IndianPointTranscript of Oct 17 2012

Page 1780 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
at 9:05 a.m. BEFORE: LAWRENCE G. McDADE MICHAEL F. KENNEDY RICHARD E. WARDWELL Chair Administrative Judge Administrative Judge DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Tarrytown Westchester Ballroom 455 South Broadway Tarrytown, New York The above-entitled interview was conducted UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION + + + + + ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL + + + + + HEARING ---------------------------------x In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC. : 50-247-LR and (Indian Point Generating Units 2 and 3) : 50-286-LR : ASLBP No.
---------------------------------x 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433
Page 1781 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

and of: APPEARANCES: On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.: KATHRYN M. SUTTON, Esquire; PAUL M. BESSETTE, Esquire; RAPHAEL KUYLER, Esquire; BRAD FAGG, Esquire; MARTIN J. O'NEILL, Esquire; and MARTHA B. STOLLEY, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 739-5738 (Sutton) (202) 739-5796 (Bessette) (202) 739-5146 (Kuyler) (202) 739-5191 (Fagg) (713) 890-5710 (O'Neill) (212) 309-6858 (Stolley) ksutton@morganlewis.com pbessette@morganlewis.com rkuyler@morganlewis.com bfagg@morganlewis.com martin.o'neill@morganlewis.com mstolley@morganlewis.com
Page 1782 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
APPEARANCES (Continued): On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Continued): WILLIAM GLEW, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 440 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, New York (914) 272-3360 wglew@entergy.com On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: SHERWIN E. TURK, Esquire; BETH N. MIZUNO, Esquire; DAVID E. ROTH, Esquire; and BRIAN HARRIS, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15 D21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
(301) 415-1533 (Turk) (301) 415-3122 (Mizuno) (301) 415-2749 (Roth) (301) 415-1392 (Harris) sherwin.turk@nrc.gov beth.mizuno@nrc.gov
Page 1783 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and JANICE A. DEAN, Esquire; and KATHRYN LIBERATORE, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway, 26th Floor New York, New York 10271 APPEARANCES (Continued): On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Continued): david.roth@nrc.gov brian.harris@nrc.gov On Behalf of the State of New York: JOHN J. SIPOS, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol State Street Albany, New York (518) 402-2251 john.sipos@ag.ny.gov 12224
(212) 416-8459 (Dean) (212) 416-8482 (Liberatore)

APPEARANCES (Continued): On Behalf of the State of New York (Continued): janice.dean@ag.ny.gov kathyrn.liberatore@ag.ny.gov On Behalf of Riverkeeper, Inc.: PHILLIP MUSEGAAS, Esquire; and DEBORAH BRANCATO, Esquire Riverkeeper, Inc. 20 Secor Road Ossining, New York (800) 21-RIVER phillip@riverkeeper.org dbrancato@riverkeeper.org On Behalf of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.: KARLA RAIMUNDI Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. 724 Wolcott Avenue Beacon, New York (845) 265-8080 mannajo@clearwater.org 12508 10562
Page 1785 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433 APPEARANCES (Continued): On Behalf of the State of Connecticut: ROBERT D. SNOOK, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General State of Connecticut 55 Elm Street Post Office Box 120 Hartford, Connecticut (860) 808-5020 robert.snook@po.state.ct.us On Behalf of the Village of Buchanan: SEAN MURRAY, Mayor Municipal Building 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, New York (914) 737-1033 smurray@villageofbuchanan.com 10511-1298 06141-0120

Exhibits: Riverkeeper RIV000049 State of New York NYSR100399 NYSR180001 Board 00003 WITNESSES Robert M. Aleksick Nelson Azevedo Dr. Nathan Bixler Dr. Allen Hiser Alan Cox Donald Harrison Dr. Joram Hopenfield Jeffrey Horowitz Joseph Jones Dr. Francois J. Lemay Ian D. Mew Dr. Kevin O'Kula Lori Potts Kathryn Sutton Grant Teagarden Matthew Yoder 1793 1793 1792 1792 1792 1792 1788 1791 Mark Recd TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1787 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
objections. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. That being the case, It will be entered on objections. JUDGE McDADE: MS. RAIMUNDI: And from Clearwater? No, Your Honor, no drafted. JUDGE McDADE: MR. MUSEGAAS: From Riverkeeper? No, Your Honor, no order. started. order. JUDGE McDADE: P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S (9:03 a.m.) The hearing will come to
A couple of preliminary matters before we get We had drafted and circulated a settlement Do Entergy or Riverkeeper or Clearwater have First, Entergy? Paul Bessette for the
any objections?
MR. BESSETTE: applicant, Your Honor.
No objections to the consent order as
we will enter the order today. the EIE.
And that will resolve that contention. Next we have an issue with regard to two
Riverkeeper exhibits. the other parties.
They were to be furnished to
Has that been accomplished? This is Brad Fagg for the
MR. FAGG: applicant, Your Honor.
Page 1788 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
We have received the copies. We got
excerpts at 6:30 last night and the full exhibits this morning about 15 minutes ago. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Do you have
electronic copies of that as well for Riverkeeper? MS. BRANCATO: JUDGE McDADE: Yes, Your Honor, we do. Okay.
(Whereupon, the aforementioned document was marked for identification as Riverkeeper's Exhibit Number RIV000049.) JUDGE McDADE: Do you have any objection
to those being received in evidence? MR. FAGG: We do, Your Honor. They are? I guess
JUDGE McDADE: MR. FAGG:
A number of things.
there are three documents.
There are the two that we
got recently and then, as I understand it, Riverkeeper 00049 is also being offered into evidence. And our
objections overlap with some respects, although there is a unique aspect to Riverkeeper 00049. Generally there were a number of opportunities for Riverkeeper to present these exhibits, including with Dr. Hopenfeld's direct testimony, with his rebuttal testimony, over our objections with the presentation that he started out
Page 1789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the proceedings with two days ago. And they weren't
presented at any point during any of these opportunities. And here we are, you know, two and a And at this 11th hour, we
half days into the hearing. have these documents.
Again, our folks only had the
opportunity to spend a bit of time this morning reviewing. So, you know, leniency is leniency. understand that. is enough. We
But, with respect, we think enough
There has been no showing of excuse or
justification for the delay to present these materials. The short amount of time we have had to review them I think on its face suggests prejudice. We just think at this point, again, enough is enough. And the documents should not be received into evidence. If I could, just one final point on Riverkeeper 00049? That one was produced previously;
however, indicated as an exhibit only with respect to the metal fatigue contention. So, again, our
witnesses had no reason to review or assess that. Again, there were all the same opportunities to present that in this contention that were achieved by Riverkeeper and, again, no showing of excuse or
Page 1790 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
justification for that delay. So, for all of those reasons, we would resist and object to the introduction of those three documents. JUDGE McDADE: It was my understanding
when they were mentioned yesterday that Dr. Hopenfeld believed that in light of certain questions that the Board asked and certain answers that were given by witnesses for Entergy, that those exhibits would be helpful to him in explaining his position. And it was
not until those questions were asked and answers given that to him they appeared relevant. Starting with that premise, although the documents have been furnished to you, they haven't been furnished to the Board. We haven't seen them. Are we talking
How voluminous are these documents? about one page, 10 pages, 100 pages? MR. FAGG:
Well, as I understand it from
Riverkeeper and the representations they made, they intend to focus on a handful of pages of short excerpts. The document itself, I guess the best way to do it is hold it up. They're outage reports. They
are very voluminous documents.
Again, obviously we
haven't had a chance to review every page of this,
Page 1791 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
but, as I understand -- and obviously Riverkeeper can correct me if I am wrong -- what they propose to focus on are five or almost ten-page excerpts from the larger documents. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. So, as far as the
volume, you are basically saying it should be valued by the pound, rather than the page? MR. FAGG: I think either way you assess
it, Your Honor, it's late in the day for that. JUDGE McDADE: late in the day. Okay. Well, clearly it is
And what I am predisposed to doing
-- back now 100 years ago when I first took evidence, they still used Latin. And they talked about
admitting documents de bene. What we will do in the event in the short questioning here this morning, if Dr. Hopenfeld desires to make use of them, we will allow that. are admitted. They
But if it appears from the documents
when we see them either that they do unduly prejudice and raise something that Entergy has not had an opportunity to address or the relevance is unclear, they would be stricken by the Board at that time. we will receive them de bene. (Whereupon, the aforementioned document, having previously been marked for So
Page 1792 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct. identification as Riverkeeper's Exhibit Number RIV000049, was received de bene esse in evidence.) JUDGE McDADE: If you could, please, at
the first break furnish an electronic copy of them to Mr. Wilkie? If Dr. Hopenfeld is going to refer to
them if they need to be shown on the screen, in order for him to do that, as opposed to just draw conclusions from them, then we need to get the electronic copy to Mr. Wilkie before that. Also, please and no later than Monday submit a revised exhibit list. And I think that would
be Riverkeeper revision 10 to their exhibit 1, which would be a new exhibit list. MS. BRANCATO: We will do that. JUDGE McDADE: Yes, Your Honor, that's Thank you. Okay. The next
administrative thing had to do with New York 5, where we received a revised New York 399 and also a revised New York exhibit list, which I believe is New York revision 8. are received. (Whereupon, the aforementioned documents were marked for identification as State of New York's Exhibits Number NYSR100399 And those are to exhibit 1. And those
Page 1793 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and NYSR180001, respectively, and were received in evidence.) MR. SIPOS: Your Honor? Yes?
JUDGE McDADE: MR. SIPOS:
This is John Sipos.
I think the exhibit list is R180001. JUDGE McDADE: I can't read my own notes. So now we are up to 18. The last thing I did want to mention going back to the settlement agreement, we did receive an email from counsel for the Town of Cortlandt, expressing their view that they had no objection to the settlement agreement. That is an email. It's not Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. And
We had 17 before.
part of the record, nor is my stating it part of the record. So what we are going to do is to identify
that email as Board exhibit 3 and admit it as Board exhibit 3 so it would be part of the record. (Whereupon, the aforementioned document was marked for identification as Board's Exhibit Number 00003 and was received in evidence.) JUDGE McDADE: get started now? Is there anything before we
Now, before we get -- yesterday we
indicated that we are going to allow interrogation of
Page 1794 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
witnesses briefly by the parties involved in this contention. Before we get started with that, the
Board has just a few more questions of its own based on the testimony that came in yesterday. But before we get into that with these witnesses, does anybody have any administrative matters to be taken up before we get started? Sutton? MS. SUTTON: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Fagg Ms.
has another item he would like to address. MR. FAGG: We would, Your Honor. And it
does relate to the procedure that Your Honor indicated the Board contemplated at the end of the day yesterday. with that. And we have a motion to make in connection In particular, I'm talking about the
examination and cross-examination opportunity after the Board's additional questions to the witnesses. With respect, Your Honor, we believe that the procedure that the Board has indicated it is about to embark upon is inconsistent with the regulations, the controlling authorities, and the Commission's order in this very proceeding. Subpart L proceedings
have been very specific and prescriptive regulations, including a 2.1207 and 2.1204, prescribe the circumstances in which direct examination is allowed
Page 1795 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
in these types of proceedings. And, as I'm sure the Board and everyone, all the counsel and the parties to this room, are aware, on October 12th, 2012, the Commission issued an order with respect to these matters. At least there
are four or so aspects of that order we believe that are informative for these issues. First, there has been no showing by any party, Riverkeeper or anyone else, regarding the need for such direct examination. As I'm sure the Board is
aware, at footnote 19 at page 5, the Commission found it "troubling" that such examination would be allowed without such a showing. Without such a showing, we
are just left with the "voluminous and technical" nature of these proceedings, which the Commission again indicated very specifically would not be sufficient to justify the sort of departure from the established rules that we appear to be about to embark upon. Secondly, the Commission was very clear that there should not be open-ended examination. Again, with respect to what has been articulated so far, we perceive no constraints upon the questioning. We believe that as we are about to embark on an open-ended sort of procedure, which is contrary to
Page 1796 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
both regulations and, again, what the Commission has told us we should be doing. Third, the Commission indicated it should be a "rare occurrence" where this type of procedure is employed. We are here at the very first contention in Again, with no showing by
these lengthy proceedings.
any party or even an attempt to make a showing by any party, we believe those circumstances confirm this is not a rare occurrence. norm. Fourthly, the Commission indicated that such a procedure would only be warranted if it were "true and necessary." And, with all due respect, the We fear it will become the
Board has conducted what we believe to be a very thorough examination over two days. It's hard to
imagine a more comprehensive exploration of these issues. And so the circumstances where the regs and
the Commission and this very proceeding have contemplated this type of procedure we believe are not close to being met with respect to this contention in this posture. So, with all of that, our motion is to request that, obviously subject to additional questions of the Board but subject to that, that the evidentiary record on this contention be deemed closed
Page 1797 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and concluded. In the alternative, our request would be that Riverkeeper be held to the showing that the Commission has indicated is required and to make such a showing and for us to be able to respond that additional direct testimony outside of the rules and the presumption to the rules is warranted. And then, thirdly and conditionally, if those two requests are not granted, in the interest of equivalent treatment, we would request to follow Riverkeeper with respect to any questioning that they be allowed to do with our own potential questioning of witnesses. And we would be prepared to make a showing
for the necessity of that. Thank you. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. A few things in
response and perhaps to make sure that the proceeding will go at least as the Board anticipates that it will. First of all, we envisioned allowing
Riverkeeper, then allowing Entergy, then allowing the NRC staff a brief opportunity that from the Board's standpoint, the showing to us appeared clear without needing to be articulated by either Riverkeeper or Entergy. We have had a day and a half of testimony.
Page 1798 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The testimony has gone back and forth considerably. And we thought it would be helpful to the Board in developing a complete record to allow both a limited interrogation of the parties' witnesses and the parties' opponents' witnesses; to clarify, if you believe that the statements they have made in any way have misled the Board, could be misinterpreted, or are wrong with regard to the opponent's witnesses, that you can make that showing very briefly. This is not intended to be open-ended. When we had the status conference and discussed what was intended by the Board, we indicated, I think very clearly and very repeatedly, that if the questioning became repetitive or we believed it was not directly relevant, you would be cut off. Yesterday, as a preface, I indicated that we anticipated that the entire proceeding with all three of the operative parties asking the questions would take under an hour. And there are certain areas
we don't anticipate the parties going into at all: the qualifications of the witnesses, any potential bias, those qualifications. Any bias is very clear What we are
from the record, from the testimony. looking for is just clarification.
If you believe that something that your
Page 1799 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
witness said may be misunderstood by the Board and that we would, therefore, reach an inaccurate conclusion based on an inaccurate assumption, we are giving you the opportunity to correct that impression; likewise, with the testimony of the witnesses for Riverkeeper or the NRC staff and the NRC staff having the opportunity to do that with both the Riverkeeper and the Entergy witnesses as well. Again, if you believe there is something that is unclear, if you believe that the Board has, in fact, shed light on all of the issues that you consider to be relevant and that we understand correctly what the witnesses have said, what their positions are, and what the issues are, then there would be no need to ask any additional questions. This isn't a requirement. It is just
simply an opportunity if you think it will help further develop the record. We wanted to give you
that opportunity to do it given at least -- and I think perhaps from the questioning over the last day and a half, whether it is or it isn't, the Board perceives the issues with regard to Riverkeeper contention, technical contention, too, to be somewhat complex. And we feel that it would be helpful to us
in developing the record to allow that opportunity to
Page 1800 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
get started? the parties. Again, it is not going to be open-ended. If it tends to be abusive, if it tends just simply to be repetitive of things that are already clear, we're not going to be the least bit shy in cutting it off. So it is going to be even-handed. The applicant, the
NRC staff, as well as the intervenor, is going to have the same opportunity, the same amount of time, and is going to be held to the same standards as to relevance. So the motion is denied. MR. FAGG: Thank you, Your Honor. Anything further before we From the staff?
JUDGE McDADE:
From Riverkeeper?
Apparently not. MR. MUSEGAAS: JUDGE McDADE: couple of more questions? JUDGE KENNEDY: This is Judge Kennedy. question. I think this topic has come up a couple of times during the questioning of the witnesses. would like to direct my question to either Dr. Horowitz or Mr. Aleksick. The question is, to have I Thank you, Judge McDade. No, Your Honor. Judge Kennedy, you had a
I had one additional follow-up
either of you or if there is a more appropriate
Page 1801 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
witness clarify the basis for the linearity wear assumption. I know we have been pointed to Dr.
Horowitz's book, but I guess I would like to take this opportunity to give the Entergy witnesses one more time to help us understand the basis behind the assumption of linearity for wear. DR. HOROWITZ: Horowitz for Entergy. There are several bases. First of all, Thank you, Judge. Jeff
the picture -- and I can pull it up if you wish -that Judge Wardwell presented yesterday showing some EDF -- and that was laboratory and plant data going up for several thousand hours, as I recall. The EDF, which is Electricite de France, the national utility in France, has done more work in the area of flow-accelerated corrosion than any other organization. They have perhaps the best lab And And
facilities for still doing work in this area.
their model was the basis for what we have done.
their model assumes that the oxide layer is thickness and there is a result the corrosion rate is linear. This is an assumption they check in that test data they show as well as other data. It's a little slow
inherent in the BRT-CICERO program, which makes the same assumption that CHECWORKS does.
Page 1802 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Aleksick and I and other people have looked at, you know, data from thousands of components; in fact, tens of thousands of compounds. And they seem to be linear
with time, same condition, same corrosion rate. JUDGE KENNEDY: Would it be possible to
point us to the exhibit for the EDF data? DR. HOROWITZ: It would take a second to
find, but I will be glad to look for it. JUDGE WARDWELL: Your Honor and Dr.
Horowitz, you are referring to the work that they were doing and plotted up in regards to the results of CICERO? DR. HOROWITZ: Yes. Actually, CICERO is The original
the name of the computer program. program was CICERO. BRT-CICERO. Bouchacourt. JUDGE WARDWELL:
The current version is called
And B is from the late Dr. Michel
You pronounced the name
correctly that I tried to pronounce. DR. HOROWITZ: The data was from the
CIROCO loop or something like that. JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOROWITZ: figure that was? Yes. Do you remember which
Page 1803 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
text to see. page in it. again. MR. KUYLER: page 124 of the .PDF. JUDGE WARDWELL: MR. KUYLER: And figure 7.1? Entergy 000036B. And it's JUDGE WARDWELL: MR. KUYLER: I don't.
Ray Kuyler for the applicant.
It's Entergy exhibit 000036B, figure 7.1. And that's on page 124 of the .PDF. JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry. Say that number
Yes, Your Honor. All right. Thank you.
JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE KENNEDY:
Using this figure, could
you help us understand how you get to the linearity? DR. HOROWITZ: I would have to look at the
Unfortunately, my copy doesn't have that Looking at that figure, what you have is
both laboratory and plant data scaled to the same conditions with the Sherwood number. The Sherwood
number is a dimensionless number in mass transfer, which includes the mass transfer coefficient. By the
theory that the FAC is controlled by mass transfer, the corrosion rate should be directly proportional to the mass transfer coefficient at a given set of conditions. So if you go back to the figure, this is
Page 1804 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
data from 200 to 60,000 hours. JUDGE WARDWELL: And does this include
both straight tubes and elbows that I think was -DR. HOROWITZ: Yes. It shows directly
that the lab is all from straight tubes and the plant data is all from other fittings. JUDGE WARDWELL: those are elbows? And how do we know that
Could there be other things with
other fittings that might not be elbows? DR. HOROWITZ: I can only speculate. I
imagine they are elbows because elbows are the most common type of fittings. reducers. They are probably also
There may be some other fittings as well. JUDGE WARDWELL: Generally power plants
don't have couplings? DR. HOROWITZ: JUDGE WARDWELL: does the time dimension -DR. HOROWITZ: Well, the time dimension is Generally not. So the time dimension,
the fact that all of the data agrees with each other. And so it points us to the same correlation lines. There is no distinction between the plant data at 50,000-60,000 hours and the lab data 200 hours. All
of the lab data now is taking 50 to 100-hour tests. And they say, "Close enough. That is good forever."
Page 1805 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
bullet? JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOROWITZ: question, please? JUDGE WARDWELL: Is that one of the The first bullet item. Can you repeat the JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it the Sherwood number
that had a time factor in it? DR. HOROWITZ: JUDGE KENNEDY: JUDGE WARDWELL: No, it does not. Okay. And, Dr. Horowitz, does
the first bullet item in the second paragraph below this table -- if we could scroll down to it? too far. There it is. You went
Is that one of the areas you
were looking for in regards to the conclusions that they were drawing? DR. HOROWITZ: Excuse me? The second
conclusions that you are looking for in regards to their position on where -DR. HOROWITZ: Yes, absolutely, in
response to Judge Kennedy's question. JUDGE WARDWELL: And that bullet item says
the thinning is directly proportional to time. DR. HOROWITZ: JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE McDADE: That's right. To time. Just very briefly, to make
Page 1806 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Doctor. sure I understand, could you explain to me what the Sherwood number is and how it is derived? DR. HOROWITZ: I will try. In heat
transfer and mass transfer fluid mechanics, there is a quantity called dimensionless numbers. And
dimensionless numbers are physical parameters arranged in such a way that have no dimensions. And the most
common one is Reynolds number, which relates inertial forces in the flow to viscous forces in the flow. And a Sherwood number relates to the convective mass transfer coefficient to diffusional mass transfer. And, again, more deep than that gets
more complicated, I'm afraid. JUDGE WARDWELL: clarifies it for him. (Laughter.) JUDGE McDADE: Thank you. Judge Kennedy? JUDGE KENNEDY: JUDGE McDADE: JUDGE WARDWELL: half-dozen questions. Riverkeeper. That's all I have. Judge Wardwell? I have, oh, about a That clarified it for me, And I think that probably
I will start out with
On page 10 of your direct testimony;
that is, Riverkeeper 00003, where you are talking
Page 1807 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that. about you made the statements between page 10 that CHECWORKS code is useless for objective, quantitative assessments. And I just wanted to -DR. HOROWITZ: JUDGE WARDWELL: Could you -You don't have to see I have read
Don't bother pulling these up.
from that.
And my question really doesn't relate to
that to any degree. But I just want to clarify, Dr. Hopenfeld, that several places you mentioned about recalibration and calibration types of things. And we talked about
this, but I just want to fix the point that, as we discussed yesterday, Entergy labeled some flow of accelerated corrosion lines as being calibrated or uncalibrated using five different criteria. And I
just wanted to clarify that it is my understanding that your use of the terms "calibrated" and "recalibrated" deal with the CHECWORKS model as an entity. And we're not referring to these Is that
classification schemes that they were using. correct? DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: to fix that point. On page -- and, again, you don't Yes. Thank you.
I just wanted
Page 1808 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
figure? DR. HOPENFELD: I in no way dispute it. necessarily have to go there unless I am wrong when I get to page 3. But on page 3 of your rebuttal Yes,
testimony now -- that's 108, I believe. Riverkeeper 000108.
You are stating at the top of
that, top of the page of page 3, that "Nothing in Entergy's testimony disturbs my initial testimony and conclusions that CHECWORKS code at Indian Point produces unreliable, inaccurate, non-conservative results and that, as a result, fails to adequately detect flow-accelerated corrosion in susceptible components." I just was wondering whether or not you dispute Entergy's witnesses' testimonies at answer 76 and at 94, where they state in those answers that over and/or as presented here over the last couple of days that over 75 percent of the flow-accelerated susceptible analysis lines at Indian Point are susceptible non-modeled lines; that is, lines that are not modeled by CHECWORKS. And do you remember that
testimony that they have said over the last day or so in regards to that? DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Do you dispute that
Page 1809 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that model? sir, no. It's there doing whatever they're doing. JUDGE WARDWELL: you didn't -DR. HOPENFELD: No, no. In no way, yes, I just want to make sure
No way am I doing it. JUDGE WARDWELL:
I haven't audited.
And then on page 24 of
your testimony, rebuttal testimony -(Pause.) JUDGE WARDWELL: to go there now or not. I'm just deciding whether
I think, instead, I would ask In the meantime, And this gets
you to call up Riverkeeper 000110. I will read what I am referring to. back again to the CICERO model.
And that is
Riverkeeper 000110 is a paper talking about the BRT-CICERO model that we just talked about. And where I am going to go with this is we scroll down here, and we'll see another diagram very similar to the one we just looked at. It may be the That's
same one, but it's drawn a tad differently. all. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: No.
It's different.
And if we can zoom in on
It looks very similar, but it's -- I
think it would be good to, yes, go out a little bit. Bring it down so we can see that writing above it
Page 1810 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it. also. That may come into play. I can't remember.
On page 24 of your rebuttal testimony, you referenced this particular paper. And you made the
statement that this shows that an order of magnitude better accuracy -- that this paper shows an order of magnitude better accuracy for predicting wall thickness and relatively little scattering compared to CHECWORKS. I assume you were comparing this diagram
to the scatter diagrams that we looked at before. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, sir. And this is plotting And
calculated thickness versus measured thickness.
I think the axes were switched around from what they used. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. That's just a version of
Do you have any reason to believe that that red That would be the
line isn't the 45-degree line? perfect line. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: that is probably? Yes.
You would believe that
That is what I would, too.
The questions I have on this now, though, are that when you made this statement about this order of magnitude difference based on this, did you
Page 1811 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
visually estimate that or have you done some calculations in regards to claiming that is an order of magnitude better prediction than the scattered diagrams? DR. HOPENFELD: visually just looked at it. JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOPENFELD: about like 40 percent. Okay. I think they are talking Two things: first,
They're not talking about --
they're talking about 40 percent, not 900 percent. If you just look at it and you see there are some outliers, but once they're there, it seems to be bunched together pretty good. I don't know what they have done. If you read the -I don't know what
components they represent, but, again, if they represent averages, that by itself doesn't answer the question. It goes back to we talked earlier about the
Sherwood number, which their basic equation if you look at it is based on Sherwood number plus a couple of other components which take account for erosion. JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. But back to my
question because these will be pretty specific questions. necessarily? You didn't perform any calculations This was an estimate just by anyone
could see that it seems like this scatter is less than
Page 1812 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
different. JUDGE WARDWELL: And are you aware that or it was at the scatter charts we looked it. DR. HOPENFELD: 20 minutes on this. JUDGE WARDWELL: When you looked at this, I didn't spend more than
did you notice that the scales are different, that here they're calculated in millimeters and I believe the CW plots were in mils? that is a difference, right? .04 inches. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. And these are .001 inch And that would account -Millimeters are about
if you were dealing with mils, correct? DR. HOPENFELD: Uh-huh. The scales are
have you accounted for the fact that figure 7 is based on a wall thickness measurement; that is, a thickness measurement; where the CW plots were based on wear; that is, the difference in thickness? DR. HOPENFELD: also in terms of mils. JUDGE WARDWELL: It says, "thickness." And I I thought that theirs were
Well, this says, "thickness in millimeters."
believe the CW plots -- we can pull them out, but I believe they were in mils and in wear, not in
Page 1813 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the ratio. JUDGE WARDWELL: And wouldn't the scatter thickness. DR. HOPENFELD: The only difference would
be the difference between the initial value and what the wear was. So if this way you plotted that way, I don't think
that a-way, the ratio is what counts. that would have -JUDGE WARDWELL:
But if you are dealing
with a larger number and you are dealing with a larger scale in regards to millimeters; for instance, if you plotted these scatter plots using miles as the basis, everything would really be scrunched up. DR. HOPENFELD: Yeah, but I am looking at
visually look different if this were plotted in mils and in wear, rather than in thickness and millimeters? DR. HOPENFELD: I would think that it
would look differently, though I doubt it would affect the conclusion because what you are really looking at is the ratio of what you predicted. as bunching numbers. And you show that
You look to the ratio of how
well your prediction is, and you compare that basically to the straight line. All their predictions are very bad. are not conservative. They
But I told you what I would do
Page 1814 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
point. about that. JUDGE WARDWELL: But they would be further
away from that line if, in fact, you plotted, if you zoomed in and plotted, on a more detailed scale and if, in fact, you were plotting wear, rather than the thickness. Of course, wear being only a small
percentage of the thickness would tend to spread that out also, would it not? DR. HOPENFELD: a difference. a difference. The numbers wouldn't make
I don't believe the number would make Visually, yes. Exactly. That is my
JUDGE WARDWELL:
If you did calculations to arrive at a
conclusion, it wouldn't change it. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. But if you are just
looking at it and why this diagram may be a bit deceiving in regards to how well -DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: that I am fixing here. DR. HOPENFELD: May I just -- I didn't Yeah, I Yes, right. That is my only point
answer your -- didn't answer it correctly.
looked at it, but at the same time, it doesn't take much to compare the numbers because it's so simple.
Page 1815 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that. JUDGE WARDWELL: Does the approach by So, you know, you just look predicted versus that and you see it's not a factor of ten any way you look at it, no matter how many you plotted, you put the wear rate or the initial less the final thickness or whatever the thing is. It's very pleasant, the discussion in the paper itself. I believe they talk about like 40 And I'm talking about 900
percent or something. percent.
But you are right.
If you take the thing,
you can pull it on a scale that maps all over the ceiling. And you will see different scatter. JUDGE WARDWELL: So it certainly would be
reasonable to think that it would be better to compare this plotted to the same scales and then go from there? DR. HOPENFELD: I went one step beyond
using CICERO as described in this paper include other mechanisms, other than flow-accelerated corrosion? they consider erosion, cavitation, and droplet impingement? DR. HOPENFELD: don't know how. I believe so, yes. I Do
They are constantly there.
Remember,
Page 1816 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
yes. JUDGE WARDWELL: that paper, I believe? JUDGE McDADE: Before we do, I just want Can we get to the top of question. DR. HOPENFELD: But yes. The answer is they had this F1, F2, F3. And they had this Sherwood By the way,
number that was presented this morning.
there is a controversy about whether it is linear velocity or not, but it -JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Let's stay to the
to make sure for clarification for the record, we are talking about -- Riverkeeper exhibit 000110, page 8, figure 7 is what we have been discussing, correct, Doctor? DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, I believe. I don't
know what the number of the -- this is the correct -in context, I am referring to this paper, yes. JUDGE WARDWELL: If you could go to the
first page of this paper and then go right to the introduction? Smaller, smaller, smaller, just first There. Perfect.
line of the introduction.
That first sentence in the introduction says, does it not, "Among the various degradation models that cause pipe wall thinning in a secondary
Page 1817 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question. system of nuclear power plants (corrosion, galvanic corrosion, environmental corrosion, flow-accelerated corrosion, cavitation, droplet impingement, erosion, and abrasion), FAC is one of the most important widespreads in the installation, and that requires constance efforts to fight"? And then it goes on to
talk about the wall thickness loss due to FAC. Doesn't that pretty much state, as does the title of this paper, that it is dealing with flow-accelerated corrosion and not the other types of wall thinning processes? DR. HOPENFELD: Well, it says that it
encompasses droplet impingement, erosion, abrasion, cavitation, accelerated corrosion. JUDGE WARDWELL: Correct, but I am saying,
of those degradation modes, the one we are focusing on is FAC as the one that is the most important. that what that first sentence is saying? DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. I don't understand the Isn't
All of these factors here, all these,
droplet impingement cavitation, they're all part of flow-accelerated corrosion the way it is defined here and by the equation. JUDGE WARDWELL: No, it doesn't say it Read the question
defines here, I don't believe.
Page 1818 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Yes. JUDGE WARDWELL: So this deals with again. Maybe I am reading it wrong -- not the Read the statement again. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: Oh, okay. It says -Okay.
question.
-- "Among the various
degradation models that cause pipe wall thinning." And then they put in parentheses what the various degradation models are. Then it says, "FAC is" the
one that is the more widespread, -DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: series in the parentheses. DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. Yes, you're right. But I believe in Okay. -- FAC being one of those
In this context, that was separated.
the equation, they had a constant that would take that thing in account if you go down to the equation. JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, the title of the
paper says, "Optimization Due to Flow-Accelerated Corrosion." DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. So I believe they
separated out flow-accelerated corrosion from these others. DR. HOPENFELD: It did separate them.
Page 1819 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
2.2, Doctor? DR. HOPENFELD: You're getting here. I don't -- oh, here. -DR. HOPENFELD: They have to look at the flow-accelerated corrosion separately from erosion and -DR. HOPENFELD: equation and see it. you say it, sir. JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Well, point us to They have to go down the
The sentence is correct the way
equation because I thought in the equation, they said that -JUDGE WARDWELL: refer us to it here? DR. HOPENFELD: Well, we have to go to the Where is that? Could you
equation somewhere down -- you went through it. JUDGE McDADE: Would that be paragraph
I think some of those constants I believe
the way I recognize these equations -- yes.
some of that, those constants, if there was no other thing, you would just take that one with a K* out of there and just leave the rest of them and that would be a K. But I believe that in here, there is
something about that they put a number in there that accounts for this other erosion effect. That's when
Page 1820 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it is. erosion. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOPENFELD: It's in corrosion, yes. Okay. Correct. It's not -- yes. calculate -JUDGE WARDWELL: I don't need to know what It isn't I read it the first time. I believe that's what it is
because this equation looks too complicated to be a straightforward corrosion equation shown with that correlation. of -JUDGE WARDWELL: those accounts for the other? DR. HOPENFELD: I'm sorry. Which one of You can go and see what the definition
Do you know?
I am saying that when I
read it the first time and I believe in the description, that one of those K's, maybe a K*, accounts for erosion effects, droplet impingement, cavitation, or whatever it is. JUDGE WARDWELL: what that is. I believe the --
You see the Ceq defines
So it isn't the Ceq, correct? Ceq is correct, yes. No. That isn't one that
DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: accounts for erosion, is it? DR. HOPENFELD:
No.
Ceq is here when you
I just need to know what it isn't.
Page 1821 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
terms. DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: Correct. Okay. Right there. What correct. JUDGE WARDWELL: -- then define the other JUDGE WARDWELL: page because they -DR. HOPENFELD: But it is in corrosion, Let's go on to the next
of those terms deal with erosion? DR. HOPENFELD: see the number here. No, there isn't -- I don't
I originally thought that one of
those cases did deal with erosion because the way we were talking about it, but I may be wrong about that. They have an equation for the oxide layer, but that could be indirectly an erosive effect because the whole idea of the oxide layer, whether it is there or not, is an erosion effect. don't see that -JUDGE WARDWELL: porosity of the oxide layer? DR. HOPENFELD: Yeah. The only way that But I remember in You're speaking of the But it could very -- I
could be tied up would be there. the reading, constants -JUDGE WARDWELL:
Could be tied up with
just additional surface area associated for a
Page 1822 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
dissolution of that also, could it not? seems -DR. HOPENFELD: I don't really know how I mean, that
that thing ties in, but it could mean that the physics of that because, you see, it does go into the formation of the oxide layer. The British had a theory of how to relate that C equivalent through the kinetics of the process. And that is one reason they came up with an entirely different correlation with the velocity. But I am
getting too far and complicated, but I originally believe when I read those equations and somewhere in the writing, that they also take account for erosion effects. JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. Thank you.
And I thought one of those I was
constants was there, but evidently it isn't. wrong. JUDGE WARDWELL:
Thank you, Dr. Hopenfeld.
Entergy, on your direct testimony; that is, Entergy 000029, I believe, on page 33, you make a statement about variations in wear rates. And I just
want to fix the point to whoever wants to answer that that degree that the variation in wear rates with roughness is small. And given the extent of aging in
Page 1823 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
quote? JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm referring to page 33. All I'm asking you the piping, further surface changes are likely to be minimal. Do you agree with that statement, which was previously made at other hearings? DR. HOROWITZ: Jeff Horowitz. I would be
glad to address that, Your Honor. Would you repeat the location of that
You really don't need to see it.
is, do you agree that variation in wear rates with roughness is small and that given the existing age of the piping, further surface changes; that is, for more roughness, is unlikely to occur to any degree? DR. HOROWITZ: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, I do, Your Honor. Thank you.
For staff, a general question for staff. Just bear with me a minute. I don't know if Mr. Yoder
or Dr. Hiser should answer this, but I will let whoever wants to. Dr. Hiser is raising his eyebrows,
getting all excited, hoping he can. (Laughter.) JUDGE WARDWELL: Are you proposing any
license commitments associated with flow-accelerated corrosion and a program in the flow-accelerated
Page 1824 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
staff. I don't believe there are any commitments because this is an existing program with no enhancements necessary and just continuation of that parent program is sufficient for the period of extended operation, JUDGE WARDWELL: Likewise, do you believe corrosion AMP? DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser, the
there are any license conditions that you are proposing as part of the flow-accelerated corrosion program? DR. HISER: conditions necessary. JUDGE WARDWELL: On page 10, we're talking No. There would be no license
about the Interim Staff Guidance that was published just in July of 2010. maybe it passed me by. it was in the record. And we touched upon this. And
And I just want to make sure And not having the transcript
or -- even if I had the transcript, I wouldn't have time to read it. So let me just re-ask it in case it
has already been asked. I believe that Interim Staff Guidance states that you now advise that erosion should be encompassed by flow-accelerated corrosion management
Page 1825 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and that erosion-related mechanisms require further consideration to ensure adequate maintenance of the plant components. Guidance? MR. YODER: Matthew Yoder, staff attorney. Is that part of the Interim Staff
First, to clarify, we're talking about the July 2012 Interim Staff Guidance? JUDGE WARDWELL: MR. YODER: Correct.
I believe you said -Correct. July 5th, 2012.
JUDGE WARDWELL:
I probably didn't say that correctly. MR. YODER: Yes. That proposed guidance
recommends that erosion be part of the flow-accelerated corrosion AMP going forward. JUDGE WARDWELL: And does it also say that
erosion-related mechanisms require further consideration to ensure adequate maintenance of plant components? MR. YODER: In addition to treatment of
what we have defined as flow-accelerated corrosion, yes. It requires additional treatment. JUDGE WARDWELL: In light of this
recognition and, really, a change in what was a narrow, much more narrow definition of flow-accelerated corrosion beforehand, what have you
Page 1826 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
done to ensure that erosion mechanisms will be adequately managed at Indian Point during the PEO? DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser again. If
I could just -- this is Allen Hiser again -- clarify a couple of things? The ISG does not require that erosion be addressed by the FAC AMP. What it does is it allows
applicants to manage those mechanisms using the FAC or they may propose some alternative plant-specific methods. For example, because cavitation, the
mechanical -- while thinning mechanisms tend to be correctable through design changes, then that is the method that most applicants use to address those concerns. So, just to clarify that, the FAC ISG does not require that erosion be considered within the AMP. Now, for Indian Point, I believe, as they discussed yesterday, they do have other activities that address erosion. JUDGE WARDWELL: But doesn't the ISG say
that erosion-related mechanisms require further consideration to assure adequate maintenance of plant components? DR. HISER: That's correct. And, again,
in most cases, the applicants choose to address those
Page 1827 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
through design changes, to eliminate the mechanism as a concern at that plant. If it is not addressed
through design changes and there are erosion types of mechanisms occurring, the plant must address it. It
may be through the FAC Program, which is what the ISG -JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HISER: I see.
-- brings in to the FAC
Program as an option by applicants, or it would be through some other inspection or modeling, some other management program. JUDGE WARDWELL: And my question revolves
around what has been done here at Indian Point, if anything, to ensure that this erosion-related mechanisms have received that additional consideration to ensure the adequate maintenance of the plant components? DR. HISER: I'm not familiar with all
aspects of how Indian Point would manage erosion. That may be better directed towards them. JUDGE WARDWELL: that are reviewing that? But aren't you the ones
And you have reached or are
reaching conclusions in regards to moving forward here. this. If it was going to come up -- well, let me ask Has it come up in your review of the FAC
Page 1828 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
this. activities in regards to any additional considerations they have done? DR. HISER: I don't believe that it has
within the FAC Program because their program is focused on the chemical dissolution aspects of wall thinning. And that is the way that it was reviewed. JUDGE WARDWELL: So you know of no
additional considerations of erosion -DR. HISER: I'm not familiar with all
aspects of the reviews that were performed and didn't prepare to address the erosion sorts of mechanisms here. JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
I will ask Entergy, then, in regards to Are you able to point to anything that you have
done to further consider erosion-related mechanisms at your plant? MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor. This is
Nelson Azevedo for Entergy. When we find instances where there is erosion or some kind of mechanical wall thinning process going on, we enter that into our corrective action program. And, as has already been said, at
that point, we evaluate what the issue is and what the appropriate corrective action is.
Page 1829 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
If a design change is the appropriate corrective action, that is what we implement. If we
conclude that design change is not warranted and we continue to monitor that location, then that location because the inspection methods and the processes are very similar to the flow-accelerated corrosion monitoring activities, we add that to the flow-accelerated corrosion program because that is what is easiest to manage. JUDGE WARDWELL: How will you find or What
detect locations that are affected by erosion? will lead you to that? MR. AZEVEDO: Several ways.
The primary
one is operating experience, whether it's at Indian Point or other plants. evaluations. INPO. And we factor that into
The NRC issues information notices,
And the industry issues notices when they So we evaluate those. And then we
initially come up.
determine whether it is applicable to Indian Point. And of so, we go out and do additional inspections. JUDGE WARDWELL: As this draft staff And it
guidance, which that's what it is, it's draft. is still guidance anyhow. associated with this.
So there are no mandates
But certainly it is raising the
awareness of erosion, isn't it, over what was
Page 1830 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
then. that way. previously done prior to July 5th of 2012? MR. AZEVEDO: I wouldn't characterize it
I mean, we already have locations at the And we are
plant that we know are susceptible to it.
-- as we already discussed, we are monitoring it. I believe -- I can't speak for the staff. I believe what the ISG is pointing out, that if you are going to monitor the location, should you monitor it, then, in a flow-accelerated corrosion program or a similar program that has the elements to attract the wear at this location. JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me go back to staff,
by issuing this draft worded the way it is
implies that more attention is needed than before, as I read it. And where am I wrong with that reading? DR. HISER: I wouldn't say that you are
wrong, but I think what it really does is it addresses situations that we have encountered where specific applicants have not addressed erosion through design changes, but they have chosen to do aging management as their approach. And the way that the program description in the ISG is written, the very first sentence that has been added says that "This program manages wall thinning caused by flow-accelerated corrosion and may
Page 1831 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
be used to manage wall thinning due to various erosion mechanisms if the erosion mechanisms are not being managed by another program." So from that aspect, this really is a permissive ISG that allows applicants to manage the erosion mechanisms through the FAC Program, as opposed to requiring or indicating that they would need to develop a plant-specific program that would be separate from the FAC Program. JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you.
My last question deals with page 30 of your testimony, answer 50. to go to it. JUDGE McDADE: JUDGE WARDWELL: exhibit 000121. The question is, "What is your opinion in the nature of Riverkeeper's concern with CHECWORKS with the power uprates in IP2 and 3?" And the answer is "The concerns expressed by Riverkeeper are concerns that apply to the current usage of CHECWORKS at IP2 and 3 and not just the usage during the renewal license term." In other words, the Page 30 of whose testimony? The staff's, 121, staff You don't necessarily have
CLB, the current licensing basis, of Indian Point 2 and 3, which allows the use of CHECWORKS at the
Page 1832 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
current license power levels, is the root of Riverkeeper's concerns." And my questions are these. Do the
activities in the current licensing basis under Part 50 automatically exempt aging management review under Part 54 during a license renewal? DR. HISER: No, it does not exempt
consideration, but in terms of the aging management approach, absent any new mechanism or new aspect of the degradation, it would be only relevant for the period of extended operation. Then we would consider We would
that the CLB Program would be sufficient. still evaluate that, but there would be -JUDGE WARDWELL: still has to be looked at. DR. HISER: Right.
It doesn't exempt it.
It
JUDGE WARDWELL:
You can't just say, "Oh,
gee, it's part of the current licensing basis. Therefore, we don't have to worry about it under license renewal." DR. HISER: No, but there is already an
underlying acceptance of that program based on the fact that it is in the CLB and the staff has reviewed it, not only in the case of the FAC Program, in the late 1980s, when the FAC Program was initially
Page 1833 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
operation? DR. HISER: Absolutely. and I would say same. implemented, but also in the power uprates. JUDGE WARDWELL: The challenge is always,
then, is it truly going to hold for the period of extended operation? DR. HISER: That's correct. We should
still need to address the adequacy of it for the PEO. JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. You're back to the
You're back to reviewing it for those issues. So you do agree that CHECWORKS and the FAC
Program do come into play in license renewal, even though it is part of the CLB? That's what we just
talked about for that license renewal period, the -DR. HISER: Right. -- period of extended
JUDGE WARDWELL:
it is one of the key programs that the applicant will use during the PEO. It just happens in this case that
it is also an existing program in the CLB. JUDGE WARDWELL: But, yet, it still
requires a review of those attributes in GALL, the ten attributes in GALL, to assure that through the PEO, that program will be sufficient? DR. HISER: Yes, that's correct. Thank you. That's all
JUDGE WARDWELL:
Page 1834 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Entergy. the questions I have. JUDGE McDADE: Very quickly I would like And I am not sure
to pose a hypothetical to Entergy.
if Mr. Mew, Mr. Azevedo, or Mr. Cox would be most appropriate. So whoever wishes to answer it? A hypothetical. You have a component that It is
is identified through CHECWORKS for inspection. inspected. You find that the actual wear is
significantly below the predicted wear. next?
What happens
Is that component taken off the inspection Is it placed on a reduced inspection How do you react to that hypothetical? MR. AZEVEDO: This is Nelson Azevedo for
schedule? schedule?
Maybe I can answer the first part. If the measured thickness is below the
nominal thickness -- and here we define the nominal thickness as 87 and a half percent. The nominal
thickness, that's the minimum thickness that the component had to meet when it was originally purchased. So if the measured thickness is below that, then that component is -- an evaluation is performed. It is put in the training database. And
we calculate when that component needs to be inspected next before it reaches the critical thickness.
Page 1835 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Now, if the measured thickness is above 87 and a half percent, Mr. Mew can probably address that. MR. COX: of clarification. If I understood your question right, you were asking about a case where the measured wear was much less than what was predicted. JUDGE McDADE: MR. AZEVEDO: Correct. Yeah. Just to clarify, the This is Alan Cox. Just a point
decision as to whether to inspect the component next is really based on the wall thickness, not on the wear. Obviously the wear comes into play because it
tells you how much longer that component is good for, but usually a decision is based on the wall thickness, in the predicted wall thickness before the next inspection, not necessarily on the wear. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But you used
initially checkpoints to identify the particular component for inspection. You prioritized the It comes
inspection of components using CHECWORKS. up. It is inspected.
And the actual observed
thickness is greater than what had been predicted. Do you change the priority of inspection based on that or is it only based on the actual thickness versus the minimum thickness allowable?
Page 1836 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. MEW: Ian Mew for the applicant.
Basically when we perform a measured thickness, the measured thickness dictates how that component is reinspected. We perform a wear
calculation, a wear rate evaluation, a thickness but satisfies all design loading. And then the next
scheduled inspection is all done. JUDGE McDADE: So the CHECWORKS, then, is
only used to identify a component for the initial inspection. observed? MR. MEW: The measured thickness. Yes, Your Honor. Once the After that, it's based on the actual wear
MR. AZEVEDO:
component is inspected, the decision as to whether that component is inspected again and when it is inspected is based on the actual measurements, not based on the wear rates from CHECWORKS. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And assuming for the
sake of argument -- and I realize based on the testimony the last couple of days, you don't agree with this hypothesis. But if Dr. Hopenfeld's
hypothesis is correct that you cannot rely on this being a linear phenomenon, how would you identify an increase in the rate of corrosion in a pipe? MR. AZEVEDO: I am not sure I understood
Page 1837 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
your question, sir. Are you saying that if we were to
postulate that the wear was not limited in the future -JUDGE McDADE: If you could not assume, if
you could not rely on the fact that the corrosion, FAC is a linear phenomenon only, would there be any way of identifying a change in the rate of corrosion using the system that you have? In other words, if during the period A through B corrosion was very low but as a hypothesis, corrosion then increased, for some reason, many of which were discussed, hypothesized by Dr. Hopenfeld yesterday, would there be any way that you would be able to identify that component for reinspection? MR. AZEVEDO: If there was a technical
basis for that hypothesis, if there was, for example, lab data that showed that it was not linear, it was some other shape, then we factored that technical basis into our wear rate predictions in the future. Absent a technical basis, if we just postulate, I'm not sure how we would come up with any scheme to predict future wear. with the data that we have. JUDGE McDADE: At this point, your program It is not consistent
presumes a linear phenomenon for a fact.
Page 1838 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that? MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, that's correct. Based
on the data available, that's correct. JUDGE McDADE: MR. COX: Thank you.
If I could add a little bit to
One way that you could -- I mean, you are
talking about one component, but we're dealing with CHECWORKS, which deals with analysis lines that include multiple components. So there are going to be
opportunities to look in that same line for other components to see if you have that effect. So you may
not be looking at the same component, but you may be looking at an identical component or a different part in that line or in another analysis line that is very similar. So, you know, if it happened in one component only, that was the only place it ever occurred, it would be hard to detect. But if it was
a real phenomenon that applied to that line, there is a good chance you would pick that up in other inspections or in similar components or in other components within that line. So that would be one way
that you could dissect that sort of phenomenon occurring. JUDGE McDADE: So because a particular
line would have multiple components that would be
Page 1839 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
phenomenon. subject to inspection, if that phenomenon, the change in corrosion rate, occurred, you're confident that you would be able to pick it up through multiple inspections along the line? MR. COX: Right, if it was a line-level
You know, if there's something unique to
one specific component, you wouldn't necessarily know that. But if it was a phenomenon that was consistent
or consistent across the components in that line, yes, you would be able to pick it up from those other inspections. JUDGE McDADE: Now, as hypothesized by Dr.
Hopenfeld, it would not necessarily be through the entire line but might occur due to specific geometric factors along the line, such as at an elbow or a weld. How would that be addressed? MR. COX: When I am discussing here the
components of the line, there are multiple elbows within the line. at another elbow. So you would pick it up by looking You wouldn't pick up an issue with
an elbow by looking at what happens in another type of fitting. line. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you. You would look at elbows in that analysis
Dr. Hopenfeld, would you care to respond
Page 1840 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
like that. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Dr. Hopenfeld, a reading. to that? DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. If I was working for
Entergy when I was hired in 1992, what I would do, I would pick up knowing that the phenomenon is a local phenomenon -- this is not new -- I would pick up two elbows, four orifices, five diffusers, five other components without a simple geometry. And I will go
with a small probe, smaller than 300 mils that they are using now. I would go to a point on that elbow
where I believe I am going to have maximum wear. I am going to get one outage. I'll take
I'll go next outage and take a reading.
At the same time, I'll take readings in straight pipes and adjacent straight pipes, three, four, five, six outages. And then if I get a straight line, these
people are right. JUDGE McDADE: DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. I haven't seen any data
you've hypothesized a process that you believe would be more effective, but do you have any reason to believe that you could articulate for us why the system just explained by Mr. Cox would not provide reasonable assurance that the system would operate as
Page 1841 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
line. level. intended during the period of extended operation? DR. HOPENFELD: For two reasons. One, the
whole line approach is a simplification. first level of looking at the thing. correct. I'm digressing for one second. some other aspects of it. that.
It's the
The chemistry is
There are
And that has to do with All the corrosion, They do affect
You asked me something.
tons and tons of that stuff, goes out.
the downstream conditions, especially when you change temperatures in the system. subject. Going back, yes. They're looking at one I am getting off the
They're looking at components, one line, which
has similar properties, but the similarity is not sufficient to show you the differences that I showed you yesterday with one elbow and I would like to show you with orifices, additional diffuser orifices, additional elbows. There are hundreds of data points All conclusively show that it It is a component
that they have shown.
is not a line phenomenon. phenomenon.
I'm not worried about what happens to the The line, that is a simplification of It reduces cost. But the
approaching the problem.
Page 1842 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
in a line? DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE McDADE: That is correct. Okay. Thank you, sir. you can. problem is a component phenomenon. You are worried about whether -- and it is not even an overall component. phenomenon. It's not an average
You want to know locally how much of that
thing thinned down and is it going to withstand LOCA, earthquake. The one we had the other day, is it going That's what you want
to take these kinds of stresses? to know. JUDGE McDADE:
Mr. Cox indicated that by
looking at similar components that would be subject for inspection, you could make reasonable interpretations of the wear rate at those similar components. program? DR. HOPENFELD: Because I don't believe Why would that not be an effective
I think the differences are such that you He hasn't given any data
cannot draw that conclusion. to support his statement. JUDGE McDADE:
That there are not
sufficient similarities among -DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE McDADE: That is correct. -- the various components
Page 1843 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DR. HOPENFELD: Not only that. Only the
chrome -- you can see the chrome value, which changes from one point to another. I gave you an example with I saw one
the J-tubes, where I watched the thing. fall apart.
And that one was completely perfect. JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Hopenfeld, but how
are you going to be assured under your approach that you have selected the right elbow to measure when you measure it over six outages or whatever it was, the number of outages, that you are going to repeat these measurements to sign off on? How do you know that is
representative of other elbows? DR. HOPENFELD: back to 1992 at that time. was fairly new. how many years. then. At that point I would just beg judgment. And that would be an engineering judgment. Pick up, I think I said I am going At that time, the plant I don't know
It was just started.
They had maybe six, seven years by
as I said, elbow, components which I know the geometry affects working. It's a judgment call at that point. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE McDADE:
Riverkeeper, do you have any clarifying questions to ask? It's now about 10:15.
Page 1844 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. BRANCATO: Yes, Your Honor, we do have
a limited line of questioning intended to clarify the record. You did indicate there would be a break. And
the reason I would ask for that is so that I could provide the electronic copy to the person, Mr. Wilkie, you indicated earlier is handling the exhibits. JUDGE McDADE: MS. BRANCATO: Please? So I need that.
I would like to start by addressing a question to Dr. Hopenfeld. Yesterday as well as this
morning, there were discussions about whether corrosion results and nonlinear wear in piping component at Indian Point. He explained one such example, and he did make reference to Entergy documents that you reviewed in the course of this proceeding, which could serve as additional examples to clarify your position. Those
two such examples have now been admitted as exhibits as Riverkeeper 0000132 and 0000133, which are being brought up on the screen in front of you. Dr. Hopenfeld, can you explain how these two Entergy Ultrasonic Examination Reports demonstrate your position that nonlinear wear exists at Indian Point? DR. HOPENFELD: Could you -- I don't see
Page 1845 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Okay. it on the screen. I just see it -Sure. You could just
MS. BRANCATO:
scroll down to -- just let us know what page that you are referring to. DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. No? Come back. Okay.
Can I respond to the question? MS. BRANCATO: DR. HOPENFELD: Yes.
Okay.
This exhibit again
demonstrates because of having -JUDGE McDADE: Just let me -DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE McDADE: Sure. -- interrupt very quickly. And excuse me, Doctor.
We're talking about Riverkeeper exhibit 132.
And we're looking at page 2 of 6, which includes a diagram. correct? MS. BRANCATO: Dr. Hopenfeld, do you You are looking at And you are referring to the diagram,
intend to refer to the diagram? the diagram. Is that correct? DR. HOPENFELD: MS. BRANCATO: DR. HOPENFELD:
Can I talk about it now? Yes. This exhibit again
demonstrates very clearly that the process of FAC is not a chemical dissolution process alone. It may play
Page 1846 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a role, but it is not a major process here. If it
was, if it was only a chemical-controlled process, then the ratio of the wall thinning in the stray section to the maximum point, maximum wear of material lost in the elbow would be something on the order of less than 1.6. erosion problem. If it is more, then it is echo an It is a combination of both. So
that number tells you whether it is -- whether the whole assumption is correct to say that it is a dissolution problem. Now, why is that important? In this
particular case, it is important because as soon as you go and say it is an erosion problem, you get into the situation where you really cannot predict how fast that wear is going to occur. linear it is. You can go on the very, very scale of the eddies around that corner and say, "Look, that kind of a process is not going to be stable. is not stable. The whole thing And you cannot say how
It is going to bear in with time."
Now, turning to a different area, in the literature, you see plenty of times when it varies. In the Japan data, it shows to be varied. what I said. Here that's
If I started, if I was hired in 1992, I
started from scratch, I would take that elbow, take a
Page 1847 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
probe, and follow what is happening for six or seven years. And then I will tell you exactly what But I don't see any data. And all of that
happened.
stuff indicated that is the case. So the conclusion that it's linear, it's based on some averages. MS. BRANCATO: It is based on a gut feeling. And if we could bring up
Riverkeeper exhibit 000133 and go out to the third page? Thank you. Dr. Hopenfeld, could you explain how this exhibit demonstrates your position? DR. HOPENFELD: This doesn't have all the
information I wanted, but you can take a look very quickly that before in station 1, in station 2, -- and I don't know the distance -- there is a half an inch drop. And, based on my feeling, I don't think the geometrical change is sufficiently high here that if you only -- it was a diffusional control, as you have in these equations, then you would see a half an inch change. And that's what you have, a half an inch
change of that one station. So if you look at the -- I don't know where the grid is, but if you look at the grid, I have a number changing between half an inch. Take a look
Page 1848 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to .2. sorry. Okay. DR. HOPENFELD: I'm looking between the .1 You at the first line there. So the first station -Now, where are you? I'm
JUDGE WARDWELL:
Actually, you lost me.
Where are you looking?
You can take a look at the average there.
will see there is about a half an inch change. JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOPENFELD: Is this correct? Yeah, that's correct. Now,
Take a look from the top to the -- from 1 to 2. why he changes this direction, I don't know. haven't analyzed it. I
I just looked at this and said, If it was
"Look, there is significant change here."
a simple dissolution problem, you wouldn't see that kind of change. But, again, I don't know the length. don't have -- I haven't analyzed that. "Look, these are steep changes." JUDGE WARDWELL: numbers are shaded? over? DR. HOPENFELD: I didn't plot the -Is there a reason those I
I just said,
Do you know when you looked this
that's what I -- I don't know why. MR. YODER: There's a scale to the right. Thank you, Dr. Hopenfeld.
MS. BRANCATO:
Page 1849 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DR. HOPENFELD: MS. BRANCATO: Zoom out. Do the judges have
additional questions based on Dr. Hopenfeld's statements or -(No response.) MS. BRANCATO: Okay. I have one Dr. Hopenfeld, you
additional clarifying question.
indicated that NRC's clarification regarding the definition of FAC in its recent draft Interim Staff Guidance was an improvement but not entirely adequate. Can you clarify why you believe NRC's alteration of the definition of FAC is not adequate in your opinion? DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. I'll try. I believe
that though there is still hate for the CHECWORKS idea, FAC is simply a dissolution project. why they didn't get beyond it. And that's
They included the
impingement, cavitation, or whatever else, but they didn't say in there that it is possible that there is a disagreement, that many people have a different idea about that, that the flow-accelerated corrosion is not a pure dissolution problem, as all our data at IP shows. Now, I believe -- I am again digressing. I think that definition should not have been introduced 20 years ago, but it was. It gives a lot
Page 1850 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of pain to everybody that looks at it if you look at the literature, how you people mentioned this whole thing. And there is a lot of controversy around that.
But that's my answer. So I wish that their clarification was a little bit more scientific than it is. MS. BRANCATO: Thank you, Dr. Hopenfeld.
The next question I have is directed toward Entergy's witnesses. There have been numerous
references to Entergy's reliance on engineering judgment within its FAC Program at Indian Point. Are there specific objective, meaning reviewable; for example, by the ASLB, criteria that the engineers at Indian Point utilize to make decisions based upon engineering judgment? MR. AZEVEDO: Azevedo for Entergy. Yes. NSAC-202L is a section on how to use And EN-DC-315, which is Yeah. This is Nelson
engineering judgment.
implementing procedure, also clarifies the engineering judgment, who is qualified to make engineering judgment and when it is appropriate to use it. MS. BRANCATO: Thank you.
And so there is no further level of detail or specificity beyond these two, the guidance in these
Page 1851 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a second. MS. BRANCATO: JUDGE McDADE: Sure. You said NSAC-202L, for Entergy. Yes. We have both. There is independent two documents? Is that correct? It is our position this is
MR. AZEVEDO: pretty specific. MS. BRANCATO:
Okay.
And is there any
sort of peer review or supervisory review process, such as any documentation of how determinations based on engineering judgment are arrived at or approving decisions that are made pursuant to engineering judgment? MR. AZEVEDO: Again this is Nelson Azevedo
-- there is a self-assessment that is performed once the outage scope is selected. There are qualified FAC
engineers from other plants or from the corporate office to come and review it. And that's how we
determine whether it is the appropriate inspection scope or not and whether the engineering judgment was properly used. MS. BRANCATO: Thank you.
And are the criteria -JUDGE McDADE: Let me just interrupt for
Page 1852 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
number. MR. AZEVEDO: JUDGE McDADE: Yes. But just is the EN-DC? I I don't -JUDGE McDADE: Trust me on the exhibit 000012. correct? MR. AZEVEDO: JUDGE McDADE: That's correct. And that's Riverkeeper
And you said EN-DC-315, which was Entergy
exhibit 000038? MR. AZEVEDO: I believe so, Your Honor.
just want to make sure I heard it correctly. MR. AZEVEDO: correct document. correct document. JUDGE McDADE: Okay, which I believe are Yes. EN-DC-315 is the
And NSAC-202L, rev. 3 is the other
Riverkeeper 000012 and Entergy 0000038, respectively, just so we know where to go in the record. MS. BRANCATO: Thank you. The Thank you.
And just a quick follow-up.
self-assessments and supervisory review processes, are these documented in Entergy's AMP or within the program or how would you characterize how they are documented? MR. AZEVEDO: Those internal documents
Page 1853 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
generate it and maintain a reference. MS. BRANCATO: Thank you.
And to the extent engineering judgment is used at various steps in different processes, Entergy employees to manage FAC at Indian Point, are the same criteria applied at each analytical step, for example, using CHECWORKS to prioritize components down to decisions to repair or replace? My question is the
same criteria for engineering judgment applies throughout that process? MR. AZEVEDO: There is no engineering If a component does
judgment on repair/replacement.
not have adequate thickness, then the component is repaired or replaced. It's pretty specific. MS. BRANCATO: clarification. And to the extent engineering judgment is used as various parts of the FAC Program, the question is, are the same criteria applied or are they specific to different areas of using engineering judgment? MR. AZEVEDO: No. Whenever engineering Okay. Thank you for that There is no judgment involved.
judgments were used in the FAC Program, we followed the requirements of NSAC-202L and EN-DC-315. MS. BRANCATO: Okay. Thank you.
Page 1854 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The next question is to Dr. Turk, NRC staff's witnesses. You indicated yesterday that
should changes to Entergy's program implementation documents, such as EN-DC-315, occur, that this would follow the procedures set forth in 10 CFR 50.59. there criteria specific to fact that inform that determination, meaning whether a program change has safety significance versus those that do not and, thus, require a license amendment? DR. HISER: There's nothing in 50.59 Are
process that's specific to FAC so the procedures that are listed in 50.59 would apply to the FAC Program just as any other AMP at Indian Point. MS. BRANCATO: Thank you. I have another
question directed toward Entergy's witnesses aimed at clarifying the record with respect to Entergy's process for determining whether to repair and replace a component and it may be helpful to bring up NSAC202L Riverkeeper Exhibit 000012 which was discussed. JUDGE WARDWELL: do that just yet. Before we do that, don't
I'd like to ask a question of Dr. If we can zoom
Hopenfeld in regards to this graph.
out a bit and maybe even go back to the other page. Yes. In your review of this, is there any
Page 1855 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
flow. around. JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOPENFELD: Okay. But this is going with the those other. indication that, in fact, from going from one to two that the initial pipe wall thickness changed from a half inch to an inch? DR. HOPENFELD: that's what it shows. Yes, in the next grid
No, no, it doesn't show the
initial but it just shows the relative between one and two. JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, well, go back to
Maybe I read that wrong then. DR. HOPENFELD: I wouldn't expect it. You see one, the number They are Go
back to the grid, please. here is 0.4. symmetrical. JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOPENFELD: JUDGE WARDWELL: between A and B? DR. HOPENFELD:
You can go on the average.
Let's look at Column A. Okay, 0.452. Column A is -0.452. What's the difference
Well, that's just going
You're flowing there with it. JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Is there any chance
Page 1856 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that. JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. HOPENFELD: component like that, no. And at two it's one inch. And I wouldn't buy a Why would it be? Well, I just thought that that at Location 2 the initial wall thickness was a half inch? DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, but you would expect
JUDGE WARDWELL:
maybe they thickened up the wall of that device, that component because of its potential to wear more there. I'm just asking you is there any indication in your review that that is or isn't? DR. HOPENFELD: You don't know?
No, I didn't get that
detail and I have no reason to believe that there was but it could have been, but I just looked at that just as a backup since people asked me what about other components? So I just looked at it and picked it up
basically at random and same thing with the previous one and the one yesterday that I provided you too. JUDGE MCDADE: And just so the record's
clear on this, we pulled up again Riverkeeper Exhibit 0000132. The diagram referred to by Dr. Hopenfeld was
on numbered Page 2 of 3 and the grid was on numbered Page 3 of 3. JUDGE WARDWELL: No, I don't believe so.
Page 1857 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE MCDADE: Yes, sorry. I just want when we're You may have the right number. JUDGE MCDADE: says Page 3 of 3. JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE MCDADE: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. We're on Page 4.
On the document itself it
I just want to be able to -
writing our initial decision to make sure we're all looking at the same piece of paper. JUDGE WARDWELL: MALE PARTICIPANT: JUDGE WARDWELL: 0000133, not 0000132. Good. Sorry.
0000133. Yes, okay. And it's
Okay, thank you. This is just an example.
DR. HOPENFELD:
There are hundreds of more like that. MS. BRANCATO: Thank you and I had
indicated -- if we could pull out Riverkeeper 000012 and at Page 4-26. And while that's being accomplished, take one step back and just one clarifying question that I did pose to NRC staff regarding the use of the 50.59 process and perhaps this is a better question for Entergy and/or NRC staff's witnesses. But are there any criteria specific for
Page 1858 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
changed. for Entergy? MS. BRANCATO: it to either/or. MR. AZEVEDO: Azevedo for Entergy. 50.59 process. And 50.59 process basically goes through, it requires you to review all your licensing basis, UFSAR/FSAR commitments, tech specs, all the regulatory, all the documents to implement regulatory requirements at the plant. And so we look at the document that we In this case let's use the EN-DC-315. So we Well, again, it's Nelson If you can answer. I posed making a determination about whether there is safety significance such that it would inform the determination about whether a license memo would be required? MR. AZEVEDO: Was that question for us,
I'm fairly familiar with the
look at the change and we go back to the licensing basis and we evaluate whether that change impacts anything in the current licensing basis. And then if the answer's yes, then we ask the questions in 10 CFR 50.59 and then that will tell us whether we need prior NRC approval prior to implementing the change or whether it's appropriate
Page 1859 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for us to implement the change, document it and have the documentation available for audit by the NRC. that's how the 50.59 process works in general, not necessarily specific to FAC but in general. MS. BRANCATO: And are there any specific So
criteria relating to FAC that would inform that determination? MR. AZEVEDO: No, it's been said before. It's not
The 50.59 process is an overall process. specific to any one program or AMP. MS. BRANCATO:
Okay, thank you.
And if we
could go to Page 4-26 on this Exhibit that's up, Riverkeeper Exhibit 000012, the NSAC-202L. Thank you.
Toward the top of the page there are three options for when predicted remaining service life is shorter than the amount of time until the next inspection. And I wanted to inquire from Entergy's witness in relation to Option 2, which is to perform a detailed stress analysis to obtain a more accurate value of the acceptable thickness. Is there a reason that the initial calculations are not detailed or sufficient enough? And another way to put that would be how does the detailed stress analysis differ from the initial actual wear measurement process and why?
Page 1860 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. AZEVEDO: Azevedo for Entergy. Yes, again this is Nelson
The initial acceptance criteria
assumes that the thinning occurred over the entire component 360 degrees around the circumference. If we conclude there is some localized wear going on, the code allows us to measure the width and the length and the depth of the wear and then we can do a localized wall thinning evaluation to determine whether there's appropriate still remaining wall thickness left to continue to operate. So that's the difference between the localized wall thinning evaluation which actually considers the width and the length of the defect versus assume it's 360, the entire length of the component. MS. BRANCATO: Thank you. And if you
just, actually under Section 4.8, we're on the same page of the Riverkeeper Exhibit 000012, it indicates that certain different considerations are taken into consideration in making replacement decisions. And the first bullet indicates that cost and availability of replacement fittings is one such consideration. So I'm wondering if Entergy's witness
could explain the extent to which cost is considered? MR. AZEVEDO: Well, it's considered but it
Page 1861 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
doesn't allow us to go below the minimum required thickness. So for example, let me give you one example, if the component is not available, we could choose to inspect, as the NSAC says, inspect sooner. So as long as we inspect before we reach the critical thickness, that's an acceptable way to manage the wall thinning. MS. BRANCATO: clarification. Thank you for that
Also directed to Entergy's witnesses,
there's been much discussion about calibrated versus non-calibrated lines. And in order to clarify the
record, is it ever the case that a calibrated line will be found to be non-calibrated in a subsequent outage? And what I'm trying to understand so that the record is clear on this is whether these classifications change over time versus improve over time and if they do change to non-calibrated from calibrated the reasons for that. MR. ALEKSICK: the Applicant. This is Rob Aleksick for
The answer is lines do change from
non-calibrated to calibrated over time. Generally as the plant progresses through time and we collect more and more inspection data over
Page 1862 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the reverse. time, we expect that on average we'll have more lines shift from the un-calibrated category to the calibrated category. I can't recall an instance where it went I suppose that's theoretically possible
but I don't remember that ever happening. MS. BRANCATO: Okay, thank you. I believe
my colleague has a few additional questions. MR. MUSEGAAS: Musegaas for Riverkeeper. Yes, thank you. Phillip
I just have a few remaining
questions for staff, I'm sorry, NRC staff and Entergy witnesses. Actually I think this is directed at Mr. Is it Mr. Aleksick or
Aleksick or Dr. Horowitz. doctor? I'm sorry. MR. ALEKSICK: MR. MUSEGAAS:
Mister. Okay, I can't see the -- we
don't have a good line of sight so I apologize. DR. HOPENFELD: MR. MUSEGAAS: I'll get out of your way. All right, Mr. Aleksick, I
think you testified, I believe it was yesterday morning, in terms of this is kind of a general question about the scope of the inspection program and so I'm just trying to get a sense of how many components you inspect. I believe you said yesterday that
Page 1863 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Entergy's program has generally modeled about 8,000 FAC-susceptible components at Indian Point and correct me if I get some of these numbers or the categories wrong, but is that accurate? MR. ALEKSICK: Yes, that's about right.
That's not the exact number but that's very close. MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay. And just related to
that and I believe following on that you said that about 3,700 of those components had been inspected from the program's inception. 1992 to the present. MR. ALEKSICK: MR. MUSEGAAS: Yes, that's right. So approximately half of I believe you said from
those modeled have been inspected? MR. ALEKSICK: MR. MUSEGAAS: Yes. Okay. And to step back
just maybe one step, what percentage of plant components that are susceptible to both FAC and to other wall-thinning mechanisms have been inspected by Entergy at Indian Point? I realize this is probably And is
a rough estimate but up to this point in time. that a clear question? Do you understand that? If I understand your
MR. ALEKSICK:
question, it includes an assumption and the premise that there are components susceptible to both FAC and
Page 1864 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
answered. mechanical erosion phenomena which premise we reject, so I don't know that I can answer that question. MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, why don't we unpack
it, so just speaking of components that Entergy believes are susceptible to FAC. Of the inspections
you've done, what percentage of all the components at Indian Point that are susceptible to FAC have been inspected to this date? MR. FAGG: Your Honor, if I could just I think -I did the --
interpose an objection at this point. MR. MUSEGAAS: JUDGE MCDADE: I'm sorry.
It was just asked and
You said there were approximately 8,000 About 3,700 have been
that were susceptible.
inspected of those, so I think that question's been answered so. MR. MUSEGAAS: asking it correctly. Okay, perhaps I'm not
So the 8,000 that were modeled,
those 8,000 components, that's all of the components susceptible to FAC that you believe occur at Indian Point? MR. ALEKSICK: In addition to the 8,000
modeled components, there are a number of susceptible non-modeled components, primarily small bore lines, but there are additional components to those 8,000.
Page 1865 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. FAGG: Your Honor, with respect to
this whole line of questioning we've gone over this multiple times. grounds. JUDGE MCDADE: Well, I'm going to allow We would object on repetitive
Mr. Musegaas a few questions to sort of set up his point. I realize we've gone over this and I assume he
believes there's some area that we may be confused on so I'll allow him a few preliminary questions to get to the focus. MR. MUSEGAAS: just about there. Okay, thank you, and I'm So
I apologize for taking so long.
among the modeled and non-modeled components which I assume is large bore and small bore piping that Entergy believes is susceptible to FAC, what percentage of that total environment of components could you estimate Entergy has inspected up to this date? MR. ALEKSICK: It's a more difficult
question to answer than it might seem because the modeled components, the 8,000 modeled components are very well defined and a great deal of attention has been paid to them. The susceptible non-modeled components, again, primarily are small bore lines. Many of them
Page 1866 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Your Honor. are just little drains that really don't have much safety significance and there are a large number of those, approximately 700 lines per unit, and we don't count every component in those lines. for me to estimate a percentage. MR. MUSEGAAS: Can you give a rough So it's hard
estimate or in your estimation it's too difficult to give an estimate? MR. FAGG: Well, again, I would object,
I think the witness just answered the
question and he just re-asked it. JUDGE MCDADE: witness can answer that. Okay, well, I think the Would you feel
uncomfortable, sir, in making a guesstimate as opposed to an estimate? MR. ALEKSICK: I think given the gravity
of these proceedings, I would hesitate to make an estimate. JUDGE MCDADE: But there are approximately
700 of these non-modeled lines per unit and there are multiple components within those lines. It would vary
from line to line and it would be difficult for you to assess exactly how many components there are to give us a viable estimate on that or what percentage of those have, in fact, been inspected.
Page 1867 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. ALEKSICK: That's correct, Your Honor. A
They vary quite substantially from line to line.
large number of inspections have been conducted but it's difficult to express it as a percentage. JUDGE MCDADE: Would you be able to give
us an approximate number of inspections of the nonmodeled components? MR. ALEKSICK: I think perhaps another
member of our panel would be better equipped to answer that. JUDGE MCDADE: If there had been
approximately 3,700 from the modeled, of the susceptible but non-modeled can you just give us a general idea of how many inspections? MR. MEW: Ian Mew for the Applicant. It's
a very difficult question to answer, Your Honor, but I'll make an attempt. The way we look at things at Indian Point, we look at the most critical ones first which are ranked F1S1 which are a consequence of failure and high susceptibility. We try to inspect those first.
At Indian Point 3, greater than 90 percent of those highly susceptible ones are inspected. Unit 2, greater than 60 percent is inspected. For For the
other ones that comprise the whole SNM program, I'm
Page 1868 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
going to roughly say it's about 50 percent. JUDGE MCDADE: And can you give us a
general estimate as to about, you know, we've heard approximately 3,700 of the susceptible modeled. Of
the susceptible non-modeled, are we talking about an equal number of inspections, 3,700? Are we talking
about significantly more, significantly less? MR. MEW: As my colleague pointed out,
that's a thing that I couldn't put a number to. JUDGE MCDADE: MR. ALEKSICK: Okay, thank you. May I add a clarification? My
I'm sorry, this is Rob Aleksick again.
clarification is that the percentage of inspections of susceptible non-modeled components is not a very useful number because the population of components in that category includes highly critical components that we pay close attention to and it includes floor drains that really have no safety or other significance. And so to say what percentage of that category of components has been inspected doesn't really help us very much. MR. MUSEGAAS: Thank you, Mr. Aleksick.
If I understand correctly, then you give a safety ranking, as Mr. Mew just said. Within both modeled
and non-modeled there's, I guess, a risk informed or
Page 1869 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a safety ranking process that goes on where you're focusing obviously initially on the most safetysignificant components. MR. ALEKSICK: Am I stating that correctly? You're stating that The modeled
correctly for the non-modeled components.
components, we consider all of those to be important and very high priority. MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay great, thank you. On a
Just a couple more questions, Your Honor.
related topic I think you mentioned and this, again, just is trying to get a little clarification and more information about the inspection procedures and frequency. I believe you mentioned yesterday morning that during a typical refueling outage you conduct approximately 100 component inspections. MR. ALEKSICK: MR. MUSEGAAS: Is that --
That's correct, Counsel. Okay, and I think you said
approximately 50 of those were reinspections of components that had already been inspected and 50 were new inspections, again approximations? MR. ALEKSICK: MR. MUSEGAAS: Yes. Could you just describe
very briefly how do you determine -- is doing 100 component inspections a typical number that you do?
Page 1870 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
varies. answer. MR. ALEKSICK: Certainly. The number It Does that number vary widely or is that determined by the time that you have during the refueling outage or by criteria that you've done from earlier inspections? I'm just trying to get a sense
of how that number is determined. MR. FAGG: Again, Your Honor, I think We're plowing
we've been over this at some length. old ground here. JUDGE MCDADE:
I'd like to hear the
I wouldn't say widely, but it varies.
certainly does not vary as a function of the amount of time available during the outage. There's plenty of
time to do the number of inspections that the program requires during each outage. The primary reason for the variation is the reinspection requirements sometimes drive us to a higher or lower number. There may have been more operating experience components added to a given outage depending on what happened out in the rest of the world. I'm sure there are other factors that
contribute as well but those are two of the primary ones.
Page 1871 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question. MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, so depending on, you
might have additional information from operating experience at Indian Point or fleet-wide experience that might inform the scope of inspections that you're doing? MR. ALEKSICK: Entergy fleet. Yes, as well as beyond the
You know, for example, when Mihama
occurred, there was a great deal of attention paid to that event in the United States and inspections were sometimes conducted as a result of that as an example. MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, thank you. Another
This is for I believe, and I may have it
wrong, but I believe for Mr. Mew or Mr. Azevedo. There was a brief discussion yesterday relating to an Exhibit that Riverkeeper had put forth and it was in the context of this discussion, whether the pipe wear is linear or non-linear. But the particular example that Riverkeeper had put forth was a pipe that Entergy had explained was found to have lamination on it and so this is just a very brief question on lamination and how that phenomenon -MS. SUTTON: Kathryn Sutton. Could Counsel please, this is
Could Counsel please identify the
Riverkeeper Exhibit number?
Page 1872 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for Entergy. frequent is. JUDGE MCDADE: Well, at this point he It's a
hasn't referred specifically to the Exhibit. general question about lamination.
Mr. Musegaas, is
it necessary for them to review to the Exhibit or just simply do you want to ask a general question about lamination and its impact? MR. MUSEGAAS: I have a general question
about lamination and essentially the frequency with which it's encountered at Indian Point in the FAC program. My general question is, you know, the particular example we put forth of a pipe was, I believe Entergy explained well, that that particular pipe, and I'm not sure of the terminology, is subject to lamination or exhibited lamination in the metal. Is that a phenomenon that is found frequently in piping at Indian Point? I'm just trying
to get a sense of how this phenomenon fits in when you're doing pipe examinations and whether you encounter it frequently because of how it might affect your readings on pipe thickness. MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, this is Nelson Azevedo
I'm not sure what your definition of We encounter from time to time. I don't
know what definition of frequent is.
Page 1873 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. MUSEGAAS: Could you approximate a
percentage of how often you might find -MR. AZEVEDO: Based on my experience, we
probably see it a couple times during a year for each plant, mostly during the outage when we do inspections so I'd say two. I'm just guessing right now. I
really have no sense, sometimes more, sometimes less. MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, from the general
description what would be frequent, it's not frequent in terms of -MR. AZEVEDO: Certainly it wouldn't be
dozens of times if that's what your definition of frequent is. MR. MEW: Ian Mew for the Applicant.
Since my assignment to Indian Point, I have only encountered two of those occurrences. MR. MUSEGAAS: JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. And just to focus again.
We've got it in the record, but how long have you been there? MR. MEW: Since 1997, I mean, 2007. Okay, and in your position,
JUDGE MCDADE:
you're I believe the owner of this program? MR. MEW: That is correct. You can't sell it, can you?
JUDGE MCDADE:
Page 1874 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
again. MR. MEW: I would like to.
(Laughter.) JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. So you've been
directly involved in it for at least the last five years? MR. MEW: That is correct, Your Honor. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. I just
JUDGE MCDADE: MR. MUSEGAAS:
have one remaining question and this is I believe for Dr. Horowitz or Mr. Aleksick. Dr. Horowitz and I believe Mr. Aleksick, there was a discussion yesterday when we had, and I'll have to figure out the Exhibit number for this, but we were all discussing a scatter plot from the CHECWORKS program yesterday during testimony. And I believe Dr. Horowitz said, and please correct me if I have the reference incorrect, but mentioned that it's important to keep in mind when looking at the degree of scatter that the actual measured wear is less precise than sometimes the estimates of the measured wear is. I have a question
just in the sense of how imprecise is that process of kind of determining the wear? DR. HOROWITZ: Thank you, Jeff Horowitz
The question is kind of hard to answer because
Page 1875 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
there are various ways of determining measured wear, number one. Number two, as I said, some work I did for EPRI, oh, about four or five years ago now looked at the most common way of evaluating wear in a component with multiple inspections, okay? And what you do is you make a matrix, a measurement like you saw in the Exhibits we just saw a few minutes ago, and you take the same matrix at a later time and subtract the two matrices and you see the wear, okay? Typically the thicknesses are recorded to a thousandth of an inch. So your wear numbers and
take the maximum difference and you might say I'm seeing wear of 0.047 inches sliding over two outages. Typical number. What you don't see by doing that analysis is the fact that you have measurement errors embedded in both matrices and it turns out by the nature of the process you're always conservative, okay? knew this a long time. that. I think we
There's words in NSAC that say
I can find it if you want. What I found out doing a whole lot of
numerical experiments was the amount of error you expect, say the measured wear compared to the imposed
Page 1876 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
proceed. all I have. wear affecting them numerically is much more than you would think. It's a function of measurement
uncertainty and pipe wall thickness and the amount of wear, okay? In typical kinds of numbers your measured wear can often be twice or three times what the imposed wear is, and I almost fell off the chair when I saw that. MR. MUSEGAAS: Okay, thank you. That's
Thank you, that's all I have. JUDGE MCDADE: Thank you. Entergy, do you
have any additional questions? MR. FAGG: Reserving all of our rights as
we said earlier but yes, Your Honor, in response to the follow-up questions I think I'll be fairly brief, ten minutes or so and with -JUDGE MCDADE: MR. FAGG: Please proceed.
-- the Board's indulgence would
Dr. Horowitz, if I could ask you a question I want to try to understand
or two at the outset.
something you just said a few moments ago. If I buy an elbow from a manufacturer and take it right out of the box before it's had any opportunity for any wear at all, is it your testimony that the thickness of the wall is uniform everywhere,
Page 1877 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
misspoke. in every portion of that elbow? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I I'm talking to Dr. Hopenfeld. Dr.
Horowitz, there's too many Hs here. Hopenfeld. DR. HOPENFELD: over, is that the question?
This is for Dr.
Whether it's uniform all I want to understand that
I understand your question because I've bought hundreds of elbows myself and I checked and most of them were. The elbows I bought vary between, oh, I would say some of them half an inch all the way to probably like six to maybe eight inches. And most of
those that I wear, they were fairly uniform, yes. MR. FAGG: Okay, so let me just make sure On the curved part
we're communicating, we're clear.
of the elbow versus the straight part of the elbow it's your testimony that you would expect those wall thicknesses to be the same? DR. HOPENFELD: Not the same. Fairly
uniform within the way I would gauge it and I had some handheld transducer and I'd say, well, it was roughly the same. MR. FAGG: Okay, and I'm no engineer but
one way of making an elbow is to take a piece of pipe
Page 1878 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Entergy. uniform. and bend it, right? DR. HOPENFELD: MR. FAGG: thickness of the wall? DR. HOPENFELD: I mean, it depends how you Yes.
That doesn't change the
make it, how much you're willing to pay for it and how accurate you want it. shelf. elbows. MR. FAGG: Is your experience, would it be I would just buy it off the
I'm just telling about my experience with
the same for other types of components like a reducer that we saw on Riverkeeper 0000133? Would you expect
uniform wall thickness throughout every part of that component? DR. HOPENFELD: Well, I wouldn't say
You can go to Home Depot and find out it's
fairly uniform, yes. MR. FAGG: Okay. Let me, if I could,
shift the questioning to the Entergy witnesses and I don't know who has the most experience with these types of components, Mr. Azevedo or maybe Mr. Aleksick. Can you comment on what we just heard from
Dr. Hopenfeld? MR. AZEVEDO: Yes, it's Nelson Azevedo for
Specific on a reducer, a reducer goes from
Page 1879 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to CICERO. CICERO. a small pipe diameter to a larger pipe diameter, let's say from a six inch to a ten inch or a four inch to eight inch. And by definition, the larger diameter
has to be thicker because the hoop stress is significantly more. So when you buy a reducer, the small diameter end is, by definition, thinner because the hoop stress is a lot thinner and then it progresses, gets thicker and then the larger end is thicker. MR. FAGG: Thank you. Doctor Hopenfeld,
you, in your rebuttal testimony made reference to, I think we ultimately, with the help of your Counsel, confirmed it was a CICERO program. DR. HOPENFELD: Is that right?
I did not make a reference
I was showing the draft with the name
And I remembered that the French ran some
laboratory tests 20 or 25 years ago that were called CICERO. But I didn't realize that the paper that I provided to you had also the word CICERO in it. And
the paper I was talking about, that one that is dated, I think that was just presented really recently, this year, as a matter of fact, in a conference. MR. FAGG: Well, I'm sorry. I'm talking about two
DR. HOPENFELD:
Page 1880 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
here. check work. that? different things. MR. FAGG: question's unclear. made reference to -MR. MUSEGAAS: Excuse me, could you point Okay. And I apologize if my
In your rebuttal testimony, you
to the specific section of it so that I'd know what you're referring to? MR. FAGG: If we need to. But maybe I can
ask the question. because I thought it was fairly straight forward throughout the rebuttal. You talked about a competitive program to It's called CICERO. Am I mis-remembering
Do we need to go to the testimony? DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. But there was some
other name to it, yes. MR. FAGG: Okay. So I'm saying that they
do refer to it as the CICERO program. DR. HOPENFELD: Yes. There're two things
One there is the CICERO data, that was And I think it's in 202L. And there's another data that I was
provided.
talking about that was provided six months ago that showed in that paper that was shown this morning. And
that's the one I was talking about, that one I talked about when we talked about the equation.
Page 1881 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that's all. MR. FAGG: Okay. And I'm asking about the What's
program that is at use in non-U.S. plants. that called, that program? DR. HOPENFELD: MR. FAGG:
The French program?
Yes, sir. Your Honor, if I may, just
MR. MUSEGAAS: ask a question.
I don't think Dr. Hopenfeld has
presented himself as an expert in what's used in nonU.S. plants. JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. You can object or
And if I need anything further then we'll You object, and I think He's been Or, if he
ask for you to clarify it.
Dr. Hopenfeld can answer the question. asked about it.
He can say I don't know. Dr.?
knows, he can answer the question. DR. HOPENFELD:
I don't know anything
about that program beyond what I read in that paper. MR. FAGG: Okay. And so from your answer
there, is it safe to say, Dr. Hopenfeld, you don't know whether the CICERO program is based upon a linear or a non-linear assumption of corrosion? DR. HOPENFELD: Yes, I do, to a degree.
Because it is based on averages because of the way the equations are defined, Sherwood. value. It's an average
For that reason, it cannot be concluded from
Page 1882 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that whether it's linear on non-linear. MR. FAGG: Dr. Horowitz, are you familiar
with the CICERO program? DR. HOROWITZ: MR. FAGG: Yes, I am.
Can you respond with respect to
whether the CICERO program is based upon linear or non-linear assumptions of corrosion? DR. HOROWITZ: based on linear assumption. the same as CHECWORKS. MR. FAGG: And how do you know that? I've been involved with EVF The CICERO code is clearly The assumption is exactly
DR. HOROWITZ:
engineers working this area, including the late Dr. Michel Bouchacourt, who is the B in BRT-CICERO. And
I've heard presentations by him on several occasions. I've heard presentations by Stephane Trevin, who is the lead author of the paper quoted. And that's what they've said on numerous occasions. And it matches the lab data in the EDF and it matches what the EDF folks have been saying for close to 30 years now. MR. FAGG: Thank you, very much. I'm
going to stick with you, Dr. Horowitz, as well as potentially Mr. Aleksick here, for the next few questions.
Page 1883 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that at all. MR. FAGG: little bit, please. Can you explain that answer a repeat that? In response to the prior exchange, we heard Chairman McDade ask a few questions of Dr. Hopenfeld. And Dr. Hopenfeld responded with the Do you recall that line
phrase component phenomena.
of testimony a few moments ago? DR. HOROWITZ: Oh, I'm sorry. Would you
I didn't quite hear you. MR. FAGG: Sure. And I'll try to slow
down, apologies for that.
We heard some testimony a
few moments ago wherein Dr. Hopenfeld referred to a phrase that I wrote down as component phenomena. believe it was in response to some of Chairman McDade's questions. Do you recall that testimony? Yes, I do. Can I ask either one of I
DR. HOROWITZ: MR. FAGG:
Okay.
you if you could respond, does the "component phenomena," as described by Dr. Hopenfeld, cause you
to have any sort of concerns, first with respect to the operation of the CHEKWORKS program, and then more generally with respect to the FAC program at Indian Point? DR. HOROWITZ: No, and no concern about
Page 1884 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DR. HOROWITZ: I think I'll try. CHEKWORKS and First of
all, none of this is abstract.
predecessor programs have been used for just about 25 years now. If we were seeing the sort of behavior that Dr. Hopenfeld has postulated, we'd have seen all sorts of problems. haven't seen them. Further, the theoretical understanding of the mechanism is good enough. should be happening. I'll leave it at that. MR. FAGG: Thank you. Let's go to the Let's start So we understand what I think We've had 25 years experience. We
And that's what we see.
couple of documents that we just saw. with Riverkeeper-132.
And again, I'm sticking both Have
with you, Dr. Horowitz, and with Mr. Aleksick.
you had a chance to take a look, at least, at the four page excerpt that we received, Riverkeeper-132? MR. ALEKSICK: This is Robert Aleksick.
I have had the chance to briefly review that, yes. MR. FAGG: Okay. Is there anything about,
anything, in this document, Mr. Aleksick, that causes you to have any concerns about the CHEKWORKS program or the FAC program in general, with respect to either non-linear rates of corrosion or localized corrosion
Page 1885 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you on? MR. ALEKSICK: Oh, I'm sorry. I am on phenomena? MR. ALEKSICK: MR. FAGG: No, there is not.
Can you explain that, sir? Certainly. This is a
MR. ALEKSICK:
typical example of one of those 8,000 inspections that we have been discussing recently. This is an
examination of an 18 inch elbow in the feed water system. And as I look at it, I see that the nominal
thickness, that is to say the expected thickness -JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me, what page are
what is labeled Page 2 of 6. you.
Yes, that's it, thank
You can see, this package is essentially a
snapshot in time of the profile of the component wall. And the date in the lower right hand corner looks like it was March of 2005. So in March of 2005, this is what the component wall thicknesses were. The reason that I
don't have any concerns about this are, first of all, that the lowest reading on the component, as shown at the top of this page on the third column, the second row down, it says low reading. right there. It's already up, yes,
It says low reading, 0.661 inches. That value is compared to the nominal
Page 1886 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
value. thickness, which is 0.750 inches. And the nominal
thickness is a representation of the as manufactured wall thickness. And there's a tolerance associated
with that of 12.5 percent. And so when this component was fabricated before it was ever placed in service, the manufacturer essentially guaranteed that it would be at least 87.5 percent of the nominal wall thickness. And the low reading is 88 percent of that In other words, this component has been
measured to be thicker than it is required to be when it is first installed in a plant. MR. FAGG: And maybe more to the point,
Mr. Aleksick, is there anything on this document that suggests the phenomena of non-linear rates of corrosion? MR. ALEKSICK: this is a snapshot. we can see here. No. Well, first of all,
And so there's no time value that
But in addition to that, no, the
wall thicknesses, if you scroll down to the page, I think it's the last sheet in this exhibit. go. If you could zoom in on that just a bit, what we're looking at here is the matrix of wall thicknesses that Dr. Horowitz referred to recently. There we
Page 1887 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The flow is from the top down. And the numbers on the left hand side indicate rings of data, if you will. And so the first
three rings of data, one, two, and three, you can see are roughly 0.9 inches thick. And then as we go to Ring 4, they drop to 0.7 or so inches thick. The reason for that is the And then
first three rings of data are on the pipe. there is a weld between Ring 3 and 4.
And then
beginning on Ring 4, we're measuring the actual elbow. MR. FAGG: And my apologies for Could we get that
interrupting you, Mr. Aleksick.
kind of distribution on an elbow that came right out of the box from the manufacturer? MR. ALEKSICK: Yes, absolutely. As I look
at the pattern of the data from Row 3 through Row 17, that's the extent of the data on the elbow itself. looks to me like a typical example of an elbow with little to no flow accelerated corrosion degradation. I've seen tens of thousands of these in my 23 year career, including 1,200 examinations of components that were brand new, uninstalled components at a different power plant, baseline inspections. And this thickness profile matches that. I can go into more detail, if you like, as to why. It
Page 1888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that answer? MR. ALEKSICK: Certainly. If we can It's But I can tell you unequivocally, this looks like a perfectly normal, brand new elbow. MR. FAGG: That's good enough for me. And
I'm sure the judges will follow-up if they need to. Let's move on, if we could, to the next exhibit, Riverkeeper-133. Do you have that in front of you? Yes, I do.
MR. ALEKSICK: MR. FAGG:
Okay.
And I'm going to ask the
same, I guess, sort of broad question, Mr. Aleksick. Is there anything about this exhibit that causes you to have concerns, either with respect to the CHEKWORKS program or the FAC program at Indian Point, more generally, in connection with the potential non-linear corrosion rates or localized corrosion phenomena? MR. ALEKSICK: MR. FAGG: No, it does not.
And can you elaborate a bit on
scroll down to, I think it is the second sheet.
labeled Page 1 of 3, in the upper right hand corner, yes. On the right hand side of this sheet, there's a Yes, thank you.
box labeled component information.
I would just like to point out that the entry labeled nominal thickness in the middle there, on the left hand side, there are two values, 0.594
Page 1889 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct. JUDGE MCDADE: And, Dr. Horowitz, we heard Honors. inches and 0.337 inches. That indicates right there that the manufacturer of this component provided it when it was brand new, before it was even installed in the plant, that it had a wide thickness variation of 0.594 inches at one end of it and 0.337 inches at the other end of it. And for that reason that explains the thickness variations that we observe in the grid of wall thicknesses on the last page of this exhibit. MR. FAGG: Thank you. And thank you, Your
I have no further questions at this time. JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. And we've previously
heard that, given the fact that the geometry type here is a reducer, that change in nominal thickness is a necessary aspect of a reducer. MR. ALEKSICK: Is that correct?
Yes, Your Honor, that is
earlier, we looked at Riverkeeper Exhibit 112, Judge Wardwell has a number of questions about that. That
was the one we were talking about, the K-star value. Would that equation that we were referring to there also support, in your view, the conclusion that this is a linear phenomenon?
Page 1890 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor. DR. HOROWITZ: JUDGE MCDADE: Yes it does, Your Honor. And there were no inputs
into that equation that would reflect any other kind of phenomenon other than linear? DR. HOROWITZ: That's also correct, Your
That equation is for chemical dissolution.
Again the modeling is similar, but not identical to CHEKWORKS. JUDGE MCDADE: JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you. Judge McDade, was that
Riverkeeper-110, as opposed to 112, do you believe? JUDGE MCDADE: I'm not sure what one you
were referring to, that you said I was referring to. JUDGE WARDWELL: one you were referring. say it was 110. JUDGE MCDADE: I just want make sure. You I was commenting on the
I'll stand corrected if you
were referring to the equations that we were looking at in the various Ks and -JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE MCDADE: Yes. -- things like that. Yes.
I believe that was 110, Riverkeeper-110. JUDGE WARDWELL: I do stand corrected.
It's 110, the bottom of that second page, Paragraph 2.2 of 110. Thank you.
Page 1891 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
staff. thought. JUDGE WARDWELL: I knew at some point I huh? (Laughter) JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE MCDADE: I'm glad that you -You're smarter than I JUDGE MCDADE: So you didn't trust me,
would make an error, and I'm glad that you were the one who caught it. JUDGE MCDADE: have any follow-up? MR. ROTH: David Roth for the staff, just Dr. Hiser, Yes. Does the NRC staff
one question, Redirect for the staff.
could you please clarify which version of the GALL was used in the LRA? DR. HISER: This is Allen Hiser of the
The application was submitted under GALL
Revision 1, and the staff reviewed it to GALL Revision 1. MR. ROTH: Thank you. Anything further?
JUDGE MCDADE: MR. TURK:
There was one further
clarification on that same question that I wanted to bring out, Your Honor, if I may. Dr. Hiser, your testimony refers to GALL
Page 1892 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
further? MR. TURK: No, Your Honor. Okay. I believe that Rev 2. Could you explain what you did with respect to
GALL Rev 2 in looking at the application? DR. HISER: Okay. GALL Revision 2 was
issued after we had issued the safety evaluation report for Indian Point. With the operating
experience that went into changes to GALL Revision 2, we considered how that information could impact our Indian Point review. In the case of the FAC program, we decided that there were no implications, so we did not pursue any RAIs or any other information from Indian Point. The way that our testimony is written, and I believe it's still true, the FAC program at Indian Point is also consistent with Revision 2 of the GALL report. So we evaluated it in the SER according to It also is
Revision 1, found it consistent. consistent with Revision 2. JUDGE MCDADE:
Okay, thank you.
Anything
JUDGE MCDADE:
concludes our questioning with regard to Riverkeeper Contention TC, Technical Contention 2. I think it might be appropriate for us to take a 15 minute recess, and then start with New York
Page 1893 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor. JUDGE MCDADE: MS. SUTTON: MR. TURK: housekeeping matter. Ms. Sutton? Nothing further, Your Honor. Your Honor, we have one Yesterday the staff referred to less likely. contention. Do we need more time than that for any
party, Mr. Sipos? MR. SIPOS: Your Honor, the State would
like to ask a question about the board's intention regarding schedule, if we may. very difficult to predict. But looking forward, would the board, at this time, anticipate starting taking evidence on New York 37 tomorrow, which is Thursday. And the reason And I realize it's
I ask is we have attorneys and experts, as I'm sure Entergy and the staff do as well, whose travel plans are contingent upon that. JUDGE MCDADE: It is beginning to look
But let me discuss that with my And when we come back after
colleagues at the break.
the 15 minute break, we will try to give some guidance with regard to that. MR. SIPOS: Thank you very much, Your
the fact that we will be making changes to the staff's testimony on flow accelerated corrosion.
Page 1894 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
few minutes. JUDGE MCDADE: now about 20 after. come back at 11:35. (Whereupon, the hearing in the foregoing matter went off the record at 11:18 a.m. and went back on the record at 11:38 a.m.) JUDGE McDADE: We'll come to order. The Thank you, Mr. Turk. It's And we pointed out that in the testimony there are references to various exhibits. captured the wrong exhibit numbers. So Mr. Roth, sitting next to me, is about to transmit, once he's able to connect to EIE, the revised testimony, and the revised SOP, and the latest NRC staff exhibit list. The only changes that are And we had
being made are the exhibit numbers that are referenced in the testimony on the SOP. JUDGE MCDADE: Okay. There's no It's just
substantive change in the testimony.
correcting the reference to the exhibit. MR. TURK: That's correct. Okay, thank you. And you
JUDGE MCDADE:
anticipate that will occur -MR. TURK: Over the break, during the next
We'll take a 15 minute recess,
first bit of housekeeping business in response to a
Page 1895 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question by Mr. Sipos, I think it is a relatively safe estimate that we are not going to get to New York-37 tomorrow. And therefore you should instruct your
witnesses to be available at this point on Monday morning absent some further change. I think that New York-16 and -17 are going to go much quicker than the previous contention and also the contention we're about to embark on. But I
think the likelihood of getting to New York-37 is very slim. And on the off-chance that we would actually
get through New York-16 and -17 I think it would be better that we would just then break for the weekend and come back on Monday with -37. MR. SIPOS: State appreciates that. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Was the staff able Thank you, Your Honor. The
to file the corrected exhibits? MR. TURK: yet, Your Honor. They have not been able to file
They are still trying to get through
with that. But they are out busy with it right now. JUDGE McDADE: that after lunch then. Okay. We'll just revisit
And what we propose to do now Swear the witnesses
is get started on New York-12.
and get going and probably keep going until about 1:00 p.m. And if we have a reasonable time to break in the
Page 1896 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
vicinity of 1:00 p.m. we will break for lunch for about an hour from 1:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. MR. TURK: housekeeping matter. Your Honor, if I may, one We never introduced ourselves Sitting to my
when we first appeared before you.
right is Mr. Brian Harris who will be lead for the staff on the next two contentions. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you. And one
of the things we advise the court reporter here that everybody had to submit lists of all of the individuals prior to the hearing. So the court
reporter has that and he has the list of names, both of the counsel and also the counsel by contention and also the witnesses by contention. Again, since these witnesses were not here when we did our preliminaries on Monday, this is a somewhat formal proceeding, although Subpart L indicates it's informal. But nevertheless certain
rules are going to be applicable. Basically, most of the talking is going to be done by you hopefully. And you are to address
yourselves to the Bench to the Judges, not to each other. There may well be disagreements between the
witnesses where one witness is going to say something different than another. But your rebuttal will be
Page 1897 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
directed to us, not to the expert from the other side. Likewise, if counsel has questions, they're going to be directing it to the Bench, not directly to you until we get somewhat late in the proceedings when they will have an opportunity to ask questions or may have the opportunity to ask questions of you directly. At this point before we get started if you could all -- You don't need to rise, but please raise your right hands to be sworn. Do you swear that the
testimony you will give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God? (Chorus of I dos.) JUDGE McDADE: are good, but not great. And the sight lines here And at least at the
beginning of this, the court reporter is not familiar with you. So to make sure that the correct expert
opinion is attributed to the correct expert, when you are answering a question if you could please just start answering it by saying "This is Ms. Potts" so that the court reporter then doesn't have to strain his neck to look who is talking and to check the sign. Okay. Are we ready? Judge Kennedy? This
JUDGE KENNEDY:
We're ready to go.
Page 1898 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
is exciting. I thought we were one-on-one with all Now if I start calling you
the rest of the witnesses.
folks by the witnesses for the previous contention, please bear with me. It seems like my sight lines
aren't so good and I've sort of memorized where people sat. But that was based on the previous contention. We'll work our way through this.
So bear with me.
This is New York State Contention-12C. And the contention as we've admitted it states that the severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 does not accurately reflect the decontamination and clean-up costs associated with a severe accident in the New York City Metropolitan area. This has been characterized by the
Board as an environmental contention because the severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis is performed in fulfillment of the agency's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. So that's the contention we're here to take evidence on today. The way I'd like to start is
the Board feels that it would be beneficial for its subsequent questioning of the witnesses to have a brief overview of what is involved in a severe accident mitigation alternative analysis. I'd like to do this at a very high level.
Page 1899 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
second? And again it's to provide context for the follow-on questioning. walk down. And we have sort of a path we'd like to And what I'd like to do if we couldn't
find an appropriate witness and I'd like to start with Entergy. But we can punt this around. I guess to me it's my understanding that Entergy sort of gets the ball rolling through the environmental report and its submittal. So I'll allow
Entergy to take the first attempt at walking us through at a high level what's involved in a severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis, what's its ultimate goal and sort of what are the building blocks that take us to the conclusion. MR. TEAGARDEN: Teagarden for the Applicant. Yes, Your Honor. Grant
So a severe accident
mitigation alternatives analysis seeks -JUDGE KENNEDY: May I interrupt just one
If there's an appropriate exhibit you'd like
to point to that we could put up for the other witnesses and for the public, that would be appreciative. I didn't see an obvious one, but if you
have one that's in evidence in the proceeding, that would be useful. I appreciate that. Thank you. Entergy
MR. TEAGARDEN: Exhibit 000450.
Yes, Your Honor.
Page 1900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
again. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE WARDWELL: MR. TEAGARDEN: Page 19, Your Honor. Thank you. So let me begin. A severe JUDGE KENNEDY: MR. TEAGARDEN: Could we have that? And there is a Figure 1 of
that exhibit on page 19 which provides a flow chart for the SAMA analysis process. JUDGE WARDWELL: Say the page number
accident mitigation alternatives analysis, a SAMA analysis, basically seeks to find, the evaluate, the potential to reduce severe accident risk and to determine the implementation of particular candidates. And these candidates could be hardware changes at the plant. It could be procedure changes. They could be
training enhancements. But whether the particular candidates that are so defined have the potential to reduce severe accident risk but it's performed on a cost/benefit basis to see if the benefit associated with such changes as compared to the cost implement of such changes is beneficial such that resources are used appropriately. The NUREG-1850 provided by the NRC is the flow chart that is presented. And step one is
Page 1901 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
typically. basically just to evaluate, to characterize, the plant risk. This is a risk analysis. It's based on a risk
analysis, a probabilistic risk analysis, PRA or PSA, probabilistic safety analysis. interchangeably in our industry. But in essence the plants, Indian point 2 and Indian Point 3, have separate PRA models that model all the important safety systems within the plant operator actions that are required for addressing severe accidents or just plant transients. And those as well as -- Let me back up. A PRA are divided into three levels Level one looks at the potential for They are used
sequence of events that could result in a core damage event. So it's the sequence of equipment failures, of
potential human action failures, that could result in a core damage event. of the PRA. The level two portion of a PRA then looks at given a core damage event what is the potential or what is the challenge to the containment such that a radiological release could be released to the environment. And so the level two analysis looks at And that's the level one portion
how the core could degrade and break out of the reactor vessel, what would occur within the
Page 1902 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
containment, how the containment could be challenged with pressures and temperatures and then eventually what would be the failure mechanisms of the containment and help to define given a particular containment failure what would the release or how would the release be characterized in terms of timing, in terms of magnitude. So those aspects would be
termed a level two PRA analysis. Plants use those on a consistent basis when interacting with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for their daily operations as they examine how to plan plant functions and maintenance activities. Third level is typically performed. A
level three PRA for a SAMA analysis and that's the consequence portion of the analysis. And that
examines given a severe accident with a release how does that release get distributed into the environment and impact the environment. And the focus for SAMA has four facets that are looked at, four attributes. Two of those
involve offsite consequences and two of those involve onsite consequences. So the two for offsite look at
offsite economic impacts and they also look at offsite population dose impacts.
Page 1903 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE KENNEDY: second, Mr. Teagarden? MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: box here still. Yes, Your Honor. We're all up in the first Can we stop for just a
So the level one, level two, level
three is all within -MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. It's all
part of characterizing the plant risk. JUDGE KENNEDY: MR. TEAGARDEN: Okay. But I will be much briefer
for the subsequent boxes, Your Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: Understand. And again
I've asked for this to try to give us some context to go forward. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. Before we go much further,
could you give us a brief couple of sentences on what constitutes a severe accident? It seems foundational
to step one and I'm not sure I've really got a grasp on what a severe accident is. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. A severe accident is
an accident that is judged to be beyond those accidents defined as a design basis accident. The
plant is designed to respond to particular accidents, to have the capability to respond to particular plant
Page 1904 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that. malfunctions like a large break loss of coolant accident, a large pipe break as part of the reactor coolant system. A severe accident looks at those accident sequences that are judged to be typically lower in likelihood, very low likelihood, events that have the potential for consequences that would go beyond what would occur with a design basis accident. So it covers a spread. And SAMA analysis
actually covers a spectrum of accidents all the way from a core degradation event without containment failure which would be akin to the Three Mile Island accident to a severe accident with a large radiological release that could impact a large area outside the plant. JUDGE KENNEDY: Are the design basis
accidents you referred to are they enveloped in the level one portion? somewhere else? perspective. MR. TEAGARDEN: There would be overlap in Or is that really handled
Just more for an orientation
A plant risk assessment addresses -- It's meant
to be a comprehensive look at every possible combination of events that could lead to a core damage event. And if you look at the individual sequences --
Page 1905 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
frequency. MR. TEAGARDEN: frequency events. We're at the very low We will I'm sure get in our proceedings to a discussion on the eight release categories. We have
eight bins, so to speak, release categories postulated as part of the SAMA analysis for Indian Point of different types of releases that could occur to the environment. The frequency associated with each of these bins for most of the bins is less than one in a million per year would be the frequency. Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess what I'm thinking Yes, Your
here then if I -- Let me sure I understand this correctly. The severe accident sequence is then the
lower probability events where the design basis accidents would be on the higher probability side. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, Your Honor. So we're at the low
And in the PRA models that are
used, we have what we call a truncation value which is at some point because of the computational limitations of these models you have to stop trying to string together all the combinations of failures. And these
values are down in what we say E minus 12, E minus 13.
Page 1906 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
They're approaching the age of the universe as far as the combination of sequences, the frequency of that occurring once in the age of the universe. JUDGE KENNEDY: JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. In regards to severe
accidents, if there isn't a release of radioactivity, why is it considered part of a SAMA because you wouldn't need any mitigation effort if there's no release? MR. TEAGARDEN: a design basis release. Your Honor, we postulate
So a containment structure
has a specification for how much leakage is allowed from that containment structure. And so as part of
the SAMA analysis we look at the -- we want to encompass the full spectrum of core damage events. And so a portion of that spectrum are events where a core damage occurs. However, the containment fulfills
its function that is part of the design nature of that containment. It's designed such that there's an
allowance on a particular amount, a very small amount, of release similar to the Three Mile Island event. JUDGE WARDWELL: Wouldn't that start to
level off the impacts from the more severe ones that to the point might make all SAMA somewhat useless? mean it will never show a real difference in cost if I
Page 1907 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you bias it towards something that really doesn't have a release to the environment. MR. TEAGARDEN: A SAMA analysis is
designed to be what we say a best estimate analysis, a representative average basis. And to present that
average basis you need to look at both ends of the spectrum. The high consequence events with very low
probability, the low consequence events that had a higher probability or frequency associated with those. JUDGE WARDWELL: Let me ask it this way.
Even if the containment doesn't fail which is what happens at your low end of your severe accidents, there is still a cost associated with that extra release over what a design basis would be. still does have a cost value. So it
It's not that it's
nothing dragging down other items. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. There is
a typically very small offsite cost associated with those. But in addition I brought up the two
attributes, two components, of a SAMA analysis cost basis. And the two I brought up were offsite
population dose and offsite economic cost. Then there are two onsite and those are the onsite dose and onsite cost where onsite cost also includes replacement power cost. So what you were
Page 1908 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor. JUDGE WARDWELL: the consequences. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. I think I interrupted Dr. And then the three was categories. MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, Your releases. referring to, there are also those onsite costs that would be captured as part of a severe accident where the containment fulfills its function as designed. JUDGE WARDWELL: And could you do one
other favor for me and just again give me the names for level one, level two and level three of those PRAs that are used? MR. TEAGARDEN: So for level one the And
metric of interest is the core damage frequency. we often will refer to that as CDF, core damage frequency.
The second for level two is a spectrum of And for Entergy they use the release
categories that a nomenclature that both indicates a relative size of the release and a relative timing of the release. early release. JUDGE WARDWELL: Those are those eight So they will be termed like a high,
Page 1909 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
O'Kula. Did I pronounce that correctly? You were
just ready to say something when I managed to just beat you to the punch. difference. Or I think really you gave me
I think I was behind you. DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Dr. O'Kula for
the Applicant.
Just to supplement Mr. Teagarden's
remarks on the nature of severe accidents against those that would be regarded as design basis accidents. Severe accidents in the PRA sense
typically look at multiple failures of systems in demonstrating that they are in fact severe accidents but multiple system failures linked with the probability of occurrence, then tied to the initiating event that is considered. So these multiple failures
of events are typically above and beyond what is considered in design basis accident space human intervention, safety system failure, no matter how unlikely. But those are the nature of the type of
accidents that are considered for severe accident consideration. JUDGE KENNEDY: MR. TEAGARDEN: Continue. Your Honor, all of that
sort of describes step one of attempting to characterize the plant risk where the risk models are used to the level one, level two and level three PRA.
Page 1910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
And we'll dive into more of the details of that I'm sure as we continue on. So step two then says what are the potential enhancements that could be made to the plant. And there are lists of enhancements that So there's a range That's
individual plants have looked at.
and one of the boxes there indicates those.
step two which is what are all the potential hardware changes, procedure changes, training changes that could be implemented. And a number of those would not be applicable to a particular plant. So some hardware
change at a boiling water reactor would not applicable perhaps the pressurized water reactors at Indian Point. The third step then says to quantify both the risk reduction potential and the implementation cost. So for quantifying the risk reduction potential
would be looking an individual SAMA candidate and saying what portion of either the frequency would this hardware change as an example, reduce the impacts or might it just reduce the consequence, but not necessarily reduce the frequency. So I attempt to
quantify using these probabilistic risk models to benefit the change under consideration of a particular
Page 1911 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
path. candidate. At the same time, you also say what would So if I want to modify hardware
that change cost.
what would be the cost involved? And in step four basically is a comparison of doing that final cost/benefit decision of taking the risk, having it in a monetized fashion so that population dose is monetized to a dollar value. the various dollar values are summed together. that then can be compared against the cost for implementation to determine whether or not a particular SAMA candidate is judged potentially cost/beneficial. JUDGE KENNEDY: three for a just a second? MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. The quantification, what Can we back up to step And And
are the figures of merit that are used to quantify the risk reduction potential? And I'm ultimately getting
to how we get to the cost/benefit analysis. And maybe step three is an intermediate But I'm looking to see how we get to the inputs
to the cost/benefit analysis which I'm assuming goes on in step four, the balancing. Is step three where
the impact of implementing the mitigation alternative is computed? And, if so, what actually is calculated
Page 1912 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor. Yes. there as output to step four? MR. TEAGARDEN: take an example. Yes, Your Honor. So let's
There's a hypothetical example that
one of the candidates is a hardware change to a system. The Applicant has a probabilistic risk
assessment, a PRA model. They can go into that model and they say, "If I were to make this hardware change perhaps it improves the reliability of this particular system. So I will go into my PRA model. change in the model. I will make that
I will requantify the model."
And then what comes out of that model would be both the impact on the core damage frequency and the frequency that then can carry over into the level two for how that would impact the frequency of a given release. JUDGE KENNEDY: The requantification
results in a change in frequency of occurrence. MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, Your
But the frequency of occurrence may only
apply to a specific release category or a subset of release categories. So a given change does not
necessarily, a given postulated SAMA candidate does not necessarily have the same impact across all release categories depending on how the risk
Page 1913 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
significance of the particular system that is influencing in the model. But in essence the model is used to mimic the change, to quantify, to determine the change in frequency and then that change in frequency is applied to the level three consequence analysis that's used. Entergy used the MACCS code which I believe every applicant I'm aware of has always used the MACCS code. So it's multiplying a frequency times the two metrics that will come out of the MACCS code which is population dose and offsite economic cost. These
represent the impacts to a radial region 50 miles from the plant, so with Indian Point at the center. have a little picture that may be worth it. JUDGE WARDWELL: that, I've got to clarify. level three PRA. While you're looking for MACCS only applies to the And we
It doesn't to the other two. That's correct. So the
MR. TEAGARDEN:
frequencies from level one and level two PRA are applied then with the consequences of what we would say is the level three PRA. Technically, it's called
the level three consequence analysis because it's a conditional result. When you run the MACCS code, there is a probabilistic nature to the MACCS code for weather
Page 1914 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
portion. portion. variability. And I'm sure we'll discuss that. But
you are taking the frequencies from the level one and level two PRA and then the conditional consequences calculated by MACCS to determine the offsite risks. JUDGE KENNEDY: In the case where you
discussed the hardware change that had an impact on for want of a better term the risk profile for the plant, is it possible that that cascades into the consequence parameters? Or is it only carried forward
in through the risk profile? MR. TEAGARDEN: Through the frequency
It typically proceeds through the frequency Now you could envision a strategy that could
be applied and off the top of my head mounting a spray system over the containment dome that is meant to scrub a release in the event of a containment failure. So I have water curtain that runs down the outside of my containment dome. That change would not impact the frequency of the core damage event. It would not impact the What that SAMA
frequency of the containment failure.
candidate would potentially impact would be the radiological release that escapes to the infirement (phonetic) because in addition to having to exit the containment it has to make its way through this water
Page 1915 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the results. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: different ways. Correct. But they do so in two curtain. JUDGE KENNEDY: So again I understand that
that was a hypothetical for demonstration purposes. But that would be more description of something that would have impacted the consequences. First example
appears to affect the frequency of occurrence. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Correct. So they ultimately affect
Is that true? That's true. And the vast
MR. TEAGARDEN:
majority of SAMA candidates are all evident themselves in the frequency. JUDGE KENNEDY: DR. O'KULA: Okay. Thank you.
Your Honor, if I may add. Typically just to
Kevin O'Kula for the Applicant.
take your division of the two types of effects that could occur with this portion of the analysis, the industry looks at the first set that would lower the frequency as preventers. They really get back to the
level one and level two portion of the analysis and prevent either that accident sequence that initiating event from occurring or more likely from the sequence
Page 1916 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to actually propagate into containment failure. So a
preventer type of a descriptor is normally attached to that class. The second class is a mitigator. type of SAMA candidate would be useful. So that
It has
nothing to do with the frequency as you pointed out, Your Honor. But it would effectively cut down or So typically the nomenclature
mitigate the release.
is to address those two families as preventers and mitigators. JUDGE KENNEDY: And does that language
carry forward when the application discusses mitigation alternative? Is that a typical terminology
that's used in the application, preventers and mitigators in terms of alternatives? DR. O'KULA: Yes, Your Honor. At least But to
the evaluation is done on a systematic basis.
look at maybe one of the SAMA candidates can apply equally in some cases in other ways. So it's done
very systematically, but accountability is preserved as to whether that SAMA candidate is useful as a preventer or as a mitigator. appropriately. JUDGE KENNEDY: MR. TEAGARDEN: All right. Thank you. And the costing is done
So, Your Honor, did I
Page 1917 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
adequately address your question on step three? JUDGE KENNEDY: that mean you're done? MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, Your Honor. I guess then I have a Yes. Thank you. Does
question that's probably on step four. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. You talked about the
quantification of the impact of the mitigation of the alternative on the benefit side of the equation. And
is that translated through a change in the population dose component and the offsite -- I'm going to get these terms wrong -- economic cost risk number? MR. TEAGARDEN: It is as well as it can be
propagated into the other two cost categories for onsite. JUDGE KENNEDY: Maybe just so I don't
focus on the wrong topic based on your understanding of this contention, are we focusing on offsite economic cost risk in addition to population dose risk? Or do we need to include the onsite components
as well as we move forward in taking evidence on this contention? MR. TEAGARDEN: is on the offsite portion. The focus of Contention 12
Page 1918 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor. dose risk? MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, Your JUDGE KENNEDY: Including the population
The offsite population dose risk and offsite
economic cost risk. JUDGE KENNEDY: So the two offsite
components that go into the quantification of the benefit if you will of implementing the alternative is those two components. for this contention. MR. TEAGARDEN: There are others and so I know there are others, but
the focus of our discussion will be on the offsite portion. However, we will I'm sure bring the back the
larger perspective that alternate inputs can be proposed. At the end of the day, so to speak, the question is does it impact the conclusions of the SAMA analysis. And that is does a particular SAMA
candidate that has judged to be not cost beneficial is it still not cost beneficial. And to reach that
conclusion you still have to look at the onsite portions. JUDGE KENNEDY: JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. Again I guess just to wrap
the benefit portion up, that's computed in terms of a
Page 1919 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
change in those parameters, the population dose risk and offsite economic consequence. And that's balanced
against the cost of implementing that alternative. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. So it's a financial
balancing between implementation and benefit. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.
And the benefits measure -
- Is the benefit measured in terms of change in population dose risk and offsite economic consequence risk in terms of dollars? to dollars. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. The decision point I guess those are converted
in step four has a unit of dollars. JUDGE KENNEDY: JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Lemay, do you agree
that those are the two issues that we're really dealing with, the offsite values here in this contention? DR. LEMAY: Yes, Your Honor, I agree. And
the reason is that they intend to dominate the cost. JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. Maybe it would be fair to
ask the staff if they have anything to add to this overview of what constitutes a SAMA analysis.
Page 1920 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DR. GHOSH: We agree with that overview.
So unless you have any questions I think we don't have anything to add at this time. JUDGE KENNEDY: we'll have -JUDGE McDADE: Please when you start Appreciate that. I'm sure
talking to state your name for the first time so that the court reporter has it. DR. GHOSH: Yes. Sorry about that. This
is Dr. Ghosh for the staff. JUDGE WARDWELL: Go ahead. If you want to
fill the gap before you get going again on something else. JUDGE KENNEDY: JUDGE WARDWELL: You got ahead of me. Okay. This is a general In
statement I would be kind of interested in.
regards to the SAMA analysis, it's certainly something now required by the NRC that if it hasn't been before to be done as part of license renewal. Correct?
That's why we're here today in regards to this challenge to this one. Is that correct? Yes, Your Honor. As part
MR. TEAGARDEN:
of the environmental report, a look at the performing a SAMA is required. JUDGE WARDWELL: And what actions are
Page 1921 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Applicant. required from the results of this SAMA analysis? What
are you forced to do as a company once you see these numbers? MS. POTTS: This is Lori Potts for the
My understanding is that we are not
required to implement the SAMAs that are potentially cost beneficial. What we do is enter them into our
process for determining more detailed project implementation and make a decision as to whether they will be implemented or not. JUDGE WARDWELL: And the implementation of
these would be because they provide some additional safety. safe. It's not that the plant isn't designed to be It is. You've done that. But now you're
looking at are there some inexpensive things that we could do that provide a lot of benefit. And that's
part of the decision making process that you are aware of and that's all that SAMA requires. Is that correct But
that you do look at these and consider them?
you're not forced to implement any of them is what I heard you say. MS. POTTS: Yes, Your Honor. Ms. Potts or any of you,
JUDGE WARDWELL:
but Ms. Potts probably could because I assume you're talking now. Does your company consider these to be
Page 1922 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of advantage to them internally? Is it worthwhile for
them to do even if it wasn't required by regulation? MR. BESSETTE: Your Honor, this is Paul With all due respect, I
Bessette from the Applicant.
believe we're straying into the scope of another two contentions, New York State-35 and -36, which go into the legal issues with regard to the role of NEPA and the requirements to implement these. So I don't
believe Ms. Potts is able to answer that legal question and which we respectfully believe has been addressed by Commission in several recent Commission decisions this spring. JUDGE WARDWELL: I'm sorry if I implied I would
that it's a legal question because it wasn't. not consider that a legal question. believe it's a legal question. And so I will still ask it.
I still don't
And if they
don't have any opinion or knowledge to answer, that's fine. You'll see where I'm coming from in regards to
a technical aspect in how these SAMAs are calculated is where I'm coming from. So if you're interested, if you have any knowledge of that, I would be interested in whether or not. Maybe I'll rephrase it. It seems to me that if I was managing a
Page 1923 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
company I would be very interested in are there some inexpensive things I can do to improve my company. would be advantageous to see, not that I would necessarily do anything with it. about it. Is there something I could do to my car right now that would make it last another ten years longer? I'd kind of like to know what that is. Do you know whether -- Do But I'd like to know It
That's what I'm driving at.
you have any comment on whether that is a culture? Whether it isn't? Or you have no comment? And that's
fine if you have no comment. MS. POTTS: Yes, sir. I'm a little bit
uncomfortable speaking for the entire company in that respect. JUDGE WARDWELL: MS. POTTS: That's fine.
But my perspective is that
Entergy would take these items, these proposed, potentially cost beneficial SAMAs, and they would put them into the process that they have in place that may also have suggestions made by system engineers, plant engineers, for ways to make improvements that would provide benefit to the plant or to safety to the public. And make a decision on the aggregate of those
changes as to which ones that they would want to make.
Page 1924 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE WARDWELL: MR. TEAGARDEN: Okay. Thank you.
Your Honor, if I may
augment the answer Ms. Potts gave. JUDGE WARDWELL: MR. TEAGARDEN: Sure. Entergy like every utility
that I am familiar with in our industry is always looking for ways to both improve plant safety and improve efficiency at our plants. purposes of the PRA models. They show us -- They help us understand the plants to understand the risk significance of systems, how safety can be improved, the importance of particular operator actions. So all of the facets that are involved within a SAMA analysis are -- Many of the facets are already in place. The SAMA analysis is That's one of the
another means of highlighting some particular changes that can be made. But as Ms. Potts alluded to, the plant already also have their own list of things that they are viewing, that they're evaluating. So the potentially cost beneficial candidates are added to those lists. And then the
potential benefits are weighted against the costs and also the priorities for what is needed this year, what is needed next year, what is judged to have the
Page 1925 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
biggest benefit for the company. JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE McDADE: Thank you. For our purposes right
here, you have guidance from the NRC under NUREG-1850. You're required to conduct a SAMA analysis. You're
required to submit the results of that SAMA analysis to the NRC staff as part of your license renewal application. And that's what informs the process for Is that
what you submit to the NRC, the NUREG-1850. correct? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes.
Your Honor, we are -
- Entergy and other utilities that seek license extension are required to perform a SAMA analysis and there may be other documents that specify those requirements. A NUREG per se does not specify requirements. It is a -A guidance document. It's a guidance document.
JUDGE McDADE: MR. TEAGARDEN:
So the only clarification I'm attempting to make with your statement was reference to 1850. But as part of
the application process for license renewal in order to satisfy the requirements of NEPA a SAMA analysis is required. JUDGE McDADE: But you look to NUREG-1850
Page 1926 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
as a guide for what the NRC staff is going to require be in your SAMA analysis and as part of your application. Is that correct? MR. TEAGARDEN: NUREG-1850 would be one of One
several documents and other pertinent documents.
is an NEI document, NEI 05-01, which is an industry guidance document through the Nuclear Energy Institute, hence the NEI on the prefix. one of the authors of that document. And that document was endorsed by the NRC as saying that if you follow this industry guidance that that will provide a submittal to the NRC that should be complete enough and appropriate enough for them to evaluate it. That's another very important Ms. Potts was
document that will likely come up in the process of our discussions. JUDGE KENNEDY: And both of those At least
documents are exhibits in this proceeding. I think I remember that. MR. TEAGARDEN:
Yes, NEI 05-01 is an
exhibit and I believe 1850 is an exhibit, Your Honor. MR. O'NEILL: Yes, Your Honor. This is
Martin O'Neill, counsel for Entergy. are exhibits in this proceeding. one clarification.
Those documents
And I would just add
I think NUREG-1850 is principally
Page 1927 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a document designed to disseminate information about the license renewal process at the broader public. It's kind of a brochure of sorts. And we did
incorporate a figure from that document in our testimony because it provides a nice visual overview of the SAMA analysis process. One thing I might add. The applicable
regulation is 10 CFR Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) which essentially states that if the staff is not previously considered SAMAs for a license renewal applicant's plant and an EIS or an environmental assessment, then the applicant must complete an evaluation of SAMAs as part of the license renewal application. MR. TEAGARDEN: Teagarden for the Applicant. Your Honor, Grant If I may make one It's important
further note regarding SAMA analysis.
to recognize that a SAMA analysis is a spatially average and time averaged analysis and result such that what is used, what comes out of the level three PRA analysis for input into SAMA analysis looks at a range, a spectrum, of postulated releases that could occur using meteorology, a whole year of meteorology, looking at different weather sequences and determining an average result from all of those. So that as we
dig into the details, a SAMA analysis does not seek to
Page 1928 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
stage. three stage. MR. TEAGARDEN: That's at the level three model any one radiological release. It models
thousands of radiological releases that occur using a year's worth of weather data to develop a distribution of results from which a mean value is taken for continued use in the SAMA analysis. And this mean value is for the entire 50 mile region, a very large region. That entire region
is not impacted by any one postulated release. However, it is part of the analysis region because of the fact that wind can be blowing different directions at different times. modeling. JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's at the level And that's all part of the
But that then is where the mean values from
MACCS2 code that are used to generate the population dose risk which is the population dose from MACCS times the frequency and the offsite economic cost risk, the offsite economic costs from MACCS times the frequency. Those are mean values analyzing a 50 mile
radial region in view of a whole year of weather data. JUDGE KENNEDY: So should I take from that
that those are inputs to MACCS2? MR. TEAGARDEN: The meteorological weather
Page 1929 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
file is an input to MACCS2. JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, sir. So the spatially averaging
and the time averaging is accomplished through inputs, input parameters, to MACCS2. MR. TEAGARDEN: into the different details. Yes, inputs and we can get But like population So the different
distribution is an important one.
population densities around the site are used as part of the evaluation. If we turn to page 32 of this same exhibit, there is this figure three that will help I think depict what I'm beginning to discuss. So this
presents a simplified view of the 50 mile analysis region that MACCS2 code uses for offsite, economic and dose calculations. You see that it's divided up into sixteen directional sectors, north headed to the top, south headed to the bottom. rings with divisions. And it has divisions, annular So this is the framework that
MACCS uses for many of the inputs like population, like land values. So there are different values that
are attributed to what I'll call each grid element where the grid element would be a portion, one little ring element, within one little directional sector. JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it a segment of an
Page 1930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
annular region? about? MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, one square, one cell. Okay. Thank you. Is that the grid you're talking
So the analysis becomes
very site-specific by using site-specific data in this fashion. And when a release is postulated to occur
using the MACCS code as done by Entergy, it will pick a sequence from the weather file. It will use that
sequence to determine the distribution, the atmospheric dispersion, along the region. And then also as implemented for Entergy and most others that I'm familiar with they take that and actually rotate it through all the other sectors to see how that would impact had the wind been blowing in a different direction. They wait the results of
that using the frequency of the wind blowing in a particular direction. And then you do that for each of the release categories, eight release categories. That's
done for I believe in Entergy's case 155 weather sequences throughout the year. release. So it's looking at a
A given release is looked at with 155
different weather sequences, rotated all the way around the analysis region to generate a large number
Page 1931 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of samples from which to draw the mean results. JUDGE KENNEDY: how do I interpret that? I'm assuming. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, because MACCS2 code And the spacial averaging, The grid is relevant to that
is going to be calculating for instance the population dose in each one of those little grid elements. And
then it will add those results together for each given run of the code and present the mean results. JUDGE KENNEDY: So you're representing one
of the grid elements by an average parameter for that, let's say, population. MR. TEAGARDEN: Correct. Each grid
element would have a population value associated with it that would be different than the grid element next door to it in general. JUDGE KENNEDY: So when we run through all
these sequences with the eight release categories after having implemented a mitigation alternative, what is the result of that? yet again? MR. TEAGARDEN: No. For the Entergy Or am I oversimplifying
analysis I don't believe any of the SAMA candidates required that they had a separate run of the MACCS2 code. So what the SAMA candidate would evaluate would
Page 1932 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Applicant. statement. be the change in frequency that would be applied to the conditional results developed with the MACCS2 code. JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Let's take that
again slowly because that seems to be a significant distinction here. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Particularly since all the
challenges appear to be on the MACCS2 side of the equation here. And I'm sure we'll have a whole line But walk us through that
of questioning about that. again slowly.
And again is this an example as you
talked about before of something that impacted the frequency of occurrence versus the mitigation of the release? MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: context what you just said. MS. POTTS: Your Honor, Lori Potts for the Yes, Your Honor. So say to me again in that
I do want to clarify Mr. Teagarden's We did have SAMA candidates that do not We did have a few that
just impact the frequency. changed the release profile. JUDGE KENNEDY:
Okay.
So we actually have
both types of scenarios here if you will.
Page 1933 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
staff. MS. POTTS: Yes, Your Honor. And one of But
other point that this figure doesn't show it.
within the 10 mile ring we actually have 10 additional rings for a final resolution in close to the plant. JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. And maybe
while this is up here you brought up the concept of the 10 mile ring and the 50 mile ring. The population
dose rate risk, is that reflective of the whole region here or is it just within the 10 mile region or? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. It's
reflective of the full 50 mile region.
And that's the
same for population dose and offsite economic cost. JUDGE KENNEDY: So when the population
dose risk is computed its impact is assessed over the entire 50 mile region. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: scenario that you had. MR. TEAGARDEN: Correct, Your Honor. And That's true. Again going through the
an end result of that which will probably come out in our discussion is that any one individual grid element will have a small impact on the mean because it's one of many grid elements that are being summed together. DR. GHOSH: This is Dr. Ghosh of the And I may
Could I just add one clarification?
Page 1934 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
be the only one who needs it, but just in case. are two sets of frequencies that we're generally talking about. One is the core damage frequency There
that's coming out of the level one PRA and then there's a second frequency which is the frequency associated with the eight source term groups, for example. So when Dr. O'Kula was talking about the prevention versus mitigation, for example, generally if we are reducing the CDF frequency which is what's coming out of level one, we talk about that as a preventive measure. For the mitigative measure, we
may also be reducing frequencies, but that's at the level two stage. So we may be, for example, moving the frequency from one source term category to another. And that's how typically the SAMA benefit is quantified. I know there could be some confusion
there because we're talking about two sets of frequencies. But that second frequency is actually
modeling a change in the consequence if that makes sense. JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. And I'm sure But again in
we'll get into more of this as we go on.
the context of this sort of preliminary to get us
Page 1935 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
oriented to our follow-on questions, that's appreciated. DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, if I just may
supplement Dr. Ghosh's and Mr. Teagarden's responses and I'm sure we'll pursue this later on in Contention12C. But with regard to modeling any one type of
release, one of these severe accident releases, the weather file that is used in MACCS2 will based on Indian Point meteorological conditions will direct the plume in a certain direction. And the effects may be
in the direction that the MACCS2 file is reading as part of the input data may be in a direction randomly selected. But then the answer is weighted by the
percentage of time that the wind is blowing under those conditions in that direction. If we look at this 50 mile grid that's used for SAMA analysis calculations using the MACCS2 code, it's important to note that certain grid elements may be affected and the other direction 180 degrees opposite the way the wind is blowing will not be affected. So at any given time maybe a few or all
of the grid elements in a certain direction may be affected. But alternatively there could be little indication of the plume traveled as it goes across the
Page 1936 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
grid. We show in this picture if the plume is going
in a northerly direction, then those grid elements would be affected. The other ones would not be. All right. Thank you.
JUDGE KENNEDY:
After all this discussion, I want to make sure that it should be my understanding that in Contention-12C we're focusing on the MACCS2 code, that component of this analysis. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: my understanding, too. I see heads nodding. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Because that's
But I do appreciate all the I think
background that goes into a complex analysis.
we're going to spend a good portion of the remainder of Contention-12C discussing the inputs to MACCS2. I guess I'd like to get maybe a perspective both from Entergy and from the staff and we'll allow Dr. Lemay to comment as well. questions. Two
The inputs to MACCS2 to perform the
cost/benefit analysis or to assess whether a SAMA is cost beneficial for implementation, should we view those as best estimate inputs, conservative inputs, reasonable inputs? What's the perspective that we
should start from here for this type of analysis? What do you believe is -- What is the nature of the inputs for this analysis?
Page 1937 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
New York. estimate. three. parameter. DR. BIXLER: Yes. Dr. Lemay. staff. to comment? DR. BIXLER: This is Nathan Bixler for the The input MR. TEAGARDEN: Teagarden for the Applicant. reasonable. Yes, Your Honor. Grant
Best estimate and
There will be -- I'll just stop there.
Best estimate. JUDGE KENNEDY: Anyone from the staff like
Yes, I would agree with that.
should be best estimate.
They shouldn't be They
conservative or biased one way or the other.
should be the best value that you think you have for that particular parameter. JUDGE KENNEDY: For that specific
JUDGE KENNEDY: DR. LEMAY:
Francois Lemay for State of
I agree that the input should be best That's the nature of the PSA, the level
But they should be best estimate appropriate
for the release category we're trying to simulate. JUDGE KENNEDY: I appreciate that. And
that leads me to my second question.
Starting first
with Entergy, what is your perspective on the plantspecific nature of the inputs to MACCS2? Is this
Page 1938 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
staff. a bit? MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, Your Honor. And I appreciate you intended to be a plant-specific analysis, a generic analysis? MR. TEAGARDEN: Teagarden for the Applicant. Yes, Your Honor. Grant
The Indian Point SAMA
analysis and the MACCS2 model that supports it is highly plant-specific. I mean it is designed to be There may be
plant-specific in every pertinent way.
portions where generic data is appropriate just because it's appropriate for any plant. I'd like to just provide a short list of the different ways that the Indian Point analysis is site-specific. JUDGE KENNEDY: Can we hold off just for
having a list because that's going to be one of the questions as well. And maybe we can get the staff to
comment on whether they feel there should be a plantspecific analysis. And, if so, why? This is Nathan Bixler for the With
DR. BIXLER:
Yes, the input should be plant-specific.
that in mind though, the comment from Mr. Teagarden is appropriate that there are a lot of input parameters that end up not being plant-specific that are
Page 1939 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
applicable to any site that you want to look at. those end up being generic and that's appropriate because those parameters are generic. There is some thought that needs to go into constructing a MACCS input DAC where you think about which parameters need to be adjusted to be plant specific and which ones don't. JUDGE McDADE: Could you give us a few So
examples of what you view as generic that would be applicable to any? DR. BIXLER: Yes. Before you do that, can And then
JUDGE WARDWELL:
I just fix that point a little bit more?
Judge McDade's suggestion would be good after that. But as I heard you say that, you kind of mixed up plant-specific and then you made a statement "Then there's others that aren't plant-specific that apply to a range of plants." But that still doesn't make it Correct?
non-plant specific for Indian Point. DR. BIXLER:
It needs to be applicable. It may apply. For
JUDGE WARDWELL:
instance, I know nothing about it besides what I read. I mean I'm not a SAMA person and I'm not -- Anyhow, I am what I am. There are some characterizations of the
reactor that must go into this in regards to when you
Page 1940 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Point. have a core damage problem. You can see how I'm
using very strict nuclear terms here. That may very well apply to a number of plants that have the same type of reactor. So one
might call a generic parameter that goes into any analysis. Now granted we're at the consequence stage But even let's just -- For
here in this contention.
instance, this will still affect the results of it possibly. But yet it is plant-specific to Indian It's just that applies to others also. And so
I'm hoping that as you move forward -- this is not a question. It's more of a request -- that it would
help me a lot if we reserve the term "generic" for something that is just generically used and is not relevant to the situation that occurs at Indian Point. Let's say, for instance, everyone assumed there was no change in topography. Now we're not
getting into probably the details of it in that regards. But let's just say for the sake of
assumption that you have chosen to not consider any topography changes. Well, that truly is a generic
assumption that you're making. To me that's different than the fact that your particular plant may be similar to lots of other
Page 1941 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
plants and so other people use exactly the same parameter you're using. But it still is plantAnd I'd hope that you try
specific for Indian Point.
to remember to not call those generic because that will connote something different to someone like me if you call it just generic. It might very well still be
plant-specific if you catch my drift. DR. BIXLER: Let me just give an example
of something that I might consider to be generic, something like dispersion data that you start with when you're doing atmospheric dispersion. There are
some adjustments to that, but the basic data themselves are generic because they would apply to any plant. plant. It wouldn't even have to be a nuclear power It could be pretty much any facility and they So that category of data I would
would still apply. consider generic.
JUDGE WARDWELL: anywhere in the U.S. also. DR. BIXLER: JUDGE McDADE:
And it would apply
Right. Can you define what you
mean by dispersion data in that context? DR. BIXLER: Dispersion is the way once a It spreads out as It has to do
release begins and a plume forms. it moves through the atmosphere.
Page 1942 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
primarily with atmospheric turbulence that causes mixing of the plume with the surrounding air and causes it to grow, to expand, but to become more dilute as it moves downwind. JUDGE McDADE: That's dispersion.
But would that as far as
plant-specific depend on, for example, the prevailing winds? The direction of the prevailing winds? The
speed of the prevailing winds? surrounding area? DR. BIXLER: characteristics.
The topography of the
Those would be plant-specific
The prevailing wind information
would come in from what's called a meteorological data file and that would characterize that specific plant, that specific location. Topography would come in
through something called surface roughness that would have an impact on the way things would be calculated. JUDGE McDADE: So you would start with a
basic dispersion model and then you would plug in plant-specific criteria to fill out that model. DR. BIXLER: JUDGE McDADE: Yes. That's basically right.
And can you give us another
example of going from the very plant-specific to those that would have a wide or general -DR. BIXLER: You might characterize dry
deposition or maybe even better wet deposition would
Page 1943 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
disposition? DR. BIXLER: The basic model parameter be very nearly site independent. It would be -- The
rate at which the plume would be washed out onto the ground would depend on the characteristics of the rain and things of that nature, but not on the particular location where the rain happened to occur. be another good example. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But, for example, if That would
you have a plant located in a location that had 100 inches of rain a year, would you have a different design than if you had a plant where there was five inches of rain a year? DR. BIXLER: That would again come in That would
through the meteorological data file.
characterize -- That file characterizes wind direction at each hour of the year, wind speed at each hour of the year, precipitation rate at each hour of the year. Those primary characteristics are categorized or the information is carried through in the meteorological data file. And that information would certainly be
very site-specific. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But the wet
that affects what deposition occurs would be site independent.
Page 1944 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, if I may
supplement this discussion on generic or across-theboard applicability. JUDGE McDADE: Again, Dr. O'Kula, just
when you get started just to make sure that you get attributed to what you say so that the court reporter doesn't attribute it to a different person. identified you as Dr. O'Kula. DR. O'KULA: We know
Please continue. Thank you very
Your Honor.
much and I apologize for that oversight. Another two examples actually of this type of across-the-board applicability might be the breathing rate of downwind populations. Usually
that's a industry or acceptable rate of inhalation that would be used by all applicants having been vetted or reviewed by the appropriate subject matter experts for this type of analysis. The second one would be that all the applicants have used tends to be the dose conversion factors. If I'm affected by a certain radionuclide
either through inhalation or exposure to an external plume that is passing overhead, then how much dose or deleterious effect would occur. radionuclide basis. And those data are typically applied That's on a pro-
Page 1945 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
do that? NEI 05-01. York. regardless of the power plant or nuclear facility. They would be used in DOE, Department of Energy, circumstances as well as NRC licensed facilities. Those two examples would be broadly applicable. JUDGE McDADE: JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Lemay, are you
familiar with the MACCS2 code? DR. LEMAY: Yes, I am. JUDGE KENNEDY: Do you agree with the Dr. Lemay for the State of New
characterization that's put forward here of the types of input as generic, plant-specific? And again you've
heard the whole discussion about generic could still be applicable to Indian Point. DR. LEMAY: I do and perhaps I can point
It does provide guidance on what is I don't know
considered generic and plant-specific.
if you want to put it on the screen and look at it. But there is a section that actually -MS. LIBERATORE: Excuse me for a moment.
This is Kathryn Liberatore for the State of New York. That's New York State Exhibit 000287 is the NEI guidance. JUDGE KENNEDY: Why don't we go ahead and
Page 1946 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
point us to? DR. LEMAY: Section 3.4 discusses the And it DR. LEMAY: Pages 13 and 14 please. What would you like to
JUDGE KENNEDY:
level three PSA model and specifically MACCS2. describes some of the sections.
So they describe the
various sections that you need to make site-specific. For example, the population distribution was correctly described by the site-specific piece of data. And then below that at 3.4.2 there is economic data and we describe the kind of economic estimates that need to be site-specific, the cost of evacuation, the cost of temporary relocation, the cost of decontamination of buildings. And then if we move
to the next page we discuss the lost return of investment, the cost of repairing, interdicted property, the value of crops, the value of farmland. Section 3.4.3 describes the radionuclide releases that should be plant-specific. scrolling down. Keep
And then at the end at the bottom of
the page they say that MACCS default values are acceptable for other parameter inputs such as inhalation, skin protection factors, acute and chronic exposure effects and long-term protective data. And
I think this is consistent with what your experts have
Page 1947 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
exhibit? MR. TEAGARDEN: specifically. Okay. No, Your Honor. Not mentioned. JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes, that's excellent.
And I like the phrase "default value" as opposed to generic. it. I think that's a good characterization of
Thank you for that. JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Teagarden, you had a Is it this
list of generic versus plant-specific.
list or do you have something that you'd rather offer in? MR. TEAGARDEN: perhaps just illustrates it. brief I believe. JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it part of a current It encompasses that and So if I may it will be
We've discussed the fact that
the meteorological data used for Indian Point comes from the Indian Point meteorological tower. We may
not have specifically said the meteorological tower, but it's site-specific to the Indian Point reactor plants. We've discussed the fact that the population distribution used in the 50 mile region is specific. We may not have specifically stated -JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me. Just let me
Page 1948 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
interrupt to make sure just to fix this point. And
that's population-specific based on the grids of the radial circle that we're talking about. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. It is
taking U.S. Census based data, escalating it to the final year, to the year 2035 for the end of license extension for Indian Point 3 and then distributing that data to the grid and some other additions we can talk about as well which is subject of another contention transient data. But it's using site-
specific, region-specific population data and distributing it on the grid to represent where individuals live. The third element would be that the plants themselves are -- it's plant-specific. SAMA analysis
for Unit 2 is different than the SAMA analysis for Unit 3. The design features between the two units are
plant-specific such that the SAMA candidates as they're examined are examined on a plant-specific basis. And the accident frequency between the two
plants are different. JUDGE KENNEDY: MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Mr. Teagarden. Yes, sir. Is that then reflected in
the front end part, the level one, the level two type
Page 1949 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of analysis? there. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. That So there's a plant-specific difference
part is captured in the front end in the frequency. And then the next part is what's captured in the back end so to speak and that's source term. And when we
use the term "source term" we're looking at the radiological material that basically resides in the reactor vessel, the core, and then its potential release as a function of time for a given accident scenario. The release to the environment for these release categories differ for Indian Point 2 versus Indian Point 3. And we'll use the term the fact that
the "source term" is different. Another item is the land economic value. So using the same grid, the value of property includes land and improvements in the region which is distributed according to county-based values. So it
is Indian Point specific and varies across that 50 mile grid. One of the subjects of our contention is going to be decontamination costs. And it's important
to note the decontamination costs are developed on a per capita basis. It's a per person basis. So that
Page 1950 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor. Honor. JUDGE McDADE: Do you start off with the that? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, sir. Yes, Your when they're applied within the MACCS code like some other values that are applied on a per capita basis they become site-specific. Those values are multiplied by the number of individuals in that region that are being impacted by the postulated release. So how those values are
applied at the end of the day represents a sitespecific analysis. And land use is another -JUDGE McDADE: Can you go back a second on
overall decontamination costs and then just divide it by the number of people? Or do you figure out what
the costs are per person and then just multiply it by the numbers to come up with the total cost? do you work from and to? MR. TEAGARDEN: The second manner, Your Which way
And that will be a subject of discussion.
Indian Point used the values that were developed for NUREG-1150, a seminal study. It was an examination of It involved a
five different nuclear power plants.
level one PRA, a level two PRA, a level three PRA.
Page 1951 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
It involved the Peach Bottom plant which is about 30 miles outside of Baltimore, Maryland. involved the Zion plant about 37 miles outside of Chicago. It involved the Surry plant, the Grand Gulf It
plant and the Sequoyah plant. And so these values that have been used by Entergy for the cost of non-farm decontamination -these are per capita values -- stem from the NUREG1150 study. In NUREG-1150, those same values were
applied at all five plants. They are escalated for time in the Entergy analysis using the Consumer Price Index which follows the guidance of NEI-05-01. And those values to our
knowledge have been used in every SAMA analysis of the Entergy panel's knowledge being based in NUREG-1150 and then escalated for time. And they were used most recently, those values, the bases out of NUREG-1150, for the state-ofthe-art reactor consequence analysis that was developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, and its contractor, Sandia National Lab. So
Entergy used values that are per person values, have been well vetted in the PRA community, have been used consistently through time, used in the latest study and then those values are applied to the population
Page 1952 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
distribution. JUDGE KENNEDY: Specifically with NUREG-
1150, we're talking there they looked at five facilities and it's based on an average of those five facilities. MR. TEAGARDEN: The NUREG-1150 study For this
evaluated each facility separately.
particular variable of parameter, they used the same cost for non-farm decontamination for each of those five facilities. JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm thinking along There were five
maybe the same lines as Judge McDade.
facilities that were analyzed in different locations maybe with different characteristics of the environment around the plant facility. Was there --
And again I guess we're talking decontamination values here -- a value for each of the five? I know you just
said that for a particular parameter, the same parameter is used for all five. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: The same value was used. But are there other
parameters under this category that are unique to whether it's Zion or Peach Bottom? Was there a unique
value for other decontamination parameters in MACCS2 that was described in NUREG-1150?
Page 1953 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
lunchtime. MR. TEAGARDEN: If I understand your Well, I'm
question appropriately, I'll rephrase it.
not sure how to rephrase it other than what I've stated. For the five facilities no distinction, no
different, values were used for different facilities. JUDGE KENNEDY: I'll overuse the term.
There was no plant-specific value for the decontamination parameters for any one of these five reactor facilities and their environments. MR. TEAGARDEN: This is where I guess I
would say that the values used were judged appropriate for each of the five facilities. JUDGE KENNEDY: MR. TEAGARDEN: The same parameters. The same value for that
parameter was judged appropriate for each of those five facilities. JUDGE KENNEDY: And as they say in the
business and now the fun begins. JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. Where is it?
It's getting close to the
But I think this is going to be the meat Not just this specific
of the remainder of it.
parameter, but I think what you've done is a great job of trying to focus this to the right parameters. And
when we get through this whole list, we'll give Dr.
Page 1954 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
p.m. now. for lunch. Lemay a chance and staff a chance to comment on your generic, plant-specific list. And then I think we're
going to -- I'm assuming we'll burrow down into the details. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. It's just about 1:00
If we take a one hour break until 2:00 p.m. Are there any housekeeping matters that Mr. Turk?
need to be taken up when we come back? MR. TURK:
Yes, just one, Your Honor.
I've noticed on Citrix that the staff has filed through EIE the revised testimony and SOP on the FAC contention. So that is now in the system. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And if you could
just write out just to make sure that I've got the right exhibits that you have revised so that we can then strike the ones that were there previously and enter the new corrected exhibits with the correct exhibit numbers in the testimony. I just want to make
sure I've got those right and I don't strike the wrong exhibit and also then admit the correct revision number for the staff exhibit list revision X for NRC No. 000001. And we'll do that first thing when we
come back from lunch. Clearwater, anything? MR. TURK: Thank you. I'm sorry. There is
Page 1955 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
further. a motion to strike and replace as the Board had requested yesterday. lunch. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. So we'll do that right after
Clearwater, anything before we break? MS. RAIMUNDI: I'm sorry. No, nothing
Thank you, Your Honor. JUDGE McDADE: MS. BRANCATO: JUDGE McDADE: MR. SIPOS: MS. SUTTON: JUDGE McDADE: Riverkeeper. No, Your Honor. New York. Thank you.
No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. Okay. We'll be in recess Off the record.
then until 2:00 p.m.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the aboveentitled matter recessed to return at 2:00 p.m. the same day.) JUDGE McDADE: The hearing will come to order. First, a couple of administrative matters. First of all, as we had before the break, there was an NRC Staff Motion to Strike and replace exhibits. We have received that. We are granting the motion. And, specifically, it involves changing the exhibit list. We're now at NRC Revision 5 of the Exhibit List, and it was NRC Exhibit 121 and NRC Exhibit -- I'm sorry.
Page 1956 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Your Honor. JUDGE McDADE: I'm sorry, thank you. MR. TURK: Is the motion incorrect? JUDGE McDADE: No, the motion isn't incorrect. I was reading too fast. 121 was listed before 120 and, therefore, after reading 121 I assumed the next one had to be 122. MR. TURK: I would have done the same. JUDGE McDADE: I assumed incorrectly. So, in any event what we're doing is striking the previous one and admitting those. Also, after the end of the last break we had a discussion with regard to Riverkeeper, and we received the electronic versions, but Riverkeeper should file those through the EIE, and at the same time then file a revised exhibit list. And what we will do, there's nothing to strike with regard to the exhibits because they're additional, but what we will do is strike the previous exhibit list, and then add the new exhibit list with the new revision number. And if I wasn't clear, let me be clear with regard to New MR. TURK: 120 and 121, Your Honor. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. So, they will be replaced with Exhibits NRCR121 and NRC Exhibits R122. MR. TURK: I believe that should be 120,
Page 1957 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
York, we are striking the previous New York State 399. We're replacing it with New York State Revised 399, and striking the previous exhibit list, New York State Revision 17 of Exhibit 1, the Exhibit List, and replacing it with New York State 18 of Exhibit 1. We seem to be having an evolution here with the exhibit lists. At the beginning of the session I indicated, and the beginning of the session on Monday I indicated that we would take the exhibit lists and bind them into the transcript. What we are going to do is to wait until the end of the hearing as there may be additional changes with the exhibit lists. And what we will do is just have the exhibit list that is the last for each of the parties bound into the transcript. That said, are there any other administrative matters to take care of? Mr. Sipos? MR. SIPOS: Good afternoon, Your Honor, John Sipos for the State of New York. During the initial Board questioning of the witnesses, Mr. Bessette made an observation concerning other contentions, and I did not want to interrupt the questions at the time. But the State of New York's position is similar, if not in agreement with Entergy's position, and that is that -
Page 1958 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Kennedy. JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm ready. Let's begin again. I'd like to return to Mr. Teagarden and continue on. We were discussing the inputs to MACCS2. We were trying to differentiate between generic, sitespecific, and really I think this is at a relatively higher level of detail than I think we're ultimately going to get to. But I think you're helping us set the stage for the rest of the questioning. So, if you could -- you were last on, I think, decommissioning - decontamination values. And if you could, if you'd proceed from there it would be appreciated. eventually. MR. SIPOS: It did. It did, yes. And I'm glad we're all here in the same room to see that. (Laughter.) MR. SIPOS: And that is that for contentions New York State 35 and 36, those matters have -- those contentions have been presented to the Board, and have been resolved. And the State's position also is that the record would be closed on those given the grant of summary disposition on those. Thank you. JUDGE McDADE: Anything further? Judge JUDGE McDADE: That had to happen
Page 1959 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. Grant Teagarden speaking. The last item I'll mention, site-specific for the Entergy analysis is the land use as it relates to non-farmland versus farmland. Within the polar coordinate system that we looked at earlier, and I don't think there's a need to bring that up at the moment, but for each of those grid elements there is a proportion that would be listed as farmland versus non-farmland. And the code treats farmland differently than non-farmland. So, when it is addressing farmland it works on a per area basis, as opposed to a per capita basis, so decontamination costs associated with farmland are on a per area basis. And that's a different variable within MACCS than the variable that's applied to the area that is non-farmland. And in the big picture for the Indian Point SAMA analysis there is very little farmland in the region, so the farmland aspect, and variables and values I do not believe are of substance for significant discussion. But I'll highlight that note. That is another means of how the Indian Point analysis takes into account the fact that there's very little farmland. So, the values that it uses for portions
Page 1960 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that are not farmland are developed for non-farmland areas. Those are the broad categories. And, obviously, the area of interest and discussion, I believe one important area is part of this contention deals with the particular economic values. And one thought was we could look at the list of MACCS inputs. There's about seven, eight, or so economically-related inputs, some of which are site-specific in that these values would have their basis totally on land county values around the region. Other values would be based on values from NUREG-1150 that are considered applicable for the Indian Point context. And we could pull those up. Those would be Table 4 in our Exhibit 450 for Entergy, Table 4 on page 54. Page 54, and I'll just take a brief moment to walk down the table. So, the first variable we have an Index Number list, so number one is the max parameter for the cost of decontamination work, labor cost, so it's dollar per person on a year. The next column shows the value used for the Indian Point analysis, $60,480. The next column shows the basis value from NUREG-1150. And then the final column shows the escalation factor that was applied based on the Consumer Price Index. So, this is just the cost of
Page 1961 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Problem A. JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. labor associated with decontamination activities. So, that last column will be helpful just as a indicator of different parameters and their basis upon NUREG1150. The second index value there, the second parameter is the evacuation cost, EVACST. And it's the daily for emergency phase, so when individuals are relocated as part of evacuation for the severe accident modeling, this is the per day cost per person that is used. So, for Indian Point, $46.70 compared to a NUREG-1150 value of $27.00. It should be noted -JUDGE WARDWELL: Excuse me. What do you mean by the NUREG-1150 value? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, sir. That would be the value used in the MACCS2 analysis for the NUREG-1150 study which I referenced earlier. That was the study of the five plants that was performed and documented in NUREG-1150 published in 1990. JUDGE WARDWELL: So, this is the notorious Sample Problem A values? MR. TEAGARDEN: No, sir. JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. MR. TEAGARDEN: This predates Sample
Page 1962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. TEAGARDEN: So, NUREG-1150 were the five plants that I identified earlier. It's a series of documents. And then I should also note, we'll be discussing there is a line of supporting documentations that go by the number of NUREG/CR-4551. JUDGE WARDWELL: So, to be absolutely certain I'm correct on this, so for certainly the first four parameters you used these values in your analysis. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor, the fourth column that's headed by IP2 and IP3(MACCS2) were the values that were used in the Entergy SAMA analysis. JUDGE WARDWELL: So, you didn't use, what was it, 4150 was the other one? MR. TEAGARDEN: Correct. We did not use the values that would be reflected in NUREG-1150. However, they have their basis in NUREG-1150, and have been escalated using the Consumer Price Index to the year 2005, the year of the analysis. JUDGE WARDWELL: Is the Consumer Price Index what leads to the 1.7 factor? MR. TEAGARDEN: That is correct. JUDGE WARDWELL: If I look at the -- if I think about the 1.7, that is all the result of escalating the cost from NUREG-1150 time frame to
Page 1963 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
sorry. MS. POTTS: Lori Potts for the Applicant. Grant accidentally said the year of the analysis was 2035, it's 2005. JUDGE WARDWELL: Good, because I was going to ask that. It was not when you performed the analysis in 2005. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. Sorry, Your Honor, to try to clarify, so the baseline date for the year of the SAMA analysis is 2005. The population is projected to the year 2035. JUDGE WARDWELL: But now I'm still confused. 1.7 reflects the price increase from when NUREG-1150 reported that number to what year? 2035. Is that what I heard? MR. TEAGARDEN: This reflects present day dollars at the time of the analysis of 2005. JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, thank you. MR. TEAGARDEN: So, the industry guidance document, NEI 05-01, specifies that economic impacts should be baselined to the year of the analysis which is 2035. Population is projected to a further date, 2035. JUDGE WARDWELL: That's where my confusion. MR. TEAGARDEN: I may have misspoken. I'm
Page 1964 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. TEAGARDEN: To 2005. So, it reflects a cost escalation from approximately 1986 to the year 2005. JUDGE WARDWELL: Should I wait and ask why isn't it up to 2035, or some number in between and not -- rather than the 2005 value? MR. TEAGARDEN: The industry guidance NEI 05-01, NRC-approved guidance specifies that all the costs should be at the cost of today. The cost of implementation for the SAMA candidates are also cost to the same day, so if you start to escalate one version, then we would need to also escalate all the time-based elements of the cost of implementation and some of those aspects. JUDGE WARDWELL: Do they have any justification in that document on why they have suggested that as guidance? MR. TEAGARDEN: I do not believe that there is very much discussion related to that, Your Honor. JUDGE WARDWELL: So, is it your -- what is -- what would be your inclination based on your experience with working with this model on why it is? Is it that the values will all sugar out anyhow if you brought it up to 2005, considering we're looking at a change in the exposure as the benefit and the costs of
Page 1965 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the implementation if we keep them all the same year, it really won't make any difference once you come up with a cost-benefit ratio. Is that as good a justification as one could create? MS. POTTS: Lori Potts for the Applicant. Yes, sir, I would agree with that. JUDGE WARDWELL: Have you ever tried to test that? Did you try running it at a 2005 -- 2035 value to see if, in fact, something would come out different? MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, Grant Teagarden for the Applicant. It would be somewhat speculative to try to estimate the rise of economic values between now and 2035. There are population projections. You know, the counties do have methodologies for projecting population. You know, if you tried to project out the Consumer Price Index, you could use I suppose a historical -- what the CPI has been over a period of years, but I've not been aware of anyone attempting to do that with all the SAMA analyses that I am familiar with. JUDGE WARDWELL: Didn't you say this morning that something was predicated on a 2035 value, or condition, or situation, or an estimate? MR. TEAGARDEN: Beyond the population data,
Page 1966 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
projected -JUDGE WARDWELL: So, when you're multiplying your unit values that are based on per person year you will have those number -- you will have the years up to 2005, but the rate -- the population number will be reflective of 2035. MR. TEAGARDEN: That is correct, Your Honor. And the population increases in the Entergy analysis between 2005 to 2035. NUREG -- I'm sorry, NEI 05-01 regarding population projections provides guidance that says you should project to the middle of the license renewal term. Entergy went beyond that and they projected to the end of the license renewal term for Indian Point 3, so the year 2035. That's actually two years beyond when the proposed license extension for Indian Point 2 would last. So, there's a measure of conservatism in what Entergy incorporated because they projected their population longer than that specified in the guidance, and even beyond the projected extension for Indian Point 2. I do not believe I am aware of anything else that is projected out to 2035, Your Honor. JUDGE WARDWELL: But the population is projected out to that. MR. TEAGARDEN: But the population is
Page 1967 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
population. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. The multiplier, when you're multiplying by the population it's the escalated, it's the projected population which is larger than the 2005 values. JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. JUDGE McDADE: Before we move away from this, if I could address question to the Staff. The figures here for NUREG-1150, can you walk me through how those figures are generated? We've heard about the use of the five different plants, but you start -- I, JUDGE WARDWELL: So, when I -- when you took the DLB cost which is reflected in a dollar per person year, when that gets multiplied and manipulated within MACCS2, it's going to be multiplied by a population based on 2035, but then multiplied by the years up to 2005, or how is that done? MR. TEAGARDEN: This particular variable parameter does not, because this particular parameter is referenced to the individuals who would be performing decontamination activity, which is separate than the general population. But for the cases where the -- and we'll touch on those in just a moment where the general population is in view. JUDGE WARDWELL: For one, that is a general
Page 1968 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
at least, start with a premise that the area surrounding Indian Point, and say the area surrounding Grand Gulf are about as different as two areas could be and yet still be on the same planet. How do you go from one to the other? How are those figures developed? MR. JONES: This is Joe Jones for the NRC. I'll start with a whack at it, and then Dr. Bixler can probably join in because he's very familiar with these, as well. These parameters were developed for five sites, and some of these sites are not indifferent from Indian Point from a population density perspective with regard to the Emergency Planning Zone. The Emergency Planning Zone around Indian Point has about 300,000 people, Surry has an Emergency Planning Zone that on the northern and eastern side of the James River has a very comparable population density. And the Zion Plant that was also part of NUREG-1150 is just north of Chicago and has a comparable population density. So, when the authors developed this they did take into account sites that are not significantly indifferent or different from Indian Point. JUDGE McDADE: But did you then take an
Page 1969 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
average of the five plants to develop these figures? MR. JONES: Most of the costs do not require an average because let's start with -- well, the decontamination worker labor cost. That was just a national average labor cost that we now escalate to 2005. The emergency phase cost of evacuation was based on -- cost of evacuation and relocation in dollars per day. It's just a little further away for me to look at from here, but I can see it, there we go. That was based on hotel rates at the time of development of NUREG-1150, and they actually estimated the meals that people would eat and projected that as a daily value, so that is simply escalated until today. They did not distinguish the region in which those hotel costs were originally developed, so I would believe they were national. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I'm somewhat at a loss here again, going back to my analogy. And I don't mean to be overly flippant, but I think you could probably buy a hotel in Calhoun County, Mississippi near Grand Gulf for what it would cost you to stay in a hotel for a week in New York City. So, what values are they using? MR. JONES: The way this becomes equalized is these are per person or dollars per day per person,
Page 1970 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the so for a family of five, you're right, they probably are skewed so that a Grand Gulf resident or family is more overpaid than an urban family. A family of five would be $230 a day per family, so that's -JUDGE McDADE: What I'm just trying to get at, though, the cost -- did they figure out what the costs would be at Zion, at Surry, at Grand Gulf, take those costs and then average them to come up with this cost that would nationally applicable? MR. JONES: No, there is no discussion in NUREG/CR-4551, and I have an exhibit number for
that. I thought I did. It's an NRC exhibit number. It describes the process for estimating these costs, but it does not describe the relationship between the plants. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Now, you mentioned
initially that in the immediate evacuation zone, for example, Indian Point, you talked about 300,000 people. In the other documents that were received, the analysis was received on the SAMAs we're looking at the 50-mile circumference around New York City, where we now have almost 20 million people as opposed to 300,000. Is there any area even remotely similar to the area around New York City both for population density, the building density, the value of the
Page 1971 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
property? Are any of these compatible? MR. JONES: Yes, the Zion site which is just north of Chicago, 50 miles would encroach upon Chicago and would be similar. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And that's the nearest one, nearest closest analogy to the Indian Point area. MR. JONES: To my knowledge, yes. JUDGE McDADE: And the City of Chicago itself would be within the 50-mile radius, just as the City of New York is with Indian Point. DR. BIXLER: I believe that's correct. This is Nathan Bixler for the Staff. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But these numbers don't reflect just what the costs would be at Zion, the costs are developed through a more complex algorithm. MR. JONES: Correct. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I mean, is it in looking at these realistic when you talk about the per capita cost of long-term relocation in the New York City metropolitan area, the area around Indian Point, to consider $8,600? I mean, it would seem that if a family needed to relocate out of the area in this area it would involve significantly higher costs, and how, if at all, is that factored in through NUREG-1150, and
Page 1972 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
assumption? DR. BIXLER: I don't recall for sure, but how does the Staff anticipate that an applicant will factor that in in their SAMA analysis? MR. JONES: The relocation cost again for a family of five is just over $40,000. That is a temporary relocation cost during the period that the land may be interdicted for decontamination. DR. BIXLER: It might be helpful to talk just for a minute on what the -- I think you're referring to the parameter called POPCST, the third one on the table there. JUDGE McDADE: Yes. DR. BIXLER: It might be useful to just talk about what that represents. That's a one-time relocation cost. It would be assessed during a period of decontamination or interdiction. And it wouldn't necessarily account -- depending on the circumstances it may not even account for moving a family or a person, or a family to a new location. It may be more based on lost income, for example, over a period of time. And then the question would be what would be the appropriate period of time. And this is based on an assumption for what that period of time would be. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And what is that
Page 1973 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I think it's on the order of 20 weeks. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And we'll be getting into this a little bit later because some of the testimony and the assumptions are that if it was necessary to relocate looking at other entities, whether it be Chernobyl or Fukushima, we could be talking in terms of years as opposed to weeks. But what you're saying is this is based on a presumption of approximately 20 weeks. DR. BIXLER: Right. The idea is that this is a -- someone who's not necessarily going to return, so it's a one-time thing. And it's to account for losses that they would have until they, for example, could find a new job. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Well, does that -when you say losses, for example, someone living in Westchester County, if they had to relocate outside of the area not to return, would it be reasonable to assume that between what they would -- the value of the residence that they were leaving compared to the value of the residence that they would sell not being able to return could well be in Westchester County on average in the seven figures? DR. BIXLER: This doesn't attempt to account for the value of the property that might be
Page 1974 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
lost. It's only a one-time -- that would be an additional cost in addition to this one. But this would just account for loss of time and potentially
for moving property from one location to another. But quite often, a lot of the analyses that I've seen don't account for moving property because the assumption is it would be contaminated property and couldn't be moved, so it would be, basically, a loss, and it would be declared as a separate part of the analysis. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And how is that and/or the fact that an individual who perhaps is working in Westchester County earning $100,000, moves to Central Vermont working in a similar position for $20,000? Is that captured in the MACCS code? DR. BIXLER: No, it's not trying to capture the -- since we don't know where the person would relocate to, it's impossible to know whether there would be a difference in salary at one location versus another. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. In the case of Indian Point, could it be almost assumed that any place you would move to with the possible exception of Tokyo or Hong Kong would be significantly one -- the salary would be significantly lower that you would earn
Page 1975 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
there, and that you would have a significant loss in property value? DR. BIXLER: Well, again, the property value would be captured in a separate part of the analysis from this. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. DR. BIXLER: But I don't know the answer to the question of the salaries, and how that compares. JUDGE McDADE: But there's nothing in this code that captures it. DR. BIXLER: Well, it -- you assign a value for POPCST that you think captures an appropriate salary for the person who would be displaced. JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's for the 20-week period or roughly, I mean, it's for a period of time, not a permanent loss of income. DR. BIXLER: That's correct. It's not a permanent loss in salary, it's just a temporary one. And the 20 weeks is what I believe was used in NUREG1150. MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, Grant Teagarden for the Applicant, if I may augment. JUDGE McDADE: Please. MR. TEAGARDEN: From NUREG-4551, as Dr. Bixler has stated, this can be viewed as a disruption
Page 1976 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
cost, life disruption. It has, as discussed in 4551, a basis of some reflection of a period of time where an individual employee could be unemployed, and that was a period of 100 days, or also to a perspective of 180 days for a commercial establishment, the business side, having their business disrupted. And then they took the median, the 140 days as a value to apply as a basis for this value. And this value is applied to anybody who is relocated, say for decontamination cost. And what would be in view here is somebody who is relocated. Their property needs modest decontamination. They are returned to their property, so it does not necessarily only be applied to folks that can never return. It's applied equally to folks that are returned to their property, so it's a cost to compensate for the disruption in their employment. And there's different perspectives on that, in that in the knowledge economy of this region, you know, individuals have the ability to carry on their positions and their work, not everyone, and I recognize that. But this is a way of saying for everyone in the 50-mile region, not just those located in Manhattan, but for everyone in the 50-mile region this is an attempt to monetize a compensation for disruption of their life.
Page 1977 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE KENNEDY: Just a -- I don't know if it's a thought, I guess I better make it a question, but I'm just wondering, the sense I'm getting in listening to the discussion here, when you start talking about disruption costs as opposed to permanent loss, has these parameters or the thinking behind how you establish the values that go into these parameters informed at all by the types of accidents that are -that these parameters will be applied for? I mean, is there some thinking that it's okay to think in terms of non-permanent relocation because we're not talking about a catastrophic accident that would lead to condemning Westchester County? I'm just -- because it's -- I'm feeling we're going to go back and forth through this, and I'm getting a sense even on these first few parameters that there's some undercurrent assumptions that were made that led to the selection of values for NUREG-1150. And I hadn't really thought about it until I started hearing this. I mean, I see that there's differences, but when you start to get into the details, it starts raising questions of what other assumptions are underlying here. And I think we're going to continue to struggle with this. MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, if I may take -
Page 1978 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE McDADE: Perhaps before you do, and just to put a wider view on that of what Judge Kennedy just said. I mean, my follow-up was going to go also the type of severe accident. At one of the end of the spectrum say you have a Three Mile Island-type of severe accident, at the other end of the spectrum you have a Chernobyl-type severe accident, and how, if at all, are the differences between those factored into these numbers, or into the SAMA analysis generally. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor, Grant Teagarden speaking for the Applicant, if I may respond. I would like to take maybe one to two minutes and just walk through the table so that the different variables are clear, so that I can just mention where different cost attributes are being captured by the MACCS code, and then I will come back and answer your questions in regards to how these are impacted by the type of severe accident. So, Item 1 there we discussed was the cost for decontamination labor. It's not related to the specific population but just workers that are -- will be cleaning up after a postulated accident. The second item was a daily cost, like a per diem for individuals who are evacuated. It should be noted that for the Indian
Page 1979 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Point analysis, they conservatively did not model evacuation, so individuals -- although it is extensive emergency planning, there is an Emergency Planning Zone, there are all sorts of procedures that the plant would follow, for the purposes of the MACCS analysis, they did not model the evacuation. But let me continue, because they do model relocation of individuals. Evacuation is oriented towards individuals leaving the area prior in most respects to being impacted by an atmospheric release. The third variable, the POPCST, POPCST is what we've mentioned as the disruption cost. And it reflects primarily a transition period of some loss of income for a period of time. The fourth item is a relocation cost. Now, Indian Point did not model evacuation but they did model what would be termed normal or hot spot relocation. And this is following the -- after the plume passes over and recognizing that there is deposition, there are contaminants on the ground, and individuals need to be relocated for their protection. So, individuals receive the cloudshine from the dose and are subsequently relocated as part of that. So, that's how, in essence, population movements were modeled for the Indian Post MACCS2 analysis. And
Page 1980 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
there's some conservatism in that, because they -- in the model individuals are receiving that dose from the plumes that the emergency planning actions in many cases would mitigate against. The fifth item, and if I may have the administrative help scroll down just a tad, this is the cost to decontaminate farmland. And the Entergy analysis used two dose reduction factors, so it's a measure by how much the dose is being reduced, being reduced by either a factor of 3 or a factor of 15. And this is for farmland, and it's on a per hectare basis, that's 1/100th of a kilometer, square kilometer. And then the next item, item six, which is of more interest for our discussions, are the costs for decontamination for non-farmland. The same dose reduction factors are used. The values used here in the Entergy analysis for dose reduction factor of 3, $5,184 per person, and for dose reduction factor of 15, $13,824. So, this recognizes the cost for decontaminating property for individuals who need to be relocated and have their property decontaminated. I'll just continue on through the table and then come back. If I could have the table scrolled down, please. Seven and eight represent land values in the region. So, seven is the wealth for the farmland.
Page 1981 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
It's a cost per hectare, and for the Indian Point region it's about $50,000 per hectare. And then number eight is the value of the land and improvements on a non-farm basis, so this is a per capita basis. So, this would be residential area. It's kind of -- a combination of residential, industrial, commercial, open land that's not designated as farmland, so for the Indian Point case that value is $208,838. Now, if I may address the question on severe accidents. So, when MACCS has a optimization scheme, a way of looking at, in essence, a costbenefit scheme for decontaminating. And that is what is an important part of the code as it then develops a total economic cost for the postulated releases. When a release occurs some individuals will not be impacted by that release. Some individuals may, you know, within the code be evacuated but they can be returned because any contaminants on their land do not exceed habitability criteria. And the habitability criteria used in the analysis here was 5 rem -- I'm sorry, 4 rem in five years. That's based on EPA guidance. So, some individuals can come immediately back. Their land does not need to be contaminated to meet decontamination or to meet habitability criteria.
Page 1982 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The next looks at is if it exceeds habitability criteria can it be -- the first level of decontamination for achieving a dose reduction factor of 3 is evaluated. So, if the person's property needs a reduction factor of 2 to meet habitability criteria, the factor for 3 is used because that's the first level that it applies. And then following those activities the individual can be returned to their residence. Now, if that isn't satisfied, suppose that their property needs a dose reduction factor of 5 to meet habitability criteria, 3 is not sufficient, so the next level is 15. So, the cost for a decontamination for a dose reduction factor 15 are applied to achieve the dose reduction factor of 5. MACCS allows three levels of decontamination activities. In the Entergy analysis, two are used, that's common, that's consistent with NUREG-1150. So, if their property requires a dose reduction factor of 16, well, now neither 3 will do it, 15 will not do it, then MACCS evaluates a maximum dose reduction in conjunction with an extended time of interdiction. And during that interdiction time, no active decontamination processes are being modeled, but there is a reduction in the dose due to the
Page 1983 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
effects of weathering and radioactive decay. So, how this could play out is, you know, the individual's property needs a dose reduction factor of 16. The dose reduction techniques, the active decontamination could achieve 15, but it needs a little bit more, so the code then analyzes how much longer is needed. So, there could be an interdiction period of one year. So, following an additional year sufficient natural process, I'll say passive processes allow the habitability criteria to be met. Now, if -- there's a maximum to interdiction that's allowed within the MACCS Code and that's 30 years. If it cannot be achieved within a time period of 30 years, MACCS will consider the land condemned, and it will just take the cost -- the value of the land and the improvements and consider that an economic loss. In addition, if the costs for decontaminating exceed the value of the property, then it will also condemn the land. So, that's part of the cost decision process that MACCS makes. So, as value of property goes up there is a greater likelihood for more decontamination activities to be applied compared -- because you're comparing against the value of the land. Where there is lower property values for the
Page 1984 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
land, and there's a given decontamination cost for some -- in those cases, the property may be condemned without as much application because it's being evaluated in a cost benefit manner. JUDGE KENNEDY: Let me ask a couple of questions about the implementation of this decontamination strategy. Now, the code is doing this. I mean, it's -- this is an internal algorithm -(Simultaneous speech.) JUDGE KENNEDY: -- to the program. It has
-- its informed by the type of accident, the magnitude of the accident, the dispersion across the region, so we've had -- there's been an accident at Indian Point. The radioactive material has contaminated a region, and then MACCS goes in by grid element? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: And then based on the deposition in that grid element it decides whether it needs -- what level of dose reduction factor is needs to get to meet a habitability criteria that's based on some regulatory guidance, or some regulation. And then depending on what dose reduction factor is needed, other decisions occur as you've sort of played out. I'm just trying to -MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor.
Page 1985 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Yes. JUDGE KENNEDY: No one would return then to that. And there's a number assigned for that? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. When a property is condemned because that's the most cost-effective way of addressing it, then the value of the property which is site-specific by grid element is applied. Going back to kind of the genesis of this, which was how does this play out with different releases. So, a TMI release, you get let's say just a smidgeon off site, probably don't -- you don't exceed any habitability criteria, so the costs are primarily limited to on site cleanup costs for the SAMA analysis, and not even recognized in the MACCS Code. MACCS is only used for off site. Take a release that's somewhat beyond that, a little bit greater than that. So, some of the property off site received a measurable, meaningful amount of contaminants and would require some -- so, JUDGE KENNEDY: -- walk through in my mind
how this decision process occurs within the code. And, again, at some point if it's too expensive to decontaminate the property is, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, the property is condemned. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, those are the terms.
Page 1986 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
some amount of land, you know, X number of square meters, square kilometers require decontamination. For a small release those could all just require decontamination level under 3, so only 3 would be applied. For a more moderate release, some of the land area -- if you imagine a plume, a kind of almost a cigar shape or a little cone coming out from the site kind of overlaid on the polar grid that we had earlier, at the edges of the cone there would be areas where no decontamination is needed. A little bit within the cone there would be areas where decontamination might be needed, dose reduction to a factor of 3, and conceivably some to a dose reduction factor, or 15 would need to be applied. It might only need a 7, but 15 would be applied, that's the next step. A more severe release, the cone could be a little wider, a little longer, and now in the middle of the cone in addition to having lines that would depict a dose reduction factor of 3 and 15, there might be a more central portion that says this is the portion that would be determined to be the most cost beneficial, would be to condemn this property. So, how that -- you know, the given release per se, MACCS only -- MACCS knows about well,
Page 1987 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it's the amount of deposition associated with the release, so more severe releases have the potential for more deposition, greater concentrations in particular areas. And the MACCS2 code addresses that by looking at the doses that result from that deposition and applies the different decontamination activities, costs, potential for interdiction, extended interdiction that I mentioned, and potential for condemnation. JUDGE KENNEDY: Is the required dose reduction factor based on the deposition in a grid element following an accident knowing where you need to get to to allow return to the property, or habitability of the property? Is that -MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: reduction factor? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. And 3 versus 15, it sounds like MACCS will take three values but you've selected -- two has been selected here. Do you have a sense of the philosophy behind selecting 3, which is at the lower end, and 15 at a higher end? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. We had not mentioned a study that occurred earlier. There was -- the required dose
Page 1988 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
what was called the WASH-1400 study. It was a study of two plants, Peach Bottom and Surry documented in 1975. In that work they used three dose reduction factors. They used 3, 15, and 20. So, they used three, they used 3, 15, and 20. And then in NUREG-1150, as part of that development they chose to use two, the 3 and the 15. Since that time, since NUREG-1150 has been -- was a more recent update, 1990 versus 1975, it was -- has been used as the bases for future SAMA studies since that time. And, typically, those values have been maintained because they are -- these values work together. The values of the cost for decontaminating a particular level, that's related to that level. So, to pick another level, to add another level, you then would need to have a new cost developed. That cost for a third level is not specifically indicated in NUREG1150, so most SAMA applicants, all the SAMA applicants that I'm aware of just use the two. And the last part of your question, sir, use of the two results in some conservatism, because any area that requires a dose reduction factor greater than 3 is going to receive -- assuming then it can be reduced, assuming that a dose reduction factor of 15 is sufficient, now not talking about areas where 15 is
Page 1989 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
column. JUDGE McDADE: I think we're looking at a-MR. TEAGARDEN: You may be looking at the farm values instead of the non-farm -(Simultaneous speech.) MR. TEAGARDEN: Item 6. JUDGE KENNEDY: I was up at Item 5, so let's take 6 which is the non-farmland, those values are $13,824 and $5,184. That's a decontamination cost the 972? JUDGE KENNEDY: Oh, I'm sorry, the fourth insufficient, but if there's an area that's 3.1 to 14.99, the costs for dose reduction factor of 15 are being applied. So, there's some -- there's conservatism in what can be viewed in the graduated amount of contamination on property as a function of distance both radially out from the site and tangentially out, as you imagine that cone superimposed upon the grid. JUDGE KENNEDY: And this -- the values here, the $972, $2,160, those are the decontamination costs that would achieve a dose reduction factor of 3, or of 15 in this case, and $972 would be a dose reduction factor of 3. JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry, where do you see
Page 1990 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that would achieve that dose reduction factor? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. It's a -that is the cost associated with decontamination activities to achieve that dose reduction factor. JUDGE KENNEDY: And the concept of -DR. BIXLER: Could I add just one -- I think it's an important but it's a short point of clarification. Keep in mind that a lot of these values, all the non-farm ones are per person. Per person includes children, the population of all ages, not just the owners of the home or a single person associated with a home. So, a home would be multiple people, typically, and that would add up to the overall value for decontaminating that property. JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. MR. JONES: And, Your Honor, this is Joe Jones with Staff. There's one other point of clarification with regard to how the decontamination factor is calculated from MACCS, and this will be important as the discussion goes on. You are correct, it is at the grid element level, but MACCS calculates the deposition of a contaminant in the grid, so a fixed amount falls in a grid element. And then it looks at an individual as though -- it calculates it as thought it's on a flat plane or surface, very flat
Page 1991 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
example. MR. JONES: Okay. JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, go on. MR. JONES: It represents a dose reduction of about 67 percent. We could have chosen a DF of -or Entergy could have chosen a DF of 5 to represent a dose reduction of 20 percent. I mean, these are JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, don't use that plane, an infinite plane. Then it calculates the dose to an unshielded individual standing in the middle, and it says ah-hah, I have this much contamination. I need to reduce it by some factor, let's say a decontamination factor of 15, to return it to habitability. So, there's a fixed amount of material, and it evaluates an unshielded individual. In reality, we probably have a building on this site. JUDGE WARDWELL: What are you inputting, are you inputting the 3 and the 15, or are you inputting the cost? Because the way you described it,
Mr. Jones, is that the MACCS Code says here's how much exposure is there. This is how much I need to reduce it. That dictates the decontamination factor, doesn't it? MR. JONES: Correct. The DF of 3 represents
Page 1992 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
relatively standard -JUDGE WARDWELL: MACCS is calculating that. That's not used as an input parameter as I understood what you said. DR. BIXLER: No, it is -- the 3 and the 15 are input parameters, and the costs associated with those two values are input parameters. Then the code
will decide do I need to decontaminate at all, first of all, is the first question. If I do, is a factor of 3 good enough, or do I need to go to a higher factor to bring down the dose to below the habitability level so that people will be -JUDGE WARDWELL: Does it use the actual dose it needs to get to get habitability. It takes the one that's above but closest to that needed value. DR. BIXLER: The one that would get it below the habitability threshold. If it gets it just a little bit above the habitability threshold, it still wouldn't use it. It would go to the next higher one to achieve what it thinks is required to make the area habitable. One minor additional point that I'd like to add. There is in MACCS, there's something -JUDGE WARDWELL: Now each one of these you add adds a level of complexity at the point I'm at.
Page 1993 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I'll just -- I'll give you a warning on that. DR. BIXLER: Okay. JUDGE WARDWELL: It's going in one ear and out the other is what I'm saying, so I'll ask you about it later again, probably. DR. BIXLER: There is something -JUDGE WARDWELL: Go ahead. DR. BIXLER: There's something called a protection factor, a set of protection factors in the code. So, what Mr. Jones just said about a flat plane and a person standing on it as far as this would -that picture would be appropriate for groundshine. That would give a dose to a person -- there's a factor that's applied to that to account for shielding, but typically we base it on a nominal type structure more like a single story house or something like that, rather than a large building that would provide more shielding. JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. DR. BIXLER: Okay. JUDGE WARDWELL: Back to what you were saying in regards to -JUDGE McDADE: If I could just to clarify in my own mind, a dose correction factor of 3, that means that in order to bring that area to habitability
Page 1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you need to get rid of approximately 66-67 percent of the contamination. MR. JONES: That is correct. JUDGE McDADE: And if you had a dose correction factor of 15, you would need to get rid of approximately 95 percent of the contamination? MR. JONES: Approximately 93.3. JUDGE McDADE: Okay, approximately 93.3. Okay. So, am I correct that you start by saying we have a SAMA. We have a correction that could be made to a particular component. To make that change would cost a certain amount of money. If that component failed, although unlikely because we're talking here about beyond design basis accidents. We're talking about accidents that are very low probability accidents. But if that particular accident occurred, you make an estimate of the nature of the contamination. Based on that calculation, you then determine whether to bring the land to habitability you need to get rid of two-thirds of that contamination, or perhaps 93.3 percent of that contamination. And then once you've made that calculation, you then try to assign a dollar value to that. How much would it cost per hectare for this level of decontamination?
Page 1995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
was correct. JUDGE McDADE: So, there are a number of different assumptions that go into it. The first is what the mitigation alternative is. Secondly, what it would be designed to prevent. Third would be the anticipated impact if that component failed. And then you start applying these factors to it. Okay. Now, again, getting back, the amount of money that you're talking about, whether it be per acre or per person, is not -- that input is not sitespecific. All of the other inputs up to this point are accident-specific, postulated accident-specific. But when we then get to the specific cost, that is based on the calculation which is in the NUREG and is not different say for Indian Point, or for Vermont Yankee, or for Plymouth, or for North Anna. You would expect that same dollar figure to be used by applicants for facilities, any of those facilities. MR. JONES: That is correct. DR. BIXLER: That's correct. The per hectare would be based -- would be for farmland, it would be done a per person or per capita basis for non-farmland. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. DR. BIXLER: But your description I think
Page 1996 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
right there. DR. BIXLER: Okay. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. JUDGE WARDWELL: Once more for me. MACCS projects amount of contamination coming over grid, settles down there, boom, there it is. Looks at a person in the middle of the grid, says oh, my goodness, it's going to get a dose of something. We need to get that dose, and it also knows how low it needs to get it. Is it a fixed value, is it 4 rem or something? MR. JONES: That is an input -JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay, so it's an input. You will input -MR. JONES: 4 rem over five years. JUDGE WARDWELL: that that person limit needs. MR. JONES: Correct. JUDGE WARDWELL: That dictates what the decontamination factor is. Correct? You could calculate it from those two values. DR. BIXLER: You could calculate what decontamination factor you need, but the input says what do I -JUDGE WARDWELL: No, no, no, no, let's stop -- what is that low dose
Page 1997 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-JUDGE WARDWELL: Why does it do that? I mean, because it could have done it the other way. I mean, couldn't you have inputted the fact that here is 3, and that value is 5,000. Here is 5, and that value is X thousand, and here's 15 and that's 13.8 JUDGE WARDWELL: I've got to go baby steps. DR. BIXLER: Okay, sorry. JUDGE WARDWELL: Don't lead me where you want to go, I need to lead me where I need to go. DR. BIXLER: Yes, you're right. That's -JUDGE WARDWELL: It could be calculated. DR. BIXLER: That's right, it could -JUDGE WARDWELL: But it doesn't do that. Instead, it looks to see where that is, and picks either the 3 that you inputted, or the 15 as you inputted as the value. It will take the one that will achieve that value. DR. BIXLER: Yes, that's right. If it knew
thousand. DR. BIXLER: Yes. JUDGE WARDWELL: So that when you then went to the grid and you calculated out how much decontamination you need, you go in and pluck off a value.
Page 1998 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DR. BIXLER: Yes. Then you would have -JUDGE WARDWELL: Why is it -- I mean, that would seem the logical way. This seems so convoluted to me. DR. BIXLER: Well, the idea behind it is that you have some finite set of things you can do to decontaminate. You can't -- it may be difficult to achieve a whole graded scale of decontamination factors. You have certain things that you can do that will achieve a lower level of decontamination. You have some other things that maybe would achieve a moderate level, and some things that would achieve a higher level. So, it's up to the user to select those in a reasonable way and assign a cost to them. And then that becomes input to the -JUDGE WARDWELL: So, we're going to use this 3 and 15 later on, not only for this particular situation, not only for the cost for decontamination for non-farm, but -DR. BIXLER: The procedure -(Simultaneous speech.) JUDGE WARDWELL: -- then will look at it
and see what types of mitigation we can do, and whether or not we can achieve that cleanup. DR. BIXLER: Yes. And it may be that you
Page 1999 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
have a different set of procedures for decontaminating farmland than you do for a populated area. But those are all considered in the values that you come up with. JUDGE KENNEDY: Again, going to the decontamination cost, where is the type of contaminant considered in the cost, or is it? I mean, we've got the discussion of plutonium versus cesium, and big particles and little particles, and all that stuff, and we're going to -- we'll get to that, I'm sure. JUDGE WARDWELL: You know, I finally understood things, and now you've mucked it all up again. (Laughter.) JUDGE KENNEDY: I don't know what to say. It just strikes me. I mean, I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around this. Judge Wardwell was wrapped and now he's unwrapped. JUDGE WARDWELL: That's the problem, you just unwrapped -JUDGE KENNEDY: But it does bring to mind, I mean, I think you had me -- I think I was tracking pretty well, and then I got to thinking about well, we're assigning a decontamination -- we, the code is assigning a decontamination cost where the input is
Page 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
provided for decontamination cost for certain dose reduction factor, and I'm wondering where the contaminant -- the type of contamination is brought into that mix. DR. BIXLER: The type of contaminant would potentially have some influence on this depending on what it is, but whatever the contaminant of interest is has to be assigned as part of the value that would be chosen here. So, you -- when you choose a cost to decontaminate, you would have in mind a type of contamination that would be reasonable for your situation, and then you would choose a value -- a cost to decontaminate based on that specific contaminant that you think is the important one for your application. JUDGE McDADE: Well, doesn't the NUREG tell them what to use here, what factor to use, or suggest a value? DR. BIXLER: NUREG-1150 does suggest these decontamination factors, and the unescalated costs that appear on the table. And that's based on a typical source term that you would have from a nuclear reactor. So, it is -- these values come from a source that are based on the type of source term that's of interest for this problem that we're dealing with
Page 2001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
here. JUDGE McDADE: Well, as I recall what Dr. Lemay had to say is one, whether you're trying to clean up say plutonium or cesium, you're dealing with two significantly different items. One is an alpha emitter, one is a gamma emitter, one is going to be readily soluble, and to sort of bond with entities like concrete and, therefore, make it more difficult to clean up. So, if you're dealing with one that is bonding to concrete and is a gamma emitter, the cleanup costs seem to be necessarily significantly different than if you have one that isn't bonding and is an alpha emitter. So, how is that -- is that difference captured in the code, or in the guidance in NUREG, and if so, how? DR. BIXLER: Well, this NUREG-1150 doesn't deal with the plutonium dispersal accident that I think you're describing. It deals with a nuclear reactor accident. So, here we're talking about a source for this information that's consistent with this application. I'm less familiar with plutonium dispersal accidents, but usually there are some significant differences there that would potentially cause the cost for the cleanup to be quite different. And someone, if they were interested in that problem
Page 2002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
would need to deal with that situation and come up with an appropriate cost. NUREG-1150 doesn't do that for you. It's based on a nuclear reactor accident. JUDGE WARDWELL: Are these the only costs that are in 1150 for non-farm decomissioning -decontamination? DR. BIXLER: For both farm and non-farm, but based on a source term that looks like a nuclear reactor source term. JUDGE WARDWELL: But little nuances in that source term cannot be -- is not listed -- 1150 doesn't have a bunch of different source terms, and you get to pick the one that's closest to your plant. It has one source term? DR. BIXLER: It has a set of source terms, kind of like the SAMA analysis with eight source term categories. For each of the plants in NUREG-1150 there were a set of source term categories, more than 10, 10 to 20 source term categories depending on which plant you're looking at. But in -- those would have a range of releases just like the eight source term categories in the SAMA analysis, but would be plant-specific, and would have somewhat different release characteristics. But they would have the same grouping of fission products over all as this SAMA analysis would.
Page 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
period. DR. BIXLER: Right. And then the main difference between the calculations would be the size of the release. The release characteristics may be somewhat different from one accident to another, but not drastically different. In other words, you would always have some cesium release, you would always have some iodine release, the whole range of fission products that you would get from -JUDGE WARDWELL: And as we go through this, we've always got to keep in mind, don't we, that we aren't building a piano here. This is relative, this is not a design effort. This is a let's get our arms around whether or not these things are cost-effective or not. And that's part of our problems, always start zeroing in on some of these things really in detail, so we understand what's going on, but we are always keep in our mind we know what it's going to be used values. JUDGE WARDWELL: They use 3,000 and 8,000 JUDGE WARDWELL: So, you could go into this description, or table, or whatever they had where they describe that and pick off different numbers than the 3,000 and 8,000 that are shown here? DR. BIXLER: No, they use the same set of
Page 2004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for, also. JUDGE McDADE: Dr. Lemay, you don't believe they're using an appropriate source code for the particles that would be distributed. Is that correct? DR. LEMAY: Well, I don't believe that these costs are correct. You quite correctly identified that these decontamination costs are critical to the calculation. You're absolutely right on that. And, in fact, you can change the cost of decontamination any way you want by changing these numbers. You can dial up and down the cost of decontamination by simply changing those values. And the cost of decontamination is the most -- the largest contributor to the AOECR that we use for our SAMA comparison. So, when we play with these numbers we can make the SAMA say pretty much what we want. So, you are correct, these numbers are very important. They are critical in the whole scheme of things. And when we look into 1150, we found a description of every single parameter in that list, a description that's saying how they derived it, how -what was the rationale, how many weeks of unemployment people had or whatever, but these two numbers, there was no explanation. JUDGE WARDWELL: By two numbers you're
Page 2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
referring to the 8,000 and 3,000? DR. LEMAY: Correct. They just can't pop up like this, and they said well, if you want more detail you can go to another NUREG, NUREG/CR-4551. So, we went into NUREG/CR-4551, and also there is no description of these two parameters. So, then we went to NUREG/CR-4691 which is the MACCS manual. There is also no description of how they arrive at those numbers. Eventually, we ended up to NUREG/CR-3673, and there we found what seems to be the genesis of these numbers. In that report, they show values that seem to be compatible with the 3,000 and 8,000, but a bit earlier in time so they're a bit lower. And, essentially, they say these things were calculated in a report called Os84. Now, we've tried to locate that report, and we can't find it. So, there seems to be no cost basis for the 3,000 and 8,000. There seems to be no description that tells us how these numbers came to be. And if somebody can produce this document, I think it would be very useful because it would allow us to scrutinize the calculation and understand how they came up with those numbers. But at this point, I could not tell you how these numbers came to be. JUDGE McDADE: To someone from the NRC
Page 2006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Entergy-466. DR. LEMAY: It's on page 4-15, Your Honor. JUDGE McDADE: 4-15? DR. LEMAY: 4-15. Keep going, scroll down, Staff, Dr. Lemay sort of led us through a list of
NUREGs down to NUREG/CR-3673, which is Entergy Exhibit 466. Do you agree that that's sort of the end of the NUREG chain on how to -- how one would derive these numbers? MR. JONES: Yes, I would agree that's the end of the line where they -JUDGE McDADE: Okay. And would you be able, and we will probably take a break before we get to 6:00 tonight at some point. I don't know if you can do it immediately, but if you can, great, if we can pull up 466, and you could point us to where in there we would look for that guidance. And if not, to just sort of -- I'll jot it down and you jot it down, and when we have a break, if you could take a look. Is that something you would be able to get to right at the tip of your fingers, Mr. Jones, or Dr. Bixler, or Dr. Ghosh? MR. JONES: I believe we could find that relatively quickly, Your Honor. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Could you put up
Page 2007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to? MR. HARRISON: Yes, this is Donald Harrison. It's on page 8-8 is the reference for this. It's indicated to be published. JUDGE WARDWELL: And rather than scroll sorry. The cost estimates used in this study, that's the paragraph. JUDGE McDADE: Mr. Jones, do you agree that's the correct area? MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE McDADE: This makes reference to a Sandia study. MR. JONES: Correct. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Now, Dr. Lemay, am I - my recollection correct that it is your position that the Sandia study actually looked to a dispersion of primarily plutonium contamination? DR. LEMAY: Sorry, Your Honor, no, it's not. The Sandia study that is discussed in this paragraph is a document that we cannot locate. It seems to have never been published. JUDGE WARDWELL: Is there a bibliographic reference to that at the end of this -dR. LEMAY: Yes. JUDGE WARDWELL: -- that the Os84 refers
Page 2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Renalls? MR. HARRISON: G.E. Runkle. JUDGE WARDWELL: Runkle, okay. Thank you. DR. LEMAY: Now, Your Honor, if you just scroll a little bit further to Table 4.4. Okay. The costs that appear there for 3 and 15 are compatible with the costs that appear in 1150. If you go from the date of this report, the date of 1150 and apply the CPI, these costs appear to be compatible with the 3,000 and 8,000 that we have in 1150. JUDGE WARDWELL: And by this report you mean Os84, or this report that we're looking at -dR. LEMAY: Well, Os84 quotes approximate cost per person in the second column, and the $2,600 down so we don't lose this place, are you looking at that? MR. HARRISON: Yes. JUDGE WARDWELL: Could you just the bibliographic reference, Mr. Harrison? MR. HARRISON: I have to find it. It's Ostmeyer and Runkle, "An assessment of decontamination costs and effectiveness for accident radiological releases," Sandia National Labs. And, again, it's stated as "To Be Published." JUDGE WARDWELL: Who is the second author,
Page 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
date. DR. LEMAY: Probably. JUDGE WARDWELL: And what was the date on that, Mr. Harrison? MR. HARRISON: It's got a To Be Published Date, but I believe the number 84 refers to the year. JUDGE WARDWELL: Okay. And what's the date of this reference? MR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for the Applicant. This also was 1984. JUDGE McDADE: And if I have missed it in my view of the documents that we received, do we have Os84 as an exhibit? MR. JONES: No, Your Honor, it's a document that could not be located. when you escalate it by the CPI gives $3,000. JUDGE WARDWELL: Right. But my question was when you said the date of the report, which report were you talking about? DR. LEMAY: The date of the -JUDGE WARDWELL: Os84, or this report that we're looking at? DR. LEMAY: The date of these, where these values come from. JUDGE WARDWELL: So, it would be the Os84
Page 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. LIBERATORE: Your Honor, excuse me. Kathryn Liberatore for the State. Just as a point of clarification, as was stated in Dr. Lemay's testimony, we searched libraries. I also contacted Brian Harris, counsel for NRC Staff and requested a copy of Os84. Mr. Harris represented to me that he searched internal NRC libraries, as well as Sandia libraries, and that no copy of Os84 in any form, draft or otherwise could be located, so we do not -- none of the parties have a copy of this document. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I take it from Dr. Lemay's testimony that he hadn't reviewed it. Let me ask, if the NRC doesn't have a copy of it, how can the NRC -- how did the NRC rely on it in developing this guidance on NUREG/CR-3673? How were you able to reference it if you never had it? DR. GHOSH: This is Dr. Ghosh for the NRC. It's been -- I mean, 19 -- it's been almost 30 years since those reports were produced. We would have to assume that at the time that this report was published they did have a copy, but unfortunately in the intervening 28 years, I guess we lost track of that report, and we couldn't locate it today. But we certainly expect that they would have had it at the time that this report was published.
Page 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE McDADE: And Sandia Lab wasn't able to provide it. MR. JONES: Joe Jones for Staff. No, I checked with our librarians, as well, and we were unable to locate it. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Does that leave us in a position as we sit here right now not knowing whether or not this basically was looking at plutonium, or cesium, or any other kind of radioactive contaminant? MR. JONES: No, Your Honor. I believe that the team, Ostmeyer and Runkle, were part of -- working with Sandia. These documents were all coming together at about the same time, and I have no reason to believe they would have introduced a plutonium source in a nuclear power plant analyses, because it just wouldn't even be considered in that context. DR. GHOSH: I'm sorry, this is Dr. Ghosh again. If we went back to the text where the report was referenced, that paragraph actually describes a little bit about what that reference presumably has. And it does talk about severe accidents, so I guess we would have no reason to assume that they were looking at a different composition than what a severe reactor accident would produce.
Page 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE McDADE: Okay. I left my note in the other room when I came back from the break but, Dr. Lemay, which document and study are you referring to with regard to the plutonium? DR. LEMAY: It's the Site Restoration Report by Chan. I can give you the -MS. LIBERATORE: Your Honor, this is Kathryn Liberatore for the State. That's New York State Exhibit 249. JUDGE McDADE: Thank you. JUDGE KENNEDY: And is that reference applicable to reactor-type accidents, in your opinion? DR. LEMAY: It's not ideal, but it's a very well put together description of decontamination techniques. It describes in great detail how you go about to assess the cost of decontamination by looking at buildings, looking at streets, and it explains how you do that. Obviously, it would ideal if it was dealing with decontamination activities near Indian Point, but it's not. JUDGE KENNEDY: Is it possible to review that article with a reactor accident source term in mind and select appropriate decontamination methods and costs? DR. LEMAY: Well, it's -- that's what we've
Page 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
tried to do as best we could in the limited time we had, but this was a scoping exercise. So, if I may, we are faced with values of the decontamination costs that cannot be described to us, so we can't criticize them because we don't know what they put in the sausage, if I may use that word. At that point, we're left with only one possibility. We can try to benchmark this value against what other people have done, and that's what we tried to do as best we could. We tried to build a range of decontamination costs and see where the values that were given to us out of 1150 fit. Are they within the range, are they above the range, or are they under the range? And it seems based on the very limited scoping exercise we did, they were below the range of values we could calculate. Now, I'm not pretending that performed the SAMA analysis with the level of detail that was necessary for this SAMA analysis, but it's a benchmarking exercise. It's let's look at what other people in the field have done with contaminants and let's see how does it compare, because that's really the only thing we can do. We don't have the basis for these values. We have no idea how they were obtained. JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess a number of
Page 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
questions come to mind, and maybe this will have to be followed up later on. But we've progressed in time here from 1984, and we have NUREG-1150, and now we have the Indian Point submittal, itself. I'm struggling with the heritage of these numbers now. MR. O'KULA: Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for the Applicant. And I didn't mean to interrupt. JUDGE KENNEDY: That's all right. MR. O'KULA: But I think it's important in this document, Entergy-466, to look at its context. And, again, as was also the case for NRC Staff and Dr. Lemay, we, too, could not locate a copy of the document that's been referred to as Os84. However, if you look at the context of the document that we do have in hand, the Burke document, Entergy-466, there is repeated reference at the top of page 4-15, the experimental data in that first paragraph. And let us cite that first paragraph that's discussed by the authors indicate that experimental data was reviewed, and techniques were assessed that depend on radionuclides, particle sizes, and the chemical forms, characteristics. We wrote down in the paragraph but it seems to be very much tied to assessing the effects of highly unlikely severe light water reactor accidents. That's one illustration of, I think, the context
Page 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that's presented here. Secondly, if we page to 4-17 in the same exhibit, in the third point that's called out, the author notes in Point 3 that this study which was, again, a reactor-specific analysis or an analysis for economic and decontamination costs, is tied to looking at providing cost figures that implicitly include contamination over broad areas, such as would be expected with those associated with a reactor-type source term. So, I think there's -- it's a bit of a contextual relationship that we need to identify as we go forward in this contention that there is not the tie to a T citation trail that we can point very crisply to, but there's still some benefit of looking at what had been developed in the early `80s as far as reactor-type source terms and accounting for their costs under conditions of a severe accident. JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, I think that it -and, again, this was intended to be the overview to get the context to leap forward into plant-specific type review. But what I think we know where we're all going to be going with this, as we move towards the resolution or the adjudication of this contention. This has been represented as a plant-specific value
Page 2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for Indian Point Units 2 and 3, so someone's done a reaffirmation that this is an applicable value in 2005 for Indian Point for decontamination costs. So, okay, we lost the reference to 1984. Someone convinced themselves, and then the Staff viewed it as reasonable -- and, again, I know we're not looking at great science, but what I'm struggling with is, okay, we lost the reference, but it is 30 years later, and we're trying to deal with a plant-specific analysis for this facility. And someone has reaffirmed that these are good values, reasonable values. Keep it in that context, that these are reasonable value decontamination costs. So, that's really getting into the details, but I think that's where we're going. I think we've now sort of laid the ground work with the entire witness stand here, but I don't -- I'm not getting a good feel that we've addressed the plantspecific nature of this -- these parameters. I think I would agree with the Entergy and Staff witnesses it needs to be in the context of a reactor accident scenario. I think it needs to be rooted there. I agree with that, but I guess I'm going to part this for now, but I'm not going to let go of this. This -- we need to get into more detail of how we got to this being an acceptable value.
Page 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
And then on the same vein, on this -- I'm going back to Table 4, page 58. I don't know if we still have it. I've got a couple of follow-up questions on there that again strike me. JUDGE McDADE: While we're pulling that up, if I could very briefly. Dr. Lemay, from your body language it seemed like you wanted to respond to what Dr. O'Kula had said. DR. LEMAY: Well, on page 4-15 of the same CR, NUREG/CR-3673, the author writes, "Little data exists which are directly applicable to the small particle size, .1 to 10 micron insoluble materials which are anticipated in releases from most severe light water reactor accidents. The cost and effectiveness estimates for decontamination contain large uncertainties, and results of future experimentation with decontamination techniques should be used to update models for decontamination." But the authors of this -- of Os84, and CR-3673 recognized that these were tentative results. They were at the time the best they could, but they really expected people to continue to improve these things. JUDGE WARDWELL: And if I remember your pre-filed testimony and rebuttal testimony, was not the results of the SAMAs or certainly the cost figures
Page 2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
very sensitive to these particular parameters also? DR. LEMAY: Right. JUDGE WARDWELL: Not ones that we could just say well, it's really not very sensitive if we change them. In fact, it's your position that it is sensitive. DR. LEMAY: Well, when you do a safety analysis for anything, for calculating the dose, the release, you always go back and look at what are my most sensitive parameters, which are the ones that when I play with I can change the answer. And those you scrutinize. You go back and look at them and say have I used the right value? Am I doing the right thing? And am I getting the correct results? And in this case it's clear that that value that we don't know anything about is one of those sensitive parameters that if you change it a little bit, it swings the answer at the other end quite a bit. JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Teagarden, I happened to jot down a statement that I thought you made earlier when we were going through this that happens to fit right in, if this is what you meant. I want to clarify that, and then see if you have something to contribute to it. But I wrote down in my notes that you said something to the effect of "decontamination
Page 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
costs were well vetted in the community." What did you mean by that, and what is that vettedness that might have occurred that might shed some light on the justification for these numbers? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. I was referring to the vetting of the NUREG-1150 studies. The NUREG-1150 studies were monumental studies. I mean, they continue to be -JUDGE WARDWELL: Sorry? MR. TEAGARDEN: They were monumental studies for performing Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 PRAs of five different plant types situation in different settings in the United States, including elements that we call internal events, things that can go on inside the plant, as well as external events for some of the sites, which would be events like seismic initiators. Volumes of literature, of documentation were produced and those studies received significant review at multiple times, comments were taken and incorporated into those. So, these values that were used in the NUREG-1150 study, they're documented in NUREG-4551 what the values are, so they were there. They were apparent to any and all who were performing the different review functions. Dr. O'Kula may want to add into some of the summarizing the review process.
Page 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I'm not sure we need the review process of this much, but we probably -it's possible later, we should decide where we go from here, but we will explore that in more depth probably, because we are going to come back to this if we do leave it now. But between later this afternoon or tomorrow we will probably get into that then. JUDGE McDADE: And if I could just very briefly just for my own edification here, and looking for some education. In trying to design a study to figure out what cleanup costs are going to be, it would seem that there are examples through the military of dispersion of plutonium, through aboveground nuclear testing among other things. But fortunately there's been very little experience with actual cleanup after a reactor accident; in the United States there really hasn't been. So, how would I go about -- and let me ask, first of all, the Staff who produced the NUREG in the first, which is the guidance. What would you look for in a study to be able to assess how those costs would occur when you don't have any real world experience, but only sort of theoretical experience to base it on? MR. JONES: This is Joe Jones for Staff. And I've actually done quite a bit of decontamination
Page 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of radiological facilities over the course of my career, and many of those were contaminated with cesium. They were not contaminated via a plume passing over, but it's still a contaminant that has been deposited. And within the Department of Energy complex over the last decade and a half, a lot of facilities have been closed down, decontaminated such as Rocky Flats in Colorado, Fernald in Ohio, and Mound. These sites were very large decontamination projects where cesium was encountered, so there is data available today. That data would not have been available in 1984 because those types of activities had not begun. But today there is actual data available which is kind of one of the reasons in my review of some of the supporting documents that were used as a basis for cost estimating, I didn't see those reasonable because in most cases they were not based on actual performance data. So, when data is available, you know, it could be generated, a report could be developed today using that type of data. JUDGE McDADE: The kind of data that you just referred to, were those decontaminations for lack of a better phrase internal to a structure, or did they involve the kinds of complications where you're dealing with gravel, grass, trees?
Page 2022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. JONES: My particular projects were interior, and demolition of one building. But Fernald, Mound, and Rocky Flats, these Department of Energy facilities included internal and external decontamination activities. They're not directly representative. We couldn't take a report from any one of those sites and say let's use these values, but it would give us excellent insights on how to derive applicable values for something more urban that is handled in a response mode. Most of the Department of Energy projects were not schedule-driven, so nobody was in a hurry to necessarily get things done. Schedules were available but they weren't driven by that. So, you'd have to look at the nuances of each project, but the fact is today we do know how to decontaminate cesium. There have been many different technologies that have been improved, enhanced and used in practice to decontaminate cesium. JUDGE McDADE: Has that data been imported in any way into your NUREG calculations? MR. JONES: Which NUREG, Your Honor? JUDGE McDADE: Well, if we could put up, again, the $8,000, $3,000, those contamination costs. MR. JONES: Again, those particular costs
Page 2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
were developed for NUREG-1150. And the origin of those is the late `80s. So, it is not included in those values. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. But -- so, what was? You know, if that data wasn't available at the time these parameters were developed, what was used to develop those, purely theoretical? MR. JONES: I would not want to speculate how the authors put that together, but I can tell you at a National Laboratory in the 1980s, cesium existed and had been cleaned up. I don't know if they used that type of data. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Dr. Lemay, did you want to respond to that? DR. LEMAY: Yes, I would like -- Dr. Lemay for the State of New York. I would like to quote from 1150, because we are told that there was a review process, and we can actually read what people -- the reviewers said about these values. They actually commented on these values. So, since we talk about the extensive review process of 1150, if we could have New York State Exhibit 252-D, at page D-31 and D-32. "The models used in calculating the cost of a severe accident lack many factors that should be taken into account. Many of the assumptions are
Page 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
questionable and unfounded. The models have not been benchmarked. Some interpretations and conclusions that were made in Draft NUREG-1150 are questionable. The cost estimate need to be more thoroughly documented to understand and evaluate the calculations. The response in the present version of the NUREG-1150 provides a limited set of risk reduction calculation principally related to the potential benefits of accident management strategies and reducing core damage frequency. It does not assess the cost of these or other improvements. Such analyses are more properly considered in the context of specific regulatory action." Another comment, the next page. I'm sorry, keep scrolling, scrolling. You can start with "Decontamination cost." I think it's 18, D-32, sorry. D-32, yes. Sorry, keep -- could you please go up, please. Okay. It starts on page D-31 and it ends on page D-32. So, go back to page D-31. Okay. Could you do a search for deserts. It's near by that quotation but I don't see it right now. The word "desert." I will quote the actual -JUDGE WARDWELL: Andy, can you do a search for "deserts?" JUDGE McDADE: Go back to where you just
Page 2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
author were. One up, number -- can you go to the next page,
number 6. Is that what you were referring to? DR. LEMAY: Yes. "Decontamination cost using the calculations may be based on decontamination of test sites in desert instead of agricultural, residential, and commercial property." And the response was, again, "The Draft NUREG-1150 cost benefit analyses reflected in the conventional NRC method of assessing cost and benefit,. Because costbenefit analyses are more properly considered in the context of the specific regulatory activities, they are not provided in this version of 1150." My understanding of this is that the of 1150 expected regulatory activities such as
those that we carry out today to scrutinize the cost of decontamination, and not to rely on generic or default values that came from the `80s. I think that was their intent in the way they disposed of the comments. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Would the language there, maybe based on decontamination of test sites in deserts suggest to the Staff that maybe what they were talking about here are decontamination costs where plutonium was the principal radioactive material? MR. JONES: This is Joe Jones of the Staff.
Page 2026 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I would interpret it that way knowing the tests that were conducted in the deserts. But there could have been cesium tests conducted out there that I'm not aware of. JUDGE McDADE: But what this does is leave us with a degree or uncertainty as to exactly what the source was for the contaminants that are referred to. It may have been plutonium, it may have been more consistent with a nuclear reactor, it may have been a combination of the two, but at this point there's no way for us to really be sure of that. Is that a correct interpretation, Mr. Jones, or Dr. Bixler? MR. JONES: I'm unable to trace the origin, so I could agree with that. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. DR. GHOSH: This is Dr. Ghosh for the Staff. I'm not sure where these comments came from. We were just trying to figure out what Appendix D is. These may have been comments from members of the public, and I just want to note that in the response there's no confirmation that these comments have a basis. It may be pure speculation in the Point 6. I don't know where the person might have gotten the idea where the costs were coming from because it doesn't explain. And in the response it's not acknowledged
Page 2027 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
discount -MR. TURK: Did not adopt these words. JUDGE McDADE: Well, it did not -- it neither adopted nor rejected the comment. MR. TURK: Unfortunately, that's also typical of how the NRC Staff responds to comments. They don't go into minute details to address each element of the comment. JUDGE WARDWELL: But, Dr. Lemay -MS. LIBERATORE: Your Honor, just -JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. Lemay, is not your point the fact that the response said gee, you ought to do it as part of a regulatory action? That was the that this may or may not be true, so I'm not sure where the comments came from, or the basis for them. MR. TURK: Your Honor, Sherwin Turk. I don't have the document in front of me, but based on my familiarity with how the NRC Staff publishes NUREGs, they publish a draft, and then they publish a final after responding -- after they consider comments. And if you'll notice, one of the previous pages that Dr. Lemay referred to, in fact, talked about comments on the draft 1150, and then there was the NRC response. JUDGE McDADE: But the NRC response did not
Page 2028 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
point of both these examples. Right? MS. LIBERATORE: And, Your Honor, just as a point of clarification. Kathryn Liberatore for the State of New York. This is Appendix D to the final NUREG-1150. JUDGE McDADE: But also, Dr. Ghosh, were
you finished? You were talking and other people started talking. Had you finished your comment? DR. GHOSH: Yes, I had finished the comment. I just wanted -- I suspect this was a public comment. The only other point I want to make is that there were two formal peer review, expert peer reviews that were performed for NUREG-1150. I believe this is public comment, not an expert peer review comment. JUDGE WARDWELL: But, Dr. Ghosh, didn't the NRC respond as Dr. Lemay points out to this comment by saying we don't have any answer, basically. It should be handled on a regulatory action basis. DR. GHOSH: Yes, that is what the response said. Unfortunately, I would say Staff practice, we generally are more rigorous in responding to expert peer review comments versus public comments. But, yes, that was the response in this case. MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, if I may speak for the Applicant. Grant Teagarden.
Page 2029 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE WARDWELL: Go ahead. MR. TEAGARDEN: It should be noted that while we are observing uncertainty with relations to the bases that are here and these comments, the uncertainty can be viewed as going both directions, whether decontamination costs could be high or whether they could be low. And I just -- Item 4 on the list has been staring at me, the values of the interdiction dose used in the calculations may be too high. You know that would be a conservative result if you're interested in a dose metric. And just that even as we think in the context of uncertainty that there's uncertainty that heads in both directions. JUDGE KENNEDY: I appreciate that. Actually, I'd like to take us back to the Entergy Exhibit 450, the Table 4. I've got just two quick follow-up questions, this guy here. If you can open the whole table up, Andy, so we can see the whole thing. I guess one of the things that struck me looking at this table, and looking at the far righthand column, when I see the 1.7, 1.7, I understand that to be a cost escalation parameter. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: When I get down to row 7 and 8, I see 19.2 and 2.5.
Page 2030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: So, that's not a cost escalation factor? MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct. JUDGE KENNEDY: Can someone describe what's being communicated there? MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, values 7 and 8 represent the value of property and improvements of those property. Item 7 represent that for farmland, and item 8 for non-farmland. So, Item 7 is the value of the property and any improvements, barns and such, and have a value of $50,000 per hectare. 8 is the nonfarmland with a value of $208,000 per person. So, that would be viewed as the wealth in the region. In addition to tangible wealth, the Entergy analysis also included another measure of economic activity, and that is, in essence, a gross domestic product at the county or metropolitan level. They actually -- most plants that I'm familiar with for SAMA analysis will perform their basis on tangible wealth; that is, real property and improvements upon those properties. There's information from Census of Agriculture for land values and things of that nature even beyond just like farmland, but there's other measures of value of tangible wealth that can be used
Page 2031 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to calculate those values. In addition to that, Entergy performed a sensitivity analysis to examine other measures of looking at economic impacts, potentially. And so a different viewpoint on economic impact is one of production, so especially in an environment where you could have tourism, it's not always -- you know, you would have the tangible property of hotels, but if the hotels are empty you're hitting economic impacts on a service level. So, Entergy did another calculation for economic impacts associated with loss of business income and loss of tourism on this county product perspective, and then added the two values together to achieve this value here in number 8 that becomes a per capita value. So, in my mind there's some double counting that happens when you have these two different ways of looking at economic activity, and you simply add them together at the end. But, in any event, these two values are based on data to the region for surrounding Indian Point. They are not values taken from NUREG-1150, and simply escalated. The values that are there from NUREG-1150, I guess I would probably need to go back and check and see which site those would represent.
Page 2032 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
They probably would just be representing the one site, one of the five sites, because NUREG-1150 would be using different values for each of the five sites, I believe. I don't think they had an average value that they applied to all five sites. JUDGE KENNEDY: So, for this parameter, and I guess I'm focusing on number 8, did you just say that in the NUREG-1150 study there were different values in there depending on the site? So, the $84,000 number, do you have -MR. TEAGARDEN: I believe that's the case, and we can confirm that, Your Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: And if you could, if you could tell us -- if you could find out which particular site it was for, that would be helpful, as well. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: And one last question. On the evacuation cost, did I understand you to say that that was -- evacuation was not considered in the study for the Indian Point Units 2 and 3? MR. TEAGARDEN: That is correct, Your Honor. The evacuation as far as relocating individuals, an attempt to relocate individuals before they could be impacted by an atmospheric release was
Page 2033 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to go. MS. SUTTON: applicant, Your Honors. JUDGE McDADE: MS. SUTTON: Yes, Ms. Sutton. Prior to the break, there was Kathryn Sutton for the not incorporated into the model. JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. So, whether the NUREG-1150 value has been escalated by 1.7 or not, it would be deemed irrelevant? MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, Your Honor. JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. JUDGE McDADE: Do you think it would be a good time? I think maybe it might be a good time for a short break. It's just about 4:00 right now. If we take a break until 4:15, and then come back and I don't anticipate going beyond 6:00, but try to find a good breaking point in that vicinity. We are in recess. (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the record at 4:00 p.m., and went back on the record at 4:21 p.m.) JUDGE McDADE: All set to proceed. Ready
a discussion of Appendix C to NUREG-1150 ongoing, and Dr. O'Kula had something he would like to add. May we
ask the Court's indulgence to please listen to his
Page 2034 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
applicant. interpretation of the comments as well. JUDGE McDADE: DR. O'KULA: Doctor? Kevin O'Kula for the
I respectfully disagree with the
characterization made by Dr. Lemay with regard to the disposition of those comments that were found in the public comment part of the document of NUREG-1150. Keep in mind that NUREG-1150 was issued in two, one in -- a first and a second draft before going final, and that the comments that were discussed before break were in reference to a public comment period on the first draft, and then potentially the second draft. But these comments do not apply to the final version of NUREG-1150, and they were indeed public comments. They do not speak to the peer review
quality of the work, that gives us a basis to be reasonable in our input of those parameters into the IPEC SAMA analysis. Secondly, the two comments per se are, were not reflective of a discussion of decontamination cost issues with respect to what was being done in the NUREG-1150 SAMA analysis. The first comment that we discussed or that was brought up by Dr. Lemay was referring to
Page 2035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
potential benefits of accident management strategies in reducing core damage frequency, along the lines of what Mr. Teagarden was discussing at the outset of this contention, with regard to the Level 1 frequency analysis. This was a comment made with respect to accident management strategies, not in reference to the Level 3 portion of the analysis, concerning the MACCS analysis of consequences. Secondly, the second comment that was brought up was referencing in the first draft, that the analysis that had been provided in the first draft had followed conventional NRC methods for cost and benefit analysis. Now it's important to note that in the second draft, and subsequently the final draft of NUREG-1150, economic costs were not calculated, because NRC report indicated that at least the discussion, as we understand it goes, there are -The cost-benefit analyses are more properly considered in the context of specific regulatory activities, such as proposed rule changes. That was a discussion or that was a comment that's also in the document that Dr. Lemay referred to. So again, I think these comments or the
Page 2036 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
objections challenging the quality of NUREG-1150 were with regard to two public comments, and then in a dispositioning of the comments, it was clear that the contamination quantities or input parameters were not at issue in the final version of NUREG-1150. JUDGE McDADE: But Doctor, I guess what
our concern was, or at least my concern was, in looking at the document, as we sit here today, without having a full provenance on it, do we know, with any degree of certainty, whether or not that discussion involved the kinds of radionuclides that we would see from what you would anticipate if there were a reactor accident, as opposed to what you would see after, you know, for cleanup of a weapons site. Is that just an unknown at this point in time, or is it, you know, it is something we have to presume, or is there any way of making that determination that you're aware of? didn't develop this guidance. I realize Entergy
The guidance was
developed by the NRC, and you're doing your best to follow the guidance that they give. But is there something that you can point us to, that would indicate one way or the other clearly that what was being discussed and what was being considered?
Page 2037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DR. O'KULA: for the applicant. No, Your Honor. Kevin O'Kula
I can't point to a specific
follow-up document, but I would suggest that the parameters, as were debated at that time in the resolution stage, before the NUREG-1150 document went final, that because of the subject matter, again by light water reactor plants, that the discussion of parameters and models such was conducted by, at that time by NRC staff and the national laboratories that were involved in the study. It would be my expert opinion that it was concerning nuclear reactor type source terms, and that indeed was the focus of NUREG-1150. It would be
entirely reasonable for us, as the Entergy applicant, to use these parameters, given the nature of NUREG1150 as reasonable values to incorporate in a SAMAtype analysis. MR. HARRISON: of the NRC staff. And this is Donald Harris I would
I would concur with that.
believe the presumption would be in the context that it would be, that these were being done for light water reactor accidents, and not for other types of severe accidents for other types of facilities. So that contextually it would be consistent to be that way. But again, it's a
Page 2038 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
presumption. It's not factual. JUDGE WARDWELL: Dr. O'Kula, you also
state that there is no documentation of the bases for the number 3,000 and 8,000 for this contamination cost for non-farm land; correct? said? DR. O'KULA: the applicant. the Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for Is that what you just
If again, judging from the context of
analysis that was done for NUREG-1150, we can
judge it or it would be my judgment that it's applicable to reactor-type source terms. And as all parties in this proceeding have affirmed, the initial starting point to the $3,000 level and $8,000 level, that document trail, that starting point is not available. It's not available
to me as well as other members of the applicant's team. JUDGE WARDWELL: So do we have any other
choice but to judge the merits of that, based on this regulatory action that's before us now? the best place to do it? Aren't we burdened with that now? Is this Is not this
Board burdened when making that evaluation through the testimony that we get here, in making the decision of what is the appropriate facts, based on this
Page 2039 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
adjudicatory hearing? Do you have any other I'd ask Dr. O'Kula first,
suggestions besides that?
and then I'll let you, Mr. Teagarden. DR. O'KULA: Your Honor, I would suggest,
at least in my opinion, that the applicant chose appropriately regarding the reasonableness nature of the input data in this regard. How it's applied, as I think we'll discuss in the remainder of this contention, I think will help shape the impression, at least affirm the impression, that those values, when tied with the type of analysis that was performed by the applicant, is indeed appropriate in the context of the reasonability nature of a SAMA analysis. JUDGE WARDWELL: And do you not anticipate
that Dr. Lemay may also provide some testimony and already has in regards to direct and rebuttal, that may conflict with your testimony? DR. O'KULA: anticipate that. JUDGE WARDWELL: So we're here to weigh Your Honor, I fully
the merits of both, and that's the regulatory process that I think was pointed out by the comments that we're really going through. Mr. Teagarden, do you
have anything else on this matter?
Page 2040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, just to
augment Dr. O'Kula, we believe these values represent the best values that are available for a SAMA analysis. We know of no technically superior values
to use for the MACCS code input for these, and that you know, I'm sure we'll talk about some of these values. But you know, the cost of non-farm decontamination, the 13,800 per person for a household of three, that represents some $41,000. of four represents $55,000. A household
For an apartment building
housing 200 people, that represents $2.7 million to cover decontamination costs for that and nearby spaces. And when we look at the available data sets, we would say that these values are reasonable for the purposes of a SAMA analysis, and we know of no technically superior data that's available for a licensee to use for such an analysis. JUDGE McDADE: JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE McDADE: Okay let me -Thank you, Mr. Teagarden. If I could, just to Dr.
Lemay, the position of Entergy is, as I understand it, and before I ask you to answer the question, I'll make sure that Entergy agrees that that's their position.
Page 2041 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
York. First of all, with regard to the NUREG, from their standpoint, they are following the guidance given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, through the NUREG, that from their standpoint as individuals with experience as nuclear engineers and engineers in the industry, that it would be illogical for the NRC, in developing NUREG-1150, to use a source term different than a reactor-type source term, that there is no better, no technically superior value that they are aware of, that they could use or should use, and that you haven't pointed them to any technically superior values. So therefore, we should be satisfied that the SAMA analysis that they have done, at least as to this, the use of these terms, is appropriate and allows the NRC to take the hard look at the, as hard a look as is technically feasible, at the cost-benefit analysis of the SAMAs. Have I accurately stated what your position is, Dr. O'Kula? DR. O'KULA: JUDGE McDADE: to that, Dr. Lemay? Yes, Your Honor. How do you take objection
Where is that analysis wrong? Dr. Lemay for the State of New
DR. LEMAY:
Well first, Your Honor, with respect, it is not
Page 2042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-- the onus is not on the state of New York to prove that the values used in the SAMA are reasonable. The
onus is on the applicant to prove that these values are reasonable. And I would be more than happy to look at how these values were derived and accept that they are applicable for the area around Indian Point. But I
can't, because there is no document, there is no equation, there is no rationale that explains to me how these numbers were derived. They may very well be applicable to a reactor accident, but maybe in the desert or maybe in Surry. I have no way of knowing. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. Right now, I'm Judge Kennedy had My question was more Just talking about
focusing a little bit narrower. been talking about a high level.
at the micro than the macro level.
the use of the appropriate source terms for this particular analysis. Is there any reason that we should discount the use of those source codes, and again, as I understood a lot of your testimony and your analysis, was that there's such a difference between the cleanup costs that would be associated with cesium as opposed to plutonium.
Page 2043 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
speak? I speak? JUDGE McDADE: Excuse me, just one second. Is it solely that we really don't know what the source code, how it was derived, and therefore it would not be responsible for us to accept it? Or is there more to it than that? DR. LEMAY: That's my position. We have
a gaping hole in the record, and we have no way of knowing what went into these costs. There is really
no way, and to me it seems that it's very difficult to continue with the process, until that gaping hole is fixed. The authors of NUREG-3673 warned that these were, there was little data, and that more work should be done to improve these values. So it seems
to me that we really don't have what is needed to apply this to the Indian Point site, to do a sitespecific study. MS. POTTS: Your Honor, this is -- may I May
This is Laurie Potts for the applicant.
Dr. Lemay, are you finished with your thoughts? DR. LEMAY: Yes I am, sir. Okay. Ms. Potts. As Mr. Teagarden
JUDGE McDADE: MS. POTTS:
Thank you.
said, these are the best values that we know of, the
Page 2044 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
only values that are available, and it is irrational to think that the authors of 1150 would have used them for all five of the plants in that study if they were not applicable. I know we don't have the source document, and that's fortunate. But it's not rational to think In
that they would use them if they did not apply.
addition to that, every other SAMA analysis that has been performed before Indian Point and after Indian Point has used these exact values for these variables, and it's my understanding from my colleagues that the SOARCA (ph) project found no reason to change these values either. So I guess you stated our position fairly well, that we just -- these are the best and only values, and we don't believe that Dr. Lemay has preferred any that have a better applicability to what we're doing. JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thank you. I know
Judge Kennedy has questions about other site-specific variables. MR. HARRISON: This is Donald Harrison. We've
Can I add one more thought from the staff? referenced 3673 a couple of times as having
uncertainty, and the reference to page 415, where it
Page 2045 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
page 417. has the sentence about updating the models as additional experimentation is done. I'll also provide a bounds perspective on Item 3 at the very top of that page has a
comment about the large uncertainties in these cost estimates, and that the reasonable approach is to use the average value from that. So I'll just provide that as a balance perspective to uncertainty and how it should be considered and used. JUDGE McDADE: Judge Kennedy. Actually,
before you get started, just one thing that I should have said at the beginning here, because we have a different panel than we had yesterday. But we all
understand sometimes people are going to need a break, and we sort of take a break when we necessarily think it's appropriate. If for one reason or another any one of the panel feels that you really need to take a break, don't sit and suffer, you know. Either try to get our
attention and suggest that we take a break, or alternatively, if for one reason or another you can't get our attention, try to get the attention of your counsel, because they won't be shy at yelling at us to request a break.
Page 2046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
last piece. Surry plant. Let's see. So I should have said that at the beginning with this panel, you know, the fact that you all weren't here at the beginning of the panel yesterday. So and as you're leaving, pass that on to Okay. Judge Kennedy. Thank you, Judge McDade.
the next panel.
JUDGE KENNEDY:
We left off, I think we started on a path
of looking, of Mr. Teagarden identifying the plantspecific inputs to the MACCS-2 code, and we started down a list and ended up at Table 4 exhibit that we have been talking about for about an hour and a half. Do you have additional discussion you'd like to offer, or is that the end of the road? MR. TEAGARDEN: Your Honor, I'll answer a
question that was asked earlier before the break, that I said I would return to, and that is Item 8 in regards to NUREG-1150 value of $84,000. Did that
refer to a specific one of the five sites or an average of the five sites? That refers to one of the five sites, the The other sites use, have other values
that are site-specific, developed similar to the sitespecific development for Entergy, and then -JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm sorry. I missed the
Page 2047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
staff. of me. sites. JUDGE McDADE: highest of the five there? MR. TEAGARDEN: comparison purposes. But this is just for Okay. So you utilized the MM Was Surry the highest of the five? Because you mentioned it's close to Chicago. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. I
believe Surry is the highest of the five. MR. HARRISON: Donald Harrison from the
Yes, I've got it open on my computer in front It's slightly higher than the other four
The $84,000 that's listed there
was purely for a comparison of the Entergy sitespecific value that was used, in comparison to the NUREG-1150, the seminal study which serves as a comparison point for us. JUDGE McDADE: JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. All right, thank you. So
let's take us back to where we are. that table's still up on there. questions on that.
I don't know if
I'm done with my
I guess my question to you is you were walking us through the plant-specific inputs relative to MACCS-2, and I was wondering if you've reached the end of that discussion, or if you have additional --
Page 2048 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. TEAGARDEN: The other element that I
will bring up, because I know it will come up in discussion, is a variable called TIMDEC. It's the time used in the code for decontamination activities, and it is associated with how long those active decontamination activities are modeled to occur in the code. So for the values that
were used for the Entergy analysis are the same as those used in the NUREG-1150. to be on this table. They aren't monetary values, and everything on this table were monetary values. values that were used for accomplishing the decontamination, the dose reduction factor of three, the value was two months, 60 days, and for a dose reduction factor of 15, the values that were used were four months. JUDGE KENNEDY: implication then? Do those have a cost The They just didn't happen
I mean even though they're not
listed as a cost parameter? MR. TEAGARDEN: The cost to perform the
decontamination activities are absorbed in the Item 6, where we have a cost for performing decontamination, a 13,800 number. A portion of that number is used for
say decontamination labor, and the portion varies,
Page 2049 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
depending upon the dose reduction factor. So for a dose reduction factor of 15, and this is also another user input that's not on this table, 50 percent of that cost is associated with decontamination labor. So it represents, you know, a
number of workers, working for a set amount of time. MACCS uses a set amount of time for effectively two purposes. One to evaluate the dose
that workers receive while they're working in a contaminated area, so how long are they present in a contaminated area, and secondly, the TIMDEC also establishes the effective minimum time that people are away from their residences while decontamination activities are performed, given for those that have to be relocated for decontamination activities. So if an individual's residence needs to be decontaminated, and to achieve a dose reduction factor of three, MACCS models those individuals being away from their home for 60 days. If they need to
have a dose reduction factor of 15, MACCS models those individuals being away from their home for 120 days. JUDGE KENNEDY: Is then the cost per day
multiplied automatically based on that? MR. TEAGARDEN: The cost, there is a cost
that accrues while individuals are away from their
Page 2050 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Honor. as well, and home, and that cost is a cost associated with depreciation and deterioration of their properties while they're away. This is an area that I'll make a correction on in our original testimony, where we had a reference to per diem costs while decontamination activities were occurring, and Dr. Lemay in his rebuttal pointed out that actually it's not per diem; it is the depreciation and deterioration, and that is correct. JUDGE KENNEDY: So that this
decontamination time factor only applies to the line 6 parameters, not line 5? MR. TEAGARDEN: It would apply to line 5
the same time periods are used, I
believe, for both the farm and non-farm decontamination times. JUDGE KENNEDY: different costs? MR. TEAGARDEN: They have different costs, And it would have
but the same time lines are utilized within MACCS. JUDGE KENNEDY: So have we taken ourselves
through the appropriate plant-specific data? MR. TEAGARDEN: I believe we have, Your
Page 2051 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'm trying to set
us up for going forward, and we've got some questions. JUDGE WARDWELL: I'd like to fix a couple I just want
of things on Table 4 that come to mind. to make sure I understand. JUDGE KENNEDY: JUDGE WARDWELL: MACCS parameters. Right.
Table 4 is a list of
What was the basis for selecting There's more MACCS parameters
these eight parameters? than this, right?
Are these only the ones involved with chronic, or are these some other subset of that, that allowed you to select these, or were they selected because you considered them to be plant-specific? MR. TEAGARDEN: We selected these for
discussion and comparison, based on what we believed to be the core issues of New York State 12, and related to decontamination cost bases and questions. JUDGE WARDWELL: So you thought this
addressed the contention in the best way, and that's how you selected these? MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE WARDWELL: aren't -- okay, they aren't. DR. BIXLER: Yes sir. This subset. So they
That's good, yeah.
Could I interject --
Page 2052 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Teagarden. CHRONC. JUDGE WARDWELL: I had no idea. Sorry to mislead you, Mr. What is this guy talking CHRONC. DR. BIXLER: Yeah. We pronounce it MR. TEAGARDEN: I think it was just as we there? MR. TEAGARDEN: TIMDEC, I believe I know JUDGE WARDWELL: Why wasn't TIMDEC in
we have it discussed in other parts of our testimony. JUDGE WARDWELL: Sure. I just wanted to -
were addressing different attributes, and this was a little earlier in our testimony. We could have put in
TIMDEC; we just didn't put it in this particular table. JUDGE WARDWELL: DR. BIXLER: Sure, okay.
Could I interject a thought? Would that be
This is Nathan Bixler from the staff. okay?
I think this table is a complete list of the
parameters that go into CHRONC, that have units of dollars attached to them. I believe that's the case,
and that's probably why this table was assembled the way it was. JUDGE WARDWELL: It's not CHRONIC; it's
Page 2053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
about? That's what I meant, that subset, okay. JUDGE KENNEDY: When you started your
discussion, Mr. Teagarden, we went through some other plant-specific type inputs, the source term and other things, and then you took us down to this level. MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. I guess what I started to
-- the thought process I'm going down is why you took us there, which I think was just asked. MR. TEAGARDEN: Oh yes, Your Honor.
Primarily to try to get to the core questions or core parameters that I understand to be probably the focus areas for discussion and for your questions, and to try to give context and meaning to those parameters. JUDGE KENNEDY: And I mean we may need to
add whatever it is, T-I-M-D-E-C? MR. TEAGARDEN: JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes, Your Honor. So I guess what I'd like
to do is if we consider Table 4 of Exhibit Entergy 450, plus the time, the T-I-M-D-E-C parameter as the values that we may focus on over the remainder of the testimony, do you think those are the core issues we need to address, from your perspective, of course? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. We seek
to show you that the values used within the Entergy
Page 2054 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of New York. analysis are reasonable for the purposes of SAMA, that these values have an established pedigree, although we acknowledge that a source document is missing, and that Dr. Lemay's evaluation and review has identified several of these parameters that he focuses on, primarily the cost for non-farmland decontamination and TIMDEC. We want to satisfy and assist helping you understand how these values are implemented in the MACCS-2 code, and why they're reasonable for the purposes that they were used for for Entergy. JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'd like to turn
to Dr. Lemay then, and if -- you've heard the discussion that we've had with Mr. Teagarden. feel that these parameters plus the T-I-M-D-E-C parameter capture the core issues that New York State is raising? DR. LEMAY: Francois Lemay for the State Do you
I do, with the caveat that it seems to
me that what we did beyond this is we tried to rank them, in order of importance, and decide which one we should focus on. It was our assessment that CDNFRM and TIMDEC were the most important ones, and the rest had minimal impact on the calculation of the offsite
Page 2055 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
economic cost. So if you're limited by time and you
want to get to the crux of the matter, CDNFRM and TIMDEC are the two parameters that are really at play here. JUDGE KENNEDY: Knowing we may explore
other issues, but you would recommend we need to address at least those three in this hearing? DR. LEMAY: Correct. I guess I'm also
JUDGE KENNEDY:
wondering, maybe either Mr. Teagarden or the NRC, of the subset of MACCS-2 inputs, I mean how many values, how much data is input to MACCS-2, I mean, and what does this represent as a subset of all that information? Rough number. I mean is it five
percent, one percent, two percent? DR. BIXLER: I'm not sure if I know the
answer to that, but there are certainly hundreds of input parameters. Some of them, though, are connected with atmospheric dispersion and deposition processes. MACCS-2 is designed in a very flexible way, so that a lot of the input parameters can be specified or modified by the user, so that as better information becomes available, you don't have to reprogram the code. You just change the input parameters and the
Page 2056 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
input file. But those are -- there are a large number of ATMOS parameters. In addition to the parameters I
just mentioned, the source term parameters come in through ATMOS as well, and there are a large number or potentially could be a large number of those. Then there's another subset of variables that go with the early module of the code. fairly large set as well. That's a
I think the total set of
input parameters that come in through input files is on the order of hundreds, several hundred probably. Then in addition to that, there's a meteorological data file. It has on the order of more There's also a site
than 10,000 data points in it. file.
The site file specifically contains siteIt has population numbers, it
specific information.
has land use values, and it has economic values. Those are all calculated and tailored specifically to the site, and it has the largest number of highly site-specific values in it, compared with what's in the input file itself. DR. O'KULA: the applicant. Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for
To supplement Dr. Bixler's discussion,
if we could refer to Entergy 450, and on page 29, Figure 2. I believe this gives appropriate context
Page 2057 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for the models that are run, and to speak to Dr. Bixler's information, the CHRONC input is one of three input blocks, where the user has -- user input parameters are entered. That would be the seven oval down on the left side, and so that's where the decontamination and economic model is performed inside of CHRONC. Just
for filling in the information, ATMOS would do the atmospheric transport and dispersion part of the analysis, and has the appropriate set of data in terms of the meteorological data for Indian Point, and the appropriate dose conversion and decay chain data. Early, handles the early phase of dose calculation and effects, consequences, and you also see the dose conversion factors are addressed in early, as well as also come into play in the long-term aspect of the calculation in CHRONC. Site data is
actually used in both the early or the acute phase of the analysis, within the first, customarily the first seven days of the analysis. Then the final wrap-up is over the longterm, the period of time that's at issue with New York State 12C, and that is in CHRONC. COMIDA, just for
the point of completion, is the food model, the food ingestion model.
Page 2058 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
much. But I would, to complement Dr. Bixler's discussion, the range of parameters that we're talking about, I believe, is on the order of a percent of two in the grand scheme of things. JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you very
I think the next place the Board wanted to go
is to understand what Sample Problem A means in this context, and I guess I'll start with Entergy again, since that's where I was before. others that we should hear from. MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes, Your Honor. We NUREGBut there may be
appreciate the opportunity to clarify this.
1150, as we've stated our values for Entergy have NUREG-1150 as their bases, published in 1990. The
MACCS-2 users manual, published in 1998, has a sample problem A that's included. problems. Sample Problem A happens to be one of the more complete sample problems running, you know, more of all the modules and things of that nature. The No It has a number of sample
values that Entergy used are based on NUREG-1150.
they also happen to be reflected in Sample Problem A. New York State testimony has inferred, implied that Entergy simply used Sample Problem A, and if I may just characterize, almost without thinking.
Page 2059 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
We do Sample Problem A values without thinking, and that's not the case. You know, a conscious choice was
made to use the inputs available from NUREG-1150. We believe those are the best inputs. know of no technically superior inputs to use. It We
just so happens that eight years later, some of those inputs, and it happens to be for the Surry plant, were incorporated into a sample problem that's distributed with the code. So yes. You know, there may be some times
when folks will reference or talk about Sample Problem A as a MACCS analyst. But we're not saying that the
bases of these particular values are just some random bases that were put together in a sample problem. sample problem reflects values from NUREG-1150. Entergy analysis used values from NUREG-1150. It should therefore be no surprise that the values have, are similar, where they are appropriately similar if they're based on NUREG-1150. JUDGE KENNEDY: Sample Problem A? What's the purpose of The The
You said it was part of the users
manual or input manual? MR. TEAGARDEN: code, you know. It's distributed with the
When you get a new code and you
install it on your computer and you want to run a
Page 2060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
flexibility. sample problem; you want to see if the installation process functions properly. So when we install MACCS on a new computer, we run Sample Problem A. We check the
output against tabulated output in the users manual, to confirm that everything is running as expected. That's how I use Sample Problem A. JUDGE KENNEDY: MR. TEAGARDEN: To test out the code? Just to verify proper
installation of the code on a particular computer. DR. O'KULA: the applicant. Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for
I should supplement Mr. Teagarden's
description with respect to the fact that Sample Problem A, as reflective of the inputs from NUREG1150, offers a full exercise of the code in all its modules. As Dr. Bixler indicated, the user has many freedoms inside the code as far as what modules to run. We could, as the figure shows, we could stop the
analysis at ATMOS once we have a dispersion and we want to make some inferences from just the dispersion model, without going into full consequence or SAMAtype output. We could stop it there. So the point is that the user has complete So in a way, this particular problem
Page 2061 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
set, as an input case, was a fully representative case that was added to not only demonstrate that the code would be functional on the users platform or PC, but also would exercise all attributes of the code, data sets, particular food model choices. Not limited in any way, but a range, a representative problem, fully exercising the complete capabilities of the code. JUDGE KENNEDY: care to respond? JUDGE WARDWELL: Mr. Teagarden, how many Thank you. Anyone else
SAMAs have you performed for Entergy? MR. TEAGARDEN: SAMAs for Entergy. I have not performed any I have
Yeah, I'm making sure.
performed ten SAMAs for other utilities, for ten different sites, as well as have used MACCS for a variety of other purposes, in support of reactor vendors, doing consequence analysis for reactor vendors and other clients. JUDGE WARDWELL: And maybe I'll ask Dr.
O'Kula, how many SAMAs for Entergy have you been involved with? DR. O'KULA: the applicant. Your Honor, Kevin O'Kula for
I've supported review or analysis to
some degree of two SAMA license renewal application
Page 2062 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
matters. This one, and also for Pilgrim, and then in
addition to other utilities, there have been four other SAMA-related proceedings that I've supported. JUDGE WARDWELL: you been involved with? MS. POTTS: Your Honor, I've been involved Ms. Potts, how many have
in all of Entergy's SAMA analyses. JUDGE WARDWELL: with you, shouldn't I? MS. POTTS: Yes. I have managed and I should have started
reviewed all of the ones that we have done so far. JUDGE WARDWELL: What I should have done
is re-read your CVs beforehand, to refresh my memory on everyone. MS. POTTS: different units. JUDGE WARDWELL: them used Sample Problem A? MS. POTTS: Your Honor, all of them used Of those, how many of I believe that's nine
the 1150 values that we've been discussing, that are also used in Sample Problem A. JUDGE WARDWELL: For Indian Point, are --
were there any parameters that were specifically used at Indian Point, that were modified from 1150, to better reflect the conditions at Indian Point, in the
Page 2063 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
clarify. Sample Problem A area? I know there are some very
site-specific of the many inputs that are used in MACCS. But of those that are associated with Sample Problem A 1150 values, were any of those parameters changed to be specific, that the conditions that Indian Point indicated to you that they needed some modification? I knew I could confuse you. Yes. I'm not sure I
MS. POTTS: understand the question.
JUDGE WARDWELL:
You've used Sample -- so
I don't step on your toes again, I'll continue to use 1150 as a representation of those Sample Problem A's being the same, but we'll call them 1150 values. all of the SAMAs for Entergy, have you changed or modified any of those parameters when you were implementing them for Indian Point? MS. POTTS: The only change that we made At
was that scaling using the Consumer Price Index that we talked about. JUDGE WARDWELL: exclusive of that. MS. POTTS: Yes. Your Honor, if I may Exclusive of that,
MR. TEAGARDEN:
Earlier, I presented a list of how Indian
Page 2064 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Point's SAMA analysis was site-specific. All of those
aspects are part of Sample Problem A, population distribution, meteorological files, things that we've all alluded to. So when we -- Sample Problem A is not just the CHRONC input file. It consists of all the input
files of the early input file, the ATMOS input file and the site input file, and Indian Point, as every other I think SAMA applicant that I'm familiar with, puts in site-specific values in all of those locations, to make the SAMA analysis site-specific. JUDGE WARDWELL: Right, and so yeah. You're not
Confusing maybe brought me back again.
saying that the population distribution is the same for all those, that you're saying just the opposite? MR. TEAGARDEN: That's correct, just the
opposite, that everyone uses their own population distribution. But if you go to Sample Problem A,
there is a population distribution that's included. Every one who performs a SAMA uses their own sitespecific population distribution. JUDGE WARDWELL: So what others of those
of Sample Problem A or 1150, like the population distribution, and maybe it's just a repetitiveness of what you said earlier. But that's fine; we've got to
Page 2065 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
analyses. go through it again to make sure on the record it's specific towards Sample Problem A. Sure. The meteorology, so
MR. TEAGARDEN: the meteorological file.
Entergy did not use what They used site-specific
would be in Sample Problem A. data.
The population distribution would not match It is specific to Indian Point.
Sample Problem A.
The PRA plant design, in terms of accident frequencies and failure modes that are used as part of the SAMA analysis, those would not be particular to Sample Problem A. That would be on the front end.
There are aspects, though, in terms of the source term that's associated with that, and that is the release category, the defined release. That is specific to Indian Point. In
fact, it's specific between Indian Point Unit 2, and it's different for Indian Point Unit 3. site-specific. So those are
Now you could go to Sample Problem A,
and they would have values that were used for that. But no one uses those for their SAMA You want it plant-specific, and Entergy is The land economic data would be
plant-specific. another one.
Sample Problem A has -- Sample Problem A happens to have Surry land information in it. Indian
Page 2066 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Point did not use Surry land information. They
updated it with site-specific, regional-specific economic data for the value of land and property. And the land use, about what percentage of land in a given cell is farmland versus non-farmland, that's site-specific. There was also some very minute
issues on what we would say is like a watershed index, which we haven't brought up. Another little element in that is for plants that you can say whether the particular water surrounding a plant is a river system or like an ocean system or a lake system. In general, the guidance is you only apply the lake system for like the Great Lakes, a very large body of water. So for instance, the design on plant
would have a different set of inputs for the water that's around the plant than Surry would and then Indian Point does. Each one is site-specific, using the land, you know, look at the land surrounding the reactor site. So in all of those ways, the Indian Point
analysis has no reflection, no consistency with, no dependence upon Sample Problem A, or upon NUREG-1150. JUDGE WARDWELL: Ms. Potts, of those
others, exclusive of the list we just went through and
Page 2067 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
with the description of generalities and a few other minor ones that are in there that weren't specifically called out, is there anywhere a description of a review that you may have performed, "you" being Entergy, that looked at the other Sample Problem A parameters, and made a conscientious decision that yes, they are either appropriate default values or saw the number and said yes, that number does apply to Indian Point? Or had you just taken them, exclusive of those very obvious ones that are site-related, as summarized, and brought the rest of them in without thinking? MS. POTTS: the question right. Okay. Let me make sure I got
You're asking if those values
that we used from NUREG-1150 and only escalated using the CPI, those values, did we do a review of their origin -JUDGE WARDWELL: Not as deep as that. I'm
You're getting to the right idea, though.
thinking a more casual but yet a conscientious consideration of those other parameters, and said yeah, they are just as good as we got for Indian Point? MS. POTTS: Well, I'm confident that the
Page 2068 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that. analysts that did it looked at the reasonableness of them. I don't believe I can point to it written down
and a review that they did. JUDGE WARDWELL: requirement for that. Not necessarily a
I just wondered if there was
one that we could refer to, that will help comfort us, that some consideration of this went in for adopting that, besides the fact that everyone else has done it before. MS. POTTS: Right. Because I think as we see
JUDGE WARDWELL:
with your contamination costs for non-farm, maybe it's gone through a number of evolutions and just been used, so everyone else uses it, and hey, everyone points to the other person saying well, they've used it, so I'm using it. I was looking for something more than just That isn't good, but there's something more. MS. POTTS: Yeah, there is. The analysts
and reviewers like myself looked to see if it passes the smell test, if you will, you know, some values that Mr. Teagarden quoted earlier about how much it would cost to decontaminate a household of four, or a house apartment of 200. You know, we look at those things. But as
Page 2069 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
offer. far as having it written down that we did that, I don't believe it's written anywhere. understood that you do that. JUDGE WARDWELL: MR. TEAGARDEN: Okay. Your Honor, if I could It's just
I think what would typify a thoughtless use of
Sample Problem A would have been if an individual used the values, say, for cost of non-decontamination without escalating them. You know, that shows a blind
use that says I just picked out this value and sample problem. way. You know, the fact that these values are reviewed, and that they say okay, you know, these values represent some particular date and time. They I left it as it was, and I went on my merry
are judged to have applicability across, you know, reactor plants and sites, and now I need to escalate them appropriately for my site-specific analysis. So I think if, you know, that would be a smoking gun, so to speak, of a thoughtless use of Sample Problem A, and I did not find anything like that when we reviewed the analysis. JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE McDADE: Thank you. But Dr. Lemay would suggest
that in addition to adjusting for inflation over time
Page 2070 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
through 2005, you should have also adjusted for the significant difference between the land uses and land values, and population employment in rural Virginia, as opposed to urban New York. MR. TEAGARDEN: Well, the depiction of
rural Virginia would apply if that value was only applied for rural Virginia. But the values for NUREG-
1150, for that particular POPCST, applied to all five of the NUREG-1150 sites. So you know, it wasn't
viewed as specific to a rural environment. And in conjunction with like land, land values are site-specific. They're incorporated in
with regional-specific data, the county data for Indian Point. So you know, those aspects are all
appropriately reflective of the Indian Point context, and the 50-mile region surrounding Indian Point. MR. O'NEILL: Your Honor, excuse me.
Mario O'Neill for the applicant. JUDGE McDADE: MR. O'NEILL: I'm sorry, yes. If I may? Sorry. I
apologize for the interruption, but I think Ms. Potts' instincts may be correct. I think, or are correct.
She may have Entergy Exhibit 460 in mind, which is an RAI response. I would refer the Board and the parties to page 37 of 59. It does contain some discussion of
Page 2071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
460? MR. O'NEILL: Yes, 460. It's a letter NUREG-1150, as well as 4551. JUDGE McDADE: That was Entergy Exhibit
entitled "NL 08-028," page 37 of 59. JUDGE WARDWELL: anything to add? Dr. Lemay, do you have
Earlier, right after the recess, you Didn't suggest it, but you
suggested we move on.
offered that in regards to addressing the contamination costs associated with non-farmland and the TIMDEC parameter as the ones that are really significant. Do you feel a need -- well, do you have any comments in regard to the use of Sample Problem A/1150, whichever you want to call it? Do you think
that in fact it would be productive to pursue that avenue, in regards to whether or not Entergy should show that there is actually a net difference, not necessarily in the cost, but in the cost-benefit ratio when you actually subtract the differences of the dose exposures and then divide it into the cost? Yeah, divide it into the cost of the mitigation, which would result in the SAMA anyhow? Would Sample Problem
A bear any fruit in regards to pursuing that for -DR. LEMAY: Francois Lemay for the State
Page 2072 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
analysis. of New York. When we do a safety analysis, any safety
analysis, and I would qualify the SAMA analysis as a safety analysis, we're normally required to conduct a sensitivity analysis, to identify the critical parameters that must be scrutinized. Then we need to justify in our report why we believe that the sensitive value, the value that affect the most the output, are correct. It is part
of the standard procedure, and whether we believe that some value taken from the literature is correct, we need to go through that process. I believe that Entergy does that for the Level 1 and Level 2 PRA. JUDGE WARDWELL: But this isn't a safety
The plant has been designed to be safe; at
least they've presented it, and that's not the contention here, even if -DR. LEMAY: No, but the standards of
calculating these things, I would say, are the same as for -- you want to make sure that the numbers that come out of the end of the code are meaningful, and that if you've made a mistake by 20 percent of the run value, you're not going to get a 200 percent error of the output. JUDGE WARDWELL: Do you have any evidence
Page 2073 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
him. page 42. JUDGE WARDWELL: Let's see if I can beat minute. to indicate that besides the parameters you focused on, there are any other of those parameters in Sample Problem A that would lead to large differences in the resulting cost? DR. LEMAY: In our report, Exhibit New
York State 242, in Annex B page -JUDGE WARDWELL: Bear with me for a
I've got the 242, and would you like this Would this be worthwhile. DR. LEMAY: Please. If you can scroll to
pulled up?
I can't read the page numbers. DR. LEMAY: So what we did is we listed
all the input parameters for CHRONC, and then what we did is a sensitivity analysis for all these input parameters. If you go to page 44, you will see the
ranking of these parameters. So the first column shows the input parameter that we changed by ten percent, and we chose ten percent because it's a meaningful change, but it doesn't -- you don't end up in a non-linear region of the code. We have the Entergy value. We had the
Entergy value plus ten percent.
We had the new cost
of the OEC, and we calculated the difference in
Page 2074 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
percent. That gave us a ranking of how sensitive the output was to a change in these input parameters. That's how we focused, we ended up focusing on a few parameters that are listed, that are highlighted in yellow. Now this is not something I invented. This
is normal procedure. JUDGE WARDWELL: Problem A has more of these. parameters? I'm sorry. DR. LEMAY: Some of the input values are Certainly, the Sample How did you select these
not amenable to -- well, the number of radionuclides in the water ingestion. We're not going to change the
number of radionuclides in the water. JUDGE WARDWELL: You made some
professional judgements and selected those that you thought might be -DR. LEMAY: Well, I don't want to change
the nature of the problem, and I don't want to change physical constants of nature. So I selected
parameters that could be reasonably changed. JUDGE WARDWELL: And out of those, why did
you select, TIMDEC and the CDNRFM (sic) as the two that you focused on, when in fact there was others there that had a larger change, TMPACT and --
Page 2075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
exercise. focus? DR. LEMAY: Well, this was our screening
We had to first say well, where should we
Then we went through a second phase, where we
looked at the value that Entergy used. We looked at where it came from. We
looked at the explanation for the value, and if the explanation sounds reasonable, can be applied to the site of Indian Point, we said well, we think it's good. If the value had no explanation, then we had to dig a bit further and try to see if it's reasonable. So we ended up narrowing down to two
places where we don't have a very good explanation, and we don't have a very good basis for this value. I'll just remind you that NEI, that I quoted at the very beginning, requires you to describe the basis for your value. took that from 1150. than that. So once we realized that some of the values had no basis, we had to create our own basis, and do the benchmarking exercise and see does it fit. Does it seem reasonable? JUDGE WARDWELL: Thank you. Entergy, I don't think they meant we
I think they meant a little more
would you like to respond to that, to with regards to
Page 2076 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
data. that testimony? MR. TEAGARDEN: Yes. As has been noted,
a SAMA analysis is not a safety analysis, and the industry has guidance for performing sensitivity evaluations. The sensitivity evaluations focus on This guidance is in the NEI
site-specific aspects.
05-01 guidance that's been endorsed by the NRC. So it will say, you know, evaluate multiple years of weather data, to demonstrate that the year of weather data used as your base case is representative, and you know, the idea is that you don't end up with an El Nino year for some base case that's not representative of what the typical year's worth, other year's worth of weather data are. So Entergy evaluated five years of weather That's more than I usually evaluate. I usually
evaluate three.
They evaluated five years of weather
data, and they took the year of weather data that gave them the largest values for off-site dose risk and off -- I'm sorry, off-site population dose risk and cost risk, adding a measure of conservatism. So they
performed that, those rounds of sensitivity analysis. They also, NUREG, I'm sorry, NEI 05-01 specifies that you evaluate, you know, the impact of evacuation assumptions. So and generally, when I'm
Page 2077 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
doing this for other clients, I'll increase my evacuation speed. I'll change the delay to
evacuation, just to see how much do the evacuation parameters, site-specific parameters, impact the analysis. Now for Indian Point's case, they chose, once again, a conservative approach to the modeling, where they didn't take credit for all their evacuation plans. And so that in and of itself, you know, they
could have performed, I suppose, a sensitivity analysis, to see how much the numbers would have decreased had they incorporated emergency planning into the modeling. But you know, the NRC was satisfied that what they did represents a conservative bias, even though this was intended to be a best estimate analysis. So you know, once again they performed the Let me see if there's any
requisite sensitivity case.
-- as part of Contention for New York State 16, we'll discuss population sensitivity cases. But that wasn't
performed as part of the original submittal. But the industry guidance just suggests a few areas where, based on previous analyses, the NRC review of previous analyses, they recognize that these particular parameters are of interest. They are
Page 2078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
plant-specific parameters, and those are the ones that are conducted. So you know, some of this just may stem from the different types of analyses that are in view here, one of a safety analysis, with you know, maybe bounding or conservative, you know, lines of thought, versus a SAMA analysis, which is oriented to be a best estimate. We're looking at, you know, inputs that are site-specific and making sure that they make sense, and understand what those particular impacts would be in terms of a sensitivity analysis. JUDGE WARDWELL: MR. TEAGARDEN: sensitivity case. JUDGE WARDWELL: withstand a void. I knew no one could I was Thank you. Your Honor, I forgot one
Someone wants to fill it.
going to bet on counsel table, but I did not expect you, Mr. Teagarden. fill that void. MR. TEAGARDEN: I did discuss it earlier, But I figured someone's going to
but I should note it under this topic, and that was the sensitivity analysis that they performed on the economic impacts, where they did, in addition to tangible property values, they did a sensitivity
Page 2079 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
analysis on effect on tourism and lost business income. Then they included that into their base case analysis by just adding the two numbers together. So that's another very pertinent sensitivity case that was performed. They incorporated the results of that
sensitivity case in a manner that adds some conservatism to the overall results. JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE McDADE: Thank you. We're going to be starting
to get into a new area here, and it may be appropriate, rather than get started at this hour, to break until tomorrow morning to do that. Before I did
break, I did want to ask Mr. O'Neill had referenced Exhibit 460. Ms. Potts, was there anything about
Exhibit 460, that letter from Mr. Dacimo, that you wanted to address? that. MS. POTTS: It's page 37 and 38. 37. This is a response to a I believe he addressed page 57 of
JUDGE McDADE: MS. POTTS:
Yes.
question from the NRC during their review, about the values that we've been discussing today, the ones that we took and used the NUREG-1150 values and escalated them up. I guess I said it's not written down that we
Page 2080 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
repeat that? screen. JUDGE WARDWELL: If you can just scroll down. MS. POTTS: Page 37 here, further down. Is that where you're trying Scroll down a little bit. looked at these, but this discussion is -JUDGE McDADE: the exhibit up? JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE McDADE: JUDGE WARDWELL: Yes. Entergy 460, page 37. The discussion of which Would it be helpful to pull
would likely bring us to past six o'clock. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. We have it up on the
JUDGE McDADE:
to address, this response to SAMA RAI 4F? MS. POTTS: Yes, that's correct. This
discussion is reiterating a lot of what we said earlier today, that the key input data from NUREG-1150 was judged by us to be applicable to the Indian Point SAMA analysis. JUDGE McDADE: next page or -MS. POTTS: Yes. It just confirms that Should we roll over to the
our escalation, using the Consumer Price Index. JUDGE McDADE: I'm sorry. Could you
Id didn't hear you.
Page 2081 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
moment? MS. POTTS: Yes. It just confirms our
escalation of the values, using the Consumer Price Indices. JUDGE McDADE: Is there anything else with
regard to this particular document that you would like us to focus on, Ms. Potts? MS. POTTS: Not at this time, no. Judge Kennedy, anything
JUDGE McDADE: further before we break? JUDGE KENNEDY: JUDGE McDADE:
No, I'm good. Judge Wardwell? As I said,
it may be appropriate for us to break at this point. It's about 5:35. Mr. Sipos, do you have anything to
take up this evening before we break? MR. SIPOS: Your Honor, may I have one
No, Your Honor, not at this time. JUDGE McDADE: MS. SUTTON: JUDGE McDADE: MR. HARRIS: Ms. Sutton? Nothing further, Your Honor. Mr. Turk? Nothing further, Your Honor.
This is Brian Harris for the staff. MR. MUSEGAAS: I'm sorry. For Just a quick
Riverkeeper, this is Phillip Musegaas.
note that Riverkeeper did file the revised exhibit list, and the exhibits that we referenced in this
Page 2082 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sutton. morning's testimony via the EIE a little earlier today. So that has been filed. JUDGE McDADE: Okay, thank you. Anything
further from Clearwater before we break for the evening? MS. GREENE: you, Your Honor. MS. SUTTON: Your Honor, this is Kathryn Should we in fact have Nothing additional. Thank
One other question.
our land value experts on hot standby for tomorrow, New York 17? MR. SIPOS: That would be New York 17. Yes. I mean let me consult
JUDGE McDADE:
with my colleagues, and we will send you an email directly with regard to that. I am very hopeful that
we would be able to get to New York 16 and 17 tomorrow. We have a, you know, witnesses who will
testify on both, and it would be wonderful if we would be able to get them in and get them out. So I'm reluctant to call off the latter at this point, but let me consult with my colleagues, see how long we think it's going to, our best estimate as far as finishing up on New York 12, and then we, as I said, we will give you an email this evening, you know, as soon as possible.

Thank you. (Whereupon, at 5:36 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene on Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.) Honor. JUDGE McDADE: Okay. We are in recess. MS. SUTTON: Thank you very much, Your
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Proceeding:
Entergy Nuclear Operations
Docket Number: 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR ASLBP Number: Location: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Tarrytown, New York
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my direction and that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.
----------------------Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

IndianPointTranscript of Oct 17 2012

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IndianPointTranscript of Oct 17 2012

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Page 1780 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

---------------------------------x 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Page 1781 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

(212) 416-8459 (Dean) (212) 416-8482 (Liberatore)

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Page 1784 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Page 1786 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

MR. BESSETTE: applicant, Your Honor.

No objections to the consent order as

we will enter the order today. the EIE.

Riverkeeper exhibits. the other parties.

They were to be furnished to

Has that been accomplished? This is Brad Fagg for the

MR. FAGG: applicant, Your Honor.

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

JUDGE McDADE: MR. FAGG:

there are three documents.

There are the two that we

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

half days into the hearing. have these documents.

Again, our folks only had the

But, with respect, we think enough

There has been no showing of excuse or

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Well, as I understand it from

are very voluminous documents.

haven't had a chance to review every page of this,

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

And what I am predisposed to doing

But if it appears from the documents

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

JUDGE McDADE: MR. SIPOS:

This is John Sipos.

Now, before we get -- yesterday we

indicated that we are going to allow interrogation of

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

these lengthy proceedings.

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

If you believe that something that your

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

in developing the record to allow that opportunity to

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

I had one additional follow-up

either of you or if there is a more appropriate

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

facilities for still doing work in this area.

their model was the basis for what we have done.

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

The current version is called

And B is from the late Dr. Michel

You pronounced the name

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Ray Kuyler for the applicant.

Yes, Your Honor. All right. Thank you.

JUDGE WARDWELL: JUDGE KENNEDY:

Using this figure, could

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc. 202-234-4433

Could there be other things with