ML19025A273
| ML19025A273 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/2019 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-250-SLR, 50-251-SLR, ASLBP 18-957-01-SLR-BD01, RAS 54770 | |
| Download: ML19025A273 (4) | |
Text
January 25, 2019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250-SLR
) 50-251-SLR (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, )
Unit Nos. 3 and 4) )
NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO PETITIONERS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE NRC STAFFS CLARIFICATION INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), the NRC Staff hereby files its answer to the motion filed by Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, Miami Waterkeeper, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (Petitioners) on January 15, 2019, 1 in which they seek to file a response 2 to Florida Power & Light Companys (Applicant) response 3 to the NRC Staffs clarification of its views regarding the admissibility of the Petitioners contentions on alternative cooling systems. 4 For the reasons set forth below, the Staff opposes the Petitioners Motion as an impermissible filing that would unnecessarily protract the participants arguments on contention admissibility and expand upon the limited additional filings authorized by the Board.
1 Petitioners Motion for Leave to Respond to Applicants Response to the NRC Staffs Clarification Regarding the Admissibility of Proposed Cooling Tower Contentions (Motion) (Jan. 15, 2019).
2 Petitioners Response to Applicants New Arguments on the Admissibility of Petitioners Cooling Tower Contentions (Petitioners Response) (Jan. 15, 2019).
3 Applicants Response to the NRC Staffs Clarification Regarding the Admissibility of Proposed Cooling Tower Contentions (Applicants Response) (Jan. 7, 2019).
4 NRC Staffs Clarification of Its Views Regarding the Admissibility of Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E and SACE Contention 2 (Alternative Cooling Systems) (Staff Clarification) (Dec. 18, 2018).
BACKGROUND Oral argument on the admissibility of the Petitioners contentions was held in Homestead, FL, on December 4, 2018. During the course of oral argument, Counsel for the Petitioners requested a clarification of the Staffs position on Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E and SACE Contention 2, 5 which had challenged the Applicants omission, in its Environmental Report, of mechanical draft cooling towers as an alternative to using the Cooling Canal System for subsequent license renewal. The Board then directed the Staff to file a clarification of its views and authorized the Petitioners and Applicant to file responses to that clarification. 6 The Staff filed its Clarification on December 18, 2018, to which the Petitioners and Applicant responded on January 7, 2019. On January 15, 2019, the Petitioners filed the instant Motion, seeking to file their attached response to the Applicants Response, claiming that certain statements in the Applicants Response constituted new arguments. 7 On January 22, 2019, the Applicant filed an answer in opposition to the Petitioners Motion, in which it contested the Petitioners claim that its Response contained new arguments. 8 DISCUSSION The Petitioners Motion seeks to file a response, not to the Staffs Clarification (to which they already responded on January 7), but to the Applicants Response to the Staffs Clarification. No such filing was authorized by the Board when it directed the Staff to file its Clarification. Indeed, all participants in this proceeding have already filed their views on the admissibility of those contentions, responded to each others filings on contention admissibility, 5 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4), Official Transcript of Proceedings (Dec. 4, 2018), at Tr. 254-55 (Mr. Ayres); Tr. 255-55 (Ms. Curran).
6 Tr. 257-58.
7 Motion at 1; Petitioners Response at 1.
8 Applicants Answer to Petitioners Joint Motion for Leave to Respond to Applicants Response to the NRC Staffs Clarification (Jan. 22, 2010) (Applicants Answer), passim.
and further addressed the admissibility of those contentions in oral arguments before the Board.
As the Board previously stated, the purpose of oral argument is for the Board to ask questions of the parties arising from the written pleadings. 9 While the Board, during oral argument, directed the Staff to file a clarification of its views and allowed other parties to respond to the Staffs Clarification, the purpose of these filings was to assist the Board in understanding statements made during oral argument. No additional filings or arguments concerning the admissibility of contentions were requested or authorized by the Board.
All participants in this proceeding have had a full opportunity to express their views on contention admissibility - and have already been afforded an opportunity to file more argumentation than is contemplated in the Commissions rules in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) and (i),
having been allowed to file a surreply and sur-surreplies on other contentions, as well as responses to the Staffs Clarification. In the Staffs view, no further filings concerning these issues should be permitted.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff opposes the Petitioners Motion, and recommends that the Petitioners Response should be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
/Signed (electronically) by/
Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - O-14-A44 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 287-9194 E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 25th day of January 2019 9 Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4), Official Transcript of Proceedings (Oct. 4, 2018), at Tr. 8.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250-SLR
) 50-251-SLR (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, )
Unit Nos. 3 and 4 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R § 2.305, I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO PETITIONERS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE NRC STAFFS CLARIFICATION, dated January 25, 2019, have been served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding, this 25th day of January, 2019.
Copies of the foregoing have also been sent by E-mail to Mr. Albert Gomez at albert@icassemblies.com, and to Richard E. Ayres, Esq. (for Friends of the Earth) at ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com, this 25th day of January, 2019.
/Signed (electronically) by/
Sherwin E. Turk Special Counsel for Litigation Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - O-14-A44 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 287-9194 E-mail: Sherwin.Turk@nrc.gov