ML082550741

NRC Staff'S Answer to Saporito Energy Consultants' Petition to Intervence and Request for Hearing

ML082550741
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	09/11/2008
From:	Marcia Simon, Subin L NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-250-OLA, 50-251-OLA, ASLBP 08-869-03-OLA-BD01, RAS 1123
Download: ML082550741 (15)

Text

September 11, 2008 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-250/251-OLA Florida Power & Light Company )

) ASLBP No. 08-869-03-OLA-BD01 (Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4) )

NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO SAPORITO ENERGY CONSULTANTS PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby answers the Request for Hearing and Leave to Intervene (Petition) submitted by and through Thomas Saporito as President of Saporito Energy Consultants (Petitioners or SEC). For the reasons stated below, the Petition should be denied for failure to demonstrate standing and to submit an admissible contention.

BACKGROUND By letter dated September 5, 2007, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or Applicant) submitted a request to amend operating licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41 for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, respectively. 1 The proposed amendment removes 1

See Letter from William Jefferson, Jr., FPL, to the NRC Document Control Desk, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, License Amendment Request (LAR) 193, Administrative changes to Technical Specifications to Remove Notes Regarding the Inoperability of Rod Position Indication for Control Rods F-8 (Unit 4) and M-6 (Unit 3), dated Sept. 5, 2007 (Amendment Request or LAR).

notes associated with two prior amendments 2 that implemented alternate methods of determining rod positions for Control Rod F-8 in Unit 4 and control rod M-6 in Unit 3 while the rod position indication systems for those two control rods were being repaired. LAR at 1.

Furthermore, the Applicant stated that since the repairs have been completed during a prior outage, the alternate methods, and therefore, the notes, are no longer required. Id. On July 29, 2008, the Staff published in the Federal Register a notice of consideration of issuance of the proposed amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing. 3 In response to this notice, SEC, through Mr. Saporito, timely filed their Petition on August 18, 2008.

DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards A. Legal Standards Governing Standing Any person who requests a hearing or seeks to intervene in a Commission proceeding must demonstrate that he or she has standing to do so. Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a), instructs the Commission to grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding.

Commission regulations require that a petitioner demonstrate standing under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d) and proffer at least one admissible contention. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a).

Section 2.309(d) requires that a petition or request to intervene state the following:

2 The prior amendments are No. 221 (Unit 4) and No. 230 (Unit 3), issued on August 20, 2004, and October 5, 2006, respectively. LAR at 1.

3 Florida Power and Light Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, 73 Fed. Reg. 43,956 (July 29, 2008).

(i) the name, address and telephone number of the requester or petitioner; (ii) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (iii) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; and (iv) the possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest.

The Commission traditionally looks to judicial concepts of standing when determining whether a petitioner has established the necessary "interest," as required under § 2.309(d)(iv).

See, e.g., Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI 10, 49 NRC 318, 322-23 (1999); Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station),

CLI-98-21, 48 NRC 185, 195 (1998) ("Yankee Rowe"). Federal jurisprudence requires a petitioner to demonstrate that (1) he has suffered a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes injury-in-fact within the zone of interests arguably protected by the governing statute; 4 (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998); Kelley v. Selin, 42 F.3d 1501, 1508 (6th Cir. 1995).

The injury-in-fact must also be concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). A petitioner must have a real stake in the outcome of the proceeding, and while this stake need not be substantial, it must be actual, direct, or genuine. Houston Lighting & Power Co.

(South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 439, 447-48 (1979), aff'd ALAB-549, 4

In Commission proceedings, the injury must fall within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the AEA or the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). Quivira Mining Co. (Ambrosia Lake Facility), CLI-98-11, 48 NRC 1, 6 (1998).

9 NRC 644 (1979).

An organization may base its standing either upon the interest of at least one of its members who has authorized the organization to represent him or her (i.e., representational standing) or upon the licensing action's effect upon the interest of the petitioning organization itself (i.e., organizational standing). See Yankee Rowe, CLI-98-21, 48 NRC at 195. An organization seeking to intervene in its own right (i.e., based on organizational standing) must demonstrate a palpable injury in fact to its organizational interests that is within the zone of interests protected by the AEA or NEPA. See Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-94-3, 39 NRC 95, 102 n.10 (1994); Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), ALAB-952, 33 NRC 521, 528-30 (1991).

When an organization asserts a right to represent the interests of its members, judicial concepts of standing require a showing that: (1) its member(s) would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests that the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires an individual member to participate in the organization's lawsuit. See Private Fuel Storage, CLI-99-10, 49 NRC at 323, citing Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). In addition, the organization [m]ust demonstrate how at least one member may be affected by the licensing action, must identify that member by name/address, and must show that the organization is authorized to request a hearing on that members behalf. N. States Power Co. (Monticello; Prairie Island, Units 1 & 2; Prairie Island ISFSI), CLI-00-14, 52 NRC 37, 47 (2000).

In certain situations, the Commission has also recognized standing based on a petitioner's proximity to the facility at issue. See Tenn. Valley Auth. (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2; Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), LBP-02-14, 56 NRC 15, 23 (2002). This recognition presumes a petitioner has standing to intervene without the need specifically to

plead injury, causation, and redressability if the petitioner lives within, or otherwise has frequent contacts with, the zone of possible harm from the nuclear reactor or other source of radioactivity. Id., citing Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), LBP-01-6, 53 NRC 138, 146 (2001), affd on other grounds, CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3 (2001). In construction permit and operating license proceedings, the proximity presumption generally applies to petitioners residing within fifty miles of a reactor. See Sequoyah Fuels Corp.

& Gen. Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 75 n.22 (1994). In an operating license amendment proceeding, however, a petitioner cannot base his or her standing on proximity unless the proposed action quite obvious[ly] entails an increased potential for offsite consequences. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2),

CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 191 (1999), pet. for rev. denied sub nom. Dienethal v. NRC, 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Absent such obvious potential for offsite consequences, a petition must allege some specific injury-in-fact that will result from the action taken . . . . Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329-30 (1989).

To determine whether a petitioner is within the potential zone of harm of the proposed action, the nature of the proposed action and the significance of the radioactive source must be examined. See Sequoyah/Watts Bar, LBP-02-14, 56 NRC at 23. This determination is made on a case-by-case basis by examining the significance of the radioactive source in relation to the distance involved and the type of action proposed. See Georgia Inst. of Tech. (Georgia Tech Research Reactor, Atlanta, Georgia), CLI-95-12, 42 NRC 111, 116-17, citing Sequoyah Fuels, CLI-94-12, 40 NRC at 75 n.22.

B. Legal Standards Governing the Admission of Contentions To gain admission to a proceeding as a party, a petitioner must submit at least one admissible contention that meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f). 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a).

This regulation requires a petitioner to:

(i) provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; (ii) provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv) demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; (v) provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestor's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and (vi) provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioner's belief.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

The Commission has emphasized that its rules on contention admissibility establishes an evidentiary threshold more demanding than a mere pleading requirement and is strict by design. Dominion Nuclear Conn., Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3),

CLI-01-24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001), reconsideration denied, CLI-02-1, 55 NRC 1 (2002).

Failure to comply with any of these requirements is grounds for dismissing a contention. See Private Fuel Storage, CLI-99-10, 49 NRC at 325. The contentions should refer to the specific documents or other sources of which the petitioner is aware and upon which he or she intends to rely in establishing the validity of the contentions. Millstone, CLI-01-24, 54 NRC at 358, citing Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 333

(1999). The petitioner must submit more than bald or conclusory allegation[s] of a dispute with the applicant. Id. A contention will not be admitted if the petitioner has offered no tangible information, no experts, no substantive affidavits, but instead only bare assertions and speculation. Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma Site), CLI-03-13, 58 NRC 195, 203 (2003)

(internal quotations omitted).

II. SECs Standing To obtain standing in this proceeding, SEC must show either an immediate or threatened injury to its organizational interests or to the interests of identified members.

Georgia Tech, CLI-95-12, 42 NRC at 115. In support of SECs standing, the Petition merely lists Thomas Saporito, the president of SEC, with a street address and a P.O. Box in Jupiter, Florida. Petition at 1. Petitioners claim that Mr. Saporito, as a U.S. citizen, has an inherent right under the [AEA] to be made a party to the proceeding, and therefore, based on Mr.

Saporitos citizenship and his status as president of SEC, SEC has a right to be made a party as well. Id. Petitioners also state that Mr. Saporito and SEC have real property and personal property and financial interests which can be adversely affected if operations at Turkey Point cause a release of radioactive particles into the environment. Id. at 2. Specifically, Petitioners claim that such a release could render [Petitioners] home and property unavailable for human contact or use for many years or forever, and could forever compromise the environment where the petitioners reside, live and do business. Petition at 2.

Neither Mr. Saporito, as an individual, nor SEC, as an organization, has made the required showing to support standing. 5 First, contrary to Petitioners assertion, there is no 5

The Staff notes that in July, 2008, these same Petitioners requested a hearing seeking to challenge an NRC Confirmatory Order. Florida Power & Light Co (St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-08-14, 68 NRC ___, slip op. at 11-12 (Aug. 15, 2008). The Board in that case (continued. . .)

inherent right under the AEA, based on U.S. citizenship or otherwise, to participate as a party in a proceeding. See BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.C. Cir. 1974)

(stating that the AEA does not confer the automatic right of intervention on anyone). Second, Petitioners vague assertions of possible harm do not amount to a showing of concrete and particularized injury to Mr. Saporitos interests or SECs interests that is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Sequoyah Fuels Corp. and General Atomics (Gore, Oklahoma Site), CLI-94-12, 40 NRC 64, 72 (1994). Moreover, Petitioners vaguely assert only that harm could result from operations at . . . Turkey Point (Petition at 2) and fail to demonstrate that such injury would result from the challenged license amendment. PPL Susquehanna LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-07-10, 66 NRC 1, 15 (2007), citing Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 188 (1999). Specifically, Petitioners fail to indicate how the challenged license amendment, which merely removes notes that are no longer applicable from the Technical Specifications, would increase the risk of an offsite release of radioactive material. Because Petitioners have stated merely a vague general objection to the facility, they have not demonstrated injury-in-fact in this license amendment proceeding. Id.

Finally, Petitioners cannot rely on the proximity presumption to support their standing. 6

(. . .continued) ruled that Petitioners had failed to establish standing based on assertions similar to those provided here. Id., slip op. at 8.

6 In cases involving issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, the Commission has created a presumption that living within a 50-mile distance of the facility confers standing without the need to establish injury, causation, and redressability.

See Consumers Energy Co. (Big Rock Point ISFSI), CLI-07-19, 65 NRC 423, 426 (2007), citing Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2),CLI-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329 (1989). In all other types of proceedings, proximity may be a basis for conferring standing if the petitioner shows an obvious potential for offsite [radiological] consequences. Big Rock (continued. . .)

Both Mr. Saporito and SEC have listed addresses in Jupiter, Florida, over 100 miles from Turkey Point and far beyond the 50-mile radius that would grant them proximity standing in a construction permit or operating license proceeding. 7 In this license amendment proceeding, where the 50-mile presumption does not apply, Petitioners have made no showing of an obvious potential for offsite consequences from the requested action that would justify recognizing any proximity presumption, much less one extending over 100 miles from the plant site. See St. Lucie, CLI-89-21, 30 NRC at 329-30. Nor have Petitioners shown a plausible chain of events that would result in offsite radiological consequences posing a distinct new harm or threat from this purely administrative license amendment. Zion, CLI-99-4, 49 NRC at 192.

Rather, Petitioners have provided only conclusory allegations about possible property, environmental and economic harm from Turkey Point. Therefore, because the proximity presumption does not apply, and because Mr. Saporito and SEC have failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact, Petitioners do not have standing in this proceeding.

III. SECs Contentions As explained below, Petitioners three contentions are inadmissible because they challenge the Staffs no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination. The contentions are also inadmissible because they fail to satisfy, or even address, the

(. . .continued)

Point, CLI-07-19, 65 NRC at 426 (internal citations omitted). This determination is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature of the proposed action and the significance of the radioactive source. Id.

7 According to the distance calculator available at http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance.html, Jupiter, Florida is approximately 104 miles from Homestead, Florida, where Turkey Point is located.

Commissions contention pleading requirements as set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). 8 A contention must be rejected if it fails to meet any one of those requirements. Arizona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 & 3), CLI-91-12, 34 NRC 149, 155 (1991).

Petitioners contentions read as follows:

(1) Petitioners contend here that the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed amendments, although administrative in nature, could directly or indirectly result in substantive changes to the Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumption.

(2) Petitioners contend here that the proposed amendments create the probability of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated since the proposed amendments may change the physical plant or the modes of plant operation defined in the facility operating licenses.

(3) Petitioners contend here that the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since the removal of the technical notes may reduce margins of safety.

Petition at 2.

At the outset, the Staff notes that each of these contentions challenges the Staffs proposed NSHC determination for this amendment. Specifically, each contention proposes that one of the three criteria of 10 C.F.R. § 50.92(c) has not been met. A licensing board may not entertain such a challenge. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),

LBP-91-7, 33 NRC 179, 183 (1991); see also 10 C.F.R. § 50.58(b)(6) (only the Commission, at 8

Other than stating their contentions, Petitioners provide no other discussion of the contentions in their petition. Petitioners have provided no discussion or explanation of the bases for their contentions, no facts, expert opinions, or documents that support their contentions, and no supporting reasons for the alleged deficiencies in the licensees analysis of no significant hazards consideration. See Petition at 2. On its face, therefore, the Petition is deficient because it fails to address the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1).

its discretion, may review such a determination).

The contentions are also inadmissible under the Commissions pleading requirements because the Petitioners fail to provide an adequate basis, fail to provide supporting facts or expert opinion, and fail to raise a genuine dispute of material fact or law with the applicant.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii), (v), (vi). A petitioner must provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i) (emphasis added). The filing of vague, unparticularized contentions is prohibited. Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 338 (1999). Here, instead of identifying a specific issue of law or fact related to the license amendment, Petitioners merely parrot the language of the Applicants no significant hazards consideration determination (NSHCD) analysis. In Contention 1, for example, Petitioners do not identify specific changes that could result in the Technical Specifications. Likewise, in Contention 2, Petitioners do not identify specific changes in physical plant or modes of operation that create the probability of a new or different accident. Finally, Contention 3 does not specify how removal of administrative notes that are no longer needed could reduce margins of safety if removed. Because Petitioners have failed to state their contentions with sufficient particularity, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i), the contentions should be rejected.

A petitioner must also provide some sort of minimal basis indicating the potential validity of the contention. Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing ProceedingsProcedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,170 (Aug. 11, 1989). Furthermore, it is the petitioners responsibility to formulate its contentions and provide the information necessary to satisfy the basis requirement. USEC, Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 457 (2006), quoting Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2),

ALAB-942, 32 NRC 395, 416-17 (1990). Here, Petitioners have stated no basis whatsoever.

Instead, Petitioners have simply formulated contentions by negating statements in the

Applicants NSHCD analysis. 9 Because Petitioners fail to state even a minimal basis for their contentions, they have not met the requirement of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii), and the contentions should be rejected.

A petitioner must also provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the [petitioners] position on the issue . . . together with references to specific sources and documents on which [the petitioner] intends to rely to support its position.

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v). Petitioners have failed to provide any statement of facts, any expert opinions, or any references to sources or documents supporting their position; therefore, their contentions amount to nothing more than bare assertions and speculation which must be rejected. Fansteel, CLI-03-13, 58 NRC at 203.

Finally, Petitioners must show that a genuine dispute exists with regard to the license amendment application. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). To do so, the petition must identify the disputed portion of the application, and provide supporting reasons for the challenge to the application, or, if the petitioner alleges that information has been omitted from the application, identify each [omission] and the supporting reasons for the petitioners belief.

USEC, CLI-06-10, 63 NRC at 456 (internal citations omitted). Here, the Petitioners have not identified specific portions of the LAR that they dispute, or specific omissions, in any of their 9

For example, the licensees analysis for the first prong of the determination states as follows:

The proposed amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the proposed amendments are purely administrative in nature.

The proposed amendments . . . do not affect the Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumption.

73 Fed. Reg. at 43,956. Comparing this with Contention 1 reveals how the Petitioners formulated that contention. A comparison of the licensees analysis for the second and third prongs of the determination with Contentions 2 and 3 yields similar results.

contentions. Nor have they supplied supporting reasons for such challenges or omissions.

Therefore, the Petition has failed to raise a genuine dispute with the Applicant and their contentions must be rejected.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Petition filed by Thomas Saporito as President of SEC fails to comply with the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d) and the contention admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1). Therefore, the petition to intervene and request for hearing should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

Lloyd B. Subin Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-1988 lloyd.subin@nrc.gov

/Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)/

Marcia J. Simon Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-1261 marcia.simon@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 11th day of September, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-250/251-OLA Florida Power & Light Company )

) ASLBP No. 08-869-03-OLA-BD01 (Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO SAPORITO ENERGY CONSULTANTS PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by Electronic Information Exchange this 11th day of September, 2008.

Administrative Judge Administrative Judge William J. Froelich, Chair Michael F. Kennedy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wjf1@nrc.gov E-mail: mfk2@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate Thomas S. Moore Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: OCAAMAIL.Resource@nrc.gov E-mail: tsm2@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary Mail Stop: T-3F23 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov

Mitchell Ross, Esq. Thomas Saporito, President Antonio Fernandez, Esq. Saporito Energy Consultants Florida Power & Light Company 1030 Military Terrace, #25 700 Universe Boulevard Jupiter, FL 33458 P.O. Box 14000 saporito3@gmail.com Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 mitch.ross@fpl.com antonio.fernandez@fpl.com

/Signed (electronically) by/

Lloyd B. Subin Counsel for the NRC Staff