ML14147A523: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
__________________________________
                                            )
        ) In the Matter of:           )   Florida Power & Light Co.             )   Docket No. 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2           ) May 27, 2014  
In the Matter of:                           )
                                          )
Florida Power & Light Co.                   )       Docket No. 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2                     )       May 27, 2014
SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY'S REPLY TO ANSWERS BY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. AND NRC STAFF TO AMENDED HEARING REQUEST
                                            )
SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS REPLY TO ANSWERS BY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. AND NRC STAFF TO AMENDED HEARING REQUEST I.      INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2)1, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) hereby replies to answers by Florida Power & Light Co. (FPL) and the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff to SACEs Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014)
(Amended Hearing Request).2 Both FPL and the Staff oppose SACEs request to supplement Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (March 10, 2014)(Hearing Request) 1 SACE notes that as a technical matter, neither 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) nor any other part of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 applies in this case because the NRC has not established a deadline for submission of hearing requests. Nevertheless, SACE has addressed these standards because they provide reasonable guidance for the fair and efficient consideration of the new information presented in its Amended Hearing Request.
2 Florida Power & Light Companys Answer Opposing Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request (May 20, 2104) (FPL Answer);
NRC Staff Answer to Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (May 20, 2104) (NRC Staff Answer). FPLs and the Staffs Answers respond to Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 (SACE Motion); and Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 (Amended Hearing Request).


I. INTRODUCTION  Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) 1, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
with additional relevant information that is contained in Amendment 18 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR Amendment 18) (June 26, 2008)
("SACE") hereby replies to answers by Florid a Power & Light Co. ("FPL") and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") Staff to SACE's Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014) ("Amended Hearing Request").
(ML14104B631).3 UFSAR Amendment 18, which was not publicly available at the time SACE filed its Hearing Request, confirms and augments the list of major design changes to the Unit 2 replacement steam generators (RSGs) that are the subject of an ongoing de facto license amendment proceeding by the NRC Staff.4 FPLs and the Staffs objections to SACEs Motion and Amended Hearing Request are without merit, and therefore the Motion should be granted.
2  Both FPL and the Staff oppose SACE's request to supplement Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating Li cense (March 10, 2014)("Hearing Request") 1  SACE notes that as a technical matter, neither 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) nor any other part of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 applies in this case because the NRC has not established a deadline for submission of hearing requests. Nevertheless, SACE has addressed these standards because they provide reasonable guidance for the fair and efficient consideration of the new information presented in its Amended Hearing Request.
II.     DISCUSSION A.     SACEs Amended Hearing Request is Timely.
2 Florida Power & Light Company's Answer Opposing Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request (May 20, 2104) ("FPL Answer");
Both FPL and the Staff argue that SACE does not satisfy the timeliness requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c).5 FPL Answer at 4-6, NRC Staff Answer at 7-9.
NRC Staff Answer to Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (May 20, 2104) ("NRC Staff Answer"). FPL
They contend that the information in UFSAR Amendment 18 was available to SACE during the 2007-08 license amendment proceeding regarding Unit 2 technical specifications and the 2011-12 Unit 2 extended power uprate (EPU) proceeding. As SACE has previously explained, however, SACE had no way of knowing that either of 3
's and the Staff's Answers respond to Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 ("SACE Motion"); and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 ("Amended Hearing Request").    
Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 (SACE Motion); Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 (Amended Hearing Request).
4 The Unit 2 steam generator design changes identified in UFSAR Amendment 18 are described at pages 2-5 of SACEs Amended Hearing Request.
5 The Staff also argues that SACEs Amended Hearing Request is not permitted because it is not specifically allowed by CLI-14-01 (Apr. 1, 2014) or NRC regulations. NRC Staff Answer at 4-5. Clearly, however, the Commissions rules of practice anticipate the amendment of contentions as new information arises. As discussed above in note 1, SACE has addressed the Commissions rules in order to assist the Commission in ensuring that the new information it presents is considered in a manner that is fair and efficient.
2


with additional relevant information that is contained in Amendment 18 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report ("UFSAR Amendment 18") (June 26, 2008)  
those license amendment proceedings involved the re-design of the Unit 2 RSGs, because neither of the NRC hearing notices makes any mention of the RSG re-designs. See Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Reply to Oppositions to SACEs Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License at 5-9 (May 5, 2014) (SACE Reply). SACE became aware of the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSG re-design only recently, through the San Onofre case. See Declaration of Arnold Gundersen, ¶ 29 n. 32,
¶ 31 (March 9, 2014) (Gundersen Declaration), attached to SACEs Hearing Request.
FPL also cites two other documents, generated years before SACE prepared its Amended Hearing Request, that purportedly contain the same information as UFSAR Amendment 18. FPL Answer at 5. For instance, FPL argues that SACE could have obtained the same information from FPLs 2007 revisions to its Aging Management Plan (AMP). FPL Answer at 5 and n. 10 (citing Declaration of Mr. William A. Cross in Support of FPLs Answer Opposing SACE Request for Hearing, ¶ 10.) But the AMP revision cited by FPL and attached to Mr. Cross declaration is a non-public document.
See SACE Reply at 9 and note 10. SACE was not even aware of its existence until FPL attached it to Mr. Cross declaration.
FPL also misleadingly asserts that its 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 analysis showing that the RSGs satisfied UFSAR acceptance criteria and Technical Specifications has been publicly available since 2008. FPL Answer at 5. But the document cited by FPL for this proposition, a letter from Gordon L. Johnston to NRC (June 26, 2008)
(ML081840111), is only a Summary of FPLs 50.59 analysis, and contains virtually no information about the design changes made by FPL to the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSGs. See Hearing Request at 8. The actual 50.59 analysis is a non-public document kept by FPL at 3


(ML14104B631).
the St. Lucie site. While NRC inspectors reviewed the 50.59 analysis and briefly reported on that review in an inspection report6, FPL never submitted the analysis to the NRC and therefore it was never posted on ADAMS. Thus, FPLs claim that SACE could have found the information in the UFSAR Amendment 18 years ago is pure sophistry.7 B.      The Information in SACEs Amended Hearing Request Supports the Admission of SACEs Contentions.
3  UFSAR Amendment 18, which was not publicly available at the time SACE filed its Hearing Request, confirms and augments the list of major design changes to the Unit 2 replacement steam generators ("RSGs") that are th e subject of an ongoing de facto license amendment proceeding by the NRC Staff.
FPL argues that SACEs reliance on UFSAR Amendment 18 to assert safety concerns with the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSG rests upon faulty assumptions, and therefore, fails to raise a genuine dispute with St. Lucie Unit 2s licensing basis. FPL Answer at 7.
4  FPL's and the Staff's objections to SACE's Motion and Amended Hearing Request are without merit, and therefore the Motion should be granted. II. DISCUSSION  A. SACE's Amended Hearing Request is Timely. Both FPL and the Staff argue that SACE does not satisfy the timeliness requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c).
The principal faulty assumption of which FPL accuses SACE is that the substitution of tube support plates for lattice or eggcrate tube supports in the Unit 2 steam generators increases the potential for denting. FPL Answer at 7. This is not SACEs assumption, however, but a representation by FPL itself in the original Final Safety Analysis (OFSAR) for Unit 2. The OFSAR states:
5  FPL Answer at 4-6, N RC Staff Answer at 7-9. They contend that the information in UFSAR Amendment 18 was available to SACE during the 2007-08 license amendment proceeding regarding Unit 2 technical specifications and the 2011-12 Unit 2 extended power uprate ("EPU") proceeding. As
The potential for tube denting has been reduced in the St. Lucie Unit 2 steam generators by the installation of an antivibration support system that does not use drilled support plates. Support of the same type, egg crates, have been utilized to some extent in all CE supplied steam generators within the United States.
The egg crate system reduces susceptibility to tube denting by providing larger clearances and increased flow area around the tubes, so that the clearances between the tubes and their supports are less likely to become plugged by corrosion products.
6 Inspection Report 05000335/2007005, 05000389/2007005 at 27-33 (Feb. 1, 2008)
(ML080350408).
7 Similarly, the Staff argues that SACE could have asked for UFSAR Amendment 18 in 2008, when FPL submitted its 50.59 Summary. NRC Staff Answer at 7. But the 50.59 Summary gave no description of the numerous design changes made by FPL to the Unit 2 RSGs; nor did the NRCs inspection report. Thus, SACE would have had to have supernatural powers in order to divine that it would be appropriate to request a copy of UFSAR Amendment 18 at that time.
4


SACE has previously explained, however, SA CE had no way of knowing that either of 3 Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014
St. Lucie Unit 2 has a full egg crate support system (all support plates have been eliminated).
("SACE Motion"); Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 ("Amended Hearing Request").
OFSAR at 5.4-13 (emphasis added).8 The importance of the tube supports to FPLs and the Staffs own safety analyses for Unit 2 is also confirmed in Mr. Gundersens expert declaration at ¶¶ 44, 46, 54.
4  The Unit 2 steam generator design changes identified in UFSAR Amendment 18 are described at pages 2-5 of SACE's Amended Hearing Request.
Thus, SACEs contention regarding the safety risks caused by FPLs substitution of tube support plates for lattice or eggcrate tube supports is based on FPLs own expert analysis in its OFSAR, not SACEs own speculative assumptions. FPL Answer at 7.
5  The Staff also argues that SACE's Amended Hearing Request is not permitted because it is not specifically allowed by CLI-14-01 (Apr. 1, 2014) or NRC regulations. NRC Staff Answer at 4-5. Clearly, however, the Commission's rules of pr actice anticipate the amendment of contentions as new information arises. As discussed above in note 1, SACE has addressed the Commission's rules in order to assist the Commission in ensuring that the new information it presents is considered in a manner that is fair and efficient.
FPLs argument that SACE has failed to support this aspect of its safety contention is baseless.9 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should reject FPLs and the Staffs arguments and grant SACEs Amended Hearing Request.
those license amendment proceedings involved the re-design of the Unit 2 RSGs, because neither of the NRC hearing notices makes any mention of the RSG re-designs.
Respectfully submitted, (Electronically signed by)
See Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Reply to Oppositions to SACE's Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License at 5-9 (May 5, 2014) ("SACE Reply"). SACE became aware of the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSG re-design only recently, through the San Onofre case. See Declaration of Arnold Gundersen, ¶ 29 n. 32,
Diane Curran HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG, & EISENBERG, L.L.P.
¶ 31 (March 9, 2014) ("Gundersen D eclaration"), attached to SA CE's Hearing Request. FPL also cites two other documents, generated "years before" SACE prepared its Amended Hearing Request, that purportedly contain the same information as UFSAR Amendment 18. FPL Answer at 5. For inst ance, FPL argues that SACE could have obtained the same information from FPL's 2007 revisions to its Aging Management Plan ("AMP"). FPL Answer at 5 and n. 10 (citing Declaration of Mr. William A. Cross in Support of FPL's Answer Opposing SACE Re quest for Hearing, ¶ 10.)  But the AMP revision cited by FPL and attached to Mr. Cross' declaration is a non-public document.
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-328-3500 Fax: 202-328-6918 e-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com May 27, 2014 8
See SACE Reply at 9 and note 10. SACE was no t even aware of its existence until FPL attached it to Mr. Cross' declaration.
Relevant excerpts of the OFSAR are attached as Exhibit 3 to SACEs Hearing Request.
FPL also misleadingly asserts that its "10 C.F.R. § 50.59 analysis showing that the RSGs satisfied UFSAR acceptance criteri a and Technical Specifications has been publicly available since 2008."  FPL Answer at 5. But the document cited by FPL for this proposition, a letter from Gor don L. Johnston to NRC (June 26, 2008)
9 In addition, both FPL and the Staff repeat several of their previous arguments that SACEs contentions are inadmissible. FPL Answer at 6-7, NRC Staff Answer at 9-10.
(ML081840111), is only a "Summary" of FPL's 50.59 analysis, and contains virtually no information about the design changes made by FPL to the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSGs. See Hearing Request at 8. The actual 50.59 analysis is a non-public document kept by FPL at the St. Lucie site. While NRC inspector s reviewed the 50.59 analysis and briefly reported on that review in an inspection report 6, FPL never submitted the analysis to the NRC and therefore it was never posted on ADAMS. Thus, FPL's claim that SACE could have found the information in the UFSAR Amendment 18 years ago is pure sophistry.
SACE has thoroughly addressed those arguments in its Reply, and therefore will not repeat that discussion here.
7    B. The Information in SACE's Amended Hearing Request Supports  the Admission of SACE's Contentions.      FPL argues that "SACE's reliance on UFSAR Amendment 18 to assert safety concerns with the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSG rest s upon faulty assumptions, and therefore, fails to raise a genuine dispute with St. Lucie Unit 2's licensing basis."  FPL Answer at 7. The principal "faulty assumption" of which FPL accuses SACE is that "the substitution
5


of tube support plates for lattice or eggcrate tube supports in the Unit 2 steam generators increases the potential for denting."  FPL Answer at 7. This is not SACE's assumption, however, but a representation by FPL itself in the original Final Safety Analysis
("OFSAR") for Unit 2. The OFSAR states:
The potential for tube denting has been reduced in the St. Lucie Unit 2 steam generators by the installation of an antivibration support system that does not use drilled support plates. Support of the same type, "egg crates", have been utilized to some extent in all CE supplied steam generators within the United States.
The egg crate system reduces susceptibility to tube denting by providing larger clearances and increased flow area around the tubes, so that the clearances between the tubes and their supports are less likely to become plugged by corrosion products. 
6 Inspection Report 05000335/2007005, 05000389/2007005 at 27-33 (Feb. 1, 2008)
(ML080350408). Similarly, the Staff argues that SACE could have asked for UFSAR Amendment 18 in 2008, when FPL submitted its 50.59 Summary. NRC Staff Answer at 7. But the 50.59 Summary gave no description of the numerous design changes made by FPL to the Unit 2 RSGs; nor did the NRC's inspection report.
Thus, SACE would have had to have supernatural powers in order to divine that it would be appropriate to request a copy of UFSAR Amendment 18 at that time.
St. Lucie Unit 2 has a full egg crate s upport system (all support plates have been eliminated).
OFSAR at 5.4-13 (emphasis added).
8  The importance of the tube supports to FPL's and the Staff's own safety analyses for Unit 2 is also confirmed in Mr. Gundersen's expert declaration at ¶¶ 44, 46, 54.
Thus, SACE's contention regarding the sa fety risks caused by FPL's substitution of tube support plates for lattice or eggcrate tube supports is based on FPL's own expert analysis in its OFSAR, not SACE's own "speculative assumptions."  FPL Answer at 7. FPL's argument that SACE has failed to suppo rt this aspect of its safety contention is baseless.
9  III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should reject FPL's and the Staff's arguments and grant SACE's Amended Hearing Request.
Respectfully submitted, (Electronically signed by
) Diane Curran HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG, & EISENBERG, L.L.P.
1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-328-3500
Fax:  202-328-6918 e-mail:  dcurran@harmoncurran.com May 27, 2014 8  Relevant excerpts of the OFSAR are attached as Exhibit 3 to SACE's Hearing Request.
9 In addition, both FPL and the Staff repeat several of their previous arguments that SACE's contentions are inadmissible. FPL Answer at 6-7, NRC Staf f Answer at 9-10. SACE has thoroughly addressed those arguments in its Reply, and therefore will not repeat that discussion here.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
__________________________________
                                          )
        ) In the Matter of:           )  
In the Matter of:                         )
 
Florida Power & Light Co.                 )         Docket No. 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2                   )
Florida Power & Light Co.             )   Docket No. 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2           )  
                                          )
                                          )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 27, 2014, I served copies of the foregoing Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Reply to Answers by Florida Power & Light Co. and NRC Staff to Amended Hearing Request on the parties to this proceeding by posting it on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 27, 2014, I served copies of the foregoing Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's Reply to Answers by Florida Power & Light Co. and NRC Staff to Amended Hearing Request on the parties to this proceeding by posting it on the NRC's Electronic Information Exchange.  
(Electronically signed by)
  (Electronically signed by)
Diane Curran}}
Diane Curran}}

Latest revision as of 20:51, 5 February 2020

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy'S Reply to Answers by Florida Power & Light Co. and NRC Staff to Amended Hearing Request
ML14147A523
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/27/2014
From: Curran D
Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
To:
NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
50-389-LA, RAS 25977
Download: ML14147A523 (6)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of: )

Florida Power & Light Co. ) Docket No. 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 ) May 27, 2014

)

SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGYS REPLY TO ANSWERS BY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. AND NRC STAFF TO AMENDED HEARING REQUEST I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2)1, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) hereby replies to answers by Florida Power & Light Co. (FPL) and the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff to SACEs Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014)

(Amended Hearing Request).2 Both FPL and the Staff oppose SACEs request to supplement Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (March 10, 2014)(Hearing Request) 1 SACE notes that as a technical matter, neither 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2) nor any other part of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 applies in this case because the NRC has not established a deadline for submission of hearing requests. Nevertheless, SACE has addressed these standards because they provide reasonable guidance for the fair and efficient consideration of the new information presented in its Amended Hearing Request.

2 Florida Power & Light Companys Answer Opposing Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request (May 20, 2104) (FPL Answer);

NRC Staff Answer to Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (May 20, 2104) (NRC Staff Answer). FPLs and the Staffs Answers respond to Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 (SACE Motion); and Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 (Amended Hearing Request).

with additional relevant information that is contained in Amendment 18 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR Amendment 18) (June 26, 2008)

(ML14104B631).3 UFSAR Amendment 18, which was not publicly available at the time SACE filed its Hearing Request, confirms and augments the list of major design changes to the Unit 2 replacement steam generators (RSGs) that are the subject of an ongoing de facto license amendment proceeding by the NRC Staff.4 FPLs and the Staffs objections to SACEs Motion and Amended Hearing Request are without merit, and therefore the Motion should be granted.

II. DISCUSSION A. SACEs Amended Hearing Request is Timely.

Both FPL and the Staff argue that SACE does not satisfy the timeliness requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c).5 FPL Answer at 4-6, NRC Staff Answer at 7-9.

They contend that the information in UFSAR Amendment 18 was available to SACE during the 2007-08 license amendment proceeding regarding Unit 2 technical specifications and the 2011-12 Unit 2 extended power uprate (EPU) proceeding. As SACE has previously explained, however, SACE had no way of knowing that either of 3

Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Motion for Leave to Amend Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 (SACE Motion); Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Amended Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License (Apr. 25, 2014 (Amended Hearing Request).

4 The Unit 2 steam generator design changes identified in UFSAR Amendment 18 are described at pages 2-5 of SACEs Amended Hearing Request.

5 The Staff also argues that SACEs Amended Hearing Request is not permitted because it is not specifically allowed by CLI-14-01 (Apr. 1, 2014) or NRC regulations. NRC Staff Answer at 4-5. Clearly, however, the Commissions rules of practice anticipate the amendment of contentions as new information arises. As discussed above in note 1, SACE has addressed the Commissions rules in order to assist the Commission in ensuring that the new information it presents is considered in a manner that is fair and efficient.

2

those license amendment proceedings involved the re-design of the Unit 2 RSGs, because neither of the NRC hearing notices makes any mention of the RSG re-designs. See Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Reply to Oppositions to SACEs Hearing Request Regarding De Facto Amendment of St. Lucie Unit 2 Operating License at 5-9 (May 5, 2014) (SACE Reply). SACE became aware of the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSG re-design only recently, through the San Onofre case. See Declaration of Arnold Gundersen, ¶ 29 n. 32,

¶ 31 (March 9, 2014) (Gundersen Declaration), attached to SACEs Hearing Request.

FPL also cites two other documents, generated years before SACE prepared its Amended Hearing Request, that purportedly contain the same information as UFSAR Amendment 18. FPL Answer at 5. For instance, FPL argues that SACE could have obtained the same information from FPLs 2007 revisions to its Aging Management Plan (AMP). FPL Answer at 5 and n. 10 (citing Declaration of Mr. William A. Cross in Support of FPLs Answer Opposing SACE Request for Hearing, ¶ 10.) But the AMP revision cited by FPL and attached to Mr. Cross declaration is a non-public document.

See SACE Reply at 9 and note 10. SACE was not even aware of its existence until FPL attached it to Mr. Cross declaration.

FPL also misleadingly asserts that its 10 C.F.R. § 50.59 analysis showing that the RSGs satisfied UFSAR acceptance criteria and Technical Specifications has been publicly available since 2008. FPL Answer at 5. But the document cited by FPL for this proposition, a letter from Gordon L. Johnston to NRC (June 26, 2008)

(ML081840111), is only a Summary of FPLs 50.59 analysis, and contains virtually no information about the design changes made by FPL to the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSGs. See Hearing Request at 8. The actual 50.59 analysis is a non-public document kept by FPL at 3

the St. Lucie site. While NRC inspectors reviewed the 50.59 analysis and briefly reported on that review in an inspection report6, FPL never submitted the analysis to the NRC and therefore it was never posted on ADAMS. Thus, FPLs claim that SACE could have found the information in the UFSAR Amendment 18 years ago is pure sophistry.7 B. The Information in SACEs Amended Hearing Request Supports the Admission of SACEs Contentions.

FPL argues that SACEs reliance on UFSAR Amendment 18 to assert safety concerns with the St. Lucie Unit 2 RSG rests upon faulty assumptions, and therefore, fails to raise a genuine dispute with St. Lucie Unit 2s licensing basis. FPL Answer at 7.

The principal faulty assumption of which FPL accuses SACE is that the substitution of tube support plates for lattice or eggcrate tube supports in the Unit 2 steam generators increases the potential for denting. FPL Answer at 7. This is not SACEs assumption, however, but a representation by FPL itself in the original Final Safety Analysis (OFSAR) for Unit 2. The OFSAR states:

The potential for tube denting has been reduced in the St. Lucie Unit 2 steam generators by the installation of an antivibration support system that does not use drilled support plates. Support of the same type, egg crates, have been utilized to some extent in all CE supplied steam generators within the United States.

The egg crate system reduces susceptibility to tube denting by providing larger clearances and increased flow area around the tubes, so that the clearances between the tubes and their supports are less likely to become plugged by corrosion products.

6 Inspection Report 05000335/2007005, 05000389/2007005 at 27-33 (Feb. 1, 2008)

(ML080350408).

7 Similarly, the Staff argues that SACE could have asked for UFSAR Amendment 18 in 2008, when FPL submitted its 50.59 Summary. NRC Staff Answer at 7. But the 50.59 Summary gave no description of the numerous design changes made by FPL to the Unit 2 RSGs; nor did the NRCs inspection report. Thus, SACE would have had to have supernatural powers in order to divine that it would be appropriate to request a copy of UFSAR Amendment 18 at that time.

4

St. Lucie Unit 2 has a full egg crate support system (all support plates have been eliminated).

OFSAR at 5.4-13 (emphasis added).8 The importance of the tube supports to FPLs and the Staffs own safety analyses for Unit 2 is also confirmed in Mr. Gundersens expert declaration at ¶¶ 44, 46, 54.

Thus, SACEs contention regarding the safety risks caused by FPLs substitution of tube support plates for lattice or eggcrate tube supports is based on FPLs own expert analysis in its OFSAR, not SACEs own speculative assumptions. FPL Answer at 7.

FPLs argument that SACE has failed to support this aspect of its safety contention is baseless.9 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should reject FPLs and the Staffs arguments and grant SACEs Amended Hearing Request.

Respectfully submitted, (Electronically signed by)

Diane Curran HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG, & EISENBERG, L.L.P.

1726 M Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-328-3500 Fax: 202-328-6918 e-mail: dcurran@harmoncurran.com May 27, 2014 8

Relevant excerpts of the OFSAR are attached as Exhibit 3 to SACEs Hearing Request.

9 In addition, both FPL and the Staff repeat several of their previous arguments that SACEs contentions are inadmissible. FPL Answer at 6-7, NRC Staff Answer at 9-10.

SACE has thoroughly addressed those arguments in its Reply, and therefore will not repeat that discussion here.

5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of: )

Florida Power & Light Co. ) Docket No. 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 27, 2014, I served copies of the foregoing Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Reply to Answers by Florida Power & Light Co. and NRC Staff to Amended Hearing Request on the parties to this proceeding by posting it on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange.

(Electronically signed by)

Diane Curran

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML14147A523&oldid=2452545"