ML19221B677

Friends of the Earth'S, Natural Resources Defense Council'S, and Miami Waterkeeper'S Petition for Review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board'S Rulings in LBP-19-3 and LBP-19-06

ML19221B677
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/09/2019
From:	Ayres R, Cox K, Fettus G, Reiser C, Rumelt K Ayres Law Group, Friends of the Earth, Miami Waterkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, Vermont Law School
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
50-250-SLR, 50-251-SLR, ASLBP 18-957-01-SLR-BD01, LBP-19-06, LBP-19-3, RAS 55155
Download: ML19221B677 (31)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 & 50-251

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 18-957-01-SLR-DB01

)

(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, ) August 9, 2019 Unit Nos. 3 and 4) )

)

(Subsequent License Renewal Application) )

FRIENDS OF THE EARTHS, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCILS, AND MIAMI WATERKEEPERS PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDS RULINGS IN LBP-19-3 AND LBP-19-06 Richard E. Ayres Geoffrey Fettus Ayres Law Group Caroline Reiser 2923 Foxhall Road, N.W. Natural Resources Defense Council Washington, D.C. 20016 1152 15th Street, NW, Suite 300 202-722-6930 Washington, DC 20005 ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com 202-289-2371 Counsel for Friends of the Earth gfettus@nrdc.org creiser@nrdc.org Counsel for Natural Resources Defense Council Kenneth J. Rumelt Kelly Cox Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic Miami Waterkeeper Vermont Law School 2103 Coral Way 2nd Floor 164 Chelsea Street, PO Box 96 Miami, FL 33145 South Royalton, VT 05068 305-905-0856 802-831-1031 kelly@miamiwaterkeeper.org krumelt@vermontlaw.edu Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper Counsel for Friends of the Earth August 9, 2019 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

SUMMARY

OF DECISION FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT .................................... 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................................. 3 III. DECISIONS AT ISSUE ...................................................................................................... 3 A. The Board Erred by Determining 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3) Applies to the Preparation of an ER in SLR Proceedings. .................................................................................................... 3 B. The Board Erred by Denying Contention 1-E with respect to Several Category 2 Issues. ... 8 C. The Board Erred in Denying Contention 2-E Regarding the ERs Flawed Analysis of Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................... 9

1. The Board erred by overlooking evidence presented by Intervenors demonstrating an increased risk that flooding will overtop the CCS during the SLR period and release pollutants to nearby surface waters. ............................................................................. 10

2. The Board concluded erroneously that state oversight will prevent overtopping and release of water from the CCS to nearby surface waters. .............................................. 11

3. The Board committed legal error by assuming Applicants compliance with a state consent order would yield small cumulative environmental impacts. ........................ 12

4. The Board erred by relying on the cumulative impacts analysis in the 2016 EIS for Units 6 and 7, which does not analyze cumulative impacts on groundwater from operating Units 3 and 4 during the SLR period. ........................................................................... 13

5. The Board erred by requiring Intervenors to prove higher temperatures during the SLR period would increase evaporation by a particular extent. ......................................... 14 D. The Board Erred in Denying Contention 3-E ................................................................... 15 E. The Board Erred in Denying Contention 4-E by Overlooking the 2016 EIS Finding that Climate Change Will Provide a New Environment that the Operations of [Units 3 and 4]

Will Affect. ................................................................................................................... 19 F. The Board Erred in Denying Contention 5-E with Respect to Impacts of CCS Operations on Surface Waters and Freshwater Wetlands. .................................................................. 22 IV. THE COMMISSION SHOULD GRANT INTERVENORS PETITION FOR REVIEW .. 23 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25 ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Judicial Decisions Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1986)...6 AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 287 F. Supp. 3d 969 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ...21 GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ..6 Mass. v. U.S.,

522 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008) .19 Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Assn, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015) 7 Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Commn, 867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2017) 13 Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, LP.,

51 F.3d 28 (3d Cir. 1995).5 NRC Decisions Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, & Unistar Nuclear Operating Servs., LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), 70 NRC 198 (2009) 6 Crow Butte Res., Inc. (License Renewal for In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska),

CLI-09-9, 69 NRC 331 (2009) ........3 Crow Butte Res., Inc. (In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Neb.), CLI-15-17, 82 NRC 33 (2015) ...........................2 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4), LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ (Mar. 7, 2019) (slip op.) . Passim Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4), CLI-16-18, 84 NRC 167 (2016) .......................13 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4),

CLI-01-17 NRC 3 (2001) ..............19 iii

Mgmt. Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), ASLBP 05-842-03-LR, 63 NRC 314 (2006) ......................15 Memorandum and Order (Granting FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Intervenors Contentions 1-E and 5-E as Moot), LPB-19-06 (July 8, 2019)...1,2 Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-606, 12 NRC 156 (1980)............... ....3 Paina Hawaii, LLC (Materials License Application), CLI-10-18, (slip op.) (2010).....................3 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-03-2, 57 NRC 19, 29 (2003) ...13 Powertech (USA), Inc., CLI-16-20 (slip op.) (2016) 3, 10 Private Fuel Storage L.L.C., (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) CLI-01-1, 53 NRC 1, 5 (Jan. 10, 2001) ...1 Pub. Service Co. of N.H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-894, 27 NRC 632 (1988) .........................3 Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2, CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 527 (1977) .................13 U.S. Dept of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository), LBP-10-22, 72 NRC 661 (2010) .........................5 Statutes 33 U.S.C. § 1311........................................12 33 U.S.C. § 1342........................................12 Regulations 10 C.F.R. § 2.3111 10 C.F.R. § 2.3232 10 C.F.R. § 2.341...1, 2, 13, 23, 25 iv

10 C.F.R. § 51.53 1-5, 16, 19 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B..4, 8 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9.....16 Miscellaneous Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, Regulatory Guide 4.2, at 49 (supp. 1, rev. 1 June 2013) (ML13067A354).............................12, 16 v

ARGUMENT Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.341, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Miami Waterkeeper (together Intervenors) seek review of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) decisions in LBP-19-31 and LPB-19-06.2 Respectfully, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) should reverse these decisions and allow Intervenors to amend their contentions to address deficiencies still remaining in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the SLRA (DSEIS).

I.

SUMMARY

OF DECISION FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT On August 1, 2018, Intervenors submitted a Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene, which articulated five contentions.3 These contentions addressed deficiencies in Florida Power & Light Co.s (Applicants) Environmental Report (ER),4 submitted as part of its subsequent license renewal application (SLRA) for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4, in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

On March 7, 2019, the Board issued Opinion LBP-19-3, admitting two of the five contentions in part5 and determining as a matter of law that 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3) applies to 1

Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4), LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ (Mar. 7, 2019)

(slip op.) (hereinafter LBP-19-3).

2 Memorandum and Order (Granting FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Intervenors Contentions 1-E and 5-E as Moot),

LPB-19-06 (July 8, 2019) (hereinafter Dismissal).

3 Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene Submitted by [Intervenors], (Aug. 1, 2018) (ML18213A418)

(hereinafter Petition).

4 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4, Applicants Environmental Report: Subsequent Operating License Renewal Stage (Jan. 2018) (ML18037A836) (hereinafter ER).

5 Intervenors did not immediately appeal the denial of their remaining contentions from this Order as, under NRC regulations and precedent, it would be a disfavored interlocutory appeal. See 10 C.F.R. § 2.311; Private Fuel Storage L.L.C., (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) CLI-01-1, 53 NRC 1, 5 (Jan. 10, 2001) (We have 1

subsequent license renewal proceedings to extend an initial license renewal. While the Board referred its ruling on §51.53(c)(3) to the Commission,6 120 days have since passed so the Boards ruling is final.7 In March 2019, the NRC Staff published the DSEIS for the SLRA.8 Pursuant to the migration tenet,9 Intervenors admitted contentions challenging the ER became challenges to the DSEIS. On May 20, 2019, Applicant filed two motions to dismiss Intervenors contentions as moot.10 On June 10, 2019, Intervenors opposed these motions11 while the NRC Staff supported them.12 On July 8, 2019, the Board issued Order LBP-19-06 disposing of all admitted contentions in the case.13 While the Board decided not to terminate this proceeding at the Licensing Board level because Joint Intervenors have timely proffered new contentions based on the DSEIS,14 the repeatedly held that refusal to admit a contention, where the intervenors other contentions remain in litigation, does not constitute a pervasive effect on the litigation calling for interlocutory review.).

6 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ n.46 (slip op. at 25 n.46) (Given the significance of this legal issue of first impression, we will refer our ruling on this matter to the Commission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(f)(1).).

7 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(a)(2) (providing 120 days for the Commission to review a decision or action by a presiding officer).

8 NUREG-1437, Supp. 5, Second Renewal, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Draft Report for Comment (Mar. 2019) (ML19078A330) (hereinafter DSEIS).

9 Crow Butte Res., Inc. (In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Neb.), CLI-15-17, 82 NRC 33, 42 n.58 (2015).

10 FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E as Moot (May 20, 2019) (ML19140A355); FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E as Moot (May 20, 2019) (ML19140A356).

11 Joint Petitioners Answer Opposing FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners Contention 1-E as Moot (June 10, 2019) (ML19161A360); Joint Petitioners Answer Opposing FPLs Motion to Dismiss Joint Petitioners Contention 5-E as Moot (June 10, 2019) (ML19161A361).

12 NRC Staffs Answer to FPLs Motions to Dismiss (June 10, 2019) (ML19161A252).

13 Dismissal at 11.

14 Id.

2

Boards latest decision disposes of at least a major segment of the case.15 This decision therefore could be interpreted to be a final agency action. Thus, Intervenors petition for review now in order to preserve all their claims.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Commission defers to a Boards rulings on standing and contention admissibility in the absence of clear error or abuse of discretion.16 While the Commissions review of factual findings is deferential, it will correct findings when there is strong reason to believe that a board has overlooked or misunderstood important evidence.17 The Commission reviews legal questions de novo.18 III. DECISIONS AT ISSUE Intervenors petition the Commission to review the Boards Order LBP-19-3 ruling on a legal question and on a finding that three of Intervenors filed contentions were inadmissible in their entirety and that two of the contentions were inadmissible in part.

A. The Board Erred by Determining 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3) Applies to the Preparation of an ER in SLR Proceedings.

The NRC codified its NEPA obligations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51. For initial license renewal applications, these regulations divide environmental issues into generic (Category 1) and 15 Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-606, 12 NRC 156, 159-160 (1980); Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-894, 27 NRC 632, 635-637 (1988).

16 Crow Butte Res., Inc. (License Renewal for In Situ Leach Facility, Crawford, Nebraska), CLI-09-9, 69 NRC 331, 336 (2009).

17 Powertech (USA), Inc., CLI-16-20, slip op. at 10-11 (2016).

18 Paina Hawaii, LLC (Materials License Application), CLI-10-18, (slip op. at 20) (2010).

3

site-specific (Category 2) issues.19 Section 51.53(c)(3) provides that applicants for initial license renewals need not include any site-specific review of Category 1 issues in their ER.

Applicant interpreted §51.53(c)(3) to apply to subsequent license renewal proceedings and therefore avoided site-specific review of Category 1 issues throughout its ER. Intervenors argued

§51.53(c)(3) does not apply to subsequent license renewal proceedings in their Petition to Intervene and subsequent briefings before the Board.20 A majority of the Board concluded that §51.53(c)(3) applies to all license renewal proceedings.21 The Boards decision is erroneous. On its face, §51.53(c)(3) applies only to initial license renewals,22 and therefore, limitations in §51.53(c)(3)(i) on challenging Category 1 issues do not apply to subsequent license renewal applications.23 While the Boards majority disagreed with Intervenors and held that §51.53(c)(3) also applies to subsequent license renewals,24 Judge Abreu concluded in dissent that the majoritys tortuous approach to determining the regulations applicability wipes away the plain meaning and the original regulatory intent.25 In its holding, the majority dismissed the plain regulatory language of 51.53(c)(3) as not answer[ing] the question presented, because it neither directs the Commission to apply 19 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B (listing environmental issues NEPA requires analyzed and assigning them to either Category 1 or 2) for initial licensing reviews.

20 Petition at 16 n.71, Reply in Support of Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene Submitted by [Intervenors]

(Sep. 10, 2018) (ML18253A280) (hereinafter Reply) at 4-5; 11-13; [Intervenors] Corrected Response to Applicants Surreply (filed Oct 1, 2018; corrected Oct. 4, 2018) (ML18277A318).

21 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 9-30_.

22 Petition at 16 n.71.

23 Reply at 4.

24 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 25).

25 Id. (slip op. at 15) (Abreu, dissenting) (hereinafter Dissent).

4

section 51.53(c)(3) to [subsequent license renewal] applicants, nor does it forbid the Commission from doing so.26 The Board then spent 20 tortuous pages explaining why the Commissions intent in drafting §51.53(c)(3) does not mean what it says.

The plain language of §51.53(c) clearly states that subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) apply generally to renewal of a license while subsection (c)(3) applies to applications for an initial renewed license.27 Both the courts and the NRC apply the principle of statutory construction, equally applicable to regulatory construction, [] that a text should be construed so that effect is given to all of its provisions, so no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.28 Subsection (c)(3) is the only paragraph in §51.53 that employs the limiting term initial to modify the types of license renewal to which the subsection applies. The Board read that important distinction entirely out of the regulation, drastically altering its scope. The Board also overlooked the fact that §51.53(c)(3) excludes another class of applicantsthose that did not hold[] an operating license . . . as of June 30, 1995. The Boards holding that §51.53(c)(3) applies to all subsequent license renewal renders this text superfluous too and effectively amends

§51.53(c)(3) as follows:

For those applicants seeking an initial renewed license and holding an operating license, construction permit, or combined license as of June 30, 1995, the environmental report shall include the information required in paragraph (c)(2) of this section . . .

26 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 15) (emphasis in original).

27 10 C.F.R. § 51.53.

28 U.S. Dept of Energy (High-Level Waste Repository), LBP-10-22, 72 NRC 661, 671 n.25 (2010) (citing Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, LP., 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995) (original alterations omitted)).

5

The majority never addressed this textual point.29 Of the categories of license renewal applicants, the Commission chose initial, thus implying that this was done to the exclusion of subsequent. Had the Commission meant initial and subsequent, it could have said just that, or initial simply could have been deleted.30 In striking initial from the regulation, the Board delve[d] too deeply to find its answer31 because, as Judge Abreu said, looking to current intent while trying to explain away the expressed original intent of the regulations is a bridge too far.32 The Boards reference to various guidance documents and administrative history is unavailing. While these may be consulted for background information and the resolution of ambiguities in a regulations language, its interpretation may not conflict with the plain meaning of the wording used in that regulation.33 And even so, a broader review of the regulatory history reveals that the Commission intended to apply §51.53 to initial license renewals only.34 As Judge Abreu noted, when the Commission proposed this rule, it anticipated that a licensee might file multiple license renewal 29 See also Dissent at 15-16 ([I]f the agency can change the meaning of initial, what is to stop it from changing the June 30, 1995, limitation . . . without notice and comment?).

30 Dissent at 3.

31 Id. at 2.

32 Id. at 14.

33 Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC, & Unistar Nuclear Operating Servs., LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), 70 NRC 198, 214 (2009) (citing Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1986), affd, 484 U.S. 1 (1987)); GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144, 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

34 Dissent at 4-8.

6

applications, but nevertheless limited application of the efficiencies to be gained by the Part 51 amendments [to initial license renewal applications].35 As Judge Abreu further noted:

The NRC stated that the safety considerations for license renewal application reviews . . . could be applied to multiple renewals of an operating license for various increments, but in the very next sentence stated that the environmental considerations in the [] amendments would apply on to one renewal of the initial license for up to 20 years beyond its expiration.36 Thus, the agency intended the [] amendments for license renewal reviews to apply to one renewal, not multiple renewals.37 The Board, moreover, lacks authority to strike any language because it runs afoul of the APA and set[s] a troubling precedent.38 An agency cannot de facto amend a regulation promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking without again going through notice and comment.39 Doing so denies the public an opportunity to comment on a not-insignificant change to the NRCs regulations.40 No reasonable interpretation of § 51.53(c)(3) can expand the scope of that application to subsequent license renewal applications.

The NRC Staff recently demonstrated site-specific analysis of Category 1 issues is not a wasted effort. In its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the NRC Staff reviewed site-specific impacts from Applicants cooling canal system (CCS) and came to 35 Dissent at 4.

36 Dissent at 4 (emphasis in original, original modifications omitted).

37 Dissent at 4.

38 Dissent at 15.

39 See, e.g., Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Assn, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206 (2015) (It is black letter law that the Administrative Procedure Act requires an agency to use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used to issue the rule in the first instance.); see also Dissent at 2 (citing same).

40 Dissent at 14.

7

conclusions distinct from those in the NRCs Generic EIS. The Staff found that site-specific impacts from the hypersaline plume on groundwater resources at the Turkey Point site are MODERATE for current operations41 while the NRCs GEIS found that impacts on Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes) are SMALL.42 B. The Board Erred by Denying Contention 1-E with respect to Several Category 2 Issues.

Contention 1-E challenged the ERs failure to consider mechanical draft cooling towers as a reasonable alternative to reduce adverse impacts from the CCS on several Category 2 issues.43 The Board partially admitted Contention 1-E, but only as a reasonable alternative with respect to impacts on a threatened species and their critical habitat.44 Thus, an evaluation of a cooling tower alternative would not address impacts from the CCS on two Category 2 issues, groundwater use conflicts and radionuclides released to groundwater.45 Intervenors raised this issue before the Board.46 The Board erred in denying Contention 1-E with respect to CCS impacts on the issues noted above. The Board limited Contention 1-E to impacts on the American Crocodiles and its habitat for the same reasons two reasons it limited Petitioner SACEs Contention 2.47 First, the Board held that SACE Contention 2 focuses on cooling towers as an alternative for reducing 41 DSEIS at 4-27.

42 10 C.F.R., Pt 51, Subpt. A, App. B.

43 Petition at 15-30.

44 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 44).

45 Petition at 19.

46 Reply at 21.

47 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 44). The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) submitted separate contentions in this proceeding.

8

or avoiding adverse environmental effects to sensitive biota.48 Second, the Board held the SACE contention does not point to any alleged deficiencies in the ER regarding its discussion of environmental impacts of CCS operation and directs the reader to see the Staffs Answer for further information.49 Neither of these reasons justify limiting the scope Contention 1-E.

On the first point, the Board overlooked the fact that, unlike the SACE contention, Contention 1-E does not focus on impacts to sensitive biota. For example, Contention 1-E states the ER failed to consider cooling towers as an alternative to reduce adverse impacts on groundwater use conflicts.50 On the second point, the Board erred because the adequacy of the ERs discussion of impacts from the CCS is beyond the scope of Contention 1-E, which if granted only requires a comparison of CCS impacts with those of the cooling tower alternative.

Applicant can still make this comparison even if Intervenors failed to establish a genuine dispute over the ERs analysis of CCS impacts. Therefore, the Boards decision not to admit these portions of Contention 1-E was in error.

C. The Board Erred in Denying Contention 2-E Regarding the ERs Flawed Analysis of Cumulative Impacts.

Contention 2-E challenged the ERs failure to take a hard look at the cumulative impacts of the continued operation of Units 3 and 4 on surface water and groundwater.51 Intervenors argued the ER (1) failed to consider the cumulative impacts of sea level rise (increased flooding 48 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ n.58 (slip op. at 41 n.58) (emphasis added).

49 Id.

50 Petition at 19.

51 Petition at 30-39.

9

and storm surge overtopping the cooling canal system and releasing pollutants to surface waters) and increased temperatures (increased salinity in cooling canal system that worsens impacts on water resources); 52 and (2) erroneously assumed cumulative impacts associated with the hypersaline plume emanating from Applicants CCS will be small because of state and county oversight.53 The Board found that Contention 2-E was inadmissible, concluding that Intervenors had failed to provide adequate support for their assertions and failed to provide sufficient information to raise a genuine dispute of material fact.54 The Board erred on both accounts.

1. The Board erred by overlooking evidence presented by Intervenors demonstrating an increased risk that flooding will overtop the CCS during the SLR period and release pollutants to nearby surface waters.

The Board held that Intervenors only made conclusory assertions.55 On overtopping the CSSwhich the ER did not addressthe Board faulted Intervenors for not discussing such necessary information as the relationship between their projected sea levels and the relevant elevations of the Turkey Point site, its sea level barriers, or the CCS, to support their claim that the site will be flooded and the CCS will be overtopped . . . .56 The Board erred, however, because it overlooked or misunderstood important evidence.57 Intervenors provided an expert declaration as evidence of rising seas and increased risk of flooding during the SLR period.58 52 Petition at 31, 37-38.

53 Petition at 32, 38-39.

54 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 45-47).

55 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 45).

56 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 46). Notably, Applicant did not include this necessary information in the ER.

57 Powertech (USA), Inc., CLI-16-20, (slip op. at 10-11) (2016).

58 Petition at 33-36.

10

Intervenors further explained that Applicants own flood risk study found certain of the plants flood barriers were not high enough to protect safety-related systems with an anticipated 0.39-foot sea level rise before its current license expires59 and that these systems could not be reached without floodwaters first overtopping the cooling canal system.60 The Board never explained why this information is insufficient to demonstrate an increased risk of overtopping during the SLR period when the ER fails to discuss this issue at all.

2. The Board concluded erroneously that state oversight will prevent overtopping and release of water from the CCS to nearby surface waters.

The Board ruled that Contention 2-E failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact or law because, in its view, state and county regulatory oversight would prevent releases of groundwater from the CCS to surface waters connected to Biscayne Bay and address material breaches or structural defects in the CCS.61 Intervenors explained that flooding is not a groundwater-to-surface water issue and that even the most structurally sound flood wall can be overtopped.62 The Board further held that even if overtopping were to occur, Intervenors failed explain how it would impair the environment given requirements in a consent order for Applicant to maintain low annual average salinity levels and monitor and minimize nutrient levels.63 59 Petition at 37.

60 Reply at 24 (citing FP&L, Letter, NEI-12-06, Revision 2, Appendix G, G.4.2, Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) for FLEX Strategies report for the New Flood Hazard Information, ADAMS Accession No. ML17012A065 (Dec. 20, 2016).

61 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 46) (emphasis added).

62 Reply at 25-26.

63 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 46).

11

Assuming arguendo the consent order effectively addresses salinity and nutrients, Intervenors explained that the consent order does not address other pollutants in the cooling canal system, which is an industrial wastewater system for operations at Turkey Point and contains tritium, ammonia, and sediment.64 The discharge of any pollutant from Turkey Point into Biscayne Bay without a Clean Water Act permit is unlawful.65 The Board overlooked or misunderstood all of these facts.

3. The Board committed legal error by assuming Applicants compliance with a state consent order would yield small cumulative environmental impacts.

The Board committed legal error by relying on Applicants compliance with a state consent order to find cumulative impacts to water resources from Applicants CCS would be small.66 Intervenors raised this issue below.67 While NRC Reg. Guide 4.2 provides applicants may assume cumulative impacts are managed as long as facility operators are in compliance with their respective permits,68 the Board failed to explain how this guidance applies to consent orders, which are put in place precisely because the company violated its permits. Also, the Board overlooked or misunderstood the fact that the consent order does not presume Applicant will be able to remediate its environmental impacts; rather, it allows Applicant to develop a 64 Reply at 27-28.

65 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) and 1342.

66 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 47 n.66 and 48) (citing LBP-19-3 at Part III.B.2.a.iii, which begins at 36).

As Applicant observed, this legal issue has broad significance in NRC proceedings. Florida Power & Light Companys Answer to Intervenors Petition for Waiver of Certain 10 C.F.R. Part 51 Regulations (July 19, 2019) at 16 (ML19200A298).

67 Petition at 32; Reply at 30-32.

68 Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, Regulatory Guide 4.2, at 49 (supp. 1, rev. 1 June 2013) (ML13067A354) (emphasis added) (hereinafter Reg. Guide 4.2).

12

Plan B if Plan A fails.69 As such, the Board presumes more than the consent order upon which it is relying. Under the Boards holding, an applicant may conclude cumulative impacts are small even though its compliance is actually causing moderate impacts or worse.70 Neither Reg. 4.2 nor the cases cited in LBP-19-3 address this point.71 The Boards decision is in error, without governing precedent, and implicates a substantial and important question of law or policy.72

4. The Board erred by relying on the cumulative impacts analysis in the 2016 EIS for Units 6 and 7, which does not analyze cumulative impacts on groundwater from operating Units 3 and 4 during the SLR period.

The Board rejected Contention 4-E regarding the ERs failure to address adequately cumulative impacts on groundwater from the CCS.73 The Board held Intervenors ignore[d] the ERs discussion of these impacts,74 finding that the ER incorporated by reference (without any page citations) the cumulative impacts discussion from the 2016 EIS for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7.75 But the board overlooked or misunderstood a critical fact that Intervenors addressed in 69 Reply at 31-32. See also Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Commn, 867 F.3d 1357, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

(holding the mere existence of permit requirements overseen by another . . . state permitting authority cannot substitute for a proper NEPA analysis.).

70 Reply at 31.

71 Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2, CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 527 (1977) (entitling substantial weigh in NRCs NEPA analysis to an unequivocal finding by a state agency that construction of a facility will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-03-2, 57 NRC 19, 29 (2003) (no evidence that applicant would fail to meet decommissioning funding obligations); Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4), CLI-16-18, 84 NRC 167, 174-75 n.38 (2016) (rejecting contentions because the petitioners did not offer evidence to rebut evidentiary presumption of compliance).

72 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.341(b)(4)(ii), (iii).

73 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 47-48).

74 Id. (slip op. at 47).

75 Id. (slip op. at 47). The Board indirectly admonished Applicant for not including a page citation to the 2016 EIS, but (for unknown reasons) that did not change the Boards conclusion on admissibility. (slip op. at 47 n.67). The 13

the proceedings belowthe 2016 EIS does not discuss cumulative impacts from operating Units 3 and 4 during the SLR period.76 The differences between these units are significant; namely, Units 6 and 7 do not rely on the CCS for an ultimate heat sink. The 2016 EIS, moreover, does not even contemplate the continued operation of Units 3 and 4 beyond the current license, nor could it; the 2016 EIS predates Applicants SLRA for Units 3 and 4 by more than a year.

The Boards error becomes obvious upon review of the 2016 EIS, which predicts increased temperatures will lead to more evapotranspiration, reducing overall recharge to Biscayne aquifer (a primary drinking water source in South Florida) and sea level rise will push the freshwater-seawater interface in the aquifer further inland; both of which further stress inland freshwater demand.77 The 2016 EIS concludes that Units 6 and 7 would have little impact in this new environment becauseunlike Units 3 and 4they use reclaimed water for most of their needs.78

5. The Board erred by requiring Intervenors to prove higher temperatures during the SLR period would increase evaporation by a particular extent.

Contention 2-E challenged the ER for failing to adequately address cumulative impacts of operating Units 3 and 4 during the SLR period when temperatures will be higher.79 The Board dismissed this portion of Contention 2-E, holding that Intervenors did not demonstrate higher Board cites to Table 7-1 in Vol. 2 of the 2016 EIS in support of its holding, which merely indicates that Applicant was developing a plan for remediating the hypersaline plume. That same table does not reference or contemplate continued operation of Units 3 and 4 beyond the current license.

76 Reply at 36.

77 Reply at 36 (citing 2016 EIS at I-5 to I-6).

78 Reply at 36 (citing 2016 EIS at I-6).

79 Petition at 30-31.

14

temperatures would increase evaporation in the CCS to any particular extent, much less to an extent that would be sufficient to increase the CCS salinity such that it would . . . affect the environment.80 But the Board applied the wrong standard for contention admissibility by requiring Intervenors prove the merits of their contentions. Intervenors provided sufficient support for this contention in the form of an expert declaration and Applicants own experiences dealing with higher air temperatures.81 The ER, in contrast, did not analyze the effect of rising temperatures at all. All that is required at the preliminary stage of contention admissibility is for petitioners to support their contention with ample evidence that the ER lacked sufficient information and analysis indicating that further inquiry is appropriate.82 Here, the Board abused its discretion by requiring Intervenors to prove more than is necessary for purposes of contention admissibility. The information provided demonstrates, rather than speculates, that temperatures will be higher and that high temperatures have caused adverse environmental impacts at Turkey Point. Since the ER fails to address these issues at all, further inquiry is appropriate.

D. The Board Erred in Denying Contention 3-E Contention 3-E challenged that the ER contained no analysis of new and significant information regarding sea level rise.83 Intervenors arguments in this contention were simple: (1) 80 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 46).

81 Petition at 35-38 (citing declaration of Dr. Kopp and Applicants Request for Enforcement Discretion Regarding Technical Specification 3/4.7.4, Ultimate Heat Sink, (ML14204A083) (July 21, 2014), encl. at 3).

82 Mgmt. Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), ASLBP 05-842-03-LR, 63 NRC 314, 342 (2006).

83 Petition at 39-47.

15

NEPA and NRC regulations require Applicant to analyze new and significant information that would provide a seriously different picture of the environmental consequences of the proposed action than previously considered in the GEIS;84 (2) there is a meaningful probability of sea level rise of at least two feet, and by more than three feet if emission trends continue on their current path, during the license renewal term;85 (3) storm surges may add one foot to well above the highest observed historically to the trend of sea level rise at any given time;86 and (4) neither the GEIS nor the ER addresses how sea level rise will affect the following Category 1 or 2 issues: surface water use conflicts (Category 2) and groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute) (Category 2) (collectively water resources conflicts), cumulative impacts (Category 2), and termination of plant operations and decommissioning (Category 1).87 The Board found Contention 3-E inadmissible.88 The Boards decision is an abuse of discretion founded on clear errors. First, the Board erroneously concluded that Intervenors failed to raise a genuine dispute as to the new and significant information on water resources conflicts.89 The Board held that Intervenors provide[d] no explanation for why [frequent interchange of water from Biscayne bay and the cooling canal system] would cause conflicts in 84 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(iv); see also Reg. Guide 4.2 at 49; 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii) (agencies must supplement a prior EIS if . . . [t]here are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts).

85 Declaration of Dr. Robert Kopp (Kopp Decl.) ¶ 39 (Attachment N to Petition).

86 Id. ¶ 33.

87 Petition at 41-45.

88 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 48-50).

89 Id. (slip op. at 49).

16

water use for either surface or groundwater resources.90 But Intervenors explained that the elimination of the closed-loop nature of the cooling canal system due to sea level rise will release radionuclides and other pollution in the environment, effecting freshwater availability like groundwater resources.91 Intervenors therefore established that the ER omitted sea level rise effects on water resources and provided support for that belief.

Second, the Board concluded that, as a contention of omission, the allegation of a failure to address new and significant information regarding cumulative impacts was inadmissible because the ER in fact included the analysis by incorporating the Environmental Impact Statement for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 (2016 EIS).92 But a review of the portions of the ER cited to by the Board that purportedly incorporate by reference the 2016 EIS reveals that the ER did no such thing.93 The Board implied that the ER incorporated the 2016 EISs discussion of climate-change cumulative impacts, but nowhere on the page of the ER cited by the Board does the discussion reference climate change or sea level rise.94 Further, the ERs brief mention of the 90 Id.

91 Petition at 44.

92 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 49).

93 Id. (citing ER at 4-68).

94 ER at 4-68 (The EIS considered the contributing projects to be those of Turkey Point existing and proposed units, and historical point and non-point-source discharges have affected the water quality of streams and rivers near Turkey Point. The EIS considered that some water bodies near Turkey Point are listed as impaired (CWA 303[d])

and designation of the waters of Biscayne National Park as an Outstanding Florida Water.) (The EIS analysis determined that cumulative impacts would be MODERATE, with the proposed Units 6 and 7 contribution being of small significance.) (The EIS prepared by NRC for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 analyzed cumulative impacts to groundwater considering the groundwater withdrawals and injections of [Turkey Point Units 3 and 4] and the other Turkey Point facilities and those from other projects and activities in the surrounding area . . . [In the EIS, the] NRC determined the cumulative impacts to be SMALL given the hydrologic characteristics of the affected aquifers, fate and transport processes, and the monitoring and management programs required by the State.).

17

2016 EIS is not sufficient to incorporate by reference even the limited section regarding water resources; it is certainly not sufficient to incorporate an entirely different section of the document (its discussion of climate change- or sea level rise-related impacts), let alone to incorporate the entire document.95 Even if it could, the 2016 EIS does not analyze the cumulative impacts of climate change and sea level rise. While the 2016 EIS discusses cumulative impacts to water resources in Chapter 7, it does not discuss climate change or sea level rise as a contributing factor in the analysis.96 Where the 2016 EIS does discuss the effect of climate change on the evaluation of environmental impacts in Appendix I, it only determines that climate change may substantially alter the affected environment described in Chapter 2 of the 2016 EIS and that there will be no shift in the Chapter 5-assigned impacts on water use and water quality caused by the operation of the proposed plant due to a reasonably foreseeable alteration in the environmental baseline associated with climate change.97 Nowhere does the 2016 EIS consider the cumulative impacts of sea level rise plus the additional projects identified.

Third, the Board determined that, regardless of new and significant information, termination and decommissioning is a Category 1 issue and is therefore outside the scope of the proceeding.98 This reasoning is in clear error and an abuse of discretion. NRC regulations require 95 Additionally, the ER cites to its internal citation NRC. 2016a, which is a citation to Volume 1 of the EIS, not the entire EIS. ER at 4-68 & 10-17. Volume 1 only contains chapters 1-6, not Chapter 7 on cumulative impacts nor the Appendix I pages that the Board cited. See NRC, Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7 (NUREG-2176) (2016) available at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr2176/ (hereinafter 2016 EIS).

96 2016 EIS at 7-11 to 7-18.

97 2016 EIS at I-1 & I-5 to I-6.

98 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __, __ (slip op. at 48-49).

18

an ER to consider any new and significant informationfor both Category 2 and Category 1 issues.99 [E]ven where the GEIS has found that a particular impact applies generically (Category 1), the applicant must still provide additional analysis in its [ER] if new and significant information may bear on the applicability of the Category 1 finding at its particular plant.100 Therefore, the fact that termination and decommissioning are a Category 1 issue should not have impacted the contentions admissibility. As there is new and significant information regarding termination and decommissioning, Applicant (and NRC Staff) had a duty under NRC regulations to consider that information.

E. The Board Erred in Denying Contention 4-E by Overlooking the 2016 EIS Finding that Climate Change Will Provide a New Environment that the Operations of

[Units 3 and 4] Will Affect.

Intervenors challenged §3 of the ER for failing to describe the affected environment during the SLR period (2032-2053), which Intervenors termed the reasonably foreseeable affected environment. This failure rendered the analyses of environmental impacts (§4),

mitigating actions (§6), and alternatives analysis (§8) legally insufficient for using the an incorrect baseline.101 The Board found Contention 4-E inadmissible, concluding that Intervenors were simply incorrect that the ER fails to address the effects of climate change during the license renewal period.102 It explained that the 2013 GEIS, ER (at 4-69, 4-71) and the 2016 EIS 99 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(iv); Mass. v. U.S., 522 F.3d 115, 120 (1st Cir. 2008).

100 Petition at 41 (citing Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 11 (2001)).

101 Petition at 47-58.

102 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 50).

19

for Units 6 and 7 all contain, describe, or discuss the effects of climate change.103 But this overlooks the critical question raised in Contention 4-Ewhether the ER evaluated environmental impacts using the correct baseline.

The 2016 EIS found that climate change will provide a new environment that the operations of [Units 3 and 4] will affect.104 Yet the ER evaluated impacts of SLR on the old environment. For example, the 2016 EIS recognizes that sea level rise will stress freshwater demand inland of Turkey Point plant.105 It further recognizes an increase in temperature will reduce overall recharge to a critical south Florida drinking water resource.106 Yet the ER never considers the impact of operating Units 3 and 4 under these stressed conditions. Critically, the ER never considers whether Applicants groundwater usage for Units 3 and 4 will have worse impacts on groundwater use conflicts (a Category 2 issue) when that resource is stressed in SLR periods new environment. In contrast, the 2016 EIS addressed the issue, concluding that Units 6 and 7 would have little impact in this new environment because they use reclaimed water for most of their needs.107 This analysis is lacking in the ER because measures the impacts of Units 3 and 4 against the wrong baseline conditions.

The ERs descri[ption of] the effects of climate change when combined with the effects of the proposed action at 4-69 and 4-71 (cumulative impacts analysis) does not cure the defect 103 Id. (slip op. at 50-51).

104 Reply at 46 (citing the 2016 EIS at I-1) (emphasis added to original).

105 Id. at 36 (citing 2016 EIS at I-5).

106 Id. at 36 (citing 2016 EIS at I-6).

107 Reply at 36 (citing 2016 EIS at I-6).

20

either. Intervenors explained108 that these pages focus on the plants contribution to climate change indicators,109 warming trends,110 and climate change effects;111 whereas Contention 4-E addresses impacts of continued operation on the new environment that Units 3 and 4 will affect. Similarly, the ERs vague reference to the 2016 EIS for Units 6 and 7 does not cure the defect. The Board overlooked the fact that the 2016 EIS does not address cumulative impacts of operating Units 3 and 4; only Units 6 and 7.112 As Intervenors stated in the proceedings below, the ERs failure to set an appropriate baseline against which to measure the projects impacts violates NEPA.113 This is made clear in AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. There, an agency violated NEPA by relying on modeled historical data that was no longer a reasonable guide to the future for water management instead of a climate model that predicted a significant decline in water availability.114 The same error exists herethe 2016 EIS predicts a significant decline in water availability during the SLR period, yet the ER measures Units 3 and 4s impacts on water use conflicts against todays conditions.

108 Id. at 32-37, 51. Page 51 directs the reader to the discussion of cumulative impacts at pages 32-37 of the Reply.

109 Id. at 33 (citing ER at 4-69).

110 Id. at 34 (citing ER at 4-69).

111 ER at 4-71.

112 See section III.C, above.

113 See, e.g., Reply at 46-47 (discussing AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 287 F. Supp. 3d 969 (E.D. Cal.

2018).

114 AquAlliance, 287 F. Supp. 3d at 1028.

21

F. The Board Erred in Denying Contention 5-E with Respect to Impacts of CCS Operations on Surface Waters and Freshwater Wetlands.

Contention 5-E challenged the ERs failure to consider the effects of continued operation of the CCS on the environment; specifically, how the salinization of freshwater wetlands caused by the cooling canal system will impact threatened or endangered species, and otherwise harm important plant and animal habitats.115 The Board admitted a portion of Contention 5-E relating to ammonia, but rejected the remaining portions.116 It held the remaining portions either raised an impermissible challenge to a Category 1 issue or failed to address the consent order between Applicant and the state.117 The Board erred on both counts.

The Board erred as a matter of law because the limitation on challenging Category 1 issues does not apply to subsequent license renewal applications.118 The Board also erred as a matter of law by relying on the consent order between Applicant and the state for the reasons stated in Section III.C.3, above.

Assuming arguendo the §51.53(c)(3) limitation did apply, the NRC Staffs Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the SLRA explains why the Board still erred. It states the GEIS (NUREG-1437) did not consider how a nuclear power plant with a cooling pond in a salt marsh may indirectly impact the water quality of adjacent surface water bodies via a groundwater pathway. This constitutes a new, site-specific issue with respect to 115 Petition at 59.

116 LBP-19-3, 89 NRC __,__ (slip op. at 53).

117 Id. at 53-54.

118 See Section III.A, above.

22

Turkey Point . . . .119 The Staff explained in briefing that a waiver is not required to litigate the issue of water quality impacts on adjacent water bodies (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes).120 The Staff explained that it analyzed this site-specific issue for the first time in the DSEIS. The issue was not analyzed in the GEIS. Thus, no Commission regulation codifies the NRC Staffs environmental determinations with respect to this issue, and no waiver of any Commission rule is required to litigate it.121 IV. THE COMMISSION SHOULD GRANT INTERVENORS PETITION FOR REVIEW The Commission considers several factors in determining whether to grant a petition for review.122 The Petition raises substantial and important questions of law and policy. The Petition seeks review of the Boards majority holding that 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3) applies to all subsequent license renewal proceedings.123 It was not a unanimous decision, however. Judge Abreu authored a lengthy dissent, cited frequently in this decision, that warrants the Commissions attention. The resolution of this issue is important and relevant for all future SLR applications, which for reasons stated above, Intervenors assert require SLR applicants to consider site-specific impacts for all issues in their ERs, not just Category 2 issues.

119 DSEIS at 4-21.

120 NRC Staffs Answer to Joint Intervenors (1) Amended Motion to Migrate or Amend Contentions 1-E and 5-E and to Admit Four New Contentions, and (2) Petition for Waiver at 55 (Sep. 22, 2019) (ML19200A300).

121 Id. (emphasis added).

122 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b)(4).

123 See section III.A, above.

23

The Petition two more substantial and important questions of law or policy. First, whether an applicant (and the NRC) can rely on compliance with state and county oversight in the evaluation of cumulative impacts. As Applicant observed elsewhere, this legal issue has broad significance in NRC proceedings.124 Second, several contentions raise substantial and important questions regarding climate change and how applicants and the Commission will comply with NEPA in light of the new environment that this and other plants will affect.

Last, granting this Petition is in the public interest. The Turkey Point plant is located adjacent to Biscayne Bay in Southeast Florida. It is also the only nuclear power plant that uses a 5,900-acre CCS as the ultimate heat sink for its operations. This is also the source of a hypersaline plume that is harming groundwater and surface water resources in a region where water resources are already stressed. It is in the publics interest to ensure the NRC makes an informed decision about extending Applicants license until 2053 when, as the NRC has already found, there will be a new environment that the plant will affect. With respect, that analysis is lacking and there appears to be no interest in taking a hard look at the reasonably foreseeable impacts of operating Units 3 and 4 when the affected environment will be more stressed due to increased temperatures and higher sea levels. Granting this Petition and giving Intervenors an opportunity to present their case at a hearing would only further the publics interest, particularly when the SLR would not take effect for another 13 years.

124 Florida Power & Light Companys Answer to Intervenors Petition for Waiver of Certain 10 C.F.R. Part 51 Regulations (July 19, 2019) at 16 (ML19200A298).

24

V. CONCLUSION The Commission should remedy these clear errors in material facts and departures from governing precedents and established law, which raise substantial and important questions of law and policy warranting review.125 Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) /s/ Geoffrey Fettus

/s/ Ken Rumelt Geoffrey Fettus Kenneth J. Rumelt /s/ Caroline Reiser Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic Caroline Reiser Vermont Law School Natural Resources Defense Council 164 Chelsea Street, PO Box 96 1152 15th Street, NW, Suite 300 South Royalton, VT 05068 Washington, DC 20005 802-831-1031 202-289-2371 krumelt@vermontlaw.edu gfettus@nrdc.org Counsel for Friends of the Earth creiser@nrdc.org Counsel for Natural Resources Defense Council

/s/ Richard Ayres /s/ Kelly Cox Richard E. Ayres Kelly Cox Ayres Law Group Miami Waterkeeper 2923 Foxhall Road, N.W. 2103 Coral Way 2nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20016 Miami, FL 33145 202-722-6930 305-905-0856 ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com kelly@miamiwaterkeeper.org Counsel for Friends of the Earth Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper August 9, 2019 125 See 10 C.F.R. § 2.341(b)(4).

25

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 & 50-251

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 18-957-01-SLR-DB01

)

(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, ) August 9, 2019 Unit Nos. 3 and 4) )

)

(Subsequent License Renewal Application) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, copies of the foregoing Friends of the Earths, Natural Resources Defense Councils, and Miami Waterkeepers Petition for Review of the Atomic Safety And Licensing Boards Rulings in LBP-19-3 and LBP-19-06 were served by Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System) to all parties of record in the above-captioned docket.

/s/ Ken Rumelt Kenneth J. Rumelt Environmental & Natural Resources Law Clinic Vermont Law School 164 Chelsea Street, PO Box 96 South Royalton, VT 05068 802-831-1031 krumelt@vermontlaw.edu Counsel for Friends of the Earth