ML19332D925
| ML19332D925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1989 |
| From: | Lorion J CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, LORION, J. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9516 OLA-4, NUDOCS 8912060046 | |
| Download: ML19332D925 (7) | |
Text
.
hh5.3Yk a>
- '. MGP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETY.ANDLICENSINGBOAgD g.g,. 27 P 1 3 8 q
-In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50- 250 OLA-4 Florida Power & Light Company
)
50-251 OLA-4
)
(Turkey' Point Plant.
)
(Pressure / Temperature Limits)
Units 3 & 4)
)-
)
1 INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO LICENSEE'S REPLY TO INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS CONTENTIONS
'I. Introduction On September 11, 1989, Florida Power & Light Company ( "FPL"'
or " Licensee") filed Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of L
Intervenors' Contentions-in the above captioned proceeding.
On October' 19, 1989, the Center for Nuclear Responsibility 1'
filed Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions in which they contended l
that.there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the subject license mnendments that require resolution at a public
~ hearing.
On the same date, the NRC Staff filed their Response to Licensee's Motion in which they agreed with the Licensee that no public hearing on the issues is necessary.
On November 6, 1989, Licensee requested by Board Order, filed Licensee's Reply to Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions.
8912060046 891116 PDR-ADOCM 05000250 PDR
.5 o.3
.o
, 4 ' -l Ub
( 2)
P II. Intervenors Recuest That The Board In Fairness Allow Them To Respond To Licensee's Reply To Their Response To Licensee's Motion For Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions c
'Upon review of Licensee's Reply Intervenors are requesting
'that'the Board' grant them leave to respond to Licensee's Reply to Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary. Disposition
-based on the following reasons:
- 1) -Intervanora have been involved in numerous Atmomic Safety and Licensing Board proceedings in-the past, and they cannot recall one instance-in which the Licensee was either permitted or requested to reply to Intervenors' response to a motion for summary disposition.
In fact, Intervenorstreading of 10 C.F.R. 2.749 (b) does not appear to~ provide! the Licensee an opportunity to reply.
Intervenors are concerned by-the fa'ct that~this Board would request Licensee, who has far more resourceE available to them than the citizen Intervenors, to reply to Intervenors' Response without giving Intervenors an
~
equal and fair opportunity to address Licensee's Reply.
It is unclear to Intervenors why.the Licensee, who appears to have the NRC Staff L
in agreement with them, would be given "two bites at the same L
apple".
L
- 2) Intervenors are also concerned that Licensee in their Reply mischaracterizes and misinterprets the Letter of Dr. George Sih'in numerous places.
Indeed, en pages 29 and 30 of their Reply, Licensee has the audacity to imply that Dr. Sih and they are in agreement on certain issues and that any differences in opinion appear to "be a matter of semantics".
Intervenors contend that if
W Y>
1-
'[
r,-
i
( 3) these mischaracterizations are allowed to stand.and are accepted by this Board that it would not only be extremely unfair,.it would r
be a miscarriage of justice.
- 3) There may be numerous instances.where the Board may be misled on the facts if Licensee's' Reply remains unchallenged.
[
For instance, Licensee's argument that the. Board should discount the mixed fuel core issue.because the fuel core ~ redesign began in 1984 fails to account for the fact that the Turkny Point units continue to operate with differences in their fuel core loading patterns to the present date.
Similarly, Licensee's argument that fluences calculated for the purpose of meeting the PTS screening criterion are not relevant to this proceeding is also flawed.
Fluence.is-fluence no matter what it is. calculated for.
Finally, Licensee's arguments concerning their hypothetical calculation for the P/T' limits for Unit 4, which they appear to desperately want this Board to accept as proof that there is no issue, fails to point out that Intervenors' and Licensee have a major point of disagreement concerning the percentage of copper content that should be used in the calculation.
Also, Licensee and Intervenors disagree on the conservstivism of using Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision 2, which the Licensee used in the hypothetical n
calculation rather than Regulatory Guide 1.99 Revision 1, which Intervenors believe would be more conservative.
L L
. g'
( 4) y e
^
Thus, if this Board was to accept Licensee's hypothetical calculation as evidence that no hearing is required on this issue, Intervenors would have no choice but to request that the Board-reinstate Contention 3 in.this proceeding, a contention 3'.
which Intervenors in good faith had previously withdrawn.
III. Conclusion In conclusion, Intervenors_wish to express their concern a
that throughout, this proceeding has been conducted much more in keeping with a court of law, rather than the relaxed atmosphere of an administrative proceeding.
First, Intervenors who are
.not11awyers were asked to appear at Oral Argument rather than at a Prehearing Conference, which is much more conducive to citizen participation.
Second, this Board by requesting that the Licensee reply to Intervenors'. Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary i
Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions when it does not appear to be allowe'd in. Rule 2.749, apears to have placed another procedural roadblock in the path of a public hearing on the grave safety issues that exist at the Turkey Point nuclear plants.
u For all of the-above reasons, Intervenors request that this-Board out of a sense of fairness allow them to respond to Licensee's Reply.
Intervenors, who entered into this Licensing Board
- n L
Proceeding with issues that they feel pose a serious threat to the public health and safety, believe that these issues are serious enough to warrant a public hearing and much too serious i
to be resolved on paper.
1 1
r g
v
-1 2
ea
,y
^
a:
D g
t
- 'u'
( 5)
Congress has expressly granted citizens the right to participate in proceedings to determine whether their health and safety is jeopardized by the modification of the operating license of a nuclear power plant operating in their community.
42 U.S.C. 2239 (a).
Congress expressly declared that the regulatory scheme it adopted, including this mandatory citizen participation, was necessary to protect the public health and safety (id.-2012 (e)).
Intervenors, who are' exercising the rights granted them by Congress, merely request that this Board grant them the-opportunity to' participate in this proceeding in a fair and equitable manner.by allowing them to respo9d-to Licensee's 1
i Reply to Intervenors Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary s
' Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions.
Indeed, the fact that Licensee's Reply raises new arguments on the issues requires a supplemental response by Intervenors.
Respectfully submitted, Q3 M C( N Joette Lorion Director, Center for Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red Road #217 i
L Miami, Florida 33143 (305) 661-2165 L
(305) 662-2600 Dated: November 16, 1989
. N.
I I
-s jp UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~,
g, y p 3 3 8 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.p In.the Matter.of
)
b;ma y.
Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-FLORIDA' POWER & LIGHT CO.
)
50-251 OLA
)
Turkey Point -Plant
)
(Pressure / Temperature Amendments)
Units 3 and 4
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I.hereby certify that copies of "Intervenors' Motion For Leave to Respond to Licensee's Reply to Intervenors' Response To 4
Licensee's Motion fer Summary Disposition-of Intervenors' Contentions" have been served on the following parties by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid on the date shown-below:
- Dr. Paul Cotter John T. Butler
- Atemic. Safety - & Licensing Board Steel, Hector & Davis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4000 SE Financial Center Washington, D.C.
20555-Miami, Florida 33131 Glenn O. Bright Steven P. Frantz Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Newman & Holtzinger P.C.
L
-U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L. Street NW Washington, D.C. 20555 Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Jerry ~ Harbour
- Atomic Safety- &~ Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 office of Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission n
Washington, D.C.
20555 b
fI N Janice Moore Office of General Counsel Joette Lorion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director Center for Washington, D.C.
20555 Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red Road #217 1
Miami, Florida 33143 Date: November 16, 1989 (305) 661-2165
- A copy was served on the Board by FAX Transmission
+
4 1,.
l
.y ;
. ' ,},
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, g,y p333 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E
c,r t ", -
'In'theiMatter of
)
h0 chi-
)
Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
)
50-251 OLA
)
Turkey Point Plant
)
(Pressure / Temperature Amendments)
Units 3.and 4
)
s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby~ certify that copies of "Intervenors' Motion For Leave to1 Respond.to Licensee's Reply to Intervenors' Response To Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors
contentions" have been served on the following parties by deposit'in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid on the date shown below:
- Dr. Paul Cotter John T. Butler-Atomic' Safety &' Licensing Board Steel, Hector & Davis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4000 SE Financial Canter Washington, D.C.
20555 Miami, Florida 33131.
.Glenn O. Bright Steven P. Frant:
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Newman & Holtzinger P.C.
U.S.. Nuclear R'egulatory Commission 1615 L.
Street NW Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Atemic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 office of Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ldt_ fe r tw j
Janice Moore L
Office of General Counsel l
Joette Lorion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commir.sion L
Washington, D.C.
20555 Director, Center for p
Nuclear Responsibility i
7210 Red Road #217 Miami, Florida 33143 Date: November 16, 1989 (305) 661-2165 L.
- A copy was served on the Board by FAX Transmission l
\\
Lv
_