ML18240A392
| ML18240A392 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/2018 |
| From: | Ayres R, Curran D, Fettus G, Rotenberg E, Rumelt K Ayres Law Group, Friends of the Earth, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP, Miami Waterkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Super Law Group, Vermont Law School |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-250-SLR, 50-251-SLR, License Renewal, RAS 54425 | |
| Download: ML18240A392 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
Florida Power and Light Company ) Docket Nos. 50-250/251-SLR Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 )
_____________________________________)
UNOPPOSED MOTION BY SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, AND MIAMI WATERKEEPER FOR EXTENSION OF REPLY DEADLINE I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.307 and 2.323, 69 Fed. Reg. 2,182 2,203 (Jan. 18, 2004), and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18 (1998), Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Miami Waterkeeper (hereinafter Petitioners) hereby request an extension of the deadline for replying to the oppositions to Petitioners hearing requests that were filed by Florida Power and Light Co. (FPL) and the NRC Staff on August 27, 2018.1 Petitioners respectfully submit that special and unavoidable circumstances warrant a short extension of six days to the time period established by 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.309(i)(2). 69 Fed. Reg. at 2,203, 48 NRC at 21. Therefore, Petitioners have good cause for requesting an extension as required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.307.
This motion is unopposed: FPL takes no position on it and the Staff does not oppose it.
1 Applicants Answer Opposing Southern Alliance for Clean Energys Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene (FPL Answer to SACE); Applicants Answer Opposing Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene Submitted by Friends of the Earth and Natural Resources Defense Council (FPL Answer to FOE et al.); NRC Staffs Corrected Response to Petitions to Intervene and Requests for Hearing Filed by (1) Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Miami Waterkeeper, and (2) Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (NRC Staff Answer).
II. GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION REQUEST The special and unavoidable circumstances establishing good cause for a brief extension of the reply deadline are as follows:
- 1. Both FPL and the Staff have filed lengthy responses to Petitioners hearing requests, making both legal and factual arguments. FPLs and the Staffs combined responses to SACE comprise 59 pages; and their combined responses to FOE, NRDC, and Miami Waterkeeper comprise 89 pages.
- 2. The legal issues presented by FPLs and the Staffs responses are both significant and unusual, such that formulating an adequately researched and briefed reply will require more time than allotted by the regulations. It will also assist the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in its consideration of the admissibility of the contentions.
For instance, FPL argues that the NRC lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners demand for consideration of mechanical cooling towers as a means to reduce the environmental impacts of the Component Cooling Water (CCW) system used to cool the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 reactors. Responding to FPLs arguments will require Petitioners to address a complex and lengthy history of federal, state and local regulation of Turkey Point water emissions, including gaps, overlap, and inconsistencies.
In addition, the NRC Staff defends the Environmental Reports reliance on 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3), despite the plain language of § 51.53(c)(3) stating that it applies 2
only to initial license renewal applicants. NRC Staff Response to SACE at 18-28.2 Replying to the Staff will require SACEs counsel to review an array of internal NRC memoranda and other documents cited by the Staff. Finally, both FPL and the Staff make a significant number of factual arguments disputing the accuracy or completeness of Petitioners citations to the Environmental Report and other documents. These claims must be painstakingly reviewed and replied to, thus demanding more time than allotted by the regulations.
- 3. The time for replying to FPL and the NRC Staff falls over the Labor Day holiday, when all of Petitioners counsel have family obligations. This will make it difficult for counsel to work through the weekend to meet the current deadline of Tuesday September 4, as would be needed.
- 4. SACEs counsel is also representing a petitioner in the licensing proceeding for the Holtec Centralized Interim Storage (CIS) facility, for which the filing deadline for hearing requests is September 14, 2018. See 83 Fed. Reg. 32,919 (July 16, 2018).
SACEs counsel seeks additional time for this reply in order to allow her to more adequately balance the simultaneous demands of this case with the demands of preparing a hearing request in the Holtec CIS case.
- 5. A brief extension of the deadline for replying to FPL and the Staff will not have any effect on the overall schedule for reviewing FPLs SLR application, given that the NRCs decision on FPLs SLR application is not expected until late 2019.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/turkey-point-2 FPL, for its part, relies on § 51.53(c)(3) to oppose the admission of SACEs contentions without discussing the applicability of the regulation. FPL Answer to SACE, passim.
3
subsequent.html#schedule.
III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, good cause exists to extend the deadline for replies to Petitioners hearing requests in this proceeding until September 10, 2018.
Respectfully submitted, Counsel to SACE:
___/signed electronically by/__
Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1725 DeSales Street N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 240-393-9285 dcurran@harmoncurran.com Counsel to Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Miami Waterkeeper:
___/signed electronically by/__
Richard Ayres 2923 Foxhall Road, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016 202-744-6930 ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com
___/signed electronically by/__
Geoffrey H. Fettus NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 1152 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-289-2371 gfettus@nrdc.org
___/signed electronically by/__
Professor Ken Rumelt Vermont Law School 164 Chelsea Street, PO Box 96 South Royalton, VT 05068 802-831-1000 krumelt@vermontlaw.edu 4
___/signed electronically by/__
Edan Rotenberg SUPER LAW GROUP, LLC 180 Maiden Lane, Suite 603 New York, N.Y. 10038 212-242-2355, Ext. 2 edan@superlawgroup.com August 28, 2018 CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I certify that on August 28, 2018, I consulted counsel for FPL and the NRC Staff in a sincere effort to resolve the issues raised by this motion. Counsel for FPL stated that FPL takes no position on the motion. Counsel for the NRC Staff stated that the Staff does not oppose the motion.
___/signed electronically by/__
Diane Curran 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_____________________________________
)
In the Matter of )
Florida Power and Light Company ) Docket Nos. 50-250/251-SLR Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 )
_____________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 28, 2018, I posted copies of the foregoing UNOPPOSED MOTION BY SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY, FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, AND MIAMI WATERKEEPER FOR EXTENSION OF REPLY DEADLINE on the NRCs Electronic Information Exchange System.
___/signed electronically by/__
Diane Curran 6