ML17340B255
| ML17340B255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1981 |
| From: | Reis H FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8105270373 | |
| Download: ML17340B255 (42) | |
Text
Qg)rs UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD y,
Oe
~19y
~cy'~g In the Matter of Docket Nos.
50-250-SP 50-251-SP
)
)
COMPANY
)
)
)
3
)
)
FLORIDA PONER
& LIGHT (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generato Repairs) cP agjp g
-.,rflly p g )g8)
'"IZ aaawi~~~~
the Intervenor served a documen (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos.
and 4)
LICENSEE'S MOTION TO STRIKE OR REJECT INTERVENOR'S UNAUTHORIZED PLEADING
~
On May 12, 1981, entitled "Response to NRC Staff Objections to Proposed Amended Contention 1 and Licensee's Motion to Dismiss Con-tention 1" (Intervenor's Pleading).
For the reasons set forth in detail below, the Intervenor's Pleading is unauthorized by the Commission's regulati'ons and the Board.
Consequently, Florida Power and Light Company (Licensee) hereby moves to strike the Intervenor's Pleading and demon-strates that its substantive arguments are without merit.
The Intervenor submitted his petition to intervene more than a year after the filing deadline had expired.
In support of his ability to contribute to the proceeding, the Intervenor asserted that he had commitments from experts who would address
"[t]hree major areas of concern for public health and safety":
"(1) the long term on site storage of steam generator lower assemblies in an earthen floor facility;
~i
~~t/
+
C il w
%lg
~e
.(2) the occupational radiation exposure; and (3) the release of liquid effluents containing radioactivity into a closed cycle cooling canal."
'-'Supplemental Submission of Petitioner Mark P.
Oncavage" (June 5, 1979), p. 2.
The Chairman of the Licensing Board characterized the Intervenor's contentions as "essentially non-specific
'bare bones'ontentions."
"Order Ruling on the Petition of Mark P.
Oncavage" (August 3, 1979), p.
19 (Opinion of Elizabeth S. Bowers).
Nevertheless, based largely upon the Board's belief that "the effective delay of granting the petition [to intervene]
would amount to a few months, at most" and that,the Intervenor's participation could reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record, the Board admitted the Intervenor as a party and admitted'is "three major areas" as contentions, despite the untimely nature of his petition to intervene.
Id., pp.
26-28 (emphasis in original).
At this time, the Board also accepted the contention "that an environmental impact statement should be issued in connection with the repair."
Id.
This contention was admitted at a
time when the NRC Staff view was that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required and that an environmental impact appraisal (EIA) would be adequate.
In a later order
("Order Relative to Contentions and Discovery" (September 25, 1979)), the Board admitted additional contentions, many over the objections of the NRC Staff and the
~i 1>>
Licensee that the contentions lacked specificity. and a basis.
This order also rephrased the previously admitted contentions.
The Intervenor's contention regarding the need to prepare an EIS for the repairs was renumbered
.as Contention 1 and was restated as follows:
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
g 4332(2)(C)) or 10 CFR 5 51.5 requires the preparation of an Environ-mental Impact Statement prior to the issuance by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of amendments to the operating license for Turkey Point Units Nos.
3 and 4 (Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41).authorizing the Licensee to repair the steam generators now in use in each facility.
Finally, the order rejected several proposed contentions by the Intervenor, including proposed Contention 10, which alleged:
The Commission's NEPA Analysis is inadequate in that it fails to adequately consider the following alternative procedures:
a.
Arresting tube support, plate corrosion b.
In-place tube restoration (sleeving) c.
In-.place steam generator tube replacement (retubing) d.
Derating e.
Decommissioning f.
Bioconversion g.
Solar energy i.
Natural gas j.
Coal The Board noted that "[t]his contention falls within Contention 1 and is rejected as a separate contention."
P.
4.
1/
See "Licensee's Statement Concerning Intervenor's August. 30, 1979, Contentions" (Sept.
14, 1979);
"NRC Staff Statement of-Position on Contentions and Motion to Strike" (Sept.
14, 1979).
i'
For a variety of reasons, the hearing in this proceeding has been delayed for almost one and a half years.
During this period, the Intervenor has had ample opportunity to con-duct discovery, develop specificity and bases for his conten-tions, otherwise prepare his case.
However, of the Intervenor's nine original contentions admitted in 1979, none remain.
With respect to Contention 1, the NRC Staff decided to prepare an impact statement and, in the Licensing Board's 2/
view, Contention 1 was rendered "moot."-
Intervenor, never-
- theless, interpreted Contention 1 as requiring the Boaxd to make a finding as to the legal and factual compliance with NEPA of the Final Environmental Statement (FES) yet to be prepared.
Tr. 14.
As the Board noted, Contention 1 as so interpreted is wholly "lacking in specificity as a Contention."
Tr. 35; 42-43.
- Thus, Contention 1,
as presently phrased, fails to satisfy 10 CFR g 2.714(b), which requires that "the bases for each contention
[be] set forth with reasonable specificity."
With respect to the other original contentions, the Board has granted summary disposition of every one of them.
Included among those contentions were each of the Intervenor's "three main areas" which formed the very foundation for his intervention in this proceeding.
The Intervenor failed to offer any expert opinion at all on these issues; despite an extension of time, he did not respond to the NRC Staff 's motion for summary disposition of Contention 4A; and he agreed to summary disposition of 2/
Prehearing conference (March 24, 1981), Tr. 11.
41 J
Contentions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 14.
In short, after a year and a half, all of the issues which prompted the Intervenor's petition to intervene and his admission into this proceeding have been dismissed without the Intervenor having offered any affidavits or evidence in support of his own contentions.3/
The only issues now remaining in this proceeding are those that have arisen within the last two months.
The Board admitted new Contention 4B at the Prehearing Conference of March 24 and granted the Intervenor leave until April 20, 1981, to file appropriate amendments to Contention 1 in order to provide it with the requisite specificity.
Tr.99-100, 43.
In accordance with the Board's authorization, the Intervenor on April 20,
- 1981, submitted seventeen proposed amendments to Contention 1.
The NRC Staff objected to the proposed amend-ments (many the summary for lack
~f specificity and bases) and moved for disposition of Contention
- 1.
The Licensee also 4/
objected on similar grounds to the admission of the proposed amendments, emphasizing that some of them did.little more than 3/
The "Supplemental Submission of Petitioner Mark P.
Oncavage" (June 5, 1979), heavily emphasized the "commit-ments" of two experts to testify and to contribute "to a sound record" (pp. 2-4, 7); and when the Board granted the petition to intervene it clearly gave weight to those commitments.
"Order Ruling on the Petition of Mark P.
- Oncavage" (Aug. 3, 1979), pp.
7., 32-33.
4/
"NRC Staff Objections to Proposed Amended'ontention 1
and Third Motion for Summary Disposition" (NRC Staff Objections)
(April 27, 198.'.).
0
state generalities or parrot the language, of NEPA in a wholly unspecific manner, and responded in support of the NRC Staff motion for summary disposition of Contention l.
5/
Thus, the history of this proceeding is marked by failure of the Intervenor to contribute to the resolution of sub-stantive issues and the submission of contentions by the Intervenor which lack specificity and bases.
It is within this context that the Intervenor has filed his Pleading in response to the NRC Staff's Objections and the Licensee's Objections.
The discussion which follows is d'ivided into two parts.
The first part demonstrates that the Intervenor's Pleading is unauthorized either by the Commission's regulations or by the Board.
The second part demonstrates that even if the Intervenor's Pleading were not procedurally defective, its substantive arguments are without merit.
II.
The Intervenor's Pleadin is Unauthorized The Intervenor characterizes his own Pleading as a
response to the NRC Staff Objections to the proposed amend-ments and as a response to Licensee.'s "Motion to Dismiss."-
Regardless of which characterization is accepted, the Intervenor's Pleading is unauthorized.
5/
"Licensee's'esponse in Support of HRC Motion for Summary Disposition of Amended Contention 1 and Objections to the Amended Contention" (Licensee's Objec'tions)
(April 30, 1981).
6/
The Intervenor explicitly disclaims any intention of responding in his Pleading to the NRC Staff's motions for summary disposition.
Intervenor's
- Pleading,
- p. 1.
4>
The Intervenor's Pleading is unauthorized as a response to the NRC Staff Objections or the Licensee's Objections to the proposed amendments to Contention 1.
The Intervenor's April 20 submission of seventeen proposed amendments to Contention 1 constitutes a supplement to his petition to intervene in that it represents a list of the contentions which the Intervenor seeks to have litigated in this matter.
See 10 CFR 5 2.714(b).
Under the Commission's rules, the NRC St'aff and the Licensee were afforded ten days to file answers to this supplemental petition, see 10
.CFR g 2.714(c),
and both answers were filed within that, period.
The rules make no provision for a reply or a "response" to these
- answers, cf.
10 CFR g 2.730(c); nor did this Board authorize such a
reply..
Consequently, the Intervenor's Pleading is unauthorized if interpreted as a reply and therefore should. be stricken or rejected.
However, the Intervenor inexplicably interprets the Licensee's Objections as a "Motion to Dismiss Amended Conten-tion 1," to which he asserts a right to respond.
But, as the Licensee's Objections clearly indicates:
This pleading may be treated both as a response in support of the NRC Staff's motion,to dismiss Contention 1 and as an objection to the admissibility of the proposed amendments.,
Licensee's Objections,
- p. 4, footnote.
Thus, the Licensee's Objections constitutes an answer to Intervenor's proposed contentions pursuant to Section 2.714(c) and an answer to the NRC Staff's motion for summary disposition pursuant to
10, CFR 5 2.749(a); it does not constitute a motion to dismiss.
However, in essence, the Intervenor's Pleading is neither a response to the NRC Staff's Objections or a response to an alleged "Motion to Dismiss." It is apparent from a reading of tne Intervenor's Pleading that it is a belated attempt to provide specificity to Contention l or to the proposed amendments to Contention l.
For the first time, the Intervenor is contending in his Pleading that specified alternatives have been inadequately considered in the EIS for the repairs.
Since this specificity was provided by the Intervenor's Pleading after the April 20 deadline established by the Board, it should be stricken as an untimely filing.
The Intervenor alleges that this specificity has existed in Contention 1 ever since the Board's order of September 25, 1979.
The Intervenor claims that Contentions 1 and 10 should be read together as one contention which states:
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
54332(2) (C)) (NEPA) or 10 CFR
$ 51.5 requires the preparation of an Environ-mental Impact Statement prior to the issuance by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of amendments to the operating licenses for Turkey Point Units Nos.
3 and 4 (Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR 31 and DBP-41) authorizing the Licensee to repair the steam generators now in use in each facility.
0
The Commission's NEPA Analysis is inadequate in that it fails to adequately consider the following alternative procedures:7/
a.
Arrest.'ing tube support plate corrosion b.
In-place tube restoration (sleeving) c.
In-place steam generator tube replacement (retubing) d.
Derating e.
Decommissioning f.
Bioconversion g.
Solar energy i.
Natural gas j.
Coal Intervenor's Pleading, p.
2.
However, the history of this proceeding indicates to the contrary.
As previously mentioned, Contention 1 was admitted at
- a. time when the NRC Staff's position was that an EIS was not required for the repairs.
Contention 1 literally only contends that an.EIS is required for the repairs.
Until the March 24, 1981,,Prehearing Conference, nothing in the record indicated that Contention 1 should be interpreted anyway 'but literally.
On March 4, 1980, the Commission ordered that an EIS be prepared in connection with the Steam generator repairs at Surry.
Shortly thereafter, the NRC Staff informed the 8/
Licensing Board that. it would also prepare an EIS for the 7/
The EIS prepared by the NRC Staff does consider such alternatives as arresting corrosion (p. 5-1), sleeving (pp.
5-3 to 5-4), retubing (pp.
5-2 to 5-3), derating (g 4.2, p. 5-1), decommissioning (p. 5-1), natural gas (p. 5-1),
and fossil fuel (p. 5-1).
The Intervenor has never specified why he believes the consideration of these alternatives in the EIS is "inadequate."
8/
Vir inia Electric Power Co.
(Surry Nuclear 'Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-4, 11 NRC 405 (1980).
4>
ii
10 Turkey Point repairs.
In its notification to the Board, the NRC Staff noted that:
This action eliminates a principal matter in controversy in this,proceeding (embodied in Contention
- 1) concerning whether such a state-ment should be prepared.
The understanding that Contention 1 was moot as a result of the NRC Staff's decision to prepare an EIS'.was clearly alluded to thereafter.
In response to a motion by the Intervenor to amend Contention 1 by including a new Contention lB (which purportedly provided an additional reason for the 10/
preparation of an EIS),the Licensee stated that Contention 1
"is solely related to the preparation of an EIS..." and that Contention 1 and the proposed amendment "are both moot."
- See, "Licensee's
Response
to Motion to Amend Contentions" (March 26, 1980),
pp. 1, 2.
The NRC Staff also pointed out that the preparation of an FES would provide Intervenors with "the desired relief."
"NRC Staff Response to Motion to Amend Contentions" (April 1, 1980), p. l.
And in its "Order Rela-tive to Motion to Amend" (April 9, 1980),
p.
3, the Board, noting that an EIS would be prepared, stated that "the relief Mr. Oncavage seeks will be provided."
Consequently, it dismissed the motion "as moot."
In these circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the Intervenor to have taken 9/
Letter from Steven C. Goldberg to the Licensing Board (March 6, 1980).
10/
"Motion to Amend Contentions" (March ll, 1980).
Although this motion was served after the March 6, 1980, letter from the NRC Staff to the Licensing Board, the, Intervenor apparently was not aware of the letter at the time the motion was served.
affirmative steps to advise the Board and the parties that it was his position that Contention 1 still had validity because it encompassed a contention in addition to the literal interpretation of Contention 1.
More importantly, the Intervenor did not suggest that Contention 1 should be read together with Contention 10 when the Board called upon the parties to assist it in articulating "the previously phrased contentions..." to be litigated in this proceeding.
At the prehearing conference of March 24, 1981, the Chairman of the Licensing Board undertook to obtain clarification and understanding among the parties and the Board as to the "contentions, the matters and things that we will be going into through discovery and motion practice and with an evidentiary hearing rather shortly."
Tr. 5.
Xn order to avoid having the parties "coming in with new issues or new matters in an untimely fashion...", to determine which issues were still viable, and "in order to have in one place the precisely phrased contentions that we are going to be going to trial on" (Tr. 6-7}, the Board requested each party to address the viability or phrasing of each contention.
The contentions were then renumbered
- and, as "currently refined or revised,"
were subsequently set out in the
":Memorandum and Order" (April 2, 1981), pp. 2-5.
The question of the meaning of Contention 1 arose at the beginning of the process of clarifying and precisely phrasing the contentions.
The Chairman initially passed over Conten-tion 1 on the theory that it had "been rendered moot" because
12 an EIS was in fact being prepared.
Tr. 11..
Intervenor con-tested this view, arguing that Contention 1 still retained vitality because it implicitly p'resented the question whether the EIS would be legally and factually valid.
Tr. 11-14.
Thereupon the status and meaning of Contention.l became the subject of extensive discussion.
Tr. 11-45.
During that discussion, Intervenor restated his position that the Conten-tion 1 raised questions as to the legal and factual validity.
of the EIS.
- See, e.cC., Tr. 19, 20, 24, 34.
The Board, however, ruled that, as so interpreted, the contention is wholly lacking in specificity.
Tr. 34-35, 42-43.
In summary, at the prehearing conference of March 24, 1981, the Board initiated a dialogue with the parties in order to avoid later, "untimely" assertion of contentions and to have in one place "the precisely phrased contentions At that point it was clearly incumbent upon Intervenor to state what he thought Contention 1 meant and how it should read.
Yet, in spite of the extended discussion of the meaning of Contention 1, Intervenor never once suggested that it incorporates former Contention 10.
In fact, Intervenor made no reference whatever to Contention 10.
Similarly, it is significant that the Intervenor raised no objection to the phrasing of Contention 1 in the Board's "Memorandum and Order" (April 2, 1981),
even though it did not include rejected Contention 10.
0
~i
13 The Intervenor had still another opportunity to express the position that Contention 1 incorporates all or part of Contention 10, and again-did not do so.
The Board afforded the Intervenor an opportunity "to file on or before April 20, 1981, appropriate amendments to Contention 1 in order to plead with specificity the respects in which the FES... does not legally or factually comply with NEPA (Tr. 36, 38-39, 43)."
Memorandum and Order (April 2, 1981), p.
4.
Intervenor agreed to do so.
Tr. 36, 38-39.
However, the proposed amendments filed on April 20, 1981, do not include Contention 10.
This background clearly establishes that the Intervenor',s, attempt to incorporate Contention 10 within Contention 1 is no more than an afterthought.
It was only after the NRC Staff and the Licensee objected to the lack of specificity in the proposed amendments that the Intervenor belatedly raised the issue of rejected Contention 10 and claimed that it is, and always has been, part of Contention l.
C In short, it appears that the Intervenor in desperation is attempting to resurrect rejected Contention 10 as a means of forestalling dismissal of Contention 1 for lack of speci-ficity.
However, this attempt is untimely by more than three weeks, and consequently should be stricken.
11/
The Licensee notes that rejected Contention 10 is also lacking in specificity.
See "Licensee's Statement Concerning Intervenor's August 30, 1979, Contentions" (Sept.
14, 1979),
pp.
10-13.
In order to provide the requisite specificity for a contention, the Intervenor must make a "threshold showing," which requires more (footnote continued)
ll Q>
In the next section, we wi;ll demonstrate that even if the Intervenor's Pleading is accepted as a timely submission of specific contentions, the contentions themselves are legally inadmissible.
III. The Issues Raised by the Intervenor's Pleading Are Le all Inadmissible The Intervenor's Pleading contends that the FES is fatally defective for failure to examine the alternatives of.
energy conservation and solar energy.-'
However, considera-1,2/
tion of these alternatives is outside the scope of this proceeding, and consequently this proposed contention should be rejected.
It is well settled that, the scope of an amendment pro-ceeding is more limited than an operating license proceeding or a construction permit proceeding.
An amendment proceeding (footnote continued) than merely alleging that "energy conservation" must be considered.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor v.
- NRDC, 435 U.S.
519, 549-54 (1978).
The "threshold showing" upheld by Vermont Yankee does not require that an inter-venor plead evidence, but it does require than an inter-venor plead his case with sufficient specificity so as to enable the other parties to comprehend the intervenor's position and adduce evidence on that position.
A mere reference to "energy conservation" suggests a virtually limitless range of possibilities and is insufficiently specific to permit other parties to prepare a case which addresses the intervenor's position.
The Intervenor's reference to Mississi i Power and Li ht Co.
(Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423 (1973) is inapposite, since the intervenor in that proceeding provided added particularization to his contention that energy conservation was not adequately considered.
See 6 AEC at 425-26.
Since the Intervenor has not provided the requisite particularization within the time frame established by the Board, Contention 1 should be dismissed for lack of specificity.
1,2/
Intervenor's Pleading, p.
5.
4l 4>
0
15 is restricted to a consideration of those issues "directly arising from the proposed change.'"
Vermont Yankee Nuclear 8 AEC 873, 875 (1974).
An amendment proceeding is not an occasion for issuing an EIS. which considers operation of a plant, since an environmental analysis of an amendment is focused only upon the changes arising from the amendment.
Consumers Power Co.
(Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant),
ALAB-636,,
13 NRC
, Slip op. p.
26 (March 31, 1981).
More particularly, the consideration of alternatives in an amendment proceeding does not include evaluation of alternatives to operation of the plant,,
even though the amendment might be necessary to enable continued reactor operation:
Because the practical effect of not now increasing
.the capacity of the Prairie Island spent fuel pool would be that that facility would have to cease operation, the MPCA appears to believe that what is being licensed is in reality plant operation.
Therefore, according to MPCA, the licensee amend-ment could not issue without a prior exploration of the environmental impact of continued opera-tion and the consideration of the alternatives to that operation
(~e
, energy conservation).
We do not agree.
The issuance of operating licenses for the two Prairie Island units was preceded by a full environmental review, including the considera-tion of alternatives.
See LBP-74-17, 7 AEC 487 (1974), affirmed on all environmental
- uestions, ALAB-244, 8 AEC 857 (1974).
Nothing'n NEPA or in those judicial decisions to which our attention has been directed dictates that the same ground be wholly replowed in connection with a proposed amend-ment to those 40-year operating licenses.
- Rather, it seems manifest to us that all that need be undertaken is a consideration of whether the amend-ment itself would bring. about significant environ-mental consequences beyond those previously assessed
ig
16 and, if so, whether those consequences (to the extent unavoidable) would be sufficient on balance to require a denial of the amendment application.
This is true irrespective of,whether, by happenstance, the particular'amendment is necessary in order to enable continued reactor operation (although such
..a factor might be considered in balancing the environ-mental impact flowing from the amendment against the benefits to be derived from it)..
Northern States Power Co.
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
- Plants, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB 455, 7 NRC 41, 46 47, n.
4 (1978),
remanded on other grounds Minnesota v.
- NRC, 602 F.2d 412 (D.C. Cir. 1979); quoted approvingly in Portland General Electric Co.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant),
ALAB-531,. 9 NRC 263,
- 266, n.
6 (1979).
Similarly, the need for power is not a valid issue in an amendment proceeding, if it was previously explored at the operating license proceeding.
Portland General Electric Co.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant),
ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289 (1979); Dair land Power Coo erative (La Crosse Boiling Water.
Reactor),
LBP-80-2, 11 NRC 44, 65-76 (1980).
It is obvious that energy conservation and solar energy are alternatives to operation of Turkey Point and are not alternatives to the proposed repair of the Turkey Point steam generators.
Alternatives to operation of Turkey Point were previously the subject of an EIS, and operation of Turkey 13/
Point was found acceptable.~
'NEPA does not require that "the. same ground be wholly replowed in connection with a proposed amendment."
Prairie Island, supra.
13/
Final Environmental Statement related to operation of Turkey 'Point Plant (July 1972),
5 X.
17
- Similarly., the Final Environmental Statement found a need for power from Turkey Point.'his finding is not 1.4/
subject to challenge in. an amendment proceeding.
T~ro'an, supra.
Since evaluation of need for power accounts for energy saved through conservation and use of solar power, Consumers Power Co.
(IIidland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-5, 7 AEC 19, 23 (1974); reversed Aeschliman v.
- NRC, 547 F.2d 622 (1976),
reversed Vermont Yankee,
~su ra t,hese alternatives may not be considered in this amendment proceeding because it would be tantamount to a reconsideration of the need for power from Turkey Point.
Thus, prior rulings by the Appeal Board plainly establish that consideration of conservation and solar power would be inappropriate in this proceeding.
Consequently, the Inter-venor's proposed contention regarding these alternatives is legally inadmissible.
The Intervenor also claims that "10 CFR 5 51.52 requires a public hearing relative to the adequacy of the Final Environmental Statement."
Intervenor's Pleading, p.
5.
However, this section only requires that the EIS be made available and introduced into evidence if a hearing is held; it does not require the holding of a hearing if one is not otherwise required.
This is completely consistent with case law which has ruled that NEPA does not require the holding of a hearing in connection with an EIS.
'Consumers Power Co.
14/
Id.,
5 IX.
I+I C.
I
18 (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant)
CLI-75-10, 2
NRC 188, 191 n. 2.
(1975); Hanl
- v. Kliendienst, 471 F.2d 823, 835 (2d Cir. 1972),
cert.
den.
412 U. S.
908 (1973).
For an amendment proceeding in which all contentions were dismissed and the hearing was cancelled, see Vir inia Electric and Power Co.
(North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-25, 10 NRC 234 (1979),
affirmed ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451 (1980)'.
IV.
Conclusion As the foregoing demonstrates, the Intervenor's Pleading is unauthorized regardless of whether it is interpreted as a
response to the NRC Staff Objections, a response to the Licensee's Objections, or a supplemental statement of proposed amendments to Contention 1.
Consequently, the Intervenor's Pleading should be stricken or rejected.
Furthermore, even if the Intervenor's Pleading is accepted as a supplemental statement of proposed amendments to Contention 1 the issues raised thereby are outside of the scope of this proceeding and are therefore inadmissible.
Respectfully submitted, H
old F. Reis Steven P. Frantz LOWENSTEINg NEWMAN'EIS & AXELRAD 1025. Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone (202) 862-8400 Date:
May 18, 1981
Qi A'I'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
3 and 4)
Docket No. 50-250-SP 50-251-SP (Proposed'mendments to Facility Operating License to Permit Steam Generator Repairs)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT copies of the foregoing, "Licensee's Motion to Strike or Reject Intervenor's Unauthorized Pleading" were served on the individuals whose names appear on the attached service list by deposit in the United States mai.l, first class, properly stamped and addressed, on the date shown below.
Additional service by hand or courier was made upon the individuals next to whose name an asterisk
(*)
appears.
Harold F. Reis Lowenstein,
- Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone:
(202) 862-8410 May 18, 1981 Attachment
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos.
3 and 4)
In the Matter of
)
)
FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY )
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-250-SP 50-251-SP
'(Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
.to Permit Steam Generator Repair)
SERVICE LIST
- Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Administrative Judge
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Mark P.
Oncavage 12200 S.W. 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
- Steel, Hector 6 Davis Co-counsel for Licensee 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131
- Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
gl i+i
~g I>
Service List Pa e
Two Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Burt Saunders, Esq.
Assistant Dade County Attorney 1626 Dade County Courthouse Miami, Florida 33130
- Neil Chonin, Esq.
1400 AmeriFirst Building One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
- Henry H. Harnage, Esq.
Peninsula Federal Building 10th, Floor 200 S.E.. First Street Miami, Florida 33131 May 18, 1981
- Additional Service by Hand or Courier
i,%
C II Q~
~ 7 r