ML18108A656

Trial Brief for Applicant, on the Alternative Sites Contention, Contention 1.6 (B)

ML18108A656
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	02/07/1977
From:	Coll N Florida Power & Light Co, Steel Hector & Davis
To:	Glaser M, Hetrick D, Hooper F, Luton E, Mann M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML18108A656 (29)

Text

WILLIAMC STCCL LOVI5 J. HCCTOR DARN CY A, DAVI5 OWICHT SULLIVAN WILLIAMS. KII.I.IAN CRNC5T J, HCWCTT JCRRY S.CROCKCTT WIL5ON SMITH TALOOT O'ALCMSCRTC JAMCS H,SWCCNY,IE JOHH CDWARD SMITH NORMAN A COIL THOS, C, CAPPS 5HCPARO KIND AROCN DO55,JR.

MATTHCW M, CHILDS BARRY R,DAVIDSON NOCL H, NATION SRVCC 5.RV$5CLL ALVIN 5, DAVIS JANE'CNO JO5CPH P, KLOCKiJR THOMA5 R. MCCVICAN PATRICIA A, SCITZ DCNNI5 A. LARV55A RICHARD C 5MITH PAVL J. SONAVIA JOHN C,5VMStRC JUDITH M, KORCHIN JOHN M, SARKCTT WILLIAML, RICHCY ROSCRT J, IRVIN STEEL HEcTQ R & DAYIs SOUTHEAST FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MIAMI'LORIDA33I3I February 7, 1977 WILl. M PRCSTON CY COUN SCI.

TCLCPHONC (305) 577-2800 DIRCCT DIAL NVMSCR Edward Luton, Esq.

Chaixnan, Atanic Safety

& Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatoxy Ccnmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor, Nuclear Engineering University of Arizona Tuscon, Arizona 85721 Michael Glaser, Esq.

Alternate Chaizxen Atanic Safety

& Licensing Board Panel 1150 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Chairman Resource Ecology Program School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104 Dr. I~in M. Mann, Technical Advisor Atanic Safety

& Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Washington, D.C.

20555 BE:

In the Matter of Florida Power

& Light Gczrpany (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit No.

2 Docket 50-389)

Dear Menhers of the Board:

Enclosed herewith is "Trial Brief for. Applicant on the Altexnative Sites Contention, Contention 1.6(b)."

y yours, A. Coll NAC/pv Enclosure cc:

See Attached Certificate of Sexvice

UNITED STATES OF'AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

)

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

)

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant

)

Unit No. 2).

)

)

)

DOCKET NO.

50-389 TRIAL BRIEF FOR APPLICANT ON THE ALTERNATIVE SITES CONTENTION, CONTENTION 1.6(b)

LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS 6 AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut

Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Co-Counsel for Applicant STEEL HECTOR 6 DAVIS 1400 S.E. First National Bank Bldg.

Miami, Florida 33131 (577-2863)

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............-.....

Pacae STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................

GUMENT o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ o

~

~

o o

o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

AR 10 A.

THE NRC STAFF ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES 'IN 1973 AND 1974 MET THE REQUIRE-MENTS OF NEPAo

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

os~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

10 B.

THE NRC STAFF ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SXTES~

AS UP DATED XN 1976,,MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA................

C.

SUFFICIENT INFORMATION WAS DEVELOPED BY THE NRC STAFF IN ITS ANALYSIS OF ALTERNA-TIVE SITES TO DETERMINE THAT THE MARTIN SITE WAS NOT A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE..............

16 17 CONCLUS ION ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ o

~

~ o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

o o o o o

~

~

19

3.3.

TABLE OF CXTATXONS Cases Calvert Cliffs'oord.

Comm.'. y.

AECF 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971)..................

~Ca e Henry Bird Club V. Laird, 359 F.Supp.

404, (W.D. Va.

1973) aff'd 484 F.'2d 453 (4th Cir. 1973).............................

Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, F.2d 9

ERC 1370 (D.C. Cir. 1976)..

~Pa e

10 12, 13, 15 ll13 V~ol e, 515 F. 2d 1021 (8th Cir. 1975).........,

Iowa Citizens for Environmental

~Qualit Inc. v.

V~ol e, 487 F.2d 849 (8th Cir.

1973).

HHDC v. ~Callawa, 524 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1975)..

14 NRDC v. Morton, 458 F. 2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d 813 (5th ire 1975)

~

~

~

~

~ e e

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ e e

~ ~ e

~

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~ ~

~

~

~ e C

Trout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1974)..............................

United ~Famil Farmers v.

~Kle e,

F.Supp.

9 ERC 1513 (D. S.D. 1976)..............

10, ll, 12 ll, 13, 10 13 Statutes National Environmental Policy Act, 42 UeS

~ Ce g 4332e

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ o

~

~ e

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

e AEC and NRC Ad'udications Florida Power

& Li ht Co.

(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.

2) ALAB-335, NRCX 76/6, 830 (1976)

~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oee ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1

PacCe Florida Power and Li ht Co.

(St. Lucie Unit No. 2), LBP-75-5, 1 NRC 101.............

1 Florida Power and Li ht Co.

(St. Lucie Unit No.

2) LBP-75-25, 1 AEC 463 (1975)......

1 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Com an (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station),

ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003 (1973), aff'd 524 F.2d 1291 (D ~ Ce Cir ~ 1975)

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ e

~ e

~

~

~ t

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1 3 Northern Indiana Public Service Com any (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-l),

ALAB-224, 8 ABC 244, aff'd, 533 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.), cert dec>ed, 45 U.S.L.W.

3346 (1976)

~

~

~

~

~

~

e

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ e

~

~

~

a

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

12 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

ALAB-179, RAI-74-2, 159 (1974).........................

14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC'AFETY AND LICENSINGBOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.

2)

)

)

)

Docket No.

50-389

)

)

TRIAL BRIEF FOR APPLICANT ON INTERVENORS'ONTENTION 1.6(b)

PERTAINING TO ALTERNATIVE SITES I.

Introduction In a Partial Initial Decision on environmental and site suitability matters dated February 28, 1975, Florida Power and Supplement to the Partial Initial Decision, dated April 25, 1975, Florida Power and Li ht Co.

(St. Lucie Unit. No.

2)

LBP-75-25, 1 AEC 463

(-1975), this Board concluded, among oth'er things, that, the environmental review conducted by the Regulatory Staff pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C.A.

g 4321 et sece.)

as further augmented and modified by the decision, is adequate.

Numerous exceptions to the decision were filed, and on June 29, 1976, the Appeal Board affirmed'he Partial Initial Decision with respect to all of the exceptions but one.

See Florida Power

& Li ht Com any (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,

Unit No. 2), ALAB-335, NRCI 76/6 830.

The Appeal Board held that the Licensing Board had erred in summarily 'disposing of Intervenors'ontention 1.6(b):

Whether the Staff's Final Environmental Statement has sufficiently considered alternatives to the proposed action including***alternative sites especially sparsely population

[sic] areas such as Southwest, Florida***.

See Id. at 834-41.

Because neither the Final Environmental Statement for St. Lucie 2 nor any other relevant documents filed with the Licensing Board "set out the process that the Staff had fol-lowed with anything approaching sufficient clarity to permit the result the Staff advocated to be put summarily beyond challenge, the Appeal Board reinstated this contention for resolution, stating that "[o]nly after a full explanation was forthcoming could the intervenors be held accountable for failing to counter a motion for summary disposition of the issue". NRCI 76/6 at 840.

The Staff had filed affidavits by John R.

Young dat'ed November 10, 1975 and December 19, 1975 with the Appeal Board which outlined the process which. the Staff had-originally followed in considering alternative sites.

This process was labeled by the Appeal Board a "best possible case approach" whereby the evaluation of alternative sites was based upon a

"composite of characteristics which would typify the best

alternative coastal site."

ld. at 838 (footnote omitted).

The Appeal Board, however, declined to consider whether this process satisfied NEPA.

Xnstead, as part of its remand, it ordered the parties to brief and the Licensing Board to decide whether the Staff's approach complied with NEPA.

See ALAB-335, NRCI 76/6 at, 838-41.

This brief is submitted in response to that direction.

II.

Statement of Facts The Staff's methodology was thoroughly explored during the course of the hearing.

In response to this Board's direction extensive discovery was conducted before hearings began.

During the course of the hearings the chronology of the Staff's review of the application for St. Lucie 2 and of the Staff's treatment of alternative sites, including the Staff's requests for information and the responses

received, was examined in detail.

Three witnesses for the Applicant and two for the Intervenors testified on the issue of alternative sites.

The affidavits of Mr. John R.

Young which had been filed with the Appeal Board were incorporated in the record.

Follows TR. 5443.

In addition, six witnesses testified on behalf of the Staff, including Mr. Young.

These witnesses were subjected to detailed cross-examination by Intervenors and the Applicant's counsel as well as active questioning by the members of the Board.

The facts which emerged are described in detail in "Applicant's Proposed Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Form of an Initial Decision,"

filed with this Board on January 31,

1976, paras'.40-113.

[hereinafter cited as APF].

Rather than restate the facts-as there set out, we incorporate them herein by reference.

We believ'e it sufficient

here to highlight certain aspects of the facts.

These I

are, first, that the alternative sites evaluation conducted in 1973 was carried out in the manner described in the affidavits filed with the Appeal Board, APF, Paras.

61-66, 85-A best "characteristics" or "best regional" site evaluation method was employed.

Florida was divided into five general siting regions.

Three were immediately eliminated because of major relevant considerations.

The remaining two regions were then divided into fourteen sub-regions.

Six were eliminated because of excessive population or longer trans-mission distances, leaving eight candidate regions with the best potential for siting.

Examination of the six remaining inland regions showed that* the best region would be one near the south end of Lake Okeechobee because of the shorter trans-mission distance,and more favorable transportation facilities.

This resulted in three final candidate siting regions:.

1.

A Hutchinson Island site (represented by the proposed St. Lucie 2 site),

2.

A Jupiter Island site (representing the best coastal site),

and 3.

A Lake Okeechobee site (representing the best inland site).

The characteristics of these three sites or siting regions were then compared, using twenty normal site evaluation factors, and the conclusion reached that the characteristics of the Hutchinson Island site were better than the characteristics

of any other site.

The primary reasons for this conclusion were:

1.

At least a S94,000,000 lower economic cost for construction at Hutchinson Island; and 2.

An equal or lower total environmental effect for the Hutchinson Island site because of no new terrestrial impact, and probably an equally insignificant aquatic impact for all sites.

One characteristic of the alternative coastal sites could be rated as better than fo, Hutchinson Island.

This was the shorter transmission distance, but this advantage was more than offset by the higher total population within fifty miles as a result of a shorter distance to the West Palm Beach population center and a generally higher population within ten miles.

All other characteristics of the alternative

sites, both inland and coastal, appeared to be equal to or less attractive than for the Hutchinson Island site.

Thus, the analysis, conducted in 1973 and 1974 prior to the preparation of the Final Environmental Statement, showed that no environmental advantages were apparent for the alterna-tive sites that could offset the

$ 94,000,000 additional economic cost, the small additional environmental impact.

on Hutchinson Island resulting from St. Lucie 2, and the reduced system reliability during the at least one year delay in plant start-up if the power plant were not built at Hutchinson Island.

It was these advantages that persuaded the Staff that it did not have to visit specific sites within the sub-regions

surviving the screening process.

The information upon which this evaluation was based included the Applicant's Environmental Report for both St.

Lucie Unit 1 and St. Lucie 2, information supplied by the Applicant, a literature check, discussion of the St. Lucie 1

Environmental Report with those who had prepared it, discussions with members of the Battelle evaluation team.who had been former residents of Florida, review of numerous power plant siting documents and general site inspections of'both inland and coastal regions.

APF, Paras.

62, 73.

On August 17 and 18,

1976, subsequent to the issuance of ALAB-335, and at the request of the

NRC, a team made up of the NRC Environmental Project Manager, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Young, and three other members of the Battelle evaluation team visited five possible alternative sites for St. Lucie 2 which had been referred to in the course of this proceeding.

The visit was part of a reevaluation to determine if any new information had developed as a result of the identification of specific sites which would alter the conclusion that Hutchinson Island would still be the best site.

APF, Para.

89.

Before making the visit a considerable amount of literature concerning the alternative sites was reviewed.

This included material relating to such specific sites as DeSoto, South Dade and Martin and more general studies either prepared by the Applicant for its own use -or for filing with Florida and other govern-

mental authorities.

APF, Para.

93.

The site evaluation team. conducted on-site examinations and aerial reconnaissance of the Hutchinson Island,

DeSoto, Martin and South Dade sites and aerial reconnaissance of the Juno Beach and Salerno sites.

Each member of the team testified at the hearing.,

Three testified with respect.'o a special area of expertise, including terrestrial and aquatic ecology and hydrology.

.APF, Paras.

91, 92.

Mr. Young's testimony C'ontains a detailed comparison of the five sites with Hutchinson Island on the basis of the updated information'nd visit.

Basically the comparative factors remained the same as those contained in the affidavit which Mr. Young submitted. to the Appeal Board on November 10, 1975.

That affidavit had indicated that an inland site would have questionable cooling water availability and that liquid,waste disposal. would be difficult.

The 1976 visit included the Applicant's Martin site where a

7,000 acre reservoir is now being constructed for fossil fuel plants.

The comparison of specific alternate sites made in 1976 took this new information into account, and for the C

purposes of the present discussion, the availability of both cooling water and liquid waste disposal facilities at Martin are assumed.

APF, Paras.

94, 95.

The 1976 reexamination of specific sites led the NRC Staff to conclude that, none of those sites are competitive NEPA alternatives to Hutchinson Island.

No question was raised about this conclusion by Intervenors except with respect to the Martin site.

We demonstrate in the following portions of this brief that (1) the Staff's analysis undertaken in 1973 and 1974 met.

the requirements of NEPA; (2) even if there were any infirmities in that analysis, they were cured in 1976; (3) that as a

result of the consideration of the alternative sites issue in this hearing the only site which was suggested as a possible alternative to St. Lucie is Martin and that sufficient con-sideration was given to it fully to justify the conclusion on the existing record that Hutchinson Island is the preferable alternative.

ARGUMENT A.

THE NRC STAFF ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES IN 1973 AND 1974 MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA.

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA provides that

[A]ll agencies of the Federal Government shall (C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment a detailed statement by the responsible official on (iii) alternatives to the proposed action 42 U.S.C.A.

5 4332(2)(C).

The purpose of this provision is to permit reviewing bodies to see what the agency has done and, generally with help from the public, to determine whether the agency has properly balanced environmental costs and benefits under NEPA.

Unless alternatives, especially, are considered, the agency may approve action which might not be necessary or which might result in greater environmental harm than some other viable course.

See, generally, Trout Unlimited

v. )4orton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1282 (9th Cir. 1974);

NRDC v.

Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Calvert Cliff.s'oord.

Comm. v.

AEC, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

1 NAPA, however, is silent concerning the manner in

which alternatives are to be considered.

As a result, the courts, and to some extent. administrative agencies, have filled the void and interpreted section 102(2)(C) in light of a "rule of reason."

E.cC.,

Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, F.2d, 9

BRC 1370, 1378 (D.C.

Cir. Oct. 13, 1976); Sierra Club v. Morton, 510.F.2d

813, 819 (5th Cir. 1975).

One of the first cases to articulate the rule of reason was NRDC v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

In that case the court emphasized that, with respect to alter-natives and environmental effects, consideration need not be exhaustive:

What, is required is information sufficient to permit a reasoned choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.

Id. at 836.

In a more recent case, it was held that NEPA demands a study of reasonable alternatives:

that is to say, "realistic alternatives that will be reasonably available within the time the 'decision making'fficial intends to act."

(citation omitted)

(8th Cir. 1975).

Within the agency, the Appeal Board has applied NRDC

v. Morton standards to the specific question of alternative site evaluation.

In the B~aill case the Appeal Board con-sidered an FES which compared the best of two types of

sites, i.e., the choicest riverside site (Schahfer) and the best lakeshore location (Bailly).

Northern Indiana Public Service

~Com an (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1), ALAB-224 8 ABC 244, 256-66 (1974), aff'd, 533 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 45 U.S.L.W.

3346 (1976).

In ~Baill

, the Appeal Board first noted that, under NRDC

v. Morton, "[T]he NEPA requirement to 'discuss alternatives to a proposed course of action presupposes that the alter-natives be reasonable."

8 AEC at 267.

The Appeal Board then held:

The

. District of Columbia case cited establishes "that the discussion of

'environmental effects of alternatives need not be exhaustive.

What is required is information sufficient to ermit a reasoned choice of alternatives so far as environ-mental aspects are concerned."

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Norton,

supra, 458 F.2'd at 836.

The review of alter-native sites in this proceeding satisfied that requirement.

8 AEC at. 268-69 (footnote omitted)

(emphasis added).

In order to generate sufficient information, the responsible federal agency need not compile mass studies for each alter-native. It need only collect "as much data as will be necessary for the

[agency] to determine that the alternative is either infeasible or warrants further attention."

~Ca e

~Henr Bird Club v. Laird, 359 F.Supp.

404, 421-422 (W.D. Va 1973) aff'd 484 F. 2d 453 (4th Cir. 1973). The courts have recognized that "[I]'tis expected that equal resources will not be expended in an examination of alternatives as will be expended in studying the proposed action."

United ~Famil Fasmers v.

~Kle e,

F.Supp.,

9 ERC

1513, 1521 (D.S.D. 1976).

In that regard.,

the responsible

agency, may in addition, draw on its previous knowledge of alternatives in its NEPA analysis:

NEPA does not preclude an agency from relying on past experience,

judgment, and knowledge of the area when it makes a determination about. the feasibility of a project's alternatives.

If such a determination is made in good faith and without bias, then the collection of voluminous amounts of data is unnecessary.

~Ca e

~Henr Bird Club v. Laird, supra, 359 F.Supp.

at 422.

Consequently, an exploration of alternatives is sufficient if it is focused "upon those alternatives which there is reason to believe might, if adopted, provide a significant difference in environmental impact."

Maine Yankee Atomic Power

~Cpm an (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station),

ALAB-

161, 6 AEC 1003, 1004 (1973), aff'd 524 F.2d 1291 (D.C.

Cir. 1975).

An alternative which would result in similar or greater environmental harm, or one of speculative feasibility, need not be considered.

Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d

813, 825 (5th Cir. 1975);

Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld,

~su ra, 9

ERC at 1376.

Finally, the sufficiency of the environmental consideration of alternatives cannot be separated from the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the project.

NRDC

v. ~Callawa, 524 F. 2d 79, 93 (2d Cir. 1975);

iowa Citizens for Environmental Q~ualit, Inc. v.

V~ol e, 487 F.2d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 1973).

This principle is particularly significant in a NEPA discussion of alternatives to a nuclear power plant site.

NEPA's focus is on environmental comparisons, some of which may include impacts resulting from radiological health and safety matters.

NEPA also requires a consideration of the applicant's need for power.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

~Cor (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station),

ALAB-179, RAI-74-2, 159, 175 (1974).

Hence, the nature of the proposal the approval of a nuclear power plant site under the Atomic Energy Act to meet an expected demand for power by a determined date'must be considered in determining the reasonableness of each alternative and the amount of investigation and discussion of it required under NEPA.

In this proceeding, the FES prepared and published by the NRC Staff in May 1974 contains no comparison of the Hutchinson Island site with specific alternate sites.

The record developed on remand shows that no specific sites were originally compared in the FES because no competing site regions survived the screening process used by the Staff in its analysis.

APF, Paras.'3-67.

The record demonstrates that the NRC Staff review of alternative sites for St. Lucie 2 was based upon "information sufficient to permit a reasoned choice of alternatives."

~Balll

~su ra, 8

ABC 244, 268-69.

The initial analysis of alternatives employed a logical, methodical approach which began with an initial evaluation of general alternatives and progressed through various stages to the consideration of more specific alternatives.

Moreover, in its initial review of St. Lucie 2, the Staff properly relied, in part, on its previous experience with St. Lucie 1.

See NRC Regulatory Staff's Affidavit in Response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Order dated October 23, 1975, p.

4 (Nov. 10, 1975)(follows TR. 5443).

Xn such circumstances, the agency was particularly justified in making the judgment that the available alternatives for St. Lucie 2 could be divided into classes or types, with generally common characteristics, against which the Applicant's proposed site could be compared.

~Ca e

~Henr Bird Club v. Laird, 359 F.SuPP.

404, 453 (W.D. Va.), aff'd, 484 F.2d 453 (4th Cir. 1973).

Xn addition, the overwhelming advantages of the St.

Lucie site, consisting of less cost, less environmental

impact, and less delay, supported the NRC Staff's decision not to visit or compare specific alternative sites.

APF, Para.

67.

lt is true that although the Staff was aware in 1973 of the Applicant's inland Martin site and associated fossil plant development plans (see, e.cC.,

TR. 5538-39), its analysis 1/

did not take into account, the availability of a man-made cooling pond as one of the best. regional characteristics of 10.

Consequently, the inland site was found to have "questionable" cooling water availability, and "difficult"liquid waste

disposal, when originally compared to Hutchinson Island.

Later

analysis, in 1976, confirmed the availability of both cooling water and liquid waste disposal facilities at the inland Martin site, because of the man-made cooling, pond now being built there.

The comparison of specific alternate sites by the Staff in 1976 uses this updated information, and the analysis now gives Hutchinson Island no comparative advantage over Martin for these two factors.

However, the other competitive advantages for Hutchinson Island remain.

Consequently, the analysis used by the NRC Staff in its initial consideration of alternative sites was wholly reasonable in the circumstances, and met the requirements of NEPA.

B.

THE NRC STAFF ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES'S UPDATED IN 1976,'ET THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA.

In the latter half of 1976, the original St. Lucie 2 site analysis was reviewed to determine if new information Construction of fossil fueled units at Martin began 1/"

by the'fall of 1973.

TR. 6349-50.

had become available which would change the conclusions presented in the FES.

APF Para.

89.

The 1976 reexamination of specific sites and update led the NRC Staff to conclude that. none of those sites are competitive NEPA alternatives to Hutchinson Island.

APF, Para.

96.

The information developed and presented to the Board as a result of the update in 1976 confirmed that the Staff's initial analysis in 1973 and 1974 was reasonable and met the requirements of NEPA.

C.

SUFFICIENT INFORMATION WAS DEVELOPED BY THE NRC STAFF IN ITS ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES TO DETERMINE THAT THE MARTIN SITE WAS NOT A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE.

Intervenors'riginal contention 1.6(b) suggested that "sparsely population,(sic) areas such as Southwest Florida" contained alternative sites for St. Lucie 2 which had not been considered by the NRC Staff.

The entire region containing such sites

had, however, been considered and.

rejected early in the initial staff analysis in 1973 and 1974.

APF, Para.

64.

Subsequently, Intervenors changed their position, during these proceedings, to suggest 'that the Martin site was better than the Hutchinson Island site for St. Lucie 2.

APF, Paras.97-100.

The subregion in which the Martin site was actually located had also been rejected by the Staff in its initial analysis in 1973 and 1974.

APF 65.

The 1976 update by the Staff confirmed that the Martin site was not a reasonable alternative.

Although Intervenors asserted that the Martin site was preferable because of some lower population density, the availability of transportation of spent fuel by rail, and the discharge of liquid effluents into a closed system instead of the environment, APF, Para.

99, Applicant and Staff demonstrated that none of these considerations have a material effect on the cost/benefit analysis of alternative sites to the proposed site on the Hutchinson Island.

APF, Paras.

100-107.

Furthermore, it has not been shown that they or any other characteristics of any site will weigh favorably when compared to the insignificant'additional environmental impact. at Hutchinson Island, APF, Para.

110; the

$ 165,000,000 cost advantage of St. Lucie 2, Young, Supplemental Testimony, p.

19, Table 2, APF, Para.

111; and, in view of Applicant's need for power by the time f

St. Lucie 2 is scheduled for completion, APF, Paras.

14-39, the two to four and one-half year delay to complete St. Lucie 2 at any other site.

Young,'upplemental Testimony,

p. 20, Table 2, APF, Para.

112.

CONCLUSION The totality of evidence received by the Board and made a part of the record of these proceedings on remand demonstrates that the Staff's analysis of alternative sites undertaken'n 1973 and 1974 was reasonable and met the requirements of NEPA.

The update of that analysis in 1976 confirms that the original analysis was reasonable and sufficient to meet the requirements of NEPA.

Moreover, sufficient information was developed, and made a part of the record of these proceedings on remand, to demonstrate that the Hutchinson Island site is the preferred alternative to the Martin site.

The Final Environmental Statement, as modified by the record of these proceedings on remand,

~ has adequately con-sidered alternative sites to the proposed site under NEPA.

Respect fully submitted, LOWENSTEIN g NEWMANg REIS 6 AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue',

N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Co-Counsel for Applicant STEEL HECTOR

& DAVIS 1400 S.E Miami, F First National Bank Bldg.

orida 33131 (577-2863)

ORMAN A. COLL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by hand or mail, this day of 1977, to the following:

Edward Luton, Esquire

Chairman, Atomic Safety G Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Michael Glaser, Esquire Alternate Chairman Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Panel 1150 17th-Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 Dr. Marvin M. Mann, Technical Advisor Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. David L. Hetrick Professor, Nuclear Engineering University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Chairman Resource Ecology Program School of Natural Resources University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Local Public Document Room Indian River Junior College Library 3209 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Mr. C.

R. Stephens, Supervisor Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Mr. Roger S.

Boyd Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire

Chairman, Atomic Safety E Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Edward G. Ketchen, Esquire Richard K. Hoefling, Esquire William D. Paton, Esquire Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Martin Harold Hodder, Esquire 1131 N.E. 86th Street Miami," Florida 33138 Harold F. Reis, Esquire Co-Counsel for Applicant LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS 6 AXELRAD 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1214 Washington, D.C.

20036 STEEL HECTOR

& DAVIS Co-Counsel for Applicant 1400 S.E.

Miami, Fl First National Bank Bldg.

rida 33131 (577-2863)

By:

NO A.

COLL

t ~