ML082540485
| ML082540485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/10/2008 |
| From: | Abramson P B, Baratta A J, Hawkens E R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECYRAS | |
| References | |
| 06-844-01-LR, 50-0219-LR, RAS H-63 | |
| Download: ML082540485 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman Dr. Paul B. Abramson Dr. Anthony J. Baratta In the Matter of AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC (License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station)
Docket No. 50-0219-LR ASLBP No. 06-844-01-LR
September 10, 2008 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Topics for Discussion and Procedures for Oral Argument)
On September 8, 2008, the Board issued a memorandum and order scheduling oral argument on the issue the Commission referred to the Board on August 21, 2008. In that order, the Board advised that it would provide counsel with the substantive areas that would be the focus of the Board's interest, as well as procedural details regarding how the oral argument will
be conducted. This information is provided below.
A.Topics for Discussion Counsel should be prepared to address the following topics at oral argument:
- 1. How did AmerGen choose the thicknesses and mesh for the 3D model?*It may assist the Board's understanding if AmerGen were to prepare a diagram that explains "Table 1" in Mr. O'Rourke's June 11, 2008 affidavit.
If AmerGen elects to use a diagram at argument, it should provide the
Board and other counsel with a copy no later than noon, Tuesday, September 16, 2008. *AmerGen should also be able to identify, if asked, the locations of all internal and external measurements in each zone on the diagram should
it elect to use such a diagram.
- AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how data from adjacent bays were used to estimate the thickness in a given bay. 2. AmerGen should be prepared to explain the bases for its use of engineering judgment in the development of the model, where and why such judgement was used, and what specifically was the result. *Using an illustrative photo from the record that shows bay corrosion, AmerGen should explain how engineering judgment was used in taking
that corrosion into account for the 3D model. 3. AmerGen should be prepared to discuss how the finite element grid size was chosen, how it overlays the measur ements, and how the physical properties were selected/assigned to each element. *Amergen should also be prepared to discuss why it believes those properties are conservative, and how Amergen became convinced that the number of elements it has selected will represent a "converged" solution, or if one or more of the sensitivity studies it proposes is designed
to establish that convergence. *The Staff should also be prepared to discuss how it intends to address convergence and conservatism.4. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases it chose result in a conservative best estimate analysis of the drywell shell. 5. AmerGen should be prepared to explain in detail how the cases modeled by AmerGen provide for sensitivity st udies using an extrapolation scheme or equivalent method to determine the thicknesses between the measured
locations.6. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 3) that AmerGen improperly failed to include its own estimates of the existing severely corroded areas in its modeling
base case. 7. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 3) that even if AmerGen's use of average thicknesses were acceptable, AmerGen's estimates of those
thicknesses are overly optimistic in part because AmerGen estimated the average thickness of the shell in Bays 1, 3, 7, and 15 below the eleven-foot
three-inch level without using any of the measurements taken in those bays.8. Discuss the suggestion (Citizens' Reply at 3) that the NRC Staff believes that the 106 external measurements should form t he base case from which sensitivity studies should be conducted. 9. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 3 n.3) that Mr. O'Rourke mistakenly states that the thickness selected for Bay 1 is consistent with the external data
for that Bay. 1 See Tr. at 897, 899-902.10. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 3 n.3) that AmerGen is acting inconsistently and nonconservatively, because it previously estimated the thickness for Bay 15 to be 0.788 inch, but it now proposes to model the lower
part of Bay 15 at 0.931 inch.11. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 4) that both the internal and external thickness data should be input into a mathematical extrapolation technique to
derive the most accurate picture possible of the state of the shell. 12. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 4) that the internal measurements, which cover less than 1% of the shell area, produce nonconservative and
uncertain estimates of the spatially distributed thickness.13. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 4) that, where there is both local thinning and generalized thinning, the acceptance criteria could allow the factor
of safety to drop to 1.81.14. Discuss the assertion (Citizens' Reply at 4-5) that the Staff's reliance on the Sandia Study to support a conclusion that the drywell shell satisfies safety
requirements is misplaced.
In addressing these topics, counsel should keep in mind that this is an oral argument, not an evidentiary hearing. Counsels' presentations -
which are not part of the evidentiary record -
should endeavor to clarify the positions taken in their briefs and respond to the Board's
questions.
B.Procedures for Oral Argument As discussed during the Board's September 5 conference call with counsel, the Board will allocate five minutes to counsel for each of the parties to discuss what they believe are the
boundaries of the Commission's August 21 referral order.
1 AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens. 2 Counsel need not use the entire hour if they are able to address the Board's concerns in less time. On the other hand, if counsel are unable to fully address the Board's concerns within an hour, the Board may require them to go beyond their allocated time.
3 Copies of this Memorandum and Order were sent this date by Internet e-mail to counsel for: (1) Citizens; (2) AmerGen; (3) the NRC Staff; and (4) New Jersey.
Thereafter, counsel for each party will be allocated one hour to address the questions and discussion points in Part A above.
2 Counsel are encouraged to address the questions and discussion points in order. AmerGen will speak first, followed by the NRC Staff and Citizens.
AmerGen and the NRC Staff will have an opportunity for rebuttal. If they wish to avail themselves of this opportunity, they should advis e the Board at the outset of their presentations of the amount of time they wish to reserve for rebuttal.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY
AND LICENSING BOARD 3
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland
September 10, 2008
/RA/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONIn the Matter of )
)AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, LLC )Docket No. 50-219-LR
)
)(Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT) have been served upon the
following persons by U.S. mail, first class, or through NRC internal distribution.
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge E. Roy Hawkens, Chair
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Mail Stop - T-3 F23
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Mail Stop - T-3 F23
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Anthony J. Baratta
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Mail Stop - T-3 F23
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Emily Krause, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Mail Stop - T-3 F23
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Richard Webster, Esq.
Julia LeMense, Esq.
Eastern Environmental Law Center
744 Broad Street, Suite 1525
Newark, NJ 07102 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR
ORAL ARGUMENT) 2 Mary C. Baty, Esq.
Marcia J. Simon, Esq.
Brian Newell, Paralegal
Office of the General Counsel
Mail Stop - O-15 D21
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001 Donald J. Silverman, Esq.
Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.
Alex S. Polonsky, Esq.
Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.
1111 Pennsyvlania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004 Paul Gunter, Reactor Oversight Kevin Kamps
Nuclear Policy Research Institute
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400
Takoma Park, MD 20912 Jill Lipoti, Director New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Environmental Safety and Health
P.O. Box 424
Trenton, NJ 08625-0424 Bradley M. Campbell, Commissioner New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 J. Bradley Fewell, Esq.
Exelon Corporation
4300 Warrenville Road
Warrenville, IL 60555 Ron Zak New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Nuclear Engineering
P.O. Box 415
Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 Suzanne Leta NJPIRG 11 N. Willow St.
Trenton, NJ 08608 Docket No. 50-219-LR LB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AND PROCEDURES FOR
ORAL ARGUMENT) 3 John A. Covino, Esq.
Ellen Barney Balint, Esq.
Valerie Anne Gray, Esq.
Deputy Attorneys General
New Jersey Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Permitting &
Counseling Section
Division of Law
Hughes Justice Complex
P.O. Box 093
Trenton, NJ 08625
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint]
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10 th day of September 2008