ML24032A219

Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Response in Opposition to Fpl'S Motion to Strike Portions of Miami Waterkeeper'S Reply

ML24032A219
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	02/01/2024
From:	Bills C Miami Waterkeeper
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
ASLBP 24-981-01-SLR-BD01, RAS 56924, 50-251-SLR-2, 50-250-SLR-2
Download: ML24032A219 (0)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-250

) Docket No. 50-251 (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4) )

) February 1, 2024 (Subsequent License Renewal Application) )

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO FPLS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF MIAMI WATERKEEPERS REPLY Petitioner seeks leave to file an Amended Response in Opposition to FPLs Motion to Strike Portions of Miami Waterkeepers Reply. The Response filed on January 23, 2024 inadvertently exceeded the 10-page limit set by the Boards December 6, 2023 Initial Prehearing Order. Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper regrets her mistake in exceeding the page limit and seeks to file an amended response that adds no new arguments and only streamlines the Response to comply with the 10-page limitation established by the Board.

Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper certifies that Counsel for FPL and NRC Staff have been consulted regarding this motion in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b). Counsel for NRC Staff does not oppose the motion. Counsel for FPL does not oppose the motion, on the conditions that (1) both the motion and the amended response are filed by noon EST on Friday, February 2, 2024; and (2) the amended response contains no new arguments or substance. Miami Waterkeeper has agreed to these conditions. The Amended Response is attached.

1

/Signed (electronically) by/ Cameron Bills Cameron Bills Miami Waterkeeper PO Box 141596 Coral Gables, FL 33114-1596 Phone: (305) 905-0856 Email: cameron@miamiwaterkeeper.org Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-250

) Docket No. 50-251 (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4) )

) February 1, 2024 (Subsequent License Renewal Application) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Response in Opposition to FPLs Motion to Strike Portions of Miami Waterkeepers Reply was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE, the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned docket, which to the best of my knowledge resulted in transmittal of same to those on the EIE Service List for the captioned proceeding.

/Signed (electronically) by/ Cameron Bills Cameron Bills Miami Waterkeeper PO Box 141596 Coral Gables, FL 33114-1596 Phone: (305) 905-0856 Email: cameron@miamiwaterkeeper.org Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-250

) Docket No. 50-251 (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4) )

) February 1, 2024 (Subsequent License Renewal Application) )

MIAMI WATERKEEPERS AMENDED1 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO FPLS MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF MIAMI WATERKEEPERS REPLY INTRODUCTION Six days before the prehearing conference on the Petition, and for the second time in this proceeding,2 FPL moved to strike in line-item fashion specific sentences from Petitioners Reply.3 FPLs first motion was denied because petitioners reply did not raise new arguments and simply responded to FPLs answer.4 The present reply does the same, and FPLs latest arguments should fare no better.

As for FPLs suggestion that Petitioners reply is not narrowly focused, Miami Waterkeeper notes that FPL and NRC Staffs Answers spanned a combined 105 pages.5 Given that volume of briefing, the Reply of 76 pages is far from extraordinary, particularly considering the significance of the issue at stake. In any event, FPLs accusations are irrelevant to the merits of its Motion. Petitioners Reply satisfies the governing standard, and the Motion should be denied.

DISCUSSION I. LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING THE SCOPE OF A REPLY Every section of Petitioners Reply that FPL asks the Board to strike merely amplifies and 1

This Response replaces Petitioners Response dated January 23, 2024. This Response adds no new arguments and simply streamlines the prior Response to comply with the 10-page limit set by the Board.

2 FPLs First Motion to Strike (Sep. 20, 2018).

3 FPLs Second Motion to Strike (the Motion) (Jan. 18, 2024).

4 Order Denying FPLs First Motion to Strike (Oct. 23, 2018).

5 FPLs Answer (Dec. 22, 2023); NRC Staff Answer (Dec. 22, 2023) (collectively, Answers).

1

elaborates on prior arguments presented in the Petitioners original contentions, or responds to arguments and facts raised in the Answers. No section presents untimely new arguments or theories of the case. Petitioners Reply rebuts FPLs and NRC Staffs claims that certain pleading defects render its proposed contentions inadmissible. It does not proffer untimely supplemental information or arguments intended to cure any defects in its original contentions.

The contentions in Miami Waterkeepers Petition demonstrate the discipline and preparedness on the part of petitioners, required by the Commissions rules; they fully set forth their claims.6 Each contention meets the test of telling FPL and NRC Staff at the outset, with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced.7 Miami Waterkeepers contentions are categorically superior to those in the Kansas Gas & Electric Company (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C.

559, 576 (1975) decision cited by FPL. In Wolf Creek, the pleadings rejected by the Commission as vague stated only that the license ought to be conditioned on [T]erms and conditions substantially better than and additional to those proposed by the Department [of Justice]. They provided no details on the relief sought.

Nor did Petitioners Reply expand the scope of the arguments set forth in the original hearing request, as deemed inappropriate in the decisions cited by FPL.8 Petitioners contentions differ from those struck in Palisades Nuclear Plant, where no documentary support was provided for the only site-specific argument, and [i]t cannot be ascertained whether the drafters . . . actually even read the Application. Nuclear Mgmt. Co. LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 N.R.C. 727, 730 (2006). The Commission found the challenged contention in Palisades deficient, and the Reply to the objections thereto insufficient to defend the contention because [u]nlike their proposed Contention 1, Petitioners Reply included citations to documents and disputed portions of the application. Id. The Commission found that the arguments in the reply were not even suggested by Petitioners proposed 6

La. Energy Servs. L.P. (Natl Enrichment Facility), CLI-04-25, 60 N.R.C. 223, 225 (2004),

reconsideration denied, CLI-04-35, 60 N.R.C. 619 (2004) (citation omitted).

7 Kan. Gas & Elec. Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C. 559, 576 (1975).

8 (Nuclear Mgmt. Co. LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 N.R.C. 727, 732 (2006) (citing LES, CLI-04-25, 60 N.R.C. 223; USEC Inc. (Am. Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-09, 63 N.R.C. 433, 439 (2006))).

2

Contention 1 as initially pled. Id. at 731 (emphasis added).

The decision in Palisades ruled that a petitioner need not introduce at the contention phase every document on which it will rely in a hearing. Id. at 732 (emphasis added). The Palisades rule is simply that a contention as originally pled must (1) cite adequate documentary support, and (2) not unfairly deprive other participants an opportunity to rebut the new claims. Id. Here, the portions of Miami Waterkeepers Reply that FPL asks the Board to strike focus narrowly on the legal or factual arguments first presented in the original petition or raised in the answers to it. Palisades, CLI-06-17, 63 N.R.C. at 732. They do not assert new arguments or new legal theories that opposing parties have not had an opportunity to address. USEC, CLI-06-09, 63 N.R.C. at 439. They legitimately amplif[y]

arguments from the original petitions contentions, as the Commission deemed proper in LES, CLI-04-25, 60 N.R.C. at 224, which were all supported by adequate documentary evidence.

Miami Waterkeepers explanations in its Reply as to why those contentions are admissible were not an impermissible attempt to cure deficient contentions, as precluded by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-08-19, 68 N.R.C. 251, 262 n.32 (2008). Miami Waterkeepers Reply added no new bases or new issues. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-08-19, 68 N.R.C. 251, 262 n.32 (2008). Each of Miami Waterkeepers contentions meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f).

FPLs characterization of the Commission rulings governing the substance of contentions portrays an overly-limited view of what the rules require. Contentions need only be sufficiently detailed and specific to demonstrate that the issues are admissible and that further inquiry is warranted, and to put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against[.]9 II. THE REPLY IS PROPER AND THE MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED.

A. FPLs First Argument Should Be Denied.

FPL seeks to strike the following sentences from the Reply:

9 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), LBP-82-4, 15 N.R.C. 199, 206 (1982). See also Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-86-9, 23 N.R.C.

273, 277 (1986); AmergenEnergy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-06-22, 64 N.R.C. 229, 234-35 (2006).

3

(1) Yet, in its ultimate conclusions, the 2023 DSEIS fails to adequately consider the positive effects on groundwater quality from discontinuing the use of the CCS as a heat sink for Units 3 and 4.

Reply at 13.

(2) In its ultimate analysis, the 2023 DSEIS fails to compare these environmental benefits against the negative impacts to groundwater quality resulting from the continued operation of the CCS during the SLR term. Reply at 15.

(3) It failed to compare the positive and remedial impact to groundwater of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (i.e., discontinuing the use of the CCS as a heat sink for Units 3 and 4 mandating FPL implement a cooling tower) against the perpetuating and exacerbating impact of the proposed action (continuing to operate the CCS as a heat sink for Units 3 and 4). Reply at 16-17.

These sentences, however, appropriately amplify the contentions raised in the Petition and respond to the arguments raised in the Answers. As an initial matter, FPL concedes that these points were raised in the Petition; its only issue is the location where these sentences appear in the Reply.10 That argument fails. Miami Waterkeepers Petition asserted in Contention 1 that the 2023 DSEIS failed to take a hard look at the impact of the proposed action on groundwater quality.11 The Petition argued that the 2023 DSEIS inadequately evaluated the impact on groundwater quality of the freshening activities at the CCSa remedy that will result in a net addition of salt to the Biscayne Aquifer from the CCS, and potentially 30 million gallons of saline water (34 PSU) migrating into the aquifer every day. Petition at 19. Petitioner also argued that these freshening activities could conflict with and exacerbate contamination of the groundwater. Petition at 22. The Reply amplifies this point by noting that discontinuing the CCS will obviate the need for these freshening activities and result in a positive impact to groundwater quality. Reply at 15. Stating that the DSEIS failed to account for that environmental benefit is just another way of saying that the DSEIS did not adequately assess the impact of these freshening activities. It thus amplifies the Petition.

These sentences also directly respond to FPLs uncited assertion in its Answer that [a]ny legacy conditions [related to the hypersaline plume] would be present regardless of whether the NRC approves or denies the SLRA. FPL Answer at 19. FPL thus put at issue the quality of groundwater without CCS 10 Motion to Strike at 4 (Although the original Petition presented similar arguments in Contention 2).

11 Petition to Intervene Submitted by Miami Waterkeeper (Nov. 27, 2023) (Petition) at 12.

4

operation, and Petitioner properly responded to that assertion by contending that groundwater quality would improve if the CCS no longer operated.12 These sentences were properly included in the Reply.

B. FPLs Second Argument Should Be Denied.

FPLs Answer repeatedly and strenuously argues that the NRC has no authority to require it to do anything to address its decades-long pollution of the sole source aquifer for millions of South Florida residents. For example, FPL asserts that this proceeding is not the appropriate forum to challenge the decisions of state and local agencies with direct regulatory responsibility for groundwater pollution, and that Petitioners arguments are beyond the scope of this proceeding. FPL Answer at 20. FPL also argues, with respect to Contention 2, that the NRC lacks the regulatory authority to mandate cooling towers, quoting the 2019 FSEIS: Implementation of the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), including those regarding cooling system operations and design specification, is the responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). FPL Answer at 35.

Miami Waterkeepers Reply addresses these arguments by noting that the NRC initially licensed the CCS; that the NRC has exercised regulatory authority over the CCS since the 1970s; that the NRC does have authority to order FPL to stop operating the CCS; and that the EPA submitted comments in this proceeding indicating its concerns with the impact of the CCS to groundwater quality and recommending that the NRC require FPL to take steps to address them in any license or EIS. FPL now seeks to strike the following, excerpted in part here:

(1) Next, the NRC must fully consider this issue because it is the regulatory agency with the authority to holistically address the harm caused by the CCS Under basic preemption principles, federal action requiring the construction and operation of the CCS binds all state and local regulatory agencies, which may not order FPL to operate differently (for example, by ordering FPL to cease operating the CCS). Reply at 19 (footnotes omitted).

(2) Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the agency with legal authority concerning the discharge of the cooling water for these facilities, submitted scoping comments to NRC . . .

clarif[ying] that it has issues regarding radionuclides and hypersalinity that represent the EPAs primary concerns. EPA . . . recommended:

12 See In the Matter of Nuclear Mgmt. Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 N.R.C. 717, 732 (2006) (replies may address any and all legal and factual arguments [1] first presented in the original petition or [2] raised in the answers to it).

5

that NRC consider incorporating language into the SEIS or license stating that FPL develop and submit an alternative mitigation plan to address water quality if FPLs monitoring results demonstrate that corrective measures identified in the consent agreements were not effective. As part of this condition, we recommend that the NRC and the licensee provide a detailed discussion on the re-evaluation process that would reassess alternative corrective measures with respect to the CCS.

In short, the State and local authorities recognize the severe impact of the CCS on the groundwater of South Florida, but their hands are tied in addressing that issue due to the NRCs primacy in the field of nuclear safety and its licensure of the CCS. Whatever patchwork of remedial steps those agencies have undertaken, they are nothing more than a band-aid on an open wound. The NRC is the regulatory agency with authority to holistically address the hypersaline plume by ordering FPL to cease operating the CCS, and the Board should reject the attempt by NRC Staff and FPL to defer to the necessarily limited efforts of State and local authorities on that issue. Reply at 21-22 (emphases original from Reply; footnotes omitted).

(3) The 1972 EIS indicates that FPL has been under obligation since 1971 to look for ways of improving the proposed cooling channel system. This EIS references a 1971 federal consent decree, signed by FPL, stating:

. . . Mechanical cooling methods to replace or supplement the system are to be examined. These methods will include both powered spray modules and mechanical draft cooling towers. The Applicant has agreed to utilize such improvements as these research programs develop, with resolution of uncertainties in favor of the environment.

Moreover, Results developed in the study programs are to be utilized in improving and modifying the operation of the plant and its cooling system so as to achieve a minimal environmental impact.

These provisions of the federal consent decree were included as special conditions of the 1972 operating license:

The Applicant shall pursue evaluations of alternatives to the proposed cooling channel system during construction, interim operation, and evaluation of the channel system. These evaluations shall include at least the following:

. . . (2) Study of applicability of mechanical cooling devices, including powered spray modules and cooling towers.

(3) Study of marine environmental impacts of the once-through cooling alternatives described in Section X of this statement.

The subsequent special condition of the operating license reads:

The Applicant shall take appropriate corrective action on any adverse effects determined as a result of monitoring and study programs. To the fullest extent practicable, the Applicant shall utilize results of study programs in improving and modifying the operation of the Plant and its cooling system so as to achieve a minimal adverse environmental impact.

The Commission attached these conditions to the operating license for these facilities over 50 years ago. These conditions support Petitioners assertion that, prior to granting an unprecedented extension of that license to a total term of 80 years, NRC must perform a rigorous analysis of alternative cooling 6

systems as has been required by condition of the operating license for decades. Reply at 42-44 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted).

These arguments directly respond to FPLs assertion in its Answer that the NRC lacks authority to require it to address CCS groundwater pollution. Accordingly, they were properly included in the Reply.13 C. FPLs Third Argument Should Be Denied.

Next, FPL seeks to strike the following arguments, excerpted in part here, pertaining to the 2023 DSEISs failure to employ data or science in assessing groundwater impacts:

(1) NEPA requires agencies to provide some quantified or detailed information supporting their conclusions. The 2023 DSEIS, however, admits that FPL provided no data to support its conclusion that current remedial efforts will retract the hypersaline plume during the SLR term[.] . . . Despite this deficiency, the NRC Staff conducted no independent analysis to fill that informational gap. As a result, the 2023 DSEIS relies on no quantified or detailed information to form its conclusion on the impact of the CCS operations on groundwater quality during the SLR term. The Staffs resort to guesswork and speculation fails to satisfy NEPAs hard look standard, as well as NEPAs explicit mandate that to the fullest extent possible . . . all agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . make use of reliable data and resources in carrying out NEPA assessments. . . .

(2) The 2023 DSEIS failed to do any meaningful analysis or attempt to quantify the benefits of the use of cooling towers, even as new information on the groundwater plume remediation became available in the NRCs scoping process. Reply at 33-34 (underline signifies the words FPL requests stricken).

(3) . . . NRC Staff fails to further explore and quantify the substantial reduction in thermal discharges that drive evaporation losses that concentrate salt in the CCS. Reply at 36 (underline signifies the words FPL requests stricken).

(4) . . . An agency must provide some quantified or detailed information. Where available information allows such an assessment, an agency must explain why more definitive information could not be provided. Without this required analysis, neither the courts nor the public can be assured that the agency provided the hard look that it is required to provide.

Commission Order CLI-22-03 is clear: no further licenses for subsequent renewal terms will be issued until the NRC Staff has completed an adequate NEPA review for each application. As the 2023 DSEIS only carries forward the prior, inadequate alternatives analysis, the agency must evaluate the . . . benefits and costs of the cooling tower alternative. This analysis is crucial in light of new information concerning the CCSs impacts on surface and groundwater resources.

The 2023 DSEIS for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 fails to assess how, and to what extent, the cooling water system alternative could reduce adverse impacts to . . . groundwater quality degradation, and the effects of non-radiological contaminants on aquatic organisms. . . .

These are not new arguments. The Petitions Contention 1 stated: 2023 DSEIS notes that FPL has not presented predictive modeling results that extend to either the start or expiration of the SLR term, 13 In the Matter of Nuclear Mgmt. Co., LLC (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-06-17, 63 N.R.C. 717, 732 (2006).

7

which precludes staff from reaching a definitive conclusion about the likely extent of the hypersaline plume retraction during the SLR term. Petition at 21. FPLs Answer chalked this critical informational gap up to the Staffs lack of clairvoyance on successful plume retraction. FPL Answer at 24. FPL was thus heard on the argument that the 2023 DSEIS reached incorrect conclusions from an inadequate record.

That FPL may now wish to revisit its response is not a ground to strike Petitioners Reply.

Moreover, the Petition extensively argued in Contention 2 that the 2023 DSEIS only carries forward prior, inadequate alternatives analysis; the agency must evaluate the economic, technical, other benefits and costs of the cooling tower alternative, and this analysis must be done in light of new information concerning the CCS impacts to surface and groundwater resources; and the 2023 DSEIS defaults to the 2019 FSEISs discussion of the cooling tower alternative despite Petitioner having forwarded new and relevant information to the NRC regarding the inability of FPL to remediate the plume successfully. Petition at 37-44. FPL responded to this argument by copying-and-pasting a paragraph from the 2019 FSEIS and concluding that it was sufficient. FPL Answer at 36. But Petitioners argument was that that analysis is insufficient precisely because it lacked support in new and relevant data or science. Petition at 44. FPL chose not to respond to that argument, but that does not preclude Petitioner from amplifying it in its Reply, as done here.

D. FPLs Fourth Argument Should Be Denied.

FPL seeks to strike arguments pertaining to the 2023 DSEISs failure to adequately analyze cumulative effects relating to air temperature, Motion to Strike at 7, excerpted here:

The discussion of rising temperatures and CCS evaporation in the 2023 DSEIS was cursory and general. First, the 2023 DSEIS states generally that a variety of factors, including air temperature, affect the CCS temperature. Second, FPL briefly describes its efforts to improve water quality and thermal conditions, although it does not mention salinity levels or evaporation here. Third, the 2023 DSEIS briefly discusses salinity and temperature in the context of eutrophication and fish disease. This discussion fails to analyze evaporation or the link between rising temperatures and evaporation, or any effects that this may have on groundwater quality.

Furthermore, NRC failed to include new information it was required to consider, including the extremely high temperatures experienced in the CCS this past summer. Reply at 61-62.

Contrary to FPLs argument, these criticisms of the 2023 DSEIS are not new. Motion to Strike at 7. They respond to the argument raised by the NRC Staff Answer that Petitioner had failed to show that 8

a genuine dispute exists. NRC Staff Answer at 45. The excerpt above elaborates on the argument made in the Petition regarding the inadequacy of the 2023 DSEISs cumulative impacts analysis of rising temperatures and its failure to update its cumulative impacts analysis in the site-specific EIS to evaluate the cumulative significance of these reasonably foreseeable hotter air temperatures. Petition at 57-60.

This section of the Petition was sufficiently detailed and specific to . . . put the other parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against[.]14 The Motion should be denied.

E. FPLs Fifth Argument Should Be Denied.

Petitioners Reply noted that FPLs Answer misstated the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 51.43(c)(3)(ii)(E). Reply at 66. FPL now seeks to strike that portion of the Reply, excerpted in part here:

FPL, for example, cites the NRC regulation governing environmental reports for license extensions, claiming [f]or license renewal, NRC regulations require only consideration of threatened or endangered species. But FPL misstates that requirement. The rule specifies that:

All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed action on threatened or endangered species in accordance with Federal laws protecting wildlife, including but not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, and essential fish habitat in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Thus the DSEIS was required to consider the impact of . . . continued operations . . . on important plant and animal habitatsincluding the Miami cave crayfish and its groundwater habitat in the vicinity of FPLs facilities, regardless of whether FWS had completed and published its proposal to list the species as threatened at the moment the DSEIS was published. It completely fails to do so. This is in accord with the broad reach of the Council of Environmental Qualitys NEPA regulations. Reply at 66 (emphasis original from reply; footnotes omitted).

Parties are permitted (indeed, encouraged) to identify in a reply where an answer misstated the law or facts. Petitioner appropriately did so here. Moreover, the Petition clearly articulates that the ESA requires that federal agencies ensure their actions [are not] likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat, and discusses in depth the impact of the CCS to the cave crayfishs habitat. Reply at 65-70. This excerpt 14 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., 15 N.R.C. at 206. See also Philadelphia Electric Co., 23 N.R.C. at 277; AmergenEnergy Co., LLC, LBP-06-22, 64 N.R.C. at 234-35.

9

appropriately amplifies the Petition and responds to misstatements in FPLs Answer. Reply at 66.

F. FPLs Sixth Argument Should Be Denied.

FPLs final argument seeks to strike the following from Petitioners Reply to Contention 5:

FPL also argues that the 2023 DSEIS does indeed consider the effects of climate change on accident risk. [FN 296] But the only possible reference to climate change in Appendix D of the Draft EIS is a statement that the NRC considered unspecified new meteorological information and found it did not contribute sufficiently to impacts to warrant their inclusion in the severe accident analysis. The statement is too brief and vague to qualify as the hard look required by NEPA.

[FN 296] FPL Answer at 52. FPL also argues that the NRC addressed climate change in the accident analysis for the 2019 EIS. Id. (citing 2019 SEIS at § 4.11.1.3, Appendix E).

But Petitioner could not locate any mention or analysis of the climate change issue in those sections. Reply at 72 (select footnotes omitted).

This argument directly responds to the assertion in FPLs Answer: Furthermore, the NRC did consider new meteorological information in the context of the Severe Accidents analysis. [FN 258: 2023 DEIS at D-6. The NRC addressed climate risks as part of its evaluation of FPLs SAMA analysis. See 2019 FSEIS § 4.11.1.3, Appendix E.] FPL Answer at 52. The Reply, in other words, reviews the materials cited in this passage in FPLs Answer and responds that they do not satisfy the hard look standard. Responding to an opponents arguments is the core purpose of a reply, and that is what Miami Waterkeeper properly did.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, FPLs Motion to Strike should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Cameron Bills Cameron Bills Miami Waterkeeper PO Box 141596 Coral Gables, FL 33114-1596 Phone: (305) 905-0856 Email: cameron@miamiwaterkeeper.org Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper Filed February 1, 2024 10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-250

) Docket No. 50-251 (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 3 and 4) )

) February 1, 2024 (Subsequent License Renewal Application) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, a copy of the foregoing Miami Waterkeepers Amended Response in Opposition to FPLs Motion to Strike Portions of Miami Waterkeepers Reply was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE, the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned docket, which to the best of my knowledge resulted in transmittal of same to those on the EIE Service List for the captioned proceeding.

/Signed (electronically) by/ Cameron Bills Cameron Bills Miami Waterkeeper PO Box 141596 Coral Gables, FL 33114-1596 Phone: (305) 905-0856 Email: cameron@miamiwaterkeeper.org Counsel for Miami Waterkeeper 11