ML15335A537
| ML15335A537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| 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) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR 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 4755-5001 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 4755UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +
3BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4+ + + + +
5________________________________
6In the Matter of: : Docket No.
7ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. : 50-247-LR 8(Indian Point Nuclear Generating : 50-286-LR 9Station, Units 2 and 3) : ASLBP No.
10________________________________ : 07-858-03-LR-BD01 11Monday, November 16, 2015 1213Doubletree Tarrytown 14Westchester Ballroom 15455 South Broadway 16Tarrytown, New York 1718 19BEFORE:20LAWRENCE G. MCDADE, Chairman 21MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 22RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge 2324 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Commission 7Office of General Counsel 8Mail Stop 15 D21 9Washington, D.C. 20555 10david.roth@nrc.gov 11sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 12brian.harris@nrc.gov 13301-415-2749 (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, LLP 221111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
23Washington, D.C. 20004 24202-739-5738 (Sutton) 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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.com 3pbessette@morganlewis.com 4rkuyler@morganlewis.com 56On Behalf of the State of New York
- 7JOHN J. SIPOS, ESQ.
8LISA S. KWONG, ESQ.
9MIHIR A. DESAI, ESQ.
10of:New York State 11Office of the Attorney General 12Environmental Protection Bureau 13The Capitol 14Albany, New York 12224 15brian.lusignan@ag.ny.gov 1617On Behalf of Riverkeeper Inc.
- 18DEBORAH BRANCATO, ESQ.
19of:Riverkeeper, Inc.
2020 Secor Road 21Ossining, New York 10562 22800-21-RIVER 23info@riverkeeper.org 2425NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Attorney 3of:Westchester County Government 4148 Martine Avenue 5Room 6006White Plains, New York 10601 7914-995-2000 89On Behalf of the State of Connecticut
- 10ROBERT D. SNOOK, ESQ.
11Assistant Attorney General 12of:Office of the Attorney General 13 State of Connecticut 1455 Elm Street 15Hartford, Connecticut 06141 16860-808-5020 17 robert.snook@ct.gov 1819On Behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company
- 20RICHARD J. COLDREN, ESQ.
21of:Westinghouse Electric Company 221000 Westinghouse Drive 23Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 16066 24412-374-6645 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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-S 1Opening Remarks and Introduction s.......47612Witnesses Swor n................
47643Administrative Matters:
4 Documents/Public and Non-Public Domain...47645 Exhibits Discussio n.............
47696 Preliminaries/Discussion TLAAs and GAL L...47797Clarifications 8July 2010 plant-specific AMP
......48369Appendix A description of AMPs
.....483910Time-limited aging analyses discussion
....484111Contention 25 12Preliminary comments
..........
408613Discussion
...............
40931415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4760E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S 1Entergy's 2Exhibit Nos. Document ID Rec'd3R681, R682, R683, R689, R690 4769 4681, 682, 683, 689, 690 Withdrawn 5R727, R728 and R7294769 6727, 728 and 729Withdrawn 7R31, R184, R186, R195, R5294770 831, 184, 186, 195, 529Withdrawn 910 11NRC's12Exhibit Nos. Document ID Rec'd13R101, R104, R105, R118, R147, and R1614771 14101, 104, 105, 118, 147, and 161Withdrawn 1516847711617New York's 18Exhibit Nos. Document ID Rec'd19577, 578, and 5794773 --
20580, 5814776 --
2122 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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-S 1(12:00 p.m.)
2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we'll now go on 3the record. We're here in the matter of Entergy 4Nuclear Operations Inc., Indian Point Nuclear 5Generating Plant, Units 2 and 3, License Renewal.
6These are Docket Numbers 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR.
7My name is Lawrence McDade, an 8Administrative Judge. With me are Michael Kennedy, 9and Richard Wardwell, also Administrative Judges with 10the ASLB, paid. What I would like to do initially is 11for the record, have counsel indicate who represents 12who. We'll start at my left, Mr. Turk for NRC.
13MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm 14Sherwin Turk with the Office of General Counsel at 15NRC. To my left is David Roth. And to his left is 16Brian Harris. And Mr. Harris will be representing the 17staff with respect to Contention 25 today.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. For Entergy?
19MR. BESSETTE: Good morning Your Honor, 20this is Paul Bessette from Morgan Lewis representing 21Entergy. On my left is Kathryn Sutton. And on my 22right is Ray Kuyler.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. For 24New York?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 State 2of New York. On my left, or on your right as you're 3looking me, is Assistant Attorney General, Lisa Kwong.
4And on my right is Assistant Attorney General, Mihir 5Desai.6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And Riverkeeper?
7MS. BRANCATO: Yes, good afternoon, Your 8Honor. Deborah Brancato, Staff Attorney for 9Riverkeeper.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And with you Ms.
11Brancato?
12MS. BRANCATO: This is Riverkeeper's 13expert, Dr. Joram Hopenfeld.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you. Let's get 15started with the witnesses. And we'll just go from 16you know, your right to left.
17MR. LOTT: My name is Randy Lott. I'm a 18consulting engineer with Westinghouse Electric, 19appearing on behalf of Entergy as an expert witness.
20MR. COX: My name is Alan Cox. I'm a 21Consultant 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 some 2Entergy people in the second row. Let's get them to 3identify themselves before we move to NRC.
4MR. STROSNIDER: I'm Jack Strosnider. I'm 5a Consultant for Entergy on License Renewal.
6MR. GRIESBACH: I'm Tim Griesbach. I'm 7Senior Associate with Structural Integrity Associates.
8And I'm a Consultant, expert witness for Entergy.
9MR. GRAY: I'm Mark Gray. I'm a Principal 10Engineer from Westinghouse on behalf of Entergy.
11MR. GORDON: I'm Barry Gordon. Associate 12with Structural Integrity and I'm an expert witness 13for Entergy.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Dr. Hiser?
15DR. HISER: I'm Allen Hiser, Senior Level 16Advisor for License Renewal Aging Management at the 17NRC.18MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler, Senior 19Materials Engineer for the NRC.
20MR. LAHEY: Richard Lahey, Professor 21Emeritus 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4764DR. HOPENFELD: I am Joram Hopenfeld. I'm 1a 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 to 8swear you. The testimony you give will be under oath.
9Will you please raise your right hands?
10Will you swear or affirm subject to the 11penalties for perjury that the testimony you'll give 12at 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 documents 17presented during the course of this hearing. Most of 18which are public documents that are already in the 19public domain. Available to the public on the 20electronic hearing docket through the NRC. There are 21also certain documents that are non-public which 22contain proprietary information.
23When a document is called up, Mr. Welkie 24will bring up the public document. If for some reason 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 2non-public document up only for counsel and the 3witnesses. It will not be available to the public.
4If not only referring to the document in 5order for reference, but also if you need to testify 6with regard to specifics of the non-public documents.
7Don't just do it okay, because that's going to have to 8be done at a closed session. And what we would ask 9you to do is to the degree possible, avoid discussing 10proprietary information.
11And in many instances, if not all 12instances, you'll be able to discuss it for example, 13if a cumulative use factor is approaching one or 14exceeds one that testimony may be sufficient for our 15purposes. If you feel that you actually need to get 16into specific proprietary information, please stop and 17state that. So that we can then defer your answer on 18that particular question to the end.
19And the end of a particular session where 20if necessary we'll take up documents that are 21proprietary in nature and need to remain non-public.
22MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, Kathryn Sutton 23on behalf of Entergy. And I've spoken with Mr.
24Coldren who's here representing Westinghouse. Given 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4766the logistics and the layout of this room we have 1concerns that even the proprietary documents that are 2being shown to the witnesses, can be viewed by members 3of the public.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, well I mean, 5here's the situation. I mean the document itself is 6proprietary only to the degree that you can actually 7read it. There's a separation between the witnesses 8and the individuals who are in the public. That 9although they would be capable of seeing that there's 10a document on the screen, it's inconceivable to me 11that they would be able to read the document.
12Let's start with these rules. In the 13event a non-public document comes up, and there is an 14issue with that regard, to raise the objection at that 15point in time. And also one thing I did want, that I 16was remiss, we do have a representative of 17Westinghouse here that many of the proprietary, most 18of the proprietary documents are Westinghouse 19documents. Would the representative from 20Westinghouse, identify yourself for the record?
21MR. COLDREN: Yes, Your Honor. Richard 22Coldren, Electric Property Counsel for Westinghouse.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And then we also 24have representatives of interested Government Agencies 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4767from Connecticut.
1MR. SNOOK: The Assistant Attorney 2General, Robert Snook for Connecticut.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And Westchester County?
4MR. INZERO: Yes. Good afternoon, Your 5Honor. Christopher Inzero, Assistant County Attorney 6for the County of Westchester.
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Are there any 8other representatives of interested Government 9Agencies who have appeared?
10(No audible response.)
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, apparently not.
12In the event that we do need to break for a non-public 13session, only individuals who have signed non-14disclosure agreements that are on file can be present 15in the room. So I would direct that anyone who has 16not signed a non-disclosure agreement, if they are a 17representative of a party, they need to do so. Or 18understand 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 a 23video camera. I don't know if it's a member of the 24press or who's filming? But that camera would be able 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 be 1appropriate to have some instructions for the 2videographer in terms of what they can film or not 3film.4CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, I mean I believe 5that they would understand that they would, it would 6be a breech for them to zoom in on a non-public 7document. If we do have a non-public document to come 8up, we will give very specific instructions so that 9that will not occur. But thank you for raising that, 10Mr. Turk. I appreciate it.
11MR. SIPOS: Excuse me Your Honor, John 12Sipos --13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.
14MR. SIPOS: -- for the State of New York.
15Good afternoon. There are also some pending motions 16--17CHAIRMAN McDADE: Oh, Yes.
18MR. SIPOS: And I was just wondering if 19Your Honor wished to either take those up, or hear 20additional presentations on those?
21CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, I mean we're going 22to take them up here before we get started on the 23testimony. And the testimony today is going focus on 24Contention 25. You know the allegation that there's 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4769an inadequate Aging Management Program for certain 1reactor vessel internals, perhaps others. We will 2discuss that here shortly. There is a bit of a 3carryover with 26 and 38 as well.
4But before we get started with the 5specifics on 25, we're going to be asking some general 6questions having to do with TLAAs and the GALL.
7We have certain things to take up before 8we get started. First of all, we received last week 9certain corrected documents from Entergy. There was 10no objection. There was Entergy 727, 728, and then 11revised Entergy 681, 682, 683, 689, 690, and 729. So 12those documents are admitted.
13(Whereupon, the above-referred to 14documents were received into evidence as Entergy 15Exhibits No. 727, 728, and revised Entergy Exhibits 16R681, R682, R683, R689, R690, and R729.)
17The original documents have been revised.
18The documents are stricken, so that it will only be 19the revised documents that are part of the record.
20Other issues with regard to the current 21status of exhibits. The following exhibits need to be 22stricken and based on the exhibit list that we have.
23The reason these are being stricken is because there 24have been revised documents already submitted.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4770So it will be the revised document. So 1for example Entergy 31 will be stricken, and replaced 2by Entergy R31. And that goes with Entergy 31, 184, 3186, 195, 529, and NRC 101, 104, 105, 118, 147, and 4161.5(Whereupon, the above-referred to 6documents were received into evidence as Entergy 7Exhibits No. R31, R184, R186, R195, and R529.)
8CHAIRMAN McDADE: We also have an issue 9Entergy Exhibit list does not indicate that there are 10both public and non-public exhibits for Entergy 11616,678, 679, 698, and 699. When at the conclusion of 12the hearing you submit a revised exhibit list, it 13should show, reflect that there are both public and 14non-public versions of those documents filed.
15The same with the Staff documents, 168, 16196, and 197.
17Another is a question, the staff indicated 18that NRC document 102, and 148 were superseded by 168.
19Does that mean that the staff is withdrawing 102 and 20148?21MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor. The testimony 22and the superseding documents covers both Contention 2326 and 38.
24CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, so we receive 168 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4771and strike 102 and 148.
1(Whereupon, the above-ref erred to document 2was received into evidence as NRC Exhibit No. 168.)
3CHAIRMAN McDADE: There's also an 4indication Riverkeeper did not file redacted versions 5161, 162, and 163. Does Riverkeeper intend to file 6redacted versions of those documents? Those were 7testimony.
8MS. BRANCATO: Yes, Your Honor. At the 9time of the submission, Entergy had not provided 10redacted versions to which the testimony responded to.
11So we had not done that at the time, but Riverkeeper 12would like to file redacted versions.
13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and that reflect 14again on the revised exhibit list that you file at the 15conclusion of the hearing. That we have the non-16public version which we will use in rendering our 17decision, but there should be a public version filed 18as well.19MS. BRANCATO: Yes.
20CHAIRMAN McDADE: All right. In New York 21state exhibits, New York 369 is a multipart public and 22non-public document. Only the non-public exhibit is 23multipart. The public version is a single exhibit and 24does not have an A and B version. And that should be 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 we 2have with regard to exhibits. Does anybody have 3anything further with regard to exhibits, not counting 4the exhibits that were submitted last Friday by the 5state of New York?
6(No audible response.)
7CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, apparently not.
8We have a couple of motions. We had a motion to 9remove the proprietary designation on ten documents.
10It was filed by New York. When we originally 11addressed this, there was an appeal pending on a 12similar motion. That appeal has been resolved. In 13light of the result of that appeal, the motion to 14remove the proprietary designation for those ten 15documents is denied.
16There was a motion filed on Friday, last.
17It was a motion to admit five documents, New York 577 18to 581. The first two are demonstrative exhibits 19prepared by Dr. Lahey, 579 is demonstrative exhibit 20filed by Dr. Duquette, and submitted by him. Those at 21this point are marked only for identification. They 22are not received in evidence. They may or may not be 23referred to, is my understanding. Is that they 24basically fall in the same category as the discussion 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 is 1necessary to answer our questions.
2But if at this point, all they will be is 3marked for identification.
4(Whereupon, the above-referred to 5documents were marked as New York Exhibit Nos. 577, 6578, 579 for identification.)
7CHAIRMAN McDADE: The other two we have 8Exhibit 580 which is a paper that was presented at an 9International Symposium in August of 2007, having to 10do with stress corrosion cracking and the immunity to 11stress corrosion cracking. And may or may not exist 12with Alloy 690 and its metal welds. And also a 13discussion that the growth rate for cracking, even if 14it is not immune, is very low. The mid ten to the 15ninth millimeters or lower.
16And there's also a slide presentation from 17I believe June of 2014, 23 slides discussing the same 18general area.
19Question to New York, we received your 20motion on Friday. We received a reply from Entergy on 21Sunday. We're here in the later part of 2015, this is 22a document from 2007 that although on point appears 23cumulative to other documents that you've submitted.
24Why should we receive these documents at 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1witnesses from Entergy and the NRC staff to be 2presented with these documents on the eve of their 3testimony? Mr. Sipos, or anyone from New York.
4MR. SIPOS: Yes, John Sipos for the state 5of New York.
6Taking the second document first, 7Document 581, that is an NRC document or is a 8presentation to NRC from a year ago. And in the 9preparation for this hearing, Dr. Duquette reviewed 10that document and found that it would be germane to 11what he might, may be testifying about and the issues 12that are at the fore in Contention 38.
13So it is a document that is not a 14surprise. It has existed and it ties into the 2014 15EPRI report that is also at issue in Contention 38.
16And so in going through the citations and in preparing 17for it, Dr. Duquette and the state disclosed that 18document. I believe we disclosed it a week ago and 19made it available. So the state submits there is 20little if any prejudice to Entergy or NRC staff 21regarding that.
22As to Document, or is it proposed Exhibit 23580, the Andresen article, there are also citations I 24believe in the 2014 EPRI report, references to Dr.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 this 1area. And again, in reviewing testimony, reviewing 2the documents and preparing for this hearing, Dr.
3Duquette believed that it was germane.
4We did disclose it. We disclosed it a 5week ago. And it's possible that he may refer to it.
6So we submit that there is good cause. We would have 7preferred to have presented them earlier, the state 8would have. But they were disclosed and the state's 9position is that there is little if any prejudice.
10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. From the 11standpoint of the Board, we've been dealing with you 12know, with hundreds of pages of testimony and 13literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of pages 14of exhibits over a period of years at this point in 15time. And these documents as I said, were received 16just simply last Friday.
17The witnesses who arrive here today, 18probably would not have been made aware of the 19existence of these documents or the intended use of 20these documents by New York until today.
21At this point we are not going to receive 22the documents in evidence. If, you know, although I 23do have to say although we're not receiving them into 24evidence, they have been submitted. And they have 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 to 2documents were marked as New York Exhibits No. 580 and 3581 for identification.)
4So you know, the information that's 5contained in that, is contained in the minds of the 6Members of the Board. Even though the documents are 7not received in evidence and would not be referred to 8specifically in any initial opinion that the Board 9would issue.
10The point made by Entergy in their reply 11is getting these this late, it just simply, not that 12these are not potentially relevant documents, but that 13Dr. Duquette could have brought this to the attention 14of Counsel for New York and Counsel for Entergy and 15the Board months, if not years ago.
16MR. SIPOS: Could I just respond briefly, 17Your Honor?
18I take your point about the volume of 19exhibits. I think there's more than 625 exhibits in 20Track 2. There have been several thousand documents 21disclosed, 580 and 581 I think, each are less than 30 22pages as I said. We disclosed them last week and 23Contention 38 you know is a few days off.
24We would again, the state would 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4777respectfully submit that we have tried to be collegial 1with Entergy on the documents that they have 2presented. There has been a steady stream of 3disclosures 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 documents 7that were submitted by Entergy last week and received, 8681, 682, 683, 689, 690, 729, these were all revised 9documents were they not?
10MR. SIPOS: Yes, they were to correct 11mistakes or discrepancies in the calculations 12apparently.
13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, at this point this 14580 and 581 are not received. And having been late 15filed, if during the course of the hearing their 16relevance as opposed to cumulative effect becomes more 17relevant, the Board might reconsider. But at this 18point, the Board is you know, upset that at this late 19in the proceeding we're getting these documents 20offered into evidence.
21And given you know, reading through them 22it doesn't appear that any new ground is reached in 23them that cannot be discussed by Dr. Duquette and Dr.
24Lahey in their testimony and through the other 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, from 2the NRC staff is there any other administrative 3matters 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 other 11preliminaries. We've got a lot of people here and a 12lot of people speaking. Most of the testimony that 13has been received has been submitted jointly by 14several witnesses. When we ask a question in most 15instances, it will not be directed to a specific 16individual, although in some instances it will be.
17It will be for example, a witness 18addressed to New York right now, would be to Dr.
19Lahey, almost by default. Well, not almost. But to 20the others, would you please in answering a question, 21before you do, state your name. You can decide which 22one of you is going to be answering the question. But 23before you do, just state your name and say that this 24is Dr. Allen Hiser for the NRC staff. This is Mr.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 record 1who it is specifically who's making the 2representation.
3Likewise, if Counsel makes a statement, 4again to make it clear for the record, the Court 5Reporter's got a lot to do, he may not know all of you 6by face at this point in time, so please just state 7your name before you begin the statement and we'll 8move on from there.
9Okay that said, as I indicated what we 10wanted to do before we get into a lot of the substance 11raised by Contention 25 is to discuss generally some 12issues relating TLAAs and the GALL.
13Before we do that, Judge Kennedy, do you 14have 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 stated 20earlier, this is Judge Kennedy, I should follow the 21Chair's guidance. So this is Judge Kennedy. In 22looking over the contentions, the Board saw some 23common threads that went across more than one 24contention. So we have couple of leading edge issues 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 meat 1of any particular contention.
2You could argue, I drew the short straw.
3I have the first two overarching issues, which for 4want of a better characterization we called, 5compliance with GALL, and TLAAs versus AMPs.
6We're going to take up the compliance with 7GALL first. And I have a series of questions that 8I'll direct to either the staff or to Entergy, at 9least that's my initial first cut at it.
10I don't know who the best witness is, as 11Judge McDade has pointed out. I am under the 12presumption that the best witness is in the room, but 13if not, let's identify that and we'll deal with it.
14And so I will issue a question in the direction of 15either Entergy or the staff. And I'll leave it to you 16folks 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 a 19follow-up questions to the initial question, that they 20chime in, identifying themselves as we go. And pose 21any follow-up questions.
22Our hope is that by addressing some of 23these issues that go across more than one contention, 24that we can be a little more efficient as we address 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4781issues during each individual specific contention. I 1ask you to bear with us. Some of this ground may have 2been plowed under Track 1, if you all were here with 3us. But we thought it would be good for a complete 4record to try to revisit it and see how it all holds 5together today.
6And that in particular in the area of 7compliance with GALL. We did a lot of this under 8Contention Track 1, but I think we've amplified the 9questions and I think we're interested in putting 10together a consistent record at this time.
11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Kennedy, this is 12Judge McDade again. There was one other 13administrative matter that I forgot to raise and I 14apologize for the interruption.
15This is going to be a long hearing. We 16anticipate we're probably going to be going until 6 17o'clock or so this evening. We will probably be 18taking 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, let 21us know and we can arrange to take a break.
22The same goes for Counsel, although you 23know each party, most parties are represented by 24multiple people, so it may be possible for you know 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4782Counsel to step out and have their colleagues 1continue. But again, primarily for the witnesses, you 2know if for any reason you do need a break, let us 3know. And we will make arrangements for it. Judge 4Kennedy.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Taking a break, drink some 6water.7Let's start with compliance with GALL.
8Again from my perspective, the adequacy of individual 9aging management programs is at issue here in these 10contentions. So I thought it would be useful to just 11start some general discussion on GALL, compliance with 12GALL, and a number of side issues that go along with 13that.14It's my belief that in responding to 15challenges to the adequacy of a particular aging 16management program, to provide reasonable assurance 17that the effects of aging will be adequately managed 18so that the intended functions of components and scope 19for license renewal will be maintained consistent with 20the current licensing basis.
21For the period of extended operation, 22again embedded in the regs, the commission has 23concluded that an aging management program that is 24consistent with GALL provides the requisite assurance, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 does 2not take the applicant's word on this, but rather asks 3them to confirm that a particular program is 4consistent with GALL. So that's where I'm starting 5from and I'm going to go through a series of 6questions. But that's sort of the overarching 7hypothesis here. Is that, this consistence with GALL 8is an important issue in trying to deal with the 9adequacy of any particular aging management program.
10So let me first direct a question to 11Entergy, and we'll see how this works. You guys get 12to select. I'm interested in confirming what version 13of GALL was used to develop the license renewal 14application for Indian Point, Units 2 and 3?
15MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
16The version of GALL that was in effect when we 17developed the licensed renewal application at Union 18Point, was Rev 1.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: Rev 1 of GALL?
20MR. COX: Right.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: So then I guess to the 22staff, what version of GALL is used to review the 23application for the Indian Point license renewal?
24DR. HISER: This is Dr. Allen Hiser for 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 to 1review the Indian Point application because we issued 2Revision 2 of GALL in the midst of that review. We 3then directed requests for additional information to 4Entergy based on the operating experience that the 5staff had accumulated in developing Revision 2 of 6GALL.7So at that point, we had Indian Point 8address the operating experience that supported the 9changes in GALL Revision 2.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: And so, do I take that to 11mean that the, as you use the term "operating 12experience" in the interim between Rev 1 of GALL and 13Rev 2 of GALL was important information and needed to 14be addressed as part of the Indian Point license 15renewal application?
16DR. HISER: This is Dr. Allen Hiser again.
17JUDGE KENNEDY: Sorry, should have 18directed the question.
19DR. HISER: And yes, that is correct that 20the positions were addressed during the review of the 21license renewal application.
22JUDGE KENNEDY: Did that affect, Dr.
23Hiser, did that affect any of the aging management 24programs that are at issue here in these contentions 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 at 2least addressed or resulted in changes to the aging 3management program for reactor vessel internals. It's 4a very difficult, actually it's a very difficult 5question to answer because initially in Revision 1 of 6GALL, there was no AMP for reactor vessel internals.
7There was a commitment process that was used.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. I 9will probably, I'm sure we're going to get into that 10as we get into the specific contention.
11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Just if I could, this is 12Judge McDade. Dr. Hiser, we've heard that originally 13it was prepared, the license renewal application, 14looking at Revision 1 of GALL. Is it the position of 15the NRC staff that as we sit here today, the license 16renewal application as amended, is consistent with 17Revision 2 of GALL? Or is it in anyway inconsistent 18with Revision 2, or deficient pursuant to Revision 2?
19DR. HISER: I don't believe that we had 20done a full accounting of the differences between the 21license renewal application for Indian Point in 22Revision 2 of GALL. So from that perspective, I would 23say that the application is likely a hybrid. Portions 24that were not, that the staff did not direct requests 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4786for additional information to Entergy would still be 1consistent with Revision 1.
2Whether those are entirely consistent with 3Revision 2, I would expect that they are. But we did 4not make that comparison. What I can tell you is that 5the staff's review really is consistent with Revision 62 of the GALL report.
7And so the, and in terms of, the GALL 8report has certain positions that are advocated for 9aging management. And what we did with the request 10for additional information was to ensure that the 11operating experience that was reflected in GALL 12Revision 2, was accounted for by the applicant in its 13application.
14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, the Commission has 15determined that if an AMP is consistent with GALL that 16it is adequate. Is it the staff's position, the 17Commission position at this point, that in order for 18an AMP that we are reviewing today in November of 2015 19that it needs to be consistent with the current 20emendation of GALL, Revision 2?
21DR. HISER: Not entirely. I guess what I 22would say is that the GALL AMPs are not requirements.
23What is required is adequacy of aging managements, of 24aging effects for the, in this case, reactor vessel 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4787internals.
1In general, a plant, an applicant that 2indicates that it will implement a GALL AMP, after 3verification by the staff that they in effect are 4implementing the GALL AMP, there is a presumption that 5that provides reasonable assurance.
6Applicants may propose alternatives to the 7provisions that are in the GALL AMPs. And from that 8position 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 to 11bridge the operating experience and other differences 12between the two to ensure the adequacy of the proposed 13aging management by the applicant.
14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, thank you.
15JUDGE KENNEDY: So Dr. Hiser, I'm sensing 16some conscious determination on the part of the staff 17that as changes are made from GALL Rev 1 to GALL Rev 182 that if there was an ongoing, I guess sticking with 19the Indian Point Units, if there was some issues that 20were identified in that new information between Rev 1 21and Rev 2, how did the staff decide which, they'd have 22to go through all of the new information, all the 23applicable new information? How did you decide what 24to focus on?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4788DR. HISER: Well, the staff issued a 1Regulatory Issue Summary in 2014. I believe it was 22014 that identified the operating experience that 3formed the basis for changes to Rev 2 of the GALL 4report. And using that as a basis, we then evaluated 5license renewal applications that were on file at that 6point in time. And identified areas where we thought 7that the applicant needed to provide additional 8information.
9And after that review, then we issued REIs 10to, in this case, Indian Point.
11JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, just for the 12record. Is that an exhibit that has been entered for 13this proceeding? It doesn't sound familiar.
14DR. HISER: It may have been 2012, and I'd 15have to --
16JUDGE KENNEDY: I can give you some time 17to look that up. We can move forward and you can 18check on it. I'd be curious to know. I don't 19remember seeing that in the exhibit list. But it 20sounds 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. The 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4789regulatory information summary that Dr. Hiser refers 1to, didn't cover every single change between GALL Rev 21 and Rev 2. It did point out the areas that were 3considered most significant by the staff in Rev 2.
4And those were the areas that were the focus of the 5regulatory information summary and of the REIs that 6followed that.
7JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Cox is it fair to ask 8you, would it be your opinion that, or your testimony 9that the important issues identified in that 10regulatory information summary were addressed as REIs 11to 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 not 15responded to?
16MR. COX: That's correct. I'm not aware 17of any that were not. I'm not, I don't have all of 18them committed to memory but I'm not aware of any 19significant issues that were identified in the 20regulatory information summary that were not addressed 21through REIs.
22JUDGE KENNEDY: If a particular REI wasn't 23responded to, how would that evidence itself, I guess 24let's start with Mr. Cox since you were -- would there 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4790be a record of that? Are the responses to REIs 1tracked in a process that's transparent to the public?
2MR. COX: The responses to REIs are 3submitted 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 the 6current version, revision level of GALL?
7DR. HISER: Right now for the document 8overall, is Revision 2. There are certain issues, 9certain AMPs where we have supplemented the guidance 10in GALL through Interim Staff Guidance or LR-ISG 11documents. Reactor vessel internals is one case that 12that has occurred.
13JUDGE KENNEDY: Ultimately we would 14potentially see, that maybe Dr. Hiser, this isn't too 15speculative? Are we heading to a Rev 3 of GALL, is 16that how this seems to be working?
17DR. HISER: It's another difficult -- this 18is that one --
19JUDGE KENNEDY: That's fine. I'm not sure 20it's that important. I'm just curious if we've, it's 21been, this proceeding has been going on since 2007 and 22we've worked our way through at least one revision to 23GALL. I'm not sure if there weren't two, but it 24sounds like we started with Rev 1 and we're at Rev 2.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. The 2situation that we are with license renewal 3applications is such that Revision 3 would only apply 4to a handful of plants. And because we have Revision 52 with the supplements, with the ISGs, I don't believe 6the 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 for 11Entergy. Just the Regulatory Issue Summary that we 12were just talking about is RIS 2011-05. It's Entergy 13Exhibit 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 some 20different topics. Within, in looking at the license 21renewal application, it appears that the aging 22management programs are organized into, for want of a 23better term, "categories". And one of the categories 24appears to be, "Consistent with GALL". And again, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 start 2with Entergy first. What does it mean to be 3consistent with GALL? That term is difficult to grasp 4at least from my perspective. I guess I'll take 5anybody that wants to start. I think we're going to 6have some discussion on consistency.
7MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.
8I'll start with that question. When we say consistent 9with GALL, we are saying that we are doing, as you all 10described the program, if we say we're consistent with 11GALL, our program does the same things that the GALL 12program recommends.
13And we would have the same preventive 14actions, the same detection of aging effects, methods 15that are defined, the same acceptance criteria would 16be the same if we were going to say our program was 17consistent with GALL.
18If there are exceptions we would say it's 19consistent with GALL with exceptions and we would 20identify those exceptions.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I take that to mean 22if GALL has a specific acceptance criteria or a 23specific inspection criteria or methodology, to be 24consistent with GALL you'd have to use those criteria, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 substituted 3something, is that where you get into, you started to 4use the word enhancement or exception? What would be 5the process to move off of consistent with GALL?
6MR. COX: We took an exception to, let's 7say the acceptance criteria in GALL, we would propose 8an alternative acceptance criteria along with a 9technical justification for why that was an 10appropriate acceptance criteria to effectively manage 11the effects of aging.
12JUDGE KENNEDY: And that would be listed 13as an exception?
14MR. COX: That would be listed as an 15exception. The program descriptions in Appendix B of 16the license renewal application have a section where 17they identify whether there are exceptions to the 18program.19JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe to, Mr. Cox is 20you'd like to answer, what would then be an 21enhancement be, in the context of consistent with 22GALL?23MR. COX: In the context of consistency 24with GALL, an enhancement would be a change that if we 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4794had an existing program at Indian Point, and we 1determined that there was a particular aspect of that 2program that was not consistent with GALL, an 3enhancement would be a commitment to make a change in 4that 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 of 7a licensee declaring their aging management program is 8consistent with GALL?
9DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, what 10consistency with GALL means is that the applicant is 11implementing the program that is nearly identical to 12what is in the GALL.
13JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess that's the thing 14that, at least the Board is struggling with. That the 15word consistent has a definition. But when we have 16this discussion from a technical perspective, the -ly 17words start to creep in. We're trying to get our arms 18around how much latitude a licensee may have in, 19although still being consistent with GALL, could do it 20differently.
21In other words is there a, and I guess 22I'll try and just, Dr. Hiser, is there a delta around 23consistent such that if the delta gets too large it 24becomes an exception or an enhancement? I guess I'm 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4795really struggling with how much, I mean it's not 1verbatim. Is it verbatim compliance with what's in 2GALL? Is it word for word what's in GALL?
3DR. HISER: At one level it is. When an 4applicant identifies an AMP is consistent with GALL.
5We do an audit or an AMP consistency audit. And we go 6to the applicant site and we at one level compare 7their AMP to what's in GALL, word for word.
8If there are things that are missing then 9we discuss with the applicant why the difference 10exists. If it is a significant difference, and I 11think the delta really is very small, then we would 12ask them at REI, and pursue them justifying that. And 13maybe at that point that would be identified as an 14exception 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 applicant 20submitting an application does not need to have or 21even reference GALL with their AMP. But if they 22don't, then they have to demonstrate that the plan 23that they have will in fact adequately manage the 24effects of aging.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4796If in fact they take advantage of the GALL 1and they not only represent, but demonstrate that 2their AMP in fact is consi stent with all of the3parameters of GALL, then there is a presumption that 4the plan is adequate.
5On the other hand if they don't address or 6demonstrate that they are consistent with GALL, then 7they have to independently demonstrate the adequacy of 8the aging management. Am I correct in that regard?
9DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser, yes I 10would say that yes, you are correct.
11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, now when you have 12a situation here with the hybrid, where submitted 13under Revision 1, reviewed in part under Revision 2.
14From our standpoint, it's not just a representation 15that it's consistent with GALL. Do we need to find 16that it's consistent with Revision 2 in order to have 17that presumption of adequacy?
18If it's not, if we can't find that it's 19consistent with Revision 2, do we have to aside from 20GALL, independently evaluate the adequacy of the aging 21management?
22DR. HISER: I guess what I would say is 23that if the determination is made that it is 24consistent with Revision 2 of GALL, then there's a 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4797presumption that it provides reasonable assurance. If 1we are unable to find that it is consistent with 2Revision 2 of GALL, then we w ould make a sort of on 3its own merits, evaluation of whether the program is 4adequate to provide reasonable assurance.
5So the consistency with GALL is one way to 6provide a presumption of reasonable assurance. If 7it's a plant specific program, we do have a more 8laborious process that we need to go through to 9demonstrate that it provides reasonable assurance.
10CHAIRMAN McDADE: And that's what you've 11done in SER Supplement 2, that in certain instances 12you'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, nevertheless 15provides adequate assurance of aging management. Is 16that correct?
17DR. HISER: Are you speaking specifically 18for the reactor vessel internals parameters?
19CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.
20DR. HISER: I guess I'd like to ask Jeff 21to address that.
22MR. POEHLER: Mr. Jeffrey Poehler for the 23NRC. Actually for the reactor internals aging 24management program submitted by Entergy, we used for 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4798guidance for the staff's review we used the Interim 1Staff Guidance related to reactor internals, 2LR-ISG-2011-04. And that --
3CHAIRMAN McDADE: Sorry, can you repeat 4the cite?
5MR. POEHLER: Yes, LR-ISG-2011-04. And 6basically that Interim Staff Guidance updated the 7guidance of GALL Revision 2, specifically related to 8reactor internals. Mostly just to recognize that the 9approved version of MRP-227-A had been issued in 2012.
10In practice there's not, there weren't a 11lot of changes from GALL Rev 2 in that guidance. So 12but we did use the, so that represented the most up-13to-date NRC guidance for reactor vessel internals. So 14that was what we used when we evaluated the ten 15elements of the aging management program for reactor 16internals.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: This is Judge Wardwell.
18Considering we opened this door, with Dr. Kennedy's 19permission, I'd like to explore this a little bit more 20as an example of the application of GALL.
21Mr. Cox, when you submitted your 22application for this license renewal, when dealing 23with the reactor vessels internals, what did you 24submit at the time of, in 2007? Because there was no 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 AMP 1in GALL 1 for reactor vessel internals. Is that 2correct?3MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
4That is correct. There was no AMP. There was 5direction in the, or guidance, recommendations, in the 6GALL report that said for reactor vessel internals an 7applicant should provide a commitment to participate 8in the industry efforts that were evaluating aging 9management of the vessel internals.
10And to implement the resulting programs 11and guidance that came out of that industry effort as 12part of, you know to manage the effects of aging on 13the vessel internals.
14It was essentially commitment, I believe 15it was Commitment 30 in Indian Point license renewal 16commitments that said we would follow that industry 17work and implement the results of that program.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: And so then I turn to NRC 19staff, Dr. Hiser or your partner, you reviewed the 20commitment then in regards to your initial approval.
21What happened subsequently when GALL 2 came out, was 22that you used this internal staff guidance to then 23measure their commitment with GALL 2? Or how did you 24review it?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4800DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. When the 1main driving force that created a change in GALL and 2with the Indian Point application, was the industry 3submittal of MRP-227 Rev 0 report. The staff review 4of that report and subsequent safety evaluation. And 5then the industry submittal of MRP-227-A report. That 6provided for the first time an acceptable aging 7management program for reactor vessel internals for 8PWRs.9Based on that the staff, actually prior to 10that issuance, the staff put into GALL Revision 2, an 11AMP for reactor vessels internals that we believed 12would be consistent with MRP-227-A. However, that was 13about a year before 227-A was submitted and based on 14that, we ended up putting together the LR-ISG that Mr.
15Poehler described.
16So that then the AMP for reactor vessel 17internals was consistent with MRP-227-A.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: Which in turn was 19consistent or mirrored what was in Rev 2 in regards to 20the AMP for vessel internals that was contained 21therein?22DR. HISER: Well at that point when we 23issued the LR-ISG that Mr. Poehler mentioned, that 24superseded the reactor vessel internals AMP that was 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4801in Revision 2 of GALL. So that became the staff 1position on what an acceptable aging management 2program was for reactor vessel internals, was conveyed 3through the LR-ISG.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: But still the, if a plant 5was doing it new now, they would look at still Rev 2 6of GALL and that AMP that's in Rev 2 of GALL. And 7then the guidance is how that AMP is really 8implemented. Is that correct?
9DR. HISER: I have to apologize because I 10get hung up with Revision 2 versus the ISG. The 11Revision 2 that is the printed book, that version of 12the AMP is no longer valid. The version that is in 13the LR-ISG, that is the official staff position.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: But that, so you're 15saying if I understand you correctly, GALL 2 at least 16in reactor vessel internals, the AMP that's contained 17therein has been modified and replaced by that which 18is contained in the ISG. Is that what you're saying?
19DR. HISER: That is correct. And there 20are several other AMPs that are similar to that, that 21there are LR-ISG documents that supersede the printed 22version of GALL Revision 2.
23CHAIRMAN McDADE: This is Judge McDade.
24I just want to before we move on, clarify something 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 can 2find it again, that's NRC document 114 A through F.
3So when we go later.
4What is the genesis of that? It's a 5material and reliability program. How was that 6generated?
7DR. HISER: That was generated from an 8almost decade long industry activity to develop aging 9management guidance for reactor vessel internals.
10CHAIRMAN McDADE: So it's an industry 11generated document?
12DR. HISER: Yes.
13CHAIRMAN McDADE: And then how is it used 14by the NRC in reviewing the adequacy of the plan, of 15the aging management?
16DR. HISER: Well it was used by the NRC 17first, after acceptance of the report through the MRP-18227-A designation. We use that as the basis for what 19we thought, what we consider to be an effective aging 20management 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 explain 1how this evolved. The Rev 1 of GALL report was issued 2in 2005. Indian Point submitted the initial license 3renewal application in 2007. I believe about 2009 the 4initial Rev 0 of the industry document, MRP-227 was 5issued. That initial version I believe, and Dr. Hiser 6can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that 7was the basis for the aging management program that 8was put into GALL Revision 2.
9It was a draft, it had not been through 10formal NRC review yet, but it was the closest thing 11that we had. So that became Rev 2. After NRC 12completed their review and accepted MRP-227 it was 13reissues as MRP-227-A.
14CHAIRMAN McDADE: That was what, December 15of 2011?16MR. COX: That's right. And then because 17it now, you know it provided things that were -- there 18weren't a lot of changes but there were some changes 19that were different from what Rev 0 had.
20The NRC issued the ISG to basically bring 21GALL Rev 2 up to date to what was in MRP-227-A as it 22was approved. So that was kind of the sequence of 23events that led to where we are now. So if we were 24doing a license renewal application today, like we're 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 looking 1at the ISG as the latest staff guidance for that 2particular reactor vessel aging management program.
3That's a little bit of the history, the 4time line of how that evolved to where we are today.
5CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and is that 6consistent with your recollection, Dr. Hiser?
7DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.
8CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, Judge Wardwell.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: When you've done your 10final review of, as you did your final review for 11reactor vessel internals, have you considered the 12review that's in the ISG as a, consistency with GALL 13as a consistency with GALL with additions, or 14enhancements, or as a site specific AMP?
15DR. HISER: We would consider an AMP that 16matches what is in the LR-ISG to be the consistent 17with GALL version.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you consider 19their, Entergy's AMP for reactor vessel internals to 20be one that is GALL 2? Or is a site specific one that 21you had to compare and evaluate the details of their 22program to see if it is consistent with GALL 2, which 23as it's been updated in the ISG?
24DR. HISER: I would say that it is one 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, that 2the Indian Point program was consistent with what was 3in the LR-ISG. We didn't just take their word for it 4that they said we are consistent with GALL. So you 5know we should, our program is acceptable.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Kennedy, will you 7move along please with the rest of this program?
8JUDGE KENNEDY: I'll try to get us moving 9here again.
10So does all of that, I guess this all 11started with the consistent with GALL discussion, and 12now we get to the reactor vessel internals which as I 13understand what Judge Wardwell was asking. He's 14really trying to ask is reactor vessel internals 15current aging management program that's been approved 16for Indian Point, viewed as consistent with GALL?
17And I thought I just heard you say, that 18it is. Is that what I heard, Dr. Hiser?
19DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, yes. It is 20consistent with GALL.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: So when Entergy writes 22their next application, they would list their reactor 23vessel internals as being a program consistent with 24GALL? And I'll let Dr. Cox, or Mr. Cox answer since 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Alan 2Cox for Entergy, we would say that they program was 3consistent with GALL as modified by ISG 2011-04.
4JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: And so you wouldn't 6consider it a plant specific GALL, it is a GALL, it is 7an AMP that's consistent with GALL 2?
8MR. COX: That's correct. For it to be a 9plant specific AMP, it would be an AMP that is not 10based on a industry wide guidance document. The ISG, 11while it's not, it's a revision to GALL, it's not 12actually GALL Rev 2. It is still a generic industry 13guidance document. So when you compare, it's not 14going to be plant specific. Because it's going to be 15compared to a generic document.
16MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 17Harris for the staff. The license renewal interim 18staff guide I believe that Mr. Poehler was referring 19to, is NRC Exhibit 214.
20JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
21Dr. Hiser, you may have already answered 22this question but in my opening remarks I indicated 23that the Commission expects the staff to not take the 24applicant at their word, but to verify that the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4807particular aging management program is consistent with 1GALL. How does the staff perform and document that 2verification or confirmation process?
3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The staff 4for AMPs that are consistent with GALL, performs an 5on-site audit at the applicant's facility. And we 6compare first of all their program, element by 7element, to what is in the GALL report. And then we 8also look at plant specific operating experience and 9things like that to verify that the AMP appropriately 10bounds the conditions at the plant.
11JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, is that audit 12process also cover AMPs that are not consistent with 13GALL? I mean is it, it's not, is it limited to a 14consistent with GALL aging management programs?
15DR. HISER: In general, it would cover 16AMPs that are consistent with GALL, and also programs 17that are consistent with enhancements, or with 18exceptions.
19The only case that it would not cover, 20would be a plant specific AMP.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: And where is this 22document? Did you, Dr. Hiser, did you let us know 23where this document --
24DR. HISER: It is documented in the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4808staff's audit reports. For Indian Point they were 1Exhibits within, that we cited within our testimony.
2JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, is that 3evidence itself at all in the Safety Evaluation Report 4for the Indian Point license renewal application?
5DR. HISER: Yes, that would be cited 6within the SER.
7JUDGE KENNEDY: So it is incorporated by 8reference. Is that, or is it, I mean is it --
9DR. HISER: It is, I believe there are 10critical elements are described in the SER. And then 11it is referenced within the SER.
12JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I guess moving 13away from consistent with GALL, let me try another 14couple of questions here.
15Within the Indian Point license renewal 16application, commitments for future actions are 17proposed. I guess I'm curious if the Board could hear 18from Entergy first, how these commitments are 19monitored and controlled from the licensee's 20perspective?
21Entergy first.
22MR. COX: I'll start, and if any of the 23plant folks have anything to add, they can add. This 24is Alan Cox for Entergy. But Entergy has a process 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 that 2system. It's essentially a database. Identify what 3the commitment is? When it has to be done? Who's 4responsible for doing it?
And then it would be 5tracked within that database to ensure that, if it 6gets accomplished as described and by the date by 7which it was due.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: So there's an internal 9plant process to control the regulatory commitments.
10How are they documented and I'll say tabled with the 11staff? I mean is the staff aware other than the 12application, what the level of commitment is and what 13it is?14MR. COX: Well it is, it's submitted with 15the letter, I mean the commitment is a written letter 16to the staff. You know so it is provided to them in 17a letter.
18Typically we would, if we had an REI that 19we responded to that resulted in a change to the 20commitment, we would update that commitment. And 21typically submit the entire commitment list associated 22with the license renewal application as an attachment 23to the letter that responded to that particular REI, 24or REIs.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4810JUDGE KENNEDY: So if Entergy completes 1one of these commitments. In other words they've, at 2least in the licensee's mind, they've completed the 3actions that they committed to do. How is that 4communicated to the staff?
5MR. COX: It's largely an internal 6documentation, except for license renewal, there is a 7provision to notify the NRC when we completed all of 8the commitments. There's not an individual 9notification for each commitment. But there is a 10notification that says we've completed all the 11commitments, or all the commitments that are due. For 12instance before the period of extended operation.
13I wouldn't want to say all, license no 14commitments because there's a few of them are not due 15until sometime after the PEO. But there is a 16notification to the staff before the PEO, that the 17commitments that are due before the PEO have been 18completed.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: And does that notification 20of the staff contain any details of the completion 21process? I mean is it literally just a letter that 22says at this point in time, we've completed all the 23commitments prior to, you entering the period of 24extended operation, or some example like that?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4811MR. COX: I believe it's not much more 1than that. It would be a list I believe that shows 2commitments that have been completed.
3MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 4for Entergy. If I could expand on this response just 5a little bit. I think it's worth noting that the NRC 6also has an inspection procedure that they implement 7to verify commitments prior to entering the extended 8period of operation. And they have inspection 9procedures during operation where they look at 10commitments. So they do get at that through the 11inspection process.
12The other thing I wanted to note with 13regard to the capturing, tracking, and enforcement of 14commitments is that it's my understanding that the 15staff plans to have a license condition that would 16require that the commitments be put into the updated 17final safety analysis report. So they will be 18incorporated in that report and tracked. And can only 19be modified under the provisions by which you can 20change that report, which is 50 59.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you, sir.
22Maybe I'll open it up to the staff and if 23they themselves have anything to add to this process 24since they're a part of it?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4812DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Actually 1we have, the normal process that is followed is as Mr.
2Cox mentioned, applicants or license renewal holders 3at that point, would send us a letter that indicates 4they've completed their commitments prior to the plant 5entering the period of extended operation. We would 6implement an inspection by the region. It would 7verify that the completion of each of the commitments.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm curious about 9this license condition and about commitments and when 10that take place. Is that once the renewed licenses 11are granted? When does that process kick off? Where 12the commitments are incorporated into something like 13the UFSAR?
14DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Normally, 15well when the renewed license is issued is when the 16conditions apply to the plant. If we do not issue a 17license, there is no license condition because it's 18out of process at that point.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe Dr. Hiser, in the 20interim between I guess in this case, the extreme 21interval of when the license application was submitted 22and all the evolutions of commitments up until today.
23What is the process for tracking, monitoring 24commitments before this license condition evolution?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4813DR. HISER: The process would be that 1changes made to the application, and commitments are 2considered a part of the application, would be3submitted to the NRC as an amendment to the 4application.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Mr. Cox, how does 6that tie into your regulatory commitments? Are we 7talking about the same thing here? Or is there a 8subtlety here that may be missing, or I may be 9missing?10MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
11There is a, I guess you could make a commitment to 12the, I'm trying to describe the difference between the 13normal process and license renewal. There's really 14not a lot of difference.
15The license renewal application, the fact 16that that's under review adds another layer if you 17will, of review. Those commitments as Dr. Hiser 18indicated are submitted with the application as an 19amendment to the application. They're also still 20tracked internally in the database that I described 21earlier. It's the regulatory commitments, so you 22really kind of have a twofold process.
23The one thing I didn't mention earlier, is 24the internal regulatory commitment management process 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4814is based on an industry guidance that was developed by 1the Nuclear Energy Institute. I believe it's NEI 29904, which is an industry guideline on how to manage 3regulatory commitments. And that guideline, I believe 4is endorsed by the NRC staff.
5CHAIRMAN McDADE: If I could just to 6clarify in my own mind here, to make sure I understand 7it correctly. Dr. Hiser, what is the FSAR?
8DR. HISER: It's the Final Safety Analysis 9Report.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and how are the 11commitments incorporated into the FSAR?
12DR. HISER: They're incorporated as one of 13the appendices to the FSAR.
14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and how does that 15FSAR then relate to the ongoing current licensing 16basis?17DR. HISER: That is one part of the 18current licensing basis.
19CHAIRMAN McDADE: So these commitments are 20captured in the FSAR, which then in turn is captured 21in the CLB, which is the overarching document for the 22continued operation of the plant. Is that correct?
23DR. HISER: That is an overarching 24classification of documents for the plant.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4815CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, thank you. Judge 1Kennedy.2JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I think I'm, 3I don't know where to direct this. Let's talk a 4little bit about Appendix A and Appendix B of the 5application. If I remember correctly, Appendix A 6contains aging management program descriptions. And 7there'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 and 10stuff 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 Indian 13Point aging management programs. Is that true?
14MR. COX: That's correct.
15JUDGE KENNEDY: And Appendix A to the 16license renewal application contains?
17MR. COX: Appendix A also contains 18descriptions of the programs. In some cases they're 19not as much detail as in Appendix B. It's a summary 20level of the program. It's intended to include all 21the key elements that are necessary to ensure that we 22have an effective program.
23In addition, Appendix A also has a 24discussion of the evaluation that was performed of the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4816time limited aging analysis for license renewal. And 1that 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 the 5entry 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 to 9mean the material that's placed in Appendix A is where 10the long lasting descriptions of the aging management 11programs are contained?
12MR. COX: Yes. That would be correct.
13JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's the material 14that, is that the material that is under some level of 15control then? What's the level of control over those 16descriptions if it makes it to the final safety 17analysis report?
18MR. COX: Well the final safety analysis 19report is indicated as a current licensing basis 20document. Changes to that can be made under 10 CFR 2150.59. If it meets those criteria in that part of the 22regulations.
23JUDGE KENNEDY: So the 10 CFR 50.59 24process would be the controls over changes to the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 I 3struggle with all the time. It's unclear to me, and 4I guess I'll start with the NRC staff. Why there's a 5difference between, there appears to be in reading in 6particular the Indian Point license renewal 7application, a difference between what's in Appendix 8A and what's in Appendix B. And I've always wondered 9why they weren't just a mirror of each other.
10I guess could you help enlighten the Board 11as to why that would be the case? Or what's the 12rationale and how does the staff determine that what's 13in Appendix A is acceptable?
14DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Appendix 15A is the UFSAR supplement that the applicant proposes 16to describe the aging management programs and TLAA 17resolutions. So that becomes a part of the current 18licensing basis.
19Appendix B provides a description of the 20AMPs, which for AMPs consistent with GALL tends to be 21a very short summary.
If there are exceptions, if 22there are enhancements, then those are described in 23Appendix B.
24Appendix B is more the information that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1adequacy of the AMP.
2Appendix A, the UFSAR supplement, is what 3will go into the UFSAR and provides the licensing 4basis description of the AMP that then is controlled 5through the 50.59 process.
6JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's the 7nexus of my problem. Is how do you determine what 8goes in the Appendix A documentation, which appears at 9least to me, to be under a level of control that's 10regulatory driven? And there's a lot of precedence on 11how it is to be handled, and it's transparent best as 12anything can be.
13So I struggle with how the staff 14determines what goes where. And if you could help 15enlighten us it would help me a bunch.
16DR. HISER: What goes into Appendix A, and 17into the UFSAR is what staff believes sufficient 18information to provide adequate control of the AMP.
19So we look for sufficient description of the program 20and the essential elements of the program such that 2150.59 would be an effective way to control changes to 22that.23JUDGE KENNEDY: Does that have any 24synergism with the GALL description? I'm trying to 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4819see you know a pathway from GALL which from one 1argument, if you did verbatim compliance with GALL, 2you'd have reasonable assurance. And then there's the 3Appendix B description which could capture that.
4And then Appendix A which puts that, some 5subset of that information, or all of it, under a 6level of control. I'm trying to really get 7comfortable 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 on 10the information?
11DR. HISER: As I said, Appendix B is what 12we review within the application. And the Commission 13determined that for AMPs, that applicant AMPs that are 14consistent with GALL, that the applicant could provide 15a very short description of what is in the AMP.
16The staff then performs an audit to verify 17that AMPs identified as consistent with GALL, we 18verify that they are in fact consistent, or identify 19discrepancies.
20Appendix A is just intended to provide 21enough information that the applicant, or at that 22point, license renewal holder, could not make 23significant changes to the program that could affect 24the effectiveness of the program. So it's to provide 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 I 2guess is what I'm trying to say.
3JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't want to put words 4in your mouth, but I heard you use the word 5effectiveness of the aging management program. Is 6that a level of the criteria that's being used to 7determine the sufficiency of material in Appendix A?
8DR. HISER: Well, when I said 9effectiveness, I guess I did not mean in a, sort of in 10detail by detail way. But more in an overall sense 11that the effectiveness of the program would not be 12compromised by changes.
13JUDGE KENNEDY: You can see what I'm, well 14maybe you can't. What I'm trying to get at is, I want 15to get to the answer of the question, is there 16sufficient, how do I convince myself there's 17sufficient material in Appendix A that all the right 18stuff is under a measure of control? That I at least 19perceive to be adequate? And I'm trying to figure out 20how the staff determines that?
21DR. HISER: Well, in part we do that by 22looking at prior applications, the level of detail 23that's provided in Appendix A. We also just make an 24engineering assessment of what is sufficient level of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4821detail. The applicant could put the entire ten 1element program into their FSAR. But we don't believe 2that that's necessary to do. We believe that would be 3excessive.
4JUDGE KENNEDY: Would I expect to find all 5the critically characteristics that have been 6displayed in Appendix B carried forward into Appendix 7A?8DR. HISER: I believe that our intent is 9to capture the things that we believe are critical in 10Appendix A.
11JUDGE KENNEDY: From the material that's 12in Appendix B?
13DR. HISER: Correct. Or in general about 14the program. Because again, Appendix B may not, it 15may be very, some overarching summary description. So 16we may actually have more detail in Appendix A in some 17cases.18JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
19MR. COX: Judge Kennedy. This is Alan 20Cox. I might add just a little bit to that. It might 21be helpful to look at the specifics for this 22particular program. If you look at Appendix A, it 23refers you to the MRP-227-A. There's not a lot of 24discussion in there but it does tie you to that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4822program.1If you go to the GALL report description 2in Appendix B, you would have, you go to the GALL 3report, or the ISG program that's referenced from 4Appendix B, you would find a lot of MRP information 5that's broken out into the individual ten elements of 6the program.
7So I guess the differences there, it's all 8incorporated in Appendix A as a reference to MRP-227-9A. You go to Appendix B, that's broken out and 10spelled out in more detail. But there's nothing new, 11there's nothing in Appendix B that's not covered under 12MRP-227-A, which is what Appendix A ties the Indian 13Point program to.
14MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 15for Entergy. I'd like to add a little b it to this 16too. And maybe if I can describe the overall 17framework for you.
18I think you need to recognize first the 19hierarchy of documents. So you have the updated final 20safety analysis report which is as Dr. Hiser 21indicated, includes that information that the NRC 22staff concludes is appropriate to show, demonstrate 23reasonable assurance.
24But you can imagine to implement that, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1way down to plant operating procedures. And it's not 2practical or necessary to put all of those in the 3updated FSAR.
4That said, part of your question if I 5understood it was related to control of, what controls 6is over all these documents then. And one of the 7things I wanted to point out when we mentioned 50.59 8earlier, is that the nuclear plant, when they go to 9make a change in a procedure, even some of these lower 10tier documents, they can't just unilaterally make that 11change without first looking at it to see if it needs 12to be evaluated under 50.59.
13So if it could potentially, if a change in 14a low level procedure, an implementation procedure, 15could change something that's as described in the 16updated final safety analysis report, then they need 17to put it through 50.59 evaluation.
18So all the way down to those implemented 19procedures, there is a strong level of control in 20terms of how they can be changed, and how they're 21managed.22JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's what I 23was concerned about. Depending on what level of 24detail you put in Appendix A, governs how broad the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 of 3detail to Appendix A. And I guess I'm going to ask 4Mr. Cox if that's what he intended to say?
5MR. COX: Yes, that's exactly what I was 6intending 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 these 10Appendix A write-ups, they seem somewhat devoid of 11detail. But if the intent is to incorporate by 12reference, or if the actual practice is incorporation 13by reference, I see this as a much broader set of 14controls.
15And I'm trying to look at it more say from 16New York State's perspective, who has concerns about 17how transparent this is to the public. And that to me 18goes right to the heart of what's in Appendix A.
19That's where it all starts. At least from my 20perspective.
21MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 22for Entergy. So I'm looking at Appendix A and it 23starts off saying, this program relies on 24implementation of MRP-227-A. It's called out 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4825specifically here that that's what the program is 1based on.
2JUDGE KENNEDY: That helps. Thank you.
3And with that, I don't have any additional questions 4on GALL. So I'll either turn it over to my colleagues 5if they have any follow-up questions.
6CHAIRMAN McDADE: I don't, not on this 7overarching issue.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: And then on behalf of all 9assembled, I'm wondering if it's time for a break? I 10have no idea what time it is, so.
11CHAIRMAN McDADE: It's about 1:30. Would 12a ten minute break be adequate? Does anyone require 13more than ten minutes?
14JUDGE KENNEDY: I think a ten minute break 15would be great.
16CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, why don't we break 17now? We'll be back in ten minutes at 1:40.
18(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 19off the record at 1:29 p.m. and resumed at 1:43 p.m.)
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we're back on the 21record. Okay, first of all, let me ask do any counsel 22have any matters to take up before we get back to 23taking testimony?
24MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris for the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 for 7Riverkeeper. No, Your Honor. Thank you.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Dr. Hiser, you have 9some clarification?
10DR. HISER: I have clarifications. One of 11them may make it more difficult to understand but it's 12more consistent with the record I guess.
13Initially the AMP that was submitted by 14the Applicant was submitted July 2010 as a plant-15specific AMP.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Now, is this all AMPs or 17you're referring to the reactor vessels?
18DR. HISER: Only reactor vessel internals, 19and what I will say for the next little bit is only 20for the reactor vessel internals program. So that 21program was submitted as a plant-specific program.
22Had ten elements. At that point GALL Revision 2 had 23not been issued, so that's why it was a plant-specific 24program.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4827JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's because GALL 11 didn't contain any AMP in it for reactor vessel 2internals. Is that correct?
3DR. HISER: That is correct.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
5DR. HISER: Yes. Let's see. Subsequent 6to that, we issued our Revision 2. Then through a 7letter, let's see, the Exhibit Number is NYS 496, 8which is Entergy Letter NL-12-037, they revised that 9plant-specific AMP, and although they did not say it 10was consistent with the LR-ISG, the staff realized 11that it, in effect, was consistent.
12MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler of the 13staff. Yes, well, in February 2012 the LR-ISG had not 14even been issued yet, but GALL Rev. 2 had been issued 15but the Applicant did not cite GALL Rev. 2 because it 16still referred to it as a plant-specific program but 17one that was, that they did claim consistency with the 18guidance in MRP-227-A.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Again, you said this 20letter 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 evaluate 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4828AMPs that are consistent with GALL and cited an audit 1and then an audit report that summarizes the results 2of the audit.
3Because of the sequencing, the timely 4sequencing of the AMP for reactor vessel internals for 5Indian Point, there is no AMP consistency audit 6report. Instead, the staff's evaluation is provided 7in SER, Supplement 2.
8There is an audit report that describes 9the staff's evaluation of some of the applicant action 10items and that is summarized in an audit report, so 11there is a report for that. I do not have the exhibit 12number for that right now but we could find that.
13MR. POEHLER: It was NRC Exhibit 216, 2 146.15JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's for this 16modified audit report, is that correct?
17MR. POEHLER: Right, and that audit 18report, it was limited in scope to some calculations 19that supported some of the plant-specific action items 20so it wasn't an overall, was not an overall audit of 21the program compliance, just limited, narrow aspects.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: And, Dr. Hiser, could you 23get me the locations, the citing within the various 24sections in case there's more than one in the SER 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4829where this is described for the reactor vessels 1internals? You don't have to do it now but get it for 2us later.
3DR. HISER: We'll do that. I guess the 4other thing that I wanted to clarify was regarding the 5Appendix A descriptions of AMPs.
6We have in the SRP-LR document, NUREG-71800, Rev. 2, we have descriptions of the AMPs that 8the staff uses as examples for what should be in 9Appendix A of the applications. So those are examples 10of what the staff considers to be sufficient 11information to assure adequate controls over the AMP.
12When the staff reviews the application, we 13compare what is in SRP-LR with Appendix A from the 14application to ascertain that the application is 15sufficient.
16JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, that makes me 17think of a question. So that's the standard review 18plan for license renewal that you're referencing?
19DR. HISER: That's correct.
20JUDGE KENNEDY: For these descriptive 21summaries?
22DR. HISER: That's correct. And in the 23case of this program, that SRP-LR discussion would be 24in the LR-ISG for the reactor vessel internals 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4830program.1JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. I guess what comes 2to mind is as GALL has evolved from Rev. 0 to Rev. 1 3to Rev. 2, has the standard review plan document 4changed accordingly and, if not, how do I interpret 5the value of that summary material for AMPs that have 6undergone significant change over time?
7DR. HISER: I have not done a comparison 8from Rev. 0, Rev. 1, Rev. 2. I know for the reactor 9vessel internals program, the FSAR supplement in Rev.
101 was a description of the commitment in effect, that 11the plant would participate in industry programs and 12then would implement the program that came out of 13those industry activities. Clearly then the LR-ISG 14provided a more robust description of the program.
15JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and let me just to 17make sure, as time sequence goes here, you're 18referring to the aging management audit report. That 19report is dated August of 2015, or is that, it says a 20submission date on it. Your index indicates October 21of 2014 but the report itself has a date of August 222015. I'm just trying to figure out for time sequence 23of where it fits in. Is it from October 2014 or 24August of 2015?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4831MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler from 1the staff. Are you referring to the Exhibit 216, NRC 2216 for the audit report?
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.
4MR. POEHLER: Yes, the audit itself was 5actually performed in 2013 I believe and --
6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, it's indicated 7April of 2013 for the dates of the audit.
8MR. POEHLER: Right, and I think the 9actual audit report was possibly not issued until 10sometime in 2014 but I can't remember the exact dates 11but it was prior to the supplemental safety evaluation 12report being published.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Okay, and that 14would have been October of 2014, approximately?
15MR. POEHLER: Correct.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.
17JUDGE KENNEDY: R2 of the overarching 18questions. This is Judge Kennedy. Again, I drew the 19short straw.
20We'd like to entertain some discussion 21over time-limited aging analyses. Again, the 22testimony and the exhibits for a couple of these 23contentions, time-limited aging analyses seem to play 24a role and it occurred to us that it would be useful 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4832to have some general discussion before we start the 1contention-specific questions.
2Again, I'll try to address it, hopefully 3to a person this time but, if not, we'll try starting 4with organizational affiliations and work our way to 5specifics.
6Time-limited aging analysis, as I 7mentioned, play a role in the testimony for this Track 82 hearing and, for that reason, since it goes across 9a couple of contentions, we thought we'd start with 10it.11Let's start at the highest level and maybe 12start with Entergy. Could you describe for us what a 13time-limited aging analysis is in regard to the 14license renewal process?
15MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
16I could describe that. In general terms, there are 17some places in the testimony, I'm looking at the NRC 18staff testimony here, where they give a detailed 19discussion of it out of the --
20JUDGE KENNEDY: Are you looking at the 21response to Question 16?
22MR. COX: I am.
23JUDGE KENNEDY: If possible, Mr. Welkie, 24could you put up Page 23 from NRC 197, and hopefully 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 as 2well put it up. Sorry, did I give you the wrong page 3number?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 like 10to use this in answering the TLA question, Mr. Cox?
11MR. COX: Sure.
This is Alan Cox with 12Entergy. As it says here on the screen, a TLAA is an 13analysis that meets these six criteria that are listed 14here.15The first is it has to involve system 16structures or components that are within the scope of 17license renewal. The second considers the effects of 18aging. The third, it involves time-limited 19assumptions defined by the current operating term, for 20example, 40 years. The fourth is the analysis was 21determined to be relevant by the licensee in making a 22safety determination.
23Criteria five involves conclusions or 24provides the basis for conclusions related to the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4834capability of the SSC, system, structure, or 1component, to perform its intended function as 2identified in 10 CFR 54.4 bravo. And lastly, it has 3to be contained or incorporated by reference in the 4plant's current licensing basis.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: Now let's look at a couple 6of these. Can we leave that up there, Mr. Welkie?
7Looking at Number 3 in this list here of 8characteristics of a time-limited aging, "involved 9time-limited assumptions." Mr. Cox, what is that 10referring to and if you would have an example it would 11be useful.
12MR. COX: Most of the TLAAs are involved 13in these contentions and the Track 2 contentions are 14involving fatigue analyses.
15Fatigue analyses are based on a number of 16cycles. The numbers of cycles that are used in those 17analyses are estimates or assumptions that are 18considered to be based on what numbers would be 19anticipated 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 of 22cycles that is based on a 40-year operating period.
23JUDGE KENNEDY: And the Bullet Number 6, 24"are contained or incorporated by reference in the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4835current licensing basis." If I turn that around, if 1it 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 the 4way I would read that sixth criteria.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I take that further?
6Does that mean that TLAAs are not performed as part of 7license renewal? They're contained somewhere else?
8MR. COX: Let me try to clarify that a 9little bit. The TLAA is an existing analysis so it 10would not be performed for a license renewal. The 11license renewal rule requires an evaluation of the 12TLAAs, which is what's discussed in the next paragraph 13here of this page.
14So the TLAA itself is an existing 15analysis. The evaluation is required for license 16renewal, which may involve a revision of that analysis 17to extend the time period for which it's applicable.
18JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's go through these 19little I, little two I, little, I, ii, and iii. So a 20TLAA fits in one of those bins, I, ii, or iii? Is 21that the way I should think of this?
22MR. COX: The evaluation of TLAAs has to 23be, has to demonstrate that you meet one of those 24three options.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4836JUDGE KENNEDY: And you only meet one of 1them? Are they mutually exclusive? So if a TLAA fits 2in Bucket 1, you're done?
3MR. COX: I think in general that's true.
4There is, you know, some variations. For example, we 5could say that if we do a fatigue analysis that says 6a component was good for 40 years or for 60 years, 7maybe looked at the additional 20 years of operation 8in that same analysis, maybe based on the number of 9transients that we're experiencing, we are not going 10to exceed that assumed number in 60 years.
11We could look at that and say, well, that 12TLAA is valid for the period of extended operation in 13accordance with the single I there.
14What we do, we actually take it a little 15bit further than that. Because those are estimates, 16projections are not actionable. I mean, it's not 17truly based on a calendar. When you get to the end of 1860 years, you don't know that you've met those 19assumptions.
It depends on how fast, you know, it 20depends on the rate of accrual of the transient.
21So we have credited, for the fatigue 22TLAAs, we also credit, or in lieu of single I, we 23credit triple I. We credit the fatigue monitoring 24program, primarily as a way to monitor the number of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4837transients that are occurring as you operate the plant 1to make sure that we don't exceed those numbers that 2were assumed at the end of the, for the end of the 3period of extended operation.
4JUDGE KENNEDY: So using that example, I 5guess when I first looked at this I came away with the 6sense that if it fell into the first bucket, that 7aging management wouldn't be part of the process.
8MR. COX: I think, in general, in the 9purest sense of the word, that would be true but, like 10I said, this case, it's not, you know, the number of 11transients is not strictly a function of how long you 12operate the plant. It's an estimate based on what's 13expected during a typical operating cycle.
14And because there are variations from 15plant to plant as far as how well the plant is 16operated and how many transients you incur, we've 17credited the program to monitor those occurrences to 18make sure the assumptions remain valid for the 60-year 19period.20JUDGE KENNEDY: And you use the example of 21metal fatigue I guess, and so this is the cumulative 22usage factor calculation. Is that what falls into 23this?24MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4838JUDGE KENNEDY: And so I thought I heard 1you say that even though it maybe would be valid for 2the period of extended operation, you really, the 3application considers it more of a third bullet?
4MR. COX: That's correct.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's actually, even 6though it's projected to remain valid for the period 7of extended operation, it is within an aging 8management program. Is that the way I should take 9that?10MR. COX: That's correct. For the fatigue 11analyses, that is true. It's a little bit of a hybrid 12because it is, it's not purely based on the number of 13years but it is based on the number of transients that 14are experienced.
15JUDGE KENNEDY: What does it mean to be 16projected to the end of the period of extended 17operation and what's a good example of that type of 18TLAA, or time-limited aging analysis?
19MR. COX: I guess if we used fatigue 20analysis as an example, if we had an analysis that 21said you're going to -- Let's just pick a number.
22Let's say you could have 100 heat-ups and cool-downs 23in the analysis and your TLAA or your CUF would still 24be valid at the end of the period of extended 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4839operation.
1If you determined that 100 was a valid 2number that you would not expect to exceed after 60 3years of operation, you could say that was a single I.
4If you saw, based on your operating 5history, that you're probably going to go up to 120 6heat-ups and cool-downs at the end of 60 years, then 7you would redo that analysis to use 120 cycles instead 8of 100 and you could say that you have projected the 9analysis to the end of the period of extended 10operation.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: That doesn't make much 12sense to me. It sounds like both were projections.
13I don't see how you get a single I. Aren't you still 14projecting? You just made a different assumption in 15your projection.
16DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I guess 17the difference is in the first one your projection 18validates the current analysis of record, so it 19validates the adequacy of the COB analysis.
20If the projection, as Mr. Cox mentioned, 21indicates that the value will go higher, so your 22assumptions are no longer valid, then double I 23indicates that you would have to reevaluate that 24analysis to demonstrate that it still is accurate.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4840JUDGE WARDWELL: Explain to me again how 1with fatigue a TLAA could possibly fall within I 2because it seemed to me we'll be always projecting, as 3Mr. Cox said, the number of transients, not the time 4of years.
5It's not important, the time of years.
6It's the number of transients. So it's a rate of 7transients 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 projections 11but in the first case, the single I, you're not 12revising the analysis to incorporate a different 13projection. You've done the work outside of the 14analysis to project the number of transients and, 15based on that projection, that analysis remains valid 16without revision.
17But if you read the words, it says "the 18analysis is projected." That's not to say, you know, 19on single I analysis remains valid based on your 20projection of the transients but you're not changing 21the analysis.
22In the second one, you're actually doing 23a projection of the analysis to use a different number 24based on projection of the number of cycles.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4841JUDGE WARDWELL: So the analysis you're 1referring to is not the calculation that was done in 2the TLAA but the analysis of the TLAA? Is that what 3you were saying?
4MR. COX: The analysis that's done in the 5TLAA is looking at, in my first example it would say 6100 heat-ups and cool-downs. That's in the analysis.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, where did this 100 8come from? We're going to have to jump me right back 9down because as soon as you start saying that I got to 10know where did -- Okay, here we are. You're preparing 11your 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 could 16interrupt here because I'm getting more confused 17rather than, you know, more clear on this.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: So you interrupting is 19going to help us?
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: We need help.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: For Mr. Cox, as you 23answer the question -- Correct my misinformation and 24my misconception here. I had viewed I as the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4842situation where you anticipated there'd be 100 1transients.
2ii is a situation where you look at it and 3you determine in the period of extended operation 4there won't be 100 transients but there'll be 200 5transients. So you now have to project given the 6increased number of transients in the period of 7extended operation. Have I just --
8MR. COX: Yes, let me start that.
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Explain how I got so far 10off the path.
11MR. COX: The TLAAs that we're talking 12about, if we talked about the first one on the -- You 13know, and the 100 number, Judge Wardwell, is a 14hypothetical number. That's what I just made up.
15So assuming that the analysis evaluated 16100 transient, that analysis was done probably during 17the initial plant design, so that was done 35 years 18ago and it's an assumption.
19So we look at the projection of cycles 20based on operating history and we say at the end of 60 21years I'm still going to be less than 100. That 22original analysis does not change. It's still valid 23for the period of extended operation.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: Hold right here. So what 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4843you said is at this point your analysis that you 1conducted during the design or even subsequently 2during operations up to this point, up to the original 3licensing date, that's the end of your license, 4current license, you had always used 100.
5And at this point in time, if you look 6forward to license renewal and determine that it was 7still going to be less than 100, then it would be an 8I.9MR. COX: That's correct.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, great. Now, I'll 11move ahead. Yes, good.
12So now, under ii, all you did is now at 13that same point in time while you're preparing your 14license application, you now say, oh, gee, it's going 15to go up to 160. That would be a double I.
16MR. COX: Right, that would require a 17revision or a projection of that analysis. That 18original analysis is no longer going to remain valid 19for the 60-year period. It's going to have to be 20revised. We're going to have to calculate a new 21cumulative usage factor and we're going to have to 22show that it still remains less than one.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: And if it does, if this 24wasn't a fatigue example, you would be off the hook 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4844from doing aging management, right? Either I or 1double I took place.
2MR. COX: Right, you would essentially 3have an analysis that says for this 60-year period 4this particular aging effect is not an aging effect 5requiring management.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: But with fatigue that's 7a special case where you actually are doing it because 8you just don't know how many transients. It's always 9going to be an unknown. It's not based on years.
10It's just based on how many of these you happen to 11have and it could be a wrong projection.
12MR. COX: That's correct.
13MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 14for Entergy. I'd just like to suggest that this 15conversation, to me, demonstrates exactly why it makes 16sense to manage fatigue through an aging management 17program, which is what Entergy is doing, meaning that 18they will be looking at the number of cycles and 19making sure that it meets their analysis.
20So they have chosen Option 3 and it makes 21sense for the reasons that you're talking about. The 22simple example, if I could --
23JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me interject 24because we're interested in questioning and, as your 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 and 1double i's and triple i's, why don't we just jump to 2aging management for everything we do?
3MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 4for Entergy. If I could just finish my comment there.
5The example I was going to give, which is not related 6to these contentions, but consider, if you will, a 7piece of equipment that's qualified for a 20-year life 8and then it has to be replaced.
9That doesn't fall in the, I guess in the 10scope of license renewal perhaps, but if you have 11something like that, you can't look at it and say this 12is going to be good for 60 years. I know that I have 13to do something earlier, but.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Cox, would you have 15a comment on why would we bother with i and double i?
16MR. COX: Well, again, I think in this 17case, in the case of fatigue analyses, it's important 18to recognize that it's not strictly based on the 19calendar.
20If you had another kind of analysis --
21Let's say you had a corrosion rate that you knew was 22going to be a constant every year for 60 years and in 23that case you could say if I apply that corrosion rate 24for 60 years I still meet the acceptance criteria. I 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4846projected the analysis. It still shows I have 1adequate minimum wall thickness. So in that case, the 2single i or the double i would be applicable.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: Have any of the pieces of 4equipment or system structures or components that do 5qualify for license renewal been screened out based on 6TLAAs, i.e., as falling under i or double i knowledge?
7MR. COX: Yes, that's not quite the same 8as screened out. In screened out, we would consider 9that to be where you apply the criteria of whether 10it's active or passive or long-lived or short-lived.
11But as far as TLAAs go, there are TLAAs 12described in the license renewal application that have 13been demonstrated acceptable in accordance with the 14single i or the double i.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: That's a better way to 16word it than the screening. Thank you.
17MR. COX: Embrittlement TLAAs on the 18reactor vessel is a good example. Those are typically 19projected. You reevaluate, recalculate the fluence 20expected at the end of 60 years and you show that the 21associated embrittlement analyses are going to be 22valid at 60 years in accordance with the double i.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And those are items such 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4847as, like, the upper support plate assembly, the upper 1core plate, the core barrel. Is that what you're 2talking about?
3MR. COX: No, what I was talking about in 4that last example is the actual reactor vessel itself, 5not the internals but the reactor vessel that's 6subject to the upper-shelf energy requirements in 10 7CFR, what is it, 50.60?
8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, but what about the 9reactor vessel internals? There are reactor vessel 10internals 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 going 16to get to that, so let me defer.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: In excruciating detail 18I'm afraid, though I am looking forward to it. The 19audience, I think, is even more excited than me.
20JUDGE KENNEDY: So going back to i and ii, 21did I understand, using the example of embrittlement 22or the reactor vessel itself, if that fell in either 23i or ii, would that mean it's not subject to aging 24management?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4848MR. COX: It would mean that that 1particular aging effect does not require an aging 2management program.
3JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And that's why, at 4least it sounded to me like that's why this has these 5categories, so that you could bin them. It sounds 6like what you just testified, that -- Under metal 7fatigue, even though i or ii may be a calculation that 8has either been done before or redone, it would still 9be managed for aging or at least monitored for cycles.
10MR. COX: That's correct and it's not, I 11mean, it's not actually managing the aging effect 12directly as much as it is monitoring the numbers of 13transients that are assumptions in the analyses to 14make 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 that 20done somewhere else? The little i.
21MR. COX: Those calculations or those 22projections would be done as part of the evaluation of 23TLAAs for license renewal.
24JUDGE KENNEDY: For license renewal.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4849Okay.1Going back to cumulative usage factors, is 2every cumulative usage factor a TLAA?
3MR. COX: I would say the analysis that 4calculated the cumulative usage factor would be a 5TLAA.6JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's, I have 7my own internal confusion over that terminology and it 8shows up when I read the testimony. Maybe you could 9amplify that a little bit so we can get some clarity 10to what a CUF, which sounds like a calculation, and a 11TLAA, which is a calculation, and what's the 12relationship between those two?
13MR. COX: Okay. The CUF is the result of 14the fatigue calculation. Fatigue calculation, which 15is the TLAA, calculates the cumulative usage factor, 16compares that to the acceptance criteria, which is 171.0, and that's how you would determine whether that 18calculation is valid. So the CUF is a product of a 19TLAA or a fatigue analysis, which is a TLAA.
20JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that saying I wasn't 21confused, that they are the same thing?
22MR. COX: I mean, it's a subtle 23difference. It's the analysis in one case and it's 24the result of the analysis. The CUF is a result of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4850the TLAA.
1JUDGE KENNEDY: I think the reason I'm 2spending a little bit of time on it, maybe more than 3I should, but in some of the responses to the 4testimony under the contentions it seems like there's 5an attempt to put some of this out of reach as being 6within the current licensing basis and not being done 7as part of license renewal and I'm trying to find 8where that line is.
9It would seem to me in metal fatigue that 10they're all in. I guess that's what it looked to me 11like. They were all calculations that were needed for 12license renewal and part of the license renewal 13process.14MR. COX: Yes, this is Alan Cox again with 15Entergy. Let's take the single i example or case for 16an example. You have an analysis that's based on an 17example I used, 100 heat-ups and cool-downs. Okay, 18that's a current licensing basis analysis. That was 19done as part of the plant design.
20So we're not changing any of the 21assumptions. We're not changing anything about that 22analysis. All we're doing is evaluating that analysis 23to see if it remains valid for the period of extended 24operation by looking at the operating history of the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 any 2references to saying that's part of the current 3licensing basis, is that those assumptions and the way 4you calculated fatigue is all defined in the current 5licensing basis. We're not changing that for that 6particular calculation.
7You know, so that's why we're saying it's 8CLB. It's not part of license renewal. It's not 9changed due to license renewal.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: So the single i items 11would be viewed as current licensing basis and not 12challengeable within a license renewal proceeding?
13MR. COX: Yes and, again, it's a little 14bit of a hybrid here because we're saying that even 15for the single i we're using the program to manage the 16number of cycles but we're still not touching the 17original analysis or changing, you know, even on a 18double ii we're not changing necessarily the methods 19that are used to calculate fatigue from what's defined 20in the current licensing basis by references to the 21applicable parts of the ASME Code, for example.
22JUDGE KENNEDY: Would the double ii CUFs 23be challengeable as part of or subject to challenge as 24part of the license renewal proceeding? I mean, is 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 or 1single i versus double ii as being the boundary even 2though they're -- I think Dr. Hiser seems to want to 3say something here. We'll get to you. We'll see if 4they got a --
5MR. COX: In my opinion on this, even if 6you changed the calculation, if you still followed 7procedures and processes that were established as part 8of the CLB, those processes and procedures would not 9be subject to challenge as part of license renewal.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that the same as saying 11the CUF values would not be challengeable, whether 12they're single i or double i?
13MR. COX: I think the result of the 14calculation would be the CUF values that you're 15referring to and I think that would be the conclusion 16that I would reach, is that those are not subject to 17challenge because they are done using the same methods 18that were established as part of the CLB.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you, Mr.
20Cox. Dr. Hiser, would you like to add to this 21discussion? I know it's not your application but --
22DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Actually 23I would say the NRC would consider any TLAA to be 24challengeable, whether it's single i, double i, or 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4853triple i, because the applicant must make certain 1assumptions and evaluations as a part of that 2determination and clearly those would be, you know, we 3challenge them as we review the application and so 4from that perspective I think they certainly would be 5subject to challenge.
6Now, I mean, just to be clear, the 7methodology used to do the calculation, to do the 8analysis, would not be subject to challenge.
9The input value of, in using Mr. Cox's 10examples of heat-up and cool-down cycles, that would 11be where the challenge really would be because the 12methodology is current licensing basis and that is not 13challenged.
14The time-limited aspect of the analysis, 15which would be the input heat-up and cool-down number 16of cycles, that would be the part that would be 17subject to challenge in this case.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Dr. Hiser, and, 19again, I just want to make sure I'm hearing what 20you're saying.
21Under i, the method isn't challengeable 22but if they're saying initially it's good for 100 23cycles, they have to demonstrate that it's not going 24to exceed 100 cycles during the period of original and 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 to 2exceed 100 cycles during the period of extended 3operation, then you go to double i and make a 4determination as to whether or not the analysis 5demonstrates that with the additional cycles it will 6remain, you know, valid, using this CUF that it'll 7still be below one as an example. Am I correctly 8understanding what you're saying?
9DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.
11JUDGE KENNEDY: With that, I have no 12further questions on TLAAs. My board mates may have 13some.14JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not sure I heard, 15I'll ask Dr. Hiser again just to make sure I heard 16this last bit correctly. Would the initial 100 17transient cycles be challengeable also? You may have 18answered that but, if not, I want to make sure that is 19answered.
20DR. HISER: The origi nal 100 in the 21original analysis would not be. The demonstration 22under single i that the number of expected transients 23will remain below 100, that would be challengeable.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: That's what I meant to 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 with 2Entergy. I might add to that, for the case of fatigue 3analyses, that's the reason why we credit the triple 4i. We credit the fatigue monitoring program because 5that's what we're going to use to make sure that that 6100 number does remain valid and is a good projection.
7DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. Just to 8clarify one thing as well, the fatigue monitoring 9program is required in the tech specs by the 10applicant, so that program is there regardless of 11license renewal or regardless of TLAAs. The plant is 12required to monitor transients and compare with 13assumptions that are listed in the tech specs as well.
14So this is one situation, as Mr. Cox 15mentioned, that they can demonstrate, using single i 16or double i, that the analysis is acceptable, but they 17still are required by tech specs to continue to verify 18that those assumptions are still met.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it fair to say 20they're more than assumptions too? I mean, they are 21estimates based on some operating experience or 22evaluation or --
23DR. HISER: You know, they really are 24projections. In the case of fatigue cycles, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4856applicants will determine the number of cycles up to 1some point in time.
2Normally around the date that they submit 3the application, they will evaluate the trends from 4that and then project forward what they expect to be 5the case at 60 years, so it is a projection.
6I guess assumption I took in the manner of 7an analysis has certain assumptions. Maybe input 8value is what I should have used, that that input 9value is what is used in the analysis.
10MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.
11I guess one more point of clarification on that, at 12the time these analyses were first performed back in 13the early '70s they were estimates. There wasn't a 14lot of operating history you could use to project what 15you're going to have after 40 years. Nobody had been 16operating for that long. There was very little 17operating experience to go by so, in essence, they 18were --19JUDGE WARDWELL: True --
20MR. COX: -- educated guesses about or 21estimates about what cycles would be necessary to 22qualify that component.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Good point.
24JUDGE KENNEDY: I ceded the floor, sir.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4857JUDGE WARDWELL: So I think now we're 1going to move on to our first contention that we're 2going to address. That's Contention 25.
3Couple little introductory comments I 4might make before we get started here. We've read all 5the testimony so we're familiar with what you've 6offered.7Generated some questions to help clarify 8some of what we read. Many times I'll be asking, and 9other judges will too I'm sure, yes/no questions.
10We're not trying to trick you.
11Oh first of all, the entire panel for 25 12ceded? 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/no 15questions. More often than not, it is just a question 16to help confirm what we understood you were saying or 17advocating within the, usually, in my case, on 18something I'm going to quote out of your testimony.
19Don't think you need to elaborate on those 20yes/no's. Just answer them as yes and no and, as part 21of that, I'll let you know the topics I'm planning to 22cover so that you can be comforted that, yes, you 23don't have to cover everything right now with these 24yes/no questions. There will be times to elaborate 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 point 2mostly with some of those and, just for time 3constraints, try to stay with yes or no because 4usually it's just trying to fix an obvious point more 5often than not.
6Sometimes I may interrupt you in your 7response. Don't be crushed. Don't take it 8personally. More often than not it's because I wasn't 9clear with my question.
10And if I find that you're wandering off, 11I can see that obviously I haven't made myself clear 12so I want to interrupt you and try to ask it another 13way to bring you back to where I'm trying to go with 14this to help complete the record, which is what I'm 15trying to do with these questions that I have on 25.
16Also, I'd like to hold down any offers to 17provide additional testimony from other witnesses 18besides the ones that I am questioning. You know, if, 19in fact, we're confused, we certainly will ask for 20that.21If you have a burning desire -- And, 22again, this is for time constraints because otherwise 23we'd be here for a long time and some of the times I 24think with Track 1 we did get too much off course with 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 you 2just, and this is I just have too much to offer here 3that I cannot sit still, well, jot it down and get it 4to your counsel and they'll be able to offer it as 5questions at the end of each of these sessions to 6offer those up and then we can look at them and say, 7oh, yes, gee, we should have asked that so that we 8will 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 might 12have a burning desire to offer, but we will generally 13ask the additional questions we need if we're confused 14as we go along here and that will allow us to do it 15the most efficiently.
16Under 25, I'll just read a synopsis, one 17of the synopses that I saw offered and get everyone 18familiar again with what we're covering here. Twenty-19five says that "Entergy's license renewal application 20does not include an adequate plan to monitor and 21manage the effects of aging due to embrittlement of 22the reactor pressure vessels and the associated 23internals."
24New York State submitted a declaration in 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4860support of the additional bases identifying concerns 1with, among other things, that declaration discussing 2the synergistic effects of embrittlement and fatigue 3and efficiencies in the visual and remote examination 4techniques that Entergy and industry had proposed to 5employ as part of the aging management program for the 6embrittlement of reactor internals.
7As part of this, I will be asking 8questions and discussing just the general adequacy of 9these AMPs, you know, related to the reactor pressure 10vessel and the internals. Talk then about synergistic 11degradation. Follow that up with talking about the 12full range of transient shock loads that may or may 13not influence that degradation. Discuss the 14adequacies of inspections, and then finish it up with 15preventive actions, corrective actions and acceptance 16criteria, so that's where we're going with this.
17And with that, I think I'll start off with 18talking about the general adequacy of the AMP and 19reference to start with Entergy's Exhibit 616.
20Oh and by the way, all my references are 21to non-public documents. I don't believe I've asked 22any questions, relayed anything that had been redacted 23by the various parties within those testimonies.
24So if we do pull up an exhibit, it will be 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 process 1as we pull up any testimony that we may want to ask a 2question about and then we'll proceed from there on 3how 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 and 6various answers from your testimony the public version 7of it, the non-public version of it, I'm sorry, in 8regards to, although I don't think the page numbers 9change but I just wanted to reference that anyhow.
10So Entergy's Exhibit 616, testimony for 11Question and Answer 51 on Page 27, the question and 12answer on Page 55 for 29, and the question and answer 13for 64 on Page 33 where within those sections --
14And you don't have to look them up. I'm 15going to read to you what I'm interested in and that's 16the case here in all of these. I'll be reading what 17I'm interested in and then ask questions about that.
18So it's better just listen for now, and then if you 19need to see it, we can call it up.
20But within those groups of areas, Entergy 21notes that while State's initial pleadings in 2007 on 22this contention focused primarily on the reactor 23pressure vessel rather than the reactor vessel 24internals, following the admission of Contention New 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4862York State 25, Entergy submitted several reactor 1vessel-related amendments to clarify its license 2renewal application, revise the description of how 3Entergy would address the then proposed alternative 4pressurized thermal shock, or the PTS rule, and noted 5the closure of certain reactor pressure vessel-related 6commitments.
7The State, however, has never amended New 8York State 25 to address or challenge these updates.
9This is, again, Entergy's statement, not mine.
10Going on with Entergy's statement, they 11say that, instead, the State has shifted its focus to 12reactor vessel internals.
13Specifically, in Entergy's opinion, in Dr.
14Lahey's pre-file testimony and the State's statements 15of position on this contention, Dr. Lahey and the 16State do not allege any specific deficiencies in 17Entergy's license renewal application regarding 18reactor pressure vessels.
19And I'll start off with Entergy and ask 20are the AMPs for the reactor vessel internals and the 21reactor pressure vessels one and the same or are they 22covered by different AMPs?
23MR. KUYLER: Your Honor, if I may, this is 24Ray Kuyler for Entergy. I believe Your Honor has been 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4863reading from the Statement of Position, the legal 1brief that Entergy submitted, rather than our witness 2testimony.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: I think the question and 4answers on Page 51 of 27 and 55 of 29 and 64 of 33 5cover those same topics. This wasn't a quote. This 6was 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 question 9one more time, Your Honor?
10JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, I'm interested in 11are the, is the reactor pressure vessel covered by the 12same AMP as the reactor vessel internals?
13MR. COX: No, it's not.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you. NRC 15statement, Testimony 197, Answer 10 to Page 20 states, 16quote, this is the NRC speaking, "The reactor vessel 17internals also do not include any pressure or boundary 18component such as reactor pressure vessels. These 19components are addressed in other programs," which 20seem to support Entergy's answer that we just 21received.
22Entergy's Testimony Exhibit 616, Answer 2364, Pages 33 to 34, and this I will quote, says that 24"with regard to the reactor pressure vessels, Dr.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4864Lahey briefly alludes to some of his prior claims 1regarding the reactor pressure vessel when he refers 2to the, quote, 'variance' that was, quote, 'endorsed' 3by the ACRS to permit continued operation with reactor 4pressure vessels end-of-life Charpy upper-shelf USE, 5and I believe that's the capital U, capital S, capital 6E, values that are less than 50 foot pounds.
7In his 2015 testimony, Dr. Lahey also 8refers to certain documents discussing branch 9technical position regarding the initial fracture 10toughness of reactor pressure vessel materials, 11suggesting that certain reactor pressure vessel 12embrittlement analyses may be non-conservative.
13The staff then goes on to say that "but 14Dr. Lahey and the state stop short of asserting," I 15mean, sorry, that's Entergy, and 616 goes on to say 16"but Dr. Lahey and the state stop short of asserting 17any specific deficiencies in Entergy's license renewal 18application regarding the reactor pressure vessels."
19And I'll direct this to Dr. Lahey. Are 20there any other locations, besides what I just said, 21that Entergy said that you were referred to reactor 22pressure vessels where you feel you have challenged 23the AMP for reactor pressure vessels within your 24testimony?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4865DR. LAHEY: Thank you, Your Honor. This 1is Richard Lahey, a witness for New York State. We 2did, in fact, starting in 2007 I believe, raise the 3issue of certain plates in the pressure vessel which 4were either going to violate the upper-shelf criteria 5--6JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Excuse me, I'm 7interested in your testimony that you submitted now 8for the current issue --
9DR. LAHEY: Yes.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: -- not what you did 11before.12DR. LAHEY: Interestingly my testimony has 13been pretty consistent for the last eight years, but 14the answer is there are a few plates in the pressure 15vessel which have some problems with pressurized 16thermal shock.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: And where did you cite 18those in your testimony?
19DR. LAHEY: Which testimony?
20JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, where did you cite 21that in any of your testimony that you've provided 22here?23DR. LAHEY: Well, in fact, I think in the 242007 I cited it first and then in others I've said, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 was 3not a big deal for me, because this is an area that 4has been of great importance to the U.S. NRC since day 5one, pressure vessel integrity, and I felt very 6comfortable that they had their arms around this 7problem 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 BTP 1053 issues in terms of how you determine the 11embrittlement of these things that are related. But 12I feel really comfortable the NRC is on top of this, 13so compared to my other issues, this has not been 14highlighted in my testimony.
15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: The focus of your 16testimony is on the reactor vessel internals and the 17adequacy of the aging management for those reactor 18vessel internals, correct, doctor?
19DR. LAHEY: That's certainly true because 20of how that impacts the possibility of core cooling, 21adequacy of core cooling, because my overall concern 22is safety. That's what I've been doing all my life.
23And so anything related to that is what I'm concerned 24with and what I've focused on in my testimony.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4867JUDGE WARDWELL: So you would agree that 1then the heart of your contention for 25 now deals 2with the reactor vessel internals, and specifically 3I'm going to pull out from your testimony 482 on Page 478, Lines 14 through 21, where you summarize that and 5just want to confirm if there's anything else extra 6you'd like to add to this list.
7DR. LAHEY: Do you want me to look that 8up?9JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I'm going to read it 10for you right here now so that you don't have to do.
11One, the synergistic effect on degradation 12and integrity of reactor pressure vessel internals of 13radiation-induced embrittlement, corrosion, and 14fatigue was one of your issues.
15The second issue was the potential for 16unanticipated failure of reactor vessel internals due 17to a severe seismic event or accident-induced thermal 18and/or pressure shock loads.
19Three, the implications of the failure of 20the reactor pressure vessel internal structure 21components and fittings on post-accident core 22coolability.
23And then citing another area was your same 24testimony, Exhibit 482 on Page 40, Lines 1 through 4, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4868that, quote, "Highly embrittled and fatigued reactor 1vessel internal components may not have signs of 2degradation that can be detected by an inspection but 3such weakened components could, nonetheless, fail as 4a result of severe seismic event or thermal pressure 5shock loads." Is that a fair assessment of your main 6points of your contention?
7DR. LAHEY: Yes, Your Honor.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. And without 9getting into any inadequacies associated with the 10RVIs, is it fair to say then that we can move forward 11with only looking at the reactor vessel internals and 12that the pressure vessel itself is no longer an issue 13with this contention?
14DR. LAHEY: I would leave that up to New 15York State. I told you how I feel about the issue.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: But as I heard --
17DR. LAHEY: I mean, my primary concern is 18with the impact of failed reactor pressure vessel 19internals on core coolability.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, and there's no 21longer a need to address anything else with you as far 22as testimony you'd like to provide in addition in 23regards to the pressure vessel itself?
24DR. LAHEY: Well, I've told you the issue 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1pressure vessel. And at some point in time, they are 2going to exceed the pressurized thermal shock criteria 3and the implications of that are not good, but it's 4well-known and I think the NRC is totally on top of 5that issue as far as I'm concerned.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you very much.
7DR. LAHEY: Maybe they could say they're 8not, but I doubt it.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Hiser, are you on top 10of those plates for the pressure vessel itself?
11DR. HISER: I am technically on top of 12them, yes.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. Thank you.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Not physically on top of 15them.16DR. HISER: I'm in Tarrytown, New York 17right now.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: Top of the world. It 19doesn't get any better than this, does it?
20DR. HISER: No, sir.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You were under oath when 23you said it doesn't get any better than this.
24(Laughter.)
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4870JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's turn to these AMPs 1again and a little bit of this may be a repeat from 2what we've managed to cover already but we'll see 3where we are with that.
4NRC's testimony, Exhibit 197, Answer 114 5on Page 72, states that "The IP2 and IP3 RVI," that's 6for reactor vessel internals, "AMP consists of a 7program description describing the ten elements of the 8AMP. A program description was initially submitted on 9July 14th, 2010, and was revised in a letter dated 10February 17th, 2012." And here you're citing New York 11State's Exhibit 496, which is the letter NL-12-037 and 12Attachment 1.
13Entergy, do you agree that the program 14description of Entergy's AMP for reactor vessels 15internals is attached to Entergy's letter NL-12-037 in 16New York State's Exhibit 496?
17MR. DOLANSKY: This is Bob Dolansky with 18Entergy. Yes.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. And, Dr.
20Lahey, do you agree that that is their AMP for reactor 21vessel internals?
22DR. LAHEY: As I understand it, yes.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. For anyone 24with NRC, where have -- I think you've already been 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. Where 1have you addressed the ten elements of GALL for the 2RVI AMP in your SER? Is that one of those ones that 3I asked you earlier to get for me at some time?
4MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler for 5the staff. The ten elements are addressed in the 6supplement to the SER. It's NUREG-1930, Supplement 2.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: And if you have the 8section numbers and can get that for us later, that's 9fine. It just --
10MR. POEHLER: I don't have the exact 11section number at the moment. I can get it for you.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: The only reason I ask you 13is not because I'm lazy. Well, that is part of the 14reason, but oftentimes there are sections we're not 15aware that really apply to that when you look at 16something like the table of contents and that's why I 17just want to make sure that you're telling me where I 18should be looking for the SER for things like that.
19And when I ask this question in other 20areas, that's why I do it, whether it's for New York 21or any expert. I may ask you where is that actually 22stated and that's because I don't want to assume I 23know every place that it might be stated within a 24given document.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4872MR. POEHLER: Yes, Dr. Hiser just pulled 1up 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 Brian 5Harris for the staff. Can we just let that reflect 6that it's NYS 507, I believe is the Exhibit number for 7the supplemental safety evaluation report.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Better yet. That's 9great. Thanks. Yes, I really appreciate any of those 10cites that you provide. It always helps the record as 11we go through the transcript. That's welcomed 12interruption by the way.
13MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: If I could clarify for 15myself, 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 ask 21it anyhow because it says it a little more directly 22too.23From a technical standpoint, is 24consistency with GALL, containing the ten program 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4873elements, in and of itself enough or is more depth 1analysis of the adequacy of the described program in 2the AMP needed for you to reach the conclusion that 3the intended functions of the passive reactor vessel 4internals within the scope of license renewal will be 5maintained?
6DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, the staff.
7In and of itself, consistency with the ten elements is 8not sufficient. The applicant must demonstrate that 9the components at the applicant site that are covered 10by the AMP are consistent and they also must 11demonstrate that operating experience is consistent.
12So they have to provide a context that shows that the 13AMP really is responsive to the aging management needs 14at the facility.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: And is that response 16documented in the SER also in at least some summary 17form or so someone can understand what you went 18through in your interactions with the staff to provide 19this demonstration that the ten elements are being 20addressed?
21DR. HISER: I'm not sure that we can point 22to a specific place within the SER because I think it 23really is embedded within the evaluation in the SER of 24each of the elements and in the applicant action 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4874items.1JUDGE WARDWELL: That was my question. I 2didn't mean to ask you to point me to a page number.
3I just asked you as a standard practice that you 4incorporate those interactions within your narratives.
5Thank you.
6I'll ask Dr. Lahey, have you looked over 7the ten elements of the GALL in the submittal that was 8provided in Attachment 1 of that letter, and do you 9see any area where you feel there is inconsistencies 10associated with what's required by law?
11DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, this is Richard 12Lahey again. I have looked it over. I have concerns 13about synergisms, and to understand how I feel, at 14some point I need to give you some overview of why I'm 15saying what I'm saying but I don't know it's the right 16time. If you just want --
17JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I think you have.
18You provided your testimony in 482. Isn't that your 19overview?
20DR. LAHEY: Well, it's part of it but I 21think --22JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, that should be.
23That's what we're interrogating here. That should be 24all of it if, I mean, that's what you've submitted for 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4875your testimony and now we're getting elaborations on 1that overview that you provided.
2DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, if you understood 3everything I said, that's fine.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, no, don't get me --
5I've got a lot of questions for you. Don't worry 6about that. I just want to make sure you're aware 7that your testimony has been submitted as pre-filed 8testimony 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 position 11and 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 of 15your contentions where I went through each one of 16those issues that you've summarized from your 17testimony, if you ever want to refer to those again in 18a general sense to caveat a response to my question, 19just go ahead and call them synergism et al. or 20something like that, so you don't have to worry.
21We'll know you're referring to all of those that we 22just covered previously.
23So if I ask you a question about was this 24suitable or something like that, you can say with the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4876exception of the synergism, et al., we see no other 1differences or I see no other differences or something 2like that. Do you get what I'm driving at? So you 3don't have to repeat the caveat.
4I understand what your concerns are and so 5you can express those again just by that symbolic 6representation if you feel the need to whenever I ask 7you a question.
8DR. LAHEY: Okay. Thank you, sir.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. Entergy's Exhibit 10616 again, Answer 133, Page 82, says that the IPEC RVI 11AMP, as updated, relies upon the extensive industry 12research document in MRP-227-A and MRP-228 and in the 13many reports supporting these documents where you're 14citing to New York State, again 496, NL-12-037, 15Attachment 1.
16Entergy's testimony Answer 119, Page 74, 17talks more about this EPRI materials reliability 18programs. That's the MRP, of MRP-227-A which is 19entitled "Pressurized Water Reactor Internal 20Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines," and states that 21it is the NRC-approved version of EPRI's guidance on 22the aging management for reactor vessel internals.
23Entergy's Testimony 116 Exhibit again, 24Answer 133, Page 83, goes on, and I quote, that "the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 a 2comparison of data to examination acceptance criteria 3as defined in MRP-227-A and MRP-228, two, a resolution 4of indications that exceed examination acceptance 5criteria by entering them into the applicant's 6corrective action program, and, three, monitoring and 7control of reactor primary coolant water chemistry 8based on industry guidelines."
9And I guess I'd ask staff if you agree 10with Entergy's statement that the MRP-227-A is the 11NRC-approved version of EPRI's guidance and what 12you're approving it for. What does that approval 13mean? What's the significance of it?
14MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler, the 15staff. Yes, we agree that MRP-227-A is the approved 16version of the MRP-227 topical report.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's all it is, is 18the approved version of that report? It doesn't 19approve that report for anything else?
20MR. POEHLER: No, it approves basically 21our safety evaluation, approved that report to be used 22as the basis for plant-specific reactor vessel 23internals aging management program or I should, aging 24management programs and inspection programs.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4878JUDGE WARDWELL: A plant specific or a 1generic plant? I would think it would be the 2opposite.
3MR. POEHLER: Yes, plant specific because 4any individual plant that needs to develop a reactor 5vessel internals aging management program can now use 6the framework of MRP-227-A to develop that program.
7But what this does is it makes the plant-8specific programs consistent with the generic 9guidance, so it's generic guidance for individual 10plants to use.
11DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. And I 12think 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 action 19items, yes.
20JUDGE WARDWELL:
Is there a way to 21pronounce that acronym? I'm going to call it "a lay,"
22is that all right with you?
23DR. HISER: Yes.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: Does anyone else use 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4879anything else different, because I can't go A/LAI 1anymore.2DR. HISER: We can just call them action 3items. 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 was 8developed by industry for a particular purpose. What 9is the nature of the NRC staff's review of that 10document and how then is it used by the NRC staff in 11determining the adequacy of aging management?
12DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The 13purpose of the AMP is to demonstrate adequacy of aging 14management for reactor vessel internals. The NRC 15approved that report, approved the methodology in its 16safety evaluation for the report. That safety 17evaluation was then incorporated in the -A version, 18MRP-227-A, as a topical report that is acceptable to 19the NRC staff.
20When we then implemented that report into 21the LR-ISG to modify the AMP for reactor vessel 22internals, that is where the NRC determined that that 23methodology was acceptable for license renewal 24applicants.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4880CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes, but how does the 1NRC go about doing that? What is the nature of your 2review? I mean, is it simply a read through and 3subjecting that to the technical expertise of your 4staff? Is there a period of, you know, the equivalent 5of the RAI situation that you have on a license 6renewal?7I'm just trying to understand what is it 8the ARC ExpressScribe staff does with MRP-227-A to 9effectively put its imprimatur on it as a guide for 10AMP compliance?
11DR. HISER: Okay. Yes, this is Dr. Hiser.
12What we did was a detailed technical review, and items 13that we believed were not appropriately addressed in 14the report or that we had questions about we asked 15RAIs and went through a question and answer sequence 16to get to the point that we had no more questions on 17the adequacy of the report.
18This was part of the topical report review 19which is a standard process that we use to review 20industry reports that try to address generic issues, 21such as adequacy of aging management for vessel 22internals.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And is that process part 24of what caused the metamorphosis from 227 to 227-A?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Judge 2Kennedy. Is there a staff safety evaluation document 3that's issued for an approved topical report?
4DR. HISER: Yes there is. In general, 5there is and for this one there was a safety 6evaluation. In addition, we had, I believe it was a 7revision to the SE for MRP-227.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: Would that be the ultimate 9culmination of the staff's review of that industry 10document?
11MR. POEHLER: Almost. I just wanted to 12clarify that. So when the industry, so we issued our 13safety evaluation. Then EPRI takes that and includes 14it in the approved version of the topical report.
15They also had to make some changes to the 16topical report, that the staff had included conditions 17in our final safety evaluation that related to changes 18that we wanted to see made in the final version of 19MRP-227.20EPRI made those changes. Then they 21submitted to us the final -A version. And at that 22point, the staff still had to verify that those 23promised changes had been made.
24And then at that point, I believe we 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, we 1agree that you made all the changes so, and at that 2point they were able to publish the -A version.
3JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: And are the lists of the 5RAIs that were generated documented anywhere, either 6in the SE or the industry document in the MRP?
7MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler from the 8staff. Yes, the RAIs are included as an appendix to 9the -A version.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, the whole RAI is, 11not just the --
12MR. POEHLER: The RAI letters and the 13responses. There were four rounds of RAIs so those 14are all included as appendices, although they're not 15all, every RAI is not explicitly discussed in the 16staff's safety evaluation.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: But they're physically 18attached to the MRP-A?
19MR. POEHLER: Correct.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: MRP-227-A?
21MR. POEHLER: Correct.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Mr. Poehler, just 24to, for my point to clarify for the record, when you 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4883mention EPRI, that's the Electric Power Research 1Institute, which is what?
2MR. POEHLER: The Electric Power Research 3Institute is the organization that developed the MRP-4227-A or Rev. 0 and -A report, specifically the 5materials reliability program, which is, you know, a 6sub-program of EPRI that specifically deals with 7pressurized water reactor vessel materials integrity 8issues.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and it's a non-10governmental entity that is supported by the electric 11power industry.
12MR. POEHLER: Correct.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And in preparing this 14document, it works in conjunction with the NRC to 15determine appropriate guidelines for AMPs here, for 16reactor vessel internals.
17MR. POEHLER: In preparing the document, 18it was, you know --
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Their goal was to come 20up with a proposal and the proposal is then reviewed 21by the NRC, the goal being to have the NRC put its 22imprimatur on it after a technical review that 23requires them to answer questions and modify their 24proposals. Is that correct?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. Thank 2you, Mr. Poehler.
3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Just to 4add one thing to what Jeff said, the RAI, RAIs 5themselves and the MRP responses are in, I'm not sure 6if it's Enclosure or Appendix B to MRP-227-A, so the 7full record is provided there in the report.
8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Which does bring to mind 10another general comment I was going to make early on.
11We sometimes focus more time on one group of witnesses 12than the other. Don't also take that personally, that 13you're feeling slighted or that you're feeling you're 14getting beat up on. It's strictly how, where the 15questions come up from.
16And usually, it's been my experience at 17least, that we do spend more time on staff and 18Entergy, the applicant, staff and the applicant, 19because they are the ones defending from the 20allegations that have been made.
21And so that's why we end up challenging 22you more than we seem to with, oftentimes, witnesses 23for the intervenors, and if that ends up to be the 24case here, that's not necessarily unusual. It just is 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 up 1with, so that was a comment I forgot to mention 2earlier, general comment.
3And back to that, I wanted to ask Dr.
4Lahey whether he disagreed with any of those principal 5components of Entergy's RVI AMP, and I think it's been 6long enough that I'm going to have to repeat them 7again for you unless you remember them. I'd like to 8repeat them again to make sure you know what I'm 9asking.10All I'm asking about is do you have any 11disagreement with Entergy's statement that the RVI AMP 12has three principal components and that is, one, the 13examinations and other inspections along with a 14comparison of data to examination acceptance criteria 15as defined in MRP-227-A and MRP-228 and then, two, 16resolution of indications that exceed examination 17acceptance criteria by entering them into the 18applicant's corrective action program, and, three, 19monitoring and control of reactor primary coolant 20water chemistry based on industry guidelines. Do you 21agree those are three principal components of 22Entergy's RVI?
23DR. LAHEY: This is Richard Lahey again.
24I certainly agree but I have problems with the MRP-25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 be 2able to refer back to that when we cover each of those 3other topic areas where that differs from that, rather 4than just open up a general discussion.
5DR. LAHEY: Fine. Great, thanks.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC's Exhibit 197, Answer 7114, Page 72, in addition to the program description, 8quote, "The IP2 and IP3 RVI AMP consists of an 9inspection plan initially submitted on September 28th, 102011, and a revised version consistent with MRP-227-A 11was submitted on February 17th, 2012."
12And now for this inspection plan, citing 13New York State's Exhibit 496-NL-12-037, Attachment 2, 14Entergy's Exhibit 616, Answer 134, Page 83, and I 15quote, states that, "The reactor vessel," excuse me, 16"The RVI inspection plan provides additional details 17on inspections to be covered under the RVI AMP," and, 18again, citing that Attachment 2.
19And I guess I'll ask Dr. Lahey, did you 20have a chance to look over that inspection plan and 21were those basic contents provided in Attachment 2 of 2212-037 for their inspection plan?
23DR. LAHEY: The inspection, excuse me, 24this is Richard Lahey again. The inspection plan 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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're 1asking 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 into 7the next question relating to the contents of that.
8Entergy's testimony, Exhibit 616, Answer 9134, Page 83, states that the reactor vessel 10inspection plan provides additional details on the 11inspections to be conducted under the RVI AMP, 12including, one, the type of examinations; two, the 13level of examination qualification; three, the 14schedule of initial inspection and frequency of 15subsequent inspections; four, the criteria for 16sampling and coverage; five, the criteria for 17expansion of scope if unanticipated indications are 18found; six, the acceptance criteria; seven, the 19methods for evaluation of examination results that do 20not meet the acceptable criteria; seven, provisions to 21update the program based on industry-wide results; 22and, eight, contingency measures to repair, replace, 23or mitigate beyond the information set forth in the 24RVI AMP.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4888And, again, without getting into the 1adequacies with which they addressed those particular 2items, Dr. Lahey, do you agree that those components 3were in the inspection plan?
4DR. LAHEY: This is Richard Lahey again.
5I heard you say reactor vessel rather than reactor 6vessel internals, is that correct?
7JUDGE WARDWELL: You probably heard 8correct. I probably misspoke, so it's reactor vessel 9internals. If I ever say reactor vessels, it's 10probably reactor vessel internals from now on but, 11yes, I meant reactor vessel internals. I'm sorry.
12DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir, I agree that that's 13what they're doing.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay and, Dr. Lahey, 16it's your contention not that these aren't addressed 17but they're not adequately addressed in a number of 18instances. Is that correct?
19DR. LAHEY: I think this document that 20they use is a very well-done document. It's 21inspection based and that's only part of it, so it's 22necessary but it's certainly not sufficient in my 23view. Thank you.
24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you, Dr. Lahey.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4889JUDGE WARDWELL: Back to staff, there are 1various Westinghouse reports that came up in the 2testimony and I jotted down WCAP 13587, 14577, 15030, 315270, 16156, 16211, 17096, 17894, 17901. Could you 4briefly summarize what's in all -- No.
5(Laughter.)
6JUDGE WARDWELL: What I'm interested in is 7--8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Ten words or less.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. How do these 10reports fit into your assessment of the adequacy of 11Entergy's RVI AMP? What role do they play and of what 12significance are they?
13MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler.
14Just to clarify the question, were those referenced in 15MRP-227-A or in the staff's testimony on New York 16State 25?
17JUDGE WARDWELL: We ask the questions.
18You can't ask us questions.
19(Laughter.)
20JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not sure where I got 21these from. I just know they've cropped up and I had 22any reference to Westinghouse report. I was 23interested and they seemed to have a significant 24influence on something that you've done. And I was 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 they 1play? How should we consider them?
2I believe all of those are, well, I'm not 3sure whether they're exhibits or not. I didn't go to 4look for an exhibit number but I know they've come up, 5and is this new to you? Have you never heard of any 6of these reports, or would you like me to ask Entergy 7and --8MR. POEHLER: Well I can answer for --
9This is Jeffrey Poehler of the staff. So one of the 10ones that you mentioned was WCAP 17096. Is that 11correct?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, that was one. WCAP 13just call it.
14MR. POEHLER: Just using that as an 15example, that's another topical report that was under 16review by the NRC staff.
It was kind of related to 17MRP-27-A and, you know, that's a document that 18provides methodologies for performing engineering 19evaluations when you find, if you were to find 20degradation in reactor vessel internals that exceeds 21the acceptance criteria of MRP-227-A.
22So the staff was concurrently reviewing 23that at the time period that they were reviewing 24Entergy's reactor vessel internals aging management 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4891program, but those WCAP reports are not, they're not 1directly relied upon in our review of 227-A.
2Another one that I think I heard you 3mention was WCAP 14577.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
5MR. POEHLER: And that one was a 6Westinghouse report that addressed some of the same 7issues as MRP-227-A, aging management, for aging 8management of reactor internals and --
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Mr. Poehler, let 10me interrupt here for a second just by way of 11background for my edification. Can you explain to me 12what a WCAP report is, what the genesis is, how 13they're developed, and then how they're used by the 14NRC in their evaluation of MRP-227?
15JUDGE WARDWELL: That's just what I asked 16earlier --
17MR. POEHLER: And so, yes.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I didn't follow --
19JUDGE WARDWELL: -- in a terrible way.
20MR. POEHLER: Those reports were not 21direct components. They're not components of MRP-227-22A. There were some supporting EPRI reports.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, first, how are 24they generated? Who --
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4892MR. POEHLER: They're generated by 1Westinghouse Electric Company as technical reports and 2sometimes those are submitted to NRC for review and 3approval as topical reports and sometimes they're not.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Are they submitted to 5EPRI as part of the development of MRP-227 or are they 6submitted to the NRC after MRP-227 has been 7circulated?
8MR. POEHLER: I don't know if they're 9submitted to EPRI. But to the NRC they're not, we did 10not have any WCAPs that were submitted to directly 11support the MRP-227 review.
12The one that I mentioned, the 17096, was 13submitted subsequently to MRP-227, Rev. 0. So it's a 14completely independent topical report that the NRC was 15reviewing separately.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, submitted to the 17NRC by who, by Westinghouse?
18MR. POEHLER: The WCAP 17096 was, I 19believe, submitted by EPRI and on behalf of the PWR 20Owners Group and Westinghouse, but I believe EPRI was 21the entity that actually submitted it, so.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. So, again, I'm 23just trying to get on the record here how these 24reports are developed and used and correct me if I 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. Various 4entities in the industry, such as Westinghouse, have 5an interest in getting this right.
6They prepare a document such as this WCAP 717096 which is then used to provide technical support, 8technical accreditation, as you were, for the 9underlying EPRI document which can be then evaluated 10by the NRC for whatever value you view it might have.
11You may view it very helpful. You may view it not be 12helpful. Is that correct?
13MR. POEHLER: Well, this is Jeffrey 14Poehler of the staff.
15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And I realize I went on 16there. Some of what I said may have been right and 17some of it may have been wrong. Don't just say yes if 18a lot of it is wrong.
19MR. POEHLER: For the specific example of 20WCAP 17096, that was not a supporting document that 21was necessary for the staff's review of MRP-227. It 22would be something that would be used by licensees in 23conjunction or with their MRP-227-A inspection program 24if they needed to do engineering evaluations of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4894conditions that they found. But we didn't rely, we 1certainly didn't rely upon that for approval of 227-A.
2DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The 3sequence is MRP-227-A. Plants go to implement it.
4They find some indication. Maybe it exceeds 5acceptance criteria. Put that in the corrective 6actions program.
7MRP 17096 is one method they can use under 8corrective actions to determine whether it's 9acceptable or what other corrective actions they may 10need to take. So it's independent time-wise and 11process-wise really of MRP-227-A.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you provide any of 13these WCAPs as testimony as an exhibit to the best of 14your knowledge?
15DR. HISER: Yes, I believe we did. NRC 16200 is WCAP 17096.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And how about the 1814577?19DR. HISER: I do not remember other than 20doing a --
21MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 22Harris 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 you 2repeat that?
3MR. HARRIS: It's New York State 341.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: 341. Thank you.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Would someone from 6Entergy like to shed some light on what are these 7Westinghouse reports and answer the question Judge 8McDade provided so eloquently?
9MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. This is 10Nelson Azevedo for Entergy. The MRP 227 was written 11by EPRI in MRP specifically which is a subgroup of 12EPRI but a lot of analysis in the additional 13evaluations were required to develop MRP-227 and also 14for the implementation details.
15And there's another industry group called 16the PWR Owners Group. I actually sit on both of these 17groups, and the PWR Owners Group develops a lot of 18these WCAPs that you're talking about, both for 19implementing the requirements in MRP-227 and 20performing evaluations that supports MRP-227. So 21that's a separate organization, PWR Owners Group, that 22supports the development of these guidelines.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: And have you provided any 24of these WCAPs as exhibits to this proceeding?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 more 2on that? You comfortable?
3NRC Exhibit 197, Answer 114, Page 72, 4quote, "The inspection plan contains tables specifying 5the inspections for primary expansion and existing 6program components and tables containing the 7acceptance and expansion criteria for these 8components.
9"The inspection plan also contains 10Entergy's proposed resolution of the Applicant/license 11action items" these are these A/LAIs or A lays or just 12action items as we'll call them from here on in, "from 13the 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, an 17expansion component, or existing component and how 18does it fit into the inspection program?
19MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of 20the staff. So a primary component is a component that 21was judged either most likely to experience some form 22of degradation such as tracking, for example, and/or 23also, you know, a higher safety risk component.
24So those primary components are those 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4897components that will be inspected as part of the 1initial and subsequent inspections under MRP-227-A or, 2you know, any inspection program that is based on 227-3A.4You inspect the primary components within 5two refueling outages at the beginning of the period 6of extended operation and every ten years thereafter 7for the majority of the primary components.
8Expansion components are those that are 9the next tier of components. They're somewhat less 10susceptible to degradation and/or lower risk, and 11expansion components would only be inspected if a 12primary component that is linked to it, in other words 13one that has the similar degradation mechanisms, 14materials, et cetera, experiences degradation.
15So the expansion component may never be 16inspected unless its associated primary component 17first experiences degradation. So the primary 18components are considered the lead components for 19degradation.
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm sorry. They're 21considered what?
22MR. POEHLER: The lead.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Lead?
24MR. POEHLER: Leading indicators basically 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4898of degradation as compared to the expansion 1components.
2And then existing program components are 3components that were determined to be adequately 4managed by existing programs.
5Generally the most common existing program 6is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler 7and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 11, in-service 8inspection program. We'll just call that the in-9service inspection program from now on.
10But that's something that is required by 11the ASME Code, which is incorporated by reference into 12NRC regulations, and the plants do that every ten 13years and they have been doing that since day one.
14But basically what that program does is 15visual inspections of the internals, but there were 16certain components where the type of visual inspection 17that's done was considered adequate to manage aging so 18MRP-227 took credit for those inspections for certain 19components, so those will be inspected as well, 20basically on the same timing as the primary.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: You said the same 22sequence, the ten-year sequencing.
23MR. POEHLER: The ten-year interval, 24depending on when the plant's Section 11 inspections 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4899are scheduled, which typically they would, plants will 1try to have those coincide with the augmented 2inspections that are done under MRP-227-A.
3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I just 4want to clarify one thing. The expansion components 5are inspected if the inspections of the primary 6components, if the results exceed the expansion 7criteria that are in MRP-227-A and also in the 8Applicant's AMP.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: You said expansion 10criteria. You mean acceptance criteria or --
11DR. HISER: No, expansion criteria.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Say your sentence over 13again. I'm sorry.
14DR. HISER: Okay. The expansion 15components are examined if the primary component 16inspections, if the results exceed the expansion 17criteria that are in the Applicant's inspection plan.
18So you do the primary inspection. If you 19have no findings, you're finished until the next 20inspection. If you find degradation, you go to the 21expansion criteria. If it exceeds the expansion 22criteria, then you do the expansion inspections.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and we've been 24going for about, almost two hours now since our last 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 than 2ten minutes?
3(No audible response.)
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, apparently not.
5And before we break, just one thing while it's still 6on my mind and before I lose it here.
7You've got a list, Table 5-2, where the 8primary 5-3 would be expansion components, 5-4 would 9be existing program components. Can you explain 10briefly how you determine whether something should be 11in the primary as opposed to the expansion components?
12Just what's the process on --
13DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I guess we 14didn't determine whether they should be in one or the 15other. I mean, the industry program did that. We 16reviewed it and determined that we agreed with the 17binning that was done of the components just to 18clarify that.
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and what's the 20nature of that vetting?
21MR. POEHLER: The nature of the binning 22that was done -- This is Jeffrey Poehler of the staff.
23So the binning that was done by EPRI in developing 24these recommendations was basically, they used a 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4901process -- Well, initially they did screening of the 1components to determine which aging mechanisms were 2applicable.
3Then they took those results and they did 4a process called failure modes, effects, and 5criticality analysis, or FMECA, and basically that 6process looks at all the different ways a component 7can fail and what the consequences would be if a 8individual component is to fail as far as the 9functions of the reactor vessel internals, the various 10safety functions.
11And based on that process, the components 12were given an initial ranking and that was basically 13the, they were given a ranki ng like A, B, C with C 14being the, you know, most likely to, most critical 15components I guess.
16And then there was, some additional 17analyses were done by EPRI to refine the initial 18binning so there were some initial, more detailed 19engineering analyses done on certain components. And 20after that, they came up with the final rankings or 21the final binning of primary expansion existing 22programs and --
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And then did the NRC 24conduct a de novo review of those conclusions or did 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4902you rely on EPRI's conclusions unless they were 1demonstrably faulty?
2MR. POEHLER: We did review that process 3and EPRI submitted, the MRP, EPRI MRP submitted 4several supporting reports that contained some of the, 5you know, the detailed analysis that went into this.
6So there were a series of technical 7reports that were submitted to the staff for 8information to support our review of MRP-227. So we 9did review those reports to some degree and so, no, 10yes, we didn't just accept the industry's or EPRI's 11determination. In fact --
12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, you kind of had a 13throwaway phrase there. You said "to some degree."
14Before that, it sounded like the review was rather 15extensive and then you described it as "to some 16degree," which suggests less than. Which is it or did 17I 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 to 22say that some of them were obvious, that it's only the 23stuff on the fringes that could be, you know, could go 24to Table 2 as opposed to Table 3?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, that 2those are the ones that got the in-depth review and 3the others that were obvious got less of a review, 4received less of an in-depth review?
5MR. POEHLER: Some of them were obvious 6and, yes, in some cases the staff challenged some of 7the binning, the final binning for some of these 8components.
9And we included conditions. We included 10conditions for certain components, saying you need to 11elevate this component from expansion to primary, for 12example, because we did have concerns about the safety 13significance of certain components. So, yes, we 14didn't just accept without question what EPRI had 15done.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. Do you 17have anything before we break?
18JUDGE WARDWELL: No.
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's 3:35. Why don't we 20break until 3:45.
21(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 22off the record at 3:35 p.m. and resumed at 3:46 p.m.)
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, the hearing will 24come to order. Judge Wardwell.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4904JUDGE WARDWELL: Getting back to where we 1left off, we were talking about the primary expansion 2in existing components. And in addition to getting 3various components into one of those sitements, the 4inspection plan contains Entergy's proposed resolution 5of the Applicant's license action items.
6And I've asked the Staff if they could 7explain a little bit more about what these ALIs are 8and how they are used in either your ev aluation of 9MRP-227 or in your review of the Aging Management Plan 10for vessel internals?
11MR. POEHLER: This is Jeff Poehler of the 12Staff.13So there were eight Applicant licensee 14action items. And so those were included in the 15staff's safety evaluation of MRP-227-A, or MRP-227.
16They were included generally for things where for a 17licensee or Applicant that wanted to reference 18MRP-227-A, that there would be some plant-specific 19technical evaluation that was needed to be done that, 20in addition to just following the recommendations of 21MRP-227-A.
22So these were things that weren't 23addressed in sufficient detail or have a 24plant-specific aspect that couldn't be addressed 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 1 2where it's -- it requests the Applicants or licensees 3to confirm the plant-specific applicability of 4MRP-227-A.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Is it your position that 6if a plan addresses these action items that then by 7definition they're AMP will be site-specific enough to 8provide a demonstration that the -- of aging 9management for these items?
10MR. POEHLER: Yes, that's one important 11component. The other is just verifying that they are, 12they're -- the inspections that they have -- the 13inspections that they're doing under their plan are 14consistent with the inspections that are specified in 15MRP-227-A for their particular design.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: So are most of these 17related to the inspections more than the other part of 18the plan or is it evenly distributed?
19MR. POEHLER: Yeah, some of them are 20related to the inspections. I would say, I would say 21most of them are, but.
22DR. HISER: Just sort of -- this is Dr.
23Hiser -- just sort of skipping through 1 and 2, 1 24relates to the applicability of the MRP-227-A to the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4906plant. So is the plant within the parameters that 1were considered in development for the report?
2JUDGE WARDWELL: And what are those 3approximate parameters that would make a plant 4eligible or not eligible?
5DR. HISER: One of them relates to core 6power density.
7One relates to the top of the -- distance 8from the top of the active fuel to the bottom of the 9upper core plate.
10The third one relates to heat generation 11within the core.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: And if a plant didn't 13meet those, then in fact 227 is inapplicable or?
14DR. HISER: Well, then we would expect the 15plant to propose additional actions. For example, 16maybe they would include more components under primary 17category or something along those lines. But they 18would then need to take some additional actions beyond 19what is in the base program in MRP-227-A.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: All right. You were 21stepping us through the ALIs. Do you still want to go 22over it or did you -- you were hoping I wouldn't 23remember something you can't remember all of? That's 24fine if you don't.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4907DR. HISER: Well, those are two in 1particular that really don't relate directly to change 2-- well, they both I guess in reality could relate to 3changes in the inspection activities.
4Action Item 2 then is components not 5covered in the generic evaluation of MRP-227-A, or 6potentially different materials that were used from 7within 227-A.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
9Commitment 30: could you talk a little 10bit about that? What did the Applicant agree to and 11has that been fulfilled and now moot?
12MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of 13the Staff.
14So commitment 30 was the commitment 15originally made in the license general application for 16Indian Point where they committed to follow the 17industry program when it was issued, basically 18implement the industry program within a certain time 19frame of that program being issued.
20And that, we do consider it to have been 21fulfilled by their submission of their Aging 22Management Program and inspection, inspection plan; 23and as modified, you know, as approved by the Staff 24through our review process which, you know, basically 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4908as documented in the Supplemental Safety Evaluation 1Report NUREG 1930, Supplement 2.
2JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I went to 1930, 3Supplement 2, would I be able to see a statement that 4commitment 2 has been fulfilled or something along 5those lines?
6MR. POEHLER: Yes, I believe so. I think 7I would have to check the conclusions but I believe 8there is a statement to that effect.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You were talking about 11commitment 30?
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I thought you said so.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: I may have said something 15different but I started off that way this last time I 16said it. I don't know. We'll check the transcript.
17Let's talk a little bit about the 18adequacies of the RVI.
19New York's Exhibit 482, their testimony on 20page 51, lines 7 through 10, and I quote, "A 21systematic safety evaluation of the degraded pressure 22vessel internals is needed to identify the limiting 23structures, components and fittings that need to be 24repaired or replaced before the onset of extended 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4909operations."
1And in response to that, Entergy's Exhibit 2616 on page -- Answer 128, page 79, says that "The 3guidelines in MRP-227 are based on a systematic 4evaluation of degradation of mechanisms, including 5multiple concurrent mechanisms, the resulting aging 6effects, including combination of effects, and 7consequences that identify the limiting RVI 8structures, components and fittings."
9They go on in Answer 129 to say, "Based on 10a considerable body of research and operating 11experience, MRP-227-A provides Aging Management 12guidelines, defines inspections to detect the effects 13of aging, and recommends methods to evaluate aging 14effects. As described..." And then it goes on and 15describes it further in Answers 121 to 129, pages 75 16to 80.17Entergy also then in their Answer 201, 18page 135, states that "The guidelines in MRP-227-A 19were developed through a systematic evaluation of all 20RVIs and all potential aging effects on those RVIs, 21including combined effects caused by multiple aging 22mechanisms."
23And I guess my ques tion for you, Dr.
24Lahey, is do your criticisms mostly relate to what 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4910Entergy omitted or missed in its RVI AMP rather than 1proffering any evidence that challenges specific 2aspects of the engineering work that was expanded --
3expended to develop MRP-227?
4DR. LAHEY: So can I talk about synergisms 5now or? Richard Lahey. I'm aching to talk about 6synergy.7JUDGE WARDWELL: I know it. Hold off for 8just about another half hour and then I think we'll be 9able 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 they 14evaluated the degradation they do not take into 15account all the effects.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: And as the synergism et 17al. statement that's there?
18DR. LAHEY: Right.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: And exclusive of that 20though, looking at -- I guess my heart of my question 21is, what they did do, do you have challenges in 22regards to what they did do, not what they did not do?
23Not the inadequacies or what's missing out of that but 24the fact of do you have any specific criticisms in 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4911your testimony in regards to the specific actions that 1they did take in this systematic evaluation that they 2claimed 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 what 5those are.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: It's related to that 7then?8DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fine. That's 10fine.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Well, Doctor, if you 12could, I mean there's a couple of aspects to this.
13One, as I understand it, your -- you focus 14on the fact that this is an inspection program and 15that inspection alone is inadequate?
16DR. LAHEY: Yes.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: They need something more 18than inspection. Okay.
19Focusing just on the inspection aspect of 20the program, are there specific areas that you view as 21inherently deficient in the method of inspection?
22DR. LAHEY: It's Richard Lahey again.
23Yes, sir. There are some very specific 24things where it appears that just the visualization 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4912techniques they're using would not be sufficient. But 1quite frankly, my real concern is the things that are 2the biggest problem you don't see until they happen.
3All right. They occur. They're happening right along 4but you're not able to determine the level of 5degradation based on the techniques that they're 6using.7That's the real concern. That's the 8synergism concern.
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Are there 10inspection techniques that they could use that they're 11not using that would solve that problem?
12DR. LAHEY: They're aware of the issue and 13they claim they can't, for example, determine the 14level of embrittlement. They d on't know how to do 15that in situ. So --
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You don't disagree with 17them on that, do you?
18DR. LAHEY: No, I don't. But I, I think 19the other thing they're missing is it's not just 20sufficient to do inspection, there needs to be 21complementary analysis, particularly when you look at 22such things as earthquake events or shock load events 23which can really disrupt and relocate some of these 24key structures.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4913And if you then wind up with an uncoolable 1geometry, I can tell you you're in deep trouble.
2That's what I've been doing all my life. And, and 3this is what I am concerned about.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Winding up in deep 5trouble?6DR. LAHEY: You're in deep trouble if you 7don't, if you don't maintain an intact geometry 8because you really don't know where things are going 9and what of blockages may occur and what it means in 10coolability.
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And from my standpoint, 12and I'm sure Judge Wardwell is going to get into this 13later, is, is to bifurcate things for the moment. And 14accepting your premise that no inspection program 15standing alone would be sufficient, but just looking 16at the inspection program that is there, to focus on 17what you view as the defects in the existing 18inspection program by way of what they inspect, how 19they inspect, how often they inspect, baseline those 20kinds of issues with regard to the -- your view of 21deficiencies in the existing inspection program 22without accepting that standing alone inspection is 23sufficient?
24DR. LAHEY: Well, for most of them I think 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 through 1and screened.
2However, for instance for some of the 3bolts which they don't have the ability to determine 4the degradation until it's to a certain percentage, 5and in fact, on the interval where they inspect there 6can be bolts missing. And the concern is if you then 7have an event which pops out, which unzips a lot of 8the other bolts, you have a vary distorted geometry.
9You have no idea what's going to be happening to the 10materials and what it will do for core coolability.
11So for the bolting, I have serious 12concerns.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But on a couple of 14those, 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 you 18get anywhere close to failure.
19Secondly, that even if there were a 20failure, there is so much redundancy built in that you 21could have 50 percent of the bolts crack and fail and 22it wouldn't adversely affect the operation of the 23facility. And on others, like the Clovis bolts, they 24indicate that even -- that once the facility is 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4915operational that they never serve a function, so if 1they 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 thing 5you did but I don't come to the same conclusion that 6they did.
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I haven't come to a 8conclusion yet.
9DR. LAHEY: Right.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm just asking you to 11criticize their conclusion.
12DR. LAHEY: My, my concern is, number 1, 13they can have up to 30 percent cleavage of a bolt 14before they can detect it with ultrasound. That's 15what they found.
16They also have found in other reactors, 17bolts that have failed. It's not a hypothetical 18event; it happens. And it's because their highly 19irradiated, and irradiated-assisted stress cores, and 20cracking and other events, fatigue, cause these 21failures to occur.
22If you look at the analysis, it's really 23a steady state analysis for why you have enough 24redundancy to keep operating. If you then look at a 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4916accident which puts significant loads and pops the 1other bolts, you no longer have an intact geometry.
2And once your baffles are going anywhere, it's bad 3news.4That's, that's where I'm at. I'm not, I'm 5not in the steady state mode, I'm in an actuative 6mode. That's what I'm looking at.
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But you're 8talking still about design-basis accidents?
9DR. LAHEY: Not just. Earthquake events 10can do the same thing if they're severe enough.
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But as your 12testimony is right now that with regard to inspection 13techniques, for example, the VT-3, you don't have 14specific suggestions to change that or criticisms of 15why that doesn't serve the purpose proffered by 16Entergy?17DR. LAHEY: Are you only talking about the 18inspection part of it? Because --
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Right now.
20DR. LAHEY: -- my concern is the lack of 21analysis, the complementary analysis part.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Well, Dr.
23Wardwell is going to get into that in great detail 24later. But right now just on the inspection.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 concerns 3about the inspection technique being adequate for the 4bolting. And there's some other components where the 5visualization technique they're using is not, in my 6view, sufficient. But more or less I think what 7they're doing, other than those specific things, is a 8good thing, it's a usable thing, but not sufficient.
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Essential but not 10sufficient?
11DR. LAHEY: Right. Necessary. As the 12mathematicians say, necessary but not sufficient.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Judge Wardwell.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC in your Exhibit 197 15testimony, Answer 122 to page 74 says that the 16"MRP-227-A relies on PWR water chemistry control to 17prevent or mitigate aging effects that can be induced 18by corrosion aging mechanisms. For instance, loss of 19material induced by general corrosion, pitting 20corrosion, crevice corrosion, or stress corrosion 21cracking of any of its forms." Some of the acronyms 22that are used are SCC, PWSCC and IASCC. And probably 23there's a way to pronounce those, but we'll find out 24as we move through here.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4918Anyhow, section Roman Numeral XI.1M16A of 1the Interim Staff Guidance, which we talked about 2earlier, 2011/04, further states that the "reactor 3coolant water chemistry is monitored and maintained in 4accordance with the water chemistry program as 5described in GALL AMP Section XI.M2, 'Water 6Chemistry.'
7My question for Entergy: have you 8implemented a water chemistry water control program at 9IP-2 and 3?
10MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. I'm sorry, 11this is Nelson Azevedo for Entergy.
12The Indian Point water chemistry program 13does follow the AMP requirements.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: And how long ago did you 15implement that? And could you describe the program 16generally, what its function is and how, what benefit 17you gain out of that program?
18MR. AZEVEDO: I can describe some 19portions. I'm not a chemist so I cannot go into the 20details.21But I can tell you from the '70s and the 22'80s Indian Point has been following the 23recommendations of the EPRI for water chemistry. That 24program, as I understand, has evolved over the years.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4919As far as getting details, I'm not sure if 1anybody in the Entergy panel can add to that.
2MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
3I will add that there's been several 4revisions of the EPRI water chemistry guidelines. The 5EPRI guidelines are the industry guidelines and 6recommendations for a chemistry program for a nuclear 7reactor. And those have been revised several times 8over the years.
9And typically a plant will upgrade their 10program to align with the latest version.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: I think you may be too 12worried that we want to know too much technical 13detail.14What's the basic goal of the program?
15What water are you chemistrizing? What's the purpose 16of any chemistry controls that you're putting on and 17how does that help your operations?
18MR. GORDON: This is Barry Gordon from 19Entergy.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Where are you?
21MR. GORDON: I'm right here.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm kidding. I'm 23kidding.24MR. GORDON: I don't even have a sign.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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's 6unique about or more favorable for Indian Point is 7that they're doing an excellent job on controlling 8their water chemistry, and exceeding even the 9guidelines that are required by, by the water 10chemistry guidelines.
11For example, they have the recommended 12level -- we'll just talk about one technical factor 13here -- of dissolved hydrogen in the plant, is between 1425 and 50 --
15JUDGE WARDWELL: Of hydrogen or oxygen?
16MR. GORDON: Hydrogen. Hydrogen.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
18MR. GORDON: We don't want oxygen in 19there.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 -- the 23higher level the more benefit you have, minimizing 24corrosion. And Indian Point is actually running at 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 per 1kilogram. So that's beneficial.
2Also, in IP, Indian Point Unit 2 they are 3adding zinc to their water, which is also beneficial 4to minimizing corrosion. And otherwise they just have 5general things like lithium hydroxide, things like 6that, which are just to minimize general corrosion of 7the material.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: You say you don't want 9oxygen. What do they do to not have oxygen?
10MR. GORDON: They have excess hydrogen 11present. And also during start-up they put hydrozine 12in there which consumes, it consumes oxygen. It's a 13de-aerated environment, unlike the BWR.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: I'll ask anyone from 15Entergy, and we can stay with you if you are the best 16that can answer it, what types of data do you see, do 17you have any quantification of your reduction in your 18corrosion issues at the plant? Do you have any 19parameter that helps guide you in quantifying how 20helpful this really is.
21MR. GORDON: This is Barry Gordon from 22Entergy again.
23They do keep track of the dissolved 24hydrogen. They keep track of how much zinc is in the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4922water. And all the chemical controls that are 1required by the PWR water chemistry guidelines.
2But the performance of the plant has been 3exceptional. If you look at their alloy 600 thermally 4treated steam generator tubing it's, they've hardly 5plugged anything and most of it was conservatively 6plugged. They've had very good results.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: Most of it was 8conservatively plugged when? And at this plant or is 9this --10MR. GORDON: At this plant.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
12MR. GORDON: You know, you're allowed 10 13percent. And they've done a very small percentage of 14it. And usually it's because they found something 15going on and said, well, we'll be conservative and 16we'll do all the tubes around it, even though it's 17really they're just being very conservative how they 18deal with it.
19The performance has been outstanding at 20this facility relative to stress corrosion cracking.
21And that's a good measure that the water chemistry 22control is doing its job.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Lahey, did you review 24anything in regards to the water chemistry program 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4923and/or have any comments in regards to its 1effectiveness in helping to control one of the aspects 2that you were concerned about, that is corrosion?
3DR. LAHEY: I didn't specifically review 4the water chemistry program. It's my opinion based on 5other input that I have had over the years that Indian 6Point is run very well in that regard. And overall 7it's a tight plant, what we call a tight plant.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: And wouldn't that go a 9long ways to controlling some of those aspects of that 10particular failure effect, if you will, of any 11component for aging?
12DR. LAHEY: Are you going back to the 13bolts now?
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, of anyone, just the 15fact that the water chem -- isn't there some benefits 16gained on though from the water chemistry program in 17regards to aging effects on this location?
18DR. LAHEY: Yeah, there's definitely 19benefits gained. And, you know, when we talked about 20the bolts which were failing, they're failing by 21irradiation-induced stress corrosion and cracking, 22just because of their location. But it's not a show 23stopper. I mean those are things you can easily 24replace.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4924So it's a very doable thing to fix that 1problem.2JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Let me go back a 4second just to make sure I understand.
5The water chemistry control program is 6something separate and apart from the Aging Management 7Program for the reactor vessels' internals; correct?
8MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.
9It's treated and described as a separate 10program. The reactor vessel internals program does 11have a reference that refers to that program and says 12that it is an effective preventive action. So it's, 13I mean it's a matter of semantics. It's not described 14as part of the reactor vessel internals program but 15it's applicable to all the reactor vessel internals.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: When you use the term 17"preventive action" is it more accurate to say it 18ameliorates the condition rather than prevents, you 19still have the potential for stress corrosion cracking 20regardless of the water chemistry; isn't that correct?
21MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.
22It's treated and described as a separate 23program. The reactor vessel internals program does 24have a reference that refers to that program and says 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 described 2as part of the reactor vessel internals program but 3it's applicable to all the reactor vessel internals.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: When you use the term 5"preventive action" is it more accurate to say it 6ameliorates the condition rather than prevents? You 7still have the potential for stress corrosion cracking 8regardless of the water chemistry; isn't that correct?
9MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But if you don't 11have a well-controlled water chemistry, then that 12potential 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 for 16stress corrosion cracking along with other aging 17mechanisms that there is a risk that is not adequately 18identified by the inspection program that exists? Is 19that your view?
20DR. LAHEY: Could you rephrase the 21question, Your Honor?
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I don't know if I could 23rephrase it but I could repeat it.
24DR. LAHEY: Yes, please do. Are you 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4926asking do I think the water chemistry program is 1beneficial to mitigate stress corrosion cracking?
2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And I believe your 3answer to that is yes?
4DR. LAHEY: Yes, I do.
5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But that even 6though they do have a effective water control program 7that it doesn't eliminate the potential for stress 8corrosion cracking; is that correct?
9DR. LAHEY: Yeah, there's different types 10of stress corrosion cracking. And it doesn't 11eliminate all of them.
12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Regardless of the water 13chemistry?
14DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.
15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And you're not 16saying that the stress corrosion cracking standing 17alone is the basis for your opinion with regard to the 18adequacy of the AMP? You're saying that it's "a" 19factor?20DR. LAHEY: It's a factor and perhaps not 21even the primary factor.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And Judge 23Wardwell will get to it in a second, but before we 24move on, just very quickly could you tell me in your 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4927view what in sequence are the most significant 1factors? You said this is water -- stress corrosion 2cracking is not one of the more significant.
3What is the most significant and sort of 4working your way down through various of these aging 5mechanisms?
6DR. LAHEY: Can I have a few minutes to do 7that?8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I don't know. Let's 9start --10JUDGE WARDWELL: Not now.
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Judge Wardwell 12will get to that later, so.
13DR. LAHEY: Okay. We need to talk about 14silos to answer your question.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: Because I want to finish 16on this topic area before we move into the next one.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No, that's fine. It's 18just, you know, there are big silos and there are 19little silos, and I just want to find out which silos 20contain the largest problem.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC's testimony 197, 22Exhibit 197, Answer 85, page 61, in industry review of 23the MRP-227, Revision 0, "The NRC staff identified 24eight action items that must be addressed by the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4928Applicants or licensees --" And these are these 1action items we talked about earlier. "-- in order to 2apply the methodology of the topical report Aging 3Management of the Reactor Vessel Internals at a 4particular plant."
5And I guess I just want to confirm that --
6two things from Staff -- I want to confirm that those 7ALIs have been incorporated into the most recent 8version of MRP-227-A, Revision 1, issued on December 916th, 2011?
10MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler from 11the Staff.
12Yes, the action items have been 13incorporated in -- well, they're incorporated in the 14Staff's safety evaluation which is included in the 15MRP-227-A.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So where they're 17really documented and incorporated is in your SE 18rather than in the MRP-227 text of the body, if you 19will?20MR. POEHLER: That's correct.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: And included as an 22appendix in the SE?
23MR. POEHLER: That's correct.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4929For Dr. Lahey. In regards to these action 1items, exclusive of 7 which I believe deals with the 2specific analysis of cast austenitic stainless steel, 3which we will talk about later, so exclusive of that 4do you have any -- well, let me ask you, have you had 5a chance to review those Action Items 1 through 8, are 6familiar with them and have any comment on them?
7DR. LAHEY: I don't remember them by 8heart, Your Honor. If we can --
9JUDGE WARDWELL: No, but I just want to 10make sure that exclusive of 7, are there any others 11that jumped out at you as something that related to 12your issues associated with their Aging Management 13Plan?14DR. LAHEY: I'd have to look at them to 15know. I just don't remember them that well.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Nothing jumped out at you 17though with regards to that?
18DR. LAHEY: Honestly, I'd have to look at 19them to give you a good answer.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy's testimony 21Exhibit 616, Answer 169, page 109, and I quote, 22"During the development of MRP-227-A, EPRI 23appropriately considered combination of aging effects, 24including potential synergistic effects that could 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4930affect the reactor vessel internals. As the NRC Staff 1concluded in its safety evaluation of MRP-227-A, EPRI 2considered 'individual or synergistic effects of 3thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement' 4and 'loss of pre-load due to either individual or 5synergistic contributions from thermal and 6irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation.'"
7Dr. Lahey, do you agree that EPRI 8considered combination of aging effects and that Staff 9reviewed these and concluded that potential 10synergistic effects were considered?
11DR. LAHEY: To the extent that you have 12described it there they did. But they did not look at 13the effect of an accident type load on a weakened 14structure, both fatigue-weakened or embrittled with 15the various embrittlement mechanisms. As far as I 16could tell, that was not at all considered.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I heard you 18correctly, you believe that the synergistic effects 19had been looked at with the exception of the loading 20associated with what you called seismic and shock 21loads; is that a fair assessment of your position?
22DR. LAHEY: Well, you talked about, for 23example, the relaxation of spring loads. And they 24definitely did look at that and the effect of some of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4931these synergistic effects. But what I am concerned 1with hasn't been looked at.
2JUDGE WARDWELL: So the synergistic 3effects they looked at aren't the synergistic effects 4that you believe should be looked at?
5DR. LAHEY: They're somewhat the same but 6for a whole different application.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And how do yours 8differ and how do they -- how would you apply them as 9opposed to how they apply them?
10DR. LAHEY: Well, for example, if we're 11talking about reactor vessel internals.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: That's where we are.
13DR. LAHEY: Okay. One of the problems 14that I see is that when they look at fatigue they do 15not --16JUDGE WARDWELL: At the what? I'm sorry.
17DR. LAHEY: When they look at fatigue --
18JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, fatigue.
19DR. LAHEY: -- fatigue in their 20structures, they do not take into account any 21embrittlement, what the effect of embrittlement is on 22the fatigue. They assume that once the fatigue will 23go just like it goes for ductile material, until the 24crack, until the crack occurs, is one. And then the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, a 2highly fatigued structure will fail well before that, 3well before they see surface cracks. And that's 4exactly what the light water reactor sustainability 5program is doing right now. I mean they're working on 6the report right now with Argonne.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: You just stated that a 8highly fatigued component will?
9DR. LAHEY: If you hit it, if you hit it 10with a shock load. Do you know what I mean by a shock 11load?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no. Tell me what 13you mean by a shock load.
14DR. LAHEY: All right. I mean I can show 15you a picture but try this.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Just tell me.
17DR. LAHEY: You've seen people that do 18karate that put bricks across. And you can stand on 19them, you can sit on them. And then you get back and 20if you hit it with an impulsive load, real snap, it 21will break a dozen bricks, not just one, which would 22support the weight of the intensity.
23So it's a impulsive load. And if you want 24to see a picture I can do that.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4933JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I think I've got a 1clear view.
2DR. LAHEY: Okay.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: Unless one of the other 4Board members has a question.
5DR. LAHEY: It's a lot more than the 6static load. So when, when I've asked about this in 7the past the response that has come back, this is no 8problem because we have shown that the loads are, you 9know, the static loads can be withstand -- withstood 10by the structure, even if it's embrittled. But it's 11a lot different when you hit it with a shock load.
12And that's what I'm worried about because 13of the location.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry. Sorry to 15interrupt. You just used the word "embrittled" 16though. That's different than fatigue, isn't it?
17DR. LAHEY: Yeah. But what I said is if 18you embrittle a structure, a reactor vessel internal, 19and then do the fatigue analysis, right now they do 20them quite separately, all right. They're in two 21different silos and they don't interact. And then the 22third silo is the shock loads.
23So when they do the safety analysis it's 24implicitly assumed that the geometry is intact. And 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1coolability of light water reactors for intact 2geometries. I was involved in the Loft Program and 3all the programs for the NRC and whoever. And as long 4as you maintain the cool geometry the engineered 5safety systems work. That's what they're designed 6for.7Once you lose the intact geometry, all 8bets are off. That's, that's what I'm concerned with.
9They're not looking at, they're not looking at just a 10fatigue-weakened structure, and you hit it, it can 11snap before you have any cracks.
12They're not looking at an embrittled 13structure, and it can, it can snap well before you 14reach the fatigue limit. And they're all synergistic, 15and it's not taken into account right now. That's the 16concern.17So I, you know, I really like the 18structure that we're doing now. It's a compliant 19structure and I think it has a lot of advantages 20because it makes people do things in a consistent way 21and you eliminate falling through the cracks with 22important things. But it only works with everything 23that's on the list. If you have things that aren't on 24the list, they're not going to get done. They're not 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 things 2that aren't on the list. That's what I've been trying 3to bring.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Let me just make 5sure I understand you correctly.
6You believe, it's your position, is it 7not, that a fatigued structure component or the SSC, 8a fatigued internal if we're talking about reactor 9vessel internals, so we can eliminate -- we can focus 10on those, that as it fatigues it may very well have 11values that show that it's, for instance if we're 12using the CUF as a parameter, which we'll get into in 1326 in more depth, below 1, that's still adequate. But 14you believe, it's your position that if a shock load 15hits 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 of 20micro-cracks in there. It is being weakened. And if 21you hit it hard enough it will break. And that's, as 22I said, they're doing those systematic fatigue 23structure tests for light water reactor sustainability 24right now. And they will, they will show this.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4936And so my concern is somehow we're not 1taking this into account in our safety analyses right 2now.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And then, 4likewise, you believe that as the material embrittles, 5likewise it will be more susceptible, it will be fine 6until a shock load comes in and then that also will 7have a -- lose its intended function?
8DR. LAHEY: Exactly, Your Honor.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And --
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So if I can before you 11move on, I just want to make sure I understand. When 12you talk about neutron embrittlement, in 10 words or 13less 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 have 16a different embrittlement mechanism. But let's say 17you have high energy neutrons that are hitting the 18atoms, they're knocking them out of their lattice 19position. And if you go to the end of life for the 20period of extended operations, you're talking 75 to 21several 100 displacements per atom. That is, every 22atom in the lattice has been knocked out of the 23lattice 100 times.
24So it's a very beat up material. It 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4937doesn't have the properties of a ductile material 1anymore.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And perhaps I'm not 3using the appropriate technical term, but does this 4necessarily affect the toughness of the metal?
5DR. LAHEY: It affects the ductility, the 6fracture toughness, you know, the propagation of the 7metal; it will propagate cracks easier. It also -- do 8you know what the stress-strain curve looks like?
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.
10DR. LAHEY: Okay.
The normal stress 11versus strain curve is, you know, goes up to the yield 12stress, the element stress. When you irradiate it, it 13hardens it. And so it goes into a higher peak but it 14can't take much strain. So if you go to a large 15enough strain, you're gone.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay.
17DR. LAHEY: That's the concern.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Now, when you're talking 19about these shock loads, are you talking about shock 20loads within the design basis to have this effect or 21only shock loads that are beyond the design basis?
22DR. LAHEY: No, the shock loads can be, 23for example, a very severe th ermal shock load is a24steam line break, coupled with the scram so you're 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4938really sucking energy out of the system and you're 1putting a lot of cold water shock into the core and 2hitting those internals hard.
3Or you could have --
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So you're saying within 5design basis?
6DR. LAHEY: Oh yes. The various accidents 7are sufficient to do it, depending on how weakened it 8is. I mean as you, as you go on in time it gets more 9and more susceptible to these types of failures.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: If I can, just two more 11quick questions before I turn it back over to Judge 12Wardwell.
13Can you explain to me, to make sure I 14understand, what is irradiation enhanced stress 15relaxation?
16DR. LAHEY: Irradiation enhanced stress 17relaxation is if you have a -- as I understand it, if 18you have a residual stress in a material and it's 19irradiated, that this can relax the stress.
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And how do you 21evaluate the level of embrittlement?
22DR. LAHEY: How do you evaluate it?
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.
24DR. LAHEY: Well, you calculate the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4939fluence. The fluence is the neutron flux, the high 1energy neutrons times the time. So you integrate that 2for how long you've been running. And then you use 3cross-sections, what we call cross-sections to look at 4the 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 fatigue 8that may, may be influenced by thermal. And let me 9ask you one question about the shocks.
10What about normal transience? Do those 11provide enough shock to hurt either the -- to fail 12either a fatigued member or an embrittled member?
13DR. LAHEY: Probably you want to wait 14until we talk about 26, because I've got a lot of nice 15figures to show and talk about all of that. But the 16answer is yes, --
17JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is in your 18testimony?
19DR. LAHEY: -- they can have an effect.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's in your 21testimony on 26?
22DR. LAHEY: Yes. And I have some nice 23visual aids I think will help.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: And where was I with that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1embrittled. What about the embrittled under a 2transient, would that -- is that considered a shock 3for embrittled materials, sufficient enough shock?
4DR. LAHEY: Take two benches and you put 5a copper pipe across it and hit it; it will break.
6Take the same two benches, put a candy 7cane across it; it's gone.
8So, well, I don't know if that translates 9into that, into the recording. But if it's brittle it 10can't take shock loads because of the way the stress 11strains are --
12JUDGE WARDWELL: So you're concerned about 13these vessel internals under normal transience?
14DR. LAHEY: Yes.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: I mean operational 16transience I should say.
17DR. LAHEY: Yes. Not every one, but yes.
18Some important ones that can lead to loss of a 19coolable geometry. See, bottom line for me is, is the 20plant safe? That's, that's why I'm involved in all 21this; right? And when I look at things --
22JUDGE WARDWELL: I think we're all here 23for that.
24DR. LAHEY: -- which say it's not for sure 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 it 1on the list. I'd like to see the NRC with on top of 2that --3JUDGE WARDWELL: What would be "it"? You 4said 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 silos 7and have things instead of issue 25, 26 and 38, it's 8issue. And the issue is they're all going on 9together.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And that's where 11your synergism comes in --
12DR. LAHEY: Exactly.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: -- is in between fatigue 14and embrittlement. Is there anything else in regards 15to it?16DR. LAHEY: Well, and safety, the safety 17analysis.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: It's the safety analysis 19for under fatigue and embrittlement.
20DR. LAHEY: Right.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: And you said how it would 22affect fatigue and how it would affect embrittlement.
23Where does a synergism come in?
24DR. LAHEY: The synergism has to do with, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 a 2analysis of fatigue, they don't take it into account 3at all until right at the end when it already fails.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: So you believe it will be 5less resistant to fatigue as it embrittles?
6DR. LAHEY: All the data shows that if you 7have low amplitude -- I mean high amplitude/low cycle 8fatigue you reduce the cycles for failure and it can 9be significant, yes.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: And what data are you 11citing for this?
12DR. LAHEY: Well, I've cited three or four 13references in the, in my testimony. And I've also 14cited some of the work that they're doing at Argonne 15where the people at Argonne are saying the same thing 16really.17JUDGE WARDWELL: But could you, you know, 18tomorrow focus me towards those specific ones that 19you're thinking of --
20DR. LAHEY: Sure.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: -- and so to refresh your 22memory in regards to where you cite them in your 23testimony and --
24DR. LAHEY: I have them. I could look 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 want 2to take the time now to do it.
3DR. LAHEY: Right.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: And so the synergism 5comes in that you think it's worse with a combination 6of the two than just the additive of the two effects 7in regards to the potential problem?
8DR. LAHEY: Absolutely. And it's three, 9because now once you have that going on, you hit it 10with the shock load and that's the concern.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: Considering you've been 12dealing with this for all your career -- and I assume 13your career was probably about as long as mine was, so 14we can say it might be a fairly long career --
15DR. LAHEY: Yeah.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: -- that have you noticed 17this 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 is 22Richard Lahey, so I'm sorry to not identify myself.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no, once you get on 24you don't have to worry. They've got you.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4944DR. LAHEY: It's an interesting question 1because there have been remarkably few fatigue 2failures in nuclear reactors. But it's not accident.
3They -- when we designed, I used to be in charge of 4safety in thermohydraulics, R&D and reactor physics, 5all that at GE. All right. And when we designed 6these nuclear reactors we designed them for a certain 7life. And we put margin in. And they profited by 8that design.
9So there's no, you know, there's not a lot 10of those kind of failures.
11But if you now start looking at going 12beyond what the design life is and start fiddling away 13at the margins until you get into really safety 14margins, that concerns me a lot. And we'll talk about 15that tomorrow I guess.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: I guess I want to fix 17once more, and do you believe that MRP-227 doesn't 18look at the systematic effects, the synergistic 19effects associated with fatigue and embrittlement? Is 20that your position, that the synergistic effects 21they're talking about are different than the ones that 22you are concerned with?
23DR. LAHEY: They have certain components 24that they're applying that logic to. But it's not 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4945carried over to others because the analyses that are 1of concern don't take that into account. They just 2don't consider it. That's, that's what I'm worried 3about. And they're not considering it. It's a well 4done study focused on inspection, so it's sort of like 5you detect things after the fact.
6I'm worried about you don't see anything 7and then you have some sort of load that you don't 8expect, and all hell breaks loose. That's what I'm 9worried about.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Dr. Lahey, one 11thing. And again, Dr. Wardwell has given you certain 12homework to do that he wants to discuss tomorrow. One 13of the things I'd like to have you look at overnight:
14in the safety evaluation for MRP-227, and that's the 15NRC document 115A at page 4, they talk about the 16impact of the synergistic contributions from various 17factors.18And what I'd like to do is have you review 19that specifically. And perhaps tomorrow we can talk 20about it as of what you think they're missing there.
21DR. LAHEY: Can I ask, do we have it with 22us?23MR. SIPOS: Yes, I believe we do.
24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes, it's NRC-114.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4946DR. LAHEY: Yeah. I just, I mean I have 1mountains of stuff. We've been working on this for 2eight years back at the ranch.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: We all have mounds. I'm 4sure 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 a 10mountain, 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 to 14Entergy because that was the testimony I was quoting.
15Answer 169, page 109, where you state that 16"EPRI considered individual or synergistic effects of 17thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement and 18loss of pre-load due to either individual or 19synergistic contributions from thermal and 20irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation."
21Does -- how does that apply to the types 22of synergism that Dr. Lahey is bringing up, that being 23a synergistic effect between fatigue and 24embrittlement?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4947DR. LOTT: Well, I --
1JUDGE WARDWELL: Now you can introduce 2yourself.
3DR. LOTT: Yes, I'm sorry. My name is 4Randy Lott. I'm here on behalf of Entergy.
5I don't think that that particular 6statement did relate to fatigue --
7JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry, I can't --
8Could you get close to it and try to talk a little 9slower because I can't, I can't hear you very well.
10DR. LOTT: I don't believe that statement 11that you read refers particularly to fatigue and 12irradiation embrittlement, it related to stress 13relaxation, the loss is corroding both.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
15DR. LOTT: And its impact on the 16assumption of the component.
17In the particular case, and just even 18within the screening criteria that was used, whenever 19you 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 is 24potentially subject to irradiation such that the load, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 its 1function might relax. We took that same component and 2we screened it in for concerns about fatigue and 3concerns about wear because we felt that with the loss 4of pre-load we'd have an impact on the ability of the 5component to survive those particular concerns.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: But can you point me to 7where you believe MRP-227 does look at fatigue versus 8embrittlement synergistically? And what steps are you 9doing within the Aging Management Program to address 10the concerns that you just heard Dr. Lahey express?
11DR. LOTT: First of all, the relationship 12that is within the structure of the document to look 13at fatigue and embrittlement is that the loss to 14fracture toughness limits the size of the crack that 15would be acceptable in the component. So when we look 16at acceptance criteria for fatigue cracking, it's 17based on the ability of the component to withstand the 18type of design basis loads that Dr. Lahey just 19discussed.
20In other words, we have not changed our 21requirement to survive the design basis load, but if 22a component has a fatigue crack, that would degrade --
23or decrease the ability to withstand those loads.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: But how do you address 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4949the potential fatigued member that may not be over its 1ultimate resistance just yet but is also embrittled 2and then receives such a transient shock that between 3the two effects --
4DR. LOTT: Well, yeah, I'm --
5JUDGE WARDWELL: -- it now doesn't perform 6its intended function?
7DR. LOTT: Again, I don't know of any 8evidence of there being a significant loss in the 9ability of a component prior to the initiation or 10prior to its exceeding effectively it's CUF equals 1 11value of an decreasing ability to withstand loading.
12So I don't, I don't think we did agree 13with the particular statement about fatigue weakening.
14We have looked at other things in those data in our 15testimony related to the effect of irradiation on 16fatigue life. And in general, I think for most of the 17irradiated internals you'll find that they operate in 18a region where fatigue life is not impacted 19significantly by irradiation.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: And does this mean that 21you've had -- there's data in your testimony in 22regards to the change in fatigue durability as a 23material is brittled?
24DR. LOTT: I think most of the data that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4950they were talking about there is probably the same 1data that Dr. Lahey just referred to. And I think it 2would probably be good for us to discuss that tomorrow 3or 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 was 6the end of that sentence?
7DR. LOTT: I said I -- unless you want to 8pull out the references and begin that discussion now.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Between fatigue and the 10durability under embrittled materials in regards to 11their fatigue strength, are you saying that's part of 1226 rather than 25 or?
13DR. LOTT: Well, I think you just had the 14discussion. You asked Dr. Lahey about the impact of 15fatigue and irradiation on the life of the component.
16And he discussed it with that there was released data 17about the fatigue life, the CUF, effective of 18allowable number of cycles and strain related to the 19irradiation of a component.
20Again, it's really the fatigue data that's 21available that we're talking about.
22DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, this is the data 23you asked me to bring tomorrow, those references.
24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And we may get to it 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 to 3chime in with any comments they might have just to 4complete the loop, I guess, in regards to hearing what 5he said in regards to the fatigue durability, if you 6will, as the material embrittles.
7MR. STEVENS: This is Gary Stevens of the 8NRC Staff.
9I'm a little confused by some of the 10conversation because I do hear crack initiation, 11propagation, embrittlement and Charpy specimens. And 12so my response is going to be related to crack 13initiation and the CUF types of analyses that are 14done. I'm assuming that's kind of where you're going 15with your questioning.
16As Mr. Lott has pointed out, there is not 17much data with respect to crack initiation under 18irradiated conditions available. The Staff in our 19research has looked at a lot of that or what is 20available. And generally speaking, in general terms 21irradiation tends to increase the mechanical strength 22of materials, increases yield strength, ultimate 23strength. And those kind of changes tend to increase 24the fatigue life of materials.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 not 2always that way. You can see some data where that's 3not observed.
4And one of the things you have to be 5careful about, for example, some of the data may be at 6high temperature, which is not applicable to the 7reactors we're talking about here. So the general 8lack of data is inconclusive completely as to what the 9effects might be. There's not enough data to evaluate 10specifically factors for irradiation.
11Based on what we've seen, generally we see 12an improvement in life. And some of the exhibits 13demonstrate that. And we have concluded as of now 14there's not enough information for us to say that 15there's an effect that isn't covered by the standard 16fatigue calculations that are done in accordance with 17ASME code.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Mr. Stevens, as I 19understood what Dr. Lahey was saying -- and I may be 20wrong, so please correct me if that's the case -- that 21it's different with embrittlement reacts differently.
22That even if you have a increase in the metal strength 23with a constant load, when you have a shock load you 24have a lack of ductility -- and I mispronounced that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 correctly 2understanding what you were saying?
3DR. LAHEY: Yeah. A shock load can do 4significantly more damage than a static load for a 5weakened material, either weakened by fatigue or 6embrittled, or a combination.
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And what Mr. Stevens was 8saying is that the data indicates that in many 9circumstances it's not weakened by the exposure to 10neutrons but rather it's actually strengthened. Is 11that correct, Mr. Stevens?
12MR. STEVENS: That's correct. With 13respect to crack initiation.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Now, does that 15matter whether or not the crack initiation is as a 16result of a constant pressure or opposed to a shock 17load?18MR. STEVENS: No, sir. I mean all cyclic 19-- constant load would not contribute to fatigue, it 20must be a cyclic load. But all cyclic loads in the 21design bay or current licensing basis for normal upset 22or test conditions must be evaluated for crack 23initiation. If the CLB includes, it would include any 24kind of shock loads, those would have to be included 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4954in the calculation.
1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So you're saying they 2are included in the calculation?
3MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's not just the normal 5cycles but all within design basis?
6MR. STEVENS: Well, okay, so if there are 7shock loads that are in the normal upset or test 8condition levels specified by ASME code, they would be 9included in the fatigue calculation.
10Some of the events that you're describing 11-- and that would include, by the way, some form of 12seismic events which would, which would be considered 13an upset event, and they would be included in the 14calculation.
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, for 22example, some of the local loads and more severe 23earthquakes that are considered accident. And the 24ASME code requires them to be evaluated but not for 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4955fatigue crack initiation.
1JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Dr. Hiser's body 2language sort of suggested that I was wandering off 3the path in an erratic fashion. Do you want to --
4DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. I 5apologize.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: -- put me back in the 7right direction.
8DR. HISER: I apologize for that because 9I was -- there's, I think there's about three 10different topics that are on the table. And it's 11untangling them I think is very difficult.
12What Mr. Stevens was talking about was 13effects of irradiation on CUF. And he, I think what 14he was saying was that there is minimal effect on CUF.
15And in reality it may retard crack initiation as 16modeled by CUF. So neutron embrittlement improves the 17fatigue life of the component.
18Now, the shock loads only come into effect 19not as a part of the evaluation of CUF, but in terms 20of you have a structure in its condition and you, you 21subject it to a certain load. From that perspective 22you need to consider the effects of the load level on 23the condition of the material that exists at that 24time.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, the 1Staff believes there are no cracks evident in the 2structure that could cause failure. If there was a 3crack that existed, then one would properly account 4for the reduced fracture toughness due to the neutron 5embrittlement of the structure.
6So the shock loads would only come into 7play at a point in time. It's an impulse load at a 8certain point in time.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: And does the Aging 10Management Plan require analysis of those shock loads 11on given vessel internals for materials that have been 12embrittled?
13MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of 14the Staff.
15The Aging Management Program does not 16require that analysis to be performed of embrittled, 17basically a crack to an embrittled component. Because 18the Aging Management Program is an inspection-based 19program so it performs various inspections to provide 20reasonable assurance that there are no cracks in the 21components. And without a crack you're not going to 22get failure even of an embrittled material.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: As a -- the Aging 24Management Program does require a demonstration, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4957right, of functionality, that meets its intended 1function. And so is it your statement that the Aging 2Management Program doesn't require any calculations to 3do that but is relying solely on the inspections to 4detect a crack indicative of a potential effect 5associated with whatever mechanism caused it?
6DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser for the 7Staff.8The inspections are intended to preserve 9the geometry of the materials, in effect no cracks.
10The Staff believe that no cracks under design basis 11loading conditions that the structure will not fail.
12If one were to find a crack in one of the 13components then one of the evaluation options would be 14to look to ensure that that structure with the crack, 15with accounting for crack growth during one or more 16future cycles, with the embrittled state of the 17material -- or actually I won't say embrittled but 18with the actual fracture toughness of the material, be 19it whatever level of embrittlement it might be, and 20you apply the loads and you have to be able to show 21that that crack will remain stable.
22So from that perspective, if you have a 23crack you consider the worst case loads that are in 24the design basis, you consider the fracture toughness 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4958of the material that exists at that point in time 1projected forward -- maybe you project to 60 years 2because you want to demonstrate that it's good for the 3rest of the license renewal period. Once you can do 4that then you have an assessment of whether the crack 5is acceptable or not.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I hear you 7correctly, this all hinges on the fact that there has 8to be a crack before there's any failure?
9DR. HISER: My belief is that that is 10true. I have not seen evidence of reactor internal 11components that has failed without a crack.
12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Dr. Lahey, if I could, 13as I understood your testimony, you hypothesized that 14in embrittled material that is then subject to a shock 15load, that you could have a failure even though there 16is no discernible cracking prior to that time, no 17cracking as far as crack initiation or propagation, 18that no visible cracking but highly embrittled 19material, that you could have a failure under a shock 20load. Is that your theory?
21DR. LAHEY: Yes. That -- yes.
22And I would -- can I answer just a few of 23these things? So I agree wholeheartedly that we need 24more data. All right? But the data set that I'll 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4959bring the reference on shows that for low 1amplitude/high frequency fatigue that embrittlement 2due to radiation, things are even better. Okay?
3Because if you look at the stress-strain 4curve, you know, you are on the elastic part. But 5when you get high amplitude/low cycle fatigue you have 6a reduction. Many of the kind of transients we're 7talking about when we evaluate life are not high 8frequency. They're not flowing vibration, so they're 9transients. They're a lower frequency event.
10Everybody thinks that more data is needed.
11So but the focus on surface cracks is what the big 12difference is. I --
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But, Dr. Lahey, 14given the fact that these components are primarily 15high grade stainless steel --
16DR. LAHEY: Yes.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- is it realistic to 18think that you would, without any crack propagation 19but simply a shock load could cause failure?
20DR. LAHEY: Well, let me tell you. Can I 21give you just a Gedankenexperiment and we can see if 22we agree or not? All right?
23The Gedankenexperiment which is actually 24being done or has been done is you now fatigue the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 has 3a 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? All 10right? How much does it take to --
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So under embrittlement 12then?13DR. LAHEY: Or damage. I mean I don't 14like to call it embrittlement but metal damage due to 15fatigue.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 way 22it's being looked at now, nothing happens until you 23get to the CUF of 1, until you start to see a surface 24crack. What I'm concerned with is well before 1.0 on 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. And 1it doesn't have to have a surface crack.
2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Dr. Hiser, do you 3wish to respond?
4DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. I'm not 5familiar with any experiment such as that with 6austenitic stainless steel, be it with fatigue at 7different levels of CUF, be it with neutron 8embrittlement or any combination thereof. My belief 9is CUF is 1.0 or less, it's very unlikely that you 10have a surface crack even in the material.
11I think your likely incipient to have a 12surface crack. Without a surface crack I think you're 13unlikely to fail under a shock load or any other kind 14of a load that's representative of the kind of 15conditions that you'd see in vessel internals for a 16PWR plant.
17DR. LAHEY: Okay, so --
18JUDGE WARDWELL: I would like to get back 19to my question. My question to you was, doesn't your, 20doesn't the AMP rely on a surface crack in regards to 21any evaluation of embrittlement?
22DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser.
23Yes. That would be when the AMP would 24bring into account the neutron embrittlement.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4962Otherwise the way that neutron embrittlement, thermal 1embrittlement are managed in this AMP and in others is 2through the detection of cracks.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: So without a crack those 4embrittlements aren't evaluated until a crack occurs?
5DR. HISER: I think that's correct.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: And they haven't been 7evaluated as part of the AMP that's been submitted and 8approved by you; correct?
9DR. HISER: That's correct.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: What is to say why -- I 11understand that you haven't seen any data to show the 12relationship between the Charpy test and fatigue for 13stainless steel, but likewise have you seen any tests 14that might indicate this potential where the material 15after the additional 20 years of the PEO, right before 16you're ready to shut down, is so embrittled that 17there's no cracks, but it is so embrittled that a 18transient could fail it catastrophically?
19Similar to what I imagine I've experienced 20myself with rubber bands holding together a bunch of 21envelopes. And after digging up a shoe box 30 years 22later I look at it and I go, Oh, that's neat. And I 23grab them and the whole rubber band disintegrates.
24Why couldn't that happen -- and that's the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4963way I picture what Dr. Lahey is talking about -- what 1data do you have that shows that can't happen?
2DR. HISER: My experience is the same as 3yours. I find stuff that's been left away for a 4period of time and the rubber band is broken.
5Stainless is not rubber bands.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: What data do you have on 7the stainless steel? Because, likewise, my rubber 8band isn't in the middle of a nuclear reactor. What 9evidence do you have that that same type of thing 10could not be happening over this period of extended 11operation that no one's been through yet that would 12make for catastrophic failure without the presence of 13a crack initially?
14DR. HISER: There is data, very high 15fluencies, fracture toughness data, that show that the 16materials retain ductility. Ductility is all that you 17need to resist initiation even of cracks.
18So if there is no cracks, really the only 19failure mechanism that you have is a tensile overload 20of the structure. And with a highly embrittled 21material, actually the yield strength is increased 22quite a bit, so from that perspective the component 23has somewhat gotten more resistant to shock loads 24because it now can sustain a higher load before it 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 could 2have strained enough within that such that it may not 3reach that peak; isn't that correct? Isn't that a 4possibility?
5DR. HISER: If you had, if you had a 6crack. And I think fundamentally it comes down to do 7you have a crack? If no crack, I believe there is no 8impact.9JUDGE WARDWELL: And can you get us a cite 10for this data that you're talking about that shows 11that highly embrittled materials under -- and I'm not 12real up to speed on the fluence, but that is a time 13relation type of thing, that's just a total amount of 14-- that is time related in regards to the magnitude of 15the number means it's been under an influence for a 16longer period of time?
17Or is it just the rate at which it is 18being bombarded?
And if so, have those tests been 19performed for to simulate 20 additional years of 20operation after the initial 40 years, total 60 years?
21DR. HISER: The fracture toughness data 22normally correlated in terms of fracture toughness is 23a function of fluence. And fluence is, it depends on 24where you are in the vessel, what the exposure rate 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 internal 2components.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: But that relationship 4that I heard you talk about in regards to the data was 5that you have -- I forgot the words you used to 6indicate --
7DR. HISER: Ductility.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: What?
9DR. HISER: Ductility.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: No, no, I know what 11ductility is.
12DR. HISER: Oh, sorry.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you use a phrase 14embrittlement strength or toughened fracture strength?
15Or what's the term you have for embrittlement? You 16said, you said you had data relating fluence to what 17parameter, other parameter?
18DR. HISER: Fracture toughness.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Fracture toughness, okay.
20You have data, you believe you have data 21related between fluence and fracture toughness. Is 22fluence, the fluence parameter is the rate at which 23the neutrons are bombarding it? Is that correct? Or 24is it the total amount of neutron or --
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, you 8could turn to the spot that I think Jeff will discuss 9in terms of -- instead of fluence in terms of time, 10but you would have to determine the flux. So it would 11depend on where you are in the vessel internals.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. And we'll talk 13about that with regards to specific components and 14where they are, whether they'd be susceptible to it.
15But given, given there are some internals 16that are under high influence -- high fluence, sorry, 17in the core; right?
18DR. HISER: Yes.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: And again, my question is 20I'm interested in that data that somehow comforts one 21to believe that a crack is needed prior to 22embrittlement failure, for lack of a better term. You 23know, rubber band disintegration, the equivalent of it 24in my shoe box.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4967DR. HISER: I would just caution using a 1rubber band analogy is off because there's still 2ductility. Your rubber band doesn't have ductility 3left. That's why, that's why it did break. And my 4guess is it probably had cracks in it that ultimately 5caused the failure.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: And that, that lack of 7ductility, whether or not it exists with the stainless 8steel would be indicated by those tests that you have 9that help support that potential -- help support your 10hypothesis. Is that a fair assessment?
11DR. HISER: That's correct.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
13DR. LOTT: Your Honor, this is Randy Lott 14from Entergy.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
16DR. LOTT: I just wanted to point out that 17while the data that Mr. Hiser is offering is quite 18valuable in terms of showing that the fracture 19toughness is still characterizable in science and 20ductility in high fluence, in fact if there's not a 21crack there's no way to know the fracture toughness of 22the material because it's only used to analyze a crack 23component.
24And I think part of what is protecting us 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4968here from the failures that you're describing, the 1unfailed, uncracked component, is really the fact that 2the components themselves were designed based on 3value, yield stress values and demonstrated in 4unirradiated condition that they do not exceed the 5stresses that are allowed under the design basis 6loads. They will withstand in the unfailed condition 7even higher stresses due to the increase in yield 8stress without failure.
9So, again, the fact that you design to the 10unirradiated load limits helps protect us. Again, the 11magnitude of these shock loads, as Dr. Lahey calls 12them, or the local loads or the seismic loads don't 13change with time. It's just the ability of the 14material to withstand it that we're interested in.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you, Dr. Lott.
16If I could go back to Dr. Lahey, I did 17stop you from speaking because I was on a --
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Before you do, could I 19just say one thing?
20A suggestion. We're sort of going back 21and forth here among the various witnesses. And a 22witness may say ten things, eight of which the other 23witnesses agree with. But then by the time we get 24back to them they're only going to discuss one of the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 a 3note I you want to get back to it. I find little note 4cards 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 challenging 8to follow back and forth from my standpoint of exactly 9what is being said to who. And, you know, to the 10degree there is a disagreement, that might be helpful 11to draw your attention back to it.
12Judge Wardwell, please.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: Which is a good segue 14into when I interrupted you, Dr. Lahey, or I started 15asking questions as you were starting to speak just 16before 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 you 19get done with that, then I would appreciate your 20comments on any tests you've seen in regard to 21fracture toughness versus fluence.
22DR. LAHEY: Okay. The last remark I guess 23is a good way to start. And, you know, I didn't draw 24it but I did the professor thing in the air with the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4970stress-strain. And as it gets hardened, now it moves 1up like that and the yield strength and the ultimate 2stress gets higher, no doubt as long as you're in that 3range with a low strain things are better.
4That's why low amplitude/high frequency 5experiments are better, even if it's irradiated, in 6terms of failure, crack initiation.
7If you have a large load, though, and you 8go beyond, you know, beyond the ultimate strength with 9a high enough strain, it's gone. All right? So it's 10not true that things are good once it's highly 11embrittled. It depends a lot on what the, what the 12strain is, what the amplitude of it is.
13And if you have a very large shock -- can 14I get you to show this now? Because he said he could 15project it. Because if you -- I mean I can't really 16draw it with my finger very well. I'm sorry. I tried 17and 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 say 22simple spring mass system and showing an impulsive 23load, what happens?
24Well, anybody who's ever had a course in 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 compressibility 5of organic soils with fiber decomposition, in case 6you're ever interested.
7DR. LAHEY: Okay. And the way we, the way 8we model elasticity, there's a bunch of them, or 9plasticity.
10MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, Kathryn Sutton 11for 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, Your 15Honor.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But what we are going to 17do, I believe Dr. Lahey feels that this diagram will 18--19DR. LAHEY: You know, help them understand 20what I'm trying --
21CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- help to explain 22better, 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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's 2582. I'll double check, Your Honor.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. So but when we're 4done we'll mark it as a
-- it's a demonstrative 5exhibit. It's not received into evidence. It's the 6testimony of Dr. Lahey that we're receiving as 7evidence --
8DR. LAHEY: Fine.
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- and but it will be an 10exhibit for identification and part of the record in 11that regard.
12MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, could the Staff 13at least request some copies of it so that we could, 14you know, have a chance to evaluate it? Because if it 15only shows up here right now, the witnesses may not 16have a chance to review it, you know, in full detail.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: What we're going to do 18right now, Mr. Welkie is going to put it up. We will 19then capture it electronically. And then we can give 20everybody as many autographed copies as they want.
21DR. LAHEY: Believe me, it's not suitable 22for framing.
23MR. KUYLER: Your Honor, Ray Kuyler for 24Entergy.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4973Entergy would like to note it's objection 1to the use of this. This certainly could have been 2provided in previous testimony.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Well, we don't know yet.
4I mean it's Dr.
Lahey is indicating that this will 5help him explain his answer to a question that has 6been posed to him. And maybe it will and maybe it 7won't. But again, it's the testimony of Dr. Lahey 8that we're going to be evaluating.
9DR. LAHEY: Yes, I mean if it's hard to 10show 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 a 13little 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 spring 16mass dashpot system. So as I say, anybody who's an 17engineer solved this equation at one point in their 18life. It's the second order ordinary differential 19equation. It's F equals ma.
20And so what you're doing is you have the 21mass of the structure. All right? And then you have 22a force on it. And so now I'm going to hit it with a 23impulsive force. I could either do it delta function, 24but I'm going to do a step change just so you see 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 elasticity 2of the metal. The dashpot has to do with the damping.
3So if you hit it at time equals 0 with a 4force, then what will happen if you, if you look at X 5which is the position of the thing, the mass that 6you're modeling, versus time, at first it will, it 7will go up. And then I would assume it's under 8damped, so it will oscillate a bit, and then it will 9go to the steady state value which is F over the mass 10times 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 go 14way higher. You go much higher. So the strain, the 15amplitude is high. And if you're high enough in 16amplitude you can fracture your material.
17If it's highly weakened, either by 18irradiation, by thermal embrittlement, by fatigue, 19anything that weakens that material, if it's weak 20enough you can break it.
21And that's, that's all I was trying to 22say. So it's not true that if you harden it, which it 23will harden by irradiation, that everything is good.
24Because it depends on what the amplitude is of the25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 small 2relative to the peak. All right? The steady state 3amplitude. And that, unfortunately, all the analyses 4that I've seen from the last seven years of this stuff 5is they're doing steady state kind of loading. Any 6time they do accidents they implicitly assume intact 7geometry and don't, don't really take into account the 8degradation of the material itself.
9So that's all I was trying to show.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Lahey, this is Judge 11Kennedy.12I'm trying to get a handle on this 13impulsive loading. I guess if you pick the right load 14you'll break anything. How do you tie this load into 15the types of loads that are of concern at Indian 16Point? I mean are you suggesting they're using the 17wrong loads?
18DR. LAHEY: It depends on what causes the 19load. For instance, if it's a very severe earthquake 20and you have a structure and all of a sudden, pang, 21you hit it hard you can create this kind of 22phenomenon. You will overpower the ability of the 23metal to withstand the load.
24If it's a local load, you know --
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4976JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess that's what I'm 1struggling with. It sounds like you get to pick the 2load. And I think there's -- presume there's a set of 3rules of engagement here that goes with the design of 4this facility. And I'm trying to get to the bottom of 5are you suggesting that Entergy is not using the 6appropriate loads?
7DR. LAHEY: No.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: Or are you suggesting 9there are loads out there that they need to consider?
10JUDGE KENNEDY: Your Honor, I believe that 11their safety evaluations consider the various loads, 12the various accident type loads. And their seismic 13analysis takes into account those type of loads.
14What's not done though is the effect of 15that on a highly degraded material. I've never seen 16anything that looks, that looks at the effect of the 17significant shock loads on a degraded material and 18what happens after that.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: When the NRC Staff was 20discussing the ASME code loads, upset conditions and 21accident conditions, those loads are different than 22the ones you're speaking of?
23DR. LAHEY: The type of loads that I heard 24them talking about were the normal -- when we were 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 local 3loads. And I assume then they also would talk about 4the seismic loads, yes.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: So is there yet another 6set of loads that you think needs to be considered 7here that aren't currently being considered?
8DR. LAHEY: No. My concern is that the 9integrity of the various structures, the internals, 10the bolts for example, the baffle bolts, when you 11apply significant shock loads to them they don't look 12at the degradation of the material. That's what I'm 13concerned with.
14JUDGE KENNEDY: This, this takes us back 15to the cracking discussion, doesn't it? Or does it?
16DR. LAHEY: Well, I, I'm --
17JUDGE KENNEDY: Because I hear they 18consider it.
19DR. LAHEY: Yeah. But I'm absolutely sure 20you can fail structures without a crack. If you hit 21it hard enough you'll fail a structure.
22JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't think anyone here 23will dispute that if you get to pick the load and it 24has no basis in anything within the design of this25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4978plant you can probably break it. I think my concern 1is that Entergy, the Staff are playing within a 2certain set of boundaries --
3DR. LAHEY: Right.
4JUDGE KENNEDY: -- and the only thing I'm 5trying to get to is are you suggesting that there is 6something wrong with that boundary?
7DR. LAHEY: The loads are fine with me.
8All right? The effect of the loads is what I'm 9concerned with.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: So by that do you mean 12it's -- you agree that they have incorporated the 13loads that should be incorporated into this analysis 14of any of the vessel internals?
15DR. LAHEY: The safety analysis reports 16that I looked at for Indian Point look like they do 17all the normal accident evaluations, and similarly 18with the seismic. I'm not sure about the new seismic 19criteria now. As you may know, that has changed since 20the recent earthquake a few years ago. But definitely 21they look at that event as well.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: And it's your position 23that it's the application of those loads, it's the way 24they apply those loads to the materials and what they 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4979-- excuse me -- consider for their resistance that is 1of the issue?
2DR. LAHEY: Do they consider the 3degradation of the material to these type of loads?
4And I have seen no evidence that that has occurred.
5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And how would they do 6that?7DR. LAHEY: How would you do it?
8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.
9DR. LAHEY: You put, you put the force on 10the body and then you have the material properties in 11terms 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 of 14data you understand isn't available?
15DR. LAHEY: One of the problems is there's 16not enough data to know for sure. But there's enough 17data to know that there can be an effect. So normally 18you would, because of uncertainty you would put some 19sort of uncertainty factor there on their cycles to 20failure, until you know for sure.
21So some of these things are going to be 22done. As I said, the light water reactors' 23sustainability program is going to supply the fatigue 24stuff.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4980With the embrittlement it's a much more 1lengthy process. There's only one place in the 2country you can do that. That's in Idaho in their hot 3cells. And it's a very long, expensive iterative 4process. But eventually we will have all that data.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: But lacking that, what 6else would you suggest they do at this point?
7DR. LAHEY: I would not suggest --
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Shut down until that's 9done?10DR. LAHEY: No. I, I would not suggest 11you just press on. I mean that's basically what, 12what's being done.
13I would suggest, and I've gotten a lot of 14kickback on the suggestion, that some of these things 15are easy to fix. You just repair them. It's not a 16big ticket in the scheme of things. Y ou get rid of 17the problem and don't worry about it because there's 18certain things you'll see tomorrow when we talk about 19CUFen that are right on the ragged edge and there's 20others that aren't.
21And similarly in core, you have stuff that 22is highly embrittled and stuff that's not.
23So nobody's talking about replace 24everything. But the key things, get rid of the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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'll 2start with Dr. Lott and see if he has any other 3comments that he might want to make in regards to what 4could be done at this point in regards to addressing 5the lack of the application of the correct loads that 6you had been doing to materials that are both 7embrittled and fatigued.
8DR. LOTT: I'm not sure I fully understood 9all of the things that were just said.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: I was counting on you to 11sort them all out.
12DR. LOTT: I think that as was said 13before, we're not here arguing about the loads that 14are applied to the components. I think that's part of 15the current licensing basis. And I think a lot of 16what we discussed about how impulse loads and all that 17are already dealt with within our current process.
18So we're not talking about that. What 19we're talking about, the ability of the component to 20withstand those loads and how that may be improved or 21degraded over the life of the component.
22Again, as I understand it we're talking 23about -- we talk about irradiation embrittlement in 24broad terms as a bunch of different phenomena.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4982Because it's true, it increases yield stress, it 1increases the ultimate stress. It decreases the 2ductility, how much stretch there is in the material 3before it fails.
4Our point with respect --
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Does it fail at lower 6strains or higher strains or does it vary based on?
7DR. LOTT: Well, again, that's a -- you 8need to look at the true stress-strain curve I guess 9to actually answer that question. What happens in a 10normal tensile bar when you pull it under these 11conditions is it's a great deal of strain 12localization.
13So while you might see a normal stainless 14steel provide a long, gradual necking process to it, 15this steel is kind of localized with a very sharp 16neck. And so they do have in an engineering 17stress-strain curve exactly the behavior that Dr.
18Lahey described: a large increase in the yield stress 19and the ultimate stress. And limited amount of 20uniform elongation. And then some amount of 21additional deformation to failure.
22That's typical of highly irradiated 23materials.
24There's a bunch of things I guess I'd like 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 of 1the materials, even in the internals, are highly 2irradiated. These very high fluences we're discussing 3are pretty much limited to the baffle former and 4baffle former bolts. And we can talk about that in 5the future, too, if we need to.
6So it does not affect a wide range of the 7components there.
8Again, I think we need to be careful about 9this whole discussion of, of what, you know, I don't 10know of a phenomena called irradiation weakening. I 11know of irradiation-induced decrease in fracture 12toughness which, as I said, decreases the ability to 13maintain its dimensional stability, whether in part to 14withstand fracture or at least the initiation of a 15crack, crack, form a crack.
16The only, only time that comes into place 17is when you have a crack in the component, the 18fracture toughness that is decreased. And I do not 19believe any of these co mponents are designed to 20undergo large strains in the normal application.
21They're not deformed, they're just not deformed that 22way so they're never going to fail by these other 23brittle mechanisms.
24There may be more to that question. I am 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Strosnider 2from Entergy.
3I'd like to add something to this on the 4notion of this failure of a component without a crack.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, please do.
6MR. STROSNIDER: So I think the first 7thing to recognize is that if there's no fracture in 8it, then the fracture toughness is out of the picture.
9What's dominating the failure mechanism is the 10strength.
11And as was explained, when these materials 12are irradiated the strength goes up. Right? So if 13these components could withstand the design basis 14loads when they were originally designed under their 15original condition without any embrittlement, and it's 16governed by strength, when the strength goes up 17they're going, they're still going to withstand those 18loads. In fact, their load carrying capacity is 19increased.
20So just logically you would conclude that 21they still meet the current licensing basis loads, 22which we said include the dynamic factors, et cetera.
23Now, what's being confused here is when 24they do fail, right -- and this actually Judge Kennedy 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4985was touching on this with his question earlier -- if 1you hit it with big enough a load, if you were to take 2it to a load higher than the design basis load and 3fail it when it's been embrittled, it will show less 4ductility than if it were not embrittled. But you 5still have to get to that load that's higher than the 6design basis loads in order for that to happen.
7And oh, by the way, none of these 8materials are going to fail like a candy cane. And 9when you look at the data that's been discussed in 10terms of fracture toughness -- and I think people have 11talked about getting to that tomorrow -- you're going 12to see that they still have ductility. Right?
13Now, let's take the other situation where 14you actually have a crack. All right? And as was 15explained, in the Aging Management Program if you find 16a crack then you will, you could, in fact a crack in 17embrittled material will reduce the load bearing 18capability. So you have to do an analysis considering 19what level the fracture toughness is at because that 20now governs failure. And you have to determine if 21that crack can be left in service and for how long.
22There's one other thing I want to add to 23that is that there are analyses that have been done to 24look at the critical flaw sizes, critical crack 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 be 2determined with the inspection methods they're using.
3And that's the other piece that you didn't get to but 4that's an important part of this.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, we'll be talking 6about inspection tomorrow. Yes.
7MR. STROSNIDER: Yeah, so you'll get 8there.9But the point is none of these materials 10are going to, going to fail. Even with the crack in 11it, it's not going to fail like the candy cane. It 12will still field ductility. That's why they're using 13an elastic plastic fraction mechanics analysis method 14in these cases.
15And if you look at it without a crack, 16it's load bearing capability goes up. So the only 17logical conclusion is that it's going to withstand the 18design basis loads as it did when it was originally 19designed.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: But doesn't its ductility 21drop drastically with age?
22MR. GRIESBACH: Your Honor.
23MR. STROSNIDER: When it fails it will 24show less, less ductility. And this is you could look 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 a 1uni-axle tensile bar, if you take low strength and 2high strength materials, the more ductile one will 3show more, more necking, more elongation.
4The one that's the higher strength which 5has less ductility will not show as much necking and 6it may, it may fail with a flat fracture. But it's 7not going to shatter, not these materials.
8MR. GRIESBACH: Your Honor, this is Tim 9Griesbach for Entergy.
10I think we should point out that --
11JUDGE WARDWELL: I've got a follow-up 12question. And I'm going to forget it if I don't ask 13it. In fact, I may have forgotten it already. And 14that's why I don't like interruptions if I can avoid 15them because it prevents us from getting the answers 16we need to make a decision.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Jot it down and we'll 18get back to you.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, that's the way to 20do it. Except you might as well say it now because 21now I've forgotten what I was going to follow up on.
22Go ahead.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Now he's forgotten what 24he was going to say.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 that 2I've forgotten what I wanted to say.
But I want to 3point out that's why I want to minimize the 4interruptions because when I've got a follow-up 5question that I had for your compadre there --
6MR. GRIESBACH: Okay.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: -- it was right on point 8to what he had said. And now it's not on point 9anymore. It's been axed from this hearing.
10So proceed.
11MR. GRIESBACH: What I think we really 12would like to point out, though, is the materials that 13we're talking about are austenitic stainless steels 14for the most part. They're, they're face center 15cubic, which means they have much more ductility than 16the type of ferritic steels that tend to undergo a 17ductile to brittle transition and can be brittle.
18So these types of materials don't 19experience that type of brittle fracture. Even in the 20irradiated condition they still have much ductility 21and strength, as we've talked about, and wouldn't fail 22in that brittle manner as some people have pointed out 23here.24So I think we need to keep that in mind.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 point 1that out as well.
2JUDGE WARDWELL: And we will be able to 3see from that data highly embrittled type of results 4that might be indicative of what it would be like in 5the reactor after 60 years of operation?
6MR. GRIESBACH: The levels of fluence in 7the test data is representative of exposure for a 8significant period of time in PWR reactors, yes.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Great.
10MR. COX: Just one clarifying comment on 11that. That the highly, the term "highly embrittled" 12--13JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is Mr. Cox; 14correct?15MR. COX: That's correct. This is Allen 16Cox with Entergy.
17When you say "highly embrittled" that's 18one of those words that ends with "l-y" and it could 19have a number of meanings. What Mr. Griesbach said is 20that we'll have data that's based on the fluence 21that's experienced at the end of 60 years. That does 22not necessarily equate to highly embrittled or highly 23irradiated.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: I stand corrected. The 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4990embrittlement that does occur after 60 years, however 1it is. I won't pre-judge that.
2I think I remember the question I was 3going to ask. So the various internals -- and if 4you'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 tension 8load; correct? With normal operations or with shock 9loads they're going to be under different types of 10load applications?
11MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 12for Entergy.
13That's true.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: And so how is that taken 15into effect, because one component may be very 16sensitive to corrosional activity based on where it is 17and how it may perform. And another would be under 18compression, another under shear, another under 19bending, another under tension. How is that addressed 20in any manner or?
21Well, no. In fact let me rephrase that.
22Really that isn't addressed in your AMP because you 23don't, you do not evaluate anything until you see a 24crack based on this inspection-based AMP; is that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4991correct?1MR. STROSNIDER: So this is Jack 2Strosnider for Entergy. And some of my colleagues 3here may be able to get into more detail.
4But, again, I think if you look at this 5logically, when the internals were designed, right, 6they were designed to the ASME code section 3. They 7were designed to stay in the elastic range. Right?
8And various loadings, whether they be compressive or 9torsional or thermal, whatever was driving them, they 10were included in that original design. And they 11haven't changed.
12Under the license removal you're assessing 13the same loads that were in the original design. So 14whatever those loads were, they're still there.
15They're the same. And what's done in the analysis in 16the MRP-227 is to use the design basis loads.
17So that's the big picture answer. And I 18don'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 loads 21are different, it's that the ability of the metal to 22withstand the loads is different based on 23embrittlement and other aging mechanisms. That's what 24Dr. Lahey's thesis says.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4992MR. STROSNIDER: Well, Jack Strosnider for 1Entergy.2And just what I was trying to explain 3earlier is let's take two cases. If there's no crack 4in the component, you put the same loads on it and 5because it's been embrittled, all right, its strength 6has gone up and that's --
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But ductility has gone 8down?9MR. STROSNIDER: Yeah. So you have to get 10to high enough a load to fail it, all right, before 11you're going to see that, that impacted ductility.
12And this was the question that I mentioned earlier 13that Judge Kennedy brought up is, sure, if you hit it 14with high enough a load it will fail. But we're not 15talking about unlimited loads here, we're talking 16about loads that are within the design basis.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But isn't what Dr. Lahey 18is suggesting is that there's a lack of data to show 19the effect of the same loads, these loads that it's 20undergone for the past 40 years, that those loads will 21not affect the particular item differently because of 22the embrittlement and other aging mechanisms and that 23there's a lack of data to demonstrate where the 24cut-off line is? Is that data available?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4993MR. STROSNIDER: Jack Strosnider for 1Entergy.2What I would suggest -- and again my 3colleagues can maybe expand on this -- but if you want 4to see the impact of embrittlement on the parameter 5that controls failure, which is the yield strength, 6the yield or the ultimate strength, all you've got to 7do 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 that 10these tensile properties the strength improves, the 11strength gets brighter when you irradiate the 12material.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it your position 14that the torsional strength and the compressive 15strength and the shear strength and the bending 16strength also go up? And does the data support that?
17MR. STROSNIDER: My colleague has a 18response.
19MR. GRIESBACH: Various different --
20JUDGE WARDWELL: And to who are we --
21MR. GRIESBACH: This is Tim Griesbach for 22Entergy.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
24MR. GRIESBACH: You're suggesting that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 2maximum tensile stress or flow stress to reach 3failure. So, yes, that would go up under various 4different load combinations without the presence of a 5crack.6JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you.
7DR. LAHEY: Can I say? I think --
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Pardon?
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Before that I think we 10ought to go to Staff.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
12DR. LAHEY: You'd summarized my feeling 13exactly.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Hold it for one minute 15and we'll get back to you.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Unless it's something 17really quick.
18DR. LAHEY: No, I just agreed, if that's 19okay, that the essence of the --
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: We always have time for 21that.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
23DR. LAHEY: It's just the difference has 24to do with what's the integrity of the metal, given 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4995those loads. And the problem is how to quantify it 1because of the lack of data.
2The only data, if it's available, suggests 3these effects. But there's not enough to quantify it?
4So then what do you do? I mean how -- do you just 5press on? Or how do you --
6JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me make sure I 7understand what you're saying. You agree with Entergy 8that if the tensile strength goes up then likewise all 9the other types of strengths will also go up with 10irradiation? Is that what you were saying?
11DR. LAHEY: The ductility goes down.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Ductility goes down but 13the strength will go up.
14DR. LAHEY: It has to do -- it's not just 15strength, it's amplitude. You have to look at --
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. But you agree 17with that?
18DR. LAHEY: Yes, of course.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, that's good. Thank 20you.21DR. LAHEY: Sure.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: Staff, do you have any 23comments on what we've talked about the last 10, 15 24minutes? The same question I asked Dr. Lott. And I 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 got 1some burning thoughts in your mind that you've jotted 2down.3And this will probably pretty much finish 4us for the, yeah, for the evening. It will.
5DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. Then I 6think Gary Stevens has something he would like to add.
7I think the, what I articulated maybe 30 8minutes ago was: no crack, no problem. And I think 9that's the case. If the loads don't change, the 10ability of the material, even if the ductility drops, 11is unchanged. It still will perform its intended 12functions. And that's what we're here to assess.
13The ductility decrease becomes important 14if a crack is found. If they find a crack they would 15have to do -- take corrective actions. It will either 16be repair, replacement or they would try to use an 17engineering evaluation to demonstrate acceptability.
18In that case they would have to consider the true 19state of the materials in terms of the embrittlement.
20So from that perspective, the ductility 21may decrease but it really is not significant until 22there's a crack in place.
23MR. STEVENS: This is Gary Stevens of the 24Staff.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4997I made a bunch of notes as everybody was 1talking. And then Mr. Strosnider and Dr. Hiser talked 2and a lot of my notes went away. But sometimes if I 3say something differently maybe it will have an 4impact.5I think the point is that a structure 6behaves 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 an 9outcome, things like fracture toughness and 10embrittlement and those kinds of things are important.
11And in those kinds of evaluations -- and 12my colleagues who are more intimately familiar with 13them or PT-27 can say -- but the acceptance, the 14acceptance criteria that's in there and the evaluation 15procedures that are done take into account reductions 16in toughness, increases in crack propagation due to 17embrittlement. It's factored into those analyses.
18When a crack is not present, and we look 19at crack initiation, as you've heard and I think most 20of the parties have agreed, that irradiation tends to 21increase the strength of the material. And if it was 22okay in the design and the strength goes up, it's okay 23under irradiated conditions. If the figure represents 24a load that was defined in the CLB, then it was 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4998evaluated.
1And I think you also had a question, Judge 2Wardwell, on data. And I think we have a couple 3different things. There might be some data related to 4crack propagation.
5With respect to crack initiation, one of 6the exhibits, I don't remember the number but it was 7I think a New York State exhibit for NUREG CR 6909 8Rev. 1, that was actually a draft document, section 91.3 of that document discussed irradiation on crack 10initiation, the available data and what the Staff 11research and interpretation of that data has to say.
12And that's when I discussed earlier of 13there not being a lot of data, and from our 14perspective the effects we don't think are 15significant, and a lot of our guidance equally applies 16to irradiated conditions, it was with respect to crack 17initiation.
18That's all.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Is this a good place to 21break? Okay, I think this may be a good place to 22break for this evening. I would propose to come back 23tomorrow at 8:30 in the morning.
24Does anybody have any administrative 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 if 9this is on.
10One matter, Your Honor. At the outset 11today the Board did issue a ruling on the State's 12pending motion concerning the withdrawal of 13designations for confidential business information.
14And the State is concerned or renews its request that 15the Board consider redactions as well.
16I don't know that that was addressed. I 17just wanted that on the record so that it's absolutely 18clear that the State is pursuing that.
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And in that 20regard, what I would suggest is if you would submit a 21document with proposed redactions. We're saying, at 22this point we're saying we're not making the documents 23publicly available. From what you just said it 24appears that you're suggesting that there are 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5000significant portions of the documents that, while the 1Board views the documents themselves should keep the 2proprietary designation, you're suggesting that there 3are certain portions of it where that's not required 4or appropriate.
5And if that's the case, you know, submit 6those proposed redactions initially to Entergy and 7Westinghouse. And if there isn't an agreement, then 8to the Board.
9MR. SIPOS: Very good, Your Honor. It was 10an alternative argument. The State still maintains 11its more overarching position. But this was an 12alternative argument as well.
13We will follow up on it, Your Honor.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And there's two aspects 15to that. One is whether or not it's necessary to be 16public for the purposes of the evidentiary hearing in 17the next couple of days. And the other is, you know, 18the sort of overarching concern that you seem to have 19that this is the kind of information that should be in 20the public sector.
21So it's something that even though we 22would be done with this evidentiary hearing no later 23than COB Friday, you know, it doesn't necessarily 24foreclose that that document could be moved to the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, no 2other issues from the State.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: From Riverkeeper?
4MS. BRANCATO: Just for the record, 5Riverkeeper supports the State's position regarding 6the confidenti -- or redaction to the confidential 7document issue. But other than that, no. Thank you.
8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. We 9will see you tomorrow, 8:30.
10(Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the hearing was 11recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 1217, 2015.)
1314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR 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 4755-5001 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 4755UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +
3BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4+ + + + +
5________________________________
6In the Matter of: : Docket No.
7ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. : 50-247-LR 8(Indian Point Nuclear Generating : 50-286-LR 9Station, Units 2 and 3) : ASLBP No.
10________________________________ : 07-858-03-LR-BD01 11Monday, November 16, 2015 1213Doubletree Tarrytown 14Westchester Ballroom 15455 South Broadway 16Tarrytown, New York 1718 19BEFORE:20LAWRENCE G. MCDADE, Chairman 21MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 22RICHARD E. WARDWELL, Administrative Judge 2324 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Commission 7Office of General Counsel 8Mail Stop 15 D21 9Washington, D.C. 20555 10david.roth@nrc.gov 11sherwin.turk@nrc.gov 12brian.harris@nrc.gov 13301-415-2749 (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, LLP 221111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
23Washington, D.C. 20004 24202-739-5738 (Sutton) 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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.com 3pbessette@morganlewis.com 4rkuyler@morganlewis.com 56On Behalf of the State of New York
- 7JOHN J. SIPOS, ESQ.
8LISA S. KWONG, ESQ.
9MIHIR A. DESAI, ESQ.
10of:New York State 11Office of the Attorney General 12Environmental Protection Bureau 13The Capitol 14Albany, New York 12224 15brian.lusignan@ag.ny.gov 1617On Behalf of Riverkeeper Inc.
- 18DEBORAH BRANCATO, ESQ.
19of:Riverkeeper, Inc.
2020 Secor Road 21Ossining, New York 10562 22800-21-RIVER 23info@riverkeeper.org 2425NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Attorney 3of:Westchester County Government 4148 Martine Avenue 5Room 6006White Plains, New York 10601 7914-995-2000 89On Behalf of the State of Connecticut
- 10ROBERT D. SNOOK, ESQ.
11Assistant Attorney General 12of:Office of the Attorney General 13 State of Connecticut 1455 Elm Street 15Hartford, Connecticut 06141 16860-808-5020 17 robert.snook@ct.gov 1819On Behalf of Westinghouse Electric Company
- 20RICHARD J. COLDREN, ESQ.
21of:Westinghouse Electric Company 221000 Westinghouse Drive 23Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania 16066 24412-374-6645 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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-S 1Opening Remarks and Introduction s.......47612Witnesses Swor n................
47643Administrative Matters:
4 Documents/Public and Non-Public Domain...47645 Exhibits Discussio n.............
47696 Preliminaries/Discussion TLAAs and GAL L...47797Clarifications 8July 2010 plant-specific AMP
......48369Appendix A description of AMPs
.....483910Time-limited aging analyses discussion
....484111Contention 25 12Preliminary comments
..........
408613Discussion
...............
40931415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4760E-X-H-I-B-I-T-S 1Entergy's 2Exhibit Nos. Document ID Rec'd3R681, R682, R683, R689, R690 4769 4681, 682, 683, 689, 690 Withdrawn 5R727, R728 and R7294769 6727, 728 and 729Withdrawn 7R31, R184, R186, R195, R5294770 831, 184, 186, 195, 529Withdrawn 910 11NRC's12Exhibit Nos. Document ID Rec'd13R101, R104, R105, R118, R147, and R1614771 14101, 104, 105, 118, 147, and 161Withdrawn 1516847711617New York's 18Exhibit Nos. Document ID Rec'd19577, 578, and 5794773 --
20580, 5814776 --
2122 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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-S 1(12:00 p.m.)
2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we'll now go on 3the record. We're here in the matter of Entergy 4Nuclear Operations Inc., Indian Point Nuclear 5Generating Plant, Units 2 and 3, License Renewal.
6These are Docket Numbers 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR.
7My name is Lawrence McDade, an 8Administrative Judge. With me are Michael Kennedy, 9and Richard Wardwell, also Administrative Judges with 10the ASLB, paid. What I would like to do initially is 11for the record, have counsel indicate who represents 12who. We'll start at my left, Mr. Turk for NRC.
13MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'm 14Sherwin Turk with the Office of General Counsel at 15NRC. To my left is David Roth. And to his left is 16Brian Harris. And Mr. Harris will be representing the 17staff with respect to Contention 25 today.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. For Entergy?
19MR. BESSETTE: Good morning Your Honor, 20this is Paul Bessette from Morgan Lewis representing 21Entergy. On my left is Kathryn Sutton. And on my 22right is Ray Kuyler.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. For 24New York?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 State 2of New York. On my left, or on your right as you're 3looking me, is Assistant Attorney General, Lisa Kwong.
4And on my right is Assistant Attorney General, Mihir 5Desai.6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And Riverkeeper?
7MS. BRANCATO: Yes, good afternoon, Your 8Honor. Deborah Brancato, Staff Attorney for 9Riverkeeper.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And with you Ms.
11Brancato?
12MS. BRANCATO: This is Riverkeeper's 13expert, Dr. Joram Hopenfeld.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you. Let's get 15started with the witnesses. And we'll just go from 16you know, your right to left.
17MR. LOTT: My name is Randy Lott. I'm a 18consulting engineer with Westinghouse Electric, 19appearing on behalf of Entergy as an expert witness.
20MR. COX: My name is Alan Cox. I'm a 21Consultant 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 some 2Entergy people in the second row. Let's get them to 3identify themselves before we move to NRC.
4MR. STROSNIDER: I'm Jack Strosnider. I'm 5a Consultant for Entergy on License Renewal.
6MR. GRIESBACH: I'm Tim Griesbach. I'm 7Senior Associate with Structural Integrity Associates.
8And I'm a Consultant, expert witness for Entergy.
9MR. GRAY: I'm Mark Gray. I'm a Principal 10Engineer from Westinghouse on behalf of Entergy.
11MR. GORDON: I'm Barry Gordon. Associate 12with Structural Integrity and I'm an expert witness 13for Entergy.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Dr. Hiser?
15DR. HISER: I'm Allen Hiser, Senior Level 16Advisor for License Renewal Aging Management at the 17NRC.18MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler, Senior 19Materials Engineer for the NRC.
20MR. LAHEY: Richard Lahey, Professor 21Emeritus 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4764DR. HOPENFELD: I am Joram Hopenfeld. I'm 1a 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 to 8swear you. The testimony you give will be under oath.
9Will you please raise your right hands?
10Will you swear or affirm subject to the 11penalties for perjury that the testimony you'll give 12at 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 documents 17presented during the course of this hearing. Most of 18which are public documents that are already in the 19public domain. Available to the public on the 20electronic hearing docket through the NRC. There are 21also certain documents that are non-public which 22contain proprietary information.
23When a document is called up, Mr. Welkie 24will bring up the public document. If for some reason 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 2non-public document up only for counsel and the 3witnesses. It will not be available to the public.
4If not only referring to the document in 5order for reference, but also if you need to testify 6with regard to specifics of the non-public documents.
7Don't just do it okay, because that's going to have to 8be done at a closed session. And what we would ask 9you to do is to the degree possible, avoid discussing 10proprietary information.
11And in many instances, if not all 12instances, you'll be able to discuss it for example, 13if a cumulative use factor is approaching one or 14exceeds one that testimony may be sufficient for our 15purposes. If you feel that you actually need to get 16into specific proprietary information, please stop and 17state that. So that we can then defer your answer on 18that particular question to the end.
19And the end of a particular session where 20if necessary we'll take up documents that are 21proprietary in nature and need to remain non-public.
22MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, Kathryn Sutton 23on behalf of Entergy. And I've spoken with Mr.
24Coldren who's here representing Westinghouse. Given 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4766the logistics and the layout of this room we have 1concerns that even the proprietary documents that are 2being shown to the witnesses, can be viewed by members 3of the public.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, well I mean, 5here's the situation. I mean the document itself is 6proprietary only to the degree that you can actually 7read it. There's a separation between the witnesses 8and the individuals who are in the public. That 9although they would be capable of seeing that there's 10a document on the screen, it's inconceivable to me 11that they would be able to read the document.
12Let's start with these rules. In the 13event a non-public document comes up, and there is an 14issue with that regard, to raise the objection at that 15point in time. And also one thing I did want, that I 16was remiss, we do have a representative of 17Westinghouse here that many of the proprietary, most 18of the proprietary documents are Westinghouse 19documents. Would the representative from 20Westinghouse, identify yourself for the record?
21MR. COLDREN: Yes, Your Honor. Richard 22Coldren, Electric Property Counsel for Westinghouse.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And then we also 24have representatives of interested Government Agencies 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4767from Connecticut.
1MR. SNOOK: The Assistant Attorney 2General, Robert Snook for Connecticut.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And Westchester County?
4MR. INZERO: Yes. Good afternoon, Your 5Honor. Christopher Inzero, Assistant County Attorney 6for the County of Westchester.
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Are there any 8other representatives of interested Government 9Agencies who have appeared?
10(No audible response.)
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, apparently not.
12In the event that we do need to break for a non-public 13session, only individuals who have signed non-14disclosure agreements that are on file can be present 15in the room. So I would direct that anyone who has 16not signed a non-disclosure agreement, if they are a 17representative of a party, they need to do so. Or 18understand 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 a 23video camera. I don't know if it's a member of the 24press or who's filming? But that camera would be able 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 be 1appropriate to have some instructions for the 2videographer in terms of what they can film or not 3film.4CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, I mean I believe 5that they would understand that they would, it would 6be a breech for them to zoom in on a non-public 7document. If we do have a non-public document to come 8up, we will give very specific instructions so that 9that will not occur. But thank you for raising that, 10Mr. Turk. I appreciate it.
11MR. SIPOS: Excuse me Your Honor, John 12Sipos --13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.
14MR. SIPOS: -- for the State of New York.
15Good afternoon. There are also some pending motions 16--17CHAIRMAN McDADE: Oh, Yes.
18MR. SIPOS: And I was just wondering if 19Your Honor wished to either take those up, or hear 20additional presentations on those?
21CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, I mean we're going 22to take them up here before we get started on the 23testimony. And the testimony today is going focus on 24Contention 25. You know the allegation that there's 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4769an inadequate Aging Management Program for certain 1reactor vessel internals, perhaps others. We will 2discuss that here shortly. There is a bit of a 3carryover with 26 and 38 as well.
4But before we get started with the 5specifics on 25, we're going to be asking some general 6questions having to do with TLAAs and the GALL.
7We have certain things to take up before 8we get started. First of all, we received last week 9certain corrected documents from Entergy. There was 10no objection. There was Entergy 727, 728, and then 11revised Entergy 681, 682, 683, 689, 690, and 729. So 12those documents are admitted.
13(Whereupon, the above-referred to 14documents were received into evidence as Entergy 15Exhibits No. 727, 728, and revised Entergy Exhibits 16R681, R682, R683, R689, R690, and R729.)
17The original documents have been revised.
18The documents are stricken, so that it will only be 19the revised documents that are part of the record.
20Other issues with regard to the current 21status of exhibits. The following exhibits need to be 22stricken and based on the exhibit list that we have.
23The reason these are being stricken is because there 24have been revised documents already submitted.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4770So it will be the revised document. So 1for example Entergy 31 will be stricken, and replaced 2by Entergy R31. And that goes with Entergy 31, 184, 3186, 195, 529, and NRC 101, 104, 105, 118, 147, and 4161.5(Whereupon, the above-referred to 6documents were received into evidence as Entergy 7Exhibits No. R31, R184, R186, R195, and R529.)
8CHAIRMAN McDADE: We also have an issue 9Entergy Exhibit list does not indicate that there are 10both public and non-public exhibits for Entergy 11616,678, 679, 698, and 699. When at the conclusion of 12the hearing you submit a revised exhibit list, it 13should show, reflect that there are both public and 14non-public versions of those documents filed.
15The same with the Staff documents, 168, 16196, and 197.
17Another is a question, the staff indicated 18that NRC document 102, and 148 were superseded by 168.
19Does that mean that the staff is withdrawing 102 and 20148?21MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor. The testimony 22and the superseding documents covers both Contention 2326 and 38.
24CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, so we receive 168 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4771and strike 102 and 148.
1(Whereupon, the above-ref erred to document 2was received into evidence as NRC Exhibit No. 168.)
3CHAIRMAN McDADE: There's also an 4indication Riverkeeper did not file redacted versions 5161, 162, and 163. Does Riverkeeper intend to file 6redacted versions of those documents? Those were 7testimony.
8MS. BRANCATO: Yes, Your Honor. At the 9time of the submission, Entergy had not provided 10redacted versions to which the testimony responded to.
11So we had not done that at the time, but Riverkeeper 12would like to file redacted versions.
13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and that reflect 14again on the revised exhibit list that you file at the 15conclusion of the hearing. That we have the non-16public version which we will use in rendering our 17decision, but there should be a public version filed 18as well.19MS. BRANCATO: Yes.
20CHAIRMAN McDADE: All right. In New York 21state exhibits, New York 369 is a multipart public and 22non-public document. Only the non-public exhibit is 23multipart. The public version is a single exhibit and 24does not have an A and B version. And that should be 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 we 2have with regard to exhibits. Does anybody have 3anything further with regard to exhibits, not counting 4the exhibits that were submitted last Friday by the 5state of New York?
6(No audible response.)
7CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, apparently not.
8We have a couple of motions. We had a motion to 9remove the proprietary designation on ten documents.
10It was filed by New York. When we originally 11addressed this, there was an appeal pending on a 12similar motion. That appeal has been resolved. In 13light of the result of that appeal, the motion to 14remove the proprietary designation for those ten 15documents is denied.
16There was a motion filed on Friday, last.
17It was a motion to admit five documents, New York 577 18to 581. The first two are demonstrative exhibits 19prepared by Dr. Lahey, 579 is demonstrative exhibit 20filed by Dr. Duquette, and submitted by him. Those at 21this point are marked only for identification. They 22are not received in evidence. They may or may not be 23referred to, is my understanding. Is that they 24basically fall in the same category as the discussion 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 is 1necessary to answer our questions.
2But if at this point, all they will be is 3marked for identification.
4(Whereupon, the above-referred to 5documents were marked as New York Exhibit Nos. 577, 6578, 579 for identification.)
7CHAIRMAN McDADE: The other two we have 8Exhibit 580 which is a paper that was presented at an 9International Symposium in August of 2007, having to 10do with stress corrosion cracking and the immunity to 11stress corrosion cracking. And may or may not exist 12with Alloy 690 and its metal welds. And also a 13discussion that the growth rate for cracking, even if 14it is not immune, is very low. The mid ten to the 15ninth millimeters or lower.
16And there's also a slide presentation from 17I believe June of 2014, 23 slides discussing the same 18general area.
19Question to New York, we received your 20motion on Friday. We received a reply from Entergy on 21Sunday. We're here in the later part of 2015, this is 22a document from 2007 that although on point appears 23cumulative to other documents that you've submitted.
24Why should we receive these documents at 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1witnesses from Entergy and the NRC staff to be 2presented with these documents on the eve of their 3testimony? Mr. Sipos, or anyone from New York.
4MR. SIPOS: Yes, John Sipos for the state 5of New York.
6Taking the second document first, 7Document 581, that is an NRC document or is a 8presentation to NRC from a year ago. And in the 9preparation for this hearing, Dr. Duquette reviewed 10that document and found that it would be germane to 11what he might, may be testifying about and the issues 12that are at the fore in Contention 38.
13So it is a document that is not a 14surprise. It has existed and it ties into the 2014 15EPRI report that is also at issue in Contention 38.
16And so in going through the citations and in preparing 17for it, Dr. Duquette and the state disclosed that 18document. I believe we disclosed it a week ago and 19made it available. So the state submits there is 20little if any prejudice to Entergy or NRC staff 21regarding that.
22As to Document, or is it proposed Exhibit 23580, the Andresen article, there are also citations I 24believe in the 2014 EPRI report, references to Dr.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 this 1area. And again, in reviewing testimony, reviewing 2the documents and preparing for this hearing, Dr.
3Duquette believed that it was germane.
4We did disclose it. We disclosed it a 5week ago. And it's possible that he may refer to it.
6So we submit that there is good cause. We would have 7preferred to have presented them earlier, the state 8would have. But they were disclosed and the state's 9position is that there is little if any prejudice.
10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. From the 11standpoint of the Board, we've been dealing with you 12know, with hundreds of pages of testimony and 13literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of pages 14of exhibits over a period of years at this point in 15time. And these documents as I said, were received 16just simply last Friday.
17The witnesses who arrive here today, 18probably would not have been made aware of the 19existence of these documents or the intended use of 20these documents by New York until today.
21At this point we are not going to receive 22the documents in evidence. If, you know, although I 23do have to say although we're not receiving them into 24evidence, they have been submitted. And they have 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 to 2documents were marked as New York Exhibits No. 580 and 3581 for identification.)
4So you know, the information that's 5contained in that, is contained in the minds of the 6Members of the Board. Even though the documents are 7not received in evidence and would not be referred to 8specifically in any initial opinion that the Board 9would issue.
10The point made by Entergy in their reply 11is getting these this late, it just simply, not that 12these are not potentially relevant documents, but that 13Dr. Duquette could have brought this to the attention 14of Counsel for New York and Counsel for Entergy and 15the Board months, if not years ago.
16MR. SIPOS: Could I just respond briefly, 17Your Honor?
18I take your point about the volume of 19exhibits. I think there's more than 625 exhibits in 20Track 2. There have been several thousand documents 21disclosed, 580 and 581 I think, each are less than 30 22pages as I said. We disclosed them last week and 23Contention 38 you know is a few days off.
24We would again, the state would 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4777respectfully submit that we have tried to be collegial 1with Entergy on the documents that they have 2presented. There has been a steady stream of 3disclosures 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 documents 7that were submitted by Entergy last week and received, 8681, 682, 683, 689, 690, 729, these were all revised 9documents were they not?
10MR. SIPOS: Yes, they were to correct 11mistakes or discrepancies in the calculations 12apparently.
13CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, at this point this 14580 and 581 are not received. And having been late 15filed, if during the course of the hearing their 16relevance as opposed to cumulative effect becomes more 17relevant, the Board might reconsider. But at this 18point, the Board is you know, upset that at this late 19in the proceeding we're getting these documents 20offered into evidence.
21And given you know, reading through them 22it doesn't appear that any new ground is reached in 23them that cannot be discussed by Dr. Duquette and Dr.
24Lahey in their testimony and through the other 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, from 2the NRC staff is there any other administrative 3matters 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 other 11preliminaries. We've got a lot of people here and a 12lot of people speaking. Most of the testimony that 13has been received has been submitted jointly by 14several witnesses. When we ask a question in most 15instances, it will not be directed to a specific 16individual, although in some instances it will be.
17It will be for example, a witness 18addressed to New York right now, would be to Dr.
19Lahey, almost by default. Well, not almost. But to 20the others, would you please in answering a question, 21before you do, state your name. You can decide which 22one of you is going to be answering the question. But 23before you do, just state your name and say that this 24is Dr. Allen Hiser for the NRC staff. This is Mr.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 record 1who it is specifically who's making the 2representation.
3Likewise, if Counsel makes a statement, 4again to make it clear for the record, the Court 5Reporter's got a lot to do, he may not know all of you 6by face at this point in time, so please just state 7your name before you begin the statement and we'll 8move on from there.
9Okay that said, as I indicated what we 10wanted to do before we get into a lot of the substance 11raised by Contention 25 is to discuss generally some 12issues relating TLAAs and the GALL.
13Before we do that, Judge Kennedy, do you 14have 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 stated 20earlier, this is Judge Kennedy, I should follow the 21Chair's guidance. So this is Judge Kennedy. In 22looking over the contentions, the Board saw some 23common threads that went across more than one 24contention. So we have couple of leading edge issues 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 meat 1of any particular contention.
2You could argue, I drew the short straw.
3I have the first two overarching issues, which for 4want of a better characterization we called, 5compliance with GALL, and TLAAs versus AMPs.
6We're going to take up the compliance with 7GALL first. And I have a series of questions that 8I'll direct to either the staff or to Entergy, at 9least that's my initial first cut at it.
10I don't know who the best witness is, as 11Judge McDade has pointed out. I am under the 12presumption that the best witness is in the room, but 13if not, let's identify that and we'll deal with it.
14And so I will issue a question in the direction of 15either Entergy or the staff. And I'll leave it to you 16folks 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 a 19follow-up questions to the initial question, that they 20chime in, identifying themselves as we go. And pose 21any follow-up questions.
22Our hope is that by addressing some of 23these issues that go across more than one contention, 24that we can be a little more efficient as we address 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4781issues during each individual specific contention. I 1ask you to bear with us. Some of this ground may have 2been plowed under Track 1, if you all were here with 3us. But we thought it would be good for a complete 4record to try to revisit it and see how it all holds 5together today.
6And that in particular in the area of 7compliance with GALL. We did a lot of this under 8Contention Track 1, but I think we've amplified the 9questions and I think we're interested in putting 10together a consistent record at this time.
11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Kennedy, this is 12Judge McDade again. There was one other 13administrative matter that I forgot to raise and I 14apologize for the interruption.
15This is going to be a long hearing. We 16anticipate we're probably going to be going until 6 17o'clock or so this evening. We will probably be 18taking 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, let 21us know and we can arrange to take a break.
22The same goes for Counsel, although you 23know each party, most parties are represented by 24multiple people, so it may be possible for you know 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4782Counsel to step out and have their colleagues 1continue. But again, primarily for the witnesses, you 2know if for any reason you do need a break, let us 3know. And we will make arrangements for it. Judge 4Kennedy.5JUDGE KENNEDY: Taking a break, drink some 6water.7Let's start with compliance with GALL.
8Again from my perspective, the adequacy of individual 9aging management programs is at issue here in these 10contentions. So I thought it would be useful to just 11start some general discussion on GALL, compliance with 12GALL, and a number of side issues that go along with 13that.14It's my belief that in responding to 15challenges to the adequacy of a particular aging 16management program, to provide reasonable assurance 17that the effects of aging will be adequately managed 18so that the intended functions of components and scope 19for license renewal will be maintained consistent with 20the current licensing basis.
21For the period of extended operation, 22again embedded in the regs, the commission has 23concluded that an aging management program that is 24consistent with GALL provides the requisite assurance, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 does 2not take the applicant's word on this, but rather asks 3them to confirm that a particular program is 4consistent with GALL. So that's where I'm starting 5from and I'm going to go through a series of 6questions. But that's sort of the overarching 7hypothesis here. Is that, this consistence with GALL 8is an important issue in trying to deal with the 9adequacy of any particular aging management program.
10So let me first direct a question to 11Entergy, and we'll see how this works. You guys get 12to select. I'm interested in confirming what version 13of GALL was used to develop the license renewal 14application for Indian Point, Units 2 and 3?
15MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
16The version of GALL that was in effect when we 17developed the licensed renewal application at Union 18Point, was Rev 1.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: Rev 1 of GALL?
20MR. COX: Right.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: So then I guess to the 22staff, what version of GALL is used to review the 23application for the Indian Point license renewal?
24DR. HISER: This is Dr. Allen Hiser for 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 to 1review the Indian Point application because we issued 2Revision 2 of GALL in the midst of that review. We 3then directed requests for additional information to 4Entergy based on the operating experience that the 5staff had accumulated in developing Revision 2 of 6GALL.7So at that point, we had Indian Point 8address the operating experience that supported the 9changes in GALL Revision 2.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: And so, do I take that to 11mean that the, as you use the term "operating 12experience" in the interim between Rev 1 of GALL and 13Rev 2 of GALL was important information and needed to 14be addressed as part of the Indian Point license 15renewal application?
16DR. HISER: This is Dr. Allen Hiser again.
17JUDGE KENNEDY: Sorry, should have 18directed the question.
19DR. HISER: And yes, that is correct that 20the positions were addressed during the review of the 21license renewal application.
22JUDGE KENNEDY: Did that affect, Dr.
23Hiser, did that affect any of the aging management 24programs that are at issue here in these contentions 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 at 2least addressed or resulted in changes to the aging 3management program for reactor vessel internals. It's 4a very difficult, actually it's a very difficult 5question to answer because initially in Revision 1 of 6GALL, there was no AMP for reactor vessel internals.
7There was a commitment process that was used.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. I 9will probably, I'm sure we're going to get into that 10as we get into the specific contention.
11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Just if I could, this is 12Judge McDade. Dr. Hiser, we've heard that originally 13it was prepared, the license renewal application, 14looking at Revision 1 of GALL. Is it the position of 15the NRC staff that as we sit here today, the license 16renewal application as amended, is consistent with 17Revision 2 of GALL? Or is it in anyway inconsistent 18with Revision 2, or deficient pursuant to Revision 2?
19DR. HISER: I don't believe that we had 20done a full accounting of the differences between the 21license renewal application for Indian Point in 22Revision 2 of GALL. So from that perspective, I would 23say that the application is likely a hybrid. Portions 24that were not, that the staff did not direct requests 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4786for additional information to Entergy would still be 1consistent with Revision 1.
2Whether those are entirely consistent with 3Revision 2, I would expect that they are. But we did 4not make that comparison. What I can tell you is that 5the staff's review really is consistent with Revision 62 of the GALL report.
7And so the, and in terms of, the GALL 8report has certain positions that are advocated for 9aging management. And what we did with the request 10for additional information was to ensure that the 11operating experience that was reflected in GALL 12Revision 2, was accounted for by the applicant in its 13application.
14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, the Commission has 15determined that if an AMP is consistent with GALL that 16it is adequate. Is it the staff's position, the 17Commission position at this point, that in order for 18an AMP that we are reviewing today in November of 2015 19that it needs to be consistent with the current 20emendation of GALL, Revision 2?
21DR. HISER: Not entirely. I guess what I 22would say is that the GALL AMPs are not requirements.
23What is required is adequacy of aging managements, of 24aging effects for the, in this case, reactor vessel 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4787internals.
1In general, a plant, an applicant that 2indicates that it will implement a GALL AMP, after 3verification by the staff that they in effect are 4implementing the GALL AMP, there is a presumption that 5that provides reasonable assurance.
6Applicants may propose alternatives to the 7provisions that are in the GALL AMPs. And from that 8position 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 to 11bridge the operating experience and other differences 12between the two to ensure the adequacy of the proposed 13aging management by the applicant.
14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, thank you.
15JUDGE KENNEDY: So Dr. Hiser, I'm sensing 16some conscious determination on the part of the staff 17that as changes are made from GALL Rev 1 to GALL Rev 182 that if there was an ongoing, I guess sticking with 19the Indian Point Units, if there was some issues that 20were identified in that new information between Rev 1 21and Rev 2, how did the staff decide which, they'd have 22to go through all of the new information, all the 23applicable new information? How did you decide what 24to focus on?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4788DR. HISER: Well, the staff issued a 1Regulatory Issue Summary in 2014. I believe it was 22014 that identified the operating experience that 3formed the basis for changes to Rev 2 of the GALL 4report. And using that as a basis, we then evaluated 5license renewal applications that were on file at that 6point in time. And identified areas where we thought 7that the applicant needed to provide additional 8information.
9And after that review, then we issued REIs 10to, in this case, Indian Point.
11JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, just for the 12record. Is that an exhibit that has been entered for 13this proceeding? It doesn't sound familiar.
14DR. HISER: It may have been 2012, and I'd 15have to --
16JUDGE KENNEDY: I can give you some time 17to look that up. We can move forward and you can 18check on it. I'd be curious to know. I don't 19remember seeing that in the exhibit list. But it 20sounds 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. The 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4789regulatory information summary that Dr. Hiser refers 1to, didn't cover every single change between GALL Rev 21 and Rev 2. It did point out the areas that were 3considered most significant by the staff in Rev 2.
4And those were the areas that were the focus of the 5regulatory information summary and of the REIs that 6followed that.
7JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Cox is it fair to ask 8you, would it be your opinion that, or your testimony 9that the important issues identified in that 10regulatory information summary were addressed as REIs 11to 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 not 15responded to?
16MR. COX: That's correct. I'm not aware 17of any that were not. I'm not, I don't have all of 18them committed to memory but I'm not aware of any 19significant issues that were identified in the 20regulatory information summary that were not addressed 21through REIs.
22JUDGE KENNEDY: If a particular REI wasn't 23responded to, how would that evidence itself, I guess 24let's start with Mr. Cox since you were -- would there 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4790be a record of that? Are the responses to REIs 1tracked in a process that's transparent to the public?
2MR. COX: The responses to REIs are 3submitted 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 the 6current version, revision level of GALL?
7DR. HISER: Right now for the document 8overall, is Revision 2. There are certain issues, 9certain AMPs where we have supplemented the guidance 10in GALL through Interim Staff Guidance or LR-ISG 11documents. Reactor vessel internals is one case that 12that has occurred.
13JUDGE KENNEDY: Ultimately we would 14potentially see, that maybe Dr. Hiser, this isn't too 15speculative? Are we heading to a Rev 3 of GALL, is 16that how this seems to be working?
17DR. HISER: It's another difficult -- this 18is that one --
19JUDGE KENNEDY: That's fine. I'm not sure 20it's that important. I'm just curious if we've, it's 21been, this proceeding has been going on since 2007 and 22we've worked our way through at least one revision to 23GALL. I'm not sure if there weren't two, but it 24sounds like we started with Rev 1 and we're at Rev 2.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. The 2situation that we are with license renewal 3applications is such that Revision 3 would only apply 4to a handful of plants. And because we have Revision 52 with the supplements, with the ISGs, I don't believe 6the 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 for 11Entergy. Just the Regulatory Issue Summary that we 12were just talking about is RIS 2011-05. It's Entergy 13Exhibit 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 some 20different topics. Within, in looking at the license 21renewal application, it appears that the aging 22management programs are organized into, for want of a 23better term, "categories". And one of the categories 24appears to be, "Consistent with GALL". And again, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 start 2with Entergy first. What does it mean to be 3consistent with GALL? That term is difficult to grasp 4at least from my perspective. I guess I'll take 5anybody that wants to start. I think we're going to 6have some discussion on consistency.
7MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.
8I'll start with that question. When we say consistent 9with GALL, we are saying that we are doing, as you all 10described the program, if we say we're consistent with 11GALL, our program does the same things that the GALL 12program recommends.
13And we would have the same preventive 14actions, the same detection of aging effects, methods 15that are defined, the same acceptance criteria would 16be the same if we were going to say our program was 17consistent with GALL.
18If there are exceptions we would say it's 19consistent with GALL with exceptions and we would 20identify those exceptions.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I take that to mean 22if GALL has a specific acceptance criteria or a 23specific inspection criteria or methodology, to be 24consistent with GALL you'd have to use those criteria, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 substituted 3something, is that where you get into, you started to 4use the word enhancement or exception? What would be 5the process to move off of consistent with GALL?
6MR. COX: We took an exception to, let's 7say the acceptance criteria in GALL, we would propose 8an alternative acceptance criteria along with a 9technical justification for why that was an 10appropriate acceptance criteria to effectively manage 11the effects of aging.
12JUDGE KENNEDY: And that would be listed 13as an exception?
14MR. COX: That would be listed as an 15exception. The program descriptions in Appendix B of 16the license renewal application have a section where 17they identify whether there are exceptions to the 18program.19JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe to, Mr. Cox is 20you'd like to answer, what would then be an 21enhancement be, in the context of consistent with 22GALL?23MR. COX: In the context of consistency 24with GALL, an enhancement would be a change that if we 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4794had an existing program at Indian Point, and we 1determined that there was a particular aspect of that 2program that was not consistent with GALL, an 3enhancement would be a commitment to make a change in 4that 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 of 7a licensee declaring their aging management program is 8consistent with GALL?
9DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, what 10consistency with GALL means is that the applicant is 11implementing the program that is nearly identical to 12what is in the GALL.
13JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess that's the thing 14that, at least the Board is struggling with. That the 15word consistent has a definition. But when we have 16this discussion from a technical perspective, the -ly 17words start to creep in. We're trying to get our arms 18around how much latitude a licensee may have in, 19although still being consistent with GALL, could do it 20differently.
21In other words is there a, and I guess 22I'll try and just, Dr. Hiser, is there a delta around 23consistent such that if the delta gets too large it 24becomes an exception or an enhancement? I guess I'm 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4795really struggling with how much, I mean it's not 1verbatim. Is it verbatim compliance with what's in 2GALL? Is it word for word what's in GALL?
3DR. HISER: At one level it is. When an 4applicant identifies an AMP is consistent with GALL.
5We do an audit or an AMP consistency audit. And we go 6to the applicant site and we at one level compare 7their AMP to what's in GALL, word for word.
8If there are things that are missing then 9we discuss with the applicant why the difference 10exists. If it is a significant difference, and I 11think the delta really is very small, then we would 12ask them at REI, and pursue them justifying that. And 13maybe at that point that would be identified as an 14exception 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 applicant 20submitting an application does not need to have or 21even reference GALL with their AMP. But if they 22don't, then they have to demonstrate that the plan 23that they have will in fact adequately manage the 24effects of aging.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4796If in fact they take advantage of the GALL 1and they not only represent, but demonstrate that 2their AMP in fact is consi stent with all of the3parameters of GALL, then there is a presumption that 4the plan is adequate.
5On the other hand if they don't address or 6demonstrate that they are consistent with GALL, then 7they have to independently demonstrate the adequacy of 8the aging management. Am I correct in that regard?
9DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser, yes I 10would say that yes, you are correct.
11CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, now when you have 12a situation here with the hybrid, where submitted 13under Revision 1, reviewed in part under Revision 2.
14From our standpoint, it's not just a representation 15that it's consistent with GALL. Do we need to find 16that it's consistent with Revision 2 in order to have 17that presumption of adequacy?
18If it's not, if we can't find that it's 19consistent with Revision 2, do we have to aside from 20GALL, independently evaluate the adequacy of the aging 21management?
22DR. HISER: I guess what I would say is 23that if the determination is made that it is 24consistent with Revision 2 of GALL, then there's a 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4797presumption that it provides reasonable assurance. If 1we are unable to find that it is consistent with 2Revision 2 of GALL, then we w ould make a sort of on 3its own merits, evaluation of whether the program is 4adequate to provide reasonable assurance.
5So the consistency with GALL is one way to 6provide a presumption of reasonable assurance. If 7it's a plant specific program, we do have a more 8laborious process that we need to go through to 9demonstrate that it provides reasonable assurance.
10CHAIRMAN McDADE: And that's what you've 11done in SER Supplement 2, that in certain instances 12you'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, nevertheless 15provides adequate assurance of aging management. Is 16that correct?
17DR. HISER: Are you speaking specifically 18for the reactor vessel internals parameters?
19CHAIRMAN McDADE: Yes.
20DR. HISER: I guess I'd like to ask Jeff 21to address that.
22MR. POEHLER: Mr. Jeffrey Poehler for the 23NRC. Actually for the reactor internals aging 24management program submitted by Entergy, we used for 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4798guidance for the staff's review we used the Interim 1Staff Guidance related to reactor internals, 2LR-ISG-2011-04. And that --
3CHAIRMAN McDADE: Sorry, can you repeat 4the cite?
5MR. POEHLER: Yes, LR-ISG-2011-04. And 6basically that Interim Staff Guidance updated the 7guidance of GALL Revision 2, specifically related to 8reactor internals. Mostly just to recognize that the 9approved version of MRP-227-A had been issued in 2012.
10In practice there's not, there weren't a 11lot of changes from GALL Rev 2 in that guidance. So 12but we did use the, so that represented the most up-13to-date NRC guidance for reactor vessel internals. So 14that was what we used when we evaluated the ten 15elements of the aging management program for reactor 16internals.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: This is Judge Wardwell.
18Considering we opened this door, with Dr. Kennedy's 19permission, I'd like to explore this a little bit more 20as an example of the application of GALL.
21Mr. Cox, when you submitted your 22application for this license renewal, when dealing 23with the reactor vessels internals, what did you 24submit at the time of, in 2007? Because there was no 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 AMP 1in GALL 1 for reactor vessel internals. Is that 2correct?3MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
4That is correct. There was no AMP. There was 5direction in the, or guidance, recommendations, in the 6GALL report that said for reactor vessel internals an 7applicant should provide a commitment to participate 8in the industry efforts that were evaluating aging 9management of the vessel internals.
10And to implement the resulting programs 11and guidance that came out of that industry effort as 12part of, you know to manage the effects of aging on 13the vessel internals.
14It was essentially commitment, I believe 15it was Commitment 30 in Indian Point license renewal 16commitments that said we would follow that industry 17work and implement the results of that program.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: And so then I turn to NRC 19staff, Dr. Hiser or your partner, you reviewed the 20commitment then in regards to your initial approval.
21What happened subsequently when GALL 2 came out, was 22that you used this internal staff guidance to then 23measure their commitment with GALL 2? Or how did you 24review it?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4800DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. When the 1main driving force that created a change in GALL and 2with the Indian Point application, was the industry 3submittal of MRP-227 Rev 0 report. The staff review 4of that report and subsequent safety evaluation. And 5then the industry submittal of MRP-227-A report. That 6provided for the first time an acceptable aging 7management program for reactor vessel internals for 8PWRs.9Based on that the staff, actually prior to 10that issuance, the staff put into GALL Revision 2, an 11AMP for reactor vessels internals that we believed 12would be consistent with MRP-227-A. However, that was 13about a year before 227-A was submitted and based on 14that, we ended up putting together the LR-ISG that Mr.
15Poehler described.
16So that then the AMP for reactor vessel 17internals was consistent with MRP-227-A.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: Which in turn was 19consistent or mirrored what was in Rev 2 in regards to 20the AMP for vessel internals that was contained 21therein?22DR. HISER: Well at that point when we 23issued the LR-ISG that Mr. Poehler mentioned, that 24superseded the reactor vessel internals AMP that was 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4801in Revision 2 of GALL. So that became the staff 1position on what an acceptable aging management 2program was for reactor vessel internals, was conveyed 3through the LR-ISG.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: But still the, if a plant 5was doing it new now, they would look at still Rev 2 6of GALL and that AMP that's in Rev 2 of GALL. And 7then the guidance is how that AMP is really 8implemented. Is that correct?
9DR. HISER: I have to apologize because I 10get hung up with Revision 2 versus the ISG. The 11Revision 2 that is the printed book, that version of 12the AMP is no longer valid. The version that is in 13the LR-ISG, that is the official staff position.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: But that, so you're 15saying if I understand you correctly, GALL 2 at least 16in reactor vessel internals, the AMP that's contained 17therein has been modified and replaced by that which 18is contained in the ISG. Is that what you're saying?
19DR. HISER: That is correct. And there 20are several other AMPs that are similar to that, that 21there are LR-ISG documents that supersede the printed 22version of GALL Revision 2.
23CHAIRMAN McDADE: This is Judge McDade.
24I just want to before we move on, clarify something 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 can 2find it again, that's NRC document 114 A through F.
3So when we go later.
4What is the genesis of that? It's a 5material and reliability program. How was that 6generated?
7DR. HISER: That was generated from an 8almost decade long industry activity to develop aging 9management guidance for reactor vessel internals.
10CHAIRMAN McDADE: So it's an industry 11generated document?
12DR. HISER: Yes.
13CHAIRMAN McDADE: And then how is it used 14by the NRC in reviewing the adequacy of the plan, of 15the aging management?
16DR. HISER: Well it was used by the NRC 17first, after acceptance of the report through the MRP-18227-A designation. We use that as the basis for what 19we thought, what we consider to be an effective aging 20management 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 explain 1how this evolved. The Rev 1 of GALL report was issued 2in 2005. Indian Point submitted the initial license 3renewal application in 2007. I believe about 2009 the 4initial Rev 0 of the industry document, MRP-227 was 5issued. That initial version I believe, and Dr. Hiser 6can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that 7was the basis for the aging management program that 8was put into GALL Revision 2.
9It was a draft, it had not been through 10formal NRC review yet, but it was the closest thing 11that we had. So that became Rev 2. After NRC 12completed their review and accepted MRP-227 it was 13reissues as MRP-227-A.
14CHAIRMAN McDADE: That was what, December 15of 2011?16MR. COX: That's right. And then because 17it now, you know it provided things that were -- there 18weren't a lot of changes but there were some changes 19that were different from what Rev 0 had.
20The NRC issued the ISG to basically bring 21GALL Rev 2 up to date to what was in MRP-227-A as it 22was approved. So that was kind of the sequence of 23events that led to where we are now. So if we were 24doing a license renewal application today, like we're 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 looking 1at the ISG as the latest staff guidance for that 2particular reactor vessel aging management program.
3That's a little bit of the history, the 4time line of how that evolved to where we are today.
5CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and is that 6consistent with your recollection, Dr. Hiser?
7DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.
8CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, Judge Wardwell.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: When you've done your 10final review of, as you did your final review for 11reactor vessel internals, have you considered the 12review that's in the ISG as a, consistency with GALL 13as a consistency with GALL with additions, or 14enhancements, or as a site specific AMP?
15DR. HISER: We would consider an AMP that 16matches what is in the LR-ISG to be the consistent 17with GALL version.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you consider 19their, Entergy's AMP for reactor vessel internals to 20be one that is GALL 2? Or is a site specific one that 21you had to compare and evaluate the details of their 22program to see if it is consistent with GALL 2, which 23as it's been updated in the ISG?
24DR. HISER: I would say that it is one 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, that 2the Indian Point program was consistent with what was 3in the LR-ISG. We didn't just take their word for it 4that they said we are consistent with GALL. So you 5know we should, our program is acceptable.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Kennedy, will you 7move along please with the rest of this program?
8JUDGE KENNEDY: I'll try to get us moving 9here again.
10So does all of that, I guess this all 11started with the consistent with GALL discussion, and 12now we get to the reactor vessel internals which as I 13understand what Judge Wardwell was asking. He's 14really trying to ask is reactor vessel internals 15current aging management program that's been approved 16for Indian Point, viewed as consistent with GALL?
17And I thought I just heard you say, that 18it is. Is that what I heard, Dr. Hiser?
19DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, yes. It is 20consistent with GALL.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: So when Entergy writes 22their next application, they would list their reactor 23vessel internals as being a program consistent with 24GALL? And I'll let Dr. Cox, or Mr. Cox answer since 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Alan 2Cox for Entergy, we would say that they program was 3consistent with GALL as modified by ISG 2011-04.
4JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: And so you wouldn't 6consider it a plant specific GALL, it is a GALL, it is 7an AMP that's consistent with GALL 2?
8MR. COX: That's correct. For it to be a 9plant specific AMP, it would be an AMP that is not 10based on a industry wide guidance document. The ISG, 11while it's not, it's a revision to GALL, it's not 12actually GALL Rev 2. It is still a generic industry 13guidance document. So when you compare, it's not 14going to be plant specific. Because it's going to be 15compared to a generic document.
16MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 17Harris for the staff. The license renewal interim 18staff guide I believe that Mr. Poehler was referring 19to, is NRC Exhibit 214.
20JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you.
21Dr. Hiser, you may have already answered 22this question but in my opening remarks I indicated 23that the Commission expects the staff to not take the 24applicant at their word, but to verify that the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4807particular aging management program is consistent with 1GALL. How does the staff perform and document that 2verification or confirmation process?
3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The staff 4for AMPs that are consistent with GALL, performs an 5on-site audit at the applicant's facility. And we 6compare first of all their program, element by 7element, to what is in the GALL report. And then we 8also look at plant specific operating experience and 9things like that to verify that the AMP appropriately 10bounds the conditions at the plant.
11JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, is that audit 12process also cover AMPs that are not consistent with 13GALL? I mean is it, it's not, is it limited to a 14consistent with GALL aging management programs?
15DR. HISER: In general, it would cover 16AMPs that are consistent with GALL, and also programs 17that are consistent with enhancements, or with 18exceptions.
19The only case that it would not cover, 20would be a plant specific AMP.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: And where is this 22document? Did you, Dr. Hiser, did you let us know 23where this document --
24DR. HISER: It is documented in the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4808staff's audit reports. For Indian Point they were 1Exhibits within, that we cited within our testimony.
2JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, is that 3evidence itself at all in the Safety Evaluation Report 4for the Indian Point license renewal application?
5DR. HISER: Yes, that would be cited 6within the SER.
7JUDGE KENNEDY: So it is incorporated by 8reference. Is that, or is it, I mean is it --
9DR. HISER: It is, I believe there are 10critical elements are described in the SER. And then 11it is referenced within the SER.
12JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I guess moving 13away from consistent with GALL, let me try another 14couple of questions here.
15Within the Indian Point license renewal 16application, commitments for future actions are 17proposed. I guess I'm curious if the Board could hear 18from Entergy first, how these commitments are 19monitored and controlled from the licensee's 20perspective?
21Entergy first.
22MR. COX: I'll start, and if any of the 23plant folks have anything to add, they can add. This 24is Alan Cox for Entergy. But Entergy has a process 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 that 2system. It's essentially a database. Identify what 3the commitment is? When it has to be done? Who's 4responsible for doing it?
And then it would be 5tracked within that database to ensure that, if it 6gets accomplished as described and by the date by 7which it was due.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: So there's an internal 9plant process to control the regulatory commitments.
10How are they documented and I'll say tabled with the 11staff? I mean is the staff aware other than the 12application, what the level of commitment is and what 13it is?14MR. COX: Well it is, it's submitted with 15the letter, I mean the commitment is a written letter 16to the staff. You know so it is provided to them in 17a letter.
18Typically we would, if we had an REI that 19we responded to that resulted in a change to the 20commitment, we would update that commitment. And 21typically submit the entire commitment list associated 22with the license renewal application as an attachment 23to the letter that responded to that particular REI, 24or REIs.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4810JUDGE KENNEDY: So if Entergy completes 1one of these commitments. In other words they've, at 2least in the licensee's mind, they've completed the 3actions that they committed to do. How is that 4communicated to the staff?
5MR. COX: It's largely an internal 6documentation, except for license renewal, there is a 7provision to notify the NRC when we completed all of 8the commitments. There's not an individual 9notification for each commitment. But there is a 10notification that says we've completed all the 11commitments, or all the commitments that are due. For 12instance before the period of extended operation.
13I wouldn't want to say all, license no 14commitments because there's a few of them are not due 15until sometime after the PEO. But there is a 16notification to the staff before the PEO, that the 17commitments that are due before the PEO have been 18completed.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: And does that notification 20of the staff contain any details of the completion 21process? I mean is it literally just a letter that 22says at this point in time, we've completed all the 23commitments prior to, you entering the period of 24extended operation, or some example like that?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4811MR. COX: I believe it's not much more 1than that. It would be a list I believe that shows 2commitments that have been completed.
3MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 4for Entergy. If I could expand on this response just 5a little bit. I think it's worth noting that the NRC 6also has an inspection procedure that they implement 7to verify commitments prior to entering the extended 8period of operation. And they have inspection 9procedures during operation where they look at 10commitments. So they do get at that through the 11inspection process.
12The other thing I wanted to note with 13regard to the capturing, tracking, and enforcement of 14commitments is that it's my understanding that the 15staff plans to have a license condition that would 16require that the commitments be put into the updated 17final safety analysis report. So they will be 18incorporated in that report and tracked. And can only 19be modified under the provisions by which you can 20change that report, which is 50 59.
21JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you, sir.
22Maybe I'll open it up to the staff and if 23they themselves have anything to add to this process 24since they're a part of it?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4812DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Actually 1we have, the normal process that is followed is as Mr.
2Cox mentioned, applicants or license renewal holders 3at that point, would send us a letter that indicates 4they've completed their commitments prior to the plant 5entering the period of extended operation. We would 6implement an inspection by the region. It would 7verify that the completion of each of the commitments.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm curious about 9this license condition and about commitments and when 10that take place. Is that once the renewed licenses 11are granted? When does that process kick off? Where 12the commitments are incorporated into something like 13the UFSAR?
14DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Normally, 15well when the renewed license is issued is when the 16conditions apply to the plant. If we do not issue a 17license, there is no license condition because it's 18out of process at that point.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: So maybe Dr. Hiser, in the 20interim between I guess in this case, the extreme 21interval of when the license application was submitted 22and all the evolutions of commitments up until today.
23What is the process for tracking, monitoring 24commitments before this license condition evolution?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4813DR. HISER: The process would be that 1changes made to the application, and commitments are 2considered a part of the application, would be3submitted to the NRC as an amendment to the 4application.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Mr. Cox, how does 6that tie into your regulatory commitments? Are we 7talking about the same thing here? Or is there a 8subtlety here that may be missing, or I may be 9missing?10MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
11There is a, I guess you could make a commitment to 12the, I'm trying to describe the difference between the 13normal process and license renewal. There's really 14not a lot of difference.
15The license renewal application, the fact 16that that's under review adds another layer if you 17will, of review. Those commitments as Dr. Hiser 18indicated are submitted with the application as an 19amendment to the application. They're also still 20tracked internally in the database that I described 21earlier. It's the regulatory commitments, so you 22really kind of have a twofold process.
23The one thing I didn't mention earlier, is 24the internal regulatory commitment management process 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4814is based on an industry guidance that was developed by 1the Nuclear Energy Institute. I believe it's NEI 29904, which is an industry guideline on how to manage 3regulatory commitments. And that guideline, I believe 4is endorsed by the NRC staff.
5CHAIRMAN McDADE: If I could just to 6clarify in my own mind here, to make sure I understand 7it correctly. Dr. Hiser, what is the FSAR?
8DR. HISER: It's the Final Safety Analysis 9Report.10CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and how are the 11commitments incorporated into the FSAR?
12DR. HISER: They're incorporated as one of 13the appendices to the FSAR.
14CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, and how does that 15FSAR then relate to the ongoing current licensing 16basis?17DR. HISER: That is one part of the 18current licensing basis.
19CHAIRMAN McDADE: So these commitments are 20captured in the FSAR, which then in turn is captured 21in the CLB, which is the overarching document for the 22continued operation of the plant. Is that correct?
23DR. HISER: That is an overarching 24classification of documents for the plant.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4815CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, thank you. Judge 1Kennedy.2JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. I think I'm, 3I don't know where to direct this. Let's talk a 4little bit about Appendix A and Appendix B of the 5application. If I remember correctly, Appendix A 6contains aging management program descriptions. And 7there'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 and 10stuff 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 Indian 13Point aging management programs. Is that true?
14MR. COX: That's correct.
15JUDGE KENNEDY: And Appendix A to the 16license renewal application contains?
17MR. COX: Appendix A also contains 18descriptions of the programs. In some cases they're 19not as much detail as in Appendix B. It's a summary 20level of the program. It's intended to include all 21the key elements that are necessary to ensure that we 22have an effective program.
23In addition, Appendix A also has a 24discussion of the evaluation that was performed of the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4816time limited aging analysis for license renewal. And 1that 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 the 5entry 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 to 9mean the material that's placed in Appendix A is where 10the long lasting descriptions of the aging management 11programs are contained?
12MR. COX: Yes. That would be correct.
13JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's the material 14that, is that the material that is under some level of 15control then? What's the level of control over those 16descriptions if it makes it to the final safety 17analysis report?
18MR. COX: Well the final safety analysis 19report is indicated as a current licensing basis 20document. Changes to that can be made under 10 CFR 2150.59. If it meets those criteria in that part of the 22regulations.
23JUDGE KENNEDY: So the 10 CFR 50.59 24process would be the controls over changes to the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 I 3struggle with all the time. It's unclear to me, and 4I guess I'll start with the NRC staff. Why there's a 5difference between, there appears to be in reading in 6particular the Indian Point license renewal 7application, a difference between what's in Appendix 8A and what's in Appendix B. And I've always wondered 9why they weren't just a mirror of each other.
10I guess could you help enlighten the Board 11as to why that would be the case? Or what's the 12rationale and how does the staff determine that what's 13in Appendix A is acceptable?
14DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Appendix 15A is the UFSAR supplement that the applicant proposes 16to describe the aging management programs and TLAA 17resolutions. So that becomes a part of the current 18licensing basis.
19Appendix B provides a description of the 20AMPs, which for AMPs consistent with GALL tends to be 21a very short summary.
If there are exceptions, if 22there are enhancements, then those are described in 23Appendix B.
24Appendix B is more the information that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1adequacy of the AMP.
2Appendix A, the UFSAR supplement, is what 3will go into the UFSAR and provides the licensing 4basis description of the AMP that then is controlled 5through the 50.59 process.
6JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's the 7nexus of my problem. Is how do you determine what 8goes in the Appendix A documentation, which appears at 9least to me, to be under a level of control that's 10regulatory driven? And there's a lot of precedence on 11how it is to be handled, and it's transparent best as 12anything can be.
13So I struggle with how the staff 14determines what goes where. And if you could help 15enlighten us it would help me a bunch.
16DR. HISER: What goes into Appendix A, and 17into the UFSAR is what staff believes sufficient 18information to provide adequate control of the AMP.
19So we look for sufficient description of the program 20and the essential elements of the program such that 2150.59 would be an effective way to control changes to 22that.23JUDGE KENNEDY: Does that have any 24synergism with the GALL description? I'm trying to 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4819see you know a pathway from GALL which from one 1argument, if you did verbatim compliance with GALL, 2you'd have reasonable assurance. And then there's the 3Appendix B description which could capture that.
4And then Appendix A which puts that, some 5subset of that information, or all of it, under a 6level of control. I'm trying to really get 7comfortable 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 on 10the information?
11DR. HISER: As I said, Appendix B is what 12we review within the application. And the Commission 13determined that for AMPs, that applicant AMPs that are 14consistent with GALL, that the applicant could provide 15a very short description of what is in the AMP.
16The staff then performs an audit to verify 17that AMPs identified as consistent with GALL, we 18verify that they are in fact consistent, or identify 19discrepancies.
20Appendix A is just intended to provide 21enough information that the applicant, or at that 22point, license renewal holder, could not make 23significant changes to the program that could affect 24the effectiveness of the program. So it's to provide 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 I 2guess is what I'm trying to say.
3JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't want to put words 4in your mouth, but I heard you use the word 5effectiveness of the aging management program. Is 6that a level of the criteria that's being used to 7determine the sufficiency of material in Appendix A?
8DR. HISER: Well, when I said 9effectiveness, I guess I did not mean in a, sort of in 10detail by detail way. But more in an overall sense 11that the effectiveness of the program would not be 12compromised by changes.
13JUDGE KENNEDY: You can see what I'm, well 14maybe you can't. What I'm trying to get at is, I want 15to get to the answer of the question, is there 16sufficient, how do I convince myself there's 17sufficient material in Appendix A that all the right 18stuff is under a measure of control? That I at least 19perceive to be adequate? And I'm trying to figure out 20how the staff determines that?
21DR. HISER: Well, in part we do that by 22looking at prior applications, the level of detail 23that's provided in Appendix A. We also just make an 24engineering assessment of what is sufficient level of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4821detail. The applicant could put the entire ten 1element program into their FSAR. But we don't believe 2that that's necessary to do. We believe that would be 3excessive.
4JUDGE KENNEDY: Would I expect to find all 5the critically characteristics that have been 6displayed in Appendix B carried forward into Appendix 7A?8DR. HISER: I believe that our intent is 9to capture the things that we believe are critical in 10Appendix A.
11JUDGE KENNEDY: From the material that's 12in Appendix B?
13DR. HISER: Correct. Or in general about 14the program. Because again, Appendix B may not, it 15may be very, some overarching summary description. So 16we may actually have more detail in Appendix A in some 17cases.18JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
19MR. COX: Judge Kennedy. This is Alan 20Cox. I might add just a little bit to that. It might 21be helpful to look at the specifics for this 22particular program. If you look at Appendix A, it 23refers you to the MRP-227-A. There's not a lot of 24discussion in there but it does tie you to that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4822program.1If you go to the GALL report description 2in Appendix B, you would have, you go to the GALL 3report, or the ISG program that's referenced from 4Appendix B, you would find a lot of MRP information 5that's broken out into the individual ten elements of 6the program.
7So I guess the differences there, it's all 8incorporated in Appendix A as a reference to MRP-227-9A. You go to Appendix B, that's broken out and 10spelled out in more detail. But there's nothing new, 11there's nothing in Appendix B that's not covered under 12MRP-227-A, which is what Appendix A ties the Indian 13Point program to.
14MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 15for Entergy. I'd like to add a little b it to this 16too. And maybe if I can describe the overall 17framework for you.
18I think you need to recognize first the 19hierarchy of documents. So you have the updated final 20safety analysis report which is as Dr. Hiser 21indicated, includes that information that the NRC 22staff concludes is appropriate to show, demonstrate 23reasonable assurance.
24But you can imagine to implement that, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1way down to plant operating procedures. And it's not 2practical or necessary to put all of those in the 3updated FSAR.
4That said, part of your question if I 5understood it was related to control of, what controls 6is over all these documents then. And one of the 7things I wanted to point out when we mentioned 50.59 8earlier, is that the nuclear plant, when they go to 9make a change in a procedure, even some of these lower 10tier documents, they can't just unilaterally make that 11change without first looking at it to see if it needs 12to be evaluated under 50.59.
13So if it could potentially, if a change in 14a low level procedure, an implementation procedure, 15could change something that's as described in the 16updated final safety analysis report, then they need 17to put it through 50.59 evaluation.
18So all the way down to those implemented 19procedures, there is a strong level of control in 20terms of how they can be changed, and how they're 21managed.22JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's what I 23was concerned about. Depending on what level of 24detail you put in Appendix A, governs how broad the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 of 3detail to Appendix A. And I guess I'm going to ask 4Mr. Cox if that's what he intended to say?
5MR. COX: Yes, that's exactly what I was 6intending 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 these 10Appendix A write-ups, they seem somewhat devoid of 11detail. But if the intent is to incorporate by 12reference, or if the actual practice is incorporation 13by reference, I see this as a much broader set of 14controls.
15And I'm trying to look at it more say from 16New York State's perspective, who has concerns about 17how transparent this is to the public. And that to me 18goes right to the heart of what's in Appendix A.
19That's where it all starts. At least from my 20perspective.
21MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 22for Entergy. So I'm looking at Appendix A and it 23starts off saying, this program relies on 24implementation of MRP-227-A. It's called out 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4825specifically here that that's what the program is 1based on.
2JUDGE KENNEDY: That helps. Thank you.
3And with that, I don't have any additional questions 4on GALL. So I'll either turn it over to my colleagues 5if they have any follow-up questions.
6CHAIRMAN McDADE: I don't, not on this 7overarching issue.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: And then on behalf of all 9assembled, I'm wondering if it's time for a break? I 10have no idea what time it is, so.
11CHAIRMAN McDADE: It's about 1:30. Would 12a ten minute break be adequate? Does anyone require 13more than ten minutes?
14JUDGE KENNEDY: I think a ten minute break 15would be great.
16CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay, why don't we break 17now? We'll be back in ten minutes at 1:40.
18(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 19off the record at 1:29 p.m. and resumed at 1:43 p.m.)
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, we're back on the 21record. Okay, first of all, let me ask do any counsel 22have any matters to take up before we get back to 23taking testimony?
24MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris for the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 for 7Riverkeeper. No, Your Honor. Thank you.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Dr. Hiser, you have 9some clarification?
10DR. HISER: I have clarifications. One of 11them may make it more difficult to understand but it's 12more consistent with the record I guess.
13Initially the AMP that was submitted by 14the Applicant was submitted July 2010 as a plant-15specific AMP.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Now, is this all AMPs or 17you're referring to the reactor vessels?
18DR. HISER: Only reactor vessel internals, 19and what I will say for the next little bit is only 20for the reactor vessel internals program. So that 21program was submitted as a plant-specific program.
22Had ten elements. At that point GALL Revision 2 had 23not been issued, so that's why it was a plant-specific 24program.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4827JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's because GALL 11 didn't contain any AMP in it for reactor vessel 2internals. Is that correct?
3DR. HISER: That is correct.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
5DR. HISER: Yes. Let's see. Subsequent 6to that, we issued our Revision 2. Then through a 7letter, let's see, the Exhibit Number is NYS 496, 8which is Entergy Letter NL-12-037, they revised that 9plant-specific AMP, and although they did not say it 10was consistent with the LR-ISG, the staff realized 11that it, in effect, was consistent.
12MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler of the 13staff. Yes, well, in February 2012 the LR-ISG had not 14even been issued yet, but GALL Rev. 2 had been issued 15but the Applicant did not cite GALL Rev. 2 because it 16still referred to it as a plant-specific program but 17one that was, that they did claim consistency with the 18guidance in MRP-227-A.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Again, you said this 20letter 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 evaluate 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4828AMPs that are consistent with GALL and cited an audit 1and then an audit report that summarizes the results 2of the audit.
3Because of the sequencing, the timely 4sequencing of the AMP for reactor vessel internals for 5Indian Point, there is no AMP consistency audit 6report. Instead, the staff's evaluation is provided 7in SER, Supplement 2.
8There is an audit report that describes 9the staff's evaluation of some of the applicant action 10items and that is summarized in an audit report, so 11there is a report for that. I do not have the exhibit 12number for that right now but we could find that.
13MR. POEHLER: It was NRC Exhibit 216, 2 146.15JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's for this 16modified audit report, is that correct?
17MR. POEHLER: Right, and that audit 18report, it was limited in scope to some calculations 19that supported some of the plant-specific action items 20so it wasn't an overall, was not an overall audit of 21the program compliance, just limited, narrow aspects.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: And, Dr. Hiser, could you 23get me the locations, the citing within the various 24sections in case there's more than one in the SER 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4829where this is described for the reactor vessels 1internals? You don't have to do it now but get it for 2us later.
3DR. HISER: We'll do that. I guess the 4other thing that I wanted to clarify was regarding the 5Appendix A descriptions of AMPs.
6We have in the SRP-LR document, NUREG-71800, Rev. 2, we have descriptions of the AMPs that 8the staff uses as examples for what should be in 9Appendix A of the applications. So those are examples 10of what the staff considers to be sufficient 11information to assure adequate controls over the AMP.
12When the staff reviews the application, we 13compare what is in SRP-LR with Appendix A from the 14application to ascertain that the application is 15sufficient.
16JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Hiser, that makes me 17think of a question. So that's the standard review 18plan for license renewal that you're referencing?
19DR. HISER: That's correct.
20JUDGE KENNEDY: For these descriptive 21summaries?
22DR. HISER: That's correct. And in the 23case of this program, that SRP-LR discussion would be 24in the LR-ISG for the reactor vessel internals 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4830program.1JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. I guess what comes 2to mind is as GALL has evolved from Rev. 0 to Rev. 1 3to Rev. 2, has the standard review plan document 4changed accordingly and, if not, how do I interpret 5the value of that summary material for AMPs that have 6undergone significant change over time?
7DR. HISER: I have not done a comparison 8from Rev. 0, Rev. 1, Rev. 2. I know for the reactor 9vessel internals program, the FSAR supplement in Rev.
101 was a description of the commitment in effect, that 11the plant would participate in industry programs and 12then would implement the program that came out of 13those industry activities. Clearly then the LR-ISG 14provided a more robust description of the program.
15JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and let me just to 17make sure, as time sequence goes here, you're 18referring to the aging management audit report. That 19report is dated August of 2015, or is that, it says a 20submission date on it. Your index indicates October 21of 2014 but the report itself has a date of August 222015. I'm just trying to figure out for time sequence 23of where it fits in. Is it from October 2014 or 24August of 2015?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4831MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler from 1the staff. Are you referring to the Exhibit 216, NRC 2216 for the audit report?
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.
4MR. POEHLER: Yes, the audit itself was 5actually performed in 2013 I believe and --
6CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, it's indicated 7April of 2013 for the dates of the audit.
8MR. POEHLER: Right, and I think the 9actual audit report was possibly not issued until 10sometime in 2014 but I can't remember the exact dates 11but it was prior to the supplemental safety evaluation 12report being published.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Okay, and that 14would have been October of 2014, approximately?
15MR. POEHLER: Correct.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.
17JUDGE KENNEDY: R2 of the overarching 18questions. This is Judge Kennedy. Again, I drew the 19short straw.
20We'd like to entertain some discussion 21over time-limited aging analyses. Again, the 22testimony and the exhibits for a couple of these 23contentions, time-limited aging analyses seem to play 24a role and it occurred to us that it would be useful 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4832to have some general discussion before we start the 1contention-specific questions.
2Again, I'll try to address it, hopefully 3to a person this time but, if not, we'll try starting 4with organizational affiliations and work our way to 5specifics.
6Time-limited aging analysis, as I 7mentioned, play a role in the testimony for this Track 82 hearing and, for that reason, since it goes across 9a couple of contentions, we thought we'd start with 10it.11Let's start at the highest level and maybe 12start with Entergy. Could you describe for us what a 13time-limited aging analysis is in regard to the 14license renewal process?
15MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
16I could describe that. In general terms, there are 17some places in the testimony, I'm looking at the NRC 18staff testimony here, where they give a detailed 19discussion of it out of the --
20JUDGE KENNEDY: Are you looking at the 21response to Question 16?
22MR. COX: I am.
23JUDGE KENNEDY: If possible, Mr. Welkie, 24could you put up Page 23 from NRC 197, and hopefully 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 as 2well put it up. Sorry, did I give you the wrong page 3number?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 like 10to use this in answering the TLA question, Mr. Cox?
11MR. COX: Sure.
This is Alan Cox with 12Entergy. As it says here on the screen, a TLAA is an 13analysis that meets these six criteria that are listed 14here.15The first is it has to involve system 16structures or components that are within the scope of 17license renewal. The second considers the effects of 18aging. The third, it involves time-limited 19assumptions defined by the current operating term, for 20example, 40 years. The fourth is the analysis was 21determined to be relevant by the licensee in making a 22safety determination.
23Criteria five involves conclusions or 24provides the basis for conclusions related to the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4834capability of the SSC, system, structure, or 1component, to perform its intended function as 2identified in 10 CFR 54.4 bravo. And lastly, it has 3to be contained or incorporated by reference in the 4plant's current licensing basis.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: Now let's look at a couple 6of these. Can we leave that up there, Mr. Welkie?
7Looking at Number 3 in this list here of 8characteristics of a time-limited aging, "involved 9time-limited assumptions." Mr. Cox, what is that 10referring to and if you would have an example it would 11be useful.
12MR. COX: Most of the TLAAs are involved 13in these contentions and the Track 2 contentions are 14involving fatigue analyses.
15Fatigue analyses are based on a number of 16cycles. The numbers of cycles that are used in those 17analyses are estimates or assumptions that are 18considered to be based on what numbers would be 19anticipated 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 of 22cycles that is based on a 40-year operating period.
23JUDGE KENNEDY: And the Bullet Number 6, 24"are contained or incorporated by reference in the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4835current licensing basis." If I turn that around, if 1it 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 the 4way I would read that sixth criteria.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: So do I take that further?
6Does that mean that TLAAs are not performed as part of 7license renewal? They're contained somewhere else?
8MR. COX: Let me try to clarify that a 9little bit. The TLAA is an existing analysis so it 10would not be performed for a license renewal. The 11license renewal rule requires an evaluation of the 12TLAAs, which is what's discussed in the next paragraph 13here of this page.
14So the TLAA itself is an existing 15analysis. The evaluation is required for license 16renewal, which may involve a revision of that analysis 17to extend the time period for which it's applicable.
18JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's go through these 19little I, little two I, little, I, ii, and iii. So a 20TLAA fits in one of those bins, I, ii, or iii? Is 21that the way I should think of this?
22MR. COX: The evaluation of TLAAs has to 23be, has to demonstrate that you meet one of those 24three options.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4836JUDGE KENNEDY: And you only meet one of 1them? Are they mutually exclusive? So if a TLAA fits 2in Bucket 1, you're done?
3MR. COX: I think in general that's true.
4There is, you know, some variations. For example, we 5could say that if we do a fatigue analysis that says 6a component was good for 40 years or for 60 years, 7maybe looked at the additional 20 years of operation 8in that same analysis, maybe based on the number of 9transients that we're experiencing, we are not going 10to exceed that assumed number in 60 years.
11We could look at that and say, well, that 12TLAA is valid for the period of extended operation in 13accordance with the single I there.
14What we do, we actually take it a little 15bit further than that. Because those are estimates, 16projections are not actionable. I mean, it's not 17truly based on a calendar. When you get to the end of 1860 years, you don't know that you've met those 19assumptions.
It depends on how fast, you know, it 20depends on the rate of accrual of the transient.
21So we have credited, for the fatigue 22TLAAs, we also credit, or in lieu of single I, we 23credit triple I. We credit the fatigue monitoring 24program, primarily as a way to monitor the number of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4837transients that are occurring as you operate the plant 1to make sure that we don't exceed those numbers that 2were assumed at the end of the, for the end of the 3period of extended operation.
4JUDGE KENNEDY: So using that example, I 5guess when I first looked at this I came away with the 6sense that if it fell into the first bucket, that 7aging management wouldn't be part of the process.
8MR. COX: I think, in general, in the 9purest sense of the word, that would be true but, like 10I said, this case, it's not, you know, the number of 11transients is not strictly a function of how long you 12operate the plant. It's an estimate based on what's 13expected during a typical operating cycle.
14And because there are variations from 15plant to plant as far as how well the plant is 16operated and how many transients you incur, we've 17credited the program to monitor those occurrences to 18make sure the assumptions remain valid for the 60-year 19period.20JUDGE KENNEDY: And you use the example of 21metal fatigue I guess, and so this is the cumulative 22usage factor calculation. Is that what falls into 23this?24MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4838JUDGE KENNEDY: And so I thought I heard 1you say that even though it maybe would be valid for 2the period of extended operation, you really, the 3application considers it more of a third bullet?
4MR. COX: That's correct.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's actually, even 6though it's projected to remain valid for the period 7of extended operation, it is within an aging 8management program. Is that the way I should take 9that?10MR. COX: That's correct. For the fatigue 11analyses, that is true. It's a little bit of a hybrid 12because it is, it's not purely based on the number of 13years but it is based on the number of transients that 14are experienced.
15JUDGE KENNEDY: What does it mean to be 16projected to the end of the period of extended 17operation and what's a good example of that type of 18TLAA, or time-limited aging analysis?
19MR. COX: I guess if we used fatigue 20analysis as an example, if we had an analysis that 21said you're going to -- Let's just pick a number.
22Let's say you could have 100 heat-ups and cool-downs 23in the analysis and your TLAA or your CUF would still 24be valid at the end of the period of extended 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4839operation.
1If you determined that 100 was a valid 2number that you would not expect to exceed after 60 3years of operation, you could say that was a single I.
4If you saw, based on your operating 5history, that you're probably going to go up to 120 6heat-ups and cool-downs at the end of 60 years, then 7you would redo that analysis to use 120 cycles instead 8of 100 and you could say that you have projected the 9analysis to the end of the period of extended 10operation.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: That doesn't make much 12sense to me. It sounds like both were projections.
13I don't see how you get a single I. Aren't you still 14projecting? You just made a different assumption in 15your projection.
16DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I guess 17the difference is in the first one your projection 18validates the current analysis of record, so it 19validates the adequacy of the COB analysis.
20If the projection, as Mr. Cox mentioned, 21indicates that the value will go higher, so your 22assumptions are no longer valid, then double I 23indicates that you would have to reevaluate that 24analysis to demonstrate that it still is accurate.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4840JUDGE WARDWELL: Explain to me again how 1with fatigue a TLAA could possibly fall within I 2because it seemed to me we'll be always projecting, as 3Mr. Cox said, the number of transients, not the time 4of years.
5It's not important, the time of years.
6It's the number of transients. So it's a rate of 7transients 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 projections 11but in the first case, the single I, you're not 12revising the analysis to incorporate a different 13projection. You've done the work outside of the 14analysis to project the number of transients and, 15based on that projection, that analysis remains valid 16without revision.
17But if you read the words, it says "the 18analysis is projected." That's not to say, you know, 19on single I analysis remains valid based on your 20projection of the transients but you're not changing 21the analysis.
22In the second one, you're actually doing 23a projection of the analysis to use a different number 24based on projection of the number of cycles.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4841JUDGE WARDWELL: So the analysis you're 1referring to is not the calculation that was done in 2the TLAA but the analysis of the TLAA? Is that what 3you were saying?
4MR. COX: The analysis that's done in the 5TLAA is looking at, in my first example it would say 6100 heat-ups and cool-downs. That's in the analysis.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, where did this 100 8come from? We're going to have to jump me right back 9down because as soon as you start saying that I got to 10know where did -- Okay, here we are. You're preparing 11your 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 could 16interrupt here because I'm getting more confused 17rather than, you know, more clear on this.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: So you interrupting is 19going to help us?
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: We need help.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: For Mr. Cox, as you 23answer the question -- Correct my misinformation and 24my misconception here. I had viewed I as the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4842situation where you anticipated there'd be 100 1transients.
2ii is a situation where you look at it and 3you determine in the period of extended operation 4there won't be 100 transients but there'll be 200 5transients. So you now have to project given the 6increased number of transients in the period of 7extended operation. Have I just --
8MR. COX: Yes, let me start that.
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Explain how I got so far 10off the path.
11MR. COX: The TLAAs that we're talking 12about, if we talked about the first one on the -- You 13know, and the 100 number, Judge Wardwell, is a 14hypothetical number. That's what I just made up.
15So assuming that the analysis evaluated 16100 transient, that analysis was done probably during 17the initial plant design, so that was done 35 years 18ago and it's an assumption.
19So we look at the projection of cycles 20based on operating history and we say at the end of 60 21years I'm still going to be less than 100. That 22original analysis does not change. It's still valid 23for the period of extended operation.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: Hold right here. So what 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4843you said is at this point your analysis that you 1conducted during the design or even subsequently 2during operations up to this point, up to the original 3licensing date, that's the end of your license, 4current license, you had always used 100.
5And at this point in time, if you look 6forward to license renewal and determine that it was 7still going to be less than 100, then it would be an 8I.9MR. COX: That's correct.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, great. Now, I'll 11move ahead. Yes, good.
12So now, under ii, all you did is now at 13that same point in time while you're preparing your 14license application, you now say, oh, gee, it's going 15to go up to 160. That would be a double I.
16MR. COX: Right, that would require a 17revision or a projection of that analysis. That 18original analysis is no longer going to remain valid 19for the 60-year period. It's going to have to be 20revised. We're going to have to calculate a new 21cumulative usage factor and we're going to have to 22show that it still remains less than one.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: And if it does, if this 24wasn't a fatigue example, you would be off the hook 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4844from doing aging management, right? Either I or 1double I took place.
2MR. COX: Right, you would essentially 3have an analysis that says for this 60-year period 4this particular aging effect is not an aging effect 5requiring management.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: But with fatigue that's 7a special case where you actually are doing it because 8you just don't know how many transients. It's always 9going to be an unknown. It's not based on years.
10It's just based on how many of these you happen to 11have and it could be a wrong projection.
12MR. COX: That's correct.
13MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 14for Entergy. I'd just like to suggest that this 15conversation, to me, demonstrates exactly why it makes 16sense to manage fatigue through an aging management 17program, which is what Entergy is doing, meaning that 18they will be looking at the number of cycles and 19making sure that it meets their analysis.
20So they have chosen Option 3 and it makes 21sense for the reasons that you're talking about. The 22simple example, if I could --
23JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me interject 24because we're interested in questioning and, as your 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 and 1double i's and triple i's, why don't we just jump to 2aging management for everything we do?
3MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 4for Entergy. If I could just finish my comment there.
5The example I was going to give, which is not related 6to these contentions, but consider, if you will, a 7piece of equipment that's qualified for a 20-year life 8and then it has to be replaced.
9That doesn't fall in the, I guess in the 10scope of license renewal perhaps, but if you have 11something like that, you can't look at it and say this 12is going to be good for 60 years. I know that I have 13to do something earlier, but.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Cox, would you have 15a comment on why would we bother with i and double i?
16MR. COX: Well, again, I think in this 17case, in the case of fatigue analyses, it's important 18to recognize that it's not strictly based on the 19calendar.
20If you had another kind of analysis --
21Let's say you had a corrosion rate that you knew was 22going to be a constant every year for 60 years and in 23that case you could say if I apply that corrosion rate 24for 60 years I still meet the acceptance criteria. I 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4846projected the analysis. It still shows I have 1adequate minimum wall thickness. So in that case, the 2single i or the double i would be applicable.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: Have any of the pieces of 4equipment or system structures or components that do 5qualify for license renewal been screened out based on 6TLAAs, i.e., as falling under i or double i knowledge?
7MR. COX: Yes, that's not quite the same 8as screened out. In screened out, we would consider 9that to be where you apply the criteria of whether 10it's active or passive or long-lived or short-lived.
11But as far as TLAAs go, there are TLAAs 12described in the license renewal application that have 13been demonstrated acceptable in accordance with the 14single i or the double i.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: That's a better way to 16word it than the screening. Thank you.
17MR. COX: Embrittlement TLAAs on the 18reactor vessel is a good example. Those are typically 19projected. You reevaluate, recalculate the fluence 20expected at the end of 60 years and you show that the 21associated embrittlement analyses are going to be 22valid at 60 years in accordance with the double i.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And those are items such 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4847as, like, the upper support plate assembly, the upper 1core plate, the core barrel. Is that what you're 2talking about?
3MR. COX: No, what I was talking about in 4that last example is the actual reactor vessel itself, 5not the internals but the reactor vessel that's 6subject to the upper-shelf energy requirements in 10 7CFR, what is it, 50.60?
8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, but what about the 9reactor vessel internals? There are reactor vessel 10internals 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 going 16to get to that, so let me defer.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: In excruciating detail 18I'm afraid, though I am looking forward to it. The 19audience, I think, is even more excited than me.
20JUDGE KENNEDY: So going back to i and ii, 21did I understand, using the example of embrittlement 22or the reactor vessel itself, if that fell in either 23i or ii, would that mean it's not subject to aging 24management?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4848MR. COX: It would mean that that 1particular aging effect does not require an aging 2management program.
3JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And that's why, at 4least it sounded to me like that's why this has these 5categories, so that you could bin them. It sounds 6like what you just testified, that -- Under metal 7fatigue, even though i or ii may be a calculation that 8has either been done before or redone, it would still 9be managed for aging or at least monitored for cycles.
10MR. COX: That's correct and it's not, I 11mean, it's not actually managing the aging effect 12directly as much as it is monitoring the numbers of 13transients that are assumptions in the analyses to 14make 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 that 20done somewhere else? The little i.
21MR. COX: Those calculations or those 22projections would be done as part of the evaluation of 23TLAAs for license renewal.
24JUDGE KENNEDY: For license renewal.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4849Okay.1Going back to cumulative usage factors, is 2every cumulative usage factor a TLAA?
3MR. COX: I would say the analysis that 4calculated the cumulative usage factor would be a 5TLAA.6JUDGE KENNEDY: And I think that's, I have 7my own internal confusion over that terminology and it 8shows up when I read the testimony. Maybe you could 9amplify that a little bit so we can get some clarity 10to what a CUF, which sounds like a calculation, and a 11TLAA, which is a calculation, and what's the 12relationship between those two?
13MR. COX: Okay. The CUF is the result of 14the fatigue calculation. Fatigue calculation, which 15is the TLAA, calculates the cumulative usage factor, 16compares that to the acceptance criteria, which is 171.0, and that's how you would determine whether that 18calculation is valid. So the CUF is a product of a 19TLAA or a fatigue analysis, which is a TLAA.
20JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that saying I wasn't 21confused, that they are the same thing?
22MR. COX: I mean, it's a subtle 23difference. It's the analysis in one case and it's 24the result of the analysis. The CUF is a result of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4850the TLAA.
1JUDGE KENNEDY: I think the reason I'm 2spending a little bit of time on it, maybe more than 3I should, but in some of the responses to the 4testimony under the contentions it seems like there's 5an attempt to put some of this out of reach as being 6within the current licensing basis and not being done 7as part of license renewal and I'm trying to find 8where that line is.
9It would seem to me in metal fatigue that 10they're all in. I guess that's what it looked to me 11like. They were all calculations that were needed for 12license renewal and part of the license renewal 13process.14MR. COX: Yes, this is Alan Cox again with 15Entergy. Let's take the single i example or case for 16an example. You have an analysis that's based on an 17example I used, 100 heat-ups and cool-downs. Okay, 18that's a current licensing basis analysis. That was 19done as part of the plant design.
20So we're not changing any of the 21assumptions. We're not changing anything about that 22analysis. All we're doing is evaluating that analysis 23to see if it remains valid for the period of extended 24operation by looking at the operating history of the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 any 2references to saying that's part of the current 3licensing basis, is that those assumptions and the way 4you calculated fatigue is all defined in the current 5licensing basis. We're not changing that for that 6particular calculation.
7You know, so that's why we're saying it's 8CLB. It's not part of license renewal. It's not 9changed due to license renewal.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: So the single i items 11would be viewed as current licensing basis and not 12challengeable within a license renewal proceeding?
13MR. COX: Yes and, again, it's a little 14bit of a hybrid here because we're saying that even 15for the single i we're using the program to manage the 16number of cycles but we're still not touching the 17original analysis or changing, you know, even on a 18double ii we're not changing necessarily the methods 19that are used to calculate fatigue from what's defined 20in the current licensing basis by references to the 21applicable parts of the ASME Code, for example.
22JUDGE KENNEDY: Would the double ii CUFs 23be challengeable as part of or subject to challenge as 24part of the license renewal proceeding? I mean, is 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 or 1single i versus double ii as being the boundary even 2though they're -- I think Dr. Hiser seems to want to 3say something here. We'll get to you. We'll see if 4they got a --
5MR. COX: In my opinion on this, even if 6you changed the calculation, if you still followed 7procedures and processes that were established as part 8of the CLB, those processes and procedures would not 9be subject to challenge as part of license renewal.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that the same as saying 11the CUF values would not be challengeable, whether 12they're single i or double i?
13MR. COX: I think the result of the 14calculation would be the CUF values that you're 15referring to and I think that would be the conclusion 16that I would reach, is that those are not subject to 17challenge because they are done using the same methods 18that were established as part of the CLB.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you, Mr.
20Cox. Dr. Hiser, would you like to add to this 21discussion? I know it's not your application but --
22DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Actually 23I would say the NRC would consider any TLAA to be 24challengeable, whether it's single i, double i, or 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4853triple i, because the applicant must make certain 1assumptions and evaluations as a part of that 2determination and clearly those would be, you know, we 3challenge them as we review the application and so 4from that perspective I think they certainly would be 5subject to challenge.
6Now, I mean, just to be clear, the 7methodology used to do the calculation, to do the 8analysis, would not be subject to challenge.
9The input value of, in using Mr. Cox's 10examples of heat-up and cool-down cycles, that would 11be where the challenge really would be because the 12methodology is current licensing basis and that is not 13challenged.
14The time-limited aspect of the analysis, 15which would be the input heat-up and cool-down number 16of cycles, that would be the part that would be 17subject to challenge in this case.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Dr. Hiser, and, 19again, I just want to make sure I'm hearing what 20you're saying.
21Under i, the method isn't challengeable 22but if they're saying initially it's good for 100 23cycles, they have to demonstrate that it's not going 24to exceed 100 cycles during the period of original and 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 to 2exceed 100 cycles during the period of extended 3operation, then you go to double i and make a 4determination as to whether or not the analysis 5demonstrates that with the additional cycles it will 6remain, you know, valid, using this CUF that it'll 7still be below one as an example. Am I correctly 8understanding what you're saying?
9DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you.
11JUDGE KENNEDY: With that, I have no 12further questions on TLAAs. My board mates may have 13some.14JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not sure I heard, 15I'll ask Dr. Hiser again just to make sure I heard 16this last bit correctly. Would the initial 100 17transient cycles be challengeable also? You may have 18answered that but, if not, I want to make sure that is 19answered.
20DR. HISER: The origi nal 100 in the 21original analysis would not be. The demonstration 22under single i that the number of expected transients 23will remain below 100, that would be challengeable.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: That's what I meant to 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 with 2Entergy. I might add to that, for the case of fatigue 3analyses, that's the reason why we credit the triple 4i. We credit the fatigue monitoring program because 5that's what we're going to use to make sure that that 6100 number does remain valid and is a good projection.
7DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. Just to 8clarify one thing as well, the fatigue monitoring 9program is required in the tech specs by the 10applicant, so that program is there regardless of 11license renewal or regardless of TLAAs. The plant is 12required to monitor transients and compare with 13assumptions that are listed in the tech specs as well.
14So this is one situation, as Mr. Cox 15mentioned, that they can demonstrate, using single i 16or double i, that the analysis is acceptable, but they 17still are required by tech specs to continue to verify 18that those assumptions are still met.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it fair to say 20they're more than assumptions too? I mean, they are 21estimates based on some operating experience or 22evaluation or --
23DR. HISER: You know, they really are 24projections. In the case of fatigue cycles, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4856applicants will determine the number of cycles up to 1some point in time.
2Normally around the date that they submit 3the application, they will evaluate the trends from 4that and then project forward what they expect to be 5the case at 60 years, so it is a projection.
6I guess assumption I took in the manner of 7an analysis has certain assumptions. Maybe input 8value is what I should have used, that that input 9value is what is used in the analysis.
10MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.
11I guess one more point of clarification on that, at 12the time these analyses were first performed back in 13the early '70s they were estimates. There wasn't a 14lot of operating history you could use to project what 15you're going to have after 40 years. Nobody had been 16operating for that long. There was very little 17operating experience to go by so, in essence, they 18were --19JUDGE WARDWELL: True --
20MR. COX: -- educated guesses about or 21estimates about what cycles would be necessary to 22qualify that component.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Good point.
24JUDGE KENNEDY: I ceded the floor, sir.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4857JUDGE WARDWELL: So I think now we're 1going to move on to our first contention that we're 2going to address. That's Contention 25.
3Couple little introductory comments I 4might make before we get started here. We've read all 5the testimony so we're familiar with what you've 6offered.7Generated some questions to help clarify 8some of what we read. Many times I'll be asking, and 9other judges will too I'm sure, yes/no questions.
10We're not trying to trick you.
11Oh first of all, the entire panel for 25 12ceded? 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/no 15questions. More often than not, it is just a question 16to help confirm what we understood you were saying or 17advocating within the, usually, in my case, on 18something I'm going to quote out of your testimony.
19Don't think you need to elaborate on those 20yes/no's. Just answer them as yes and no and, as part 21of that, I'll let you know the topics I'm planning to 22cover so that you can be comforted that, yes, you 23don't have to cover everything right now with these 24yes/no questions. There will be times to elaborate 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 point 2mostly with some of those and, just for time 3constraints, try to stay with yes or no because 4usually it's just trying to fix an obvious point more 5often than not.
6Sometimes I may interrupt you in your 7response. Don't be crushed. Don't take it 8personally. More often than not it's because I wasn't 9clear with my question.
10And if I find that you're wandering off, 11I can see that obviously I haven't made myself clear 12so I want to interrupt you and try to ask it another 13way to bring you back to where I'm trying to go with 14this to help complete the record, which is what I'm 15trying to do with these questions that I have on 25.
16Also, I'd like to hold down any offers to 17provide additional testimony from other witnesses 18besides the ones that I am questioning. You know, if, 19in fact, we're confused, we certainly will ask for 20that.21If you have a burning desire -- And, 22again, this is for time constraints because otherwise 23we'd be here for a long time and some of the times I 24think with Track 1 we did get too much off course with 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 you 2just, and this is I just have too much to offer here 3that I cannot sit still, well, jot it down and get it 4to your counsel and they'll be able to offer it as 5questions at the end of each of these sessions to 6offer those up and then we can look at them and say, 7oh, yes, gee, we should have asked that so that we 8will 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 might 12have a burning desire to offer, but we will generally 13ask the additional questions we need if we're confused 14as we go along here and that will allow us to do it 15the most efficiently.
16Under 25, I'll just read a synopsis, one 17of the synopses that I saw offered and get everyone 18familiar again with what we're covering here. Twenty-19five says that "Entergy's license renewal application 20does not include an adequate plan to monitor and 21manage the effects of aging due to embrittlement of 22the reactor pressure vessels and the associated 23internals."
24New York State submitted a declaration in 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4860support of the additional bases identifying concerns 1with, among other things, that declaration discussing 2the synergistic effects of embrittlement and fatigue 3and efficiencies in the visual and remote examination 4techniques that Entergy and industry had proposed to 5employ as part of the aging management program for the 6embrittlement of reactor internals.
7As part of this, I will be asking 8questions and discussing just the general adequacy of 9these AMPs, you know, related to the reactor pressure 10vessel and the internals. Talk then about synergistic 11degradation. Follow that up with talking about the 12full range of transient shock loads that may or may 13not influence that degradation. Discuss the 14adequacies of inspections, and then finish it up with 15preventive actions, corrective actions and acceptance 16criteria, so that's where we're going with this.
17And with that, I think I'll start off with 18talking about the general adequacy of the AMP and 19reference to start with Entergy's Exhibit 616.
20Oh and by the way, all my references are 21to non-public documents. I don't believe I've asked 22any questions, relayed anything that had been redacted 23by the various parties within those testimonies.
24So if we do pull up an exhibit, it will be 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 process 1as we pull up any testimony that we may want to ask a 2question about and then we'll proceed from there on 3how 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 and 6various answers from your testimony the public version 7of it, the non-public version of it, I'm sorry, in 8regards to, although I don't think the page numbers 9change but I just wanted to reference that anyhow.
10So Entergy's Exhibit 616, testimony for 11Question and Answer 51 on Page 27, the question and 12answer on Page 55 for 29, and the question and answer 13for 64 on Page 33 where within those sections --
14And you don't have to look them up. I'm 15going to read to you what I'm interested in and that's 16the case here in all of these. I'll be reading what 17I'm interested in and then ask questions about that.
18So it's better just listen for now, and then if you 19need to see it, we can call it up.
20But within those groups of areas, Entergy 21notes that while State's initial pleadings in 2007 on 22this contention focused primarily on the reactor 23pressure vessel rather than the reactor vessel 24internals, following the admission of Contention New 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4862York State 25, Entergy submitted several reactor 1vessel-related amendments to clarify its license 2renewal application, revise the description of how 3Entergy would address the then proposed alternative 4pressurized thermal shock, or the PTS rule, and noted 5the closure of certain reactor pressure vessel-related 6commitments.
7The State, however, has never amended New 8York State 25 to address or challenge these updates.
9This is, again, Entergy's statement, not mine.
10Going on with Entergy's statement, they 11say that, instead, the State has shifted its focus to 12reactor vessel internals.
13Specifically, in Entergy's opinion, in Dr.
14Lahey's pre-file testimony and the State's statements 15of position on this contention, Dr. Lahey and the 16State do not allege any specific deficiencies in 17Entergy's license renewal application regarding 18reactor pressure vessels.
19And I'll start off with Entergy and ask 20are the AMPs for the reactor vessel internals and the 21reactor pressure vessels one and the same or are they 22covered by different AMPs?
23MR. KUYLER: Your Honor, if I may, this is 24Ray Kuyler for Entergy. I believe Your Honor has been 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4863reading from the Statement of Position, the legal 1brief that Entergy submitted, rather than our witness 2testimony.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: I think the question and 4answers on Page 51 of 27 and 55 of 29 and 64 of 33 5cover those same topics. This wasn't a quote. This 6was 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 question 9one more time, Your Honor?
10JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, I'm interested in 11are the, is the reactor pressure vessel covered by the 12same AMP as the reactor vessel internals?
13MR. COX: No, it's not.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you. NRC 15statement, Testimony 197, Answer 10 to Page 20 states, 16quote, this is the NRC speaking, "The reactor vessel 17internals also do not include any pressure or boundary 18component such as reactor pressure vessels. These 19components are addressed in other programs," which 20seem to support Entergy's answer that we just 21received.
22Entergy's Testimony Exhibit 616, Answer 2364, Pages 33 to 34, and this I will quote, says that 24"with regard to the reactor pressure vessels, Dr.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4864Lahey briefly alludes to some of his prior claims 1regarding the reactor pressure vessel when he refers 2to the, quote, 'variance' that was, quote, 'endorsed' 3by the ACRS to permit continued operation with reactor 4pressure vessels end-of-life Charpy upper-shelf USE, 5and I believe that's the capital U, capital S, capital 6E, values that are less than 50 foot pounds.
7In his 2015 testimony, Dr. Lahey also 8refers to certain documents discussing branch 9technical position regarding the initial fracture 10toughness of reactor pressure vessel materials, 11suggesting that certain reactor pressure vessel 12embrittlement analyses may be non-conservative.
13The staff then goes on to say that "but 14Dr. Lahey and the state stop short of asserting," I 15mean, sorry, that's Entergy, and 616 goes on to say 16"but Dr. Lahey and the state stop short of asserting 17any specific deficiencies in Entergy's license renewal 18application regarding the reactor pressure vessels."
19And I'll direct this to Dr. Lahey. Are 20there any other locations, besides what I just said, 21that Entergy said that you were referred to reactor 22pressure vessels where you feel you have challenged 23the AMP for reactor pressure vessels within your 24testimony?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4865DR. LAHEY: Thank you, Your Honor. This 1is Richard Lahey, a witness for New York State. We 2did, in fact, starting in 2007 I believe, raise the 3issue of certain plates in the pressure vessel which 4were either going to violate the upper-shelf criteria 5--6JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Excuse me, I'm 7interested in your testimony that you submitted now 8for the current issue --
9DR. LAHEY: Yes.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: -- not what you did 11before.12DR. LAHEY: Interestingly my testimony has 13been pretty consistent for the last eight years, but 14the answer is there are a few plates in the pressure 15vessel which have some problems with pressurized 16thermal shock.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: And where did you cite 18those in your testimony?
19DR. LAHEY: Which testimony?
20JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, where did you cite 21that in any of your testimony that you've provided 22here?23DR. LAHEY: Well, in fact, I think in the 242007 I cited it first and then in others I've said, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 was 3not a big deal for me, because this is an area that 4has been of great importance to the U.S. NRC since day 5one, pressure vessel integrity, and I felt very 6comfortable that they had their arms around this 7problem 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 BTP 1053 issues in terms of how you determine the 11embrittlement of these things that are related. But 12I feel really comfortable the NRC is on top of this, 13so compared to my other issues, this has not been 14highlighted in my testimony.
15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: The focus of your 16testimony is on the reactor vessel internals and the 17adequacy of the aging management for those reactor 18vessel internals, correct, doctor?
19DR. LAHEY: That's certainly true because 20of how that impacts the possibility of core cooling, 21adequacy of core cooling, because my overall concern 22is safety. That's what I've been doing all my life.
23And so anything related to that is what I'm concerned 24with and what I've focused on in my testimony.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4867JUDGE WARDWELL: So you would agree that 1then the heart of your contention for 25 now deals 2with the reactor vessel internals, and specifically 3I'm going to pull out from your testimony 482 on Page 478, Lines 14 through 21, where you summarize that and 5just want to confirm if there's anything else extra 6you'd like to add to this list.
7DR. LAHEY: Do you want me to look that 8up?9JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I'm going to read it 10for you right here now so that you don't have to do.
11One, the synergistic effect on degradation 12and integrity of reactor pressure vessel internals of 13radiation-induced embrittlement, corrosion, and 14fatigue was one of your issues.
15The second issue was the potential for 16unanticipated failure of reactor vessel internals due 17to a severe seismic event or accident-induced thermal 18and/or pressure shock loads.
19Three, the implications of the failure of 20the reactor pressure vessel internal structure 21components and fittings on post-accident core 22coolability.
23And then citing another area was your same 24testimony, Exhibit 482 on Page 40, Lines 1 through 4, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4868that, quote, "Highly embrittled and fatigued reactor 1vessel internal components may not have signs of 2degradation that can be detected by an inspection but 3such weakened components could, nonetheless, fail as 4a result of severe seismic event or thermal pressure 5shock loads." Is that a fair assessment of your main 6points of your contention?
7DR. LAHEY: Yes, Your Honor.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. And without 9getting into any inadequacies associated with the 10RVIs, is it fair to say then that we can move forward 11with only looking at the reactor vessel internals and 12that the pressure vessel itself is no longer an issue 13with this contention?
14DR. LAHEY: I would leave that up to New 15York State. I told you how I feel about the issue.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: But as I heard --
17DR. LAHEY: I mean, my primary concern is 18with the impact of failed reactor pressure vessel 19internals on core coolability.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, and there's no 21longer a need to address anything else with you as far 22as testimony you'd like to provide in addition in 23regards to the pressure vessel itself?
24DR. LAHEY: Well, I've told you the issue 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1pressure vessel. And at some point in time, they are 2going to exceed the pressurized thermal shock criteria 3and the implications of that are not good, but it's 4well-known and I think the NRC is totally on top of 5that issue as far as I'm concerned.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you very much.
7DR. LAHEY: Maybe they could say they're 8not, but I doubt it.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Hiser, are you on top 10of those plates for the pressure vessel itself?
11DR. HISER: I am technically on top of 12them, yes.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. Thank you.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Not physically on top of 15them.16DR. HISER: I'm in Tarrytown, New York 17right now.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: Top of the world. It 19doesn't get any better than this, does it?
20DR. HISER: No, sir.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You were under oath when 23you said it doesn't get any better than this.
24(Laughter.)
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4870JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's turn to these AMPs 1again and a little bit of this may be a repeat from 2what we've managed to cover already but we'll see 3where we are with that.
4NRC's testimony, Exhibit 197, Answer 114 5on Page 72, states that "The IP2 and IP3 RVI," that's 6for reactor vessel internals, "AMP consists of a 7program description describing the ten elements of the 8AMP. A program description was initially submitted on 9July 14th, 2010, and was revised in a letter dated 10February 17th, 2012." And here you're citing New York 11State's Exhibit 496, which is the letter NL-12-037 and 12Attachment 1.
13Entergy, do you agree that the program 14description of Entergy's AMP for reactor vessels 15internals is attached to Entergy's letter NL-12-037 in 16New York State's Exhibit 496?
17MR. DOLANSKY: This is Bob Dolansky with 18Entergy. Yes.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. And, Dr.
20Lahey, do you agree that that is their AMP for reactor 21vessel internals?
22DR. LAHEY: As I understand it, yes.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. For anyone 24with NRC, where have -- I think you've already been 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. Where 1have you addressed the ten elements of GALL for the 2RVI AMP in your SER? Is that one of those ones that 3I asked you earlier to get for me at some time?
4MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler for 5the staff. The ten elements are addressed in the 6supplement to the SER. It's NUREG-1930, Supplement 2.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: And if you have the 8section numbers and can get that for us later, that's 9fine. It just --
10MR. POEHLER: I don't have the exact 11section number at the moment. I can get it for you.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: The only reason I ask you 13is not because I'm lazy. Well, that is part of the 14reason, but oftentimes there are sections we're not 15aware that really apply to that when you look at 16something like the table of contents and that's why I 17just want to make sure that you're telling me where I 18should be looking for the SER for things like that.
19And when I ask this question in other 20areas, that's why I do it, whether it's for New York 21or any expert. I may ask you where is that actually 22stated and that's because I don't want to assume I 23know every place that it might be stated within a 24given document.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4872MR. POEHLER: Yes, Dr. Hiser just pulled 1up 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 Brian 5Harris for the staff. Can we just let that reflect 6that it's NYS 507, I believe is the Exhibit number for 7the supplemental safety evaluation report.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Better yet. That's 9great. Thanks. Yes, I really appreciate any of those 10cites that you provide. It always helps the record as 11we go through the transcript. That's welcomed 12interruption by the way.
13MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: If I could clarify for 15myself, 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 ask 21it anyhow because it says it a little more directly 22too.23From a technical standpoint, is 24consistency with GALL, containing the ten program 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4873elements, in and of itself enough or is more depth 1analysis of the adequacy of the described program in 2the AMP needed for you to reach the conclusion that 3the intended functions of the passive reactor vessel 4internals within the scope of license renewal will be 5maintained?
6DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser, the staff.
7In and of itself, consistency with the ten elements is 8not sufficient. The applicant must demonstrate that 9the components at the applicant site that are covered 10by the AMP are consistent and they also must 11demonstrate that operating experience is consistent.
12So they have to provide a context that shows that the 13AMP really is responsive to the aging management needs 14at the facility.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: And is that response 16documented in the SER also in at least some summary 17form or so someone can understand what you went 18through in your interactions with the staff to provide 19this demonstration that the ten elements are being 20addressed?
21DR. HISER: I'm not sure that we can point 22to a specific place within the SER because I think it 23really is embedded within the evaluation in the SER of 24each of the elements and in the applicant action 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4874items.1JUDGE WARDWELL: That was my question. I 2didn't mean to ask you to point me to a page number.
3I just asked you as a standard practice that you 4incorporate those interactions within your narratives.
5Thank you.
6I'll ask Dr. Lahey, have you looked over 7the ten elements of the GALL in the submittal that was 8provided in Attachment 1 of that letter, and do you 9see any area where you feel there is inconsistencies 10associated with what's required by law?
11DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, this is Richard 12Lahey again. I have looked it over. I have concerns 13about synergisms, and to understand how I feel, at 14some point I need to give you some overview of why I'm 15saying what I'm saying but I don't know it's the right 16time. If you just want --
17JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I think you have.
18You provided your testimony in 482. Isn't that your 19overview?
20DR. LAHEY: Well, it's part of it but I 21think --22JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, that should be.
23That's what we're interrogating here. That should be 24all of it if, I mean, that's what you've submitted for 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4875your testimony and now we're getting elaborations on 1that overview that you provided.
2DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, if you understood 3everything I said, that's fine.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, no, don't get me --
5I've got a lot of questions for you. Don't worry 6about that. I just want to make sure you're aware 7that your testimony has been submitted as pre-filed 8testimony 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 position 11and 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 of 15your contentions where I went through each one of 16those issues that you've summarized from your 17testimony, if you ever want to refer to those again in 18a general sense to caveat a response to my question, 19just go ahead and call them synergism et al. or 20something like that, so you don't have to worry.
21We'll know you're referring to all of those that we 22just covered previously.
23So if I ask you a question about was this 24suitable or something like that, you can say with the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4876exception of the synergism, et al., we see no other 1differences or I see no other differences or something 2like that. Do you get what I'm driving at? So you 3don't have to repeat the caveat.
4I understand what your concerns are and so 5you can express those again just by that symbolic 6representation if you feel the need to whenever I ask 7you a question.
8DR. LAHEY: Okay. Thank you, sir.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. Entergy's Exhibit 10616 again, Answer 133, Page 82, says that the IPEC RVI 11AMP, as updated, relies upon the extensive industry 12research document in MRP-227-A and MRP-228 and in the 13many reports supporting these documents where you're 14citing to New York State, again 496, NL-12-037, 15Attachment 1.
16Entergy's testimony Answer 119, Page 74, 17talks more about this EPRI materials reliability 18programs. That's the MRP, of MRP-227-A which is 19entitled "Pressurized Water Reactor Internal 20Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines," and states that 21it is the NRC-approved version of EPRI's guidance on 22the aging management for reactor vessel internals.
23Entergy's Testimony 116 Exhibit again, 24Answer 133, Page 83, goes on, and I quote, that "the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 a 2comparison of data to examination acceptance criteria 3as defined in MRP-227-A and MRP-228, two, a resolution 4of indications that exceed examination acceptance 5criteria by entering them into the applicant's 6corrective action program, and, three, monitoring and 7control of reactor primary coolant water chemistry 8based on industry guidelines."
9And I guess I'd ask staff if you agree 10with Entergy's statement that the MRP-227-A is the 11NRC-approved version of EPRI's guidance and what 12you're approving it for. What does that approval 13mean? What's the significance of it?
14MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler, the 15staff. Yes, we agree that MRP-227-A is the approved 16version of the MRP-227 topical report.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's all it is, is 18the approved version of that report? It doesn't 19approve that report for anything else?
20MR. POEHLER: No, it approves basically 21our safety evaluation, approved that report to be used 22as the basis for plant-specific reactor vessel 23internals aging management program or I should, aging 24management programs and inspection programs.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4878JUDGE WARDWELL: A plant specific or a 1generic plant? I would think it would be the 2opposite.
3MR. POEHLER: Yes, plant specific because 4any individual plant that needs to develop a reactor 5vessel internals aging management program can now use 6the framework of MRP-227-A to develop that program.
7But what this does is it makes the plant-8specific programs consistent with the generic 9guidance, so it's generic guidance for individual 10plants to use.
11DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. And I 12think 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 action 19items, yes.
20JUDGE WARDWELL:
Is there a way to 21pronounce that acronym? I'm going to call it "a lay,"
22is that all right with you?
23DR. HISER: Yes.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: Does anyone else use 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4879anything else different, because I can't go A/LAI 1anymore.2DR. HISER: We can just call them action 3items. 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 was 8developed by industry for a particular purpose. What 9is the nature of the NRC staff's review of that 10document and how then is it used by the NRC staff in 11determining the adequacy of aging management?
12DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The 13purpose of the AMP is to demonstrate adequacy of aging 14management for reactor vessel internals. The NRC 15approved that report, approved the methodology in its 16safety evaluation for the report. That safety 17evaluation was then incorporated in the -A version, 18MRP-227-A, as a topical report that is acceptable to 19the NRC staff.
20When we then implemented that report into 21the LR-ISG to modify the AMP for reactor vessel 22internals, that is where the NRC determined that that 23methodology was acceptable for license renewal 24applicants.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4880CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes, but how does the 1NRC go about doing that? What is the nature of your 2review? I mean, is it simply a read through and 3subjecting that to the technical expertise of your 4staff? Is there a period of, you know, the equivalent 5of the RAI situation that you have on a license 6renewal?7I'm just trying to understand what is it 8the ARC ExpressScribe staff does with MRP-227-A to 9effectively put its imprimatur on it as a guide for 10AMP compliance?
11DR. HISER: Okay. Yes, this is Dr. Hiser.
12What we did was a detailed technical review, and items 13that we believed were not appropriately addressed in 14the report or that we had questions about we asked 15RAIs and went through a question and answer sequence 16to get to the point that we had no more questions on 17the adequacy of the report.
18This was part of the topical report review 19which is a standard process that we use to review 20industry reports that try to address generic issues, 21such as adequacy of aging management for vessel 22internals.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And is that process part 24of what caused the metamorphosis from 227 to 227-A?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Judge 2Kennedy. Is there a staff safety evaluation document 3that's issued for an approved topical report?
4DR. HISER: Yes there is. In general, 5there is and for this one there was a safety 6evaluation. In addition, we had, I believe it was a 7revision to the SE for MRP-227.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: Would that be the ultimate 9culmination of the staff's review of that industry 10document?
11MR. POEHLER: Almost. I just wanted to 12clarify that. So when the industry, so we issued our 13safety evaluation. Then EPRI takes that and includes 14it in the approved version of the topical report.
15They also had to make some changes to the 16topical report, that the staff had included conditions 17in our final safety evaluation that related to changes 18that we wanted to see made in the final version of 19MRP-227.20EPRI made those changes. Then they 21submitted to us the final -A version. And at that 22point, the staff still had to verify that those 23promised changes had been made.
24And then at that point, I believe we 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, we 1agree that you made all the changes so, and at that 2point they were able to publish the -A version.
3JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: And are the lists of the 5RAIs that were generated documented anywhere, either 6in the SE or the industry document in the MRP?
7MR. POEHLER: Jeffrey Poehler from the 8staff. Yes, the RAIs are included as an appendix to 9the -A version.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, the whole RAI is, 11not just the --
12MR. POEHLER: The RAI letters and the 13responses. There were four rounds of RAIs so those 14are all included as appendices, although they're not 15all, every RAI is not explicitly discussed in the 16staff's safety evaluation.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: But they're physically 18attached to the MRP-A?
19MR. POEHLER: Correct.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: MRP-227-A?
21MR. POEHLER: Correct.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Mr. Poehler, just 24to, for my point to clarify for the record, when you 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4883mention EPRI, that's the Electric Power Research 1Institute, which is what?
2MR. POEHLER: The Electric Power Research 3Institute is the organization that developed the MRP-4227-A or Rev. 0 and -A report, specifically the 5materials reliability program, which is, you know, a 6sub-program of EPRI that specifically deals with 7pressurized water reactor vessel materials integrity 8issues.9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and it's a non-10governmental entity that is supported by the electric 11power industry.
12MR. POEHLER: Correct.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And in preparing this 14document, it works in conjunction with the NRC to 15determine appropriate guidelines for AMPs here, for 16reactor vessel internals.
17MR. POEHLER: In preparing the document, 18it was, you know --
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Their goal was to come 20up with a proposal and the proposal is then reviewed 21by the NRC, the goal being to have the NRC put its 22imprimatur on it after a technical review that 23requires them to answer questions and modify their 24proposals. Is that correct?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. Thank 2you, Mr. Poehler.
3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. Just to 4add one thing to what Jeff said, the RAI, RAIs 5themselves and the MRP responses are in, I'm not sure 6if it's Enclosure or Appendix B to MRP-227-A, so the 7full record is provided there in the report.
8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Which does bring to mind 10another general comment I was going to make early on.
11We sometimes focus more time on one group of witnesses 12than the other. Don't also take that personally, that 13you're feeling slighted or that you're feeling you're 14getting beat up on. It's strictly how, where the 15questions come up from.
16And usually, it's been my experience at 17least, that we do spend more time on staff and 18Entergy, the applicant, staff and the applicant, 19because they are the ones defending from the 20allegations that have been made.
21And so that's why we end up challenging 22you more than we seem to with, oftentimes, witnesses 23for the intervenors, and if that ends up to be the 24case here, that's not necessarily unusual. It just is 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 up 1with, so that was a comment I forgot to mention 2earlier, general comment.
3And back to that, I wanted to ask Dr.
4Lahey whether he disagreed with any of those principal 5components of Entergy's RVI AMP, and I think it's been 6long enough that I'm going to have to repeat them 7again for you unless you remember them. I'd like to 8repeat them again to make sure you know what I'm 9asking.10All I'm asking about is do you have any 11disagreement with Entergy's statement that the RVI AMP 12has three principal components and that is, one, the 13examinations and other inspections along with a 14comparison of data to examination acceptance criteria 15as defined in MRP-227-A and MRP-228 and then, two, 16resolution of indications that exceed examination 17acceptance criteria by entering them into the 18applicant's corrective action program, and, three, 19monitoring and control of reactor primary coolant 20water chemistry based on industry guidelines. Do you 21agree those are three principal components of 22Entergy's RVI?
23DR. LAHEY: This is Richard Lahey again.
24I certainly agree but I have problems with the MRP-25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 be 2able to refer back to that when we cover each of those 3other topic areas where that differs from that, rather 4than just open up a general discussion.
5DR. LAHEY: Fine. Great, thanks.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC's Exhibit 197, Answer 7114, Page 72, in addition to the program description, 8quote, "The IP2 and IP3 RVI AMP consists of an 9inspection plan initially submitted on September 28th, 102011, and a revised version consistent with MRP-227-A 11was submitted on February 17th, 2012."
12And now for this inspection plan, citing 13New York State's Exhibit 496-NL-12-037, Attachment 2, 14Entergy's Exhibit 616, Answer 134, Page 83, and I 15quote, states that, "The reactor vessel," excuse me, 16"The RVI inspection plan provides additional details 17on inspections to be covered under the RVI AMP," and, 18again, citing that Attachment 2.
19And I guess I'll ask Dr. Lahey, did you 20have a chance to look over that inspection plan and 21were those basic contents provided in Attachment 2 of 2212-037 for their inspection plan?
23DR. LAHEY: The inspection, excuse me, 24this is Richard Lahey again. The inspection plan 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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're 1asking 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 into 7the next question relating to the contents of that.
8Entergy's testimony, Exhibit 616, Answer 9134, Page 83, states that the reactor vessel 10inspection plan provides additional details on the 11inspections to be conducted under the RVI AMP, 12including, one, the type of examinations; two, the 13level of examination qualification; three, the 14schedule of initial inspection and frequency of 15subsequent inspections; four, the criteria for 16sampling and coverage; five, the criteria for 17expansion of scope if unanticipated indications are 18found; six, the acceptance criteria; seven, the 19methods for evaluation of examination results that do 20not meet the acceptable criteria; seven, provisions to 21update the program based on industry-wide results; 22and, eight, contingency measures to repair, replace, 23or mitigate beyond the information set forth in the 24RVI AMP.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4888And, again, without getting into the 1adequacies with which they addressed those particular 2items, Dr. Lahey, do you agree that those components 3were in the inspection plan?
4DR. LAHEY: This is Richard Lahey again.
5I heard you say reactor vessel rather than reactor 6vessel internals, is that correct?
7JUDGE WARDWELL: You probably heard 8correct. I probably misspoke, so it's reactor vessel 9internals. If I ever say reactor vessels, it's 10probably reactor vessel internals from now on but, 11yes, I meant reactor vessel internals. I'm sorry.
12DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir, I agree that that's 13what they're doing.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay and, Dr. Lahey, 16it's your contention not that these aren't addressed 17but they're not adequately addressed in a number of 18instances. Is that correct?
19DR. LAHEY: I think this document that 20they use is a very well-done document. It's 21inspection based and that's only part of it, so it's 22necessary but it's certainly not sufficient in my 23view. Thank you.
24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Thank you, Dr. Lahey.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4889JUDGE WARDWELL: Back to staff, there are 1various Westinghouse reports that came up in the 2testimony and I jotted down WCAP 13587, 14577, 15030, 315270, 16156, 16211, 17096, 17894, 17901. Could you 4briefly summarize what's in all -- No.
5(Laughter.)
6JUDGE WARDWELL: What I'm interested in is 7--8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Ten words or less.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. How do these 10reports fit into your assessment of the adequacy of 11Entergy's RVI AMP? What role do they play and of what 12significance are they?
13MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler.
14Just to clarify the question, were those referenced in 15MRP-227-A or in the staff's testimony on New York 16State 25?
17JUDGE WARDWELL: We ask the questions.
18You can't ask us questions.
19(Laughter.)
20JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm not sure where I got 21these from. I just know they've cropped up and I had 22any reference to Westinghouse report. I was 23interested and they seemed to have a significant 24influence on something that you've done. And I was 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 they 1play? How should we consider them?
2I believe all of those are, well, I'm not 3sure whether they're exhibits or not. I didn't go to 4look for an exhibit number but I know they've come up, 5and is this new to you? Have you never heard of any 6of these reports, or would you like me to ask Entergy 7and --8MR. POEHLER: Well I can answer for --
9This is Jeffrey Poehler of the staff. So one of the 10ones that you mentioned was WCAP 17096. Is that 11correct?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, that was one. WCAP 13just call it.
14MR. POEHLER: Just using that as an 15example, that's another topical report that was under 16review by the NRC staff.
It was kind of related to 17MRP-27-A and, you know, that's a document that 18provides methodologies for performing engineering 19evaluations when you find, if you were to find 20degradation in reactor vessel internals that exceeds 21the acceptance criteria of MRP-227-A.
22So the staff was concurrently reviewing 23that at the time period that they were reviewing 24Entergy's reactor vessel internals aging management 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4891program, but those WCAP reports are not, they're not 1directly relied upon in our review of 227-A.
2Another one that I think I heard you 3mention was WCAP 14577.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
5MR. POEHLER: And that one was a 6Westinghouse report that addressed some of the same 7issues as MRP-227-A, aging management, for aging 8management of reactor internals and --
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Mr. Poehler, let 10me interrupt here for a second just by way of 11background for my edification. Can you explain to me 12what a WCAP report is, what the genesis is, how 13they're developed, and then how they're used by the 14NRC in their evaluation of MRP-227?
15JUDGE WARDWELL: That's just what I asked 16earlier --
17MR. POEHLER: And so, yes.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I didn't follow --
19JUDGE WARDWELL: -- in a terrible way.
20MR. POEHLER: Those reports were not 21direct components. They're not components of MRP-227-22A. There were some supporting EPRI reports.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, first, how are 24they generated? Who --
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4892MR. POEHLER: They're generated by 1Westinghouse Electric Company as technical reports and 2sometimes those are submitted to NRC for review and 3approval as topical reports and sometimes they're not.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Are they submitted to 5EPRI as part of the development of MRP-227 or are they 6submitted to the NRC after MRP-227 has been 7circulated?
8MR. POEHLER: I don't know if they're 9submitted to EPRI. But to the NRC they're not, we did 10not have any WCAPs that were submitted to directly 11support the MRP-227 review.
12The one that I mentioned, the 17096, was 13submitted subsequently to MRP-227, Rev. 0. So it's a 14completely independent topical report that the NRC was 15reviewing separately.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, submitted to the 17NRC by who, by Westinghouse?
18MR. POEHLER: The WCAP 17096 was, I 19believe, submitted by EPRI and on behalf of the PWR 20Owners Group and Westinghouse, but I believe EPRI was 21the entity that actually submitted it, so.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. So, again, I'm 23just trying to get on the record here how these 24reports are developed and used and correct me if I 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. Various 4entities in the industry, such as Westinghouse, have 5an interest in getting this right.
6They prepare a document such as this WCAP 717096 which is then used to provide technical support, 8technical accreditation, as you were, for the 9underlying EPRI document which can be then evaluated 10by the NRC for whatever value you view it might have.
11You may view it very helpful. You may view it not be 12helpful. Is that correct?
13MR. POEHLER: Well, this is Jeffrey 14Poehler of the staff.
15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And I realize I went on 16there. Some of what I said may have been right and 17some of it may have been wrong. Don't just say yes if 18a lot of it is wrong.
19MR. POEHLER: For the specific example of 20WCAP 17096, that was not a supporting document that 21was necessary for the staff's review of MRP-227. It 22would be something that would be used by licensees in 23conjunction or with their MRP-227-A inspection program 24if they needed to do engineering evaluations of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4894conditions that they found. But we didn't rely, we 1certainly didn't rely upon that for approval of 227-A.
2DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. The 3sequence is MRP-227-A. Plants go to implement it.
4They find some indication. Maybe it exceeds 5acceptance criteria. Put that in the corrective 6actions program.
7MRP 17096 is one method they can use under 8corrective actions to determine whether it's 9acceptable or what other corrective actions they may 10need to take. So it's independent time-wise and 11process-wise really of MRP-227-A.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you provide any of 13these WCAPs as testimony as an exhibit to the best of 14your knowledge?
15DR. HISER: Yes, I believe we did. NRC 16200 is WCAP 17096.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And how about the 1814577?19DR. HISER: I do not remember other than 20doing a --
21MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 22Harris 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 you 2repeat that?
3MR. HARRIS: It's New York State 341.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: 341. Thank you.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Would someone from 6Entergy like to shed some light on what are these 7Westinghouse reports and answer the question Judge 8McDade provided so eloquently?
9MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. This is 10Nelson Azevedo for Entergy. The MRP 227 was written 11by EPRI in MRP specifically which is a subgroup of 12EPRI but a lot of analysis in the additional 13evaluations were required to develop MRP-227 and also 14for the implementation details.
15And there's another industry group called 16the PWR Owners Group. I actually sit on both of these 17groups, and the PWR Owners Group develops a lot of 18these WCAPs that you're talking about, both for 19implementing the requirements in MRP-227 and 20performing evaluations that supports MRP-227. So 21that's a separate organization, PWR Owners Group, that 22supports the development of these guidelines.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: And have you provided any 24of these WCAPs as exhibits to this proceeding?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 more 2on that? You comfortable?
3NRC Exhibit 197, Answer 114, Page 72, 4quote, "The inspection plan contains tables specifying 5the inspections for primary expansion and existing 6program components and tables containing the 7acceptance and expansion criteria for these 8components.
9"The inspection plan also contains 10Entergy's proposed resolution of the Applicant/license 11action items" these are these A/LAIs or A lays or just 12action items as we'll call them from here on in, "from 13the 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, an 17expansion component, or existing component and how 18does it fit into the inspection program?
19MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of 20the staff. So a primary component is a component that 21was judged either most likely to experience some form 22of degradation such as tracking, for example, and/or 23also, you know, a higher safety risk component.
24So those primary components are those 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4897components that will be inspected as part of the 1initial and subsequent inspections under MRP-227-A or, 2you know, any inspection program that is based on 227-3A.4You inspect the primary components within 5two refueling outages at the beginning of the period 6of extended operation and every ten years thereafter 7for the majority of the primary components.
8Expansion components are those that are 9the next tier of components. They're somewhat less 10susceptible to degradation and/or lower risk, and 11expansion components would only be inspected if a 12primary component that is linked to it, in other words 13one that has the similar degradation mechanisms, 14materials, et cetera, experiences degradation.
15So the expansion component may never be 16inspected unless its associated primary component 17first experiences degradation. So the primary 18components are considered the lead components for 19degradation.
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm sorry. They're 21considered what?
22MR. POEHLER: The lead.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Lead?
24MR. POEHLER: Leading indicators basically 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4898of degradation as compared to the expansion 1components.
2And then existing program components are 3components that were determined to be adequately 4managed by existing programs.
5Generally the most common existing program 6is the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler 7and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 11, in-service 8inspection program. We'll just call that the in-9service inspection program from now on.
10But that's something that is required by 11the ASME Code, which is incorporated by reference into 12NRC regulations, and the plants do that every ten 13years and they have been doing that since day one.
14But basically what that program does is 15visual inspections of the internals, but there were 16certain components where the type of visual inspection 17that's done was considered adequate to manage aging so 18MRP-227 took credit for those inspections for certain 19components, so those will be inspected as well, 20basically on the same timing as the primary.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: You said the same 22sequence, the ten-year sequencing.
23MR. POEHLER: The ten-year interval, 24depending on when the plant's Section 11 inspections 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4899are scheduled, which typically they would, plants will 1try to have those coincide with the augmented 2inspections that are done under MRP-227-A.
3DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I just 4want to clarify one thing. The expansion components 5are inspected if the inspections of the primary 6components, if the results exceed the expansion 7criteria that are in MRP-227-A and also in the 8Applicant's AMP.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: You said expansion 10criteria. You mean acceptance criteria or --
11DR. HISER: No, expansion criteria.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Say your sentence over 13again. I'm sorry.
14DR. HISER: Okay. The expansion 15components are examined if the primary component 16inspections, if the results exceed the expansion 17criteria that are in the Applicant's inspection plan.
18So you do the primary inspection. If you 19have no findings, you're finished until the next 20inspection. If you find degradation, you go to the 21expansion criteria. If it exceeds the expansion 22criteria, then you do the expansion inspections.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and we've been 24going for about, almost two hours now since our last 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 than 2ten minutes?
3(No audible response.)
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, apparently not.
5And before we break, just one thing while it's still 6on my mind and before I lose it here.
7You've got a list, Table 5-2, where the 8primary 5-3 would be expansion components, 5-4 would 9be existing program components. Can you explain 10briefly how you determine whether something should be 11in the primary as opposed to the expansion components?
12Just what's the process on --
13DR. HISER: This is Dr. Hiser. I guess we 14didn't determine whether they should be in one or the 15other. I mean, the industry program did that. We 16reviewed it and determined that we agreed with the 17binning that was done of the components just to 18clarify that.
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, and what's the 20nature of that vetting?
21MR. POEHLER: The nature of the binning 22that was done -- This is Jeffrey Poehler of the staff.
23So the binning that was done by EPRI in developing 24these recommendations was basically, they used a 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4901process -- Well, initially they did screening of the 1components to determine which aging mechanisms were 2applicable.
3Then they took those results and they did 4a process called failure modes, effects, and 5criticality analysis, or FMECA, and basically that 6process looks at all the different ways a component 7can fail and what the consequences would be if a 8individual component is to fail as far as the 9functions of the reactor vessel internals, the various 10safety functions.
11And based on that process, the components 12were given an initial ranking and that was basically 13the, they were given a ranki ng like A, B, C with C 14being the, you know, most likely to, most critical 15components I guess.
16And then there was, some additional 17analyses were done by EPRI to refine the initial 18binning so there were some initial, more detailed 19engineering analyses done on certain components. And 20after that, they came up with the final rankings or 21the final binning of primary expansion existing 22programs and --
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And then did the NRC 24conduct a de novo review of those conclusions or did 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4902you rely on EPRI's conclusions unless they were 1demonstrably faulty?
2MR. POEHLER: We did review that process 3and EPRI submitted, the MRP, EPRI MRP submitted 4several supporting reports that contained some of the, 5you know, the detailed analysis that went into this.
6So there were a series of technical 7reports that were submitted to the staff for 8information to support our review of MRP-227. So we 9did review those reports to some degree and so, no, 10yes, we didn't just accept the industry's or EPRI's 11determination. In fact --
12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, you kind of had a 13throwaway phrase there. You said "to some degree."
14Before that, it sounded like the review was rather 15extensive and then you described it as "to some 16degree," which suggests less than. Which is it or did 17I 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 to 22say that some of them were obvious, that it's only the 23stuff on the fringes that could be, you know, could go 24to Table 2 as opposed to Table 3?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, that 2those are the ones that got the in-depth review and 3the others that were obvious got less of a review, 4received less of an in-depth review?
5MR. POEHLER: Some of them were obvious 6and, yes, in some cases the staff challenged some of 7the binning, the final binning for some of these 8components.
9And we included conditions. We included 10conditions for certain components, saying you need to 11elevate this component from expansion to primary, for 12example, because we did have concerns about the safety 13significance of certain components. So, yes, we 14didn't just accept without question what EPRI had 15done.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. Do you 17have anything before we break?
18JUDGE WARDWELL: No.
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's 3:35. Why don't we 20break until 3:45.
21(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 22off the record at 3:35 p.m. and resumed at 3:46 p.m.)
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, the hearing will 24come to order. Judge Wardwell.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4904JUDGE WARDWELL: Getting back to where we 1left off, we were talking about the primary expansion 2in existing components. And in addition to getting 3various components into one of those sitements, the 4inspection plan contains Entergy's proposed resolution 5of the Applicant's license action items.
6And I've asked the Staff if they could 7explain a little bit more about what these ALIs are 8and how they are used in either your ev aluation of 9MRP-227 or in your review of the Aging Management Plan 10for vessel internals?
11MR. POEHLER: This is Jeff Poehler of the 12Staff.13So there were eight Applicant licensee 14action items. And so those were included in the 15staff's safety evaluation of MRP-227-A, or MRP-227.
16They were included generally for things where for a 17licensee or Applicant that wanted to reference 18MRP-227-A, that there would be some plant-specific 19technical evaluation that was needed to be done that, 20in addition to just following the recommendations of 21MRP-227-A.
22So these were things that weren't 23addressed in sufficient detail or have a 24plant-specific aspect that couldn't be addressed 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 1 2where it's -- it requests the Applicants or licensees 3to confirm the plant-specific applicability of 4MRP-227-A.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Is it your position that 6if a plan addresses these action items that then by 7definition they're AMP will be site-specific enough to 8provide a demonstration that the -- of aging 9management for these items?
10MR. POEHLER: Yes, that's one important 11component. The other is just verifying that they are, 12they're -- the inspections that they have -- the 13inspections that they're doing under their plan are 14consistent with the inspections that are specified in 15MRP-227-A for their particular design.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: So are most of these 17related to the inspections more than the other part of 18the plan or is it evenly distributed?
19MR. POEHLER: Yeah, some of them are 20related to the inspections. I would say, I would say 21most of them are, but.
22DR. HISER: Just sort of -- this is Dr.
23Hiser -- just sort of skipping through 1 and 2, 1 24relates to the applicability of the MRP-227-A to the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4906plant. So is the plant within the parameters that 1were considered in development for the report?
2JUDGE WARDWELL: And what are those 3approximate parameters that would make a plant 4eligible or not eligible?
5DR. HISER: One of them relates to core 6power density.
7One relates to the top of the -- distance 8from the top of the active fuel to the bottom of the 9upper core plate.
10The third one relates to heat generation 11within the core.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: And if a plant didn't 13meet those, then in fact 227 is inapplicable or?
14DR. HISER: Well, then we would expect the 15plant to propose additional actions. For example, 16maybe they would include more components under primary 17category or something along those lines. But they 18would then need to take some additional actions beyond 19what is in the base program in MRP-227-A.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: All right. You were 21stepping us through the ALIs. Do you still want to go 22over it or did you -- you were hoping I wouldn't 23remember something you can't remember all of? That's 24fine if you don't.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4907DR. HISER: Well, those are two in 1particular that really don't relate directly to change 2-- well, they both I guess in reality could relate to 3changes in the inspection activities.
4Action Item 2 then is components not 5covered in the generic evaluation of MRP-227-A, or 6potentially different materials that were used from 7within 227-A.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
9Commitment 30: could you talk a little 10bit about that? What did the Applicant agree to and 11has that been fulfilled and now moot?
12MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of 13the Staff.
14So commitment 30 was the commitment 15originally made in the license general application for 16Indian Point where they committed to follow the 17industry program when it was issued, basically 18implement the industry program within a certain time 19frame of that program being issued.
20And that, we do consider it to have been 21fulfilled by their submission of their Aging 22Management Program and inspection, inspection plan; 23and as modified, you know, as approved by the Staff 24through our review process which, you know, basically 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4908as documented in the Supplemental Safety Evaluation 1Report NUREG 1930, Supplement 2.
2JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I went to 1930, 3Supplement 2, would I be able to see a statement that 4commitment 2 has been fulfilled or something along 5those lines?
6MR. POEHLER: Yes, I believe so. I think 7I would have to check the conclusions but I believe 8there is a statement to that effect.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You were talking about 11commitment 30?
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I thought you said so.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: I may have said something 15different but I started off that way this last time I 16said it. I don't know. We'll check the transcript.
17Let's talk a little bit about the 18adequacies of the RVI.
19New York's Exhibit 482, their testimony on 20page 51, lines 7 through 10, and I quote, "A 21systematic safety evaluation of the degraded pressure 22vessel internals is needed to identify the limiting 23structures, components and fittings that need to be 24repaired or replaced before the onset of extended 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4909operations."
1And in response to that, Entergy's Exhibit 2616 on page -- Answer 128, page 79, says that "The 3guidelines in MRP-227 are based on a systematic 4evaluation of degradation of mechanisms, including 5multiple concurrent mechanisms, the resulting aging 6effects, including combination of effects, and 7consequences that identify the limiting RVI 8structures, components and fittings."
9They go on in Answer 129 to say, "Based on 10a considerable body of research and operating 11experience, MRP-227-A provides Aging Management 12guidelines, defines inspections to detect the effects 13of aging, and recommends methods to evaluate aging 14effects. As described..." And then it goes on and 15describes it further in Answers 121 to 129, pages 75 16to 80.17Entergy also then in their Answer 201, 18page 135, states that "The guidelines in MRP-227-A 19were developed through a systematic evaluation of all 20RVIs and all potential aging effects on those RVIs, 21including combined effects caused by multiple aging 22mechanisms."
23And I guess my ques tion for you, Dr.
24Lahey, is do your criticisms mostly relate to what 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4910Entergy omitted or missed in its RVI AMP rather than 1proffering any evidence that challenges specific 2aspects of the engineering work that was expanded --
3expended to develop MRP-227?
4DR. LAHEY: So can I talk about synergisms 5now or? Richard Lahey. I'm aching to talk about 6synergy.7JUDGE WARDWELL: I know it. Hold off for 8just about another half hour and then I think we'll be 9able 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 they 14evaluated the degradation they do not take into 15account all the effects.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: And as the synergism et 17al. statement that's there?
18DR. LAHEY: Right.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: And exclusive of that 20though, looking at -- I guess my heart of my question 21is, what they did do, do you have challenges in 22regards to what they did do, not what they did not do?
23Not the inadequacies or what's missing out of that but 24the fact of do you have any specific criticisms in 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4911your testimony in regards to the specific actions that 1they did take in this systematic evaluation that they 2claimed 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 what 5those are.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: It's related to that 7then?8DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: That's fine. That's 10fine.11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Well, Doctor, if you 12could, I mean there's a couple of aspects to this.
13One, as I understand it, your -- you focus 14on the fact that this is an inspection program and 15that inspection alone is inadequate?
16DR. LAHEY: Yes.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: They need something more 18than inspection. Okay.
19Focusing just on the inspection aspect of 20the program, are there specific areas that you view as 21inherently deficient in the method of inspection?
22DR. LAHEY: It's Richard Lahey again.
23Yes, sir. There are some very specific 24things where it appears that just the visualization 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4912techniques they're using would not be sufficient. But 1quite frankly, my real concern is the things that are 2the biggest problem you don't see until they happen.
3All right. They occur. They're happening right along 4but you're not able to determine the level of 5degradation based on the techniques that they're 6using.7That's the real concern. That's the 8synergism concern.
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Are there 10inspection techniques that they could use that they're 11not using that would solve that problem?
12DR. LAHEY: They're aware of the issue and 13they claim they can't, for example, determine the 14level of embrittlement. They d on't know how to do 15that in situ. So --
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: You don't disagree with 17them on that, do you?
18DR. LAHEY: No, I don't. But I, I think 19the other thing they're missing is it's not just 20sufficient to do inspection, there needs to be 21complementary analysis, particularly when you look at 22such things as earthquake events or shock load events 23which can really disrupt and relocate some of these 24key structures.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4913And if you then wind up with an uncoolable 1geometry, I can tell you you're in deep trouble.
2That's what I've been doing all my life. And, and 3this is what I am concerned about.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Winding up in deep 5trouble?6DR. LAHEY: You're in deep trouble if you 7don't, if you don't maintain an intact geometry 8because you really don't know where things are going 9and what of blockages may occur and what it means in 10coolability.
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And from my standpoint, 12and I'm sure Judge Wardwell is going to get into this 13later, is, is to bifurcate things for the moment. And 14accepting your premise that no inspection program 15standing alone would be sufficient, but just looking 16at the inspection program that is there, to focus on 17what you view as the defects in the existing 18inspection program by way of what they inspect, how 19they inspect, how often they inspect, baseline those 20kinds of issues with regard to the -- your view of 21deficiencies in the existing inspection program 22without accepting that standing alone inspection is 23sufficient?
24DR. LAHEY: Well, for most of them I think 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 through 1and screened.
2However, for instance for some of the 3bolts which they don't have the ability to determine 4the degradation until it's to a certain percentage, 5and in fact, on the interval where they inspect there 6can be bolts missing. And the concern is if you then 7have an event which pops out, which unzips a lot of 8the other bolts, you have a vary distorted geometry.
9You have no idea what's going to be happening to the 10materials and what it will do for core coolability.
11So for the bolting, I have serious 12concerns.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But on a couple of 14those, 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 you 18get anywhere close to failure.
19Secondly, that even if there were a 20failure, there is so much redundancy built in that you 21could have 50 percent of the bolts crack and fail and 22it wouldn't adversely affect the operation of the 23facility. And on others, like the Clovis bolts, they 24indicate that even -- that once the facility is 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4915operational that they never serve a function, so if 1they 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 thing 5you did but I don't come to the same conclusion that 6they did.
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I haven't come to a 8conclusion yet.
9DR. LAHEY: Right.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I'm just asking you to 11criticize their conclusion.
12DR. LAHEY: My, my concern is, number 1, 13they can have up to 30 percent cleavage of a bolt 14before they can detect it with ultrasound. That's 15what they found.
16They also have found in other reactors, 17bolts that have failed. It's not a hypothetical 18event; it happens. And it's because their highly 19irradiated, and irradiated-assisted stress cores, and 20cracking and other events, fatigue, cause these 21failures to occur.
22If you look at the analysis, it's really 23a steady state analysis for why you have enough 24redundancy to keep operating. If you then look at a 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4916accident which puts significant loads and pops the 1other bolts, you no longer have an intact geometry.
2And once your baffles are going anywhere, it's bad 3news.4That's, that's where I'm at. I'm not, I'm 5not in the steady state mode, I'm in an actuative 6mode. That's what I'm looking at.
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But you're 8talking still about design-basis accidents?
9DR. LAHEY: Not just. Earthquake events 10can do the same thing if they're severe enough.
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But as your 12testimony is right now that with regard to inspection 13techniques, for example, the VT-3, you don't have 14specific suggestions to change that or criticisms of 15why that doesn't serve the purpose proffered by 16Entergy?17DR. LAHEY: Are you only talking about the 18inspection part of it? Because --
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Right now.
20DR. LAHEY: -- my concern is the lack of 21analysis, the complementary analysis part.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Well, Dr.
23Wardwell is going to get into that in great detail 24later. But right now just on the inspection.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 concerns 3about the inspection technique being adequate for the 4bolting. And there's some other components where the 5visualization technique they're using is not, in my 6view, sufficient. But more or less I think what 7they're doing, other than those specific things, is a 8good thing, it's a usable thing, but not sufficient.
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Essential but not 10sufficient?
11DR. LAHEY: Right. Necessary. As the 12mathematicians say, necessary but not sufficient.
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Judge Wardwell.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC in your Exhibit 197 15testimony, Answer 122 to page 74 says that the 16"MRP-227-A relies on PWR water chemistry control to 17prevent or mitigate aging effects that can be induced 18by corrosion aging mechanisms. For instance, loss of 19material induced by general corrosion, pitting 20corrosion, crevice corrosion, or stress corrosion 21cracking of any of its forms." Some of the acronyms 22that are used are SCC, PWSCC and IASCC. And probably 23there's a way to pronounce those, but we'll find out 24as we move through here.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4918Anyhow, section Roman Numeral XI.1M16A of 1the Interim Staff Guidance, which we talked about 2earlier, 2011/04, further states that the "reactor 3coolant water chemistry is monitored and maintained in 4accordance with the water chemistry program as 5described in GALL AMP Section XI.M2, 'Water 6Chemistry.'
7My question for Entergy: have you 8implemented a water chemistry water control program at 9IP-2 and 3?
10MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. I'm sorry, 11this is Nelson Azevedo for Entergy.
12The Indian Point water chemistry program 13does follow the AMP requirements.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: And how long ago did you 15implement that? And could you describe the program 16generally, what its function is and how, what benefit 17you gain out of that program?
18MR. AZEVEDO: I can describe some 19portions. I'm not a chemist so I cannot go into the 20details.21But I can tell you from the '70s and the 22'80s Indian Point has been following the 23recommendations of the EPRI for water chemistry. That 24program, as I understand, has evolved over the years.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4919As far as getting details, I'm not sure if 1anybody in the Entergy panel can add to that.
2MR. COX: This is Alan Cox for Entergy.
3I will add that there's been several 4revisions of the EPRI water chemistry guidelines. The 5EPRI guidelines are the industry guidelines and 6recommendations for a chemistry program for a nuclear 7reactor. And those have been revised several times 8over the years.
9And typically a plant will upgrade their 10program to align with the latest version.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: I think you may be too 12worried that we want to know too much technical 13detail.14What's the basic goal of the program?
15What water are you chemistrizing? What's the purpose 16of any chemistry controls that you're putting on and 17how does that help your operations?
18MR. GORDON: This is Barry Gordon from 19Entergy.20JUDGE WARDWELL: Where are you?
21MR. GORDON: I'm right here.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm kidding. I'm 23kidding.24MR. GORDON: I don't even have a sign.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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's 6unique about or more favorable for Indian Point is 7that they're doing an excellent job on controlling 8their water chemistry, and exceeding even the 9guidelines that are required by, by the water 10chemistry guidelines.
11For example, they have the recommended 12level -- we'll just talk about one technical factor 13here -- of dissolved hydrogen in the plant, is between 1425 and 50 --
15JUDGE WARDWELL: Of hydrogen or oxygen?
16MR. GORDON: Hydrogen. Hydrogen.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
18MR. GORDON: We don't want oxygen in 19there.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 -- the 23higher level the more benefit you have, minimizing 24corrosion. And Indian Point is actually running at 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 per 1kilogram. So that's beneficial.
2Also, in IP, Indian Point Unit 2 they are 3adding zinc to their water, which is also beneficial 4to minimizing corrosion. And otherwise they just have 5general things like lithium hydroxide, things like 6that, which are just to minimize general corrosion of 7the material.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: You say you don't want 9oxygen. What do they do to not have oxygen?
10MR. GORDON: They have excess hydrogen 11present. And also during start-up they put hydrozine 12in there which consumes, it consumes oxygen. It's a 13de-aerated environment, unlike the BWR.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: I'll ask anyone from 15Entergy, and we can stay with you if you are the best 16that can answer it, what types of data do you see, do 17you have any quantification of your reduction in your 18corrosion issues at the plant? Do you have any 19parameter that helps guide you in quantifying how 20helpful this really is.
21MR. GORDON: This is Barry Gordon from 22Entergy again.
23They do keep track of the dissolved 24hydrogen. They keep track of how much zinc is in the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4922water. And all the chemical controls that are 1required by the PWR water chemistry guidelines.
2But the performance of the plant has been 3exceptional. If you look at their alloy 600 thermally 4treated steam generator tubing it's, they've hardly 5plugged anything and most of it was conservatively 6plugged. They've had very good results.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: Most of it was 8conservatively plugged when? And at this plant or is 9this --10MR. GORDON: At this plant.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
12MR. GORDON: You know, you're allowed 10 13percent. And they've done a very small percentage of 14it. And usually it's because they found something 15going on and said, well, we'll be conservative and 16we'll do all the tubes around it, even though it's 17really they're just being very conservative how they 18deal with it.
19The performance has been outstanding at 20this facility relative to stress corrosion cracking.
21And that's a good measure that the water chemistry 22control is doing its job.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Lahey, did you review 24anything in regards to the water chemistry program 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4923and/or have any comments in regards to its 1effectiveness in helping to control one of the aspects 2that you were concerned about, that is corrosion?
3DR. LAHEY: I didn't specifically review 4the water chemistry program. It's my opinion based on 5other input that I have had over the years that Indian 6Point is run very well in that regard. And overall 7it's a tight plant, what we call a tight plant.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: And wouldn't that go a 9long ways to controlling some of those aspects of that 10particular failure effect, if you will, of any 11component for aging?
12DR. LAHEY: Are you going back to the 13bolts now?
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, of anyone, just the 15fact that the water chem -- isn't there some benefits 16gained on though from the water chemistry program in 17regards to aging effects on this location?
18DR. LAHEY: Yeah, there's definitely 19benefits gained. And, you know, when we talked about 20the bolts which were failing, they're failing by 21irradiation-induced stress corrosion and cracking, 22just because of their location. But it's not a show 23stopper. I mean those are things you can easily 24replace.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4924So it's a very doable thing to fix that 1problem.2JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Let me go back a 4second just to make sure I understand.
5The water chemistry control program is 6something separate and apart from the Aging Management 7Program for the reactor vessels' internals; correct?
8MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.
9It's treated and described as a separate 10program. The reactor vessel internals program does 11have a reference that refers to that program and says 12that it is an effective preventive action. So it's, 13I mean it's a matter of semantics. It's not described 14as part of the reactor vessel internals program but 15it's applicable to all the reactor vessel internals.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: When you use the term 17"preventive action" is it more accurate to say it 18ameliorates the condition rather than prevents, you 19still have the potential for stress corrosion cracking 20regardless of the water chemistry; isn't that correct?
21MR. COX: This is Alan Cox with Entergy.
22It's treated and described as a separate 23program. The reactor vessel internals program does 24have a reference that refers to that program and says 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 described 2as part of the reactor vessel internals program but 3it's applicable to all the reactor vessel internals.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: When you use the term 5"preventive action" is it more accurate to say it 6ameliorates the condition rather than prevents? You 7still have the potential for stress corrosion cracking 8regardless of the water chemistry; isn't that correct?
9MR. COX: Yes, that's correct.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But if you don't 11have a well-controlled water chemistry, then that 12potential 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 for 16stress corrosion cracking along with other aging 17mechanisms that there is a risk that is not adequately 18identified by the inspection program that exists? Is 19that your view?
20DR. LAHEY: Could you rephrase the 21question, Your Honor?
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I don't know if I could 23rephrase it but I could repeat it.
24DR. LAHEY: Yes, please do. Are you 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4926asking do I think the water chemistry program is 1beneficial to mitigate stress corrosion cracking?
2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And I believe your 3answer to that is yes?
4DR. LAHEY: Yes, I do.
5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But that even 6though they do have a effective water control program 7that it doesn't eliminate the potential for stress 8corrosion cracking; is that correct?
9DR. LAHEY: Yeah, there's different types 10of stress corrosion cracking. And it doesn't 11eliminate all of them.
12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Regardless of the water 13chemistry?
14DR. LAHEY: Yes, sir.
15CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And you're not 16saying that the stress corrosion cracking standing 17alone is the basis for your opinion with regard to the 18adequacy of the AMP? You're saying that it's "a" 19factor?20DR. LAHEY: It's a factor and perhaps not 21even the primary factor.
22CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And Judge 23Wardwell will get to it in a second, but before we 24move on, just very quickly could you tell me in your 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4927view what in sequence are the most significant 1factors? You said this is water -- stress corrosion 2cracking is not one of the more significant.
3What is the most significant and sort of 4working your way down through various of these aging 5mechanisms?
6DR. LAHEY: Can I have a few minutes to do 7that?8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: I don't know. Let's 9start --10JUDGE WARDWELL: Not now.
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Judge Wardwell 12will get to that later, so.
13DR. LAHEY: Okay. We need to talk about 14silos to answer your question.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: Because I want to finish 16on this topic area before we move into the next one.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: No, that's fine. It's 18just, you know, there are big silos and there are 19little silos, and I just want to find out which silos 20contain the largest problem.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: NRC's testimony 197, 22Exhibit 197, Answer 85, page 61, in industry review of 23the MRP-227, Revision 0, "The NRC staff identified 24eight action items that must be addressed by the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4928Applicants or licensees --" And these are these 1action items we talked about earlier. "-- in order to 2apply the methodology of the topical report Aging 3Management of the Reactor Vessel Internals at a 4particular plant."
5And I guess I just want to confirm that --
6two things from Staff -- I want to confirm that those 7ALIs have been incorporated into the most recent 8version of MRP-227-A, Revision 1, issued on December 916th, 2011?
10MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler from 11the Staff.
12Yes, the action items have been 13incorporated in -- well, they're incorporated in the 14Staff's safety evaluation which is included in the 15MRP-227-A.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. So where they're 17really documented and incorporated is in your SE 18rather than in the MRP-227 text of the body, if you 19will?20MR. POEHLER: That's correct.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: And included as an 22appendix in the SE?
23MR. POEHLER: That's correct.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4929For Dr. Lahey. In regards to these action 1items, exclusive of 7 which I believe deals with the 2specific analysis of cast austenitic stainless steel, 3which we will talk about later, so exclusive of that 4do you have any -- well, let me ask you, have you had 5a chance to review those Action Items 1 through 8, are 6familiar with them and have any comment on them?
7DR. LAHEY: I don't remember them by 8heart, Your Honor. If we can --
9JUDGE WARDWELL: No, but I just want to 10make sure that exclusive of 7, are there any others 11that jumped out at you as something that related to 12your issues associated with their Aging Management 13Plan?14DR. LAHEY: I'd have to look at them to 15know. I just don't remember them that well.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Nothing jumped out at you 17though with regards to that?
18DR. LAHEY: Honestly, I'd have to look at 19them to give you a good answer.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: Entergy's testimony 21Exhibit 616, Answer 169, page 109, and I quote, 22"During the development of MRP-227-A, EPRI 23appropriately considered combination of aging effects, 24including potential synergistic effects that could 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4930affect the reactor vessel internals. As the NRC Staff 1concluded in its safety evaluation of MRP-227-A, EPRI 2considered 'individual or synergistic effects of 3thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement' 4and 'loss of pre-load due to either individual or 5synergistic contributions from thermal and 6irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation.'"
7Dr. Lahey, do you agree that EPRI 8considered combination of aging effects and that Staff 9reviewed these and concluded that potential 10synergistic effects were considered?
11DR. LAHEY: To the extent that you have 12described it there they did. But they did not look at 13the effect of an accident type load on a weakened 14structure, both fatigue-weakened or embrittled with 15the various embrittlement mechanisms. As far as I 16could tell, that was not at all considered.
17JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I heard you 18correctly, you believe that the synergistic effects 19had been looked at with the exception of the loading 20associated with what you called seismic and shock 21loads; is that a fair assessment of your position?
22DR. LAHEY: Well, you talked about, for 23example, the relaxation of spring loads. And they 24definitely did look at that and the effect of some of 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4931these synergistic effects. But what I am concerned 1with hasn't been looked at.
2JUDGE WARDWELL: So the synergistic 3effects they looked at aren't the synergistic effects 4that you believe should be looked at?
5DR. LAHEY: They're somewhat the same but 6for a whole different application.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And how do yours 8differ and how do they -- how would you apply them as 9opposed to how they apply them?
10DR. LAHEY: Well, for example, if we're 11talking about reactor vessel internals.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: That's where we are.
13DR. LAHEY: Okay. One of the problems 14that I see is that when they look at fatigue they do 15not --16JUDGE WARDWELL: At the what? I'm sorry.
17DR. LAHEY: When they look at fatigue --
18JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, fatigue.
19DR. LAHEY: -- fatigue in their 20structures, they do not take into account any 21embrittlement, what the effect of embrittlement is on 22the fatigue. They assume that once the fatigue will 23go just like it goes for ductile material, until the 24crack, until the crack occurs, is one. And then the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, a 2highly fatigued structure will fail well before that, 3well before they see surface cracks. And that's 4exactly what the light water reactor sustainability 5program is doing right now. I mean they're working on 6the report right now with Argonne.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: You just stated that a 8highly fatigued component will?
9DR. LAHEY: If you hit it, if you hit it 10with a shock load. Do you know what I mean by a shock 11load?12JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no. Tell me what 13you mean by a shock load.
14DR. LAHEY: All right. I mean I can show 15you a picture but try this.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Just tell me.
17DR. LAHEY: You've seen people that do 18karate that put bricks across. And you can stand on 19them, you can sit on them. And then you get back and 20if you hit it with an impulsive load, real snap, it 21will break a dozen bricks, not just one, which would 22support the weight of the intensity.
23So it's a impulsive load. And if you want 24to see a picture I can do that.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4933JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I think I've got a 1clear view.
2DR. LAHEY: Okay.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: Unless one of the other 4Board members has a question.
5DR. LAHEY: It's a lot more than the 6static load. So when, when I've asked about this in 7the past the response that has come back, this is no 8problem because we have shown that the loads are, you 9know, the static loads can be withstand -- withstood 10by the structure, even if it's embrittled. But it's 11a lot different when you hit it with a shock load.
12And that's what I'm worried about because 13of the location.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry. Sorry to 15interrupt. You just used the word "embrittled" 16though. That's different than fatigue, isn't it?
17DR. LAHEY: Yeah. But what I said is if 18you embrittle a structure, a reactor vessel internal, 19and then do the fatigue analysis, right now they do 20them quite separately, all right. They're in two 21different silos and they don't interact. And then the 22third silo is the shock loads.
23So when they do the safety analysis it's 24implicitly assumed that the geometry is intact. And 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1coolability of light water reactors for intact 2geometries. I was involved in the Loft Program and 3all the programs for the NRC and whoever. And as long 4as you maintain the cool geometry the engineered 5safety systems work. That's what they're designed 6for.7Once you lose the intact geometry, all 8bets are off. That's, that's what I'm concerned with.
9They're not looking at, they're not looking at just a 10fatigue-weakened structure, and you hit it, it can 11snap before you have any cracks.
12They're not looking at an embrittled 13structure, and it can, it can snap well before you 14reach the fatigue limit. And they're all synergistic, 15and it's not taken into account right now. That's the 16concern.17So I, you know, I really like the 18structure that we're doing now. It's a compliant 19structure and I think it has a lot of advantages 20because it makes people do things in a consistent way 21and you eliminate falling through the cracks with 22important things. But it only works with everything 23that's on the list. If you have things that aren't on 24the list, they're not going to get done. They're not 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 things 2that aren't on the list. That's what I've been trying 3to bring.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Let me just make 5sure I understand you correctly.
6You believe, it's your position, is it 7not, that a fatigued structure component or the SSC, 8a fatigued internal if we're talking about reactor 9vessel internals, so we can eliminate -- we can focus 10on those, that as it fatigues it may very well have 11values that show that it's, for instance if we're 12using the CUF as a parameter, which we'll get into in 1326 in more depth, below 1, that's still adequate. But 14you believe, it's your position that if a shock load 15hits 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 of 20micro-cracks in there. It is being weakened. And if 21you hit it hard enough it will break. And that's, as 22I said, they're doing those systematic fatigue 23structure tests for light water reactor sustainability 24right now. And they will, they will show this.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4936And so my concern is somehow we're not 1taking this into account in our safety analyses right 2now.3JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And then, 4likewise, you believe that as the material embrittles, 5likewise it will be more susceptible, it will be fine 6until a shock load comes in and then that also will 7have a -- lose its intended function?
8DR. LAHEY: Exactly, Your Honor.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And --
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So if I can before you 11move on, I just want to make sure I understand. When 12you talk about neutron embrittlement, in 10 words or 13less 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 have 16a different embrittlement mechanism. But let's say 17you have high energy neutrons that are hitting the 18atoms, they're knocking them out of their lattice 19position. And if you go to the end of life for the 20period of extended operations, you're talking 75 to 21several 100 displacements per atom. That is, every 22atom in the lattice has been knocked out of the 23lattice 100 times.
24So it's a very beat up material. It 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4937doesn't have the properties of a ductile material 1anymore.2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And perhaps I'm not 3using the appropriate technical term, but does this 4necessarily affect the toughness of the metal?
5DR. LAHEY: It affects the ductility, the 6fracture toughness, you know, the propagation of the 7metal; it will propagate cracks easier. It also -- do 8you know what the stress-strain curve looks like?
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.
10DR. LAHEY: Okay.
The normal stress 11versus strain curve is, you know, goes up to the yield 12stress, the element stress. When you irradiate it, it 13hardens it. And so it goes into a higher peak but it 14can't take much strain. So if you go to a large 15enough strain, you're gone.
16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay.
17DR. LAHEY: That's the concern.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Now, when you're talking 19about these shock loads, are you talking about shock 20loads within the design basis to have this effect or 21only shock loads that are beyond the design basis?
22DR. LAHEY: No, the shock loads can be, 23for example, a very severe th ermal shock load is a24steam line break, coupled with the scram so you're 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4938really sucking energy out of the system and you're 1putting a lot of cold water shock into the core and 2hitting those internals hard.
3Or you could have --
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So you're saying within 5design basis?
6DR. LAHEY: Oh yes. The various accidents 7are sufficient to do it, depending on how weakened it 8is. I mean as you, as you go on in time it gets more 9and more susceptible to these types of failures.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: If I can, just two more 11quick questions before I turn it back over to Judge 12Wardwell.
13Can you explain to me, to make sure I 14understand, what is irradiation enhanced stress 15relaxation?
16DR. LAHEY: Irradiation enhanced stress 17relaxation is if you have a -- as I understand it, if 18you have a residual stress in a material and it's 19irradiated, that this can relax the stress.
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And how do you 21evaluate the level of embrittlement?
22DR. LAHEY: How do you evaluate it?
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.
24DR. LAHEY: Well, you calculate the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4939fluence. The fluence is the neutron flux, the high 1energy neutrons times the time. So you integrate that 2for how long you've been running. And then you use 3cross-sections, what we call cross-sections to look at 4the 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 fatigue 8that may, may be influenced by thermal. And let me 9ask you one question about the shocks.
10What about normal transience? Do those 11provide enough shock to hurt either the -- to fail 12either a fatigued member or an embrittled member?
13DR. LAHEY: Probably you want to wait 14until we talk about 26, because I've got a lot of nice 15figures to show and talk about all of that. But the 16answer is yes, --
17JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is in your 18testimony?
19DR. LAHEY: -- they can have an effect.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: And that's in your 21testimony on 26?
22DR. LAHEY: Yes. And I have some nice 23visual aids I think will help.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: And where was I with that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 1embrittled. What about the embrittled under a 2transient, would that -- is that considered a shock 3for embrittled materials, sufficient enough shock?
4DR. LAHEY: Take two benches and you put 5a copper pipe across it and hit it; it will break.
6Take the same two benches, put a candy 7cane across it; it's gone.
8So, well, I don't know if that translates 9into that, into the recording. But if it's brittle it 10can't take shock loads because of the way the stress 11strains are --
12JUDGE WARDWELL: So you're concerned about 13these vessel internals under normal transience?
14DR. LAHEY: Yes.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: I mean operational 16transience I should say.
17DR. LAHEY: Yes. Not every one, but yes.
18Some important ones that can lead to loss of a 19coolable geometry. See, bottom line for me is, is the 20plant safe? That's, that's why I'm involved in all 21this; right? And when I look at things --
22JUDGE WARDWELL: I think we're all here 23for that.
24DR. LAHEY: -- which say it's not for sure 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 it 1on the list. I'd like to see the NRC with on top of 2that --3JUDGE WARDWELL: What would be "it"? You 4said 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 silos 7and have things instead of issue 25, 26 and 38, it's 8issue. And the issue is they're all going on 9together.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And that's where 11your synergism comes in --
12DR. LAHEY: Exactly.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: -- is in between fatigue 14and embrittlement. Is there anything else in regards 15to it?16DR. LAHEY: Well, and safety, the safety 17analysis.
18JUDGE WARDWELL: It's the safety analysis 19for under fatigue and embrittlement.
20DR. LAHEY: Right.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: And you said how it would 22affect fatigue and how it would affect embrittlement.
23Where does a synergism come in?
24DR. LAHEY: The synergism has to do with, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 a 2analysis of fatigue, they don't take it into account 3at all until right at the end when it already fails.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: So you believe it will be 5less resistant to fatigue as it embrittles?
6DR. LAHEY: All the data shows that if you 7have low amplitude -- I mean high amplitude/low cycle 8fatigue you reduce the cycles for failure and it can 9be significant, yes.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: And what data are you 11citing for this?
12DR. LAHEY: Well, I've cited three or four 13references in the, in my testimony. And I've also 14cited some of the work that they're doing at Argonne 15where the people at Argonne are saying the same thing 16really.17JUDGE WARDWELL: But could you, you know, 18tomorrow focus me towards those specific ones that 19you're thinking of --
20DR. LAHEY: Sure.
21JUDGE WARDWELL: -- and so to refresh your 22memory in regards to where you cite them in your 23testimony and --
24DR. LAHEY: I have them. I could look 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 want 2to take the time now to do it.
3DR. LAHEY: Right.
4JUDGE WARDWELL: And so the synergism 5comes in that you think it's worse with a combination 6of the two than just the additive of the two effects 7in regards to the potential problem?
8DR. LAHEY: Absolutely. And it's three, 9because now once you have that going on, you hit it 10with the shock load and that's the concern.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: Considering you've been 12dealing with this for all your career -- and I assume 13your career was probably about as long as mine was, so 14we can say it might be a fairly long career --
15DR. LAHEY: Yeah.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: -- that have you noticed 17this 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 is 22Richard Lahey, so I'm sorry to not identify myself.
23JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, no, once you get on 24you don't have to worry. They've got you.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4944DR. LAHEY: It's an interesting question 1because there have been remarkably few fatigue 2failures in nuclear reactors. But it's not accident.
3They -- when we designed, I used to be in charge of 4safety in thermohydraulics, R&D and reactor physics, 5all that at GE. All right. And when we designed 6these nuclear reactors we designed them for a certain 7life. And we put margin in. And they profited by 8that design.
9So there's no, you know, there's not a lot 10of those kind of failures.
11But if you now start looking at going 12beyond what the design life is and start fiddling away 13at the margins until you get into really safety 14margins, that concerns me a lot. And we'll talk about 15that tomorrow I guess.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: I guess I want to fix 17once more, and do you believe that MRP-227 doesn't 18look at the systematic effects, the synergistic 19effects associated with fatigue and embrittlement? Is 20that your position, that the synergistic effects 21they're talking about are different than the ones that 22you are concerned with?
23DR. LAHEY: They have certain components 24that they're applying that logic to. But it's not 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4945carried over to others because the analyses that are 1of concern don't take that into account. They just 2don't consider it. That's, that's what I'm worried 3about. And they're not considering it. It's a well 4done study focused on inspection, so it's sort of like 5you detect things after the fact.
6I'm worried about you don't see anything 7and then you have some sort of load that you don't 8expect, and all hell breaks loose. That's what I'm 9worried about.
10CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, Dr. Lahey, one 11thing. And again, Dr. Wardwell has given you certain 12homework to do that he wants to discuss tomorrow. One 13of the things I'd like to have you look at overnight:
14in the safety evaluation for MRP-227, and that's the 15NRC document 115A at page 4, they talk about the 16impact of the synergistic contributions from various 17factors.18And what I'd like to do is have you review 19that specifically. And perhaps tomorrow we can talk 20about it as of what you think they're missing there.
21DR. LAHEY: Can I ask, do we have it with 22us?23MR. SIPOS: Yes, I believe we do.
24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes, it's NRC-114.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4946DR. LAHEY: Yeah. I just, I mean I have 1mountains of stuff. We've been working on this for 2eight years back at the ranch.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: We all have mounds. I'm 4sure 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 a 10mountain, 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 to 14Entergy because that was the testimony I was quoting.
15Answer 169, page 109, where you state that 16"EPRI considered individual or synergistic effects of 17thermal aging or neutron irradiation embrittlement and 18loss of pre-load due to either individual or 19synergistic contributions from thermal and 20irradiation-enhanced stress relaxation."
21Does -- how does that apply to the types 22of synergism that Dr. Lahey is bringing up, that being 23a synergistic effect between fatigue and 24embrittlement?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4947DR. LOTT: Well, I --
1JUDGE WARDWELL: Now you can introduce 2yourself.
3DR. LOTT: Yes, I'm sorry. My name is 4Randy Lott. I'm here on behalf of Entergy.
5I don't think that that particular 6statement did relate to fatigue --
7JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry, I can't --
8Could you get close to it and try to talk a little 9slower because I can't, I can't hear you very well.
10DR. LOTT: I don't believe that statement 11that you read refers particularly to fatigue and 12irradiation embrittlement, it related to stress 13relaxation, the loss is corroding both.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
15DR. LOTT: And its impact on the 16assumption of the component.
17In the particular case, and just even 18within the screening criteria that was used, whenever 19you 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 is 24potentially subject to irradiation such that the load, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 its 1function might relax. We took that same component and 2we screened it in for concerns about fatigue and 3concerns about wear because we felt that with the loss 4of pre-load we'd have an impact on the ability of the 5component to survive those particular concerns.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: But can you point me to 7where you believe MRP-227 does look at fatigue versus 8embrittlement synergistically? And what steps are you 9doing within the Aging Management Program to address 10the concerns that you just heard Dr. Lahey express?
11DR. LOTT: First of all, the relationship 12that is within the structure of the document to look 13at fatigue and embrittlement is that the loss to 14fracture toughness limits the size of the crack that 15would be acceptable in the component. So when we look 16at acceptance criteria for fatigue cracking, it's 17based on the ability of the component to withstand the 18type of design basis loads that Dr. Lahey just 19discussed.
20In other words, we have not changed our 21requirement to survive the design basis load, but if 22a component has a fatigue crack, that would degrade --
23or decrease the ability to withstand those loads.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: But how do you address 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4949the potential fatigued member that may not be over its 1ultimate resistance just yet but is also embrittled 2and then receives such a transient shock that between 3the two effects --
4DR. LOTT: Well, yeah, I'm --
5JUDGE WARDWELL: -- it now doesn't perform 6its intended function?
7DR. LOTT: Again, I don't know of any 8evidence of there being a significant loss in the 9ability of a component prior to the initiation or 10prior to its exceeding effectively it's CUF equals 1 11value of an decreasing ability to withstand loading.
12So I don't, I don't think we did agree 13with the particular statement about fatigue weakening.
14We have looked at other things in those data in our 15testimony related to the effect of irradiation on 16fatigue life. And in general, I think for most of the 17irradiated internals you'll find that they operate in 18a region where fatigue life is not impacted 19significantly by irradiation.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: And does this mean that 21you've had -- there's data in your testimony in 22regards to the change in fatigue durability as a 23material is brittled?
24DR. LOTT: I think most of the data that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4950they were talking about there is probably the same 1data that Dr. Lahey just referred to. And I think it 2would probably be good for us to discuss that tomorrow 3or 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 was 6the end of that sentence?
7DR. LOTT: I said I -- unless you want to 8pull out the references and begin that discussion now.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Between fatigue and the 10durability under embrittled materials in regards to 11their fatigue strength, are you saying that's part of 1226 rather than 25 or?
13DR. LOTT: Well, I think you just had the 14discussion. You asked Dr. Lahey about the impact of 15fatigue and irradiation on the life of the component.
16And he discussed it with that there was released data 17about the fatigue life, the CUF, effective of 18allowable number of cycles and strain related to the 19irradiation of a component.
20Again, it's really the fatigue data that's 21available that we're talking about.
22DR. LAHEY: Your Honor, this is the data 23you asked me to bring tomorrow, those references.
24CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And we may get to it 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 to 3chime in with any comments they might have just to 4complete the loop, I guess, in regards to hearing what 5he said in regards to the fatigue durability, if you 6will, as the material embrittles.
7MR. STEVENS: This is Gary Stevens of the 8NRC Staff.
9I'm a little confused by some of the 10conversation because I do hear crack initiation, 11propagation, embrittlement and Charpy specimens. And 12so my response is going to be related to crack 13initiation and the CUF types of analyses that are 14done. I'm assuming that's kind of where you're going 15with your questioning.
16As Mr. Lott has pointed out, there is not 17much data with respect to crack initiation under 18irradiated conditions available. The Staff in our 19research has looked at a lot of that or what is 20available. And generally speaking, in general terms 21irradiation tends to increase the mechanical strength 22of materials, increases yield strength, ultimate 23strength. And those kind of changes tend to increase 24the fatigue life of materials.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 not 2always that way. You can see some data where that's 3not observed.
4And one of the things you have to be 5careful about, for example, some of the data may be at 6high temperature, which is not applicable to the 7reactors we're talking about here. So the general 8lack of data is inconclusive completely as to what the 9effects might be. There's not enough data to evaluate 10specifically factors for irradiation.
11Based on what we've seen, generally we see 12an improvement in life. And some of the exhibits 13demonstrate that. And we have concluded as of now 14there's not enough information for us to say that 15there's an effect that isn't covered by the standard 16fatigue calculations that are done in accordance with 17ASME code.
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Mr. Stevens, as I 19understood what Dr. Lahey was saying -- and I may be 20wrong, so please correct me if that's the case -- that 21it's different with embrittlement reacts differently.
22That even if you have a increase in the metal strength 23with a constant load, when you have a shock load you 24have a lack of ductility -- and I mispronounced that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 correctly 2understanding what you were saying?
3DR. LAHEY: Yeah. A shock load can do 4significantly more damage than a static load for a 5weakened material, either weakened by fatigue or 6embrittled, or a combination.
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And what Mr. Stevens was 8saying is that the data indicates that in many 9circumstances it's not weakened by the exposure to 10neutrons but rather it's actually strengthened. Is 11that correct, Mr. Stevens?
12MR. STEVENS: That's correct. With 13respect to crack initiation.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Now, does that 15matter whether or not the crack initiation is as a 16result of a constant pressure or opposed to a shock 17load?18MR. STEVENS: No, sir. I mean all cyclic 19-- constant load would not contribute to fatigue, it 20must be a cyclic load. But all cyclic loads in the 21design bay or current licensing basis for normal upset 22or test conditions must be evaluated for crack 23initiation. If the CLB includes, it would include any 24kind of shock loads, those would have to be included 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4954in the calculation.
1CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So you're saying they 2are included in the calculation?
3MR. STEVENS: That's correct.
4CHAIRMAN MCDADE: It's not just the normal 5cycles but all within design basis?
6MR. STEVENS: Well, okay, so if there are 7shock loads that are in the normal upset or test 8condition levels specified by ASME code, they would be 9included in the fatigue calculation.
10Some of the events that you're describing 11-- and that would include, by the way, some form of 12seismic events which would, which would be considered 13an upset event, and they would be included in the 14calculation.
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, for 22example, some of the local loads and more severe 23earthquakes that are considered accident. And the 24ASME code requires them to be evaluated but not for 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4955fatigue crack initiation.
1JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Dr. Hiser's body 2language sort of suggested that I was wandering off 3the path in an erratic fashion. Do you want to --
4DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. I 5apologize.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: -- put me back in the 7right direction.
8DR. HISER: I apologize for that because 9I was -- there's, I think there's about three 10different topics that are on the table. And it's 11untangling them I think is very difficult.
12What Mr. Stevens was talking about was 13effects of irradiation on CUF. And he, I think what 14he was saying was that there is minimal effect on CUF.
15And in reality it may retard crack initiation as 16modeled by CUF. So neutron embrittlement improves the 17fatigue life of the component.
18Now, the shock loads only come into effect 19not as a part of the evaluation of CUF, but in terms 20of you have a structure in its condition and you, you 21subject it to a certain load. From that perspective 22you need to consider the effects of the load level on 23the condition of the material that exists at that 24time.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, the 1Staff believes there are no cracks evident in the 2structure that could cause failure. If there was a 3crack that existed, then one would properly account 4for the reduced fracture toughness due to the neutron 5embrittlement of the structure.
6So the shock loads would only come into 7play at a point in time. It's an impulse load at a 8certain point in time.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: And does the Aging 10Management Plan require analysis of those shock loads 11on given vessel internals for materials that have been 12embrittled?
13MR. POEHLER: This is Jeffrey Poehler of 14the Staff.
15The Aging Management Program does not 16require that analysis to be performed of embrittled, 17basically a crack to an embrittled component. Because 18the Aging Management Program is an inspection-based 19program so it performs various inspections to provide 20reasonable assurance that there are no cracks in the 21components. And without a crack you're not going to 22get failure even of an embrittled material.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: As a -- the Aging 24Management Program does require a demonstration, 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4957right, of functionality, that meets its intended 1function. And so is it your statement that the Aging 2Management Program doesn't require any calculations to 3do that but is relying solely on the inspections to 4detect a crack indicative of a potential effect 5associated with whatever mechanism caused it?
6DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser for the 7Staff.8The inspections are intended to preserve 9the geometry of the materials, in effect no cracks.
10The Staff believe that no cracks under design basis 11loading conditions that the structure will not fail.
12If one were to find a crack in one of the 13components then one of the evaluation options would be 14to look to ensure that that structure with the crack, 15with accounting for crack growth during one or more 16future cycles, with the embrittled state of the 17material -- or actually I won't say embrittled but 18with the actual fracture toughness of the material, be 19it whatever level of embrittlement it might be, and 20you apply the loads and you have to be able to show 21that that crack will remain stable.
22So from that perspective, if you have a 23crack you consider the worst case loads that are in 24the design basis, you consider the fracture toughness 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4958of the material that exists at that point in time 1projected forward -- maybe you project to 60 years 2because you want to demonstrate that it's good for the 3rest of the license renewal period. Once you can do 4that then you have an assessment of whether the crack 5is acceptable or not.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: So if I hear you 7correctly, this all hinges on the fact that there has 8to be a crack before there's any failure?
9DR. HISER: My belief is that that is 10true. I have not seen evidence of reactor internal 11components that has failed without a crack.
12CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Dr. Lahey, if I could, 13as I understood your testimony, you hypothesized that 14in embrittled material that is then subject to a shock 15load, that you could have a failure even though there 16is no discernible cracking prior to that time, no 17cracking as far as crack initiation or propagation, 18that no visible cracking but highly embrittled 19material, that you could have a failure under a shock 20load. Is that your theory?
21DR. LAHEY: Yes. That -- yes.
22And I would -- can I answer just a few of 23these things? So I agree wholeheartedly that we need 24more data. All right? But the data set that I'll 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4959bring the reference on shows that for low 1amplitude/high frequency fatigue that embrittlement 2due to radiation, things are even better. Okay?
3Because if you look at the stress-strain 4curve, you know, you are on the elastic part. But 5when you get high amplitude/low cycle fatigue you have 6a reduction. Many of the kind of transients we're 7talking about when we evaluate life are not high 8frequency. They're not flowing vibration, so they're 9transients. They're a lower frequency event.
10Everybody thinks that more data is needed.
11So but the focus on surface cracks is what the big 12difference is. I --
13CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. But, Dr. Lahey, 14given the fact that these components are primarily 15high grade stainless steel --
16DR. LAHEY: Yes.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- is it realistic to 18think that you would, without any crack propagation 19but simply a shock load could cause failure?
20DR. LAHEY: Well, let me tell you. Can I 21give you just a Gedankenexperiment and we can see if 22we agree or not? All right?
23The Gedankenexperiment which is actually 24being done or has been done is you now fatigue the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 has 3a 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? All 10right? How much does it take to --
11CHAIRMAN MCDADE: So under embrittlement 12then?13DR. LAHEY: Or damage. I mean I don't 14like to call it embrittlement but metal damage due to 15fatigue.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 way 22it's being looked at now, nothing happens until you 23get to the CUF of 1, until you start to see a surface 24crack. What I'm concerned with is well before 1.0 on 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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. And 1it doesn't have to have a surface crack.
2CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. Dr. Hiser, do you 3wish to respond?
4DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. I'm not 5familiar with any experiment such as that with 6austenitic stainless steel, be it with fatigue at 7different levels of CUF, be it with neutron 8embrittlement or any combination thereof. My belief 9is CUF is 1.0 or less, it's very unlikely that you 10have a surface crack even in the material.
11I think your likely incipient to have a 12surface crack. Without a surface crack I think you're 13unlikely to fail under a shock load or any other kind 14of a load that's representative of the kind of 15conditions that you'd see in vessel internals for a 16PWR plant.
17DR. LAHEY: Okay, so --
18JUDGE WARDWELL: I would like to get back 19to my question. My question to you was, doesn't your, 20doesn't the AMP rely on a surface crack in regards to 21any evaluation of embrittlement?
22DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser.
23Yes. That would be when the AMP would 24bring into account the neutron embrittlement.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4962Otherwise the way that neutron embrittlement, thermal 1embrittlement are managed in this AMP and in others is 2through the detection of cracks.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: So without a crack those 4embrittlements aren't evaluated until a crack occurs?
5DR. HISER: I think that's correct.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: And they haven't been 7evaluated as part of the AMP that's been submitted and 8approved by you; correct?
9DR. HISER: That's correct.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: What is to say why -- I 11understand that you haven't seen any data to show the 12relationship between the Charpy test and fatigue for 13stainless steel, but likewise have you seen any tests 14that might indicate this potential where the material 15after the additional 20 years of the PEO, right before 16you're ready to shut down, is so embrittled that 17there's no cracks, but it is so embrittled that a 18transient could fail it catastrophically?
19Similar to what I imagine I've experienced 20myself with rubber bands holding together a bunch of 21envelopes. And after digging up a shoe box 30 years 22later I look at it and I go, Oh, that's neat. And I 23grab them and the whole rubber band disintegrates.
24Why couldn't that happen -- and that's the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4963way I picture what Dr. Lahey is talking about -- what 1data do you have that shows that can't happen?
2DR. HISER: My experience is the same as 3yours. I find stuff that's been left away for a 4period of time and the rubber band is broken.
5Stainless is not rubber bands.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: What data do you have on 7the stainless steel? Because, likewise, my rubber 8band isn't in the middle of a nuclear reactor. What 9evidence do you have that that same type of thing 10could not be happening over this period of extended 11operation that no one's been through yet that would 12make for catastrophic failure without the presence of 13a crack initially?
14DR. HISER: There is data, very high 15fluencies, fracture toughness data, that show that the 16materials retain ductility. Ductility is all that you 17need to resist initiation even of cracks.
18So if there is no cracks, really the only 19failure mechanism that you have is a tensile overload 20of the structure. And with a highly embrittled 21material, actually the yield strength is increased 22quite a bit, so from that perspective the component 23has somewhat gotten more resistant to shock loads 24because it now can sustain a higher load before it 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 could 2have strained enough within that such that it may not 3reach that peak; isn't that correct? Isn't that a 4possibility?
5DR. HISER: If you had, if you had a 6crack. And I think fundamentally it comes down to do 7you have a crack? If no crack, I believe there is no 8impact.9JUDGE WARDWELL: And can you get us a cite 10for this data that you're talking about that shows 11that highly embrittled materials under -- and I'm not 12real up to speed on the fluence, but that is a time 13relation type of thing, that's just a total amount of 14-- that is time related in regards to the magnitude of 15the number means it's been under an influence for a 16longer period of time?
17Or is it just the rate at which it is 18being bombarded?
And if so, have those tests been 19performed for to simulate 20 additional years of 20operation after the initial 40 years, total 60 years?
21DR. HISER: The fracture toughness data 22normally correlated in terms of fracture toughness is 23a function of fluence. And fluence is, it depends on 24where you are in the vessel, what the exposure rate 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 internal 2components.
3JUDGE WARDWELL: But that relationship 4that I heard you talk about in regards to the data was 5that you have -- I forgot the words you used to 6indicate --
7DR. HISER: Ductility.
8JUDGE WARDWELL: What?
9DR. HISER: Ductility.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: No, no, I know what 11ductility is.
12DR. HISER: Oh, sorry.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: Did you use a phrase 14embrittlement strength or toughened fracture strength?
15Or what's the term you have for embrittlement? You 16said, you said you had data relating fluence to what 17parameter, other parameter?
18DR. HISER: Fracture toughness.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Fracture toughness, okay.
20You have data, you believe you have data 21related between fluence and fracture toughness. Is 22fluence, the fluence parameter is the rate at which 23the neutrons are bombarding it? Is that correct? Or 24is it the total amount of neutron or --
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, you 8could turn to the spot that I think Jeff will discuss 9in terms of -- instead of fluence in terms of time, 10but you would have to determine the flux. So it would 11depend on where you are in the vessel internals.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. And we'll talk 13about that with regards to specific components and 14where they are, whether they'd be susceptible to it.
15But given, given there are some internals 16that are under high influence -- high fluence, sorry, 17in the core; right?
18DR. HISER: Yes.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: And again, my question is 20I'm interested in that data that somehow comforts one 21to believe that a crack is needed prior to 22embrittlement failure, for lack of a better term. You 23know, rubber band disintegration, the equivalent of it 24in my shoe box.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4967DR. HISER: I would just caution using a 1rubber band analogy is off because there's still 2ductility. Your rubber band doesn't have ductility 3left. That's why, that's why it did break. And my 4guess is it probably had cracks in it that ultimately 5caused the failure.
6JUDGE WARDWELL: And that, that lack of 7ductility, whether or not it exists with the stainless 8steel would be indicated by those tests that you have 9that help support that potential -- help support your 10hypothesis. Is that a fair assessment?
11DR. HISER: That's correct.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
13DR. LOTT: Your Honor, this is Randy Lott 14from Entergy.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
16DR. LOTT: I just wanted to point out that 17while the data that Mr. Hiser is offering is quite 18valuable in terms of showing that the fracture 19toughness is still characterizable in science and 20ductility in high fluence, in fact if there's not a 21crack there's no way to know the fracture toughness of 22the material because it's only used to analyze a crack 23component.
24And I think part of what is protecting us 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4968here from the failures that you're describing, the 1unfailed, uncracked component, is really the fact that 2the components themselves were designed based on 3value, yield stress values and demonstrated in 4unirradiated condition that they do not exceed the 5stresses that are allowed under the design basis 6loads. They will withstand in the unfailed condition 7even higher stresses due to the increase in yield 8stress without failure.
9So, again, the fact that you design to the 10unirradiated load limits helps protect us. Again, the 11magnitude of these shock loads, as Dr. Lahey calls 12them, or the local loads or the seismic loads don't 13change with time. It's just the ability of the 14material to withstand it that we're interested in.
15JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you, Dr. Lott.
16If I could go back to Dr. Lahey, I did 17stop you from speaking because I was on a --
18CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Before you do, could I 19just say one thing?
20A suggestion. We're sort of going back 21and forth here among the various witnesses. And a 22witness may say ten things, eight of which the other 23witnesses agree with. But then by the time we get 24back to them they're only going to discuss one of the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 a 3note I you want to get back to it. I find little note 4cards 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 challenging 8to follow back and forth from my standpoint of exactly 9what is being said to who. And, you know, to the 10degree there is a disagreement, that might be helpful 11to draw your attention back to it.
12Judge Wardwell, please.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: Which is a good segue 14into when I interrupted you, Dr. Lahey, or I started 15asking questions as you were starting to speak just 16before 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 you 19get done with that, then I would appreciate your 20comments on any tests you've seen in regard to 21fracture toughness versus fluence.
22DR. LAHEY: Okay. The last remark I guess 23is a good way to start. And, you know, I didn't draw 24it but I did the professor thing in the air with the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4970stress-strain. And as it gets hardened, now it moves 1up like that and the yield strength and the ultimate 2stress gets higher, no doubt as long as you're in that 3range with a low strain things are better.
4That's why low amplitude/high frequency 5experiments are better, even if it's irradiated, in 6terms of failure, crack initiation.
7If you have a large load, though, and you 8go beyond, you know, beyond the ultimate strength with 9a high enough strain, it's gone. All right? So it's 10not true that things are good once it's highly 11embrittled. It depends a lot on what the, what the 12strain is, what the amplitude of it is.
13And if you have a very large shock -- can 14I get you to show this now? Because he said he could 15project it. Because if you -- I mean I can't really 16draw it with my finger very well. I'm sorry. I tried 17and 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 say 22simple spring mass system and showing an impulsive 23load, what happens?
24Well, anybody who's ever had a course in 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 compressibility 5of organic soils with fiber decomposition, in case 6you're ever interested.
7DR. LAHEY: Okay. And the way we, the way 8we model elasticity, there's a bunch of them, or 9plasticity.
10MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, Kathryn Sutton 11for 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, Your 15Honor.16CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But what we are going to 17do, I believe Dr. Lahey feels that this diagram will 18--19DR. LAHEY: You know, help them understand 20what I'm trying --
21CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- help to explain 22better, 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. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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's 2582. I'll double check, Your Honor.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. So but when we're 4done we'll mark it as a
-- it's a demonstrative 5exhibit. It's not received into evidence. It's the 6testimony of Dr. Lahey that we're receiving as 7evidence --
8DR. LAHEY: Fine.
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: -- and but it will be an 10exhibit for identification and part of the record in 11that regard.
12MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, could the Staff 13at least request some copies of it so that we could, 14you know, have a chance to evaluate it? Because if it 15only shows up here right now, the witnesses may not 16have a chance to review it, you know, in full detail.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: What we're going to do 18right now, Mr. Welkie is going to put it up. We will 19then capture it electronically. And then we can give 20everybody as many autographed copies as they want.
21DR. LAHEY: Believe me, it's not suitable 22for framing.
23MR. KUYLER: Your Honor, Ray Kuyler for 24Entergy.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4973Entergy would like to note it's objection 1to the use of this. This certainly could have been 2provided in previous testimony.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Well, we don't know yet.
4I mean it's Dr.
Lahey is indicating that this will 5help him explain his answer to a question that has 6been posed to him. And maybe it will and maybe it 7won't. But again, it's the testimony of Dr. Lahey 8that we're going to be evaluating.
9DR. LAHEY: Yes, I mean if it's hard to 10show 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 a 13little 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 spring 16mass dashpot system. So as I say, anybody who's an 17engineer solved this equation at one point in their 18life. It's the second order ordinary differential 19equation. It's F equals ma.
20And so what you're doing is you have the 21mass of the structure. All right? And then you have 22a force on it. And so now I'm going to hit it with a 23impulsive force. I could either do it delta function, 24but I'm going to do a step change just so you see 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 elasticity 2of the metal. The dashpot has to do with the damping.
3So if you hit it at time equals 0 with a 4force, then what will happen if you, if you look at X 5which is the position of the thing, the mass that 6you're modeling, versus time, at first it will, it 7will go up. And then I would assume it's under 8damped, so it will oscillate a bit, and then it will 9go to the steady state value which is F over the mass 10times 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 go 14way higher. You go much higher. So the strain, the 15amplitude is high. And if you're high enough in 16amplitude you can fracture your material.
17If it's highly weakened, either by 18irradiation, by thermal embrittlement, by fatigue, 19anything that weakens that material, if it's weak 20enough you can break it.
21And that's, that's all I was trying to 22say. So it's not true that if you harden it, which it 23will harden by irradiation, that everything is good.
24Because it depends on what the amplitude is of the25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 small 2relative to the peak. All right? The steady state 3amplitude. And that, unfortunately, all the analyses 4that I've seen from the last seven years of this stuff 5is they're doing steady state kind of loading. Any 6time they do accidents they implicitly assume intact 7geometry and don't, don't really take into account the 8degradation of the material itself.
9So that's all I was trying to show.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: Dr. Lahey, this is Judge 11Kennedy.12I'm trying to get a handle on this 13impulsive loading. I guess if you pick the right load 14you'll break anything. How do you tie this load into 15the types of loads that are of concern at Indian 16Point? I mean are you suggesting they're using the 17wrong loads?
18DR. LAHEY: It depends on what causes the 19load. For instance, if it's a very severe earthquake 20and you have a structure and all of a sudden, pang, 21you hit it hard you can create this kind of 22phenomenon. You will overpower the ability of the 23metal to withstand the load.
24If it's a local load, you know --
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4976JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess that's what I'm 1struggling with. It sounds like you get to pick the 2load. And I think there's -- presume there's a set of 3rules of engagement here that goes with the design of 4this facility. And I'm trying to get to the bottom of 5are you suggesting that Entergy is not using the 6appropriate loads?
7DR. LAHEY: No.
8JUDGE KENNEDY: Or are you suggesting 9there are loads out there that they need to consider?
10JUDGE KENNEDY: Your Honor, I believe that 11their safety evaluations consider the various loads, 12the various accident type loads. And their seismic 13analysis takes into account those type of loads.
14What's not done though is the effect of 15that on a highly degraded material. I've never seen 16anything that looks, that looks at the effect of the 17significant shock loads on a degraded material and 18what happens after that.
19JUDGE KENNEDY: When the NRC Staff was 20discussing the ASME code loads, upset conditions and 21accident conditions, those loads are different than 22the ones you're speaking of?
23DR. LAHEY: The type of loads that I heard 24them talking about were the normal -- when we were 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 local 3loads. And I assume then they also would talk about 4the seismic loads, yes.
5JUDGE KENNEDY: So is there yet another 6set of loads that you think needs to be considered 7here that aren't currently being considered?
8DR. LAHEY: No. My concern is that the 9integrity of the various structures, the internals, 10the bolts for example, the baffle bolts, when you 11apply significant shock loads to them they don't look 12at the degradation of the material. That's what I'm 13concerned with.
14JUDGE KENNEDY: This, this takes us back 15to the cracking discussion, doesn't it? Or does it?
16DR. LAHEY: Well, I, I'm --
17JUDGE KENNEDY: Because I hear they 18consider it.
19DR. LAHEY: Yeah. But I'm absolutely sure 20you can fail structures without a crack. If you hit 21it hard enough you'll fail a structure.
22JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't think anyone here 23will dispute that if you get to pick the load and it 24has no basis in anything within the design of this25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4978plant you can probably break it. I think my concern 1is that Entergy, the Staff are playing within a 2certain set of boundaries --
3DR. LAHEY: Right.
4JUDGE KENNEDY: -- and the only thing I'm 5trying to get to is are you suggesting that there is 6something wrong with that boundary?
7DR. LAHEY: The loads are fine with me.
8All right? The effect of the loads is what I'm 9concerned with.
10JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: So by that do you mean 12it's -- you agree that they have incorporated the 13loads that should be incorporated into this analysis 14of any of the vessel internals?
15DR. LAHEY: The safety analysis reports 16that I looked at for Indian Point look like they do 17all the normal accident evaluations, and similarly 18with the seismic. I'm not sure about the new seismic 19criteria now. As you may know, that has changed since 20the recent earthquake a few years ago. But definitely 21they look at that event as well.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: And it's your position 23that it's the application of those loads, it's the way 24they apply those loads to the materials and what they 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4979-- excuse me -- consider for their resistance that is 1of the issue?
2DR. LAHEY: Do they consider the 3degradation of the material to these type of loads?
4And I have seen no evidence that that has occurred.
5CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And how would they do 6that?7DR. LAHEY: How would you do it?
8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Yes.
9DR. LAHEY: You put, you put the force on 10the body and then you have the material properties in 11terms 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 of 14data you understand isn't available?
15DR. LAHEY: One of the problems is there's 16not enough data to know for sure. But there's enough 17data to know that there can be an effect. So normally 18you would, because of uncertainty you would put some 19sort of uncertainty factor there on their cycles to 20failure, until you know for sure.
21So some of these things are going to be 22done. As I said, the light water reactors' 23sustainability program is going to supply the fatigue 24stuff.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4980With the embrittlement it's a much more 1lengthy process. There's only one place in the 2country you can do that. That's in Idaho in their hot 3cells. And it's a very long, expensive iterative 4process. But eventually we will have all that data.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: But lacking that, what 6else would you suggest they do at this point?
7DR. LAHEY: I would not suggest --
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Shut down until that's 9done?10DR. LAHEY: No. I, I would not suggest 11you just press on. I mean that's basically what, 12what's being done.
13I would suggest, and I've gotten a lot of 14kickback on the suggestion, that some of these things 15are easy to fix. You just repair them. It's not a 16big ticket in the scheme of things. Y ou get rid of 17the problem and don't worry about it because there's 18certain things you'll see tomorrow when we talk about 19CUFen that are right on the ragged edge and there's 20others that aren't.
21And similarly in core, you have stuff that 22is highly embrittled and stuff that's not.
23So nobody's talking about replace 24everything. But the key things, get rid of the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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'll 2start with Dr. Lott and see if he has any other 3comments that he might want to make in regards to what 4could be done at this point in regards to addressing 5the lack of the application of the correct loads that 6you had been doing to materials that are both 7embrittled and fatigued.
8DR. LOTT: I'm not sure I fully understood 9all of the things that were just said.
10JUDGE WARDWELL: I was counting on you to 11sort them all out.
12DR. LOTT: I think that as was said 13before, we're not here arguing about the loads that 14are applied to the components. I think that's part of 15the current licensing basis. And I think a lot of 16what we discussed about how impulse loads and all that 17are already dealt with within our current process.
18So we're not talking about that. What 19we're talking about, the ability of the component to 20withstand those loads and how that may be improved or 21degraded over the life of the component.
22Again, as I understand it we're talking 23about -- we talk about irradiation embrittlement in 24broad terms as a bunch of different phenomena.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4982Because it's true, it increases yield stress, it 1increases the ultimate stress. It decreases the 2ductility, how much stretch there is in the material 3before it fails.
4Our point with respect --
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Does it fail at lower 6strains or higher strains or does it vary based on?
7DR. LOTT: Well, again, that's a -- you 8need to look at the true stress-strain curve I guess 9to actually answer that question. What happens in a 10normal tensile bar when you pull it under these 11conditions is it's a great deal of strain 12localization.
13So while you might see a normal stainless 14steel provide a long, gradual necking process to it, 15this steel is kind of localized with a very sharp 16neck. And so they do have in an engineering 17stress-strain curve exactly the behavior that Dr.
18Lahey described: a large increase in the yield stress 19and the ultimate stress. And limited amount of 20uniform elongation. And then some amount of 21additional deformation to failure.
22That's typical of highly irradiated 23materials.
24There's a bunch of things I guess I'd like 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 of 1the materials, even in the internals, are highly 2irradiated. These very high fluences we're discussing 3are pretty much limited to the baffle former and 4baffle former bolts. And we can talk about that in 5the future, too, if we need to.
6So it does not affect a wide range of the 7components there.
8Again, I think we need to be careful about 9this whole discussion of, of what, you know, I don't 10know of a phenomena called irradiation weakening. I 11know of irradiation-induced decrease in fracture 12toughness which, as I said, decreases the ability to 13maintain its dimensional stability, whether in part to 14withstand fracture or at least the initiation of a 15crack, crack, form a crack.
16The only, only time that comes into place 17is when you have a crack in the component, the 18fracture toughness that is decreased. And I do not 19believe any of these co mponents are designed to 20undergo large strains in the normal application.
21They're not deformed, they're just not deformed that 22way so they're never going to fail by these other 23brittle mechanisms.
24There may be more to that question. I am 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 Strosnider 2from Entergy.
3I'd like to add something to this on the 4notion of this failure of a component without a crack.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, please do.
6MR. STROSNIDER: So I think the first 7thing to recognize is that if there's no fracture in 8it, then the fracture toughness is out of the picture.
9What's dominating the failure mechanism is the 10strength.
11And as was explained, when these materials 12are irradiated the strength goes up. Right? So if 13these components could withstand the design basis 14loads when they were originally designed under their 15original condition without any embrittlement, and it's 16governed by strength, when the strength goes up 17they're going, they're still going to withstand those 18loads. In fact, their load carrying capacity is 19increased.
20So just logically you would conclude that 21they still meet the current licensing basis loads, 22which we said include the dynamic factors, et cetera.
23Now, what's being confused here is when 24they do fail, right -- and this actually Judge Kennedy 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4985was touching on this with his question earlier -- if 1you hit it with big enough a load, if you were to take 2it to a load higher than the design basis load and 3fail it when it's been embrittled, it will show less 4ductility than if it were not embrittled. But you 5still have to get to that load that's higher than the 6design basis loads in order for that to happen.
7And oh, by the way, none of these 8materials are going to fail like a candy cane. And 9when you look at the data that's been discussed in 10terms of fracture toughness -- and I think people have 11talked about getting to that tomorrow -- you're going 12to see that they still have ductility. Right?
13Now, let's take the other situation where 14you actually have a crack. All right? And as was 15explained, in the Aging Management Program if you find 16a crack then you will, you could, in fact a crack in 17embrittled material will reduce the load bearing 18capability. So you have to do an analysis considering 19what level the fracture toughness is at because that 20now governs failure. And you have to determine if 21that crack can be left in service and for how long.
22There's one other thing I want to add to 23that is that there are analyses that have been done to 24look at the critical flaw sizes, critical crack 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 be 2determined with the inspection methods they're using.
3And that's the other piece that you didn't get to but 4that's an important part of this.
5JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, we'll be talking 6about inspection tomorrow. Yes.
7MR. STROSNIDER: Yeah, so you'll get 8there.9But the point is none of these materials 10are going to, going to fail. Even with the crack in 11it, it's not going to fail like the candy cane. It 12will still field ductility. That's why they're using 13an elastic plastic fraction mechanics analysis method 14in these cases.
15And if you look at it without a crack, 16it's load bearing capability goes up. So the only 17logical conclusion is that it's going to withstand the 18design basis loads as it did when it was originally 19designed.
20JUDGE WARDWELL: But doesn't its ductility 21drop drastically with age?
22MR. GRIESBACH: Your Honor.
23MR. STROSNIDER: When it fails it will 24show less, less ductility. And this is you could look 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 a 1uni-axle tensile bar, if you take low strength and 2high strength materials, the more ductile one will 3show more, more necking, more elongation.
4The one that's the higher strength which 5has less ductility will not show as much necking and 6it may, it may fail with a flat fracture. But it's 7not going to shatter, not these materials.
8MR. GRIESBACH: Your Honor, this is Tim 9Griesbach for Entergy.
10I think we should point out that --
11JUDGE WARDWELL: I've got a follow-up 12question. And I'm going to forget it if I don't ask 13it. In fact, I may have forgotten it already. And 14that's why I don't like interruptions if I can avoid 15them because it prevents us from getting the answers 16we need to make a decision.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Jot it down and we'll 18get back to you.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Yeah, that's the way to 20do it. Except you might as well say it now because 21now I've forgotten what I was going to follow up on.
22Go ahead.
23CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Now he's forgotten what 24he was going to say.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 that 2I've forgotten what I wanted to say.
But I want to 3point out that's why I want to minimize the 4interruptions because when I've got a follow-up 5question that I had for your compadre there --
6MR. GRIESBACH: Okay.
7JUDGE WARDWELL: -- it was right on point 8to what he had said. And now it's not on point 9anymore. It's been axed from this hearing.
10So proceed.
11MR. GRIESBACH: What I think we really 12would like to point out, though, is the materials that 13we're talking about are austenitic stainless steels 14for the most part. They're, they're face center 15cubic, which means they have much more ductility than 16the type of ferritic steels that tend to undergo a 17ductile to brittle transition and can be brittle.
18So these types of materials don't 19experience that type of brittle fracture. Even in the 20irradiated condition they still have much ductility 21and strength, as we've talked about, and wouldn't fail 22in that brittle manner as some people have pointed out 23here.24So I think we need to keep that in mind.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 point 1that out as well.
2JUDGE WARDWELL: And we will be able to 3see from that data highly embrittled type of results 4that might be indicative of what it would be like in 5the reactor after 60 years of operation?
6MR. GRIESBACH: The levels of fluence in 7the test data is representative of exposure for a 8significant period of time in PWR reactors, yes.
9JUDGE WARDWELL: Great.
10MR. COX: Just one clarifying comment on 11that. That the highly, the term "highly embrittled" 12--13JUDGE WARDWELL: And this is Mr. Cox; 14correct?15MR. COX: That's correct. This is Allen 16Cox with Entergy.
17When you say "highly embrittled" that's 18one of those words that ends with "l-y" and it could 19have a number of meanings. What Mr. Griesbach said is 20that we'll have data that's based on the fluence 21that's experienced at the end of 60 years. That does 22not necessarily equate to highly embrittled or highly 23irradiated.
24JUDGE WARDWELL: I stand corrected. The 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4990embrittlement that does occur after 60 years, however 1it is. I won't pre-judge that.
2I think I remember the question I was 3going to ask. So the various internals -- and if 4you'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 tension 8load; correct? With normal operations or with shock 9loads they're going to be under different types of 10load applications?
11MR. STROSNIDER: This is Jack Strosnider 12for Entergy.
13That's true.
14JUDGE WARDWELL: And so how is that taken 15into effect, because one component may be very 16sensitive to corrosional activity based on where it is 17and how it may perform. And another would be under 18compression, another under shear, another under 19bending, another under tension. How is that addressed 20in any manner or?
21Well, no. In fact let me rephrase that.
22Really that isn't addressed in your AMP because you 23don't, you do not evaluate anything until you see a 24crack based on this inspection-based AMP; is that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4991correct?1MR. STROSNIDER: So this is Jack 2Strosnider for Entergy. And some of my colleagues 3here may be able to get into more detail.
4But, again, I think if you look at this 5logically, when the internals were designed, right, 6they were designed to the ASME code section 3. They 7were designed to stay in the elastic range. Right?
8And various loadings, whether they be compressive or 9torsional or thermal, whatever was driving them, they 10were included in that original design. And they 11haven't changed.
12Under the license removal you're assessing 13the same loads that were in the original design. So 14whatever those loads were, they're still there.
15They're the same. And what's done in the analysis in 16the MRP-227 is to use the design basis loads.
17So that's the big picture answer. And I 18don'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 loads 21are different, it's that the ability of the metal to 22withstand the loads is different based on 23embrittlement and other aging mechanisms. That's what 24Dr. Lahey's thesis says.
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4992MR. STROSNIDER: Well, Jack Strosnider for 1Entergy.2And just what I was trying to explain 3earlier is let's take two cases. If there's no crack 4in the component, you put the same loads on it and 5because it's been embrittled, all right, its strength 6has gone up and that's --
7CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But ductility has gone 8down?9MR. STROSNIDER: Yeah. So you have to get 10to high enough a load to fail it, all right, before 11you're going to see that, that impacted ductility.
12And this was the question that I mentioned earlier 13that Judge Kennedy brought up is, sure, if you hit it 14with high enough a load it will fail. But we're not 15talking about unlimited loads here, we're talking 16about loads that are within the design basis.
17CHAIRMAN MCDADE: But isn't what Dr. Lahey 18is suggesting is that there's a lack of data to show 19the effect of the same loads, these loads that it's 20undergone for the past 40 years, that those loads will 21not affect the particular item differently because of 22the embrittlement and other aging mechanisms and that 23there's a lack of data to demonstrate where the 24cut-off line is? Is that data available?
25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4993MR. STROSNIDER: Jack Strosnider for 1Entergy.2What I would suggest -- and again my 3colleagues can maybe expand on this -- but if you want 4to see the impact of embrittlement on the parameter 5that controls failure, which is the yield strength, 6the yield or the ultimate strength, all you've got to 7do 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 that 10these tensile properties the strength improves, the 11strength gets brighter when you irradiate the 12material.
13JUDGE WARDWELL: And is it your position 14that the torsional strength and the compressive 15strength and the shear strength and the bending 16strength also go up? And does the data support that?
17MR. STROSNIDER: My colleague has a 18response.
19MR. GRIESBACH: Various different --
20JUDGE WARDWELL: And to who are we --
21MR. GRIESBACH: This is Tim Griesbach for 22Entergy.23JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
24MR. GRIESBACH: You're suggesting that 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 the 2maximum tensile stress or flow stress to reach 3failure. So, yes, that would go up under various 4different load combinations without the presence of a 5crack.6JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you.
7DR. LAHEY: Can I say? I think --
8JUDGE WARDWELL: Pardon?
9CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Before that I think we 10ought to go to Staff.
11JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay.
12DR. LAHEY: You'd summarized my feeling 13exactly.14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Hold it for one minute 15and we'll get back to you.
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Unless it's something 17really quick.
18DR. LAHEY: No, I just agreed, if that's 19okay, that the essence of the --
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: We always have time for 21that.22JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes.
23DR. LAHEY: It's just the difference has 24to do with what's the integrity of the metal, given 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4995those loads. And the problem is how to quantify it 1because of the lack of data.
2The only data, if it's available, suggests 3these effects. But there's not enough to quantify it?
4So then what do you do? I mean how -- do you just 5press on? Or how do you --
6JUDGE WARDWELL: So let me make sure I 7understand what you're saying. You agree with Entergy 8that if the tensile strength goes up then likewise all 9the other types of strengths will also go up with 10irradiation? Is that what you were saying?
11DR. LAHEY: The ductility goes down.
12JUDGE WARDWELL: Ductility goes down but 13the strength will go up.
14DR. LAHEY: It has to do -- it's not just 15strength, it's amplitude. You have to look at --
16JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. But you agree 17with that?
18DR. LAHEY: Yes, of course.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, that's good. Thank 20you.21DR. LAHEY: Sure.
22JUDGE WARDWELL: Staff, do you have any 23comments on what we've talked about the last 10, 15 24minutes? The same question I asked Dr. Lott. And I 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 got 1some burning thoughts in your mind that you've jotted 2down.3And this will probably pretty much finish 4us for the, yeah, for the evening. It will.
5DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser. Then I 6think Gary Stevens has something he would like to add.
7I think the, what I articulated maybe 30 8minutes ago was: no crack, no problem. And I think 9that's the case. If the loads don't change, the 10ability of the material, even if the ductility drops, 11is unchanged. It still will perform its intended 12functions. And that's what we're here to assess.
13The ductility decrease becomes important 14if a crack is found. If they find a crack they would 15have to do -- take corrective actions. It will either 16be repair, replacement or they would try to use an 17engineering evaluation to demonstrate acceptability.
18In that case they would have to consider the true 19state of the materials in terms of the embrittlement.
20So from that perspective, the ductility 21may decrease but it really is not significant until 22there's a crack in place.
23MR. STEVENS: This is Gary Stevens of the 24Staff.25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4997I made a bunch of notes as everybody was 1talking. And then Mr. Strosnider and Dr. Hiser talked 2and a lot of my notes went away. But sometimes if I 3say something differently maybe it will have an 4impact.5I think the point is that a structure 6behaves 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 an 9outcome, things like fracture toughness and 10embrittlement and those kinds of things are important.
11And in those kinds of evaluations -- and 12my colleagues who are more intimately familiar with 13them or PT-27 can say -- but the acceptance, the 14acceptance criteria that's in there and the evaluation 15procedures that are done take into account reductions 16in toughness, increases in crack propagation due to 17embrittlement. It's factored into those analyses.
18When a crack is not present, and we look 19at crack initiation, as you've heard and I think most 20of the parties have agreed, that irradiation tends to 21increase the strength of the material. And if it was 22okay in the design and the strength goes up, it's okay 23under irradiated conditions. If the figure represents 24a load that was defined in the CLB, then it was 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4998evaluated.
1And I think you also had a question, Judge 2Wardwell, on data. And I think we have a couple 3different things. There might be some data related to 4crack propagation.
5With respect to crack initiation, one of 6the exhibits, I don't remember the number but it was 7I think a New York State exhibit for NUREG CR 6909 8Rev. 1, that was actually a draft document, section 91.3 of that document discussed irradiation on crack 10initiation, the available data and what the Staff 11research and interpretation of that data has to say.
12And that's when I discussed earlier of 13there not being a lot of data, and from our 14perspective the effects we don't think are 15significant, and a lot of our guidance equally applies 16to irradiated conditions, it was with respect to crack 17initiation.
18That's all.
19JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
20CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Is this a good place to 21break? Okay, I think this may be a good place to 22break for this evening. I would propose to come back 23tomorrow at 8:30 in the morning.
24Does anybody have any administrative 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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 if 9this is on.
10One matter, Your Honor. At the outset 11today the Board did issue a ruling on the State's 12pending motion concerning the withdrawal of 13designations for confidential business information.
14And the State is concerned or renews its request that 15the Board consider redactions as well.
16I don't know that that was addressed. I 17just wanted that on the record so that it's absolutely 18clear that the State is pursuing that.
19CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay. And in that 20regard, what I would suggest is if you would submit a 21document with proposed redactions. We're saying, at 22this point we're saying we're not making the documents 23publicly available. From what you just said it 24appears that you're suggesting that there are 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5000significant portions of the documents that, while the 1Board views the documents themselves should keep the 2proprietary designation, you're suggesting that there 3are certain portions of it where that's not required 4or appropriate.
5And if that's the case, you know, submit 6those proposed redactions initially to Entergy and 7Westinghouse. And if there isn't an agreement, then 8to the Board.
9MR. SIPOS: Very good, Your Honor. It was 10an alternative argument. The State still maintains 11its more overarching position. But this was an 12alternative argument as well.
13We will follow up on it, Your Honor.
14CHAIRMAN MCDADE: And there's two aspects 15to that. One is whether or not it's necessary to be 16public for the purposes of the evidentiary hearing in 17the next couple of days. And the other is, you know, 18the sort of overarching concern that you seem to have 19that this is the kind of information that should be in 20the public sector.
21So it's something that even though we 22would be done with this evidentiary hearing no later 23than COB Friday, you know, it doesn't necessarily 24foreclose that that document could be moved to the 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 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, no 2other issues from the State.
3CHAIRMAN MCDADE: From Riverkeeper?
4MS. BRANCATO: Just for the record, 5Riverkeeper supports the State's position regarding 6the confidenti -- or redaction to the confidential 7document issue. But other than that, no. Thank you.
8CHAIRMAN MCDADE: Okay, thank you. We 9will see you tomorrow, 8:30.
10(Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the hearing was 11recessed, to reconvene at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 1217, 2015.)
1314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433