ML19085A429

SLR - (External_Sender) FW: TP34SLR: 3 Petitions Bin Report

ML19085A429
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	03/25/2019
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Division of Materials and License Renewal
References
Download: ML19085A429 (30)

Text

TurkeyPoint34SLRPEm Resource From: Saulsbury, James W <james.saulsbury@pnnl.gov>

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 4:03 PM To: TurkeyPoint34SLR Resource Cc: Folk, Kevin; ^PNNL NRC TP3-4 SLR

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: TP34SLR: 3 petitions bin report Attachments: TURK34SLR_Binning_AllPetitions_20180815.docx From: Kohn, Nancy P Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 5:52 PM To: Miley, Terri B ; Saulsbury, James W

Subject:

TP34SLR: 3 petitions bin report Hi Bo and Terri, I have to shift over to some other work this afternoon, but I got all 3 petitions delineated. Attached file has a tabulation of where the comments ended up, followed by delineation & binning of each piece (blue-yellow report). There are still a few Outside Scope comments that I dont think belong in env bins. Please let me know if you think any of these should be binned differently.

Ive started on draft boilerplate portion of comment summaries (introducing contentions as comments) & responses (environmental & safety reviews are independent of the adjudicatory process for requests for hearing petitions to intervene, etc). I think for most subjects, these could preface an existing summary & response for the contention group of comments.

Nancy Kohn Senior Research Scientist Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Marine Sciences Laboratory 1529 West Sequim Bay Road Sequim, WA 98382 USA Tel: 360-681-3687 Fax: 360-681-4559 nancy.kohn@pnnl.gov www.pnnl.gov 1

Hearing Identifier: TurkeyPoint34_SLR_Public Email Number: 6 Mail Envelope Properties (353470FA51196C41820DF730D7779F7B0B5F2FB8)

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: TP34SLR: 3 petitions bin report Sent Date: 3/25/2019 4:02:47 PM Received Date: 3/25/2019 4:02:51 PM From: Saulsbury, James W Created By: james.saulsbury@pnnl.gov Recipients:

"Folk, Kevin" <Kevin.Folk@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None

"^PNNL NRC TP3-4 SLR" <nrc.tp3-4.slr@pnnl.gov>

Tracking Status: None "TurkeyPoint34SLR Resource" <TurkeyPoint34SLR.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: EX10MBOX05.pnnl.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1256 3/25/2019 4:02:51 PM TURK34SLR_Binning_AllPetitions_20180815.docx 68625 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Comment Subject Commenter/Author TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (6) Alternatives-No-Action Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (3) Alternatives-No-Action Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (2) Alternatives-System Design Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (4) Alternatives-System Design Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

Curran, Diane (Harmon, Curran, Spielberg &

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00068 (4) Alternatives-System Design Eisenberg, LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (11) Climate Change Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (12) Climate Change Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (14) Climate Change Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (18) Climate Change Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (17) Decommissioning Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (6) Ecology-Terrestrial Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (19) Ecology-Terrestrial Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (20) Ecology-Terrestrial Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (9) Health-Radiological Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (5) Hydrology-Groundwater Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (9) Hydrology-Groundwater Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (10) Hydrology-Groundwater Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (7) Hydrology-Groundwater Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (8) Hydrology-Groundwater Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

Curran, Diane (Harmon, Curran, Spielberg &

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00068 (3) Hydrology-Groundwater Eisenberg, LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (16) Hydrology-Surface Water Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

Curran, Diane (Harmon, Curran, Spielberg &

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00068 (2) Hydrology-Surface Water Eisenberg, LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (15) Meteorology and Air Quality Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (4) Outside Scope-Aging Management Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (7) Outside Scope-Safety Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (11) Outside Scope-Safety Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (13) Outside Scope-Safety Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (1) Process-ESP-COL Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (2) Process-ESP-COL Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (3) Process-ESP-COL Gomez, Albert TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (1) Process-ESP-COL Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

Curran, Diane (Harmon, Curran, Spielberg &

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00068 (1) Process-ESP-COL Eisenberg, LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (5) Process-NEPA Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 (10) Process-NEPA Ayres, Richard E. (Ayres Law Group LLP)

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 (8) Radioactive Waste Gomez, Albert

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00029 GOMEZ Petition COMMENT (24)

Submitter Information PUBLICATION DATE: 5/22/2018 CITATION# 83 FR 23726 Name: Albert Gomez Address:

3566 Vista Court Miami, FL, 3 313 3 Email: albert@icassemblies.com General Comment Within the attached file, there are 10 contentions detailed with related requests that explain why the current Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 Initial License Renewal Application should be withheld, withdrawn and rejected by the NRC.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, PETITION TO INTERVENE ON RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-31, DPR-41 DOCKET ID NRC-2018-0074 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 and Unit 4 PROPOSED PETITION TO INTERVENE UNDER 10 C.F.R. 103 Introduction of Petitioner Albert Gomez Miami, FL. 33133 Nature of the Petitioner right under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): U.S. Citizen and resident of the City of Miami, Florida III. Nature of the Petitioner interest under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): Citizen of the U.S., Home owner, business owner, resident of Miami, FL USA, sitting City of Miami Sea Level Rise Committee member, manufacturing and technology expert supporting many industries including the power industry, ecological activist and conservationist, resilience leader and advisor in South Florida IV. PETITIONERS CONCERNS:

Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (TPNPP) Unit 3, and Unit 4 (Docket No. DOCKET ID NRC-2018-0074 License No. NPF-XX) Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 Initial License Renewal Application General Comment

[#1 : Process-ESP-COL] Within the attached file, there are 10 contentions detailed with related requests that explain why the current Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 Initial License Renewal Application should be withheld, withdrawn and rejected by the NRC.....

• Concerns listed on attached PDF. I will include my ending statement here.

In closing, if the above stated comments to reach to the measure of withholding, withdrawing, rejecting or contestation of the current Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 License Renewal Application, please consider extension of the current public comments period for further illumination by the public

and municipal authorities related to FPLs continued operation and relicensing of Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of time to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment.

• Supplemental-page included below -It is an excerpt of the NRC approval notice for Turkey Point Reactor,unit 6 & unit 7 COLA, in support of clarifying FPLs current stance on sea level rise projection related toTurkey Point Nuclear Power Plant operations. These assumptions were also included in the current TurkeyPoint Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 License Renewal Application.

[Supplemental page not delineated; view in pdf at ADAMS Accession No. ML18177A193]

Attachments DOCKET ID NRC-2018-0074 Albert Gomez Comments UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, PETITION TO INTERVENE ON RENEWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-31, DPR-41 DOCKET ID NRC-2018-0074 Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 and Unit 4 PROPOSED PETITION TO INTERVENE UNDER 10 C.F.R. 103 I. Introduction of Petitioner Albert Gomez Miami, FL. 33133 II. Nature of the Petitioner right under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): U.S. Citizen and resident of the City of Miami, Florida Ill. Nature of the Petitioner interest under U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): Citizen of the U.S., Home owner, business owner, resident of Miami, FL USA, sitting City of Miami Sea Level Rise Committee member, manufacturing and technology expert supporting many industries including the power industry, ecological activist and conservationist, resilience leader and advisor in South Florida IV. PETITIONERS CONCERNS:

Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (TPNPP) Unit 3, and Unit 4 (Docket No. DOCKET ID NRC-2018-0074 License No. NPF-XX) Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4lnitial License Renewal Application

[#2 : Process-ESP-COL] [Petitioner's Concern] 1-The application in question has only been available to the public since March 21st, 2018. Closing the public comments period within 93 days of the first public posting does not reasonably accommodate the public with adequate review of the license renewal application and accompanying EIS & SEIS.

a. Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 1, The Petitioner request that an extension to public comments be allowed in order to reasonably accommodate public comment.

[#3 : Process-ESP-COL] [Petitioner's Concern] 2-The application in question has only been available to the public since March 21st, 2018. There are current municipal board & committee motions in process within City of Miami in support of an extension to the public comment period and to enable a formal response by the City of Miami. These motions are scheduled to be docketed into City of Miami

Commission agenda after the public comment period closes. The compressed and shortened public comment period does not reasonably accommodate the City of Miami with a formal response to the Turkey Point Nuclear Reactor Power Plant Unit 3, and Unit 4 Initial License Renewal Application.

2a-Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 2, The Petitioner request that an extension to public comments be allowed in order to reasonably accommodate the City of Miami Commission with an opportunity to review the active motion related to Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -Initial License Renewal Application, and comment if its rules in favor of entering said comment.

[#4 : Outside Scope-Aging Management] [Petitioner's Concern] 3-Since metallurgical failure would pose significant environmental disaster, the petitioner is including concerns related to metallurgical safety review within public comments. Within the metallurgical analysis section 10 CFR 54.21, it states (c), such that there is reasonable assurance -fatigue flaw growth analyses that are based on cyclical loading assumptions; and (e) fracture mechanics analyses that are based on cycle-based loading assumptions.

If the current application renewal process is advance prior to qualification of said assumptions and critical metallurgical analysis, such analysis will not be complete, nor validated as certain. This will leave in question any Quality Assurance that metallurgical embrittlement will not exceed acceptable levels, it will also leave in question whether the Structural integrity of critical operating member such as the reactor vessel and base decisions on unfulfilled assumptions. By putting the license renewal process ahead of the metallurgical aging study, FPL could expose the public to undue hardship and high uncertainty. If the vessel were to fracture based on metallurgical failure, it would result in catastrophic failure of reactor 3 or 4 and expose the public, the environment, two national parks and its water supply to severe harm, extreme radiological contamination and force localized evacuation, retreat and abandonment of a 50 mile radius around the facility.

3a-Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 3, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld and withdrawn until said metallurgical analysis is completed by FPL and reviewed by a third party certified metallurgical analysis firm.

[#5 : Hydrology-Groundwater] [Petitioner's Concern] 4-The cooling canals were mandated by the federal government and are currently required to maintain safe operating temperature within Turkey PointReactors 3 & 4. FPL has currently entered into a environmental clean up agreement with Miami-Dade County via the Department of Environmental Resource Management for clean up of the permeating and leaking cooling canals. These cooling canals are leaking a host of caustic poisonous chemicals and highly saline waste water into our water supply, already affecting wells and permeating into our aquifer. FPL within the agreement has put forward a clean up regime which has not been qualified. Said clean up regime has already been reviewed by several outside scientific bodies and institutions and has shown to be unsatisfactory and non-efficacious for the desired results. To date, there is no qualified clean up methodology, nor has the clean commenced.

4a-Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 4, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld and withdrawn until the current clean up of the poisonous and high salinity plume is completed and a pre-determined non-pollution probationary time frame be set before any existing or future renewal applications be accepted similar to other federal regulatory agencies such as the FDA and EPA.

4b. Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 4 and Based on the poisonous and high salinity plume

and clean-up methodologies in question, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld and withdrawn until any law suits related to potential clean water act violations stated within ongoing FPL law suits related to said plume and pollution violation be settled prior to acceptance of any existing or future renewal applications.

[#6 : Alternatives-No-Action] [Petitioner's Concern] 5- FPL within the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Application states that the reason for fast tracking the current License Renewal Application within the SEIS appendix states that, they are submitting said application and requesting a fast tracking based assumptions that the planning process for replacing the current power production at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 would require 10 years and since the current license ends in 2032 and 2033 respectively the need to start planning now for replacement power solutions for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4. Within FPL's 8.2 Alternative Energy Sources review they do not include solar nor wind power in their analysis. Also as a function of holding a sole utility power supplier status within South Florida and following standard best business practices, continuity and risk planning is something that is a common business practice and an ongoing business continuity process and does not cease or begin at the end of life of critical reactor operations, therefore applying an inconsistent business practice and unqualified assumption.

5a- Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 5, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld and withdrawn, until a complete Alternative Energy Sources analysis is completed and included within any existing or future license renewal application.

[#7 : Outside Scope-Safety] [Petitioner's Concern] 6- During the public comment meeting at Homestead related to Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Application revelations were identified that FPL may renew a request for uprating of Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4. During the last uprating, FPL was required to submit an emergency use authorization to operate the plant in excess of the safe maximum operating temperature. There are no assurances that this temperature exceedance past the safe operating temperature will not occur again, if any current or future Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Application(s) is approved and an uprating accepted.

6a- Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 6, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld and withdrawn based on the risk of further expanding the poisonous and high salinity plume and potential putting the public in danger by operating Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 beyond safe operating temperatures stated in the operating Manuels and operating guidelines for the Westinghouse reactors found at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4.

[#8 : Radioactive Waste] [Petitioner's Concern] 7- Within the current EIS, GEIS and SEIS and related supplements and appendixes, the NRC states that: I can't say we have I a lot of experience that we can draw on in terms of issues that were triggered by the content of I the application. -our inspection activities are derived from plant operating experience, It also states that the GEIS conclusion is that the impact is of SMALL significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and high-level waste. and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level). These statements highlight and expose the a gap in certainty within the NRC related to operating a reactor beyond its original design life. It also highlights that the NRC may not be incorporating the latest government authorized sea level rise projections and how that impacts its high level waste and spent fuel onsite storage.

7a- Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 7, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld and withdrawn based on the egregious misrepresentation and shear lack of local governing sea level rise projections within FPL's current Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Application.

[#9 : Hydrology-Groundwater] [Petitioner's Concern] 8- Within the current EIS, GEIS and SEIS and related supplements and appendixes, the NRC states that:(a) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. This is stated while a federal law suit is in play related to potential EPA violations, an increasing plume migrates and expands both easterly and westerly from the current position threatening both our water supply and our federally protected bay.

8a-Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 8, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld and withdrawn based on the above NRC statement being in contradiction with current environmental facts and pollution performance at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4; and said contradictions must be reconciled within a new supplemental EIS related to new resource and environmentally threats and conditions related to the operations of Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4.

[#10 : Hydrology-Groundwater] [Petitioner's Concern] 9- Turkey Point is currently in negotiation with Miami-Dade related to water required to recharge the current cooling canals to a low enough temperature to maintain the cooling function. This process is still under negotiation and the waste water option has already been put in question based on the fears that the waste water discharge may negatively impact Miami-Dade's Consent Order placed on them by the EPA to reduce phosphorus and other caustic compounds into the bay and our water supply. FPL is also require to take any excess ground water to cool the canals. This conflict based on the open nature of the cooling canals systems creates a critical unknown to continued safe operations of the plant.

9a-Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 9, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld and withdrawn until the water demand issue is resolved between Miami Dade and FPL for safe operation of the plant without further threatening our bay or drinking and agricultural water supply.

[#11 : Outside Scope-Safety] [Petitioner's Concern] 10- FPL within the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Application states utilizes a 1" sea level rise projection through 2100, similar to their stated projection within their COLA submission for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, unit 6 & unit 7.

Their stated conservatism on sea level rise projections of foot through 2100 directly contradict the UN's IPCC-lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the USACE-US Army Corp. of Engineers and NOAA-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's sea level rise yr. 2100 projections of 31", 61" and 81" respectfully. FPL's stated projection also contradict the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's standard projections, which Miami-Dade is a current consignee. FPL fails to meet federal standards based on their renewal application's stated projections, which use 10 year old tidal gauges and do not include the most recent tidal gauge data. Therefore, FPL does not follow the POANHI -

Process for Ongoing Assessment of Natural Hazard Information -SECY-15-0137 part of the Post -

Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations 2.2(R2.2). Whereas, this mandated framework known as POAHNI-Process for Ongoing Assessment of Natural Hazard Information requires any such operator of a Westinghouse reactor, such as the ones found at both Fukushima and Turkey Point, must ensure that staff proactively and routinely aggregates an assesses new natural hazard information.

10a-Based on Petitioners concernsSection IV. No. 10, The Petitioner request that any Turkey Point

Nuclear Plant, Units 3 & 4 -License Renewal Applications be withheld, withdrawn and contested due to the contradictions with stated federal and local guidelines, sea level rise projections and nuclear safety recommendations within the POANHI -Process for Ongoing Assessment of Natural Hazard Information -

SECY-15-0137 part of the Post-Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations 2.2(R2.2).

TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00067 FOE/NRDC/MWK Petition (most undelineated sections cut out)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE SUBMITTED BY FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, AND MIAMI WATERKEEPER

[INTRODUCTORY Statements not delineated; view at ADAMS Accession No. ML18213A418. Only actual numbered Contentions are delineated as scoping comments]

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

[#1 : Process-ESP-COL] Friends of the Earth, Inc. (FOE), Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

(NRDC), and Miami Waterkeeper, Inc. (Miami Waterkeeper) (collectively, Petitioners) hereby submit this hearing request and petition to intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) subsequent relicensing proceeding that will determine whether Turkey Point Nuclear Generation Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point), will be licensed to operate until 2052 and 2053, respectively.

Florida Power & Light Company (Applicant or FPL) owns and operates Turkey Point. These units have operated since the early 1970s adjacent to the Florida Everglades, Biscayne Bay, and several population centers on South Floridas Atlantic coast.

STANDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE CONTENTIONS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, Petitioners set forth below the specific contentions they seek to litigate.

Each contention challenges the sufficiency of the application under NRC regulations, as specified therein, as well as its compliance with NEPA. Petitioners acknowledge that, as a private entity, FPL is not directly bound by NEPA. However, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2), Petitioners have styled their NEPA contentions as against the ER.62 Because an applicants ER generally serves as the basis for the Commissions eventual Draft SEIS, Petitioners raise these NEPA concerns at this time in order to preserve any objections they may have if the flaws that appear in the ER also appear in the Draft SEIS. In addition, if the Draft SEIS deviates from FPLs ER in a manner to which Petitioners object, they plan to submit amended or new contentions addressing these deviations pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2).

Each of Petitioners contentions is within the scope of this license renewal proceeding, which is described in Parts 51 and 54.63 A license renewal application review typically implicates issues that fall

into one of two broad areas: safety/aging management issues, and public health/environmental impacts. Petitioners contentions are focused on environmental and public health impacts.

63 See Florida Power & Light Co., CLI-01-17, 54 NRC 3, 6-13 (Jul. 19, 2001); Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal, 60 Fed. Reg. 22,461 (May 8, 1995).

64 See, e.g., Vermont Yankee, 64 N.R.C. at 148-49.

65 Turkey Point, 54 NRC at 15; see 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(i).

The scope of the environmental review is defined by 10 C.F.R. Part 51, the NRCsGeneric Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG- 1437 (May 1996) (the GEIS), and the initial hearing notice and order.64 Some environmental issues that might otherwise be germane in a license renewal proceeding have been resolved generically for all plants and are normally, therefore, beyond the scope of a license renewal hearing.65 These Category 1 issues are classified in 10 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Category 1 issues may be raised when a petitioner (1) demonstrates that there is new and significant information subsequent to the preparation of the GEIS regarding the environmentalimpacts of license renewal; (2) files a petition for a rulemaking with the NRC; or (3) seeks a waiver pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.335.66

[#2 : Alternatives-System Design] CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

1. Statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i))

The Environmental Report (§ 7.3) fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.45(c) and 51.53(c)(3)(iii)71 because it fails to consider an alternative under which the existing cooling canal system would be replaced with cooling towers to reduce the well-documented adverse environmental effects related to the cooling canal system. The Environmental Report fails to include an accurate or complete analysis of alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects and because it does not contain an adequate consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse impacts . . . for all Category 2 license renewal issues.72 The Environmental Report unlawfully fails to consider replacement of the canal cooling system with cooling towers as a reasonable alternative that would reduc[e] or avoid[]

adverse environmental effects relating to numerous Category 2 issues (described below).73 71 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3) applies to applications for an initial renewed license, and it is unclear whether the requirements of that subsection apply to an application for a subsequent license renewal, such as the one FPL seeks here. Even if the Commission determines that § 51.53(c)(3) does not apply, Petitioners hereby rely upon 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(1) and (2), which provide:

(1) Each applicant for renewal of a license to operate a nuclear power plant under part 54 of this chapter shall submit with its application a separate document entitled Applicants Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage. (2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the applicant's plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters described in § 51.45.

72 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(iii).

73 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(c); see also Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4, Applicants

Environmental Report Subsequent Operating License Renewal Stage, ADAMS Accession No. ML18037A836 (Jan. 2018), at 7-39 (hereinafter ER).

[#3 : Alternatives-No-Action] [CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.]

The Environmental Report violates NEPAs requirement that each NEPA document consider a range of reasonable alternatives.74 NEPA requires a discussion of alternatives that must [r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.75 The NRCs regulations implementing NEPA require that, FPLs discussion of alternatives shall be sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.76 An agencys consideration of reasonable alternatives is the heart of NEPA.77 The existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders [a NEPA document]

inadequate.78 The Environmental Report considered only two alternatives: (1) the preferred alternative (renew the operating licenses for Units 3 and 4) and (2) the no-action alternative (not renew the operating licenses and, instead, implement replacement power sources).79 The Environmental Report evaluated three replacement power sources within the no-action alternative:

1. Natural Gas-Fired Generation. Construct a 1,726-MWe natural gas combined-cycle plant utilizing closed-cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers using reclaimed water as the source of cooling water make-up.80

2. New Nuclear Generation. Construct a new nuclear facility with a 1,668-MWe generating capacity utilizing closed-cycle cooling with a mechanical draft cooling tower. Cooling water make-up would be reclaimed water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department.81

3. Combination of Natural Gas-Fired Generation and Solar PV Facilities. Construct a 1,636-MWe natural gas combined-cycle plant utilizing closed-cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers. Construct four 75-MWe solar photovoltaic facilities (no cooling system required).82 In the license renewal context, NRCs NEPA regulations require all environmental reports to include certain analyses of environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action (granting a license renewal). 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(iii) provides that the environmental report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse impacts, as required by § 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues. 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(c) provides that the environmental report must include an analysis that considers and balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects.83 The Environmental Report (§ 7.3) fails to satisfy either 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.45(c) or 51.53(c)(3)(iii). The ER purports to satisfy NEPAs obligation to consider alternatives available for reducing adverse impacts in two short, conclusory paragraphs devoid of any substantiveanalysis. Section 7.3 of the Environmental Report (titled Alternatives for Reducing Adverse Impacts) states:["]No additional alternatives were considered by FPL to reduce impacts, because . . . the continued operation of PTN does not result in

significant adverse effects to the environment.["]84 74 See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).

75 Union Neighbors United, Inc. v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 564, 569 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14).

76 10 C.F.R. § 51.45(b)(3).

77 Union Neighbors United, 831 F.3d at 575 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14). CEQs regulations implementing NEPA apply to all federal agencies, including the NRC. Union Neighbors United, 831 F.3d at 569 n.1 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1500.3).

78 Natural Res. Defense Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797, 813 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also City of Grapevine v. Dept of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502, 1506 (D.C. Cir. 1994)

(agency must consider all feasible or reasonable alternatives[.]).

79 ER, at 7-1.1. Brief explanation of basis for the contention (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii)); concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions supporting the contention (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v));

and statement that a genuine dispute exists with the licensee on a material issue of law or fact (10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vi))

80 ER, at 7-3.

81 ER, at 7-22.

82 ER, at 7-4. See also ER, at 8-5, Table 8.0-2 (describing cooling system for each replacement power option).

83 Emphasis added.

84 ER, at 7-39.

[#4 : Alternatives-System Design] [CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.]

The Environmental Report does not consider cooling towers as an alternative that would reduce adverse impacts related to the following Category 2 issues:

• Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat85;

• Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute)86; and

• Radionuclides released to groundwater.87 Each of the above issues are Category 2 issues.88

a. Replacing the existing cooling canal system with cooling towers is a reasonable alternative to granting the subsequent license renewal application.

Replacing the existing cooling canal system with cooling towers is a reasonable and feasible alternative to granting the requested license renewal based on continued operation of the cooling canal system during the renewal term.89 FPL itself has demonstrated that the siting andwater supply aspects of cooling towers are feasible.

First, FPL chose cooling towers rather than the existing cooling canal system or another cooling system at Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, for which the NRC has granted combined construction permits and operating licenses. Both Units 6 and 7 would utilize closed-cycle wet-cooling towers using reclaimed water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department.90 The EIS for Units 6 and 7 includes specific design elements of the cooling system, including: (a) a plan for piping reclaimed water from the Miami-

Dade Water and Sewer Department South District Wastewater Treatment Plant to the cooling system for Units 6 and 7; (b) location of the water-treatment facility and related infrastructure; (c) storage of treated reclaimed water in a make-up water reservoir.91 Second, each of the three replacement power options under the no-action alternative considered in the Environmental Report incorporate closed-cycle cooling with mechanical draft cooling towers.92 None of the replacement power optionsnot even the new nuclear generation optionwould utilize the existing cooling canal system. In other words, under the alternative to shut down Units 3 and 4 and construct and operate a new nuclear plant, FPL has deemed construction of cooling towers as the best option, rather than utilization of the already constructed cooling canal system.

Third, Turkey Point Unit 5 (a natural gas combined-cycle unit that began operating in 2007) already utilizes mechanical-draft cooling towers that use make-up water drawn from the Upper Floridan Aquifer.93 Thus, it is clear that the siting and water supply aspects of cooling towers are feasible.

Construction of cooling towers to replace the existing cooling canal system at Units 3 and 4 is feasible.

Palisades Nuclear Plant, an 800-MW plant in Michigan, converted from a once-through cooling system to a closed-cycle wet cooling tower system after a significant period of operating utilizing the once-through system.94 At least five other power plants have also converted to a closed-cycle system.95 The cost of replacing the cooling canal system with cooling towers is reasonable. The cost of the Palisades retrofit was approximately $99/kW in 2017 dollars.96 The installed cost of cooling towers at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, each of which has nearly the same capacity as Palisades (816 MW), would be approximately $81 million per unit for conventional inline mechanical draft cooling towers, or $162 million for both units.97 This $160 million capital expense, amortized over only ten years at standard rates, equates to approximately $41 millionannual cost for both units.98 Given that the subsequent license renewal periods, if granted, would not expire until 2052 and 2053, FPL could expect a much longer amortization period and, therefore, a lower annual cost. This would equate to an increase of less than one percent of the energy charge component of an FPL residential customers bill.99 85 ER, at 4-37 to 4-43.

86 ER, at 4-22 to 4-23.

87 ER, at 4-25 to 4-29.

88 See Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51-Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, 10 CFR Pt. 51, Subpt. A, App. B.

89 Declaration of Bill Powers (attached to Petition to Intervene by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy),

submitted Aug. 1, 2018; see generally Expert Report of Bill Powers, P.E., Powers Engineering (hereinafter Cooling Tower Feasibility Assessment) (Attachment K).

90 NRC Final Report, Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7, ADAMS Accession No. ML16300A104 (Oct. 2016), at 3-8 to 3-14, available at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/turkey-point/documents.html#eis (hereinafter FEIS for Units 6 and 7); Cooling Tower Feasibility Assessment, at 9-11.

91 Id.

92 ER, at 7-3, 7-22, 8-5.

93 Cooling Tower Feasibility Assessment, at 7-8.

94 EPA, Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (Apr. 2002), at 4-1 (hereinafter EPA 2002 TDD).

95 EPA 2002 TDD, at 4-1 to 4-6; Cooling Tower Feasibility Assessment, at 28-29 & n.138.

96 Cooling Tower Feasibility Assessment, at 15.

97 Id.

98 Id. at 15-16.

99 Id. at 16.

[#5 : Process-NEPA] [CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.]

b. Replacing the cooling canal system with cooling towers would satisfy the proposed actions purpose and need.

NEPA requires the agency (or here, FPL) to discuss those alternatives that are reasonable and will bring about the ends of the proposed action.100 The Environmental Report here considered only two alternatives: (1) the proposed action (renew the operating licenses for Units 3 and 4) and (2) the no-action alternative (not renew the operating licenses and, instead, implement replacement power sources).101 FPL determined that those two alternatives constituted a reasonable range of alternatives because the proposed action is to renew the [operating licenses] for PTN, which would preserve the option for FPL to continue to operate PTN and provide reliable base-load power throughout the 20-year SLR period to meet future power generating needs.102 But the proposed actions purpose and needto continue to provide baseload powerdoes not limit the range of reasonable alternatives to (1) grant the license renewal application as filed or (2) deny the application.103 Instead, NEPA requires FPL to consider any reasonable alternative that satisfies the projects purpose and need. Construction of cooling towers satisfies that test. For the reasons described above, retrofitting the plant to use cooling towers is technically and economically feasible. And installing cooling towers aligns with the proposed actions purpose and need by allowing Units 3 and 4 to continue to provide baseload power.

100 In Re Hydro Res., Inc., 53 N.R.C. 31, 55 (Jan. 31, 2001) (quoting Citizens Against Burlington v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 195 (D.C. Cir. 1991)); see also In the Matter of NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), 75 N.R.C. 301, 342-43 (Mar. 8, 2012).

101 ER, at 7-1.

102 ER, at 7-1.

103 See ER, at 1-1 (quoting NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 & 3, Rev. 1 (June 2013) (discussing purpose and need)

(hereinafter 2013 GEIS Revision).

[#6 : Ecology-Terrestrial] [CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.]

c. Replacing the existing cooling canal system with cooling towers would reduce adverse impacts related to Category 2 issues.

i. Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat Continued operation of Units 3 and 4 during the subsequent license renewal term will result in harm to threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat. Replacing the cooling canal

system with cooling towers would reduce these adverse impacts. Subsequent to the uprate for Units 3 and 4, both temperature and salinity in the cooling canal have increased, resulting in decreased nesting and fewer American crocodiles, an endangered species, observed in the cooling canals.104 In 2017, the FWS explained that:

[T]here has been a reduction in the number of crocodile nests produced within the CCS. A total of 9 nests were observed in 2015 and 8 in 2016. The decrease in nesting in the CCS has occurred with a concomitant decrease in the number of crocodiles observed within the CCS. In addition, the body condition of many of the crocodiles observed within the CCS has decreased (i.e., animals appear emaciated and much thinner than healthy animals of the same total length).

Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that a majority of the fish and invertebrate species that used to provide prey for the crocodile in the waters of the CCS no longer occur or are greatly diminished in numbers [These issues] are thought to be the result of the recent increase in water temperature and salinity, and decrease in water quality within the waters of CCS observed during the past few years, beginning in 2013 [The cause for the decrease in water quality conditions] include FPLs recent increase in power production from nuclear Units 3 and 4, [and] the discharge of vegetative cutting within the CCS.105 Thus, ceasing operation of the cooling canals as a heat sink and replacing them with cooling towers, while keeping the canals in place, would protect existing American crocodile habitat. With an adequate effort to freshen the canals,106 and without the dangerously high temperatures of the recent past, the canals would continue to provide valuable critical habitat into the future.

Furthermore, the cooling canal system has driven the westward migration of a hypersaline plume, resulting in salination of freshwater wetlands that are habitat for a range threatened and endangered species, including the Florida panther, American crocodile, indigo snake, snail kite, red knot and wood stork.107 Replacing the cooling canals with cooling towers would mitigate serious environmental impacts on threatened and endangered species.108 104 See Biological Opinion for Combined License for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 6 and 7 (June 23, 2017), at 20, (hereinafter 2017 BiOp); see infra Contention 5-E.

105 2017 BiOp, at 20.

106 Direct Testimony and Exhibits of Sorab Panday, Docket No. 20170007-EI (Aug. 23, 2017), at 35:7-14 (Attachment L) (hereinafter Panday Tr.)

107 2017 BiOp, at 44.

108 See infra Contention 5-E.

[#7 : Hydrology-Groundwater] [CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS....

c. Replacing the existing cooling canal system with cooling towers would reduce adverse impacts related to Category 2 issues...]

ii. Groundwater use conflicts The Environmental Report recognizes that [i]f the applicants plant pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater must be provided.109 The ER acknowledges that continued use of the cooling canal system will further

stress the already strained groundwater resources below and near Turkey Point.110 Given these impacts on groundwater use conflicts (a category 2 issue) and the ability of cooling towers to reduce these impacts, construction of cooling towers is a reasonable alternative.

Both state and local governments have found FPL to be violating the water quality laws and regulations that they enforce by contaminating the freshwater portions of the Biscayne Aquifer. As a result, the Applicant has been ordered, through a series of administrative enforcement efforts by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and Miami-Dade County, to take remedial measures, including adding 15 MGD of mildly saline water from the Floridan Aquifer (2.5 PSU) into the cooling canals to dilute canal salinities. FPLs goal is to achieve an average concentration of 34 PSU in the canals by April 2020.

The Applicant has now proposed and begun testing a plan to construct a recovery well system to attempt to draw the plume back toward the cooling canal system.111 This plan would require installation of a series of wells located near the interceptor ditch and screened near the base of the Biscayne Aquifer that would withdraw approximately 14 MGD of water from that part of the aquifer for disposal via reinjection into the Boulder Formation.112 The recovery well system would assert additional pressure on existing groundwater use conflicts by withdrawing even more groundwater from an already stressed Biscayne Aquifer. The plan, moreover, would not abate continued leaching of hypersaline water from the unlined canals in the cooling canal system into groundwater.113 Recent developments suggest the remedial measures FPL is taking to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of operating the cooling canal system measures are not having the intended effects.114 Even if they do work as designed, there will still be net addition of salt to the aquifer from cooling canal system, and 15 MGD of saline water (34 PSU) migrating into aquifer every day, with part of that migrating into freshwater at upper levels of the aquifer causing adverse environmental impacts (impacts to freshwater wetlands and other surface waters, and impacts to listed species that rely on those wetlands, and salination of a potable water aquifer). These impacts reduce the amount of groundwater available to users in South Florida, including the Florida Keys, thereby exacerbating groundwater use conflicts.

Neither the NRC nor the Applicant has considered any other alternatives to mitigate these impacts on groundwater use conflicts. Because the stress on groundwater resources originates from operation of the cooling canal system as the ultimate heat sink for Units 3 and 4, the ER should have considered closure of the cooling canal system and installation of mechanical draft cooling towers instead. The cooling tower alternative is certain to remediate the impacts of continued operation. Under such an alternative, there would be no new addition of salt to the aquifer.

Decommissioning the cooling canal system and construction of cooling towers would result in no future risk to groundwater use. Proper implementation of a closed-cycle cooling system would ensure no further harm to groundwater. FPLs failure to consider a cooling-tower alternative violates the requirement to consider alternatives that would reduce adverse impacts for all Category 2 license renewal issues.115 109 ER, at 4-23.

110 See ER, at 9-11 (noting notice of violation issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection related to the hypersaline plume migrating away from the cooling canal system toward the Biscayne Aquifer).

111 ER, at 3-109.

112 ER, at 3-109, 9 9-13.

113 Panday Tr., at 35:7-36:12 114 For example, recent salinity measurements in the L-31 canal west of the interceptor ditch indicate that saline water from the plume has surfaced in and entered the L-31 canal, from which it can now enter adjacent freshwater wetlands, causing further adverse environmental impacts. As the County explains, The water quality of the L-31 E was initially freshwater and salinities during the period of record have increased to over 29 PSU. Letter from Lee N. Heft, Director, Miami-Dade County Division of Environmental Resources Management to Lee Crandall and Timothy Rach, Florid Department of Environmental Protection (July 18, 2018), at 3 (Attachment M) (hereinafter FDEP-DERM July 2018 Letter). Over the past ten years, canal salinities have trended upward and the highest salinities (29 PSU) were recorded during the first quarter of 2018. DERM-FDEP July 2018 Letter, at 55, 56.

115 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.53(c)(3)(iii) and 51.45(c).

[#8 : Hydrology-Groundwater] [CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS....

c. Replacing the existing cooling canal system with cooling towers would reduce adverse impacts related to Category 2 issues....]

The Applicants failure to consider cooling towers as an alternative is even more egregious when considered in light of new and significant information regarding the impacts of the cooling canal system on groundwater use conflicts. The agency (or here, FPL) is required to follow the rule of reason in preparing a NEPA document, and this rule governs . . . which alternatives the agency must discuss.116 The rule of reason does not permit the Applicant to delineate the range of alternatives in a vacuum.

Instead, where changed circumstances affect the factors relevant to the development and evaluation of alternatives, the [agency] must account for such change in the alternatives it considers.117 [T]he concept of alternatives is an evolving one, requiring the agency to explore more or fewer alternatives as they become better known and understood.118 Rather than assessing this information and utilizing it to determine which alternatives to address and the extent to address them (as NEPA requires),119 the Applicant relies on the naked assertion that the continued operation of Units 3 and 4and, therefore, the cooling canal system does not result in significant adverse effects to the environment.120 By any measure, this statement is false.121 It is clear that continued operation of Units 3 and 4 will result in significant environmental effects relating to Category 2 issues. The Applicant should have considered new information regarding groundwater use impacts in delineating the range of alternatives.

116 Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 195 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).

117 Natural Res. Defense Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 421 F.3d 797, 813 (9th Cir. 2005).

118 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 552-53 (1978).

119 See Natural Res. Defense Council, 421 F.3d at 813.

120 ER, at 7-39.

121 An environmental impact statement will be prepared to analyze the environmental effects of the license renewal. 10 C.F.R. § 51.20(b)(2). An environmental impact statement is prepared only for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)

(emphasis added). The Applicants statement in the Environmental Report that continued operation of Units 3 and 4 does not result in significant adverse environmental impacts is, therefore, contrary to the

NRCs assessment, as well as the plain facts.

[#9 : Health-Radiological] [CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS....

c. Replacing the existing cooling canal system with cooling towers would reduce adverse impacts related to Category 2 issues....]

iii. Radionuclides released to groundwater Recent water sampling has found elevated tritium levels surrounding the cooling canal system.122 Tritium is a radioactive type of hydrogen that is released with nuclear power plant wastewater.123 The Applicant has documented nine releases of radioactive liquids into the environment.124 As sea level rises and the cooling canal system is subject to more frequent inundation, the elevated levels of tritium found in the cooling canal system wastewater will spread into the environment. Conversion to a closed-cycle cooling system, such as cooling towers, would eliminate discharges of wastewater into the environment and, thus, eliminate risk of further release of tritium into the environment. The Applicants failure to consider such an alternative violates 10 C.F.R. §§ 51.53(c)(3)(iii) and 51.45(c).

122 Miami Herald, FPL Nuclear Plant Canals Leaking Into Biscayne Bay, Study Confirms (Updated May, 17, 2016), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article64667452.html.

123 NRC, Backgrounder on Tritium, Radiation Protection Limits, and Drinking Water Standards, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html.

124 ER, at 4-26.

[#10 : Process-NEPA] [CONTENTION 1-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY NEPA AND NRC IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS....]

d. Applicants failure to discuss the reasons for eliminating a cooling-towers alternative from further study violates NEPA.

The Applicants failure to even state the reasons it did not evaluate cooling towers as alternative violates NEPA. NEPA requires an agency (or here, FPL) to [r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from the detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.125 The Applicant made no attempt in the Environmental Report to comply with this requirement. Instead, the company summarily concluded that, because the purpose of the proposed action was to continue to provide baseload power during the subsequent renewal term, the alternatives that required consideration were the preferred alternative (granting the subsequent license renewal application) and the no-action alternative (denying the application). That does not satisfy NEPAs hard look test.

125 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a).

[Do not delineate 4 & 5 re scope of proceeding and material to finding]

[#11 : Climate Change] CONTENTION 2-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF CONTINUED OPERATION OF UNITS 3 AND 4.

1. Statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i))

Applicants Environmental Report (§ 4.12) fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii) because it does not address the impacts of operation during the renewal term[] for those issues identified as Category 2 issues. Specifically, Applicant fails to adequately address cumulative impacts of the continued operation of Units 3 and 4 on water resources associated with reasonably foreseeable increases in sea levels rise and air temperature.129 Applicant fails to address cumulative impacts on groundwater associated with its cooling canal system.130

2. Brief explanation of the basis for the contention (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii))

NRCs NEPA regulations require an applicant to include in its environmental report analyses of the environmental impacts . . . associated with license renewal and the impacts of operation during the renewal term, for those issues identified as Category 2 issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of [Title 10, Part 51].131 These regulations specifically require an applicant to provide information about other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring in the vicinity of the nuclear plant that may result in a cumulative effect.132 This cumulative impacts analysis must account for climate change, including rising sea levels and a hotter climate.133 A failure to take a hard look at cumulative impacts, including those from climate change, violates the NRCs NEPA regulations and thus NEPA.

Here, the Environmental Report does not address cumulative impacts from the reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change, including sea level rise and hotter temperatures.134 While NRC Guidance provides that an applicants cumulative impacts analysis may, under limited circumstances, assume cumulative impacts are avoided through management, those circumstances are not present here. Specifically, NRC Guidance allows an applicant to assume cumulative impacts regulated and monitored by a permitting process are managed if, but only if, the facility is in compliance with their respective permits.135 The Guidance does not authorize applicants to assume cumulative impacts are managed following permit violations.

Here, Applicants Environmental Report fails to address cumulative impacts on groundwater because it assumes such impacts associated with the hypersaline plume from the cooling canal system would be managed based on compliance with a Consent Order with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and a Consent Agreement with Miami-Dade County.136 NRC Guidance, however, does not authorize Applicant to assume cumulative impacts will be managed where, as here, the applicant actually violated its permit and is now required to mitigate future violations and remediate existing impacts to correct its violations.137 129 See 10 CFR Pt. 51, Subpt. A, App. B.

130 See ER, at 4 4-69.

131 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii).

132 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(O).

133 See 2013 GEIS Revision, at 1-30 (noting that climate change impacts on affected resources will be treated on a plant-specific basis).

134 ER at 4 4-74. 135 NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 1, Supp. 1, Preparation of Environmental

Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, (July 2009), at 49, available at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1306/ML13067A354.pdf.

136 ER, at 4-68.

137 See e.g., State of Florida Dept of Environmental Protection v. Florida Power & Light Co., OGC File No. 16-0241 (Fla. Dep. of Envtl Prot. Jun. 20, 2016) (Consent Order), ¶ 19 (Ordering Applicant to cease discharges from the [cooling canal system] that impair the reasonable and beneficial use of the adjacent G-II ground waters to the west of the [cooling canal system] in violation of Condition IV.1 of the Permit and Rule 62-520.400, F.A.C.).

[Do not delineate 3, 4 & 5 re scope of proceeding, material to finding, and facts or expert opinion]

[RESUME DELINEATING HERE]

[#12 : Climate Change] CONTENTION 3-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL ON CERTAIN CATEGORY 1 AND 2 ISSUES, IN VIOLATION OF 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(C)(3)(iv).

1. Statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i))

The Environmental Report (§§ 3 and 5) fails to comply with 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(iv) because it fails to analyze new and significant information regarding the effect of sea level rise on a number of Category 1 and 2 issues. Section 51.53(c)(3)(iv) requires an environmental report submitted as part of a license renewal application to contain any new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the applicant is aware.

Neither the GEIS nor the Environmental Report contains any analysis of new and significant information regarding sea level rise relating to the following Category 1 or 2 issues:

• Surface water use conflicts (Category 2)

• Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute) (Category 2)

• Cumulative impacts (Category 2)

• Termination of plan operations and decommissioning (Category 1)

1. Brief explanation of the basis for the contention (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii)) and concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions supporting the contention (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v))

NRC regulations require an environmental report to consider any new and significant information that may alter previous environmental conclusions.170 New and significant information is defined as

[i]nformation not considered in the assessment of impacts evaluated in the GEIS leading to a seriously different picture of the environmental consequences of the action than previously considered.171 This obligation applies to both Category 1 and 2 issues.172 [E]ven where the GEIS has found that a particular impact applies generically (Category 1), the applicant must still provide additional analysis in its Environmental Report if new and significant information may bear on the applicability of the Category 1 finding at its particular plant.173 This requirement is intended to ensure that [w]hen the GEIS and SEIS are combined [or here, the GEIS and the Environmental Report], they cover all issues that NEPA requires be addressed in an EIS for a nuclear power plant license renewal proceeding.174 Here, the GEIS and the Environmental Report, when combined, do not cover all issues that NEPA requires be addressed. Far from it: the GEIS expressly recognized that analysis of the effects of GHG emissions and climate change upon nuclear power plants could not be assessed generically.175 The GEIS

provided, therefore, that each SEIS [will include] a plant-specific analysis of any impacts caused by GHG emissions over the course of the license renewal term as well as any cumulative impacts caused by potential climate change upon the affected resources during the license renewal term.176 The Environmental Report, however, fails to include an analysis of the effects of sea level rise in relation to numerous Category 1 and 2 issues. Beyond a brief mention that sea level rise will impact certain threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, the Environmental Report does not discuss sea level rise at all.177 Section 5 of the Environmental Report, Assessment of New and Significant Information, contains only a summary of the process used by FPL to assess whether any new and significant information required analysis. The entirety of the FPLs analysis appears in one sentence: As a result of this review, FPL is aware of no new and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal associated with PTN. 178 That conclusion fails to address information relating to sea level rise. This information is both new and significant.

170 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(iv).

171 ER, at 5-1 (citing NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supp. 1, Rev. 1).

172 Massachusetts v. United States, 522 F.3d 115, 120 (1st Cir. 2008).

173 In the Matter of Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 & 4), 54 N.R.C. 3, 11 (July 19, 2001).

174 Massachusetts, 522 F.3d at 120.

175 2013 GEIS Revision, at 1-29 to 1-30.

176 2013 GEIS Revision, at 1-30 (emphasis added); see also In the Matter of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Combined License Application for William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), 84 N.R.C. 180 (Dec. 15, 2016); In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Auth. (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4) 2009 WL 3659545, at *3 (N.R.C. Nov. 3, 2009) (We expect the Staff to include consideration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions under the National Environmental Policy Act.).

177 ER, at 3-181, 3-205, 3-210, 4-71.

178 ER, at 5-4.

[#13 : Outside Scope-Safety] [CONTENTION 3-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL ON CERTAIN CATEGORY 1 AND 2 ISSUES, IN VIOLATION OF 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(C)(3)(iv)....]

The failure to address sea level rise is even more stark in light of Applicants acknowledgement of future sea level rise at Turkey Point. In 2016, the company acknowledged that probable maximum storm surge exceeded the plants design basis in several respects when 20 Year Sea Rise was considered.179 In the same document, FPL acknowledged that three flood barrier segments at Turkey Point are not sufficient to prevent flooding when the projected 20 year sea-level rise of 0.39 inches is included.180 179 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), encl. at 11, Table 2.2-3.

180 Id. encl. at 16; see also id. (In the longer term, sea level rise may result in wave run-up overtopping the north and south barriers in the turbine building.). Additionally, a projected 20-year sea level rise of 0.39 inches unreasonably low and not supported by any evidence. See Kopp Decl. at ¶ 30(a) and (d)

(projecting a 68-95 percent chance that average sea level rise at Key West will exceed 1 foot by 2060 and, under a High emissions scenario, projecting a 1.5-39 percent chance that average sea level rise will exceed 6 feet by 2100).

[#14 : Climate Change] [CONTENTION 3-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL ON CERTAIN CATEGORY 1 AND 2 ISSUES, IN VIOLATION OF 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(C)(3)(iv)....]

Moreover, the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for issuance of the combined construction permits and operating licenses for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 acknowledge that global sea level is projected to rise 1 to 4 feet by 2100, and that some projections predict 8.2 feet by 2100 relative to 2000.181 The FEIS acknowledged that this scenario would mean that much of South Florida would be uninhabitable and millions of people would likely be displaced.182 The FEIS further acknowledged that:

• Sea-level rise combined with more frequent Category 4 and 5 storms will increase the potential for damaging storm surge events at the Turkey Point site.183

• Sea level rise and storm surge would result in release of sediment and nutrients from the Turkey Point site.184

• Sea-level rise could stress mangrove forests due to inundation and could stress surviving wetland vegetation by introducing brackish water farther inland, as well as also place additional stress on the same habitats and wildlife affected by [Turkey Points] operational impacts. 185 Despite the above discussion of the effects of sea level rise in the Units 6 and 7 FEIS, the Environmental Report submitted with the Units 3 and 4 license renewal application fails to address the issue at all. This deficiency violates NEPA.

181 NRC, Final Report, Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7, Appendices A to K, ADAMS Accession No. ML16301A018 (Oct. 2016), App. I at I-3, available at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1630/ML16301A018.pdf; see also Kopp Decl. at ¶¶ 38.

182 Id.

183 Id. at I-5.

184 Id. at I-6 185 Id. at I-6 to I-7. Because Units 6 and 7, if constructed, will be cooled by cooling towers rather than the existing cooling canal system, the FEIS for Units 6 and 7 did not address the effects of sea level rise in relation to the cooling canal system.

[#15 : Meteorology and Air Quality] [CONTENTION 3-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL ON CERTAIN CATEGORY 1 AND 2 ISSUES, IN VIOLATION OF 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(C)(3)(iv)....]

a. Cumulative effects (Category 2)

The Environmental Reports cumulative effects analysis (§ 4.12) fails entirely to discuss the sea level rise-related impacts upon affected resources. The GEIS recognized that [c]hanges in climate have the potential to affect air and water resources, ecological resources, and human health, and should be taken into account when evaluating cumulative impacts over the license renewal term. 186 But the Environmental Report fails to address a primary localized effect of climate change: sea level rise. This

failure violates the GEISs assurance that each SEIS (or environmental report) will contain a plant-specific analysis of any impacts caused by GHG emissions over the course of the license renewal term as well as any cumulative impacts caused by potential climate change upon the affected resources during the license renewal term.187 186 2013 GEIS Revision, at 1-29.

187 2013 GEIS Revision, at 1-30; see Contention 3-E.

[#16 : Hydrology-Surface Water] [CONTENTION 3-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL ON CERTAIN CATEGORY 1 AND 2 ISSUES, IN VIOLATION OF 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(C)(3)(iv)....]

b. Water resources (Surface water use conflicts (Category 2) and groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute) (Category 2))

The Environmental Report erroneously fails to account for the effect sea level rise will have on freshwater availability, ground water resources, and release of polluted cooling water into Biscayne Bay.188 The Environmental Reports analysis of water resources impacts rests on the assumption that the cooling canal system is a closed-loop system and will not release of radionuclides or other pollution into the environmentan assumption that will no longer be valid once sea level rise has eliminated the closed-loop nature of the cooling canal system.189 Climate change will result in sea level rise and more extreme and more frequent storm surges at Turkey Point.190 Sea level rise will result in a frequent interchange of water from Biscayne Bay and the cooling canal system. These effects paint a seriously different picture of the environmental consequences of the action than previously considered, and therefore must be considered.191 188 See ER, at 4 4-29.

189 E.g., ER, at 4-26. The cooling canal system is not closed-loop. See ER at 3-114 (The cooling canals by design are in direct hydraulic connection to the underlying surficial aquifer and are authorized to discharge to groundwater by the state of Florida IWW permit and the associated federal NPDES permit which is issued under delegation to the state of Florida[.]).

190 Kopp Decl. at ¶¶ 12(iv).

191 ER, at 5-1.

[#17 : Decommissioning] [CONTENTION 3-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO CONSIDER NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL ON CERTAIN CATEGORY 1 AND 2 ISSUES, IN VIOLATION OF 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(C)(3)(iv)....]

c. Termination of plant operations and decommissioning (Category 1)

Neither (1) the license renewal GEIS, (2) the GEIS prepared to analyze impacts related to plant decommissioning, nor (3) the Environmental Report addresses the effects of sea level rise on termination of plant operations and the decommissioning process.192 Sea level rise will affect Applicants ability to terminate plant operations and decommission the plant. If a subsequent license renewal is granted, Units 3 and 4 operating licenses will expire in the early 2050s, and the decommissioning process is expected to take 60 years to complete. This means that decommissioning

will continue well past 2100, when sea level at Turkey Point could rise between four and ten feet.193 NEPA requires either a GEIS or the Environmental Report to analyze this issue.194 The failure to do so violates NEPA.

192 See 2013 GEIS Revision, at 4-10; NRC, Final Report, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Vol. 1, Supp. 1 (NUREG-0586), ADAMS Accession No. ML023500395 (Nov. 2002); ER, at 7-1.

193 Kopp. Decl. at ¶¶ 40.

194 Massachusetts, 522 F.3d at 120.

[Do not delineate 2, 3, 4 re scope of proceeding, material to finding, genuine disput, or alleged facts/expert opinion]

[RESUME DELINEATION HERE]

[#18 : Climate Change] CONTENTION 4-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO DESCRIBE THE FORESEEABLE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT DURING THE SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL PERIOD.

1. Statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i))

Applicants Environment Report (§ 3) erroneously fails to describe the reasonably foreseeable affected environment during the subsequent license renewal period (2032-2053) in violation of 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2). This failure renders Applicants analyses of environmental impacts (§ 4), mitigating actions

(§ 6), and alternatives analysis (§ 8) legally insufficient.200

2. Brief explanation of the basis for the contention (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii))

NEPA prohibits agencies from making decisions without first taking a hard look at the environmental consequences, requiring agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).201 The heart of the EIS is the agencys evaluation and analysis of alternatives to the proposed action.202 This analysis turns on an accurate description of the areas to be affected bythe proposed action.203 Without an accurate description of the affected environment, an agency is unable to meaningfully understand the effects of the alternatives.204 When the impacts occur is as important as where.205 A description of the affected environment as it exists today is legally insufficient when the environment will undergo reasonably foreseeable and significant changes by the time the project commences and throughout its proposed lifetime. An agencys failure to consider this information in any meaningful or logical way violates NEPA.206 Here, Applicant omitted from its Environmental Report any description of reasonably foreseeable and significant aspects of the affected environment. The Environmental Report fails to discuss the changes in the surrounding environment and their effects on Turkey Point, including sea level rise, increased air temperature, increased surface water temperature, acidification, annual precipitation, drought, and increased storm intensity.207 Thus, the Applicant provided no analysis of alternatives to avoid the effects of these changes. As a result, Applicants Environmental Report violates 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2),

40 C.F.R. § 1202.15, and 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).

200 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(A); 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and (iii).

201 Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Commn, 867 F.3d 1357, 1367 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

202 10 C.F.R. Part 51, App. A, §§ 4, 5; see also 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.

203 10 C.F.R. Part 51, App. A, § 6; see also 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2) (requiring a detailed description of the affected environment).

204 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15.

205 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii) (requiring analyses of environmental impacts of the proposed action . . .

during the renewal term.).

206 See AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 287 F. Supp. 3d 969, 1031-32 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

(granting summary judgment to plaintiffs where agency failed to reconcile information on climate change impacts with ultimate conclusions about proposed action).

207 Applicant admits elsewhere that sea level rise is reasonably foreseeable, relevant, and significant.

See e.g. 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), encl. at 16 (stating that various barrier segments at the plant are adequate for the current sea-level; however, they are not sufficient when the projected 20 year sea-level rise of 0.39 inches is included and require modification to increase the height of the flood barrier.); see also, Attachment Q, Declaration of David Lochbaum, who provided an expert declaration upon which Petitioners rely and states: [t]he license renewal rule, specifically 10 CFR 54.29, states that a renewed license may be issued if the Commission finds that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the CLB [current licensing basis]. Because the flooding evaluations and assessments only went out to 2033, the expiration of the current operating licenses, and there is no evaluation or assessment concluding that reactor operation beyond 2033 will remain bound by those analyses, reasonable assurances needed to issue subsequent license renewals cannot be found. Att. Q at ¶ 41.

[Do not delineate 3, 4, 5, 6 re scope of proceeding, material to finding, genuine dispute, or alleged facts/expert opinion]

[RESUME DELINEATION HERE]

[#19 : Ecology-Terrestrial] CONTENTION 5-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF OPERATING THE COOLING CANAL SYSTEM FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS ON SURFACE WATERS, FRESHWATER WETLANDS, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES PRESENT IN THOSE WETLANDS

1. Statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i))

NRC regulations require the Environmental Report to consider the effects of Turkey Points continued operation on surface waters, freshwater wetlands, and endangered species present in those wetlands.259 But the ER gives no consideration to 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. This failure violates NEPA.

2. Brief explanation of the basis for the contention (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(ii)) and concise statement of facts or expert opinions which support Petitioners position and on which Petitioners intend to rely at hearing (10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v))

Operation of the cooling canal system causes salt and other pollutants to migrate into the groundwater surrounding the cooling canals.260 Heat from Units 3 and 4 causes evaporation of water in the cooling canals that concentrates salt, creating a hypersaline environment in the canals. The relatively denser

saline water leaches out of the cooling canal system and into the aquifer, creating a hypersaline plume. 261 This process and associated environmental impacts have been recognized by the NRC, the State of Florida, and Miami-Dade County.262 Over the last four decades, the portion of the Biscayne Aquifer below the cooling canal system has become saturated with hypersaline water moving down into the aquifer and radially in all directions, including westward (i.e., towards the Model Lands Basin, the wider Everglades, and drinking water wells screened in the Biscayne Aquifer), and eastward towards Biscayne Bay where the plume discharges to the surface water.263 Salt migrating out of the cooling canal system has formed a hypersaline plume and has moved the saltwater/freshwater interface westwards at all elevations in the Biscayne Aquifer.264 Operation of the cooling canal system has driven the saltwater/freshwater interface at the base of the aquifer several miles westward into what was previously a potable portion of the aquifer.265 The cooling canal system is bounded to the west, southwest, south, and northwest by extensive freshwater wetlands that form part of the Everglades. The nearest wetland watershed unit is called the Model Lands Basin and consists primarily of publicly owned, undeveloped freshwater wetlands that are important habitat for plants and animals, including multiple endangered species.266 Endangered species that depend on this wetland habitat include the Florida panther, American crocodile, indigo snake, snail kite, red knot and wood stork.267 The Model Lands Basin also contains the companys Everglades Mitigation Bank.

259 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) (ER must consider the impact of refurbishment, continued operations, and other license renewal-related construction activities on important plant and animal habitats and on threatened or endangered species); see also id. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) (ER must consider impacts on fish and shellfish resources resulting from thermal changes and impingement and entrainment).

260 ER, at 3-82, 3-111.

261 ER, at 3-111.

262 See infra notes 114, 137.

263 See NRC, License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 77 Fed. Reg. 20059, 20062 (Apr. 3, 2012) (Because the PTN canals are unlined, there is an exchange of water between the PTN canal system and local groundwater and Biscayne Bay including a seasonal flow of hypersaline water from the CCS toward the Everglades).

264 Chin, David A, Ph.D., The Cooling System at the FPL Turkey Point Power Station at 12 (2015)

(Attached hereto as Exhibit O).

265 Id. at 12-13.

266 ER, at 3-149.

267 2017 BiOp, at 44.

[#20 : Ecology-Terrestrial] [CONTENTION 5-E: THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FAILS TO ADDRESS THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF OPERATING THE COOLING CANAL SYSTEM FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS ON SURFACE WATERS, FRESHWATER WETLANDS, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES PRESENT IN THOSE WETLANDS....]

The discharge of saline groundwater from the cooling canal system is now degrading those wetlands.

According to Miami-Dade County: The FPL Turkey Point CCS, as well as FPLs Everglades Mitigation Bank are located in the extreme southeast region of the county, in an area that is experiencing significant

westward migration of the salt intrusion front at the base of the Biscayne aquifer, and where historically fresh surface water canals have recently been documented with higher conductivity and chloride levels uncharacteristic of fresh water bodies.268 The County has also noted that hydrologic impacts including salt intrusion and groundwater and surface water contamination have been documented on these lands.269 Measurements recorded in County-owned wetlands west of the canal in April 2018 found that shallow groundwater in the area now exhibits conductivity of more than 5000 microSiemens (µmhos/cm).270 These conductivity levels are dangerously high for a naturally freshwater environment.271 Further, recent salinity measurements in the L-31 canal west of the interceptor ditch indicate that saline water from the plume has surfaced in and entered the L-31 canal, from which it can now enter adjacent freshwater wetlands, causing further degradation of the wetlands.272 As the County explains, The water quality of the L-31 E was initially freshwater and salinities during the period of record have increased to over 29 PSU.273 Over the past ten years, canal salinities have trended upward and the highest salinities (29 PSU) were recorded during the first quarter of 2018.274 Some of this information thus post-dates Applicants Environmental Report, and none of this information has been previously considered by the NRC.

Turkey Point discharges other pollutants from the cooling canal system to nearby surface waters via the Biscayne Aquifer. Specifically, violations of surface water ammonia standards have been observed in canals near Turkey Point.275 In the ER, Applicant claims that ammonia detected in surface water is not the result of point or non-point source contamination attributable to Turkey Point.276 Miami-Dade County, however, has offered evidence that Turkey Point is a key source of the ammonia and is responsible for the violations of water quality standards.277 Ammonia can have direct and highly toxic effects on the aquatic environment,278 yet the ER fails to consider the impacts of ammonia discharges on threatened and endangered species and important habitat.279 268 DERM-FDEP July 2018 Letter, at 2.

269 Id. at 4.

270 Id. at 27, 59.

271 See EPA, Conductivity, https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html/vms59.html (last visited July 27, 2018) (Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass an electrical current.

Conductivity in water is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). . . . The conductivity of rivers in the United States generally ranges from 50 to 1500 µmhos/cm. Studies of inland fresh waters indicate that streams supporting good mixed fisheries have a range between 150 and 500 µhos/cm. Conductivity outside this range could indicate that the water is not suitable for certain species of fish or macroinvertebrates.

Industrial waters can range as high as 10,000 µmhos/cm.); see also Ami L. Riscassi and Raymond W.

Schaffranek, USGS, Flow Velocity, Water Temperature, And Conductivity In Shark River Slough, Everglades National Park, Florida: July 1999 - August 2001 (2002), available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr03348/ (Appendix C records specific conductance in the range of 300 to 500 µmhos/cm over two years of observations).

272 DERM-FDEP July 2018 Letter, at 3, 26, 51; NRC, Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7, Appendix I at I-6 (describing harm to wetland vegetation caused by the advance of brackish water farther inland).

273 DERM-FDEP July 2018 Letter, at 3.

274 Id. at 55, 56.

275 Letter from Wilbur Mayorga (Miami-Dade County, Division of Environmental Resources Management) to Matthew J. Raffenberg (FPL) at 1-2 (July 10, 2018) (Attachment P) (Mayorga -

Raffenberg Letter).

276 ER, at 9-13, 3-93 -94.

277 Mayorga - Raffenberg Letter at 1-2.

278 Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013, 78 Fed. Reg. 52192, 52192 (Aug. 22, 2013) 279 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) and (B).

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Petitioners should be admitted as parties to the proceeding to pursue the admissible contentions they have presented.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard Ayres /s/ Geoffrey H. Fettus TURK-SLR3&4-SC-00068 SACE Petition UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE SECRETARY In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company Docket Nos. 50-250/251-SLR Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 SOUTHERN ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY,S REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE

[Introductory Material not delineated; only Contention text is delineated as comments]

I. INTRODUCTION

[#1 : Process-ESP-COL] Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309, the hearing notice published by the U.S.

NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) at 83 Fed. Reg. 19,304 (May 2, 2018), andthe Secretarys Order of June 13, 2018, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) hereby requests a hearing on Florida Power & Light Companys (FPLs) application for subsequentlicense renewal (SLR) for the Turkey Point nuclear power plant, Units 3 and 4. In Section II, SACE describes the organization and its standing to request a hearing.Section III sets forth SACEs contentions, which addresses the inadequacy of FPLs Environmental Report(Attachment 3 to FPLs SLR application of February 2018) to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In brief, SACEs Contention 1 challenges FPLs failure to grapple with the serious environmental damage caused by the cooling canal system (CCS), relied on by FPL for the past four decades to cool the Units 3 and 4 reactors, to the fragile Biscayne Bay ecosystem, the regional drinking water supply, and wildlife habitat in the CCS itself. FPL should not be allowed another twenty years of operation before analyzing

the reasons for the failures of its efforts over the past decades to stem those impacts. Nor should FPL be allowed to go forward with a second license renewal term before reckoning with the fact that new measures it proposes for mitigation of the CCS impacts in the future are mutually inconsistent and counter-productive. Finally, FPL should be required to address an alternative cooling system, already approved and used by FPLfor other plants on the Turkey Point site, which would eliminate the need for the CCS andthereby avoid its adverse environmental impacts: mechanical draft cooling towers. SACE provides extensive and detailed support for the concerns raised in its contentions in technical reports prepared by experts whom SACE has retained for a federal district court lawsuit challenging the CCS noncompliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Tropical Audubon Society, Inc., and Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co., No. 1:16-cv-23017-DPG (filed Oct. 11, 2016) (CWA lawsuit).

II. SACE HAS STANDING TO REQUEST A HEARING.

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: REQUIREMENTS OF A. NEPAs Statutory Requirements B. NRC Regulations for Implementation of NEPA IV. CONTENTIONS

[#2 : Hydrology-Surface Water] Contention 1: Inadequate Discussion of Environmental Impacts of CCS A. Statement of Contention FPL's Environmental Report for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 violates the National Environmental Policy Act

("NEPA") and NRC implementing regulation 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c) by underestimating, or at times ignoring, the environmental impacts to the surrounding water resources by continuing to use the Cooling Canal System ("CCS") for cooling of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. In particular, the Environmental Report fails to provide an adequate analysis of the environmental impacts of the CCS on the chemistry of groundwater, surface water and its aquatic life, and the CCS' own ecosystem. These adverse environmental impacts include the migration of a hypersaline plume that has developed in the Biscayne Aquifer beneath the CCS and now extends for miles in all directions. Contaminants in the plume and the groundwater, generated by the Turkey Point plant, include phosphorous, ammonia, TKN, total nitrogen, radioactive tritium, and chlorophyll a. The areas directly affected by these pollutants include the underlying Biscayne Aquifer and its protected G-II groundwater, surface waters of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound, and the L-31E Canal. Directly affected areas also include the CCS' seagrass ecosystem, which provides habitat for the federally threatened American crocodile. And indirectly affected areas include the Greater Everglades, which may be impacted by withdrawal of surface waters intended for use in Everglades restoration, for the purpose of reducing temperatures or salinity in the CCS.

[#3 : Hydrology-Groundwater] [Contention 1: Inadequate Discussion of Environmental Impacts of CCS

...]

FPL's Environmental Report also violates NEPA by overestimating the effectiveness of its proposed mitigation measures and failing to acknowledge how those mitigation measures will interact and undermine each other. For instance, FPL proposes to pump lower salinity water from the Floridan aquifer into the CCS to "freshen" it and thereby meet a required salinity limit of 34 psu ("practical salinity units"). Environmental Report at 3-94 § 3-95. FPL also proposes to extract contaminated water out of the underlying aquifer for purposes of reducing the hypersaline plume emitted by the CCS. But

the addition of water into the CCS will increase the driving head of the hypersaline plume, thereby driving it downward into the aquifer and exacerbating the contamination of groundwater. In short, by flushing salt out of the CCS, FPL will drive the plume deeper into the aquifer, increasing the threat to the drinking water supply and Biscayne Bay. And the proposed extraction of water from the aquifer for purposes of reducing and removing the hypersaline plume is unlikely to have any significant or lasting positive effect.

Finally, FPL ignores or underestimates the cumulative impacts of past and future operations of the CCS.

A cumulative impacts analysis is essential to evaluate the effects and interaction of the many water management measures that FPL and others have undertaken or proposed to mitigate the effects of Turkey Point's cooling system on the environment. NEPA requires FPL to undertake a broad and rigorous analysis of the cumulative effects of these mitigation strategies, comparing them and evaluating their interactions and net results. FPL should also examine how the mitigation strategies for Turkey Point interact with other environmental programs in the region, such as the Central Everglades Restoration Program ("CERP"). FPL has yet to undertake such an analysis, and therefore its Environmental Report fails to satisfy NEPA.

As a result of the significant defects in FPLs Environmental Report, FPLs conclusion that the environmental impacts of continuing to operate the CCS during the SLR term will be small must be rejected as arbitrary and unsupported, and thereby inadequate to satisfy NEPA.

[FACTUAL BASIS STATEMENTS NOT DELINEATED]

B. Basis Statement

[RESUME DELINEATION HERE]

[#4 : Alternatives-System Design] Contention 2: Inadequate Consideration of the Alternative of Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers A. Statement of Contention FPL has failed to consider the reasonable alternative of cooling the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 reactors with mechanical draft cooling towers, in violation of NEPA and 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)(2). The cooling tower alternative should be considered because it is feasible and cost-effective. It is also superior to FPLs preferred alternative of continuing to rely on the CCS, because it would likely eliminate the adverse impacts of continuing to operate the CCS that are set forth in Contention 1.

[BASIS STATEMENTS NOT DELINEATED]

V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, SACEs hearing request and petition to intervene should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

___/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