ML20062B986

Licensee Opposition to Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) Request to Change Location of Oral Argument.* Neap Request to Transfer Location of Oral Argument Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20062B986
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	10/11/1990
From:	Bauser M FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#490-10909 OLA-5, NUDOCS 9010290101
Download: ML20062B986 (6)

Text

f.

/afd .

I ggty,[;to l 3, V5HRC L

i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 90 DCT 12 A1032 .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEiiSING APPEAL BOARD 7fICE N EiCRCIM Y DOCKI11% '<Si"VICI  !

HR AR.ii

)

In the Matter of- ) ,

Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-5

)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-251 OLA-5  !

)

(. Turkey Point Plant, ). (Technical Specifications Units 3 & 4) ) Replacement)

)

October 11, 1990 LICENSEE'S OPPOSITION TO NEAP'S REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF ORAL ARGUMENT.

On July 25, 1990, the Nucl' ear Energy. Accountability Project (" NEAP") filed a Notice.of Appeal from a July 17, 1990 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Memorandum and Order dismissing

-NEAPafrom the above-captioned' proceeding. NEAP's Notice of .i Appeal also " request [ed) Oral Argument on the issue of standing and that Oral Argument be held in Miami, Florida to permit intervenors'[ NEAP) a fair and equitable opportunity to address the issue of standing in this proceeding." Notice of Appeal, at-2..

I 1

,, It is the vies of Licensee, Florida Power & Light  !

r.

l' Company, that the appeal in this proceeding is clearly lacking in merit, and that the Appeal Board could, accordingly, dispense I w l l

p 90iO2%h nR

,s o

pso, l

C g

-),

- 2-

.with oral. argument. If, nevertheless, the Board, in its discretion, should determine to hear oral argument, Licensee wishes to note its opposition to shifting the location of such argument to Miami for the reasons set forth below.-

Under the Commission's regulations it is " anticipated

-that oral arguments will be conducted in either Washington, D.C.,

or Bethesda, Md." 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, IX(e) (1990).

This represents Commission policy. Wisconsin Electric Power company (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-666, 15 -

'NRC 277, 280 n.5 (1982). Thus, the Commission has concluded that there will be an adequate opportunity for appellants to present argument to the Appeal Board if the argument is held near the NRC's. Headquarters; and that, all factors considered, the public-interestRfavors such a location. As against these

', considerations, NEAP provides no support, whatsoever, for its bare assertion that argun.ent should be moved to Miami in.' order-

-for'it to be given a " fair and equitable hearing."

g ,

Further, it=is obvious that the relocation of1 appellate

argument to the Miami area will impore far greater financial burdens on xhe Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- and, therefore, the public -- than would be incurred if argument were held in the vicinity of NRC Headquarters. Relocation of oral argument would L

l l

h:- )

1 t?

l l

1 require the Commission to bear the travel expenses of the three ]

members of:the Appeal Board, together with whatever supporting 1

personnel they may require, as well as NRC Staff counsel, and whateverl supporting personnel she may require. By contrast, counsel of record for NEAP has indicated that she may-be served in either Appleton, Wisconsin, or Houston, Texas. San Notice of Appearance (June 21, 1990). As counsel for NEAP would have to travel to. Miami for oral argument if NEAP's request should be granted, the additional burden, if any, on her traveling to Washington, D.C., would appear to be minimal.

Finally, since NEAP initiated the appellate process, it is'somewhat incongruous for it to argue that it should not be made to bear the normal burdens associated with an appeal, i including the cost of. travel to the= usual situs of oral argument.

In this regard, the Appeal Board has stated on more than one occasion that persons invoking the adjudicative. process are expected to fulfill their obligations under the Commission's-rules,ldespite limited funds. Egg Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile. Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-807, 21 NRC 1195,- r 1212-(1985).

4

-i

~

T

'I

In-sum, NEAP has presented no cogent reason for deviating from agency practice. As a result, its request to transfer the location of oral argument should be denied. --

Respectfully submitted, By: 'I 446661 co-counsel -Harold F. Reis ,

John T. Butler,-Esquire Michael A. Bauser Steel, Hector & Davis James Vigil, Jr.

4000 Southeast Financial Center Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

Miami, Florida 33131-2398 1615 L Street, N.W.

Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 202/955-6600 Attorneys for Florida Power & Light Company 1

i i

i 1

1

m.u w -

• i UbHKC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA wuCLEAR REGULATORY conuzSSIow 90 DCT 12 A1052 ,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL .

gg ,

00CM hNG & M HVICI ERANCH ,

In the Matter of )

)

g FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPAwY ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-5

) 50-251.0LA-5 '

-(Turkey Point Plant, )

Units 3 & 4) ) (Technical Specifications

) Replacement)

CERTIFICATE OF BERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of'the " Licensee's opposition -

to NEAP's Request to Change the Location of Oral Argument" in the above captioned proceeding, dated October 11, 1990, was served on the persons designaced below by deposit in the United States mail, first class postage paid on this date.

Thomas S. Moore,. Chairman G. Paul Bollwerk, III 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing l Appeal Board Appeal Board '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard A. Wilber -

Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic. Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing '

Appeal Board Board

.i U.S. Nuclear regulatcry U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission

' Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Elizabeth B. Johnson

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic' Safety and Licensing 4; Board' Board 17719: Ridge Drive, N.E. Oak Ridge National Laboratory jSeattle,= Washington 98115 P.O. Bcx 2008 Bethel Valley Road, Bldg. 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

-Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety'and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board Panel Adjudicatory File- Adjudicatory File-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory -U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. -20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 (two copies) (three copies)

c. . Billie Pirner Garde, Esquire Billie Pirner Garde, Esquire Hardy, Milutin & Johns 103 East College Avenue 500 Two Houston Center Appleton, Wisconsin 54911 Suite 500 1 909 Fannin at McKinney Houston, Texas 77010-Office of the Secretary Janice E. Moore, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Patricia a. Jehle, Esquire Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ATTN: Chief, Docketing and Commission Service Section Wasington, D.C. 20555 (Original plus two copies)

Stewart Ebneter John T. Butler, Esquire Regional Administrator Steel, Hector & Davis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory- 4000 Southeast Financial Commission, Region II Center 101 Marietta.St., N.W'. #2900 Miami, Florida 33113 Atlanta,. Georgia 30323 Thomas J. Saporito, Jr.

Executive Director

' Nuclear Energy Accountability. ,

Project P.O. Box 129 Jupiter,' Florida 33458-0129 -

Dated this lith day of October 1990.

hllf 4 Gf Otw '

L Michael A. Bauser q V,e o Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.

1615 L Street, N.W.  ;

i Suite 1000 1 L Washington, D.C. 20036  ;

i l

i 1

l l