that way. You can see some data where that's3not observed.4And one of the things you have to be5careful about, for example, some of the data may be at6high temperature, which is not applicable to the7reactors we're talking about here. So the general8lack of data is inconclusive completely as to what the9effects might be. There's not enough data to evaluate10specifically factors for irradiation.11Based on what we've seen, generally we see12an improvement in life. And some of the exhibits13demonstrate that. And we have concluded as of now14there's not enough information for us to say that15there's an effect that isn't covered by the standard16fatigue calculations that are done in accordance with17ASME code.18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Mr. Stevens, as I19understood what Dr. Lahey was saying -- and I may be20wrong, so please correct me if that's the case -- that21it's different with embrittlement reacts differently. 22That even if you have a increase in the metal strength23with a constant load, when you have a shock load you24have a lack of ductility -- and I mispronounced that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4953-- that can cause it to break unexpectedly.1Dr. Lahey, is that -- am I correctly2understanding what you were saying?3DR. LAHEY: Yeah. A shock load can do4significantly more damage than a static load for a5weakened material, either weakened by fatigue or6embrittled, or a combination.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And what Mr. Stevens was8saying is that the data indicates that in many9circumstances it's not weakened by the exposure to10neutrons but rather it's actually strengthened. Is11that correct, Mr. Stevens?12MR. STEVENS: That's correct. With13respect to crack initiation.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Now, does that15matter whether or not the crack initiation is as a16result of a constant pressure or opposed to a shock17load?18MR. STEVENS: No, sir. I mean all cyclic19-- constant load would not contribute to fatigue, it20must be a cyclic load. But all cyclic loads in the21design bay or current licensing basis for normal upset22or test conditions must be evaluated for crack23initiation. If the CLB includes, it would include any24kind of shock loads, those would have to be included25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4954in the calculation.1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So you're saying they2are included in the calculation?3MR. STEVENS: That's correct.4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's not just the normal5cycles but all within design basis?6MR. STEVENS: Well, okay, so if there are7shock loads that are in the normal upset or test8condition levels specified by ASME code, they would be9included in the fatigue calculation.10Some of the events that you're describing11-- and that would include, by the way, some form of12seismic events which would, which would be considered13an upset event, and they would be included in the14calculation.15JUDGE WARDWELL: What are those events? 16I didn't understand the word you said.17MR. STEVENS: Earthquake.18JUDGE WARDWELL: Huh?19MR. STEVENS: Earthquake.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, sorry.21MR. STEVENS: There are other events, for22example, some of the local loads and more severe23earthquakes that are considered accident. And the24ASME code requires them to be evaluated but not for25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4955fatigue crack initiation.1JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Dr. Hiser's body2language sort of suggested that I was wandering off3the path in an erratic fashion. Do you want to --4DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. I5apologize.6JUDGE WARDWELL: -- put me back in the7right direction.8DR. HISER: I apologize for that because9I was -- there's, I think there's about three10different topics that are on the table. And it's11untangling them I think is very difficult.12What Mr. Stevens was talking about was13effects of irradiation on CUF. And he, I think what14he was saying was that there is minimal effect on CUF. 15And in reality it may retard crack initiation as16modeled by CUF. So neutron embrittlement improves the17fatigue life of the component.18Now, the shock loads only come into effect19not as a part of the evaluation of CUF, but in terms20of you have a structure in its condition and you, you21subject it to a certain load. From that perspective22you need to consider the effects of the load level on23the condition of the material that exists at that24time.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4956If it is -- has a CUF of less than 1, the1Staff believes there are no cracks evident in the2structure that could cause failure. If there was a3crack that existed, then one would properly account4for the reduced fracture toughness due to the neutron5embrittlement of the structure.6So the shock loads would only come into7play at a point in time. It's an impulse load at a8certain point in time.9JUDGE WARDWELL: And does the Aging10Management Plan require analysis of those shock loads11on given vessel internals for materials that have been12embrittled?13MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of14the Staff.15The Aging Management Program does not16require that analysis to be performed of embrittled,17basically a crack to an embrittled component. Because18the Aging Management Program is an inspection-based19program so it performs various inspections to provide20reasonable assurance that there are no cracks in the21components. And without a crack you're not going to22get failure even of an embrittled material.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: As a -- the Aging24Management Program does require a demonstration,25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4957right, of functionality, that meets its intended1function. And so is it your statement that the Aging2Management Program doesn't require any calculations to3do that but is relying solely on the inspections to4detect a crack indicative of a potential effect5associated with whatever mechanism caused it?6DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser for the7Staff.8The inspections are intended to preserve9the geometry of the materials, in effect no cracks. 10The Staff believe that no cracks under design basis11loading conditions that the structure will not fail.12If one were to find a crack in one of the13components then one of the evaluation options would be14to look to ensure that that structure with the crack,15with accounting for crack growth during one or more16future cycles, with the embrittled state of the17material -- or actually I won't say embrittled but18with the actual fracture toughness of the material, be19it whatever level of embrittlement it might be, and20you apply the loads and you have to be able to show21that that crack will remain stable.22So from that perspective, if you have a23crack you consider the worst case loads that are in24the design basis, you consider the fracture toughness25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4958of the material that exists at that point in time1projected forward -- maybe you project to 60 years2because you want to demonstrate that it's good for the3rest of the license renewal period. Once you can do4that then you have an assessment of whether the crack5is acceptable or not.6JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I hear you7correctly, this all hinges on the fact that there has8to be a crack before there's any failure?9DR. HISER: My belief is that that is10true. I have not seen evidence of reactor internal11components that has failed without a crack.12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Dr. Lahey, if I could,13as I understood your testimony, you hypothesized that14in embrittled material that is then subject to a shock15load, that you could have a failure even though there16is no discernible cracking prior to that time, no17cracking as far as crack initiation or propagation,18that no visible cracking but highly embrittled19material, that you could have a failure under a shock20load. Is that your theory?21DR. LAHEY: Yes. That -- yes.22And I would -- can I answer just a few of23these things? So I agree wholeheartedly that we need24more data. All right? But the data set that I'll25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4959bring the reference on shows that for low1amplitude/high frequency fatigue that embrittlement2due to radiation, things are even better. Okay?3Because if you look at the stress-strain4curve, you know, you are on the elastic part. But5when you get high amplitude/low cycle fatigue you have6a reduction. Many of the kind of transients we're7talking about when we evaluate life are not high8frequency. They're not flowing vibration, so they're9transients. They're a lower frequency event.10Everybody thinks that more data is needed. 11So but the focus on surface cracks is what the big12difference is. I --13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But, Dr. Lahey,14given the fact that these components are primarily15high grade stainless steel --16DR. LAHEY: Yes.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- is it realistic to18think that you would, without any crack propagation19but simply a shock load could cause failure?20DR. LAHEY: Well, let me tell you. Can I21give you just a Gedankenexperiment and we can see if22we agree or not? All right?23The Gedankenexperiment which is actually24being done or has been done is you now fatigue the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4960metal. Forget about irradiation, just fatigue it. 1And it gets to a CUFen of .1.2And then you do a Charpy test and it has3a certain energy to crack it. And then you --4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And then, excuse me,5what type of test is it? Is that for embrittlement?6DR. LAHEY: Just a fatigue test.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No, but the Charpy test?8DR. LAHEY: The Charpy test is to test it,9what's the strength of the material to fracture? All10right? How much does it take to --11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So under embrittlement12then?13DR. LAHEY: Or damage. I mean I don't14like to call it embrittlement but metal damage due to15fatigue.16So now you go to .5, do the same thing. 17Doesn't change much.18Now you go to .5. Oh, it's different.19.9, a lot less energy needed.20.99, bang-o, you know, it's easy to break.21So that's the difference. I mean the way22it's being looked at now, nothing happens until you23get to the CUF of 1, until you start to see a surface24crack. What I'm concerned with is well before 1.0 on25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4961CUF. If you hit it hard enough, it will break. And1it doesn't have to have a surface crack.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Dr. Hiser, do you3wish to respond?4DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. I'm not5familiar with any experiment such as that with6austenitic stainless steel, be it with fatigue at7different levels of CUF, be it with neutron8embrittlement or any combination thereof. My belief9is CUF is 1.0 or less, it's very unlikely that you10have a surface crack even in the material.11I think your likely incipient to have a12surface crack. Without a surface crack I think you're13unlikely to fail under a shock load or any other kind14of a load that's representative of the kind of15conditions that you'd see in vessel internals for a16PWR plant.17DR. LAHEY: Okay, so --18JUDGE WARDWELL: I would like to get back19to my question. My question to you was, doesn't your,20doesn't the AMP rely on a surface crack in regards to21any evaluation of embrittlement?22DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser.23Yes. That would be when the AMP would24bring into account the neutron embrittlement. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4962Otherwise the way that neutron embrittlement, thermal1embrittlement are managed in this AMP and in others is2through the detection of cracks.3JUDGE WARDWELL: So without a crack those4embrittlements aren't evaluated until a crack occurs?5DR. HISER: I think that's correct.6JUDGE WARDWELL: And they haven't been7evaluated as part of the AMP that's been submitted and8approved by you; correct?9DR. HISER: That's correct.10JUDGE WARDWELL: What is to say why -- I11understand that you haven't seen any data to show the12relationship between the Charpy test and fatigue for13stainless steel, but likewise have you seen any tests14that might indicate this potential where the material15after the additional 20 years of the PEO, right before16you're ready to shut down, is so embrittled that17there's no cracks, but it is so embrittled that a18transient could fail it catastrophically?19Similar to what I imagine I've experienced20myself with rubber bands holding together a bunch of21envelopes. And after digging up a shoe box 30 years22later I look at it and I go, Oh, that's neat. And I23grab them and the whole rubber band disintegrates.24Why couldn't that happen -- and that's the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4963way I picture what Dr. Lahey is talking about -- what1data do you have that shows that can't happen?2DR. HISER: My experience is the same as3yours. I find stuff that's been left away for a4period of time and the rubber band is broken.5Stainless is not rubber bands.6JUDGE WARDWELL: What data do you have on7the stainless steel? Because, likewise, my rubber8band isn't in the middle of a nuclear reactor. What9evidence do you have that that same type of thing10could not be happening over this period of extended11operation that no one's been through yet that would12make for catastrophic failure without the presence of13a crack initially?14DR. HISER: There is data, very high15fluencies, fracture toughness data, that show that the16materials retain ductility. Ductility is all that you17need to resist initiation even of cracks.18So if there is no cracks, really the only19failure mechanism that you have is a tensile overload20of the structure. And with a highly embrittled21material, actually the yield strength is increased22quite a bit, so from that perspective the component23has somewhat gotten more resistant to shock loads24because it now can sustain a higher load before it25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4964fails in a tensile section collapse.1JUDGE WARDWELL: And but likewise it could2have strained enough within that such that it may not3reach that peak; isn't that correct? Isn't that a4possibility?5DR. HISER: If you had, if you had a6crack. And I think fundamentally it comes down to do7you have a crack? If no crack, I believe there is no8impact.9JUDGE WARDWELL: And can you get us a cite10for this data that you're talking about that shows11that highly embrittled materials under -- and I'm not12real up to speed on the fluence, but that is a time13relation type of thing, that's just a total amount of14-- that is time related in regards to the magnitude of15the number means it's been under an influence for a16longer period of time?17Or is it just the rate at which it is18being bombarded? And if so, have those tests been19performed for to simulate 20 additional years of20operation after the initial 40 years, total 60 years?21DR. HISER: The fracture toughness data22normally correlated in terms of fracture toughness is23a function of fluence. And fluence is, it depends on24where you are in the vessel, what the exposure rate25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4965is, things like that.1But we can down that for all internal2components.3JUDGE WARDWELL: But that relationship4that I heard you talk about in regards to the data was5that you have -- I forgot the words you used to6indicate --7DR. HISER: Ductility.8JUDGE WARDWELL: What?9DR. HISER: Ductility.10JUDGE WARDWELL: No, no, I know what11ductility is.12DR. HISER: Oh, sorry.13JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you use a phrase14embrittlement strength or toughened fracture strength? 15Or what's the term you have for embrittlement? You16said, you said you had data relating fluence to what17parameter, other parameter?18DR. HISER: Fracture toughness.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Fracture toughness, okay.20You have data, you believe you have data21related between fluence and fracture toughness. Is22fluence, the fluence parameter is the rate at which23the neutrons are bombarding it? Is that correct? Or24is it the total amount of neutron or --25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4966DR. HISER: Yes. Flux is --1JUDGE WARDWELL: -- neutron embom --2attacking it?3DR. HISER: Yes. Flux is the rate. 4Fluence is the time integrated.5JUDGE WARDWELL: That was my question. 6Okay.7DR. HISER: But again, the level, you8could turn to the spot that I think Jeff will discuss9in terms of -- instead of fluence in terms of time,10but you would have to determine the flux. So it would11depend on where you are in the vessel internals.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. And we'll talk13about that with regards to specific components and14where they are, whether they'd be susceptible to it.15But given, given there are some internals16that are under high influence -- high fluence, sorry,17in the core; right?18DR. HISER: Yes.19JUDGE WARDWELL: And again, my question is20I'm interested in that data that somehow comforts one21to believe that a crack is needed prior to22embrittlement failure, for lack of a better term. You23know, rubber band disintegration, the equivalent of it24in my shoe box.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4967DR. HISER: I would just caution using a1rubber band analogy is off because there's still2ductility. Your rubber band doesn't have ductility3left. That's why, that's why it did break. And my4guess is it probably had cracks in it that ultimately5caused the failure.6JUDGE WARDWELL: And that, that lack of7ductility, whether or not it exists with the stainless8steel would be indicated by those tests that you have9that help support that potential -- help support your10hypothesis. Is that a fair assessment?11DR. HISER: That's correct.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.13DR. LOTT: Your Honor, this is Randy Lott14from Entergy.15JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.16DR. LOTT: I just wanted to point out that17while the data that Mr. Hiser is offering is quite18valuable in terms of showing that the fracture19toughness is still characterizable in science and20ductility in high fluence, in fact if there's not a21crack there's no way to know the fracture toughness of22the material because it's only used to analyze a crack23component.24And I think part of what is protecting us25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4968here from the failures that you're describing, the1unfailed, uncracked component, is really the fact that2the components themselves were designed based on3value, yield stress values and demonstrated in4unirradiated condition that they do not exceed the5stresses that are allowed under the design basis6loads. They will withstand in the unfailed condition7even higher stresses due to the increase in yield8stress without failure.9So, again, the fact that you design to the10unirradiated load limits helps protect us. Again, the11magnitude of these shock loads, as Dr. Lahey calls12them, or the local loads or the seismic loads don't13change with time. It's just the ability of the14material to withstand it that we're interested in.15JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you, Dr. Lott.16If I could go back to Dr. Lahey, I did17stop you from speaking because I was on a --18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Before you do, could I19just say one thing?20A suggestion. We're sort of going back21and forth here among the various witnesses. And a22witness may say ten things, eight of which the other23witnesses agree with. But then by the time we get24back to them they're only going to discuss one of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4969two things they disagree with.1So I don't know if you want to, you know,2as the other witnesses are testifying, to jot down a3note I you want to get back to it. I find little note4cards handy to just jot things down to remind me that,5yeah, let me go back to that. If anyone wants to,6I've got plenty of extra note cards.7But anyway, I know it's, it is challenging8to follow back and forth from my standpoint of exactly9what is being said to who. And, you know, to the10degree there is a disagreement, that might be helpful11to draw your attention back to it.12Judge Wardwell, please.13JUDGE WARDWELL: Which is a good segue14into when I interrupted you, Dr. Lahey, or I started15asking questions as you were starting to speak just16before we started this discussion about embrittlement. 17If you remember what that was you wanted to say,18proceed with it. If not, or even if you do after you19get done with that, then I would appreciate your20comments on any tests you've seen in regard to21fracture toughness versus fluence.22DR. LAHEY: Okay. The last remark I guess23is a good way to start. And, you know, I didn't draw24it but I did the professor thing in the air with the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4970stress-strain. And as it gets hardened, now it moves1up like that and the yield strength and the ultimate2stress gets higher, no doubt as long as you're in that3range with a low strain things are better.4That's why low amplitude/high frequency5experiments are better, even if it's irradiated, in6terms of failure, crack initiation.7If you have a large load, though, and you8go beyond, you know, beyond the ultimate strength with9a high enough strain, it's gone. All right? So it's10not true that things are good once it's highly11embrittled. It depends a lot on what the, what the12strain is, what the amplitude of it is.13And if you have a very large shock -- can14I get you to show this now? Because he said he could15project it. Because if you -- I mean I can't really16draw it with my finger very well. I'm sorry. I tried17and it's too, too ugly.18But if you have --19JUDGE WARDWELL: This is nothing more. 20Let me look at it first before.21DR. LAHEY: It's something you would say22simple spring mass system and showing an impulsive23load, what happens?24Well, anybody who's ever had a course in25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4971differential equations, this is an equation you saw,1and that any undergraduate student gets.2JUDGE WARDWELL: It's how the --3DR. LAHEY: It's what the amplitude --4JUDGE WARDWELL: It's the compressibility5of organic soils with fiber decomposition, in case6you're ever interested.7DR. LAHEY: Okay. And the way we, the way8we model elasticity, there's a bunch of them, or9plasticity.10MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, Kathryn Sutton11for the Applicant. What are we about to look at?12JUDGE WARDWELL: At the moment, Ms.13Sutton, I haven't the slightest idea.14MS. SUTTON: Nor do our experts, Your15Honor.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But what we are going to17do, I believe Dr. Lahey feels that this diagram will18--19DR. LAHEY: You know, help them understand20what I'm trying --21CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- help to explain22better, you know, the point that he's trying to make. 23It will be marked as an exhibit for identification.24What is the next New York exhibit, Mr.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4972Sipos?1MR. SIPOS: I'm at 82. I believe it's2582. I'll double check, Your Honor.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. So but when we're4done we'll mark it as a -- it's a demonstrative5exhibit. It's not received into evidence. It's the6testimony of Dr. Lahey that we're receiving as7evidence --8DR. LAHEY: Fine.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- and but it will be an10exhibit for identification and part of the record in11that regard.12MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, could the Staff13at least request some copies of it so that we could,14you know, have a chance to evaluate it? Because if it15only shows up here right now, the witnesses may not16have a chance to review it, you know, in full detail.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: What we're going to do18right now, Mr. Welkie is going to put it up. We will19then capture it electronically. And then we can give20everybody as many autographed copies as they want.21DR. LAHEY: Believe me, it's not suitable22for framing.23MR. KUYLER: Your Honor, Ray Kuyler for24Entergy.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4973Entergy would like to note it's objection1to the use of this. This certainly could have been2provided in previous testimony.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Well, we don't know yet. 4I mean it's Dr. Lahey is indicating that this will5help him explain his answer to a question that has6been posed to him. And maybe it will and maybe it7won't. But again, it's the testimony of Dr. Lahey8that we're going to be evaluating.9DR. LAHEY: Yes, I mean if it's hard to10show then we'll -- I'll try to draw it with my finger. 11But, oh, look at that.12Can you all see it? Bring it down a13little if you will. All right, so just a little more. 14So bring it down a little bit. All right.15So what this is is the second order spring16mass dashpot system. So as I say, anybody who's an17engineer solved this equation at one point in their18life. It's the second order ordinary differential19equation. It's F equals ma.20And so what you're doing is you have the21mass of the structure. All right? And then you have22a force on it. And so now I'm going to hit it with a23impulsive force. I could either do it delta function,24but I'm going to do a step change just so you see25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4974where it goes.1The spring has to do with the elasticity2of the metal. The dashpot has to do with the damping.3So if you hit it at time equals 0 with a4force, then what will happen if you, if you look at X5which is the position of the thing, the mass that6you're modeling, versus time, at first it will, it7will go up. And then I would assume it's under8damped, so it will oscillate a bit, and then it will9go to the steady state value which is F over the mass10times the natural frequency squared.11So that's what a static load would be. 12That's where you would be.13But if you hit an impulsive one, you go14way higher. You go much higher. So the strain, the15amplitude is high. And if you're high enough in16amplitude you can fracture your material.17If it's highly weakened, either by18irradiation, by thermal embrittlement, by fatigue,19anything that weakens that material, if it's weak20enough you can break it.21And that's, that's all I was trying to22say. So it's not true that if you harden it, which it23will harden by irradiation, that everything is good. 24Because it depends on what the amplitude is of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4975load that you're hitting it with.1Notice the load. The amplitude is small2relative to the peak. All right? The steady state3amplitude. And that, unfortunately, all the analyses4that I've seen from the last seven years of this stuff5is they're doing steady state kind of loading. Any6time they do accidents they implicitly assume intact7geometry and don't, don't really take into account the8degradation of the material itself.9So that's all I was trying to show.10JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Lahey, this is Judge11Kennedy.12I'm trying to get a handle on this13impulsive loading. I guess if you pick the right load14you'll break anything. How do you tie this load into15the types of loads that are of concern at Indian16Point? I mean are you suggesting they're using the17wrong loads?18DR. LAHEY: It depends on what causes the19load. For instance, if it's a very severe earthquake20and you have a structure and all of a sudden, pang,21you hit it hard you can create this kind of22phenomenon. You will overpower the ability of the23metal to withstand the load.24If it's a local load, you know --25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4976JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess that's what I'm1struggling with. It sounds like you get to pick the2load. And I think there's -- presume there's a set of3rules of engagement here that goes with the design of4this facility. And I'm trying to get to the bottom of5are you suggesting that Entergy is not using the6appropriate loads?7DR. LAHEY: No.8JUDGE KENNEDY: Or are you suggesting9there are loads out there that they need to consider?10JUDGE KENNEDY: Your Honor, I believe that11their safety evaluations consider the various loads,12the various accident type loads. And their seismic13analysis takes into account those type of loads.14What's not done though is the effect of15that on a highly degraded material. I've never seen16anything that looks, that looks at the effect of the17significant shock loads on a degraded material and18what happens after that.19JUDGE KENNEDY: When the NRC Staff was20discussing the ASME code loads, upset conditions and21accident conditions, those loads are different than22the ones you're speaking of?23DR. LAHEY: The type of loads that I heard24them talking about were the normal -- when we were25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4977talking about the FSAR, for example -- 1JUDGE KENNEDY: FSAR?2DR. LAHEY: -- they were the normal local3loads. And I assume then they also would talk about4the seismic loads, yes.5JUDGE KENNEDY: So is there yet another6set of loads that you think needs to be considered7here that aren't currently being considered?8DR. LAHEY: No. My concern is that the9integrity of the various structures, the internals,10the bolts for example, the baffle bolts, when you11apply significant shock loads to them they don't look12at the degradation of the material. That's what I'm13concerned with.14JUDGE KENNEDY: This, this takes us back15to the cracking discussion, doesn't it? Or does it?16DR. LAHEY: Well, I, I'm --17JUDGE KENNEDY: Because I hear they18consider it.19DR. LAHEY: Yeah. But I'm absolutely sure20you can fail structures without a crack. If you hit21it hard enough you'll fail a structure.22JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't think anyone here23will dispute that if you get to pick the load and it24has no basis in anything within the design of this25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4978plant you can probably break it. I think my concern1is that Entergy, the Staff are playing within a2certain set of boundaries --3DR. LAHEY: Right.4JUDGE KENNEDY: -- and the only thing I'm5trying to get to is are you suggesting that there is6something wrong with that boundary?7DR. LAHEY: The loads are fine with me. 8All right? The effect of the loads is what I'm9concerned with.10JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.11JUDGE WARDWELL: So by that do you mean12it's -- you agree that they have incorporated the13loads that should be incorporated into this analysis14of any of the vessel internals?15DR. LAHEY: The safety analysis reports16that I looked at for Indian Point look like they do17all the normal accident evaluations, and similarly18with the seismic. I'm not sure about the new seismic19criteria now. As you may know, that has changed since20the recent earthquake a few years ago. But definitely21they look at that event as well.22JUDGE WARDWELL: And it's your position23that it's the application of those loads, it's the way24they apply those loads to the materials and what they25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4979-- excuse me -- consider for their resistance that is1of the issue?2DR. LAHEY: Do they consider the3degradation of the material to these type of loads? 4And I have seen no evidence that that has occurred.5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And how would they do6that?7DR. LAHEY: How would you do it?8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.9DR. LAHEY: You put, you put the force on10the body and then you have the material properties in11terms of if it's brittle or not or fatigued or not. 12And then see, see if it can withstand it.13JUDGE WARDWELL: Isn't that the lack of14data you understand isn't available?15DR. LAHEY: One of the problems is there's16not enough data to know for sure. But there's enough17data to know that there can be an effect. So normally18you would, because of uncertainty you would put some19sort of uncertainty factor there on their cycles to20failure, until you know for sure.21So some of these things are going to be22done. As I said, the light water reactors'23sustainability program is going to supply the fatigue24stuff.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4980With the embrittlement it's a much more1lengthy process. There's only one place in the2country you can do that. That's in Idaho in their hot3cells. And it's a very long, expensive iterative4process. But eventually we will have all that data.5JUDGE WARDWELL: But lacking that, what6else would you suggest they do at this point?7DR. LAHEY: I would not suggest --8JUDGE WARDWELL: Shut down until that's9done?10DR. LAHEY: No. I, I would not suggest11you just press on. I mean that's basically what,12what's being done.13I would suggest, and I've gotten a lot of14kickback on the suggestion, that some of these things15are easy to fix. You just repair them. It's not a16big ticket in the scheme of things. You get rid of17the problem and don't worry about it because there's18certain things you'll see tomorrow when we talk about19CUFen that are right on the ragged edge and there's20others that aren't.21And similarly in core, you have stuff that22is highly embrittled and stuff that's not.23So nobody's talking about replace24everything. But the key things, get rid of the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4981problem. That's my suggestion.1JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me just turn to we'll2start with Dr. Lott and see if he has any other3comments that he might want to make in regards to what4could be done at this point in regards to addressing5the lack of the application of the correct loads that6you had been doing to materials that are both7embrittled and fatigued.8DR. LOTT: I'm not sure I fully understood9all of the things that were just said.10JUDGE WARDWELL: I was counting on you to11sort them all out.12DR. LOTT: I think that as was said13before, we're not here arguing about the loads that14are applied to the components. I think that's part of15the current licensing basis. And I think a lot of16what we discussed about how impulse loads and all that17are already dealt with within our current process.18So we're not talking about that. What19we're talking about, the ability of the component to20withstand those loads and how that may be improved or21degraded over the life of the component.22Again, as I understand it we're talking23about -- we talk about irradiation embrittlement in24broad terms as a bunch of different phenomena. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4982Because it's true, it increases yield stress, it1increases the ultimate stress. It decreases the2ductility, how much stretch there is in the material3before it fails.4Our point with respect --5JUDGE WARDWELL: Does it fail at lower6strains or higher strains or does it vary based on?7DR. LOTT: Well, again, that's a -- you8need to look at the true stress-strain curve I guess9to actually answer that question. What happens in a10normal tensile bar when you pull it under these11conditions is it's a great deal of strain12localization.13So while you might see a normal stainless14steel provide a long, gradual necking process to it,15this steel is kind of localized with a very sharp16neck. And so they do have in an engineering17stress-strain curve exactly the behavior that Dr.18Lahey described: a large increase in the yield stress19and the ultimate stress. And limited amount of20uniform elongation. And then some amount of21additional deformation to failure.22That's typical of highly irradiated23materials.24There's a bunch of things I guess I'd like25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4983to say. Let me just point out to you that not all of1the materials, even in the internals, are highly2irradiated. These very high fluences we're discussing3are pretty much limited to the baffle former and4baffle former bolts. And we can talk about that in5the future, too, if we need to.6So it does not affect a wide range of the7components there.8Again, I think we need to be careful about9this whole discussion of, of what, you know, I don't10know of a phenomena called irradiation weakening. I11know of irradiation-induced decrease in fracture12toughness which, as I said, decreases the ability to13maintain its dimensional stability, whether in part to14withstand fracture or at least the initiation of a15crack, crack, form a crack.16The only, only time that comes into place17is when you have a crack in the component, the18fracture toughness that is decreased. And I do not19believe any of these components are designed to20undergo large strains in the normal application. 21They're not deformed, they're just not deformed that22way so they're never going to fail by these other23brittle mechanisms.24There may be more to that question. I am25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4984not sure what all was implied by it.1MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jeff Strosnider2from Entergy.3I'd like to add something to this on the4notion of this failure of a component without a crack.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, please do.6MR. STROSNIDER: So I think the first7thing to recognize is that if there's no fracture in8it, then the fracture toughness is out of the picture. 9What's dominating the failure mechanism is the10strength.11And as was explained, when these materials12are irradiated the strength goes up. Right? So if13these components could withstand the design basis14loads when they were originally designed under their15original condition without any embrittlement, and it's16governed by strength, when the strength goes up17they're going, they're still going to withstand those18loads. In fact, their load carrying capacity is19increased.20So just logically you would conclude that21they still meet the current licensing basis loads,22which we said include the dynamic factors, et cetera.23Now, what's being confused here is when24they do fail, right -- and this actually Judge Kennedy25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4985was touching on this with his question earlier -- if1you hit it with big enough a load, if you were to take2it to a load higher than the design basis load and3fail it when it's been embrittled, it will show less4ductility than if it were not embrittled. But you5still have to get to that load that's higher than the6design basis loads in order for that to happen.7And oh, by the way, none of these8materials are going to fail like a candy cane. And9when you look at the data that's been discussed in10terms of fracture toughness -- and I think people have11talked about getting to that tomorrow -- you're going12to see that they still have ductility. Right?13Now, let's take the other situation where14you actually have a crack. All right? And as was15explained, in the Aging Management Program if you find16a crack then you will, you could, in fact a crack in17embrittled material will reduce the load bearing18capability. So you have to do an analysis considering19what level the fracture toughness is at because that20now governs failure. And you have to determine if21that crack can be left in service and for how long.22There's one other thing I want to add to23that is that there are analyses that have been done to24look at the critical flaw sizes, critical crack25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4986lengths in these components when they're irradiated. 1They're much larger than the crack sizes that can be2determined with the inspection methods they're using. 3And that's the other piece that you didn't get to but4that's an important part of this.5JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, we'll be talking6about inspection tomorrow. Yes.7MR. STROSNIDER: Yeah, so you'll get8there.9But the point is none of these materials10are going to, going to fail. Even with the crack in11it, it's not going to fail like the candy cane. It12will still field ductility. That's why they're using13an elastic plastic fraction mechanics analysis method14in these cases.15And if you look at it without a crack,16it's load bearing capability goes up. So the only17logical conclusion is that it's going to withstand the18design basis loads as it did when it was originally19designed.20JUDGE WARDWELL: But doesn't its ductility21drop drastically with age?22MR. GRIESBACH: Your Honor.23MR. STROSNIDER: When it fails it will24show less, less ductility. And this is you could look25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4987at it. I mean if you use undergraduate testing of a1uni-axle tensile bar, if you take low strength and2high strength materials, the more ductile one will3show more, more necking, more elongation.4The one that's the higher strength which5has less ductility will not show as much necking and6it may, it may fail with a flat fracture. But it's7not going to shatter, not these materials.8MR. GRIESBACH: Your Honor, this is Tim9Griesbach for Entergy.10I think we should point out that --11JUDGE WARDWELL: I've got a follow-up12question. And I'm going to forget it if I don't ask13it. In fact, I may have forgotten it already. And14that's why I don't like interruptions if I can avoid15them because it prevents us from getting the answers16we need to make a decision.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Jot it down and we'll18get back to you.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, that's the way to20do it. Except you might as well say it now because21now I've forgotten what I was going to follow up on.22Go ahead.23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Now he's forgotten what24he was going to say.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4988MR. GRIESBACH: Thank you.1JUDGE WARDWELL: You may go ahead now that2I've forgotten what I wanted to say. But I want to3point out that's why I want to minimize the4interruptions because when I've got a follow-up5question that I had for your compadre there --6MR. GRIESBACH: Okay.7JUDGE WARDWELL: -- it was right on point8to what he had said. And now it's not on point9anymore. It's been axed from this hearing.10So proceed.11MR. GRIESBACH: What I think we really12would like to point out, though, is the materials that13we're talking about are austenitic stainless steels14for the most part. They're, they're face center15cubic, which means they have much more ductility than16the type of ferritic steels that tend to undergo a17ductile to brittle transition and can be brittle.18So these types of materials don't19experience that type of brittle fracture. Even in the20irradiated condition they still have much ductility21and strength, as we've talked about, and wouldn't fail22in that brittle manner as some people have pointed out23here.24So I think we need to keep that in mind. 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4989And the data that we can show you tomorrow will point1that out as well.2JUDGE WARDWELL: And we will be able to3see from that data highly embrittled type of results4that might be indicative of what it would be like in5the reactor after 60 years of operation?6MR. GRIESBACH: The levels of fluence in7the test data is representative of exposure for a8significant period of time in PWR reactors, yes.9JUDGE WARDWELL: Great.10MR. COX: Just one clarifying comment on11that. That the highly, the term "highly embrittled"12--13JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is Mr. Cox;14correct?15MR. COX: That's correct. This is Allen16Cox with Entergy.17When you say "highly embrittled" that's18one of those words that ends with "l-y" and it could19have a number of meanings. What Mr. Griesbach said is20that we'll have data that's based on the fluence21that's experienced at the end of 60 years. That does22not necessarily equate to highly embrittled or highly23irradiated.24JUDGE WARDWELL: I stand corrected. The25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4990embrittlement that does occur after 60 years, however1it is. I won't pre-judge that.2I think I remember the question I was3going to ask. So the various internals -- and if4you're not the person to address it to, then fine,5then any of your compadres can pick up on it either,6also. But you made me think of it.7Not all internals are under a tension8load; correct? With normal operations or with shock9loads they're going to be under different types of10load applications?11MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider12for Entergy.13That's true.14JUDGE WARDWELL: And so how is that taken15into effect, because one component may be very16sensitive to corrosional activity based on where it is17and how it may perform. And another would be under18compression, another under shear, another under19bending, another under tension. How is that addressed20in any manner or?21Well, no. In fact let me rephrase that. 22Really that isn't addressed in your AMP because you23don't, you do not evaluate anything until you see a24crack based on this inspection-based AMP; is that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4991correct?1MR. STROSNIDER: So this is Jack2Strosnider for Entergy. And some of my colleagues3here may be able to get into more detail.4But, again, I think if you look at this5logically, when the internals were designed, right,6they were designed to the ASME code section 3. They7were designed to stay in the elastic range. Right?8And various loadings, whether they be compressive or9torsional or thermal, whatever was driving them, they10were included in that original design. And they11haven't changed.12Under the license removal you're assessing13the same loads that were in the original design. So14whatever those loads were, they're still there. 15They're the same. And what's done in the analysis in16the MRP-227 is to use the design basis loads.17So that's the big picture answer. And I18don't know if there's any more detail to add to that. 19I think I need to turn --20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's not that the loads21are different, it's that the ability of the metal to22withstand the loads is different based on23embrittlement and other aging mechanisms. That's what24Dr. Lahey's thesis says.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4992MR. STROSNIDER: Well, Jack Strosnider for1Entergy.2And just what I was trying to explain3earlier is let's take two cases. If there's no crack4in the component, you put the same loads on it and5because it's been embrittled, all right, its strength6has gone up and that's --7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But ductility has gone8down?9MR. STROSNIDER: Yeah. So you have to get10to high enough a load to fail it, all right, before11you're going to see that, that impacted ductility. 12And this was the question that I mentioned earlier13that Judge Kennedy brought up is, sure, if you hit it14with high enough a load it will fail. But we're not15talking about unlimited loads here, we're talking16about loads that are within the design basis.17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But isn't what Dr. Lahey18is suggesting is that there's a lack of data to show19the effect of the same loads, these loads that it's20undergone for the past 40 years, that those loads will21not affect the particular item differently because of22the embrittlement and other aging mechanisms and that23there's a lack of data to demonstrate where the24cut-off line is? Is that data available?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4993MR. STROSNIDER: Jack Strosnider for1Entergy.2What I would suggest -- and again my3colleagues can maybe expand on this -- but if you want4to see the impact of embrittlement on the parameter5that controls failure, which is the yield strength,6the yield or the ultimate strength, all you've got to7do is look at the tensile test results. It goes up.8There's lots of tensile tests out there. 9All right? And, you know, that's how we know that10these tensile properties the strength improves, the11strength gets brighter when you irradiate the12material.13JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it your position14that the torsional strength and the compressive15strength and the shear strength and the bending16strength also go up? And does the data support that?17MR. STROSNIDER: My colleague has a18response.19MR. GRIESBACH: Various different --20JUDGE WARDWELL: And to who are we --21MR. GRIESBACH: This is Tim Griesbach for22Entergy.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.24MR. GRIESBACH: You're suggesting that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4994various combinations of loading, be it tension,1torsion, bending, those are all still dependent on the2maximum tensile stress or flow stress to reach3failure. So, yes, that would go up under various4different load combinations without the presence of a5crack.6JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you.7DR. LAHEY: Can I say? I think --8JUDGE WARDWELL: Pardon?9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Before that I think we10ought to go to Staff.11JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.12DR. LAHEY: You'd summarized my feeling13exactly.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Hold it for one minute15and we'll get back to you.16JUDGE WARDWELL: Unless it's something17really quick.18DR. LAHEY: No, I just agreed, if that's19okay, that the essence of the --20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: We always have time for21that.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.23DR. LAHEY: It's just the difference has24to do with what's the integrity of the metal, given25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4995those loads. And the problem is how to quantify it1because of the lack of data.2The only data, if it's available, suggests3these effects. But there's not enough to quantify it? 4So then what do you do? I mean how -- do you just5press on? Or how do you --6JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me make sure I7understand what you're saying. You agree with Entergy8that if the tensile strength goes up then likewise all9the other types of strengths will also go up with10irradiation? Is that what you were saying?11DR. LAHEY: The ductility goes down.12JUDGE WARDWELL: Ductility goes down but13the strength will go up.14DR. LAHEY: It has to do -- it's not just15strength, it's amplitude. You have to look at --16JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. But you agree17with that?18DR. LAHEY: Yes, of course.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, that's good. Thank20you.21DR. LAHEY: Sure.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Staff, do you have any23comments on what we've talked about the last 10, 1524minutes? The same question I asked Dr. Lott. And I25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4996forgot what that was. But you must know if you've got1some burning thoughts in your mind that you've jotted2down.3And this will probably pretty much finish4us for the, yeah, for the evening. It will.5DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. Then I6think Gary Stevens has something he would like to add.7I think the, what I articulated maybe 308minutes ago was: no crack, no problem. And I think9that's the case. If the loads don't change, the10ability of the material, even if the ductility drops,11is unchanged. It still will perform its intended12functions. And that's what we're here to assess.13The ductility decrease becomes important14if a crack is found. If they find a crack they would15have to do -- take corrective actions. It will either16be repair, replacement or they would try to use an17engineering evaluation to demonstrate acceptability. 18In that case they would have to consider the true19state of the materials in terms of the embrittlement.20So from that perspective, the ductility21may decrease but it really is not significant until22there's a crack in place.23MR. STEVENS: This is Gary Stevens of the24Staff.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4997I made a bunch of notes as everybody was1talking. And then Mr. Strosnider and Dr. Hiser talked2and a lot of my notes went away. But sometimes if I3say something differently maybe it will have an4impact.5I think the point is that a structure6behaves differently if a crack is present or it's not. 7And how it behaves is measured by different things. 8If a crack is present, where failure might be an9outcome, things like fracture toughness and10embrittlement and those kinds of things are important.11And in those kinds of evaluations -- and12my colleagues who are more intimately familiar with13them or PT-27 can say -- but the acceptance, the14acceptance criteria that's in there and the evaluation15procedures that are done take into account reductions16in toughness, increases in crack propagation due to17embrittlement. It's factored into those analyses.18When a crack is not present, and we look19at crack initiation, as you've heard and I think most20of the parties have agreed, that irradiation tends to21increase the strength of the material. And if it was22okay in the design and the strength goes up, it's okay23under irradiated conditions. If the figure represents24a load that was defined in the CLB, then it was25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4998evaluated.1And I think you also had a question, Judge2Wardwell, on data. And I think we have a couple3different things. There might be some data related to4crack propagation.5With respect to crack initiation, one of6the exhibits, I don't remember the number but it was7I think a New York State exhibit for NUREG CR 69098Rev. 1, that was actually a draft document, section91.3 of that document discussed irradiation on crack10initiation, the available data and what the Staff11research and interpretation of that data has to say.12And that's when I discussed earlier of13there not being a lot of data, and from our14perspective the effects we don't think are15significant, and a lot of our guidance equally applies16to irradiated conditions, it was with respect to crack17initiation.18That's all.19JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Is this a good place to21break? Okay, I think this may be a good place to22break for this evening. I would propose to come back23tomorrow at 8:30 in the morning.24Does anybody have any administrative25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4999matters to take up before we break?1MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Entergy?3MR. KUYLER: No, Your Honor. Your Honor,4did you say 8:30 or 8:00 tomorrow morning?5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: 8:30.6MR. KUYLER: Thank you, Your Honor.7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Mr. Kuyler.8MR. SIPOS: One matter. I'm not sure if9this is on.10One matter, Your Honor. At the outset11today the Board did issue a ruling on the State's12pending motion concerning the withdrawal of13designations for confidential business information. 14And the State is concerned or renews its request that15the Board consider redactions as well.16I don't know that that was addressed. I17just wanted that on the record so that it's absolutely18clear that the State is pursuing that.19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And in that20regard, what I would suggest is if you would submit a21document with proposed redactions. We're saying, at22this point we're saying we're not making the documents23publicly available. From what you just said it24appears that you're suggesting that there are25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5000significant portions of the documents that, while the1Board views the documents themselves should keep the2proprietary designation, you're suggesting that there3are certain portions of it where that's not required4or appropriate.5And if that's the case, you know, submit6those proposed redactions initially to Entergy and7Westinghouse. And if there isn't an agreement, then8to the Board.9MR. SIPOS: Very good, Your Honor. It was10an alternative argument. The State still maintains11its more overarching position. But this was an12alternative argument as well.13We will follow up on it, Your Honor.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And there's two aspects15to that. One is whether or not it's necessary to be16public for the purposes of the evidentiary hearing in17the next couple of days. And the other is, you know,18the sort of overarching concern that you seem to have19that this is the kind of information that should be in20the public sector.21So it's something that even though we22would be done with this evidentiary hearing no later23than COB Friday, you know, it doesn't necessarily24foreclose that that document could be moved to the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5001public -- or portions of it, publicly later.1MR. SIPOS: Okay. Other than that, no2other issues from the State.3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: From Riverkeeper?4MS. BRANCATO: Just for the record,5Riverkeeper supports the State's position regarding6the confidenti -- or redaction to the confidential7document issue. But other than that, no. Thank you.8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. We9will see you tomorrow, 8:30.10(Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the hearing was11recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, November1217, 2015.)1314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML15335A537&oldid=693220"