ML19294A653
| ML19294A653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hartsville  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1979 |
| From: | Ellis L, Pyle R ELLIS, L.J., PYLE, R.B. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903080084 | |
| Download: ML19294A653 (6) | |
Text
f 3
~
NRC PITUr r.r 13 r I' 'i: -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
Docket Nos.
STN 50-518
)
STN 50-519 (Hartsville Nuclear Plants
)
STN 50-520 Units lA, 2A, 1B, and 2B)
)
STN 50-521 INTERVENORS' REPLY BRIEF By Order dated February 2, 1979, the Appeal Board has granted Intervenors leave to file a reply brief to the briefs of the Applicant and the NRC Staff.
This relates to the appeal by the Intervenors from the decision of the Licensing Board dated October 31, 1978, granting TVA's motion for summary disposition on the location of the discharge diffuser.
The only issue raised by TVA and the Staff, which we feel was not discussed in our brief dated December 18, 1978, is the issue of whether the decision of the Appeal Board, ALAB-463, 7 NRC 341, dated March 17, 1978 (here-after ALAB-463) foreclosed any further consideration of impacts from operation of the plant.
Both TVA and the Staff take the position that the only issue which was
' N MO303CO8k W-
0 Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.,
20555 Dr. John H.
Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.,
20555 Mr. Jerome E.
Sharfman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.,
20555 John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3409 Shepherd Street Chevy Chase, Maryland, 20015 Dr. J.
V.
Leeds, Jr.
10807 Atwell Houston, Texas, 77096 Dr. Forrest J.
Remick 207 Old Main Building Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pa.,
16802 Alvin H.
Gutterman, Esq.
Attorney for Applicant Division of Law Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902 William Hubbard, Esq.
William M.
Barrick, Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General 450 James Robertson Pkwy.
Nashville, Tennessee, 37219 William D.
Paton, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.,
20555 This 559 day of
/ F 1978
/
C ffM p,wy
/
LEROY J / ELLIY, III C
Attorn / for Intervenors, W i. l l i.. <i. Young, et al
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RP.GULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
Docke t Nos.
STN 50-518
)
50-519 (Hartsville Nuclear Plants
)
50-520 Units lA, 2A, 1B, and 28)
)
50-521 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served the original and twenty conformed copies of the following documents on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by depositing them in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,
- 20555, Attention:
Chief, Docketing and Service Section:
REPLY BRIEF and that I have served a copy of each of the above documents upon the persons listed below by depositing it in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed:
Respeptfully submitted,
/l
,/
(
',/
~
/
W LEROY 7. fLLIS, III The CVa@ery Building 421 Charlotte Avenue Nashville, Tennessee 37219 h?
I
/
p
'I ROBERT B.
PYLE '
$)
1700 Hayes Street Suite 204 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Attorneys for Intervenors February 20, 1979
which it reversed the Licensing Board, namely making that determination before the Department of the Interior had rendered its opinion and dhat opinion had been considered by the Commission.
In ALAB-463, the Appeal Board went on to state that the Commission would make the final decision on the upstream location after the Interior Department renders its opinion.
Slip Opinion at 44.
The Appeal Board then further clarified its position in its discussion of the downstream location (no longer in issue) and stated that "... with respect to the downstream location, Interior's approval of it having been obtained, is whether sedimentation from construction at that location would jeopardize the continued existence of the species."
Slip Opinion at 45.
Thus, on this legal issue, we think it clear that operation impacts on the endangered species was an open issue before the Licensing Board and that the Licensing Board was correct in addressing it.
Whether the record supports the position of the Intervenors on the merits of their request for the imposition of minimum standards for protection of the species during construction, is a separate issue, and we believe that all of the parties have addressed this issue and that nothing would be gained by further discussion in a reply brief.
- r Ii before the Licensing Board as a result of the action taken in ALAL-463, was the results of sedimentation during con-struction of the dif fuser.
Thus at page 8 of its brief, TVA states:
"The Appeal Board then found that determination of the effects of sedimentation, which would result from diffuser construction at the upstream location, must await consultation with DOI (7 NRC at 363-64)."
At pages 6 and 7 of its brief, the Staf f states :
"The only adverse environmental impact of any kind not finally resolved by this Board was the impact of sedimentation from dredging during construction (7 NRC at 363.
Thus, the only other issue left open by ALAB-463 is the stated requirement that TVA consult with the Department of Interior and obtain its opinion with respec* to the upstream location.
(7 NRC at 363-4).'
We do not so read this Board's decision in ALAB-4 63.
The basis for the Appeal Board's reversal of the Licensing Board was the failure to obtain and consider the opinion of the Department of the Inter.: 3r before giving approval to the upstream location of the discharge diffuser.
While the Staff's extensive quotation from ALAB-463 at pages 361-362, is correct, we interpret this excerpt and the other discussion of impacts from plant operation in part II C of ALAB-463, as referring to the downstream location.
If the Appeal Board had intended to foreclose further consideration of impacts from operation of the plant, using the upstream location, it would have fallen into the same error for *
,