The People’s Advocate for Safe Energy Since 1971
Fourth & Final In This Series of
Daily Reports:
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Looks at VY Issues
Thursday July 24, 2008
It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over
The NRC adjudicatory hearing on Entergy Vermont Yankee’s 20-year license renewal application ended today with a more of a whimper than a bang. At the end of Thursday, Judge Karlin promised a decision on the two year legal battle between NEC & ENVY “within 180 days.”
So it will be December or possibly January before the Atomic Safety & Licensing Boards decides whether or not Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee can
- Detect fatigue flaws and prevent damage to vital reactor components
- Predict and remedy cracking in the reactor steam dryer
- Predict, detect & correct flow accelerated erosion/corrosion in major & minor plant piping
and whether or not ENVY should be issued a 20-year extension of its
current 40-year license which is now set to expire midnight, March 21st of
2012.
Judge Karlin set the tone for the morning session of hearings when he pointed out the wording the staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER) was identical, verbatim, with that in the ENVY application, and said Karlin, we have references to one report (on flow acceleration corrosion programs) which in turn references another, and that one another – all with no specifics, no technical details. Karlin characterized the reports as “empty boxes” and as similar to “nested Russian dolls.” “Where’s the beef” he asked.
NEC’s encouragement of the judge’s aggressive attitude was short-lived – as the day wore the ASLB judges awarded hour after hour to NRC and Entergy witnesses encouraging them to elaborate and pontificate; often offering second-hand, unsubstantiated opinions as if the opinions were facts. NEC witnesses were however offered relatively little opportunity to explain the rational behind their own previously filed written testimony.
In one instance, NEC’s attorney Karen Tyler, found it necessary to confront judges who were badgering NEC expert witness Dr. Joram Hopenfeld, a former nuclear engineer & researcher with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Atomic Energy Commission. Judge Wardwell, repeatedly interrupted Dr. Hopenfeld’s response to questions with new questions and challenges for Dr. Hopenfeld’s sources and references.
Through
the day, however, the judges drew out admissions from Entergy witnesses that
programs proposed to manage the thinning of piping due to high velocity (steam)
flow were not uniformly applied and could not predict all kinds and plant locations
of piping failures. At the end of the day Entergy witness, Dr. Jeffery Horowitz
admitted that use of the FAC computer program used at Vermont Yankee would not
have predicted piping failures that occurred at the Mihama Nuclear Power plant
in
Also remaining to be decided are two legal issues brought to the ASLB by NEC:
- whether a license renewal could be issued based on licensee claims to be following NRC guidance – and –
- Whether it was legal to issue a license based on future “commitments” when a proceeding was underway. NRC staff has approved (pending Commission approval) a license renewal with more than 50 commitments to do analysis or perform inspections and other tasks after license issuance.
The parties have filed legal briefs on these questions and may be required to provide oral argument in the summer (August 7th, 9:00 a.m., Conference Room, NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD).
In the meanwhile, legal briefs and reply briefs will be filed by September.
Turning
from the Federal trial in Newfane to the
A “ONE-TWO
PUNCH”
On the last day of license renewal proceedings before the NRC
ASLB, Raymond Shadis, Consultant to NEC, turned his attention from helping to
case manage & support the NEC federal trial team to filing a “Petition for
Leave to Intervene” on ENVY license renewal before the Vermont Public Service
Board. NEC will not be nearly so hemmed-in on issues it can raise as it was in
the NRC proceeding, said Shadis. “Nearly all license renewal issues should be
on the table.” NEC is scrambling to find
funds to finance the case and an attorney or Pro Se Representative to represent the organization. Proceedings
begin the first week in August.
An excerpt from the “Petition
for Leave to Intervene”
filed today (Thursday July 25, 2008) with the Vermont Public
Service Board;
Since 1971, NEC’s purpose has been to oppose nuclear hazards, and advocate for increased safety and more effective regulation of existing nuclear power plants, and the development of sustainable energy alternatives to nuclear power.
NEC has numerous members who reside in Vermont Yankee’s
immediate vicinity, who are electric customers in
On behalf of its members, NEC is interested in a comprehensive evaluation of all information concerning the reliability of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and the likelihood that failure of plant components under the stress of extended operation could result in derates that will eventually increase electricity costs to Vermont ratepayers
NEC is also concerned that Vermont Yankee operation in
excess of component design life may increased the risk, and with it the
financial risk of severe plant accidents. Among the many financial risks are
the potential costs of reduced property values, dislocation, reduction of
quality of life, increased healthcare costs, the loss of market value of forest
and farm products, losses to tourism and outdoor sports industries, and the
denial of land use for agriculture and habitation.
NEC is also interested in a full consideration of any
potential mitigation and/or modification strategies to address the increased
risks associated with operation beyond component design life.
Further, NEC is deeply concerned with recent events, such as
cooling tower failures, sticking turbine stop valves, and condenser in-leakage
which appear to be both age-related and maintenance related failures.
NEC’s interest in, and ability
to contribute to, the Board’s
consideration of such Vermont Yankee performance matters is well established
through NEC’s admittance and participation
in recent years as an intervener in Public Service Board Dockets 6545,
6812, 6812-A, 7
-- End of Thursday Report --
Third in a Series of
Daily Reports:
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Looks at VY Issues
Wednesday July 23, 2
Feds Ponder Steam Dryer
Attorneys predict case could wrap-up tomorrow.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board summoned to
The massive 2
Can the heavy sheet steel withstand constant buffeting and 4
It has happened elsewhere within a year or two of power reactors, built just like Vermont Yankee ramping up to extended power uprates heat and flow levels. At the Quad Cities plant within a year of uprate, the steam dryer failed shredding a strip of heavy steel into one of its main steam lines.
USNRC gamely admits that while the steam dryer itself is “not safety related”, it could “shred parts to impact safety related components” --- you think?
During a solid eight hours of questioning judges tried to
sort out the intent and capability of Vermont Yankee’s inspection &
monitoring program. “Does it predict or detect cracking in the steam dryer? asked Panel Chair, Judge Alex Karlin.
Currently Vermont Yankee shuts down for refueling every eighteen months. The company is obliged to inspect the steam dryer during each of the next three refuelings
under the terms of an agreement stemming from the uprate application.
Tomorrow – Day four – July 24, 2
-- End of Wednesday Report --
Second in a Series of
Daily Reports:
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Looks at VY Issues
Tuesday July 22, 2
The three member Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board convened promptly at 8:3
The witnesses, Mr. Thayer for NRC staff, Gary L. Stevens and
James A. Fitzpatrick for Entergy and Dr. Joram (Joe) Hopenfeld, for NEC mixed
it up regarding the meaning and derivation of CUF-cumulative u
At the end of the day, the judges took up several additional or follow-up questions posed by the parties; questioning sharply for example on exactly what changes in plant operating parameters or transients Entergy considered sufficiently large to be included in Entergy’s fatigue calculations. The Board took NRC staff to task for accepting Entergy “commitments” to do analysis later rather than to require it in advance of giving Entergy a passing grade on its license renewal application. Judge Alex Karlin pointedly asked “Just where does this leave the public’s hearing rights? Where indeed –
Finally, the Board ruled that the testimony of NRC’s lead witness, Dr. Kenneth Chang would be admitted despite the fact that Dr. Change would not be available for questioning. NRC staff waited until virtually the last minute to inform parties that Dr. Change has suddenly retired due to illness.
The action continues tomorrow, Thursday and possibly into
Friday – beginning each day at 8:3
A 2
-- End of Tuesdays Report --
First in a Series of
Daily Reports:
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Looks at VY Issues
Monday July 21, 2
Opening
statements were heard today in a trial that marks a climax in
A three judge Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel started the trial by considering an array of troubling procedural concerns – all it seems weighing against the Coalitions case.
(1) A list of questions for the judges to ask witnesses proposed by the Coalition, was supposed to be kept secret, but was instead published on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s web site – giving, NEC’s opponents, NRC Staff and Entergy a decidedly unfair advantage. The judges decided it was simply too bad & offered nothing (no action) to compensate.
(2) The NRC Staff’s lead witness Dr. Kenneth Chang, lead NRC reviewer of Entergy’s license renewal application was absent from the proceeding – not available to answer judge’s questions due to sudden illness & equally sudden “retirement”. In as much as some of Dr. Chang’s testimony supported NEC positions, NEC objected – to what effect remains to be seen.
(3) Judges refused NEC’s request to be allowed some time (even equal time) to rebut a planned power point presentation by an Entergy witness.
(4) NEC asked the judges to allow lead NEC witness Dr. Joram Hopenfeld to illustrate his answers with slides of tables, equations, and graphs drawn from admitted testimony – denied.
(5) Tables comparing various NRC guidance documents prepared and distributed to the parties by Entergy last minute – admitted.
Short shrift for the people and NEC on hearing rights.
The panel of judges, Dr. William Reed, former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Judge Alex Karlin, former environmental lawyer, and Dr. Richard Wardell, formerly with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, moved next to the first of three NEC contentions and spent the remainder of the afternoon questioning NRC staff & Entergy “expert” witness about Entergy methods and plans to evaluate metal fatigue in reactor components: How many times in the life of a nuclear reactor can metal components be heated, then cooled, put under enormous pressure & flow – and then none – before they break???
Tomorrow, 8:3
Hearings are projected to continue through Friday. Open for
public observation from 8:3
The
state of
– End of Monday Report –