ML20093L049
| ML20093L049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1984 |
| From: | Shea K FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OLA-3, NUDOCS 8407310282 | |
| Download: ML20093L049 (21) | |
Text
N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCMETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U9MC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARp 1 JLt 30 32:18
- - ~
In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-3
) 50-251 OLA-3 (Turkey Point Plant, )
Units 3 and 4) )
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR A HEARING AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE WITH RESPECT TO INCREASED FUEL ENRICHMENT I. Introduction On July 12, 1984, the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. (" Center") and Joette Lorion (collectively referred to as
" Petitioners") filed with the Commission a " Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene" (" Petition").
The Petition pertains to an application 1/ filed by Florida Power & Light Company (" Licensee" or "FPL") for amendments to the operating licenses for Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, to delete the reactor core U-235 enrichment specification and accommodate storage of fuel of higher enrichments. On June 26, '984, the Commission published a notice stating that it is considering issuance of the amendments and that it has "made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration." 49 Fed. Reg. 25,350. The notice invited ,
-1/ Letter from FPL to NRC re Fuel Storage U-235 Linear Loading Increase dated April 4, 1984; modified by letter from FPL to NRC dated May 25, 1984; and supplemented by letter from FPL to NRC dated June 15, 1984.
8407310282 840727 PDR ADOCK 05000250 C PDR
e comments on the proposed determination. .It also offered the Licensee an opportunity to " file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments" and an opportunity to intervene to persons whose interest may be affected by the proceeding. Id.
The Licensee hereby submits its answer to the Petition. 2/
II. Standing of the Petitioners Under 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714, a petition to intervene must set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene.
The Commission has held that, in determining whether a person has an interest which may be affected by a proceeding,
" contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing should be used."
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2). CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 614 (1976); Northern States Power Co. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), CLI-80-36, 12 NRC 523,
-2/ Petitioners have filed another, substantially similar Petition (dated July 9, 1984) with respect to another FPL application fcr amendments to permit expansion of the Turkey Point spent fuel pools (noticed at 49 Fed. Reg. 23,715). In both Petitions, Petitiorers make the same arguments with respect to their standing to intervene and both Petitions seek to litigate the validity of the Staff's proposed "no significant hazards consideration" determination. FPL's response to those points in Sections II and III. A. of this Answer is essentially the same as those Sections of
" Licensee's Answer to Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene with Respect to Spent Fuel Pool Expansion," filed on July 24, 1984.
3-o 526-27 (1980) (Ahearne and Hendrie, Comm'rs, separate views). To have standing, a person must allege that he will be injured in fact as a result of the proceeding and that his interests fall within the zone of interests protected by applicable statutes.
Pebble Springs, 4 NRC at 613-14.
The Petition states that Jaette Lorion lives and works within 15 miles of Turkey Point and that her interests and those of her family could be significantly and adversely affected if a serious nuclear accident were to occur at the Turkey Point plants. Based upon these representations, Ms. Lorion appears to possess standing.
The Petition also states that the Center is a corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, that the Center is an " environmental organization," and that the Center's " members live, use, and work and vacation in and otherwise use and enjoy, a geographic area within the immediate vicinity of the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plants and could suffer severe consequences if a serious nuclear accident occurred at these facilities."
The Petition identifies two " members" whose interests might l be affected by the issuance of the amendments. One is Ms. Lorion herself. Assuming that Ms. Lorion has standing to intervene in her individual capacity and is undertaking to do so, it would seem redundant and pointless to permit the Center also to
( intervene solely as the representative of Ms. Lorion. Conse-quently, representation of Ms. Lorion alone does not appear to be a basis for conferring representational standing upon the Center.
q r ~
' j c
- 4. l
+ To.be sure,-the Petition states that the Center has one
' other member who'may be affected: Beverly Mullins, who appears also'- to reside within 15 miles of Turkey Point. However, the Petition does not document that Ms. Mullins has authorized the I- Center to represent her. Consequently, the Petition fails to i
establish the Center's standing as a representative of " members" or other individuals. See, e.g., Houston Lighting and Power Co.
- (South Texas. Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 439, 444, aff'd ALAB-549, 9 NRC 644 (1979). Nor does-the Petition specify how the Center, which is a corporation, could itself be adversely i
i affected by the issuance of the license amendments. 3/
To the extent that the Center is attempting to intervene on its own behalf based upon the claim that it is an " environmental organization," intervention should also be denied . The Supreme Court has rejected such grounds for standing, reasoning that:
l
[A] mere " interest in a problem," no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter !
how qualified the organization is in i
evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by 4 itself to render the organization " adversely affected" or " aggrieved" within the meaning i 3/
The Petition also claims that the Center and Ms. Lorion are each "an appropriate party to represent the interests of others similarly situated whose interests might otherwise go unrepresented." (Petition, p. 2.) To the extent that-the i
Petitioners are attempting to intervene in order to represent the interests of unnamed individuals who have not I
authorized the Petitioners to intervene on their behalf, the
- Petition should be denied. See Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico l ' Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-470, 7 NRC 473, 474 n.1 (1978); Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar l Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1418, 1421 (1977); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-77-ll, 5 NRC 481, 483-84 (1977);
- Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-75-60, 2 NRC 687, 690 (1975).
y -w - . = = - e 'c.,,-,c = ...--wr.,,ye,%,.-. -e,-. , r- .,-e-,w,,-w ...e,--c.,,.,,,,,-,-.w., . - - , . , , , . . . . , . ,- ,-.,.w----
-s h of the APA'. The Sierra' Club is a large and >
l long-established organization,.with a t ~ historic commitment to the cause of pro-
< .tecting our: Nation's natural heritage from man's depredations. But if aL"special interest"~in.this subject were enough to entitle the Sierra Club to commence this.
litigation, there would appear to be no objective basis upon which to disallow a suit by ,any other bona fide "special interest" organization, however small or short-lived.
And if any group with a bona fide "special interest" could initiate such litigation, it is difficult'to perceive why.any individual citizen with the same bona fide.special' interest would not also be entitled to.do so.
t' Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727i 739-40 (1972). This holding is applied in NRC proceedings. See, e.g., Nuclear Engineering' .
Co., Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC.737, 742 (1978); Pebble Springs, I
j' 4 NRC at 613; Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel i
Receiving and Storage Station), ALAS-328, 3 NRC 420, 421-23 i (1976).
t l In sum, the Center has not demonstrated any right to l intervene on its own behalf or on behalf of any members. There-i
- fore, its request to intervene as a matter of right should be i
denied. Nor has the Center' attempted to make the required f
1 showing for discretionary intervention. See, e.g., Pebble
- Springs, 4 NRC at 616-17. As a result, no basis has been
- identified for intervention by the Center and such intervention i
should not be granted.
i
)
a 1 '
s 4-- - , , . - . . . . , , ,, r.. , , 4--, ,,.,r._..w,_w,...-__,........-..--,.,-.~m.,___,,,...,.,,r.,.- . . . , , , , , ,-
III. The Petitioners' Contentions
.NRC and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, have long required that would-be intervenors identify the contentions which they wish to litigate. Intervention is denied if the petitioner fails to state at least one contention within the scope of the hearing,.and the basis for each contention must be
" set forth with reasonable specificity." 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b).
This requirement has -been upheld in court. BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974). See also Bellotti v.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 725 F.2d 1380 (D.C. Cir.
1983). As is demonstrated below, the Petition does not meet the contention requirement for intervention.
A. The Pet'iti6n seeks to litigate the validity of the "no significant hazards considerations" determination -- a matter not within the Board's jurisdiction.,
Paragraph 6 of the Petition appears to state that it contains Petitioners' proposed contentions. Conceivably, Paragraphs 5 and 7 night also be intended to set out contentions.
As discussed in detail below, however, treating all three Paragraphs ( 5 ,' 6, and 7) as statements of contentions, it is clear that the Petitioners wish only to litigate whether the requested amendments involve a "significant hazards consi-deration" and, therefore, whether they may be issued prior to conducting a validly requested hearing. That is a question which is not within the cognizance of the Licensing Board.
l
.,is } g i
+ g, 34. I b- . .
, s, .p,d! I i \
7- y
-m i.. 1. ,
h A '
- . . N. g< -
- . . , w
. Section 50.92(c)g of the NRC's regtilations . s provides that the commissionEmay make a'fina'l determination.that no significant
.s hazards considerations are involved'
, \
if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
(1)
\
Involve a significant increase in
, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
.(2) C Mate the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously*eva3uated; or ,
I3 ) ' Involve a significant. reduction in a margin of' safety.1 -
l.
Paragraph 5 of the Petition only contends, without any further f explanation, that " operation of the Turkey Point spent fuel I
j facilities for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 would" create or involve each of the three conditions set forth in the regulation.
Thus, the only issue sought to be raised in Paragraph 5 is
> g l whether a valid no significant haza'rds considerations deter-i ;
i mination can be made with respec't to the gmendments.
2 \ '
) Although Paragraph 6 purports to reserve'the right to m'ke additional contentions, it states only that'" Petitioners contend s
's that the amendment request constitutes a significant hazards, consideration because" of five alleged ressons (designated A.1 N
through A.4 and B.1).Y These apparently are offered as the bases s for the contention that there is a significant hazards consi-t '
deration. '
1
\. .
t
[_
.]q '
w '
l l
'T ,
i T
s
-. _-..m. . - , , , ,, , . - . - , - , - . , . . . . _ . , . .., .,,,-.~,,.-..m.. . - - _ , , . - , , . . , - . , . . _ ,,y E
j l
l
~
Paragraph 7 states that the issues raised in the Petition "should be assigned to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for
' review in a formal hearing process before there can be any -
issuance of the license amendments." (Emphasis supplied.) The only reason for deciding whether there is a significant hazards consideration is to decide whether a hearing, if requested, is to be held before or after issuance of the amendment. 48 Fed. Reg.
14,873, 14,874, 14,876 (April 6, 1983). Indeed, in the absence of a hearing request, no final determination that no significant hazards consideration exists is ever made. 10 C.F.R.
$ 50.91(a)(3). Consequently, the statement that a hearing should be conducted before the amendments issue is merely another way of stating that a significant hazards consideration is involved.
Thus, the three paragraphs state, and restate, a single contention--but the matter sought to be raised is not one which may be decided in a hearing before a Licensing Board.
Public Law 97-415, signed on January 4, 1983, amended section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act (22 U.S.C. $ 2239(a)) so as to permit the Commission "to issue and make immediately effec-tive," i.e., without a prior hearing, amendments to operating licenses pursuant to procedures and standards specified by regulation. Obviously, it would make no sense to adopt pro-cedures providing a prior hearing concerning the question of whether a prior hearing must be granted, and the Commission did
< ! * *f ' .g _ . _ __
- -Q' - .
s9 .f%+ >
n y %. -- -
, _ g, g .
- ts -
. .x;%'" _
- , y . .
- g. ~ "b n7 ,,
.[ .
- not d so.
Rath,er,% - .
adopted' procedures which merely permit
- ~.
mM% .n s'public'.joicment on th'e'Coiam4ssion's proposed, determinations
. ' $ iegarding the existence /of 'significant -hb. aids considerations.
, <. m '. .
w, -v ,
Th6Acommission, w acting/ . th' rough tpo ' staff, considers the tj
- 1
- substance of any public' comments before" deciding whether a
./ - ,
w .
/ , 2 par!.icular proposed operating license amendment meets regulatory.
~t / ? .
/ 'stanikrds with respect ,to health, safety, and environmental e'f f ec t . If it is ddhided that the amendment-may be issued and no
, :u -
Q, ., ,
?, ' hearing is requested, 't. hen,' as noted above, no final deter-
, mination on significant iiszards cons,J.deration will be made.
j However, the pertinent regulation (10 C.F.R. $ 50.91(a)) provides
'e ,'
y ,, "
~
' /
y- y - that -
~ *
(4) ~.<Where: the Commission'raakes a final fi dsterminatics'that no significant hazards
~
T cunsideration j.s involved andethat the
._ amendment'should be issued, the amendment
[* wil-1 be effective upon issuance, even if Jadverse public comments have been received and even 1[flari int 2Eested' per' son meeting the
~
r
@p f -
provisions for".i'nt*yvention, called for in $
~
2.714 has filed a request for a. hearing. .The Commission need hold any, required hearing only.after itLissues an amendment, unless it
. determ'ines thit a significant hazarde j ".-
consideration'is iriGolved.
f
[ (Emphasissupplied[)-cItisthegeforeclearthat, once the " final 4 ~- , % .
[, , - determination
- is made, the' amendment i~s'suest no provision is
.. ..- ~
1,_ made,for a hearing prior'to issuance. 'The public notice accom-p j ?~
j panying the igsuance of-the pertinent regulation underscores this i
f/ "
intention: '
/
./
~ /- The Cc nmission wishes to state in this regard
- - " that any question. about its staf f's deter-
" mination s on the issue of significant ersus
, , 1,} .
, / . = e *"7' ',, no significant hazards consi~deration that may
+ *
/ J- . .
f* ?"/ .
. .,k., ~
y - r*
n,s. : ,L
- t 't i
i a\ ;,f; e i b- ..- .[ , ,.~4 , , , ,,, , . _ , . , , , , _ , , , . , _ _ _ , , _ _ _ . _ ,_# _ . . _,,,,,, _ . _ _ , _,
..- I be raised in any hearing on the amendment .
will not stay the effective date of the amendment.
48 Fed. Reg. at 14,876. ]
The same point was reiterated in the NRC's notice of consideration of the very license mnendments here involved and of the proposed no significant' hazards consideration determination.
It was there stated:
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the mmendment and make it ef fective, notwithstanding the request for a~ hearing.
Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
49 Fed. Reg. at 25,350.
The Petitioners' contention relates only to the validity of a possible " final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration," i.e., only as to whether a hearing should be conducted before or after the mnendments issue. Indeed, Paragraph 7 of the Petition expressly so states. But both the pertinent NRC r 2gulation and the notice make it clear that this is a question the Commission has reserved to itself, acting
< through the Staff. Consequently, the Petitioners have not stated a single contention cognizable by a Licensing Board.
... i
_ 11 _
B. The Petition fails to' state any i
admissible contention concerning the merits of the proposed amendments.
As discussed above, Petitioners' Petition is most appro-priately read as raising a single contention 1-- i.e., that the proposed amendment involves significant hazards considerations --
~which is beyond the jurisdiction of any Licensing Board and can -
only be rejected.-
However, it is possible that the Petitioners intend that the Petition be treated as a request for a hearing on the merits of 4
the amendment -- - to be held after - the amendment i s issued if the Commission,,through its Staff, determines that there is no significant hazards consideration. Under this reading of the Petition, subparagraphs A.1 through A.4 and B.1 of Paragraph:6
- identify. issues which Petitioners seek to litigate with regard to the merits of the proposed amendment. Viewed in this light, the i
Petition is nevertheless inadequate and fails to state at least one admissible contention.
Paragraph A.1 alleges that the proposed increase in the allowable k,ff fiam 0.95 to 0.98 "for the existing new [ fresh]
fuel storage racks" does not meet "the margin of safety that has been established by the NRC for criticality" (emphasis supplied).
Petitioners base-that allegation upon the Staff's report SECY-83-337, " Study of Significant Hazards" (August 15, 1983) and attached Report No. SAI-84-221-WA Rev. 1, " Review and Evaluation of Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Potential Hazards Considerations;" a 1978 NRC Staff Position; and American National Standard Institute i
L L
'1 1
documents. However, as Paragraph A.1 expressly' acknowledges, 0.95 k,gg is the criterien established for storage of fuel in spent fuel pools, and all of the docunants cited by Petitioners--
plus the Standard Review Plan 9.1.2, Spera ?uel Storage,
$ III.2.a--so confirm. For fresh fuel storage racks, the applicable criteria are 0.95 k,gg in fully flooded conditions; 0.98 k a (i.e.,*kbg,ssuming mist, optimum moderation or foam conditions).
Standard Review Plan 9.1.1, New Fuel Storage, { III.l.a. FPL's proposed amendment 4/ conforms to these criteria (id.) and the proposed contention is baseless.
Paragraph A.2 alleges that the proposed increase in allowable k,gg to 0.98 does not satisfy General Design Criterion (GDC) 62 (10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A) with respect to the prevention of criticality. Since the 0.98 standard has been adopted by the NRC Staff for fresh fuel storage racks (under optimum moderation conditions), this paragraph challenges the sufficiency of the. Staff's implementation of GDC 62. However, no >
basis is offered for that challenge, other than the mistaken reliance on the criterion applicable to spent fuel storage I
discussed above. 5/
4/ In a separate request for amendments, FPL set 4 authorization to expand the storage capacity the Turkey l Point spent fuel storage pools. Neither that amendment nor I
the one under consideration here, however, involves any change in the 0.95 k l fuel pools. 49 Fed.*ffg.iritingcriterionforthespent 23,715-16, 25,361.
5/ Petitioners also contend in Paragraph A-2:
i l
l
Paragraph A.3 contends that the amendments should not be granted "[b]ecause the license amendment will not meet the above referenced criteria . . . ." No basis is offered to support the statement and,-if any exists, it must be found in Paragraphs A.1 and A.2 or the reports referenced on page 4 of the Petition. As above indicated, however, none is provided there.
Paragraph A.4 challenges the NRC Staff's proposed deter-mination that the proposed amendments do not involve a signif-icant hazards consideration without adding any specifics regarding the perceived " hazards consideration." The proposed contention must therefore be based on Paragraphs A.1 and A.2 or the reports cited on page 4 of the Petition. For the reasons discussed above, however, they do not support the contention.
Furthermore, as explained earlier in Section III.B., the question of whether the amendments involve a significant hazards consid-eration cannot be litigated before this Licensing Board.
Finally, Petitioners contend in Paragraph B.1 that
'l that an accidental criticality, caused by a change in fuel geometry due to storage of the more highly enriched uranium fuel rods could release substantial amounts of radioactivity to the environment in violation of 10 C.F.R. Parts 20, 50, 51, 100, and NEPA, and will pose a danger to the health and safety of the l public and endanger the Biscayne Bay i environment.
l The language is not entirely clear, but it appears to relate to concern over accidental criticality due to an improperly high k As discussed, however, there is no basis for l sucha*bbn. cern.
i
+
.(
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) , imposes the requirement of an Environmental Impact Statement for this Major Federal Action.
Under NRC regulations, an environmental impact statement is required if a proposed licensing action is a. major " action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
10.C.F.R. $ 51.5(a)(12)(1984); 49 Fed. Reg. 9,352, 9,384 (1984)
(to be codified at 10 C.F.R. 51.20(a)). Petitioners allege--
incorrectly and without basis--that this is a " major Federal action." They simply ignore an essential part of that-standard and offer the unsubstantiated conclusion that this licensing action requires an EIS. The contention is therefore inadmissible.
NRC regulations (both those in effect when this application for amendments was filed and those recently adopted) identify a number of types of actions for which the Commission has determined that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be prepared; the amendments proposed are not among the listed types.
10 C.F.R. 51.5(a)(1984); 49 Fed. Reg. 9,352, 9,384 (1984) (to be codified at 10 C.F.R. $ 51.20(b)). The Staff has previously i
determined with respect to a number of amendments similarly authorizing storage of more highly enriched fuel that the action is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact.
See, e.g., Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. (R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant), Safety Evaluation Supporting Amendment No. 60 (Feb.
- 8, 1984); Letter, NRC to Arkansas Power & Light Co. regarding
.O Amendment No. 48 to operating license f'or-Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 (Nov. 7, 1983); Indiana and Michigan Electric Co.
(Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant), Safety Evaluation Related to Amendments No. 73 and 55 (May 4, 1983).
As recently revised, NRC regulations.also list categories of actions which are eligible for " categorical exclusion" from 4
preparation of either an " environmental assessment" or an EIS.
49 Fed. Reg. 9,352, 9,385 (1984) (to be codified at 10 C.F.R. I f
51.22(c)). Among those categories is:
(9) Issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a reactor pursuant to Part 50 of this chapter which changes a requirement with. respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the
- restricted area, as defined in Part 20 of this chapter,.or which changes an inspection or a surveillance requirement, provided that (i) the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be
' released offsite, and (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumu-lative occupational .adiation exposure.
Petitioners have provided no basis for concluding that the proposed amendments are not within this category and we submit that they are. 6/
i 6/ The contention contains no allegation of "special
. circumstances" which could justify preparation of an EIS in
! the case of an action which falls within the categorical ixclusion. 49 Fed. Reg. 9,352, 9,384 (1984) (to be codified
.as 10 C.F.R. $ 51.22(b)).
_.,m , , , - . _ . - .,er_ w , .,-n-_, , , w,, , , , -
1 In sum, Petitioners have failed to present any basis for the contentions offered in subparagraphs A.1 through A.4 and B.l.
Accordingly, they have failed to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714 and state a valid contention on the merits of the requested amendments with respect to increased enrichment.
IV. Conclusion It is our position that, following the prehearing con-ierence, the Board may determine that:
A. Although Petitioner Joette Lorion may have standing to request a hearing and intervene, Petitioner Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc.
has failed to demonstrate that it has standing and its request to intervene as of right is denied.
B. Petitioners seek only to litigate whether the request to delete the enrichment specification and accommodate storage of more highly enriched fuel involves a significant hazards consideration.
This Board has no jurisdiction to consider that question because the Commission has reserved it for the Staff's determination. The proffered contention is therefore inadmissible and Petitioners have failed to identify a single admissible contention.
I
. . _ . - __ . _ . , _ ., ~ . . _ . _ ,
1
.a
- 17 _
.. 1 C. Alternatively, Petitioners have failed to state any admissible contention regarding the merits of the proposed amendment.
D. The " Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene" filed by Center for Nuclear Respon-sibility, Inc. and Joette Lorion is therefore denied.
Respectfully submitted, Kathleen H. Shea W
Michael A. Bauser Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. ,
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 862-8400 Of Counsel:
Norman A. Coll Steel, Hector & Davis 1400 Southeast Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 (305) 577-2800 July 27, 1984 I
,-,,,.--e, . . . - - . . . . . . - - , . . . - . , . , , . , . , , . ,, -.. - , - -
r ..
/1 y
- w ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cct ,, g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'84 JLL 30 mg :ng In the Matter of )
) ' Fsi CF 55c;. .
Docket Nos. 50-250}'OLAy'3 A 3D; FLORIDA POWER &_ LIGHT COMPANY )
) 50-251 OLA iMCH (Turkey Point Plant, )
Units 3 and 4)- )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Notice is hereby given that Kathleen H. Shea enters an appearance as counsel for Florida Power & Light Company in the above-captioned proceeding.
Name: Kathleen H. Shea Address: Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 862-8400 Admissions: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Supreme Court of Kansas Name of Party: Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408 t E.fkA. -
Kataleen H. Shea Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: July 27, 1984
- . ~ . .- _ _ _ . _ . - _ _ - , ,,_ . _ .
- l_
-I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-3
) 50-251 OLA-3 (Turkey Point Plant, )
Units 3 and 4) )
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL Notice is hereby given that Michael A. Bauser enters an appearance as counsel for Florida Power & Light Company in the above-captioned proceeding.
Name: Michael A. Bauser Address: Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 862-8400 Admissions: Virginia Supreme Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Name of Party: Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408 9 . Ak+6%
MicMael A. Bauser Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Date: July 27, 1984
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOC 9 7rr.
U3MC*
In the Matter of )
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-250 Ld 3 0 R2:18
) 50-251 OLA-3 (Turkey Point Plant, ) - ,
Tg.. :f 7jk[,.-pffh
~' .'
Units 3 and 4) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Answer to Request for a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene with Respect to Increased Fuel Enrichment" in the above captioned proceeding, together with two notices of appearance of counsel, were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, on the date shown below.
Dr. Robert'M. Lazo, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtcn, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke '
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section (Original plus two copies)
Joette Lorion 7269 SW 54 Avenue Miami, Florida 33143
Mitzi A. Young Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Norman A. Coll Steel, Hector & Davis 1400 Southeast Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Dated this 27th day of July 1984 RE,LA.
- Kathleen H. Shea Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
!