ML14266A123
| ML14266A123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/2014 |
| From: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| To: | |
| Klett A DORL/LPL2-2 301-415-0489 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14202A521 | List:
|
| References | |
| 2.206, LTR-14-0412-1, NRC-1045 | |
| Download: ML14266A123 (50) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
10 CFR 2.206 Petition Review Board RE Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Docket Number:
05000250 and 05000251 Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Work Order No.:
NRC-1045 Pages 1-50 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 10 CFR 2.206 PETITION REVIEW BOARD (PRB) 4 CONFERENCE CALL 5
RE 6
TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT 7
+ + + + +
8 WEDNESDAY 9
SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 10
+ + + + +
11 The conference call was held, Scott Morris, 12 Chairperson of the Petition Review Board, presiding.
13 14 PETITIONER: THOMAS SAPORITO 15 PETITION REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS 16 SCOTT MORRIS, Director of the Division of 17 Inspection and Regional Support, NRR 18 AUDREY KLETT, Petition Manager, Division of 19 Operating Reactor Licensing 20 MERRILEE BANIC, Petition Coordinator 21 GREG CASTO, Division of Safety 22 ROBERT CARPENTER, Enforcement Specialist, Office 23 of Enforcement 24 ALEX CHERESKIN, Division of Operating Reactor 25
2 1
Licensing 2
JAMES MALTESE, Office of the General Counsel 3
LISA
- REGNER, Division of Operating Reactor 4
Licensing 5
6 REGION II STAFF 7
SHANE SANDAL, Branch III, Division of Reactor 8
Projects, Region II 9
10 NRC HEADQUARTERS STAFF 11 Office of the Inspector 12 General 13
, Office of the Inspector General 14 MARGARET WATFORD, NRR 15 16 LICENSEE STAFF 17 WILLIAM BLAIR 18 STEVEN HAMRICK 19 ROBERT TOMONTO 20 21 ALSO PRESENT 22 CHARLES REHWINKEL 23 24 (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
3:02 2
p.m.
3 MS. KLETT: Okay. Welcome and thank you, 4
everybody, for attending. Again, my name is Audrey 5
Klett, and I am the NRC Project Manager for Turkey Point.
6 The purpose of this meeting is for the petitioner, Mr.
7 Thomas Saporito, to address the NRC's Petition Review 8
Board, or PRB, per his request regarding his petition 9
dated July 18th, 2014.
10 This meeting is scheduled from 3 p.m. to 11 about 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time to allow the petitioner one 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to address the PRB. The meeting is being recorded 13 by the NRC Operations Center and will be transcribed by 14 a court reporter. The transcript will become a 15 supplement to the petition and will be made publicly 16 available.
17 At this time, the people present at this 18 meeting at NRC headquarters will introduce themselves.
19 As we go around the room, please be sure to clearly state 20 your name, your position, and the NRC office that you 21 work for or that you work in for the record.
22 And I'll begin. Again, my name is Audrey 23 Klett. My last name is spelled K-L-E-T-T. I'm the NRC 24 Project Manager for Turkey Point in the NRC's Division 25
4 1
of Operating Reactor Licensing.
I am also the petition 2
manager for this petition.
3 MR. MORRIS:
And I'm Scott Morris.
I'm 4
the Director of the Division of Inspection and Regional 5
Support in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and 6
I'm the Petition Review Board Chairman.
7 MR.
CHERESKIN:
I'm Alex Chereskin from 8
the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing.
9 MS. REGNER:
Lisa Regner, Branch Chief, 10 Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing.
11 MR.
CARPENTER:
Robert Carpenter, 12 Enforcement Specialist in the Office of Enforcement.
13 MS.
BANIC:
Lee
- Banic, Petition 14 Coordinator, NRR.
15 MR. CASTO:
Greg Casto, Chief of Balance of 16 Plant, Division of Safety.
17 MR. MALTESE:
James Maltese, attorney in 18 the Office of the General Counsel.
19 MS. KLETT:
Okay.
Mr. Saporito, can you 20 hear everyone okay?
21 MR. SAPORITO:
Yes, yes, fine.
Thankyou.
22 MS.
KLETT:
Okay.
We have completed 23 introductions at NRC headquarters.
Are there any other 24 participants from NRC headquarters on the phone?
25 I'm (202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 from the Office of the Inspector General.
1 MS. WATFORD: This is Maggie Watford, 2
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
3 MS. KLETT: Are there any participants 4
from NRC Region II office on the phone?
5 MR. SANDAL: Yes, this is Shane Sandal, 6
Branch 3, Division of Reactor Projects, Region II.
7 MS. KLETT: Are there any representatives 8
from Florida Power & Light Company, the licensee, on the 9
phone?
10 MR. BLAIR: My name is William Blair. I'm 11 Managing Attorney - Nuclear for Florida Power & Light.
12 MR. HAMRICK: Steven Hamrick, counsel for 13 Florida Power & Light.
14 MR. TOMONTO: I'm Bob Tomonto, Licensing 15 Manager, Florida Power & Light, Turkey Point.
16 MS. KLETT: Okay. Mr. Saporito, would you 17 please introduce yourself again for the record?
18 MR. SAPORITO: My name is Thomas Saporito.
19 I'm the consultant with Saprodani Associates on the 20 petition.
21 MS. KLETT: It is not required for members 22 of the public to introduce themselves for this call.
23 However, if there are any members of the public on the 24 phone that wish to do so at this time, please state your 25
6 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 name for the record.
1 MR. REHWINKEL: This is Charles Rehwinkel, 2
Deputy Public Counsel with the Florida Office of Public 3
Counsel.
4 MS. KLETT: It is important that we each 5
speak clearly and loudly to make sure that the court 6
reporter can accurately transcribe this meeting. When 7
you speak during this meeting, please first state your 8
name for the record.
9 For those dialing into the meeting, please 10 remember to mute your phones to minimize any background 11 noise or distractions. If you do not have a mute 12 button, this can be done by pressing the keys *6. To 13 unmute, press the *6 keys again.
14 At this time, I will turn the meeting over 15 to the PRB Chairman, Scott Morris.
16 MR. MORRIS: All right. Thanks, Audrey.
17 Again, this is Scott Morris. Welcome to the meeting 18 today regarding the 2.206 petition submitted by Thomas 19 Saporito. I want to share a little background on the 20 NRC's 2.206 process first.
21 Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of 22 Federal Regulations describes the petition process, 23 which is the primary mechanism for the public to request 24 enforcement action by the NRC, and it's a public 25
7 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 process. The process permits anyone to petition the 1
NRC to take enforcement-type actions related to NRC 2
licensees or licensed activities.
3 Depending on the result of its evaluation, 4
the NRC could modify, suspend, or revoke an NRC-issued 5
license or take any other appropriate enforcement 6
action to resolve a problem. The NRC staff guidance for 7
the disposition of 2.206 petition requests is in our own 8
Management Directive 8.11, which is also a
9 publicly-available document.
10 The purpose of today's meeting is to give 11 the petitioner, Mr. Saporito, an opportunity to provide 12 any additional explanation or support for the petition 13 before the Petition Review Board's initial 14 consideration and recommendation. The meeting is not 15 a hearing, nor is it an opportunity for the petitioner 16 to question or examine members of the PRB on the merits 17 of the issues presented in the petition request. The 18 PRB is not going to make decisions regarding the merits 19 of the petition at this meeting.
Following 20 this meeting, the PRB members, the Petition Review Board 21 members will conduct internal deliberations, and the 22 outcome of that internal meeting will be discussed with 23 the petitioner.
24 The Petition Review Board typically 25
8 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 consists of a chairman. In this case, it's me, Scott 1
Morris. And the Chairman is usually a manager at the 2
Senior Executive Service level at the NRC, and I 3
represent that, as I said, the Division Director for the 4
Division of Inspection and Regional Support in NRR.
5 There's also a petition manager and a PRB 6
coordinator, and other members of the board are 7
determined by the staff based on the content of the 8
information in the actual petition request. The 9
members, obviously, have already introduced themselves 10 earlier in the call.
11 And as described in our process, the NRC 12 staff and the Petition Review Board members may ask 13 clarifying questions in order to better understand the 14 petitioner's presentation and to reach a reasonable or 15 a reasoned decision as to whether or not to accept or 16 reject the petitioner's request for review under the 17 2.206 process.
18 So with respect to the petition that we're 19 gathered here to discuss today, I'll just provide a 20 brief summary of the scope of the petition and what we've 21 done about that. On July 18th, 2014, Mr. Saporito 22 submitted to us, the NRC, a petition under 2.206 23 regarding the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant's 24 ultimate heat sink, or UHS we may say, in which Mr.
25
9 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Saporito requested a number of actions. These actions 1
include the NRC taking escalated enforcement action 2
against the licensee, which is NextEra, right?
3 Correct?
4 MS. KLETT: Florida Power & Light.
5 MR. MORRIS: Florida Power & Light.
6 Florida Power & Light under NextEra. So taking 7
escalated enforcement against the licensee, revoking 8
the operating license from the licensee, issuing a 9
notice of violation, imposing a civil penalty of $1 10 million, and issuing a confirmatory order requiring the 11 licensee to maintain the Turkey Point facility in a cold 12 shutdown mode. We also understand that Mr. Saporito 13 requested the plant be kept in cold shutdown until the 14 licensee performs an independent assessment of the rise 15 in ultimate heat sink temperature, a comprehensive 16 evaluation of all nuclear safety-related equipment and 17 components which may have been affected, and an 18 independent safety assessment of all nuclear 19 safety-related systems and components.
20 So that's what we understand of the 21 petition requested. Now I want to turn to the 22 activities that the NRC has undertaken so far to date.
23 So on August 11th, 2014, the NRC staff 24 informed Mr. Saporito that the licensee submitted a 25
10 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 license amendment request to us regarding the Turkey 1
Point technical specifications ultimate heat sink 2
temperature limit. Oh, I'm sorry. What did I say?
3 MS. KLETT: The 11th.
4 MR. MORRIS: Yes, that happened on August 5
7th. We contacted the petitioner and informed him that 6
the licensee had submitted that license amendment 7
request regarding ultimate heat sink temperature limit.
8 So these amendments, at the time, were being processed 9
when the petition was received and continued to be 10 processed in parallel with our processing of the 11 petition.
12 The licensee requested to increase the 13 ultimate heat sink maximum temperature limit in the 14 Turkey Point technical specifications from 100 to 104 15 degrees Fahrenheit. The NRC staff issued a safety 16 evaluation and approved license amendments on August 17 8th of 2014.
18 The license amendment request was noted for 19 considerations in local newspapers around Turkey Point, 20 and issuance of the amendments was noticed in the 21 Federal Register. The petitioner was provided the 22 approved license amendments and safety evaluation, NRC 23 safety evaluation, along with the initial and 24 supplemental licensee submittals to the NRC.
25
11 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 On July 24th -- so we're stepping back a 1
little bit. On July 24th, 2014, the petition manager 2
contacted Mr. Saporito to discuss the 2.206 petition 3
process and offer him an opportunity to address the 4
Petition Review Board. Mr. Saporito requested to 5
address the PRB by phone prior to its internal meeting 6
to make an initial recommendation to accept or reject 7
the petition for review.
8 So that's what our understanding of the 9
activities that have been completed to date. As a 10 reminder for all of us, please state your name if you 11 want to make any remarks, as this will help us to prepare 12 the meeting transcript that will eventually be made 13 publicly available.
14 So with that, Mr. Saporito, I'll turn it 15 over to you and give you the opportunity to provide the 16 information that you think the PRB should consider as 17 part of our review process. And I think we've done a 18 fairly good job, and we've got 61 minutes left, so you've 19 got at least one hour.
20 MR.
SAPORITO:
All right.
Good 21 afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the NRC Petition 22 Review Board. My name again is Thomas Saporito. I'm 23 a senior consultant with Saprodani Associates located 24 in Southern Florida. I'm the petitioner in this 25
12 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 matter, having filed an enforcement petition under 10 1
CFR Section 2.206 on July 18th, 2014 related to licensed 2
operations at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant operated 3
by the Florida Power & Light Company, or licensee.
4 During this discussion, reference will be 5
made to one or more attachments in support of the 2.206 6
enforcement petition, which access to those documents 7
has been made available to the Petition Review Board, 8
or PRB, via Ms. Audrey Klett, NRC Project Manager. I 9
request that all those documents be made a part of the 10 official NRC record in the instant action accordingly.
11 They can be considered as a supplement to the petition, 12 if you will. I may not use all of those documents 13 because I was time-constrained prior to this meeting, 14 but I intend to use quite a number of them.
15 To the extent that this is a public record, 16 I'm going to provide a brief summary of my experience 17 of filing 2.206 enforcement petitions with the NRC over 18 the last 26 years, as it is relevant to enlighten the 19 public about NRC operations in protecting public health 20 and safety and the environment. Notably, the NRC 21 website states that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 22 Commission, or NRC, was created as an independent agency 23 by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive 24 materials for beneficial civilian purposes while 25
13 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 protecting people and the environment. The NRC 1
regulates commercial nuclear power plants and other use 2
of nuclear material, such as in nuclear medicine, in 3
licensing, inspection, and enforcement of its 4
requirements. And that particular mission statement 5
by the NRC can be found at 6
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html.
7 So, clearly, the NRC's mission is to ensure 8
the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial 9
civilian purposes while protecting people and the 10 environment. The NRC licensed approximately 104 11 nuclear reactors for operation under Title 10 of the 12 Code of Federal Regulations Part 50. These regulations 13 are, in fact, the safety margins which NRC licensees, 14 like the Florida Power & Light Company, are required to 15 rigidly follow in conducting the licensed operation of 16 any nuclear reactor.
17 The regulations under 10 CFR 50 employ 18 site-specific technical specifications which are the 19 safety margins that reactor operators at each nuclear 20 plant must fully comply with in operating any nuclear 21 reactor. Over the last 26-year period, the NRC has 22 consistently relaxed the safety margins set out in 10 23 CFR 50 to allow its licensees, like the Florida Power 24
& Light Company, to continue licensed operation which 25
14 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 otherwise would have required the nuclear reactors to 1
be shut down.
2 The most egregious actions taken by the NRC 3
was to relax the safety margins under 10 CFR 50 for all 4
licensees, like the Florida Power & Light Company, to 5
extend operations of nuclear reactors 20 years beyond 6
the 40-year safety design basis set out under the 7
Agency's own regulations. Notably, experts have 8
asserted that the stainless steel nuclear reactor 9
vessels sustain severe embrittled degradation from 10 radioactive neutron bombardment to empower operations.
11 The NRC's actions in relaxing the safety regulations 12 to allow operations of these embrittled nuclear reactor 13 vessels is a blatant disregard for public health and 14 safety and the environment as a whole. The NRC 15 apparently failed to learn from the ongoing nuclear 16 disaster at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in that the 17 Agency should be tightening its safety regulations 18 instead of relaxing its safety regulations.
At 19 this time, I'm going to refer to attachment one and pull 20 that up, and this is entitled "RT News Article" dated 21 August 27th, 2014. It's headlined "Fukushima Disaster 22 Bill More than $105 Billion, Double Earlier Estimates."
23 If you look at the attachment, on the first page it 24 states that the tragedy at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant 25
15 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 will cost 11.08 trillion yen, or $105 billion, twice as 1
much as Japanese authorities predicted at the end of 2
2011, says the study.
3 The Fukushima nuclear facility has four 4
nuclear reactors. Three of the four nuclear reactors 5
at the Fukushima facility are still melting down to this 6
day and spewing radioactive contamination into the 7
environment. The plant owner and the government are 8
now desperately, are now desperate to stop the 9
radioactive leaks, so much so that they are attempting 10 to freeze the earth around the reactor cores as a 11 last-ditch fix. The half-life of uranium-235 is 704 12 million years, which means that after 704 million years 13 the radiation from the uranium is cut in half.
14 I was the first United States citizen to file a 15 2.206 enforcement petition following the Fukushima 16 nuclear reactor requesting the NRC to evaluate the 17 safety of all U.S. nuclear power plants. Notably, to 18 this date, the Agency has not yet completed its review 19 of that petition.
20 Thousands of people will never be able to 21 return to their homes and businesses because of the 22 radioactive contamination associated with the nuclear 23 reaction at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant. If the Turkey 24 Point Nuclear Plant had a similar meltdown, the entire 25
16 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 city of Miami and perhaps the entire state of Florida 1
would have to be evacuated forever. Nobody wants that 2
to happen, and the people of Florida have placed their 3
trust and belief in the NRC to protect them and their 4
families and the environment where they work and live.
5 For these reasons, the people of Florida expect the NRC 6
to enforce its regulations instead of relaxing its 7
regulations and allowing Florida Power & Light, the 8
licensee, to increase the ultimate heat sink water 9
temperature to 104 degrees Fahrenheit at the Turkey 10 Point Nuclear Plant.
11 At this time, I'll now pull up attachment 12 number 16. This document is entitled "U.S. NRC 13 Training Document." It's the reactor concepts manual, 14 a 28-page manual. This is placed, is being placed in 15 the record for the benefit of the public.
16 For the benefit of the public, a nuclear 17 reactor consists of a huge stainless steel vessel that 18 contains many fuel rods, which are long pipes filled 19 with enriched uranium-235 pellets. The fuel rods are 20 combined in fuel rod assemblies and are positioned in 21 such a manner to cause a nuclear reaction in the 22 reactor's core. This event is called criticality, at 23 which time billions of atoms split and release neutrons, 24 which are contained by the reactor's stainless steel 25
17 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 vessel.
1 This process creates a tremendous amount of 2
heat energy which is transferred to the primary 3
radioactive side of steam generators where the heat 4
energy is transferred to the secondary non-radioactive 5
side of the steam generators where it flashes the steam 6
and spins a steam turbine generator to make electric 7
power.
8 Now, turning to the instant action 9
regarding licensed operations at the Turkey Point 10 Nuclear Plant, in this discussion I will speak to 11 various NRC safety regulations under 10 CFR Part 50 that 12 the Florida Power & Light Company relaxed with the 13 blessing of the NRC. The rushed approval of the license 14 amendment request by the NRC appears to accommodate the 15 licensee's economic interests over and above the health 16 and safety of the public and the environment, as I will 17 explain in greater detail.
18 At this time, I'm going to pull up 19 attachment number four. Attachment four, for the 20 record, is a letter from Florida Power & Light Company 21 to the NRC dated July 22nd, 2014, license amendment 22 request number 231, application to revise ultimate heat 23 sink temperature limits - supplement one, and response 24 to request for additional information, a 16-page 25
18 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 document.
1 The licensee states, in part, in that 2
document that in reference one, Florida Power & Light 3
Company, FPL -- hello?
4 MS. KLETT: We're still here.
5 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. I hear something 6
ringing. All right. Can you hear me over that, or 7
should I wait? It's kind of loud on my end.
8 MR. MORRIS: Yes, it's loud here. That's 9
really odd. I don't know.
10 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, I guess we're being 11 recorded on his phone. All right. I'm going to 12 continue here. I'll talk about attachment four. The 13 licensee states in their letter, in part, that, in 14 reference one, Florida Power & Light Company, FPL, 15 requested an amendment to the technical specifications 16 for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4. In 17 reference two, FPL requested the NRC to review and 18 approve the application on an emergency basis. I'll 19 say that again: on an emergency basis.
20 This letter supplements the application by 21 revising the proposed surveillance requirements, and 22 the acronym is SR for that, for the ultimate heat sink, 23 or UHS. The revision to the proposed surveillance 24 requirements is contained in enclosure one.
25
19 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 In addition, enclosure two to the letter 1
provides the FPL response to the request for additional 2
information, or RAI, contained in reference three. In 3
reference one, application proposed to revise the UHS 4
water temperatures limit from 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 5
104 degrees Fahrenheit with consideration for 6
instrument uncertainty. This supplement revises the 7
proposed wording in the SR, surveillance requirements, 8
to be consistent with a limiting condition for 9
operation, increase of the proposed frequency of 10 verifying UHS water temperature when the water 11 temperature exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit and adds a 12 requirement to the SR for surveillance to add instrument 13 uncertainty to the indicated value.
14 Now, before discussing the concerns 15 related to the licensee's actions, as stated in their 16 July 22nd, 2014 letter to the NRC, I'm going to restate 17 three requests outlined in the 2.206 enforcement 18 petition as follows, and I'm going to paraphrase here.
19 The NRC was requested to require FPL to complete the 20 following actions. Number one, the licensee completes 21 an independent evaluation via a contractor to assess and 22 to fully understand and correct the root cause of the 23 rise in temperature of cooling water in canals utilized 24 by the licensee to cool the two nuclear reactors at 25
20 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Turkey Point nuclear facility. It's noted here that 1
the word "evaluation" was inadvertently omitted from 2
the original 2.206 petition but is now incorporated into 3
the petition through this reference.
4 Number two, the licensee completes a 5
comprehensive evaluation of all nuclear safety-related 6
plant equipment and components which may have been 7
otherwise affected as a direct or indirect result of the 8
increase in the cooling water temperature in the canals.
9 And three, the licensee complete an independent safety 10 assessment through a third-party contractor to review 11 all plant nuclear safety-related equipment and/or 12 components to ensure that the nuclear safety-related 13 systems and/or components will properly function to 14 protect public health and safety under all NRC 15 regulations and requirements under 10 CFR Part 50 and 16 under other NRC regulations and requirements in 17 operating the two Turkey Point nuclear reactors with 18 cooling water from the canal in excess of 100 degrees 19 Fahrenheit.
20 Okay. At this time, I'll take a second to 21 pull up attachment number three. Attachment three I've 22 identified as a Federal Register, Volume 79, Number 157 23 dated August 14, 2014 in which the NRC documented in a 24 summary that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 25
21 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 NRC, approved the request by Florida Power & Light 1
Company, the licensee, for amendments to renew facility 2
operating licenses under DPR 31 and DPR 41 issued to the 3
licensee for operation in the Turkey Point Nuclear 4
Generating Units 3 and 4 at Turkey Point located in 5
Miami-Dade County, Florida. The amendments revise the 6
ultimate heat sink, UHS, water temperature limit -- the 7
amendments revise the ultimate heat sink water 8
temperature limit at Turkey Point's technical 9
specifications from 100 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit and 10 revise surveillance requirements for monitoring UHS 11 temperature and component cooling
- water, heat 12 exchangers and -- I don't know if that computer is going 13 to quit or not.
14 Everybody still there?
15 MR. MORRIS: Yes, we're here.
16 MS. KLETT: Yes, we're still here.
17 MR. SAPORITO: All right. Again, I was 18 speaking about attachment three. Now, for the record, 19 as reflected in attachment three, the licensee 20 submitted their license amendment request on July 10th, 21 2014, and the NRC approved that request on August 14th, 22 2014. And I may stand corrected on that date because 23 I believe the chairman of the PRB earlier stated on the 24 record that the NRC approved it on August the 8th, 2014 25
22 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 but doesn't have this document in the Federal Register, 1
and so that's why I put it in here.
2 Okay. So I'm going to restate that. Now, 3
for the record, as reflected in attachment three, the 4
licensee submitted their license amendment request on 5
July 10th, 2014, and the NRC approved that request on 6
August 14th, 2014, notwithstanding the Chairman's 7
comments. That's then one month later, omitting the 8
weekends, despite the fact that my 2.206 enforcement 9
petition was submitted to the NRC on July 18th, 2014 10 requesting the Agency to require the licensee to retain 11 an independent contractor to make a safety evaluation 12 and review prior to the Agency approving the license 13 amendment request.
14 Clearly, the NRC apparently places the 15 licensee's economic interests related to continued 16 operation of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant over and 17 above the Agency's stated mission to protect public 18 health and safety and the environment. Over the last 19 26-year period, my engagement with the NRC in submitting 20 enforcement petitions consistently resulted in the 21 Agency acting in the interest of the affected licensee 22 rather than for the protection of public health and 23 safety and the environment. To this extent, I have 24 filed a complaint with the NRC Office of Inspector 25
23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 General and ask that the NRC staff be investigated in 1
these circumstances.
2 At this time, I'm going to pull up 3
attachment number nine. Attachment number nine I'm 4
identifying for the record is a letter from the Florida 5
Power & Light Company to the NRC dated July 29th, 2014, 6
license amendment request number 231, application to 7
revise ultimate heat sink temperature - supplement two, 8
and response to request for additional information and, 9
in parentheses, RAI-5 and BOP RAI-5 and 5.1, closed 10 parenthesis, one three-page document.
11 As stated by the licensee in attachment 12 nine at the bottom of page one and continuing on page 13 two, FPL requested the NRC to review and approve the 14 application on an emergency basis. However, there was 15 no reason for the NRC to act on an emergency basis. The 16 licensee has ample capacity to provide uninterrupted 17 electric service to its customers without operations of 18 the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. And, B, the licensee 19 has, over the last several years, brought several new 20 gas-operated power plants online. Moreover, the 21 licensee has taken the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant to a 22 cold shutdown mode of operation to refuel the reactor.
23 Their customers continue to receive uninterrupted 24 electric service during those refuelings.
25
24 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 For these reasons standing alone, I request 1
on the record that the NRC's Inspector General's Office 2
be provided a copy of the record transcripts of this 3
meeting, along with all documents exchanged between the 4
licensee and the NRC between the email communications 5
so that the Inspector General's Office can make a 6
determination whether the NRC engaged in wrongdoing in 7
rushing the approval of the licensee's license 8
amendment request in blatant disregard for the 9
protection of public health and safety and the 10 environment and without proper consideration of the 11 instant petition and my elaboration on that petition, 12 as I am doing so today.
13 Before I get into a more detailed 14 discussion of the licensee's license amendment request, 15 let the record reflect that the Turkey Nuclear Plant was 16 designed and built for safe operation with the ultimate 17 heat sink water temperature at 100 degrees Fahrenheit 18 or less. Moreover, the licensee sought and received an 19 operating license from the NRC with a submittal of its 20 final safety analysis review, or FSAR, and updated FSAR 21 which specified that the ultimate heat sink water 22 temperature was required to be 100 degrees Fahrenheit 23 or less. That safety margin then became part of the 24 licensee's technical specifications for the Turkey 25
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 Point Nuclear Plant.
1 Now I'm going to pull up attachment number 2
four, if I can find it here. There it is. Identify 3
attachment number four as a letter from Florida Power 4
& Light Company to the NRC dated July 22nd, 2014, license 5
amendment request 231, application to revise ultimate 6
heat sink temperature limits - supplement one, and 7
response to request for additional information. It's 8
a 16-page document.
9 As stated by the licensee in this document 10 at page three, now we've got page three of the 11 supplement, the licensee states that the limit on the 12 ultimate heat sink, or UHS, temperature in conjunction 13 with the surveillance requirement of technical 14 specification 3/4.7.2 will ensure that sufficient 15 cooling capacities available either, one, to provide 16 normal cool-down of the facility or, two, to mitigate 17 effective actions and conditions within acceptable 18 limits. FPL has the option of monitoring the UHS 19 temperature by monitoring the temperature in the ICW 20 system piping to the inlet of CCW heat exchanger.
21 Monitoring the UHS temperature after the ICW but prior 22 to the CCW heat exchanger is considered to be equivalent 23 to temperature monitoring before the ICW pumps. The 24 supply water leaving the ICW pumps will be mixed and, 25
26 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 therefore, will be representative of all UHS 1
temperatures to the CCW heat exchanger inlet.
2 The effect of the pump heating on the supply 3
water are negligible due to low ICW head and high-water 4
volume. Accordingly, monitoring the UHS temperature 5
after the ICW pumps but before the CCW heat exchanger 6
provides an equivalent location for monitoring the UHS 7
temperature. With the implementation of the CCW heat 8
exchanger performance monitoring program, the limiting 9
UHS temperature can be treated as a variable with an 10 absolute upper limit of 100 degrees Fahrenheit without 11 compromising any margin of safety.
12 Demonstration of actual heat exchanger 13 performance capabilities support the system operation 14 with postulated canal temperatures greater than 100 15 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, the upper technical 16 specification limit of 100 degrees is conservative.
17 All right. As can be seen here, the Turkey 18 Point Nuclear Plant employs a vast amount of 19 highly-technical safety-related equipment, which is 20 intended to protect public health and safety by 21 preventing a nuclear accident. The licensee's 22 assumption that the heat exchanger's performance 23 supports system operations of postulated canal 24 temperatures greater than 100 degrees Fahrenheit is 25
27 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 conservative should be reviewed and evaluated by an 1
independent contractor who can take the time needed to 2
make a proper review and investigation about this 3
important safety-related equipment. Instead, the NRC 4
made a rush decision in a very short period of time and 5
without properly considering the instant 2.206 6
enforcement petition.
7 Now, continuing with attachment four, the 8
licensee goes on to state at page three and four, I 9
believe, of the supplement that 2.2 proposed technical 10 specification and base changes, the proposed revision 11 to technical specification 3/4.7.4, LCO 3.7.4 -- and, 12 for the public, that means limiting conditions of 13 operation -- the ultimate heat sink shall be operable 14 with an average supply water temperature less than or 15 equivalent to 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Current SR 4.7.4 16 would be revised as follows: "4.7.4, the ultimate heat 17 sink shall be determined operable A) at least once for 18 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by verifying the average supply water 19 temperature is less than or equivalent to 104 degrees 20 Fahrenheit. SR 4.7.4.B would be added, B) at least once 21 per hour by verifying average water temperature is less 22 than 104 degrees Fahrenheit when water temperature 23 exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit."
24 "The current technical specification bases 25
28 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 above will be supplemented with the following two 1
paragraphs: verifying UHS water temperature at least 2
once for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is adequate to ensure the limit of 104 3
degrees Fahrenheit is not exceeded when the water 4
temperature is less than 100 degrees. Due to the daily 5
variations in temperature, when UHS water temperature 6
exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the water temperature 7
shall be verified at least once per hour to ensure the 8
cooling canal's system temperature variations are 9
appropriately captured, thus ensuring the technical 10 specification limit is not exceeded.
11 For UHS water temperature monitoring surveillance 12 requirements, instrument measurement uncertainty is 13 added to the indicated value to ensure technical 14 specification is not exceeded."
15 All right. So here the licensee's 16 revisions to the reactor safety margins as stated in SR 17 4.7.4.B is flawed insofar as a licensee will only 18 conduct a surveillance on the UHS water temperature once 19 every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> when the UHS water temperature is less 20 than 100 degrees. Moreover, the licensee contends that 21 only when the UHS water temperature exceeds 100 degrees 22 will the surveillance be performed at least once per 23 hour2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br />.
24 Well, here's a hypothetical analysis of why 25
29 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the licensee's SR 4.7.4.B is flawed. Let's assume 1
that, during normal power operations at the Turkey Point 2
Nuclear Plant, a surveillance was performed on UHS water 3
temperature at midnight and found to be at less than 100 4
degrees Fahrenheit. To the extent that UHS water 5
temperature was less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the 6
licensee would not again perform a surveillance until 7
midnight the following day.
8 Now, assume that at 0100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> the UHS water 9
temperature rises to 105 degrees or higher. The 10 licensee would remain unaware of the increase in the 11 water temperature until the next surveillance at 12 midnight the following day. So in this hypothetical, 13 the licensee would be in violation of its reactor safety 14 margins and NRC regulations and requirements for a 15 period of at least 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br />.
16 The licensee then states at page five of the 17 document, the attachment, that a revision to TS SR 18 4.7.4.B is proposed that will increase the frequency of 19 monitoring UHS temperature when water temperature 20 exceeds 100 degrees from at least once every six hours 21 to at least once per hour. This increased frequency 22 ensures that the cooling canal temperature variations 23 are appropriately captured, which we can see is based 24 on experience with temperature trends over the course 25
30 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 of each day.
1 All right. These revisions by the 2
licensee to TS SR 4.7.4.B amply demonstrates that the 3
licensee failed to conduct a thorough fault tree 4
analysis and that the basis for the licensee's LAR was 5
performed in a rushed and hurried manner. For this 6
reason standing alone, petitioner's request outlined in 7
the 2.206 enforcement petition for the licensee to 8
retain an independent contractor to evaluate the 9
application and the effects of changing the UHS water 10 temperature to 104 degrees Fahrenheit should be granted 11 by the NRC.
12 To the extent that the NRC reviewed the 13 licensee's LAR on a rushed and emergency basis and 14 subsequently approved the LAR as-is, the NRC OIG should 15 investigate the NRC's actions accordingly. Here, the 16 NRC cannot have any measure of reasonable assurance that 17 the licensee's revision to the technical specification 18 changes requested and their supplements do not alter the 19 determination of no significant hazards and the 20 environment consideration contained in the licensee's 21 reference one application, as suggested by the licensee 22 that their revised request is bounded by the basis to 23 change the entire UHS temperature limit contained in the 24 application and the proposed changes to the tech specs' 25
31 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 surveillance requirements provide additional 1
restriction on verifying compliance with UHS water 2
temperature limit.
3 Indeed, the licensee's contentions related to these 4
safety margins must be evaluated by an independent 5
contractor to protect public health and safety and the 6
environment in these circumstances.
7 All right. At this time, I'm going to pull 8
up attachment number five and identify this document on 9
the record as a letter from Florida Power & Light Company 10 to the NRC dated July 22nd, 2014, response to request 11 for additional information regarding license amendment 12 request
- 231, application to revise technical 13 specification to revise ultimate heat sink temperature 14 limit, 11 pages.
15 As stated in attachment five of page two in 16 enclosure to that document, the licensee states, 17 "Accordingly, the NRC staff are concerned that the LAR 18 to revise the UHS water temperature from 100 degrees 19 Fahrenheit to 104 degrees Fahrenheit could adversely 20 affect the population to the American crocodile," and 21 then there are these words "Crocodylus acutus." I 22 don't know if I pronounced that right or not.
23 Moving on, "The Turkey Point site and 24 designated critical habitat on the plant site." So 25
32 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 there the NRC staff has a concern about the environment 1
in that environment as it relates to the LAR.
2 And continuing, "The licensee responded, 3
in part, by stating that in 2011 Florida Power & Light 4
Company increased the crocodile monitoring in the 5
cooling canal system (CCS). FPL and University of 6
Florida operate crocodile monitoring to assess spatial 7
distribution, growth, and survivorship of crocodiles.
8 FPL committed to a minimum of two years post-operating 9
monitoring to ensure the increase in temperature and 10 salinity will have no impact to the crocodile population 11 using the CCS."
12 "Both units have been operating in the 13 operated mode since June of 2013. Surveys consist of 14 spotlight surveys every other month, 2011 to 2013, and 15 capture and tagging surveys three times a year." And 16 just for the public's information, when we talk about 17 uprates, we're talking about a power uprate at Turkey 18 Point Nuclear Power Plant.
19 Okay. So here again, the licensee's 20 contentions to the NRC must be validated by an 21 independent contractor to ensure that the affected 22 wildlife living in and around Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 23 is not adversely affected by the increase in water 24 temperature and the increase in salinity of the canal 25
33 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 water.
1 Moreover, at page three of the reference 2
document, the licensee states that FPL has several 3
stations that monitor temperature and CCS on an hourly 4
basis below the time series plot for four of those 5
stations. Okay. So, now, if you look closely at the 6
licensee's temperature plot, it can be determined that, 7
following the licensee's June 2013 uprate at the Turkey 8
Point Nuclear Plant, the canal water temperature has 9
consistently visited a value at or above 100 degrees 10 Fahrenheit. It appears that the Turkey Point uprate 11 significantly contributed to the increase in canal 12 water temperature.
13 And you can look on that graph, and there's 14 a date on the bottom, the horizontal axes and the 15 vertical axes gives you the temperature. And then 16 there's, it looks like six and three sampling points 17 them talking about in the document. CTS one, below in 18 the blue, spends a lot of time above 100 degrees and it 19 looks like in my chart, looking at my chart, it looks 20 like it got up to maybe 115 at one point. But, 21 nonetheless, the graph shows the uprate the Turkey Point 22 Nuclear Plant significantly contributed to an 23 increase in the water temperature.
24 The petitioner contends here that not only 25
34 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 is this consistently high canal water temperature a 1
danger to the wildlife that lives in the canal, it poses 2
a serious threat to the continued license --
3 MS. KLETT: Hello. This is Audrey Klett 4
from NRC. Mr. Saporito, can you hear me?
5 MR. SAPORITO: Hello. Can you hear me?
6 MS. KLETT: Hi, Mr. Saporito. This is 7
8 MR. SAPORITO: Yes, I don't know what 9
happened there. I was disconnected.
10 MR. MORRIS: You were just -- this is Scott 11 Morris -- you were just starting to make a point about, 12 you said that the rise in ultimate heat sink temperature 13 was a threat to wildlife, and you started to say and it 14 was a serious threat to something, and then you cut off.
15 MR. SAPORITO: Okay.
16 MS. KLETT: And you were speaking from 17 attachment five at the time.
18 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. So the licensee --
19 okay. So I was talking about attachment five. Oh, 20 okay. I don't know where I left off. Attachment five.
21 I think I talked about, they're talking about the 22 environmental impacts of the increase in the temp of the 23 water and the salinity of the water.
24 So here again, the licensee's contention 25
35 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 that to ensure that the affected wildlife living around 1
Turkey Point plant will not, of course, be affected by 2
the increase in water temperature and the increase in 3
salinity. And, moreover, page three of the reference 4
document states that FPL has several stations that 5
monitor the temperature in the CCS on an hourly basis.
6 Below is a time series plot for four of those stations.
7 8
Now, if you look closely at the licensee's 9
plot, it can be determined that the licensee's June 2013 10 uprate at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, the cooling 11 water temperature has consistently visited a value at 12 or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It appears that the 13 Turkey Point uprate significantly contributed to the 14 increased canal water temperature. And if you look at 15 that chart, the horizontal axis is time based and the 16 vertical axis is temperature based, and then there's 17 four color-coded samplings, CCS 1, 2, 6, and 3. At the 18 very top on there, you can see how elevated it is above 19 100 degrees the majority of the time, and the other ones 20 also spent quite a bit of time above the 100-degree 21 level.
And you can see, as of the 22 uprate, the June 2013 uprate, this is when the increased 23 temperature occurred. So the petitioner contends here 24 that not only is this consistently-high canal water 25
36 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 temperature a danger for the wildlife that lives in the 1
canal, posing a serious threat to continued life and 2
operations at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. For this 3
reason standing alone, the NRC should grant the requests 4
outlined in 2.206 enforcement petition to protect 5
public health and safety and environment and require the 6
licensee to have a contractor to independently 7
investigate the root cause of the increase in the canal 8
water temperature. And I know here, the NRC has, to 9
date, failed to identify the root cause of either the 10 water temperature increase in the canals or the increase 11 in the salinity of the water.
12 And at this time, I'm going to pull out 13 attachment number six. Attachment six is a letter from 14 Florida Power & Light Company to the NRC dated July 24th, 15 2014, response to the containment ventilation breach 16 branch request for additional information regarding 17 license amendment request number 231, application to 18 revise ultimate heat sink temperature limits. The 19 document is ten pages.
20 The license states in attachment six, pages 21 seven and eight in their supplement to that document, 22 that increasing the ICW temperature to 104 degrees 23 Fahrenheit without reducing the CCW heat exchanger 24 fouling factor provides insignificant changes to the 25
37 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 containment peak pressure and containment peak 1
saturation temperatures, and I'm paraphrasing here.
2 You all are able to read these details for yourself.
3 And I'm not going to read that whole 4
paragraph, but here the petitioner contends that, 5
considering the concerns before the PRB today, the NRC 6
cannot have any measurable reasonable assurance that 7
the current results provided in the updated final safety 8
analysis report will remain valid for the increase in 9
ICW temperature to 104 degrees Fahrenheit and that the 10 license to operate the Turkey Point plant in strict 11 compliance with NRC regulations and requirements.
12 Again, the NRC should grant the request made in this 13 2.206 enforcement petition to protect public health and 14 safety and the environment in these circumstances.
15 And then attachment nine, I'll pull that 16 out real quick. Attachment nine is a letter again from 17 Florida Power & Light to the NRC dated July 29th, 2014.
18 It's related to the LAR 231, and it's regarding the 19 ultimate heat sink temperature. And it's supplement 20 two and response for additional information by the NRC.
21 The licensee states in attachment nine at 22 page two of the supplement, it referenced one 23 application approach by altering the UHS water 24 temperature limit from 100 degrees Fahrenheit to 104 25
38 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 degrees Fahrenheit with consideration of instrument 1
uncertainty and add an SR to the increase of the UHS 2
water temperature for at least once every six hours when 3
the water temperature exceeds 100 degrees. And then 4
they go on to talk about the various requirements in that 5
section, and you can read the rest for yourself.
6 But here the petitioner contends the 7
frequency of performing a
CPW heat exchanger 8
performance test should be at least once per seven days, 9
given the degradation that is possible to the heat 10 exchanger due to the increased water temperature and the 11 rising salinity of the canal water. For this reason 12 standing alone, the NRC should grant the requests made 13 in the 2.206 enforcement petition to protect public 14 health and safety and the environment in these 15 circumstances.
16 And now I'm going to turn, pull up 17 attachment two. For the record, this is a Miami Herald 18 news article dated August 28th, 2014 entitled "Florida 19 Power & Light Cooling Canal to Turkey Point Still Too 20 Hot," and it's a two-page document.
21 This document identifies concerns related 22 to the fragile ecosystem in and about the Turkey Point 23 Nuclear Plant. Just very quickly, the article 24 identifies concerns about pumping up to 100 million 25
39 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 gallons of water a day from the nearby canal system.
1 That 100 million gallons would be in addition to 14 2
million gallons a day from the Florida aquifer that 3
water managers approved in June after high temperatures 4
threatened to shut down the reactors.
5 And it goes on to say that diverting water 6
to the canals has new concerns about damaging Biscayne 7
Bay, which has withered over the decades as water from 8
the historic Everglades flows out redirected in a canal 9
system designed to prevent flooding.
And 10 environmentalists worry that increasing the heavy salty 11 water in the canals is sinking deeper, pushing an 12 underground saltwater plume further inland.
13 Environmentalists have also warned that the $3 billion 14 expansions at the plant to generate 15 percent more 15 power has driven up canal temperatures.
16 3. Again, this is a Miami 17 Herald news article dated August 5th, 2014 entitled 18 "Feds Okay Hotter Water to Operate Turkey Point Nuclear 19 Reactors," three pages. Here, again, concerns are 20 raised. Florida cannot generate energy with this much 21 water consumption, as stated by Laura Reynolds, 22 Executive Director of the Tropical Audubon. This sort 23 of thing is in direct conflict with the Everglades 24 restoration and that really is the heart of the problem.
25
40 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 And it goes on to say that FPL consistently 1
said increasing power at the plant does not raise water 2
temperature in the canals, which acts as a radiator, 3
cooling reactors by circulating water around the cores 4
and letting the water cool as it moves across 168 miles 5
of shallow waterways over two days before re-entering 6
the reactors.
7 Okay. David Lochbaum, who used to be an 8
NRC employee, he said that that doesn't seem credible 9
at all, a nuclear engineering director of the Nuclear 10 Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, 11 nuclear power plants are only 33-percent efficient and 12 only one-third goes out on the wires and the other 13 two-thirds must be released into the environment. It 14 wastes heat. That's why all these plants are built next 15 to large bodies of water.
16 FPL says below-average rainfall since 2013 17 is mostly to blame for the warmer water that has fueled 18 the algae bloom. FPL says the rain over the canals 19 remained at normal levels between 2011 and 2013, but in 20 2013, the yearly total dropped to just over 19 inches, 21 about 30 inches off the average. But that was 22 contradicted by the water managers. South Florida 23 Water Management District says the rainfall in 24 southeast Miami-Dade has been average, totaling just 25
41 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 under 40 inches in 2013 and just over 33 inches in 1
August. That's not hugely wet, but it's pretty wet.
2 It's definitely not dry said the District meteorologist 3
Geoff Shaughnessy, S-H-A-U-G-H-N-E-S-S-Y. We've had 4
several droughts in the last 14 years, and they didn't 5
have an issue, meaning FPL didn't have an issue even 6
though they had these droughts.
7 And the last document here, well, second to 8
the last, number 14, attachment 14. Attachment 14 is 9
a Miami Herald news article dated August 2nd, 2013 10 entitled "South Florida Rainfall Sets July Records," a 11 one-page document.
12 So on August the 2nd, 2013, the National 13 Weather Service also reported that it was the wettest 14 month of July on record for two cities. Miami Beach's 15 18.57 inches was the most rain in July for records dating 16 to 1927, a whopping 14.12 inches above typical rainfall.
17 So, I mean, that's a contradiction of FPL's contention 18 that there wasn't enough water, okay?
19 The last attachment here, number 15, is a 20 July 22nd memorandum to Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity, the 21 Branch Chief, Environmental Projects Division, New 22 Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. And in this 23 document, in this document or this attachment, at page 24 two, I'll just read a couple of sentences there. It 25
42 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 says specifically -- and this relates to the new 1
reactors that they want to build to 6 and 7. I just want 2
to make a point here because the NRC did an environmental 3
impact study, and they say here that, specifically, the 4
staff requested the following from FPL: 1) potential 5
noise impacts to aquatic species in the area of the 6
nuclear island, RCW, and barge slip. Mainly, the 7
manatee, five species of threatened and endangered sea 8
turtles, small-tooth sawfish, American crocodile, and 9
the Nassau grouper; 2) expected noise activity during 10 the construction of the nuclear island, RCW, and barge 11 slip; and 3) expected length and distance the sound 12 would extend (especially for RCW - construction of 13 caissons and drilling horizontally; and 4) estimates of 14 what time of day the construction will take place and 15 are there potential time of year restrictions.
16 That shows you that the NRC took their time 17 and looked into the environmental concerns and issues 18 regarding Turkey Point 6 and 7. They didn't take that 19 time or extend the effort. In fact, they made a rushed 20 judgment on an emergency basis, as requested by the 21 licensee, to quickly approve this license amendment 22 request at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. And that's the 23 potential issue here.
24 In summary, the licensee has admitted that 25
43 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 the water temperature in the canal system and in and 1
about Turkey Point Nuclear Plant has risen and that the 2
canal system and the UHS specified in the licensee's 3
updated final safety analysis report an increase in the 4
canal water temperatures decreased elsewhere were 5
evidence that the June 2013 uprate at Turkey Point 6
Nuclear Point is the main cause and the root cause for 7
the increase in the canal water temperature.
8 Moreover, the increased salinity of the 9
canal water remains a mystery for the licensee, as the 10 licensee failed to identify and correct the root cause 11 for the increase. To the extent that the increase in 12 salinity of the canal water can adversely affect heat 13 transfer and vital safety-related plant equipment and 14 components, the licensee has failed to conduct the 15 surveillance frequency adequately in these 16 circumstances.
17 For all these reasons, the NRC should grant 18 the requests in the 2.206 enforcement petition to 19 protect public health and safety and the environment in 20 these circumstances. Okay.
21 MR. MORRIS: I'm sorry. I hate to 22 interrupt you, but there's some noise on the line. If 23 everybody on the line except for you could go on mute, 24 it would be greatly appreciated because we're hearing, 25
44 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 like, honking horns and playing children and all kinds 1
of -- it's hard to hear you, and I want to make sure we 2
get an opportunity to hear you. And we'll give you an 3
extended amount of time, obviously, to complete your 4
presentation.
5 MR. SAPORITO: Okay. Did you hear the 6
summary portion of that? Because...
7 MR. MORRIS: It was hard, but I think we got 8
it. I can still hear the kids in the background. I 9
don't know what that's from.
10 MR. SAPORITO: So I can take any questions 11 right now because that's all I have for you at this time.
12 Hello?
13 MR. MORRIS: Okay. We're here, yes.
14 Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Saporito? I 15 actually had one question. This is Scott Morris. You 16 made mention of CCW, component cooling water, heat 17 exchanger performance tests and surveillance 18 requirements.
19 MR. SAPORITO: Yes.
20 MR. MORRIS: Not sure I completely 21 understand the point you were trying to make when you 22 were talking about the increased performance testing on 23 the CCW heat exchangers and its relationship to safety 24 reduction. I missed something there.
25
45 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 MR. SAPORITO: The concern is that the 1
salinity in the water, along with the increased 2
temperature, will foul those heat exchangers more 3
readily, degrade them more readily. And I'm just 4
saying that the surveillance is not repetitive enough.
5 It needs a seven-day window instead of the extended 6
windows that the licensee has requested.
7 MR. MORRIS: Okay. That's helpful. I 8
appreciate that clarification.
9 MR. SAPORITO: Are there any other 10 questions?
11 MR. MORRIS: Yes, there is, actually. Go 12 ahead.
13 MR. CARPENTER: Mr. Saporito, this is 14 Robert Carpenter from the Office of Enforcement.
15 MR. SAPORITO: Okay.
16 MR. CARPENTER: It was in your petition 17 that you asked the NRC -- let me pull it out so I don't 18 get this wrong. But you asked for the NRC to take 19 escalated enforcement action and also to issue a very 20 large civil penalty. I wondered if you could elaborate 21 on the basis of that from a regulatory standpoint. What 22 would be the basis of the escalated enforcement and the 23 civil penalty?
24 MR. SAPORITO: Well, I think the licensee 25
46 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 misled the Agency, the NRC, in this regard with respect 1
to the license amendment request. And more so, they put 2
the NRC staff on a demand for a less expedited judgment 3
and decision on an emergency basis. And the licensee 4
knew well in advance that there was no emergency.
5 Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, I used to work there at one 6
time. You know, the plant gets shut down regularly for 7
refueling, replacing one-third of the reactor's core, 8
and stops for an extended period of time, maybe two or 9
three months. Nobody loses power. Everybody's lights 10 still come on when they turn the switches. And the 11 reactors, as documented within NRC records, those 12 reactors trip offline when safety systems are violated, 13 and so they're down again and nobody loses power.
14 So for the licensee to contend to the NRC 15 staff that we need this now, we need this on an emergency 16 basis, that's just pure not true. They do not. They 17 have built out the grid with various gas-fired plants 18 recently, and they have more than enough capacity to 19 meet the needs of South Florida without having Turkey 20 Point online.
21 Clearly, if FPL is making the point with the 22 NRC that they got to have Turkey Point online, they're 23 misleading the Florida Public Service Commission 24 because, you know, they said their grid is reliable and, 25
47 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 you know, they can withstand a planned outage and such.
1 So they can't have it both ways, you know?
2 It's just plain wrong, though, in my 3
belief. It's plain wrong on the part of the licensee 4
to assert to the NRC staff that there's some emergency 5
that requires immediate action by the NRC staff. And 6
this is what's happening. I think this needs to be 7
reviewed by the NRC staff. They did this in a hurry and 8
a rushed manner. And, you know, believe me, I'm not a 9
technical expert by any stretch of the imagination, but 10 I came up with some concerns here on a very cursory and 11 brief review of these documents because I didn't have 12 the time to review it. You give these to a certified 13 nuclear engineering contractor, they need to go through 14 this and they need to find out if there are any nuclear 15 safety implications found with these reactors 16 operating.
17 That's what this is all about, your safety 18 design basis, and that's the heart of the matter right 19 there. Why did the licensee, you know, intentionally 20 and in writing demand an emergency decision by the NRC?
21 I don't think I've ever seen those words on paper by a 22 licensee in my dealings with the NRC over the years with 23 any licensee that I've challenged with a 2.206 petition.
24 So that's very unusual, as far as I'm concerned. And 25
48 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 I think that needs to be investigated. Why was this 1
requested emergency? And that's the basis.
2 MR. CARPENTER: Okay. Thank you.
3 MR. MORRIS: This is Scott Morris. Are 4
there any other folks from NRC headquarters who have 5
questions for Mr. Saporito? If not, how about Region 6
II?
7 MR. SANDAL: This is Shane Sandal. No 8
questions from Region II.
9 MR. MORRIS: Okay. How about Florida 10 Power & Light? Any questions? All right. I'm not 11 hearing any. How about any members of the public that 12 may be on the line? Are there any questions for the 13 petitioner? I'm sorry. Yes, I was corrected. This 14 is about the process that we're engaged, not the 15 petition itself. Okay.
16 Well, I don't hear any further questions, 17 Mr. Saporito. I appreciate the information that you 18 provided. But that concludes today's meeting, and I 19 want to make sure that members of the public know that 20 they can provide comments regarding this petition and 21 ask questions about the 206 process itself. But as we 22 stated in the opening, the purpose of this meeting was 23 not to provide an opportunity for the petitioner or the 24 public to question or examine the Petition Review Board 25
49 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 members regarding the merits of the petition itself.
1 So with that, Mr. Saporito, I want to thank 2
you again for taking the time to provide us here at NRC 3
with the clarifying information regarding the petition 4
you've submitted.
5 MR. SAPORITO: Mr. Chairman, if I could 6
just interrupt, I just, for the record and for your 7
information, I'm going to email Audrey a copy of this 8
presentation so they can put it in the record in case 9
the court reporter missed anything because I could not 10 11 MR. MORRIS: That's fine. That would 12 actually be good because, you know, I don't know what 13 was going on with the phones today, and I apologize for 14 that. But that would help us, I think.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 4:28 p.m.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24