ML17340B220
| ML17340B220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1981 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105190503 | |
| Download: ML17340B220 (10) | |
Text
0 /18/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
>[5.'IIIlPY 19 ~9$
~>> m at0%$
g $ < ygdtAR R'>>-
QWAL$ $+
/
BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY In the Matter of
)
)
FLORIDA POWER AHD LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Hos.
3 and 4
AND LICEHSIHG BOARD l~'i Docket Hos.
-25 50-51 (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Repair)
NRC STAFF h10TIOH TO STRIKE INTERVENOR'S
RESPONSE
TO HRC STAFF AHD APPLICANT OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED CONTENTION 1
IHTRODUCTIOH On Nay 12, 1981, the Intervenor filed a pleading captioned "Response to HRC Staff Objections to Proposed Amended Contention 1 and Licensee's Motion to Dismiss Contention 1.."
The NRC Staff hereby moves to strike this.pleading on the grounds that it constitutes an unauthorized reply to the other parties'esponses to its April 20, 1981 proposed amendment of contention 1 pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.730(c).
Acceptance of the present pleading operates to the prejudice of the Staff, which has objected to the admission of proposed amended contention 1 as initially framed and, in the alternative, moved for summary disposition of the same.
The present pleading represents an untimely attempt to cure the pleading deficiencies present in the Intervenor's initial filing on the subject.
DISCUSSIOH By Memorandum and Order, dated April 2,, 1981, the Board permitted the Intervenor to offer an amendment to contention l,which "plead with specificity.the respects in which the [Final Environmental Statement]
5 does not legally or factually comply with HEPA."
Memorandum and Order at 4.
The Board granted the Staff leave to file a motion for summary
Oi J
disposition of,proposed amended contention 1 on or before Hay 1, 1981 and permitted the Intervenor to file a response thereto by Hay 20, 1981. +
Id.
On April 20, 1981 the. Intervenor filed his proposed amendment to contention 1.
On April 27,
- 1981, the Staff filed objections to the proposed amendment and a motion for summary disposition of contention 1
and'ne other contention.
On Hay 5, 1980, the Applicant filed a response in support of the Staff motion for summary disposition of proposed amended contention 1 and objections thereto. ~
The Intervenor 2l mischaracterizes the Applicant's pleading as a motion to dismiss contention 1 to which it might be entitled to respond.
However, the Applicant's pleading on the subject is clearly not such a notion.
The evident purpose of the present pleading is to attempt to add the necessary specificity which the Intervenor's initial proposed amendment clearly lacked.
Even in this pleading,
- however, the only attempt at specification is with respect to two of the seventeen asserted deficiencies Ql Intervenor indicates that he intends to respond to the Staff motion for summary disposition by Hay 20, 1981.
Staff counsel understands that counsel for the Intervenor received the Staff summary disposition motion, served by express mail. on April 27, 1981'earlier than allowed by the Board),
on April 28, 1981.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 C.F.'R.
52.749(a),
responses thereto are due on Hay 18 not Hay 20.
With the date for the scheduled commencement of any eventual hearing rapidly approachi ng (June 2), adherence to the applicable filing requirements is imperative.
Q2 "Licensee's.
Response
in Support of 'iVRC Hotion for Summary Disposition of Amended Contentions and Objections to the Amended Contention."
4l C
in the FES concerning alternatives. ~
Intervenor attempts to supply the 3/
specificity for these assertions by referencing an earlier proposed contention 10, advanced on August 30, 1979, concerning the Staff's alleged inadequate consideration. of alternatives.
This contention was not admitted by the Board as a separate contention + and, as originally noted in its statement of position on this and other then proposed contentions, ~
the Staff believes that it has considered those proffered 5/
alternatives which-are viable as required by law.
This includes the rejected alternative of taking no action and the plant ultimately derated.
The Staff adheres to that position.
The two alternatives singled out by the Intervenor in his present
- pleading, namely, energy conservation and solar generation, are patently beyond the legal scope of a license amendment environmental review as the Staff motion for summary disposition of the issue demonstrates.
Turkey Point has operated, and can continue to 6/
- operate, without the requested amendment.
If, as the present pleading Q3 See Intervenor's "Amendment to Contention 1", dated April 20,
- 1981, numbered assertions 11 and 13.
Q4 See Licensing Board "Order Relative to Contentions and Discovery",
dated September 15, 1979, at 11.
The Board apparently 'felt that, to the extent an environmental impact statement was required, such statement must contain an appropriate discussion of alternatives of the proposed action.
+5 See "NRC Staff Statement of Position on Contentions and Notion to Strike", dated September 17, 1979, at 10-11.
Q6 See, Staff motion.at 2-4.
- suggests, the Intervenor intends to submit affidavits on these matters in response,to the Staff summary disposition motion, the contention should be readily dismissable as a matter of law.
Nothing would be more legally objectionable and misdirected than seizing upon the occasion.of a proposed license amendment to embark upon a fresh reconsideration of alternatives to nuclear generation, ~ particularly with respect to a plant 7/
that has been in operation for almost nine years.
COHCLUS ION For the above reasons,,
the Intervenor's response to Applicant and Staff objections to proposed amended contention should be stricken.
Respectfully submitted, CE Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for HRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Haryland this 18th day of Hay, 1981.
j7 See, ~e..
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island liuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 46 n.4 (1978) cited in Staff summary disposition motion at 3-4.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER 'AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
CERTIFICATE 'OF (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
3 and 4)
Docket Nos. 50-250 50-251 (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Repair)
SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of NRC'STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR'S
RESPONSE
TO NRC STAFF AND APPLICANT OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED CONTENTION 1 in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the'nited States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 18th day of May, 1981.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety.
and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board Panel U.S.
Nuc 1 ear Regu1 atory Commi s s ion Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Commi ss ion Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Mark P.
Oncavage 12200 S.W.
110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad E Toll 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Burt Saunders, Esq.
Assistant Dade County Attorney 1626 Dade County Courthouse Miami, Florida 33130 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
- Steel, Hector E Davis Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Neil Chonin, Esq.
Counsel for Intervenor Suite 1400 Amerifirst Bldg.
One S.E.
3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 *~via exPress mai 1 Henry H. Harnage, Esq.
Peninsula Federal Bldg., 10th Floor 200 S.E. First Street Miami, Florida 33131 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 even o
erg Counsel for NRC Staff
4~
i)
I