ML14314A874

NRC Staff'S Answer to Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc.'S Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing

ML14314A874
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	11/10/2014
From:	Christina England, Harris B, Roth D NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-250-LA, 50-251-LA, ASLBP 15-935-02-LA-BD01, RAS 26904
Download: ML14314A874 (30)

Text

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

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. ) Docket No. 50-250-LA

) 50-251-LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating )

Unit Nos. 3 and 4) )

NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO CITIZENS ALLIED FOR SAFE ENERGY, INC.s PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING Brian G. Harris David E. Roth Christina England Counsel for NRC Staff November 10, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................2 I. NRC License Amendment ...........................................................................................3 II. State of Florida Permits ...............................................................................................4 III. Description of Turkey Point and the CCS....................................................................5 DISCUSSION..............................................................................................................................6 I. CASE Has Not Established Standing to Intervene in this License Proceeding .............. 6 A. Proximity to the Facility is Insufficient to Establish Standing for the License Amendment At Issue ..............................................................................7 B. CASE Failed to Satisfy the Judicial Concept of Standing .................................7 II. CASE Has Failed to Assert an Admissible Contention ...............................................10 A. Contention Admissibility Requirements ..........................................................10 B. Contention 1 (Challenge to Extended Power Uprate)..................................... 12 C. Contention 2 (Challenge To the Exigency of the Amendment)....................... 14

1. CASE Cannot Challenge the Staffs Decision to Process the Amendment as Exigent ..........................................................................15

2. CASEs Concerns Related to the Extended Power Uprate are Immaterial and Outside the Scope of This Proceeding ........................... 17 D. Contention 3 (Challenges to the States Authorization to Treat the CCS) ..................................................................................................................18

1. The Chemical Treatment and Water Injection Authorized By the State Were Discussed In the Staffs EA.................................................. 19

2. CASEs Other Challenges Are Outside the Scope of the License Amendment ..............................................................................20 E. Contention 4 (Challenge to Turkey Points Ability to Operate Safely with the CCS).....................................................................................................20

1. Contention 4 Does Not Raise a Genuine Dispute of Material Law or Fact ............................................................................................21

2. Contention 4 is Outside the Scope of this License Amendment .......... 22

ii

3. The Contention is Unsupported by any Factual Information or Expert Opinion........................................................................................23 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................25

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

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. ) Docket No. 50-250-LA

) 50-251-LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 3 and 4) )

NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO CITIZENS ALLIED FOR SAFE ENERGY, INC.s PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING OF INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(i), the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) hereby files its answer to Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc.s (CASE or Petitioner)

Petition to Intervene and Request for a Hearing (Petition) 1 regarding Florida Power & Lights (FPL) license amendment request to increase the ultimate heat sink (UHS) temperature limit for Turkey Point Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (collectively Turkey Point).

CASE has not established standing to intervene in this license amendment and the four contentions asserted by CASE are inadmissible. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) should deny the petition.

1 CASE filed portions of their petition on October 14, 2014, by email. On October 17, 2014, CASE filed its petition through the EIE system (Agency Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML14290A510). Prior to filing, Mr. White, CASEs representative, contacted Staffs counsel in the Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 COL proceeding about whether he needed to file through the EIE system, in light of rulings in the Unit 6 and 7 proceeding that authorized CASE to file by email. Staffs Counsel, in that proceeding indicated by email that Mr. White could file by email. It is unclear, however, whether those responses were directed at the potential new proceeding or simply reaffirming the authorization in the Unit 6 and 7 proceeding. As such, the Staff believes that Mr. White reasonably relied on the representations of Staffs counsel in the Unit 6 and 7 proceeding prior to filing.

BACKGROUND This proceeding concerns FPLs request for a license amendment (LAR) to increase the allowable temperature limit in the Technical Specifications for the UHS, or the cooling canal system (CCS), that would require shutdown actions. The scope of FPLs LAR was limited.

Specifically, the license amendment allowed Turkey Point to increase the UHS temperature limit in the Technical Specifications for requiring shutdown actions from 100°F to 104°F, required increased monitoring of the UHS temperatures, increased surveillance frequency for the component cooling water heat exchangers performance tests, 2 and made minor editorial changes for clarity. 3 Separately from the NRCs approval of this license amendment, FPL sought and obtained permission from the State of Florida (Florida or State) to treat the CCS for blue-green algae using a combination of copper sulfate, hydrogen peroxide, and a bio-stimulant. 4 The State also approved Turkey Points request to extract additional water from the Floridan aquifer for use in the CCS. 5 2

The CCS serves as the UHS for the Intake Cooling Water (ICW) system and provides the coolant for the Circulating Water (CW) system. The CW system provides cooling water to the main plant condensers, and the ICW system removes heat loads from the Component Cooling Water (CCW) system during normal and accident conditions to support both reactor and containment heat removal requirements as well as spent fuel cooling requirements.

3 Florida Power & Light Company; Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, 79 Fed. Reg.

47,689, 47,689 (Aug. 14, 2014) (License amendment; issuance, opportunity to request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene).

4 Letter from Mark P. Thomasson, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Michael Kiley, FPL (June 27, 2014) (Embedded within Biological Assessment on the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Proposed License Amendment to Increase the Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limit (Biological Assessment) (July 25, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14206A806 at A A-27)) (hereinafter June 27, 2014 Letter).

5 Letter from Sharon M. Trost, South Florida Water Management District, to Stacy Foster, FPL (June 27, 2014), Attachment A, (June 27, 2014, SFWMD Letter); Letter from Sharon M. Trost, South Florida Water Management District, to Stacy Foster, FPL (July 1, 2014), Attachment B, (July 1, 2014, SFWMD Letter).

I. NRC License Amendment On July 10, 2014, FPL submitted a license amendment request to modify Technical Specifications requirements related to the UHS temperature and component cooling water heat exchanger testing. 6 On July 17, 2014, the licensee requested that the amendment be processed on an emergency basis. 7 After reviewing FPLs request to process the amendment on an emergency basis, the Staff determined that there was sufficient time to publicly publish a notice of the amendment and began to process the amendment under exigent circumstances.

That notice of the amendment appeared in the Federal Register on July 30, 2014, and provided 14 days for comments. 8 On July 29, 2014, and in response to requests for additional information, the licensee supplemented its amendment request expanding the scope of the amendment previously noticed in the Federal Register. 9 As a result of the expanded scope, the Staff published a second notice in the local newspapers near the Turkey Point site. 10 The Staff received no comments in response to either notice and granted the license amendment request 6

Letter from Michael Kiley, FPL, to NRC, License Amendment Request No. 231, Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limit (July 10, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14196A006). The request was supplemented by eight (8) letters from July 17, 2014, through August 4, 2014. See ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14202A392, ML14204A367, ML14204A368, ML14206A853, ML14210A374, ML14211A507, ML14211A508, and ML14217A341 7

Letter from Michael Kiley, FPL, to NRC, License Amendment Request No. 231, Application to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limit - Request for Emergency Approval (July 17, 2014)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML14202A392).

8 Florida Power & Light Company; Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, 79 Fed. Reg.

44,214, 44,214 (July 30, 2014) (License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene).

9 Letter from Michael Kiley, FPL, to NRC, License Amendment Request No. 231, Application to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limit - Supplement 2, and Response to Request for Additional Information (RAI-5 and BOP RAIs 5 and 5.1) (July 29, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14211A508)

(revising the proposed Surveillance Requirements for the UHS and changing the surveillance requirements for the Component Cooling Water system).

10 Public Notice, NRC Staff Proposed to Amend Renewed Facility Operating Licenses at the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos. 3 and 4 (July 31, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14211A266). The notice was published in the Miami Herald and Key West Citizen newspapers on August 3 and 4, 2014.

on August 8, 2014. In light of the multiple notices and to avoid any confusion, the Staff extended the time to file a petition to intervene until October 14, 2014. 11 II. State of Florida Permits Prior to submitting its license amendment request to the NRC, FPL sought approval from the State for additional measures to respond to increasing temperatures in the CCS. In separate requests to the State, FPL sought permission to chemically treat the CCS and inject additional water into the CCS from the saltwater Biscayne Aquifer and the brackish Floridan Aquifer.

With respect to the chemical treatments, FPL requested the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to approve the short-term use of copper sulfate, hydrogen peroxide, and bio-stimulant as a mitigating strategy for reducing or eliminating the blue-green algae in the CCS. 12 On June 27, 2014, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection approved the chemical treatment of the CCS on a trial basis with some conditions. 13 As a condition of using these chemicals, the State required FPL to monitor the total recoverable copper and dissolved oxygen in the CCS. 14 The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Conservation Commission) further required FPL to document any potential related fish kills, report any fish kills to [the Conservation Commissions] hotline , and relay any information about toxicity of the cyanobacteria species to [the Conservation Commission] staff. 15 11 79 Fed. Reg. at 47,689.

12 June 27, 2014 Letter at A-2.

13 Letter from Mark P. Thomasson, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Michael Kiley, FPL (June 27, 2014) (Embedded in Biological Assessment, at A A-27) (CCS Treatment Approval Letter).

14 CCS Treatment Approval Letter at A-26.

15 Letter from Jennifer D. Goff, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, to Marc Harris, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, at A-28 (July 1, 2014) (Embedded in Biological Assessment, at A A-29).

Separately, FPL requested permission from the State to direct a portion of the water it was already authorized to withdraw for other purposes from the Biscayne and Floridan Aquifer to the CCS. 16 In July 2014, the South Florida Water Management District authorized FPL to start injecting water from the Biscayne Aquifer into the CCS. 17 Within two years, FPL expects that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection will order FPL to install six (6) additional wells to withdraw 14 million gallons per day of water from the Floridan Aquifer and inject it into the CCS. 18 These actions taken by the State of Florida are independent of the license amendment authorized by the NRC and outside the scope of the NRCs authority.

III. Description of Turkey Point and the CCS Turkey Point is located adjacent to the CCS. The CCS includes 168 miles of earthen canals covering an area approximately 2 miles wide and 5 miles long. Turkey Point draws water used for its component cooling water heat exchangers from the UHS. Once the water has been used for cooling, it is discharged into the CCS. The water then flows through the 13.2 mile CCS circuit over approximately 44 hours5.092593e-4 days <br />0.0122 hours <br />7.275132e-5 weeks <br />1.6742e-5 months <br /> before returning to the intake pumps. 19 The temperature of the water contained in the UHS must be low enough to ensure sufficient cooling capacity is available to provide normal cool down of the facility, and to mitigate the effects of accident 16 Letter from Stacy Foster, FPL, to Mindy Parrott, South Florida Water Management District, Turkey Point Units 3 & 4 Emergency/Temporary Use of Water (June 27, 2014), Attachment C, (June 27, 2014, FPL Letter).

17 July 1, 2014, SFWMD Letter, Attachment B.

18 E-mail from Stacy Foster, FPL, to Briana Grange, NRC (July 24, 2014) (Embedded in Biological Assessment, at C-9) (The current approved temporary water withdrawals are approximately 5 MGD from the Floridan Aquifer. The future withdrawals that FPL will request approval for from the South Florida Water Management District will be 14 [million gallons per day] from the Floridan Aquifer.).

19 Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for Amendment No. 261 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-31 and Amendment No. 256 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-41, at 2 (Aug. 8, 2014) (Embedded within Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos.

3 and 4 - Issuance of Amendments Under Exigent Circumstances Regarding Ultimate Heat Sink and Component Cooling Water Technical Specifications (TAC NOS. MF4392 and MF4393), at Enclosure 3)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML14199A107) (SER).

conditions. 20 The instant LAR increased the authorized UHS water temperature limit in the Technical Specifications requiring the Turkey Point units to shutdown from 100°F to 104°F, modified UHS temperature monitoring requirements, and increased the frequency of the component cooling water heat exchangers performance tests.

DISCUSSION As discussed below, CASE has failed to establish standing for this proceeding and failed to assert an admissible contention, and thus, its petition should be denied.

I. CASE Has Not Established Standing to Intervene in this License Proceeding NRC regulations require any person seeking standing to intervene in a license amendment proceeding to file a written request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing. 21 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(a). An organization, such as CASE, may establish representational standing to intervene if it identifies at least one of its members, by name and address, who would qualify for standing, shows that the member has authorized the organization to represent his or her interests, and demonstrates that the interest of the organization seeks to protect is germane to its own purposes. 22 In this case, several named members of CASE have provided affidavits that authorize CASE to represent them in this proceeding and raise issues germane to the organizations purpose. However, as discussed below, the named members have not provided sufficient information to satisfy the judicial concept of standing and, thus, CASEs Petition should be dismissed.

20 SER at 5.

21 The definition of person in 10 C.F.R. § 2.4 includes public interest groups like CASE.

22 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C., (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) CLI-99-10, 49 NRC 318, 323 (1999) (PFS).

A. Proximity to the Facility is Insufficient to Establish Standing for the License Amendment at Issue CASEs Petition appears to assert that CASE has standing to participate based on a proximity presumption for its members; that is its members live with 50 miles of the plant. 23 CASEs reliance on the proximity presumption 24 in this license amendment proceeding is misplaced. More is required in license amendment proceedings than proximity. 25 In license amendment proceedings, petitioners must satisfy the judicial concept of standing. 26 B. CASE Failed to Satisfy the Judicial Concept of Standing Under the judicial concept of standing, petitioners must demonstrate (1) an actual or threatened, concrete, and particularized injury (injury-in-fact) that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged action (causation) and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision (redressability). 27 CASE appears to assert that it satisfies the judicial concept of standing standing because (1) drawing excessive water from the aquifer presents [a] tangible and particular harm to the health and wellbeing of the co-petitioners members living within 50 miles of the site and who are ratepayers of the company; (2) the Commission has authorized measures the granting of which would directly affect the co-petitioners and their members; and (3) the Commission is the sole agency with the power to approve, to deny or to modify a license to construct and 23 Petition at 3.

24 In reactor licensing and license renewals, the Commission and Boards have normally allowed a petitioner to establish standing based on residing closer than 50-miles from the plant. Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC & Unistar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-09-20, 70 NRC 911, 915-16 (2009).

25 Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), LBP-85-24, 22 NRC 97, 98-99 (1985),

affd on other grounds, ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461 (1985). See also Exelon Generation Co., LLC & PSEG Nuclear, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 & 3), CLI-05-26, 62 NRC 577, 581-83 (2005);

Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 191 (1999).

26 Pilgrim, LBP-85-24, 22 NRC at 98-99, affd on other grounds, ALAB-816, 22 NRC 461 (1985).

27 See Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-1, 43 NRC 1, 6 (1996).

operate a commercial nuclear power plant. 28 These claims, unfortunately, are not traceable to the challenged license amendment and even assuming that CASEs petition would be ultimately successful, there is no remedy available to CASE before the Board or the Commission to prevent FPL from drawing water from the aquifers.

CASE premises its standing on the extraction of water from the aquifer. 29 The licensee did not seek permission from the NRC for the extraction of additional water from the aquifers.

Florida authorized this activity and it is unrelated to NRCs authorization to operate the plant with increased temperature limits in the UHS. 30 Thus, CASEs alleged harm is not traceable to the license amendment request for approval by the NRC and cannot be redressed through an NRC proceeding.

Assuming arguendo that CASE also meant to include the issues identified in each of the four contentions as a separate and independent basis for establishing standing in this proceeding, these contentions and the alleged harms are also not fairly traceable to the license amendment at issue here. In Contention 1, CASE challenges the extended power uprate granted to Turkey Point on June 15, 2012. As such, the time for challenging the amendment granting the uprate has long passed and cannot support standing in this license amendment.

Contention 2 challenges the Staffs determination that the exigent circumstances existed sufficient to trigger a truncated notice and comment period. This contention cannot support standing as no harm has occurred to CASE or its members. CASE and its members had an opportunity to comment and to challenge the license amendment after its issuance. As 28 Petition at 4. The Petition also appears to make some unparticular and generalized claims regarding economic interests and health without providing any direct analysis of how the license amendment would result in these perceived harms. Id. at 4. The Commission has held that bare statements asserting impacts to health, safety , and financial interests fail to set forth with particularity sufficient information to grant standing in a license amendment proceeding. Zion, CLI-00-5, 51 NRC at 98.

29 Petition at 4.

30 See June 27, 2014 Letter.

discussed further below, the assertion of whether the Staff should have issued the amendment under exigent circumstances is not litigable before the Board or the Commission.

Contention 3 challenges whether Turkey Point should have been allowed to withdraw water from the aquifer and whether it should have been allowed to treat the water in the canals with copper sulfate and other chemicals. Those issues and permissions were not part the of the license amendment granted by the NRC. The State provided that authority through a separate water permitting process. These issues are not traceable to the license amendment at issue and cannot be redressed in this license amendment proceeding before the Board. CASE may not collaterally attack the States permitting decisions regarding the use of chemical treatments in the CCS or injecting water from aquifers into the CCS in an NRC adjudicatory proceeding.

In Contention 4, CASE challenges whether Turkey Point is safe to operate under its current licensing basis that allows the use of the CCS as an ultimate heat sink. Again, the license amendment at issue here did not alter the Turkey Points use of the CCS for its UHS.

The license amendment only altered the allowable UHS temperature range for operating the units, imposed some additional monitoring requirements on the UHS temperature, and modified surveillance requirements on the component cooling water heat exchangers. CASEs claims that the CCS is inadequate and outdated cannot support standing in this proceeding. CASEs claims regarding the adequacy of using the CCS as the UHS is not within the scope of this license amendment.

As such, none of CASEs assertions satisfy the traditional concepts of standing because they failed to establish that the issues complained of are fairly traceable to the actions taken and, in any event, cannot be redressed in this forum. Thus, the Board should deny CASEs Petition.

II. CASE Has Failed to Assert an Admissible Contention A. Contention Admissibility Requirements In addition to establishing standing, to intervene in a license amendment proceeding, a petitioner must also submit at least one admissible contention. The legal requirements governing the admissibility of contentions are well-established and set forth in 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f) of the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure. Specifically, in order to be admitted, a contention must satisfy the following requirements:

(f) Contentions. (1) A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must:

(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 requestors/petitioners 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) [P]rovide 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 applicants 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 petitioners belief (2) Contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such

as the application, supporting safety analysis report, environmental report or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to a petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, participants shall file contentions based on the applicants environmental report 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)-(2). Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), a proposed contention must be rejected if it raises issues outside of the scope of the proceeding. 31 Thus, a proposed contention that challenges a license amendment must confine itself to health, safety or environmental issues fairly raised by [the license amendment]. 32 Moreover, a proposed contention must be rejected if it raises an issue that the Board is not authorized to adjudicate. 33 For example, a licensing board has no jurisdiction to rule on the propriety of a Staff determination that a proposed license amendment presents no significant hazards considerations or the timing of issuing an amendment. 34 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iv), a proposed contention must be rejected if it raises an issue that is not material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding. The proponent of a proposed contention in a licensing proceeding must demonstrate that the subject matter of the contention would impact the grant or denial of 31 See Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), LBP-91-19, 33 NRC 397, 400, 411-12 (1991).

32 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-81-25, 14 NRC 616, 624 (1981).

33 See Pub. Serv. Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167, 170-71 (1976).

34 See Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Unit 1), LBP-94-3, 39 NRC 31, 34 n. 1 (1994), affd, CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994) (immediate effectiveness of amendment is not challengable in a hearing); Zion, LBP-98-24, 48 NRC at 222-23. See also Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-7, 33 NRC 179, 183 (1991) (stating that a Licensing Board is without authority to review Staff's significant hazards consideration determination and, therefore, challenges to the Staffs significant hazards consideration determination are beyond the scope of the hearing on the proposed amendment.).

[the] pending license application. 35 In other words, the issue in the proposed contention must make a difference in the outcome of the licensing proceeding so as to entitle the petitioner to cognizable relief. 36 Finally, the Commission has emphasized that the 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) contention admissibility requirements are strict by design. 37 Failure to comply with any one of the 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1) requirements is grounds for dismissing the proposed contention. 38 B. Contention 1 (Challenge to Extended Power Uprate)

Contention 1 states:

The uprate of Turkey Point Reactors 3 & 4 has been concurrent with alarming increases in salinity, temperature, tritium, and chloride in the CCS area[.]

Petition at 5 (emphasis omitted). In Contention 1, CASE alleges that the CCSs characteristics changed once Units 3 and 4 restarted after the 2012 extended power uprate. 39 The contention asserts that the increased temperatures at the CCS resulted from the uprate and not drought conditions or elevated atmospheric temperature. 40 Outside of CASEs allegations regarding the uprate, Contention 1 makes a single isolated reference to the license amendment:

[I]n reviewing the NRC document (Docket ID NRC-2014-0181) relating to the Amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, there does not seem to be any mention of the impact the matter of 35 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), LBP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 62 (2008).

36 Private Fuel Storage, LLC (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142, 179 (1998), citing Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings - Procedural Changes in the Hearing Process, 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168, 33,172 (Aug. 11, 1989) (Final Rule).

37 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI 24, 54 NRC 349, 358 (2001), petition for reconsidn denied, CLI-02-01, 55 NRC 1 (2002).

38 PFS, CLI-99-10, 49 NRC at 325, citing Palo Verde, CLI-91-12, 34 NRC at 155-56.

39 See generally Petition at 5 - 9.

40 Petition at 9.

salinity in the CCS or regarding saltwater intrusion into the Florida Aquifer, only the concern with temperature.

Petition at 6. However, CASE is mistaken. The environmental assessment (EA) prepared in conjunction with this license amendment discusses the salinity in the CCS including actions that would mitigate high temperatures and salinity and, thus, create more favorable conditions for CCS aquatic biota and crocodiles. 41 Specifically, the EA discussed in some detail the use of chemical treatments for the blue-green algae and addition of water to the CCS to moderate temperature and reduce salinity such that the CCS would have similar conditions as the Biscayne Bay over approximately two years. 42 The actions to mitigate both the high temperatures and salinity, however, were not part of the instant license amendment. Instead, the State and its agencies approved or imposed these requirements. 43 The States authorization to chemically treat the CCS and allow for the withdrawal of water from the aquifers for injection into the CCS are not challengeable in a proceeding before the Board or the Commission. Thus, this portion of the contention should be denied for being out-of-scope of the instant license amendment.

To the extent that CASE seeks to challenge the extended power uprate (EPU), its challenge is not timely. The EPU was noticed on May 9, 2011. 44 Petitions to Intervene in the EPU license amendment were due to be filed no later than July 8, 2011. 45 No one, including CASE, sought to intervene in the EPU proceeding. CASEs challenge to the EPU and any 41 Florida Power & Light Company; Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, 79 Fed.

Reg. 44,464, 44,468 (July 31, 2014) (Environmental Assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance).

42 Id.

43 Id.

44 Florida Power & Light Company; Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing and Order Imposing Procedures for Document Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information, 76 Fed. Reg.

26,771 (May 9, 2011).

45 76 Fed. Reg. at 26,772.

environmental impacts that may have resulted from that amendment are not challengeable as part of this subsequent narrow license amendment and are impermissibly late. 46 CASE clearly indicates that it is not raising safety concerns. The Petition states that

[w]hile operational safety per se is not of primary concern here, since FPL claims that the environmental factors caused the increase in CCS temperatures then it seems appropriate to bring in environmental information in addressing FPLs assertions. 47 Without any safety concerns regarding the amendment, CASEs contention is limited to an environmental challenge of the Staffs EA and FONSI. However, CASEs Contention has not identified any portion of the EA performed by the staff as containing any errors or resulting in an incorrect conclusion. In fact, CASE is silent as to the Staffs ultimate determination that the NRC concludes that the proposed action would not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment.

The proposed action would result in no significant impacts on surface water resources, aquatic resources, or the radiological environment. In addition, the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any Federally-protected species or affect any designated critical habitat. 48 CASE does not explain how any allegation in its contention relates to the instant license amendment or the Staffs environmental analysis. As such, CASEs Contention 1 fails to meet the Commissions contention admissibility requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), (iv), and (vi), and thus, should be denied.

C. Contention 2 (Challenge To the Exigency of the Amendment)

Contention 2 states:

The exigent CCS problems started years before July, 2014 and were being addressed in 2013 and earlier.

46 License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, 77 Fed. Reg. 20,059, 20,060 (April 3, 2012) (Final environmental assessment and finding of significant impact) (explaining that no one had intervened in response to earlier notices and that CASE had not commented on the uprate).

47 Petition at 9 (emphasis added).

48 EA at 44,469.

Petition at 5 and 10 (emphasis omitted). CASEs assertions do not indicate the specific nature of its challenge. In its conclusion for Contention 2, the Petition emphasizes that circumstances necessitating the amendment were not a surprise to the parties. 49 CASE supports this contention with citations to a presentation and two letters. 50 The presentation and both letters address the extended power uprate for Turkey Point. They do not address any aspect of the instant LAR and do not dispute any aspect of the LAR or accompanying EA. Neither the presentation nor the two letters support CASEs proposition that the NRC should not have treated FPLs amendment request as exigent. In any event, the Staffs determination that an amendment should be treated as exigent is outside the scope of this license amendment proceeding.

1. CASE Cannot Challenge the Staffs Decision to Process the Amendment as Exigent When a licensee submits a license amendment request under normal circumstances, the NRC publishes a notice of opportunity for hearing in the Federal Register at least 30 days before it issues the amendment. 51 A licensee may request processing of a license amendment request as an exigent or emergency amendment when circumstances requiring expedited processing are present. In order for the Staff to treat a licensees request for exigent processing of an amendment, the request must satisfy the criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 50.91(a)(6) that a licensee and the Commission must act quickly and that time does not permit the Commission to publish a Federal Register notice allowing 30 days for prior public comment, and it also determines that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. Further, the 49 Petition at 14.

50 The first letter was dated January 12, 2012, and pertained to the extended power uprate. The NRC responded to this letter on June 6, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12101A020). The second letter was dated August 6, 2008, and was written by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

51 10 C.F.R. § 50.91 preamble.

NRC [w]ill require the licensee to explain the exigency and why the licensee cannot avoid it, and use its normal public notice and comment procedures in paragraph (a)(2) of this section if it determines that the licensee has failed to use its best efforts to make a timely application for the amendment in order to create the exigency and to take advantage of this procedure. 52 In reviewing FPLs request to process the amendment as an emergency, the NRC Staff determined that there was sufficient time to publish a notice and request for public comment.

However, the Staff determined that there was insufficient time for a full 30 day comment period.

Therefore, the Staff provided the public with a shortened notice and comment period. 53 The Staffs treatment of the amendment as exigent did not change or alter CASEs rights in this proceeding. Determination that a license amendment involves exigent circumstances only affects whether a hearing opportunity is provided prior to issuance of the amendment. 54 In the instant license amendment, CASE had an opportunity to comment on the issuance of the license amendment and challenge its issuance. The Commission and other Atomic Safety &

Licensing Boards have made it clear that the Atomic Energy Act does not require pre-amendment hearing. 55 As such, the Staffs determination to process an amendment under exigent circumstances is not within the scope of a license amendment adjudicatory proceeding.

52 10 C.F.R. § 50.91(a)(6)(vi).

53 See 79 Fed. Reg. at 47,690; SER at 19 (The NRC staff determined that: (1) the licensee used its best efforts to make a timely application following identification of the issue; (2) the licensee could not reasonably have avoided the situation of lower-than-usual rainfall and a higher-than-usual algae concentration; and (3) the licensee has not abused the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) . The NRC staff determined that although the licensee requested that the NRC process the license amendment request under emergency circumstances, there was sufficient time to process the amendments as exigent.).

54 10 C.F.R. § 50.91(a)(6) (explaining that the Commissions finding that exigent circumstances only shortens the notice and comment period for proposed license amendments; the Commission still applies the same substantive standards during its safety review of the license amendment request). See also 10 C.F.R. § 50.92.

55 See Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-86-12, 24 NRC 1, 11 (1986), revd and remanded on other grounds sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v.

NRC, 799 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, LBP-90-18, 31 NRC 559,

1. CASEs Concerns Related to the Extended Power Uprate are Immaterial and Outside the Scope of This Proceeding As discussed above, CASE cannot assert an untimely challenge to the extended power uprate in this narrowly scoped license amendment proceeding. Outside of CASEs assertions related to the exigent processing of the license amendment, Contention 2 makes an isolated reference to the license amendment. CASE states that:

The DERM [Department of Environmental Resource Management]

analysis address [sic] many parameters besides temperature but, as noted above, the Amendments only address temperature of the canal water attributing the rise to climatic causes. 56 CASE does not include or explain what other parameters it is referring to, but CASE notes in the paragraph preceding this statement that [m]ostly likely the problems began at the time of the uprate and, when dry weather occurred in mid-2014, the already challenged CCS could not handle it. 57 To the extent that CASE intends its statements to challenge the extended power uprate, its challenge is not timely as previously explained. 58 CASEs support for this contention is not directed at the instant license amendment but raise issues regarding the extended power uprate. Thus, the support for the contention only addresses issues that are outside the scope of this limited proceeding. For example, the January 12, 2012 letter, 59 from the National Park Service to FPL and the NRC comments on the extended power uprate. Thus, the issues raised in the letter are immaterial to the instant license amendment and outside the scope of this proceeding.

574 (1990), affd on other grounds, CLI-95-1, 41 NRC 71 (1995); River Bend, LBP-94-3, 39 NRC at 31, affd, CLI-94-10, 40 NRC 43 (1994).

56 Petition at 12-13.

57 Petition at 12 (internal formatting omitted).

58 See supra Section B.

59 Petition, Exhibit 2 (Jan. 12, 2012) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14290A516).

Contention 2 asserts issues outside the scope of this license amendment and not litigable, and thus, Contention 2 is inadmissible.

D. Contention 3 (Challenges to the States Authorization to Treat the CCS)

Contention 3 states:

The measures being used to control the CCS conditions are extraordinarily invasive, environmentally usurious and some untested.

Petition at 10 (emphasis omitted). CASE specifically challenges whether FPL should have been allowed to use copper sulfate, hydrogen peroxide, and a bio-stimulant to control the blue-green algae bloom. 60 The Petition also asserts that FPL should not have been allowed to withdraw water from the Floridan aquifer. Contrary to CASEs assertions, Florida, not the NRC, authorized both the chemical treatments of the CCS and the withdrawal of water from the Floridan aquifer. 61 The instant LAR did not ask for or receive permission from the NRC to chemically treat the algae bloom in the CCS or inject water into the system. 62 Thus, any challenge to the license amendment based on the chemical treatments and water withdrawals is outside of the narrow scope of this proceeding. 63 Further, these issues are not traceable to the license amendment at issue and cannot be redressed by a proceeding before the Board. 64 To 60 CASE also mentions a concern about algal toxins from the CCS leaching into the aquifer but does not include any data to support its assertion.

61 See supra Background, Section State of Florida PermitsII. See also Letters between FPL and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, June 18, 2014 Letter and June 27, 2014 Letter.

Additionally, CASE demonstrates its awareness of FDEPs authorization authority by quoting a news report discussing FDEPs authorization, noting that FDEP authorized FPL to use a commonly used chemical mix that includes hydrogen peroxide and copper sulfate to kill the algae. Petition at 15.

62 Letter from Michael Kiley, FPL, to NRC, License Amendment Request No. 231, Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limit (July 10, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14196A006).

63 Dresden, CLI-81-25, 14 NRC at 624. Any issues involving the use of the chemical treatment and water withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer are the responsibility of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and other stakeholders and should be addressed through the appropriate authority and procedures.

64 See supra Background, Section State of Florida PermitsII.

the extent CASEs challenges the LAR because it mistakenly believes that the NRC authorized the chemical treatments and water withdrawals, the Petition should be denied.

1. The Chemical Treatment and Water Injection Authorized By the State Were Discussed In the Staffs EA Alternatively, the Petitions assertion could be interpreted as challenging the NRCs failure to consider the blue-green algae chemical treatments and the rising salinity in the CCS.

CASE states that [t]here was no mention of the use of this chemical in the NRC notice. 65 The Petition, citing a letter 66 issued after the Staff approved the license amendment, asserts that the lack of or reduction in freshwater in the area is a direct threat to the marine life breeding grounds which are touched by the plume from CCS. 67 CASE is mistaken. In the Environmental Assessment (EA), the Staff discussed the chemical treatments, water injections, and other efforts to mitigate the salinity in the CCS. 68 CASE does not identify any information in the EA that is incorrect or any conclusion as being in error. Since the use of chemical treatments and water withdrawals were authorized by the State and not the NRC, CASE has failed to raise a specific challenge to the EA or issues within the scope of the amendment, and thus, Contention 3 should be denied.

2. CASEs Other Challenges Are Outside the Scope of the License Amendment In addition to CASEs primary concerns raised in Contention 3, the Petition also asserts that the use of excessive water from the Floridan aquifer would put the water supply at risk, 65 Petition at 15.

66 Letter from Brian Carlstrom, National Park Service, Biscayne National Park, to Blake Guillory, South Florida Water Management District(Aug. 29, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14296A290)

(August 29, 2014 Letter to SFWMD). The letter was sent 21 days after the NRC approved the license amendment and 29 days after publishing the EA in the Federal Register.

67 Petition at 17. It is unclear what type of plume CASE is referring to, but contextually it seems CASE is referring to a salinity plume, though CASE does not explain or establish the existence of this plume.

68 See Environmental Assessment, at 13-14, (July 28, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14205A548) and the Biological Assessment.

affect the reactor operating temperature, and affect the crocodile reproductive cycle. These issues like the others raised in Contention 3 are discussed in the Staffs EA and biological assessment. The Staff concluded in the EA that the amendment would not have an appreciable impact on the human environment. 69 The Staff, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determined that the amendment was not likely to adversely affect the American crocodile, a federally protected species. 70 The Petition does not identify how the EAs analysis errs or why its conclusions are incorrect. With respect to CASEs concerns regarding increasing reactor operating temperature in relation to waste, 71 the instant license amendment did not alter the reactor coolant system operating temperatures or the component cooling water heat exchangers capability to support spent fuel cooling requirements, and thus, is outside the scope of the license amendment. 72 In sum, Contention 3 asserts issues that are outside the scope of the current license amendment and issues fully discussed as part the Staffs EA and biological assessment. CASE has not identified how these discussions in the Staffs EA were incorrect or made incorrect conclusions, and thus, the Contention 3 should be dismissed.

E. Contention 4 (Challenge to Turkey Points Ability to Operate Safely with the CCS)

Contention 4 states:

The CCS is aging, old technology and FPL has no redundancy for Units 3 & 4 limiting corrective actions Petition at 5 and 22 (emphasis omitted). CASEs proposed contention alleges that the Turkey Point is not safe to operate with the CCS and that FPL should be required to operate Turkey 69 79 Fed. Reg. at 44,469.

70 79 Fed. Reg. at 44,467.

71 Petition at 20 (emphasis omitted).

72 If CASE believes that the currently allowed operating temperatures are unsafe, it could file a 2.206 petition.

Point Units 1 and 2 in other than synchronous mode. 73 Neither of these issues are within the scope of the instant license amendment, and thus, Contention 4 is inadmissible.

1. Contention 4 Does Not Raise a Genuine Dispute of Material Law or Fact Proposed Contention 4 does not provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant/licensee on a material issue of law or fact, as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). Section 2.309(f)(1)(vi) requires that a proposed contention include references to specific portions of the application that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute. 74 CASE does not challenge the actual proposed licensing actioni.e., to increase the authorized UHS water temperature limit in the Technical Specifications requiring a plant shutdown, modify UHS temperature monitoring requirements, and increase the frequency of performance tests of the plants component cooling water heat exchangers. Nor does CASE challenge any of the SERs key assumptions or conclusions, including:

(1) Raising the Technical Specifications UHS temperature limits would not adversely affect the safety performance of the CCW system; 75 (2) Increasing the surveillance frequency of the CCW heat exchanger performance test keeps the CCW heat exchangers ready to perform their intended function during normal and accident conditions; 76 (3) The revisions will not lead to any containment pressure, temperature, or heat removal issues; 77 (4) Raising the UHS temperature limits would not adversely affect the ICW pumps, components, and piping supports; 78 and 73 Operating a generator in synchronous mode does not make real power; rather, the generator's field is controlled by a voltage regulator to either generate or absorb reactive power as needed to adjust the grid's voltage and improve power factor.

74 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi).

75 SER at 11-13.

76 SER at 12, 18.

77 SER at 13-15.

(5) Raising the Technical Specifications UHS temperature limit is unlikely to adversely affect the American crocodile or its critical habitat. 79 Because CASEs contention does not directly controvert a position taken by the Staff in the SER, it fails to raise a genuine dispute of material law or fact with the license amendment and is, therefore, inadmissible.

2. Contention 4 is Outside the Scope of this License Amendment In a challenge to a LAR, the scope of the license amendment dictates the scope of the proceeding. 80 Thus, where a contention challenges something that is not being changed by the license amendment, the contentions challenge is beyond the scope of any hearing on the LAR and should be dismissed.

CASEs challenge asserting that the CCS relies on old technology that is dangerous to operate and that more units at Turkey Point should be used for power generation is beyond the scope of the instant LAR. These concerns are unrelated to the LAR at issue in this proceeding, because they do not address the specific and limited changes to the technical specifications identified in the LAR. The license amendment merely raises the UHS temperature limit for requiring a plant shut down, modifies the surveillance requirements for monitoring the UHS temperature, and increases the frequency of the performance tests for the component cooling water heat exchanger. 81 If CASE has a concern with the adequacy of the current design and 78 SER at 16.

79 SER at 21-22.

80 See FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP 11, 78 NRC 177, 182 (2013) (Contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(iii), the proffered contention is outside the scope of this proceeding, as it challenges the entire steam generator replacement project, rather than any aspect of the proposed changes to four technical specifications identified in the license amendment request.).

81 SER at 1.

operation of Turkey Point, then they can petition under 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 for NRC action on the license. 82 Similarly, Turkey Points decision not to use Units 1 & 2 for power generation is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Units 1 & 2 are non-nuclear units outside of the NRCs authority.

The decision has nothing to do with FPLs request to raise the UHS temperature limits requiring a plant shutdown and modify certain monitoring requirements for the CCS and component cooling water heat exchangers.

3. The Contention is Unsupported by any Factual Information or Expert Opinion In addition, CASEs contention is devoid of any supporting factual information or expert opinion. The Commission has held that in order to trigger a full adjudicatory hearing, petitioners must be able to proffer at least some minimal factual and legal foundation in support of their contentions. 83 It is the petitioners obligation to present factual allegations or expert opinion necessary to support its contention. Neither mere speculation nor bare or conclusory assertions, even by an expert, alleging that a matter should be considered will suffice to allow the admission of a proffered contention. 84 The Commissions regulations require CASE to provide supporting evidence or information nowat the contention admissibility stage. 85 CASE may not introduce that support for the first time at the hearing. Under Commission precedent, a contention will be ruled inadmissible if the petitioner has offered no tangible information, no 82 In fact, there is an ongoing section 2.206 safety proceeding regarding Turkey Point and the CCS. (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML14202A521).

83 Duke Energy Corp. (Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-99-11, 49 NRC 328, 334 (1999).

84 Davis-Besse, LBP-12-27, 76 NRC at 595, citing USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 472 (2006); Fansteel, Inc. (Muskogee, Oklahoma, Site). CLI-03-13. 58 NC 195, 203 (2003).

85 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v).

experts, no substantive affidavits, but instead only bare assertions and speculation. 86 CASEs assertions, here, are bare unsupported assertions that cannot trigger a hearing.

Specifically, CASE relies on vague, conclusory statements without reference or citation to any studies, analyses, or other sources. For example, CASE makes the assertion that, [i]t now seems, especially with the return temperature in CCS at and above 104[°]F, that the CCS has outlived its usefulness and functionality. The canals are old and old technology. 87 CASE does not cite any documentary evidence or offer expert testimony to support its claim that the CCS is failing.

Similarly, CASE asserts that FPL should use Units 1 and 2 to generate power. To support its argument CASE cites FPLs Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan without any explanation or analysis. 88 However, the Board has held that simply attaching material or documents as a basis for a contention, without setting forth an explanation of that informations significance, is inadequate to support the admission of the contention. 89 Moreover, the referenced ten year plan includes nearly 200 pages of analysis and supporting documentation estimating the regions future power needs and explaining how FPL plans to meet those needs.

The Commission has held that Boards are not to sort through documents in search of an admissible contention. 90 CASEs contention, with its unparticularized reference to the ten-year plan, cannot transform its concern regarding the operation of Units 1 and 2 into a litigable contention. Thus, Contention 4 is also inadmissible.

86 Fansteel, CLI-03-13, 58 NRC at 203 (quoting GPU Nuclear, Inc. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-00-6, 51 NRC 193, 208 (2000)).

87 Petition at 22.

88 Id. Cases citation to the FPLs Ten-Year Plan contains a broken link. FPL, Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2013-2022 (Apr. 2013), available at http://www.fpl.com/about/ten_year/pdf/plan.pdf.

89 Davis-Besse, LBP-12-27, 76 NRC at 595, citing Fansteel, CLI-03-13, 58 NRC at 204-5.

90 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 331 (1983).

CONCLUSION CASE has failed to establish standing to challenge the instant license amendment.

None of the contentions proposed by CASE are admissible because they raise issues outside the scope of the license amendment and fail to identify and dispute specific portions of the proposed license amendment or the Staffs EA. Thus, CASEs Petition should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by Brian G. Harris Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-1392 E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov Date of Signature: November 10, 2014

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

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. ) Docket No. 50-250-LA

) 50-251-LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating )

Units 3 and 4) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (revised), I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO OF CITIZENS ALLIED FOR SAFE ENERGY, INC.s PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING dated November 10, 2014, have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRCs E-Filing System, in the above-captioned proceeding, or via electronic mail as indicated by an asterisk, this 10th day of November, 2014.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Michael M. Gibson, Chair Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E-mail: michael.gibson@nrc.gov Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15 D21 Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Washington, DC 20555-0001 Administrative Judge Brian Harris, Esq.

E-mail: michael.kennedy@nrc.gov David Roth, Esq.

Edward Williamson, Esq.

Dr. William W. Sager Christina England, Esq.

Administrative Judge John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail: william.sager@nrc.gov E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov Matthew Zogby, Law Clerk edward.williamson@nrc.gov E-mail: matthew.zogby@nrc.gov christina.england@nrc.gov john.tibbetts@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Florida Power & Light Company Adjudication 700 Universe Blvd.

Mail Stop: O-7H4 Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Nextera Energy Resources ocaamail@nrc.gov William Blair, Esq.

E-mail: william.blair@fpl.com

Florida Power & Light Company Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc.(CASE)*

801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 220 10001 SW 129 Terrace Washington, DC 20004 Miami, FL 33176 Steven C. Hamrick, Esq. Barry J. White E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com E-mail: bwtamia@bellsouth.net

/Signed (electronically) by/

Brian G. Harris Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-1392 E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov Date of Signature: November 10, 2014