ML19289E721

Replies to Licensee 790330 Response & NRC 790406 Response Re Petitioner'S Lack of Special Training or Expertise. Petitioner Does Not Assert Expertise,But Rather Interests to Be Protected.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19289E721
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	04/24/1979
From:	Oncavage M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
NUDOCS 7905290026
Download: ML19289E721 (4)

Text

_

~ ~

~ C : 'N it' i : :'i...: C 3 C(~if I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCI2AR BEGULATORY COC'ISSION 4/24/79 ESFOR2 TES ATOMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of: ) Docket Nos. 50-250 50-251 9 Florida Power and Light Co.) (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License (Turkey Point Nuclear ) to permit Steam Generator Generating Units Nos. Repairs) 3 and 4) (41 @D q

Putitioner Reply to Licensee Response and g~~ '~

g NRC Staff Response -

Av Statements in the Licensee's Response of March 30, 1979 Q, and the NRC Staff Response of April 6, 1979 suggest that the Petitioner possesses no special training or expertise which would contribute toward developing a sound record. The Licensee Response on page 6 states:

"As for the second factor, there is no indication that petitioner -- as a result of either training or experience -- would be able to significantly assist in the development of a sound record."

The NRC Staff Response, on page 4 states:

"Although Petitioner does not allege any facts that would suggest he is qualified by either speciali::ed education or relevant experience to make a meaningful contribution to one or more of the" contentions he seeks to have litigated, ...

The justification for these statements is not to be found in 10 UFR Part 2. Paragraph 2.714 Intervention, states:

"Any person whose interest may be affected by a proceeding and who desires to participate as a party shall file a written petition for leave to intervene."

Any attempts to prejudice the petition by suggesting the 7905290026 2045 166

petitioner lacks expertise or specialized training undermines the spirit and letter of 10 CFR Part 2. The important consideration for granting an intervention nust be the protection of the Petitioner's interest irrespective of any expertise the petitioner nay or may not have. If the petitioner's interests have merit, then the recpested intervention will contribute toward developing a sound record.

Important considerations in granting the instant petition cust be given to (ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be prote'cted. And (iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties. The Licensee's Response fails to address either of these important considerations. If the petition is denied, there will be no public hearings to protect the petitioner's interests nor will there he any contribution made by the general public in this decision making process.

The legal standing of the petitioner is unqpestionable. -

The petitioner resides on his own property approximately 15 miles north north west of the Turkey Point Nuclear facility.

Personal health hazards will be encountered by the petitioner, his wife, and his infant son if the Licensee releases hazardous amounts airborne radioactivity during normal meteorological conditions.

The petitioner will also suffer econo =ic losses if the real property owned by the petitioner becomes contaminated 2045 16di

3-with radioactivity.

The petitioner also maintains a sizeable investment of personal property in the form of a recreational sailboat.

If Biscayne eay becomes contaminated vith. radioactivity, the recreational cctirities will be eliminated and the petitioner vill suffer economic lossee since there will no longer be a market for recreational sailboats.

Conclusion The intervention scught' will complement the ermaination of the issues by the Atomic Scfety and Licensing Boc.rd. The perspective is that of a concerned member of the south Florida community. The interventica is warranted.

h

,. Respectfully submitted, d$ &"&

Liark ,?. Oncavage

/ 6 7

/

\

,? '

yg' ' 9 TEE A Y

UNITED STATSS OF AMERICA g32; Ns NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gi ep[N d

.to(Y BEFORE THE ATCMIC SAPSTY & LICENSING BOARD w

In the matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-250 i

~

Pe.tition for leave to )

intervene Turkey Point Nuclear )

Generating Unita Nos. 3 and 4 )

CERTIFICATE 02 SERVICE I, Mark P. Oncavage, hereby certify that copies of the Revision to, Petitioner Recly M Licensee Response and NRC Staff Response,

_ have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, this 24th dt.y of April, 1979:

31izabeth S. Bowers, daq., Chairman Atomic safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com::lission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com=.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. David B. Hall Atomic Safety and Licensing 400 Oircle Drive Appeal Board Panel Santa Fe, Few Mexico 87501 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docketing and Service section .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Office of the secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S.. Nuclear negulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Norman Coll, t:s q.

Steel, Hector & Davis Southecst Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Harold F. Reis, Esq.

Lowenotein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 connecticut Avenue, N.W. x Washington, N.C. 20036 2 Mark P. Oncavage 2045 167