ML15299A026

NRC Staff Answer in Support of FPL Motion in Limine

ML15299A026
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	10/26/2015
From:	Kanatas C E NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-250-LA, 50-251-LA, ASLBP 15-935-02-LA-BD01, RAS 28432
Download: ML15299A026 (8)

Text

October 26, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250-LA ) 50-251-LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, ) Units 3 and 4) ) NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CASE'S "INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITION, TESTIMONY, AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS" OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE IT AND ITS CITED DOCUMENTS FROM EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319, 2.323, 2.337, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (Board) Initial Scheduling Order of May 8, 2015, and Order dated October 19, 20151, the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) files its answer in support of Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL) motion to strike, or in the alternative, motion in limine (FPL's Motion)2 regarding "Citizens Allied for Safe Energy [CASE] Initial Statement of Position, Testimony, Affidavits and Exhibits (For January, 2015 Evidentiary Hearing)." (CASE's SOP).3 As discussed below, the material FPL seeks to exclude from the hearing is opinions and exhibits not properly sponsored by an expert and material that exceeds the limited scope of the 1 See Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling Order) (May 8, 2015) (unpublished) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15128A369); Licensing Board Order (Granting Request for Extension of Time) (Oct. 19, 2015) (unpublished) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15292A408). 2 [FPL's] Motion to Strike Portions of CASE's "Initial Statement of Position, Testimony, Affidavits and Exhibits, or, in the Alternative, Motion In Limine to Exclude it and its Cited Documents from Evidence (Oct. 19, 2015) (FPL's Motion). 3 CASE's SOP was filed on October 9, 2015 and is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15286A348. CASE's SOP referenced several attachments, some of which were served on October 9, 2015. Pursuant to the Board's October 19, 2015 Order, CASE served Attachment 2 on October 20, 2015. admitted contention.4 Although the Staff recognizes that the Board is capable of sorting through CASE's SOP and exhibits for scope and weight, allowing portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits into evidence will result in the unnecessary expenditure of resources by all parties on issues that are not properly before the Board and create a confusing record on the issues to be decided. Thus, the Staff supports FPL's Motion to exclude portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits.5 The Staff submits that the Board should exclude the documents referenced in Table 1 of FPL's Motion,6 the arguments and exhibits referenced in Table 2 of FPL's Motion,7 and CASE's Attachments 1, 2, and 3.8 DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards Governing Motions In Limine In an evidentiary hearing, "[o]nly relevant, material, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be segregated and excluded so far as is practicable."9 While the "strict rules of evidence do not apply to written submissions," the Board "may, on motion or on the presiding officer's own 4 See Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc. Petition to Intervene and Request for a Hearing (Oct. 14, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14290A510); Memorandum and Order (Granting CASE's Petition to Intervene) (unpublished) (Mar. 23, 2015) (slip op. at 24) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15082A197) (admitting a narrowed and reformulated version of CASE's Contention 1). 5 FPL's Motion. See id. at 1, 4 (stating that CASE's SOP does not contain any sworn testimony); id. at 1 (noting that "significant portions of the CASE [SOP] and its cited documents raise issues beyond the limited scope of Contention 1 as admitted by the Board in this proceeding."). 6 FPL's Motion at 5-8. 7 Id. at 11-12. 8 See FPL's Motion at 4 (requesting that Attachments 1, 2, and 3 not be included as evidence). The Staff does not object to CASE Attachments 4, 5, and 6, as they are public records documenting matters potentially relevant to the admitted contention. 9 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a). initiative, strike any portion of a written presentation or a response to a written question that is irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, duplicative or cumulative."10 NRC hearings are limited to the scope of the admitted contentions. It is well established that if an intervenor proffers testimony or evidence outside the scope of the admitted contentions, it will be excluded.11 As the Commission explained: The scope of a contention is limited to issues of law and fact pled with particularity in the intervention petition, including its stated bases, unless the contention is satisfactorily amended in accordance with our rules. Otherwise, NRC adjudications quickly would lose order. Parties and licensing boards must be on notice of the issues being litigated, so that parties and boards may prepare for summary disposition or for hearing. Our procedural rules on contentions are designed to ensure focused and fair proceedings.12 The Commission has stressed that its "proceedings would prove unmanageable-and unfair to the other parties-if an intervenor could freely change an admitted contention 'at will as litigation progresses,' 'stretching the scope of admitted contentions beyond their reasonably inferred bounds.'"13 Therefore, petitioners "must raise and reasonably specify at the outset their objections to a license application."14 II. CASE's SOP and Exhibits are Not Supported By an Expert and Should be Excluded The Staff agrees with FPL that CASE's SOP and Attachments 1, 2, and 3 should not be considered pre-filed testimony or evidence because they are not appropriately sponsored by a 10 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(d). See also 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(e). 11 See, e.g., Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), CLI-10-05, 71 NRC 90, 100 (2010) (agreeing with the Staff that the licensing board had properly excluded the intervenors' testimony and exhibits that were outside the scope of the admitted contention). 12 Id. at 100-01 (internal footnotes omitted). 13 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-01, 75 NRC 39, 56 (2012) (internal citations omitted). 14 Id. (internal citations omitted). qualified expert.15 The Board's Initial Scheduling Order provided the parties clear instructions for submitting initial SOPs, testimony, and affidavits.16 However, CASE's SOP did not meet the NRC's filing requirements. In particular, CASE did not provide any testimony or affidavits.17 As FPL's Motion points out, a non-expert, like Mr. White, cannot sponsor technical analyses for admission as evidence.18 Moreover, despite being given a chance to cure any defects in its filings, CASE did not file any written testimony, affidavits, or supported exhibits or attachments by October 20, 2015.19 While pro se intervenors are afforded some latitude,20 the regulations and Board's orders apply with equal force to them to ensure a fair and orderly adjudication.21 15 FPL's Motion at 4 (citing Catawba, CLI-04-21, 60 NRC at 27). Id. at n. 18 (noting no objection to Attachments 4, 5, and 6). 16 See Board's Initial Scheduling Order at 7-16 and Attachments A and B. While the Board's October 21, 2015 order directed CASE to correct its filing errors, those corrections regarding numbering and submission of supporting documents will not cure the issues that preclude the exhibits and portions of the SOP from being admitted into evidence. 17 See CASE's SOP at 5 ("CASE has no testimony or affidavits to submit at this time."). As FPL's Motion points out, CASE also failed to follow the Board's instructions and the Commission's rules regarding the presentation of exhibits). FPL's Motion at 1, 4-5. 18 FPL's Motion at 2 (citing Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346, 367 (1983)). See also id. (noting that non-expert testimony on a technical issue is accorded no weight). 19 See Board's October 19, 2015 Order at 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15292A408) (providing CASE additional time to timely file any initial statements of position and written testimony (including exhibits and attachments)). The Staff notes that in light of this, there is no "battle of the experts" requiring the Board to weigh opposing expert testimony at an evidentiary hearing. 20 See, e.g., Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-136, 6 AEC 487, 489 (1973). 21 See, e.g., Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 307 n.97 (2010). Notably, this Board has indicated that CASE must adhere to the filing requirements. See, e.g., Board's October 21, 2015 Order at 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15294A316) (requiring CASE to properly number its exhibits). III. CASE's SOP and Exhibits Exceed the Limited Scope of the Admitted Contention The Staff agrees with FPL that significant portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits are beyond the limited scope of Contention 1 and are therefore irrelevant and immaterial.22 Contention 1 as admitted was narrowly focused on whether the NRC Staff's Environmental Assessment "adequately address[ed] the impact of increased temperature and salinity in the [cooling canal system (CCS)] on saltwater intrusion arising from: (1) migration out of the CCS; and (2) the withdrawal of fresh water from surrounding aquifers to mitigate conditions within the CCS."23 Thus, the Board did not contemplate argument on how CCS water may impact the water of Biscayne Bay, the alleged failure of the Staff's Environmental Assessment to address monitoring, or the alleged failure of the Staff's Environmental Assessment to consider the impacts of copper sulfate on crocodiles.24 Thus, the Staff agrees with FPL that the out of scope portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits should be excluded from the hearing record.25 CONCLUSION The Staff supports FPL's Motion to exclude the portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits that are unsupported by an expert or outside the scope of the admitted contention. 22 FPL's Motion at 8. 23 LBP-15-13 (slip op. at 24) (emphasis added). See also FPL's Motion at 8 (citing same). 24 FPL's Motion at 9 (summarizing out-of-scope arguments made in CASE's SOP). Likewise, the parties did not contemplate such argument. As discussed in the Staff's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of Testimony, Exhibits, and Statement of Position (ADAMS Accession No. ML15288A348), given the difficulties in understanding CASE's SOP, among other things, the Staff asked for additional time to file its SOP. The Staff will endeavor to indicate issues that it considers out-of-scope in its testimony and exhibits to the extent that FPL's Motion may not be resolved prior to the Staff's November 10, 2015 filing deadline. 25 FPL's Motion at 8 (citing 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(e) for the proposition that the Board is empowered to restrict such material). Respectfully submitted, /Signed (electronically) by/ Catherine E. Kanatas Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-2321 E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, MD this 26th day of October 2015 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-LA ) 50-251-LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) Unit Nos. 3 and 4) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (revised), I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CASE'S 'INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITION, TESTIMONY, AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS" OR , IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE IT AND ITS CITED DOCUMENTS FROM EVIDENCE" dated October 26, 2015, have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRC's E-Filing System, in the above-captioned proceeding, or via electronic mail as indicated by an asterisk, this 26th day of October, 2015. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Michael M. Gibson, Chair Administrative Judge E-mail: michael.gibson@nrc.gov Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge E-mail: michael.kennedy@nrc.gov Dr. William W. Sager Administrative Judge E-mail: william.sager@nrc.gov Nicole Pepperl, Law Clerk E-mail: Nicole.pepperl@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-7H4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Brian Harris, Esq. David Roth, Esq. Edward Williamson, Esq. Daniel Straus, Esq. John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov edward.williamson@nrc.gov daniel.straus@nrc.gov john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Blvd. Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Nextera Energy Resources William Blair, Esq. E-mail: william.blair@fpl.com Florida Power & Light Company 801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004 Steven C. Hamrick, Esq. E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc.* 10001 SW 129 Terrace Miami, FL 33176 Barry J. White E-mail: bwtamia@bellsouth.net /Signed (electronically) by/ Catherine E. Kanatas Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-2321 E-mail: Catherine E. Kanatas Date of Signature: October 26, 2015 October 26, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250-LA ) 50-251-LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, ) Units 3 and 4) ) NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CASE'S "INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITION, TESTIMONY, AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS" OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE IT AND ITS CITED DOCUMENTS FROM EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.319, 2.323, 2.337, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (Board) Initial Scheduling Order of May 8, 2015, and Order dated October 19, 20151, the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) files its answer in support of Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL) motion to strike, or in the alternative, motion in limine (FPL's Motion)2 regarding "Citizens Allied for Safe Energy [CASE] Initial Statement of Position, Testimony, Affidavits and Exhibits (For January, 2015 Evidentiary Hearing)." (CASE's SOP).3 As discussed below, the material FPL seeks to exclude from the hearing is opinions and exhibits not properly sponsored by an expert and material that exceeds the limited scope of the 1 See Licensing Board Order (Initial Scheduling Order) (May 8, 2015) (unpublished) (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15128A369); Licensing Board Order (Granting Request for Extension of Time) (Oct. 19, 2015) (unpublished) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15292A408). 2 [FPL's] Motion to Strike Portions of CASE's "Initial Statement of Position, Testimony, Affidavits and Exhibits, or, in the Alternative, Motion In Limine to Exclude it and its Cited Documents from Evidence (Oct. 19, 2015) (FPL's Motion). 3 CASE's SOP was filed on October 9, 2015 and is available at ADAMS Accession No. ML15286A348. CASE's SOP referenced several attachments, some of which were served on October 9, 2015. Pursuant to the Board's October 19, 2015 Order, CASE served Attachment 2 on October 20, 2015. admitted contention.4 Although the Staff recognizes that the Board is capable of sorting through CASE's SOP and exhibits for scope and weight, allowing portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits into evidence will result in the unnecessary expenditure of resources by all parties on issues that are not properly before the Board and create a confusing record on the issues to be decided. Thus, the Staff supports FPL's Motion to exclude portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits.5 The Staff submits that the Board should exclude the documents referenced in Table 1 of FPL's Motion,6 the arguments and exhibits referenced in Table 2 of FPL's Motion,7 and CASE's Attachments 1, 2, and 3.8 DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards Governing Motions In Limine In an evidentiary hearing, "[o]nly relevant, material, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be segregated and excluded so far as is practicable."9 While the "strict rules of evidence do not apply to written submissions," the Board "may, on motion or on the presiding officer's own 4 See Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc. Petition to Intervene and Request for a Hearing (Oct. 14, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14290A510); Memorandum and Order (Granting CASE's Petition to Intervene) (unpublished) (Mar. 23, 2015) (slip op. at 24) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15082A197) (admitting a narrowed and reformulated version of CASE's Contention 1). 5 FPL's Motion. See id. at 1, 4 (stating that CASE's SOP does not contain any sworn testimony); id. at 1 (noting that "significant portions of the CASE [SOP] and its cited documents raise issues beyond the limited scope of Contention 1 as admitted by the Board in this proceeding."). 6 FPL's Motion at 5-8. 7 Id. at 11-12. 8 See FPL's Motion at 4 (requesting that Attachments 1, 2, and 3 not be included as evidence). The Staff does not object to CASE Attachments 4, 5, and 6, as they are public records documenting matters potentially relevant to the admitted contention. 9 10 C.F.R. § 2.337(a). initiative, strike any portion of a written presentation or a response to a written question that is irrelevant, immaterial, unreliable, duplicative or cumulative."10 NRC hearings are limited to the scope of the admitted contentions. It is well established that if an intervenor proffers testimony or evidence outside the scope of the admitted contentions, it will be excluded.11 As the Commission explained: The scope of a contention is limited to issues of law and fact pled with particularity in the intervention petition, including its stated bases, unless the contention is satisfactorily amended in accordance with our rules. Otherwise, NRC adjudications quickly would lose order. Parties and licensing boards must be on notice of the issues being litigated, so that parties and boards may prepare for summary disposition or for hearing. Our procedural rules on contentions are designed to ensure focused and fair proceedings.12 The Commission has stressed that its "proceedings would prove unmanageable-and unfair to the other parties-if an intervenor could freely change an admitted contention 'at will as litigation progresses,' 'stretching the scope of admitted contentions beyond their reasonably inferred bounds.'"13 Therefore, petitioners "must raise and reasonably specify at the outset their objections to a license application."14 II. CASE's SOP and Exhibits are Not Supported By an Expert and Should be Excluded The Staff agrees with FPL that CASE's SOP and Attachments 1, 2, and 3 should not be considered pre-filed testimony or evidence because they are not appropriately sponsored by a 10 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(d). See also 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(e). 11 See, e.g., Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Early Site Permit for Vogtle ESP Site), CLI-10-05, 71 NRC 90, 100 (2010) (agreeing with the Staff that the licensing board had properly excluded the intervenors' testimony and exhibits that were outside the scope of the admitted contention). 12 Id. at 100-01 (internal footnotes omitted). 13 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-12-01, 75 NRC 39, 56 (2012) (internal citations omitted). 14 Id. (internal citations omitted). qualified expert.15 The Board's Initial Scheduling Order provided the parties clear instructions for submitting initial SOPs, testimony, and affidavits.16 However, CASE's SOP did not meet the NRC's filing requirements. In particular, CASE did not provide any testimony or affidavits.17 As FPL's Motion points out, a non-expert, like Mr. White, cannot sponsor technical analyses for admission as evidence.18 Moreover, despite being given a chance to cure any defects in its filings, CASE did not file any written testimony, affidavits, or supported exhibits or attachments by October 20, 2015.19 While pro se intervenors are afforded some latitude,20 the regulations and Board's orders apply with equal force to them to ensure a fair and orderly adjudication.21 15 FPL's Motion at 4 (citing Catawba, CLI-04-21, 60 NRC at 27). Id. at n. 18 (noting no objection to Attachments 4, 5, and 6). 16 See Board's Initial Scheduling Order at 7-16 and Attachments A and B. While the Board's October 21, 2015 order directed CASE to correct its filing errors, those corrections regarding numbering and submission of supporting documents will not cure the issues that preclude the exhibits and portions of the SOP from being admitted into evidence. 17 See CASE's SOP at 5 ("CASE has no testimony or affidavits to submit at this time."). As FPL's Motion points out, CASE also failed to follow the Board's instructions and the Commission's rules regarding the presentation of exhibits). FPL's Motion at 1, 4-5. 18 FPL's Motion at 2 (citing Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-717, 17 NRC 346, 367 (1983)). See also id. (noting that non-expert testimony on a technical issue is accorded no weight). 19 See Board's October 19, 2015 Order at 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15292A408) (providing CASE additional time to timely file any initial statements of position and written testimony (including exhibits and attachments)). The Staff notes that in light of this, there is no "battle of the experts" requiring the Board to weigh opposing expert testimony at an evidentiary hearing. 20 See, e.g., Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-136, 6 AEC 487, 489 (1973). 21 See, e.g., Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. & Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 307 n.97 (2010). Notably, this Board has indicated that CASE must adhere to the filing requirements. See, e.g., Board's October 21, 2015 Order at 1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15294A316) (requiring CASE to properly number its exhibits). III. CASE's SOP and Exhibits Exceed the Limited Scope of the Admitted Contention The Staff agrees with FPL that significant portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits are beyond the limited scope of Contention 1 and are therefore irrelevant and immaterial.22 Contention 1 as admitted was narrowly focused on whether the NRC Staff's Environmental Assessment "adequately address[ed] the impact of increased temperature and salinity in the [cooling canal system (CCS)] on saltwater intrusion arising from: (1) migration out of the CCS; and (2) the withdrawal of fresh water from surrounding aquifers to mitigate conditions within the CCS."23 Thus, the Board did not contemplate argument on how CCS water may impact the water of Biscayne Bay, the alleged failure of the Staff's Environmental Assessment to address monitoring, or the alleged failure of the Staff's Environmental Assessment to consider the impacts of copper sulfate on crocodiles.24 Thus, the Staff agrees with FPL that the out of scope portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits should be excluded from the hearing record.25 CONCLUSION The Staff supports FPL's Motion to exclude the portions of CASE's SOP and exhibits that are unsupported by an expert or outside the scope of the admitted contention. 22 FPL's Motion at 8. 23 LBP-15-13 (slip op. at 24) (emphasis added). See also FPL's Motion at 8 (citing same). 24 FPL's Motion at 9 (summarizing out-of-scope arguments made in CASE's SOP). Likewise, the parties did not contemplate such argument. As discussed in the Staff's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time for the Filing of Testimony, Exhibits, and Statement of Position (ADAMS Accession No. ML15288A348), given the difficulties in understanding CASE's SOP, among other things, the Staff asked for additional time to file its SOP. The Staff will endeavor to indicate issues that it considers out-of-scope in its testimony and exhibits to the extent that FPL's Motion may not be resolved prior to the Staff's November 10, 2015 filing deadline. 25 FPL's Motion at 8 (citing 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(e) for the proposition that the Board is empowered to restrict such material). Respectfully submitted, /Signed (electronically) by/ Catherine E. Kanatas Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 415-2321 E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov Dated at Rockville, MD this 26th day of October 2015 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-LA ) 50-251-LA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) Unit Nos. 3 and 4) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305 (revised), I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CASE'S 'INITIAL STATEMENT OF POSITION, TESTIMONY, AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS" OR , IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE IT AND ITS CITED DOCUMENTS FROM EVIDENCE" dated October 26, 2015, have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange, the NRC's E-Filing System, in the above-captioned proceeding, or via electronic mail as indicated by an asterisk, this 26th day of October, 2015. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Michael M. Gibson, Chair Administrative Judge E-mail: michael.gibson@nrc.gov Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Administrative Judge E-mail: michael.kennedy@nrc.gov Dr. William W. Sager Administrative Judge E-mail: william.sager@nrc.gov Nicole Pepperl, Law Clerk E-mail: Nicole.pepperl@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O-7H4 Washington, DC 20555-0001 ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Brian Harris, Esq. David Roth, Esq. Edward Williamson, Esq. Daniel Straus, Esq. John Tibbetts, Paralegal E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov david.roth@nrc.gov edward.williamson@nrc.gov daniel.straus@nrc.gov john.tibbetts@nrc.gov Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Blvd. Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Nextera Energy Resources William Blair, Esq. E-mail: william.blair@fpl.com Florida Power & Light Company 801 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004 Steven C. Hamrick, Esq. E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Inc.* 10001 SW 129 Terrace Miami, FL 33176 Barry J. White E-mail: bwtamia@bellsouth.net /Signed (electronically) by/ Catherine E. Kanatas Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15 D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Telephone: (301) 415-2321 E-mail: Catherine E. Kanatas Date of Signature: October 26, 2015