ML16214A230
| ML16214A230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/01/2016 |
| From: | Bernie White Citizens Allied for Safe Energy (CASE) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-250-LA, 50-251-LA, ASLBP 15-935-02-LA-BD01, RAS 51246 | |
| Download: ML16214A230 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Michael M. Gibson, Chairman Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Dr. William W. Sager In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-250-LA and 50-251-LA Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, ASLBP No. 15-935-02-LA-BD01 Units 3 and 4)
August 1, 2016 CITIZENS ALLIED FOR SAFE ENERGY ANSWER TO NRC STAFF AND FPL REGARDING PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b) (3), Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc., (CASE) is providing this answer to the NRC Staffs Response and Florida Power and Light Companys (FPL) Answer, both dated July 22, 2016, to CASEs Petition For Review (June 27, 2016) of the Boards Initial Decision (May 31, 2016). Since they make similar arguments CASE is providing a joint response.
INTRODUCTION On October 14, 2014, alarmed at the implications for the impact on the environment of the UHS license amendment granted to FPL by the NRC on July 31, 2014 for the Turkey Point Cooling Canal System (CCS), CASE
!1
filed a Petition to Intervene and Request For a Hearing on behalf of its members (INT-038). On March 23, 2015 CASE was granted standing and one Contention was admitted by Board ORDER. The Initial Decision found that CASEs Contention One was proved beyond any reasonable doubt and provided what the Board considered an appropriate remedy. CASE is challenging that remedy and questioning whether it provides sufficient and appropriate redress to its members who, to this day, are still suffering from as yet undefined and unresolved, and increasing, threats from the operation of the CCS. CASE is asking that the Commission, in its review of the remedy provided consider the entirety of the extensive information CASE has provided in this matter. The Board found that the EA, and thus the FONSI, was deficient and, CASE contends, so is the remedy. CASEs members have not been well served and their concerns are still unresolved without any indication that they ever will be. And NEPA has embarrassingly not been honored.
NRC STAFF AND FPL ARGUMENTS The NRC Staff and FPL, in their referenced filings, are challenging CASEs rejection of the remedy provided in the Initial Decision and also challenge the Boards ruling that the 2014 EA and FONSI failed and was deficient at many turns.
The NRC states, at 17, For unknown reasons, CASE decided to forgo presenting any qualified expert testimony (at the evidentiary hearing)
!2
FPL describes, at 7-10, how CASE made several furtive attempts to obtain expert witnesses which, as CASE describes below, were thwarted by governmental agencies and by the Board, and then states, at 2, The Boards decision followed a full evidentiary hearing during which CASE had ample opportunity to provide testimony or other reliable evidence relevant to its contention. It did not.
at 9, Based on CASEs lack of relevant testimony, FPL argued that CASE had not demonstrated standing and had not provided evidence sufficient to satisfy CASEs burden of going forward.
This is a Catch 22 situation. As quoted in CASE SECOND MOTION REQUESTING SUBPOENAS, December 9, 2015, the Department of the Interior stated, at 5, In response to your e-mail of November 16, the employees will not voluntarily testify in the NRC matter as you requested. Be advised that even if they did, because you are seeking their expert testimony they are required by NPS regulations at 43 CFR 2.290 to first obtain the approval of the agency ethics office. That approval has not yet been sought, and will not until the employees receive a subpoena from the NRC. (emphasis added)
All three governmental agencies, Miami-Dade County, South Florida Water Management District and DOI, parent agency of the Biscayne National Park which abuts the CCS and whos director, in a letter he voluntarily supplied to CASE and is cited by CASE as having concerns in this matter, PETITION at 16-17 (INT-038) and Exhibit 4, all refused to cooperate with CASE. Then another government agency, the NRC, denies relief. So CASE is really in a classic Catch 22 situation where the system seems stacked against those not part of it, possibly constituting a concerted institutional denial of due process. And the NRC Staff and FPL
!3
ask Where are your experts? These are the unknown reasons for the lack of relevant testimony.
In the Board ORDER (Denying CASEs Application for Subpoenas)
November 12, 2015, at 2, we read:
it is unclear what efforts, if any, CASE has taken to obtain testimony voluntarily from these witnesses.
In the Boards ORDER Denying Application for Subpoenas, Denying Motion for Summary Disposition, and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Strike) , December 22,2015, at 3, we read, comparable experts are unavailable. Because this proceeding concerns groundwater migration and saltwater intrusion, any qualified hydrogeologist could provide an expert opinion on the matter .. (emphasis added)
These statements deny two factors. First, no hydrologist in South Florida would testify (CASE asked many) for fear of offending their employer or others who might employ their services; they feared for their jobs and their livelihood. Second, to say that any hydrologist could have testified in this matter denies the vast complexity of the issues involved, witness the large amount of data and information which CASE has provided in this matter. Being a scientist does not assure specific relevant understanding of the operation and of the environmental impact of the CCS. Any review of this Petition should take these factors into account.
The Board has ruled that CASE proved its case; the NRC Staffs 2014 EA and its FONSI on which the NRC Staff based its issuance of the applicants license amendment are unequivocally deficient. CASE is only challenging the remedy of the Initial Decision which does not remove or address the potential for injury to CASEs members. Nor will the remedy provided reveal and address root causes of the CCS problems
!4
NEPA DISHONORED and IGNORED In the NRC Staffs Response, at 7-8, we read:
NEPA requires the NRC to consider the environmental impacts of its licensing actions prior to issuing licenses.28 NEPA is procedural and does not mandate a specific outcome or action.29 NEPA only requires that the agency take a hard look at the environmental impacts of a proposed action. NEPAs procedural requirements are intended to foster informed decision-making and provide public disclosure of the relevant impacts.31 (emphasis added)
If NEPA requires that the NRC Staff, and all agencies, consider the environmental impacts of their actions PRIOR to their actions, logically, how can one conclude that anything but reconsideration or revisiting the actions after the fact can remedy any shortcomings, all twenty pages of them, (pages 17 to 37 of the Initial Decision), of the original act? Perhaps the answer is in the rest of the paragraph which denigrates NEPA to merely being procedural as opposed to being a mandated or required standard and which counterintuitively states the Decisions exact conclusion looking for an informed decision and relevant impacts which were no where in sight. This might explain the mind set of the NRC staff in approaching the 2014 EA by cavalierly putting NEPA in the category of suggestions, like the Ten Suggestions. CASE clearly and strongly presented the important and central role of NEPA in these matters in its Initial Statement Of Position (INT-000) at 58 -75. The failure to fully allow for the impact of the license amendment they were approving on the Turkey Point Wetland, as confirmed de facto by the Miami-Dade County Notice of Violation (INT-005) and monetary fine (INT-006), of FPL for pollution outside of the CCS (October, 2015), as well as their disrespect for NEPA, warrants, in CASEs opinion, a review by the Commission of the Initial Decision and CASE respectfully requests such an action.
!5
Executed in Accord with 10 CFR § 2.304(d).
Respectfully submitted,
/S/ (Electronically) Barry J. White Barry J. White Authorized Representative Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc.
10001 SW 129 Terrace Miami, FL 33176 305-251-1960 bwtamia@bellsouth.net Dated at Miami, Florida this First Day of August, 2016
!6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250 and
) 50-251-LA
)
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) ASLBP No.15-935 Units 3 & 4 ) LA-BD01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barry J. White, hereby certify that copies of the foregoing CITIZENS ALLIED FOR SAFE ENERGY ANSWER TO NRC STAFF AND FPL REGARDING PETITION FOR REVIEW have been submitted to the Electronic Information Exchange.
Executed in Accord with 10 CFR § 2.304(d).
Respectfully submitted,
/S/ (Electronically) Barry J. White Barry J. White Authorized Representative Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc.
10001 SW 129 Terrace Miami, FL 33176 305-251-1960 bwtamia@bellsouth.net Dated at Miami, Florida this First Day of August, 2016
!7