ML20155C199
| ML20155C199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1988 |
| From: | Vogler B NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6481 OLA, NUDOCS 8806140119 | |
| Download: ML20155C199 (19) | |
Text
..
f yel 00LKEif.0 uMC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIBBl Juli -6x A11 :27 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING _ APPEAL. BOARD. s 1
U0CW'3g i; !"VICI In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-335-OLA FLORIDA POWEP AND LIGHT )
COMPANY ) (SFPExpansion)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.1) )
RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF TO LICENSEE'S APPEAL FROM LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO INTERVENE, REQUEST FOR liEARING AND CONTENTIONS f
Benjamin H. Vogler Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney May 24, 1988 .
e e
8806140119 880524 PDR ADOCK 05000335 yss7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-335-OLA FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT )
COMPANY ) (SFP Expansion)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1) )
RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF TO LICENSEE'S APPEAL FROM LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO INTERVENE, REQUEST FOR HEARING AND CONTENTIONS l
Benjamin H. Vogler Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney May 24, 19'8 8 I ..
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
, PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
~
III. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Standards Governing Contentions . . . ......... 2 B. Licensee's Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 1. Licensee's Standards For Admissibility Are Too Restrictive and Not In Accord with Commission Case Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- 2. It Was Not Error To Accept Contentions Phrased In The Same Language As That Used In Another Proceeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
- 3. Appeal Board Should Not Review All of the Admitted Contentions ............ 11 IV. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 l
l d
I
- s. . _ . - _ . _ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ _ , _ _-- . _ ___- _. . --- . . - , .
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
. PAGE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS:
Alabar.a Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-102, 7 AEC 210 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . 4, 8 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30, 12 NRC 683 (1980) . . . . . . . . . 10 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-52,16 NRC 183 (1982)' . . . . . . . . 6,8,9 Duke andPower Company 2), CLI-83 7 (Catawba 19, 17 NRC 1041 Nuclear (1983)Station, Units 1
............ 6 Duke Power Com3any (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALA3-687,16 NRC 460 (1982), vacated on other grounds, CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983) . . . . . . . . . 6, 7 Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-50, 15 NRC 566 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Duke Power Company (Amendment to Materials License SNH-1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Station), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146 (1979) . . . . . . . . . 4 Duquesne Light Co_.__ (Beaver Valley Power Station, l Unit No. 1), ALAB-109, 6 AFC 242 (1973) ........... 3 Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.1),
l Docket No. 50-335 OLA, Memorandum and Order, l slip op. (April 20,1988) .................. 1, 2, 7, 10 Fouston Lighting and Pcwcr Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 (1980) ...................... 4,8,9
~
Mississippi Pcwer and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423 (1973) ..... 4 Philadelphia Electric' Co. (Peech Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 20 (1974) . . . . . . 3, 4 l
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 6 AEC 188 1973);(Plent,aff'd, UnitsBPINos.1 andEnergy
- v. Atonic 2), ALAB-107, Commissien, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974) .......... 3 1
ii -
PAGE TexasUtilitiesElectricCo.,etal.(Comancbe Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1),
- ALAB-868, 25 NRC 912 (1987) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5,9 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor). (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-369, 26 NRC 13 reconsideration denied, ALAB-876, 26 NRC 277 (1987) ..... 9, 11 REGULATIONS:
10 C.F.R. 9 2.714(a)(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b) . . . . . . . ............... 2, 3 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 8 10 C.F.R. 9 50.92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 l
l 3
i
- e e I
i
, - - ~ , . , - , , , , , . - - , - - . . . - - - - - . - - - , . ~. . - , . , . - . - . , , , , , - , , - .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY A$D LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-335-OLA FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT )
COMPANY ) (SFPExpansion)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1) )
RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF TO LICENSEE'S APPEAL FROM LICENSING S0ARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO INTERVENE, REQUEST FOR HEARING AND CONTENTIONS I. INTRODUCTION On May 9,1988, the Florida Power & Light Company (Licensee), pursu-ant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714(a)(c) filed an appeal from the April 20, 1988, Memorandum and Order M of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, granting the petition of Campbell Rich for leave to intervene, request for -
a hearing and admitting seven of his contentions. For the reasons set forth below the NRC staff (Staff) opposes the Licensee's appeal.
II. BACKGROUND The St. Lucie Plant is owned and operated by the Florida Power &
Light Co., and is located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Flori-da. On March 11, 1988, in response to the Licensee's request, the Staff l issued amendment number 91, authorizing the requested spent fuel pool l
(SFP) expansion at S(. Lucie, Unit 1 to provide for an increase in storage l
capacity from 728 to 1706 fuel assemblies. Also, on March 11, 1988, and l
-1/ Florida Power & Light Co. (St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1), Docket No.
( 50-335 01.A, Memorandum and Order, slip op. (April 20,1988).
l l
l u _ __
2 contemporaneously with the issuance of the amendment, the Staff, in con-nection with the present amendment, made i final no significant hazards determination pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 50.92.
Pursuant to the direction of the Licensin.) Board, Campbell Rich, the Petitioner, filed an amended petition to intervene on January 15, 1988,
. which contained sixteen contentions. The Licensee and the Staff filed responses to the petition and a prehearing conference was held on March 29,1988, where the parties presented oral arguments in support of their positions. In its Memorandum and Order of April 20, 1988, the Li-censing Board admitted seven contentions, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 15. Two contentions, 7 and 12, were withdrawn by the Petitioner and Contention 5 was held in abeyance pending review of certain Staff materials, but has since been dismissed. The remaining contentions were not admitted. The Licensing Board, in agreement with the positions taken bv the Staff and Licensee, found that the Petitioner had the requisite standing to inter-l vene in this proceeding. Order at 3. As noted, on May 9, 1988, the Li-censee filed its appeal from the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of April 20, 1988 (Order). The Staff's Response is set forth below.
l III. DISCUSSION A. Standards Governing Contentions A brief review of the Commission's rules and regulations on the ad-l missibility of contentions will provide a proper context in which to con-l sider the Licensee's appeal. Each proposed contention must be set forth with reasonable specificity. 10 C.F.R. l 2.714(b). This regulation has been read to require for each contention "a reasonably specific articula-tion of its rationale -- e.g. , why the Applicant's plans fall short of l
l -_
certain safety requirements, or will have a particular detrimental effect 1
on the environment." 2/
Under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(b) and applicable Commi[sfon case law 3/ 3 petitioner for intervention in a Commission proceedieg must also set forth for each contention the basis which supports that contention. The purpos-es of the basis requirements of 10 C.F.R. Q 2.714 are (t) to assure that the contention in question raises a matter appropriate for litigation in a particular proceeding, S (2) to establish a sufficient foundation for the contention to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter addressed by the assertion and, (3) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice
-2/ Duke Power Com)any (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-82-50, 15 iRC 566 at 570 (1982).
-3/ See, e.g., Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generat-ing Plant, Ifnit Nos.1 and 2), ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188,194 (1973),
aff'd, BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir.
T9747; Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1),
ALAB-109, 6 AEC 242, 245 (1973).
4/ A contention must be rejected where:
(a) it constitutes an attack cr. applicable statutory requirements; (b) it challenges the basic structure of the Commis-sion's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations; (c) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the intervenor's views of what applicable policies cught to be; (d) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudication in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility in question; or (e) it seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or Mitigable.
t l Philadelph_ia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 l and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 20-21 (1974).
l l
-4
. . . so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra, at 20. From the stand-point of basis, it is unnecess,ary for the petition to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention. El Furthermore, in examining the contentions and the bases thereof, a licensing board should notreachthemeritsofthecontentions.5/ The Appeal Board in Farley 1/
noted that in assessing the acceptability of a contention as a basis for granting intervention:
[T]he intervention board's task is to determine, from a scru-tiny of what appears within the four corners of the contention as stated, whether (1) the requisite specificity exists; (2) there has been an adequate delineation of the basis for the contention; and (3) the issue sought to be raised is cog-nizable in an individual licensing proceeding. (Footnotes omitted).
If a contention meets these criteria, the contention provides a foundation for admission "irrespective of whether resort to extrinsic evidence might establish the contention to be insubstantial." Farley supra, at 217. El As the Appeal Board in Comanche Peak El concluded:
Thus, the bases requirement is merely a pleading requirement designed to make certain that a proffered issue is sufficient-
-5/ Mississip)i Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), A AB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973).
-6/ Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542, 548 (1980); Duke Power Co.
(Amendment to Materials License SNM-1773 - Transportation of Spent Fuel From Oconee Nuclear Station for Storage at McGuire Nuclear Sta-tico), ALAB-528, 9 NRC 146, 151 (1979); Peach Bottom, supra, at 20; Grand Gulf, supra, at 426.
-7/
Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216-217 (1974).
8/ Id. at 2177
'-9/
Texas Utilities Electric Co., et al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), ALAR-868, 25 NRC 912, 930-931 (1987).
ly articulated to provide the other parties with its broad outlines and to provide the Licensing Board with enough infor-mation for determining whether the issue is appropriately litigable in the instant proceeding. The requirement general-ly is fulfilled when the sponsor of an otherwise scceptable contention provides a brief recitation of the factors underly-ing the contention or references to documents and texts that provide such reasons. But the fact that a contention complies with the bases requirement of section 2.714(b) does not mean that the issue is destined to go to hearing -- such a conten-tion is subject to being rejected on the merits prior to trial under the sumary disposition provisions of the Rules of Practice.
The bases requirement most assuredly "should not be read and construed as establishing secretive and complex technicalities such as in some other areas of the law are associated with special pleading requirements for which some practitioners have an almost superstitious reverence." The regulation does not require the detailing of admissible evidence as suppcrt for a contention. And, in assessing the admissibility of a contention, it is not permissible for a licensing board to reach the merits of the contention. As we have held repeated-ly, "[w]hether the contention ultimately can be proven on the merits is 'not the appropriate inquiry at the contention-admission stage.'"
Decause the Licensing Board exercises a substantial amount of discretion in determining the adequacy of the bases for a contention, our review of its ruling on this score is limited in whether the Board abused its discretion. Neither the ap-plicants nor the staff mentions the required review standard in calling for reversal of the Licensing Board's determina-tion. But, in order for us to reverse the lower-Board, we nust be persuaded that no reasonable person could take the view adopted by it. (fontnotesomitted)
With these criteria in mind, the Staff will consider the Licensee's appeal.
B. Licensee's Appeal
- 1. Licensee's View Of The Standards For Admissibility Of Contentions Is Too Restrictive And Not In Accord With Commission, Case Law The Licensee's Appeal does not analyze each admitted contention to demonstrate that not one admitted contention satisfies the standards for admissibility; rather, the Licen<ee asserts that all are deficient because the Licensing Board did not employ the criteria urged on it by the
Licensee. Licensee achnowledges that the Commission has developed a lib-eral policy governing the admission pf co'ntentions and tha; a hissible evidence need not be submitted to support a centention; that licensing boards exercise a considerable amount of discretion in evaluating conten-tions and that the Appeal Board's review thereof is limited to whether the Licensing Board abused its discretion. Appeal Brief at 3-4. Although Licensee states that it is not in any way challenging this general doc-trine, Id. at 3, the criteria it pronosts does, in fact, impose a far more stringent standard for evaluatia; this pro s_e Intervenor's proffered contentions.
Basically, the Luensee, relying upon a Licensing Board's opin-fon in Dresden N and the Appeel Board's decision in Catawba N avers that in this proceeding the Petitioner had a duty to examine the publicly available documentary eaterial relevant to his tontentions and in .those cases where the Licensee or the Staf f have identified an issue raised by the contention, why any proposed resoluticn of the issue is inadequate.
Appeal Brief at 3. Accordingly, the Licensee asserts that in addition to providing a basis with reasorable specificity - or in order to determine whether a contention has reasonable specificity -- a petitioner must ad-
. dress publicly evailable documents in order to form an acceptable basis for its cententions. Because of the Petitioner's failure to discharge t.fr duty and the Licensing Board's failure to impose it, Licensee assef"L t .,
... trncnwealth Edison Co. (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
- .BP~B2-52 , J6 NRC 183 (1982).
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Huclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 46'0-[1T877, vacated on other grounds, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1041 (1983).
that the Order herein should be reversed and the proceeding terminated.
Id. at 3-4. None of the cases cited by the' Licensee support such a propo-sition and indeed the Licensee's views on the admissibility of contentions are at variance with prevailing Commission case law on the subject. See, Part A, supra.
. In _ Catawba , the Appeal Beard considered whether a contention could be conditionally admitted, subject to its later being fleshed out through discovery against the Staff or based upon the issuance of a subse-quently filed document. In response to this issue the Appeal Board re-jected the admission of conditional contentions and noted that an intervention petitioner has en "iron clad" obligation to examine the mate-rial that is presently available for inforcation that could serve as a foundation for a specific contention at the time of filino, rather than wait and attempt to furnish a more specific basis at a later date. EI The filing of a vague, conditional contention with the expectation of fleshing it out later through the discovery process or the subsequent issuance of a Staff document is not an issue in this proceeding. Unlike Catawba, the Licensing Board did not attempt to excuse inadequate conten-tions, permitting them to be fleshed out later on the basis of later documents. El In this case, the contentions have been judged on the basis of the "four corners of the contentions as stated," Farley, supra,
=
g/ Catawba, ALAB-687, at 468.
-13/ The Board reserved one contention; number 5, pending review of a Staff aralysis that was sent to petitioner after the prehearing con-ference. The Licensing Board gave petitierer until May 19, 1988 to pursue thd Yenrved contention and ad;ise the Board or have the con-tention dismissed. Order at 15-16. Because May 19 has passed and no indication */ rom Petitioner of his plans have been received, Staff considers Centention 5 as dismissed.
.8-at 216-217, and the discussicns at the prehearing conference. Nor does the Staff believe that Catawba, requires 'that an admissible contention must address all of the available information relevant to a contention.
The Appeal Board considered and rejected that issue in Allens Creek, su-pra. For prcposed contentions that provide an adequate basis at the ad-mission stage, but are without merit when all of the undisputed facts are brought to light, the appropriate remedy is sumary disposition.
10 C.F.R. Section 2.749. The Licensee's attemp't to use Catawba in this manner is not supported by that case.
Similarly, Dresden is not applicable to this appeal. In that case, after an amended petition had been filed and responses thereto from the Stuff and Licensee received, the Licensee announced that it could not carry out its planned chemical decontamination (the subject of the re-ques ted amendirent) for approximately two years. In view thereof, the Licensing Board requested the petitioners to comment on the impact of the delay on their pending contentions, since one of the contentions dealt with the long term effects of delay upon treated reactor equipment. Sub-sequently, the petitioners filed another amended petition which did not address the Licensing Board's request, but siaply restated their conten-tions without change. EI In these circumstances, the Licensing Board noted that more wa> required to state an acceptable contention; the Peti-tierer should have addressed the issue with specificity and basis. In addition, the proffered contentions were fcund to be nothing more than conclusions rather than cententions and failed to give notice of factual issues that should be litigated and thus did not satisfy the requirements M/ Dresden, LPB-82-52, at 188.
, - . - - . - . , . ~ . ~ - . - - - - - - -
of 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714. El In the present proceeding, the Intervenor has set forth, in Staff's opinion, a reasonably specific basis for six contentions found acceptable by the Licensing Board 'E/. This is very different from the situation in the Dresden case.
Because of the circumstances in this proceeding that are differ-ent from the circumstances delineated above in Catawba and Dresden Staff believes that these two decisions do not support the Licensee's position that the contentions accepted by the Licensing Board should be dismissed because of the failure to address all the publicly aveilable information.
Commission case law does not support such a proposition. See, e.g.,
Allens Creek, supra, and Comanche Peak, supra. E l
- 2. It Was Not Error to Accept Contentions Phrased in the Same Languace As That Used In Another Proceeding Licensee alleges that another reason <?.at the contentions admit-ted by the Licensing Board are defective stems from the fact that a number of Petitioner's contentions were cribbed from Licensee's Turkey Point proceeding without further explanation. Appeal Brief at 6-7. The Licens-ing Board'c response to this argurent is that the copying of contentions from prior proceedings is not grounds for barring the contention in the present proceeding. Licensee does not take issue with such ruling (Appeal Brief at 6) but asserts that the Order "appears to treat copying as en-l :
1_5/ Id.
-16/ Of course, in oYder for this matter to proceed further before the Licensing Board, cnly one contentian need be found admissible.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power i
Station), rALAB-869, 26 NRC 13 (1987); reconsideration denied,
- ALAB-876, 26 NRC 277 (1987).
l
! 17/ See, fns. 6, 9 supra.
i
e tirely irrelevant to the consideration of admissibility of contentions.
This position... is erroneous and makes the Order further deserving of Appeal Board consider: tion." But beyond the assertion that copying should have been considered relevant in determining admissibility, the Licensee's Brief provides nc analysis of any particular contention and why copying would render such contention inapplicable or otherwise inadmissible.
Before the Licensing Board, the Licensee argued that contention 6 should not have been aomitted since it was copied from .the Turkey Point proceed-ing and that in the Turkey Point proceeding nine witnesses testified that the contention was without merit. (Licensee's Answer To Petition To In-tervene, at 33, (February 1,1988)). The Licensing Board held that copy-ing did not bar the contention and that since the St. Lucie spent fuel pool differs frca the Turkey Point plant the Turkey Point decision is not a bar to considering the issue in the St. Lucie proceeding. Citing, Conronwealth Edison Co. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-80-30,12 NRC 683, 689 (1980). Provided a contention raises matters relevant to the amendment at issue and satisfies the basis and specificity requirerrents, originality is not a pleading requirement for contentions, j
moreover in this proceeding the Licensing Board found specificity and basis to the present proceeding for all of Petitioners admitted Turkey Point contentions. See, e.g., Contention 6, Order at 17-18. Since Li-
- consee does not offer any other challenge to all of the admitted R
's i
, - . - . . ., p ,
contentions, E/ the Licensee's request to reverse the Licensing Board and dismiss the proceeding should be denied. ,
- 3. Appeal Board Should Not Review All Of The Admitted Contentions 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714a provides for appeals from Orders of Licensing Boards granting a petitior for leave to intervene and/or request for hearing on the question of whether the petition should have been whol-ly denied. Having failed to establish that there are no admissible con-tentions, the Licensee's appeal under 10 C.F.R. Section 2.714a should be dismissed. However, should the Appeal Board find at least one contention admissible the Licensee has requested that, notwithstanding the normal practice that once an admissible contention is found consideration of other contentions would not be tsken, it exercise its discretion and re-view the admissibility of each of the contentions individually. Appeal Brief at 14-15. El The basis for the Licer.see's reouest is that "judicial economy favors such exercise." To support the unusual step of Appeal Coard review of all admitted contentions at the cutset of a pro-ceeding the Licensee should offer strong reasons or cogent argument but offers neither. Licensee's bald statements that judicial economy favors t
such a review and that it would benefit NRC adjudicatory proceedings gen-erally (Appeal Brief at 14-15) are made without explanation or supporting argument. This is insufficient basis to warrant the exercise of Appeal l
18/ Although the Staff would cgree with Licensee's challenge to the Board I ruling on addressing construction crane accidents in transferring l fuel from unit 1 to unit 2, (Order at 15) that objection can and should be handled through the normal appeal process, not under 10 C.F.R..Section 2.714a nor as an interlocutory appeal.
~
19/ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Cor . (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 5tation) ALAB-869, 26 NRC I 17) reconsideration p nied, ALAB-876, 26 NRC 277 (.'987).
Board discretion, cf. , Vermont Yankee, supra. While the Licensee does not mention or refer to an interlocutory apheal, quite, clearly the finding of an admissible contention renders consideration of other contentions as interlocutory in nature. Licensee has made no effort to satisfy the re-quirements for such an appeal and the request should be denied on that basis alone. El IV. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, the Staff with the exception of Licensee's appeal of one aspect of Contention S, opposes Licensee's appeal of the Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of April 20, 1988, and urges that it be denied.
Respectfully submitted, f
fffM/nY f
Benjamin H. VogleF' 7 Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Roci,ville, Maryland this 24th day of May, 1988 20/
In view of the fact that Licensee has failed to address this issue Staff will not discuss the matter further.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPP5ALBOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-335-OLA FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT )
COMPANY ) (SFP Expansion)
)
(St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "RESPONSE OF NRC STAFF TO LICENSEE'S AP-PEAL FROM LICENSING BOARD'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO INTERVENE, REQUEST FOR HEARING AND CONTENTIONS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 24th day of May,1988:
B. Paul Cotter, Jr. , Chairman Glenn 0. Bright Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Penel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coninission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*
Richard F. Cole Michael A. Bauser, Esq.
Administrative Judge Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
Board Panel 1615 L Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20555*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20555*
AtomicSafetyandLidensing Campbell Rich Appeal Board Panel 4626 S.E. Pilot Avenue l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stuart, Florida 34997
! Washington, D.0. 20555*
l
J Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board -
Panel Docket ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555* -
7GM/E Benjamin H. Vogler Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney F
4 j .
1 .
d t
I y.
t I
- - - - - - - - - - - , , , , - . - - - - , - - , - , , , . . - - , _ . . - - , . - - . , - - - - . . . , - .