ML17340B240

Forwards Fg Flugger,Hh Jabali & Pk Wan Testimony Re Contention 4B.Related Correspondence

ML17340B240
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Turkey Point
Issue date:	05/15/1981
From:	Reis H LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL
To:	Luebke E, Mark Miller, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML17340B241	List: ML17340B240 ML17340B242
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8105220352
Download: ML17340B240 (6)

Text

'+@AT'S caMIEspaxazTIcLI LAW OFFICES LowENsTEIN, NUM~, REIs 8c AKELRAD IO28 CONN ECTICLIT AVENUES N. W.

ROBERT LOWCNSTCIN WASHINGTON, D. C. 2003R JACK R. NCWHAN HAROLD I', RCIS M*URICC AXCLRAO KATHI,CEN H,SHCA 202 '62 8JI00 J. A. BOUKNIGHT, JR MICHAEL A. SAUSER DOUGLAS O,GREEN aocg~~

E GRCOORY SARHCS Oagp~

ALSCAT V. CARR, JR.

ANNE W. COTTINOHAM MAY g 8)g8f KATHLCCN A COX < I'" -,, 1Z ROBERT H. CULP PFTCR O. FLYNN STEVEN P, FRANT2 FREDERIC S. ORAT ALVIN H OUTTCRMAN LIT'IT NUCI2Aa ILCaaAt0%%

DAVID O. POWCI.L'AVID COAlAllSCN j7 IJV S. RASKIN DONALD J. SILVERMAN

~ ADH KEN /g May l5, 1981 Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4);

Docket Nos. 50-250-SP, 50-251-SP; (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License to Permit Steam Generator Re airs)

Dear Members of the Board:

On April 27, 1981, the NRC Staff served a pleading entitled "NRC Staff Objections to Proposed Amended Con-tention 1 and Third Motion for Summary Disposition," which objected to the Intervenor's proposed amendments to Con-tention 1 and moved for 'the summary disposition of Con-tentions 1 and 4B. On April 30 and May 5, 1981, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) filed pleadings which also objected to the proposed amendments to Contention 1 and supported the motion for the summary disposition of Con-tentions 1 and 4B. On May 12, 1981, the Intervenor filed its "Response to NRC Staff Objections to Proposed Amended Contention 1 and Licensee's Motion to dismiss Contention 1,"

in which it stated, among other things, that it would file a

$ <C lF &4 H ~ g JZ E ) JT:CT

~gd9 81052~0 QI

(

$ 1

~e, It Jt

.w .;>

~ ~

LOWENSTEINp NEW%~> RE IS & LRWD Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris May 15, 1981 Page Two separate answer to the motion for summary disposition by May 20, 1981. The Board has not yet ruled on the objections or the motion for summary disposition.

Nevertheless, the schedule negotiated by the parties to this proceeding and the Licensing Board's "Order Accepting Negotiated Schedule," dated February 23, 1981, requires the parties to file their prepared testimony on May 15, 1981.

Accordingly, FPL is transmitting herewith the "Testimony of Frederick G. Plugger, Habib H. Jabali, and P. K. Wan Relating to Contention 4B." That testimony is in question-and-answer form as requested by the Chairman during a conference call with the parties on March 9, 1981.

Naturally, this testimony cannot address any response which the Intervenor may hereafter file to the motion for summary disposition of Contention 4B or to the Board's future ruling on the- motion. Consequently, in the event that the motion for summary disposition is denied, we request that the Licensing Board extend to FPL the opportu-nity to supplement .the testimony so that it may directly address the material fact or facts as to which the Board may find a genuine issue to be heard. Depending upon the time available, the testimony could be supplemented by additional prepared written testimony or on the witness'tand.

Similarly, FPL is unable at this time to submit, pre-pared testimony on Contention l.

if interpreted As originally phrased, the Contention is moot literally and confined to the question whether an environmental impact statement should be prepared; if interpreted as Intervenor subsequently suggested at the prehearing conference on March 24, 1981, i.e., "whether or not that EIS factually and legally complies with the law . . ." (Tr. 33), the amended contention is wholly lacking in specificity. (Tr. 11-14, 33-36, 42-43).

It is not possible to address testimony to so unspecific a contention. In the event that the Board hereafter admits any of the proposed amendments to Contention 1 or otherwise

~I

~

h~ ~

LOW'~ENSTEIN, NEWM~, REIS 8c ELBAD Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris May 15, 1981 Page Three rules that an evidentiary. hearing is required as to any matter, FPL also requests the opportunity to submit appro-priate, testimony.

Respectfully submitted, Harold F. Reis Steven P. Frantz LOWENSTEINr NEWMANr REIS 6 AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 862-8400 cc: See attached Certificate of Service

0 J

41 h I