|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:(p>1,]///~~,~5.K~" JU'g ()8 S~~~UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S M~gp g RNVLA<oa~'UCLEAR RE GULATORY COMMI S S ION l BEPG THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c o In t'r of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY)(p (Proposed Amendments to Facility (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating | | {{#Wiki_filter:(p ]/ |
| )Operating Licenses to Permit Unit Nos.3 and 4 Steam Generator Repair))REPLY TO MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR
| | >1, //~~ |
| 'RESPONSE Intervenor, Mark P.Oncavage, replies to the NRC Staff Motion To Strike Intervenor's Res onse To NRC Staff and A licant Ob'ections To Amended Contention 1 and shows the following. | | ,~5.K~ " |
| The NRC staff contends that its Ob ections To Pro osed Amended Contention 1 was not in the nature of a motion.It seeks to strike any answer to its filing.The Intervenor asserts that the staff's filing was in the nature of a motion and that an answer to tEat filing was permissible. | | JU'g () 8 S~~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l t'r 'UCLEAR |
| In its Memorandum and Order dated April 2, 1981 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board said at page 4 regarding amendments to Contention 1: The Intervenor is also granted leave to file'on or before April 20, 1981, appropriate amendments to Contention 1 in order to plead with specificity the respects in which the FES (due to be filed by the staff by April 1)does not legally or factually comply with NEPA (Tr.36, 38-9-43).The staff is granted leave to file a motion for summary dis-position of Contention 1 as thus amended, qQ+c 4i"ii/'k C on or before.May 1, 1981 (Tr.44-5,'47,50). | | ~ |
| The Intervenor shall file its response to the staff's motion for summary dis-posit'ion of Contention 1 as amended by May 20, 1981 (Tr.52).The staff was not given leave to file objections to the amendments to Contention 1.Nothing in this order can be the source of the ,staff'.s authority.to file the objections that it did file.Intervention in a proceeding before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is governed by 10 C.F.R.g2.714.Paragraph (b)of that regulation requires an intervenor to file a list of contentions which he seeks to have litigated.
| | S M~gp g RNVLA<oa~ RE GULATORY COMMIS S ION BEPG THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c o In of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) (Proposed Amendments to Facility (p |
| Nothing in paragraph (b)gives the staff the authority to file objections to those contentions.
| | (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating ) |
| Paragraph (c)merely permits the staf f to file an answer to a petition to intervene, with particular reference to the factors set forth in paragraph (d)of the regulation.
| | Operating Licenses to Permit Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Steam Generator Repair) |
| Paragraph (d)makes no mention of the list of contentions.
| | ) |
| Nothing in 10 C.F.R.g2.714 grants the staf f the authority to file obj ections to an amended contention.
| | REPLY TO MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR ' RESPONSE Intervenor, Mark P. Oncavage, replies to the NRC Staff Motion To Strike Intervenor's Res onse To NRC Staff and A licant Ob'ections To Amended Contention 1 and shows the following. |
| The staff's objection was not an answer pursuant to 10 C.F.R.g2.705 nor a reply pursuant to 10 C.F.R.)2.706.The only remain-ing procedure under which its objections could have been filed was the motion practice provided for in 10 C.F.R.$2.730.The staff did not file its objection for no reason at all.The objection was filed to obtain a result.The result sought was the striking or dismissal of the amended contention.
| | The NRC staff contends that its Ob ections To Pro osed Amended Contention 1 was not in the nature of a motion. It seeks to strike any answer to its filing. The Intervenor asserts that the staff's filing was in the nature of a motion and that an answer to tEat filing was permissible. |
| Common sense would indicate that though it gave its document
| | In its Memorandum and Order dated April 2, 1981 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board said at page 4 regarding amendments to Contention 1: |
| | The Intervenor is also granted leave to file 'on or before April 20, 1981, appropriate amendments to Contention 1 in order to plead with specificity the respects in which the FES (due to be filed by the staff by April 1) does not legally or factually comply with NEPA (Tr. 36, 38-9-43). The staff is granted leave to file a motion for summary dis- qQ+ |
| | position of Contention 1 as thus amended, c |
|
| |
|
| F a different name, the staff was attempting to file a motion similar in nature to.the motions to dismiss and to strike de-scribed in Rule 12(b)and (f)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
| | "ii 4i |
| The Licensee, using its common sense, thought that the staff's filing was a motion to dismiss.At page 0 of its Licensee's Res onse In Su ort of NRC Motion For Summar Dis-osition of Amended Contention 1 and Ob'ections To The Amended Contention the Licensee says: This pleading may be treated both as a response in support of the NRC Staff's motion to dismiss Contention 1 and as'n objection to t e admissibility of the proposed amendments.(emphasis supplied).The Licensee tries to back off this statement in its most recent....filing, but a fair reading o f the common meaning of the Licensee'words shows that the Intervenor is not the only one who has viewed the staff's objections as a motion to dismiss.10 C.F.R.52.730(c)permits.a party to file an answer in support of or in opposition to a motion.Pursuant to this rule the Intervenor.chose to file an answer to the staff's motion to dismiss.The NRC staff may have made a tactical error in filing both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment at the same.timebut this is no reason for denying the Intervenor an opportunity to reply separately to each motion.The staff next asserts that the answer to its motion should be stricken, because the alternatives of energy conservation and II solar generation"are patently beyond the legal scope of a license amendment environmental review." NRC Staff Motion To Strike at p.3 The requirement of 42 U.S.C.g 4332 is that the agencies of the United.States include in~ever recommendation or report on major federal actions significantly affecting the environment a detailed statement on alternatives to the proposed action.Conservation and solar energy production are proposed by the Intervenor as an alternative not to the original construction of the units at Turkey Point, but to the repairs that are presently.under consideration.
| | /' |
| The Intervenor merely asks that the staff comply with the mandate of 40 C.F.R'.$1502e.14 and rigorously explore and objectively evahate conservation and solar energy as an alternative to these repairs.In assessing alternative courses of action, the staff is not limited to considering only those actions that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can order or effectuate.
| | k C |
| The NRC staff must consider alternatives that are outside.its jurisdiction or control and beyond the area of its particular expertise.
| |
| Sierra Club v..L'~n, 502 F'.2d 43s62 (5th Cir.1974)an Environ-mental Defense Fund v.Cor s of En ineers 492 F.2d 1123,]]'35(5th Cir.1974).Given these standards, the Intervenor asserts that an analysis of the alternatives that he proposes are within the scope of the environmental study:that is required for this 41 4l li cens e amendment.The staff objects to a"fresh reconsideration of.alter-'." natives to nuclear generation" at page 4 of its latest filing In State of Mi;nnesota v.U.S.Nuclear Re ulator Commission 602 F.2d 4 12 (D.C..Cir.
| |
| 1979), the court, speaking to the scope of an environmental review said: There is no implication that Congress intended that the NRC ignore new knowledge or analysis in its licensing decisions Ibid at 419.The Final Environmental Statement relating to the initial operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and'was published in 1972 Many things have changed in the past nine years.Among them are concern and understanding of productive conservation; advances in technology with regard to conservation and'olar energy production;" increases in the price of uranium;increases in the cost of replacement-power produced from fossil fuels;increases in the cost of constructing and repairing large capital plants;and knowledge that the tubin in a W s g'tinghouse nuclear steam generator is sub-gect to repeated and severe damage during the operation of the plants..What the staff is really asking is that we all close our eyes to reality, ignore all the changes that have occurred during-the past nine years and relax the requirements of NEPA'hat an in-depth analysis be made of.all reasonable alternatives.to the proposed action.
| |
| 0 4<<~
| |
| The licensee, in support of the staff on this point, argues that NEPA does not require that the same ground covered'n an initial FES be wholly replowed in connection with a pro-posed amendment to a license.(See Licensee's Motion'To'Strike Or Re'ect Intervenor's Unauthorized Pleadin at p..16).The"Alternatives To Proposed Action And Cost-Benefit Analysis Of The Environmental Effects" is contained in Part X of the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Turke Point Plant.Florida Power and Li ht Com an, Dockets No.50-250 and 50-251, Jul 1972.That FES says at p.X-1: In this section, alternatives to the proposed action will be described in terms of their feasibility, economic costs, and environmental impact.The alternative actions consist of Building a,new plant at an alternative site Using'an alternative fuel at an existing site Once through cooling using intake water from Biscayne Bay and discharging to Card Sound~Once through coiling with both intake and discharge in Card Sound..Recirculation system using forced-draft cooling towers and brackish water make-up The FES prepared in July, 1972 did not explore the alter-native action of productive conservation and solar energy.This is not unusual.A''he U.S.Supreme Court pointed out in Vermonr Yankee Nuclear Power Cor.v.NRUC 435 U8 519, 552 (1978),
| |
|
| |
|
| .prior to 1973 very little serious thought was given to these alternatives. | | on or before. May 1, 1981 (Tr.44-5,'47,50). |
| But as the Supreme Court pointed out in the same opinion, at the same page, the events of recent years have emphasized not only the need.but also a large variety of alternatives for, energy conservation.
| | The Intervenor shall file its response to the staff 's motion for summary dis-posit'ion of Contention 1 as amended by May 20, 1981 (Tr. 52) . |
| The Intervenor does not seek to replow ground that was covered by the 1972 FES.He seeks to force the staff to examine alternatives that were not considered in the 1972 FES and delib-erately ignored in.the 1981 FES.,'despite an opinion of the U.S.Supreme Court which has taken notice of the need for and large variety of alternatives in the area of energy conservation.
| | The staff was not given leave to file objections to the amendments to Contention 1. Nothing in this order can be the source of the |
| The alternatives the Intervenor asks the staff to examine arise directly from the proposed change.The licensee is going to spend$731 MILLION of its customers.'oney in.the proposed repair project.This money is being spent directly as a result of the decision to make the repairs for which the licensee seeks approval.The Intervenor suggests that this money can be spent in an alternative manner that will be more cost-effective and provide greater benefits to the licensee's customers and the public at large.The alternatives of productive conservation and solar energy are, thus, alternatives to the proposed repair of the Turkey Point steam generators. | | ,staff '.s authority .to file the objections that it did file. |
| And as alternatives to the ro osed re air they could not have been previously explored in the 1972 FES.Like all other factors in our life, the need for power in Florida 0~I I 1 IP i is s'ubj ect to change over time.The Intervenor is not challenging the need for power in Florida in the year 1972, nor the need for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 in 1972.The Intervenor does not even challenge the need for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 today or.in the immediate future..He.does suggest, though, that as an alternative to the proposed repairs the units can be slowly and systematically dexated over~and that, the money saved from not making the repairs can be invested in alternative projects that will be phased-in to replace the energy that will no.longer be produced by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.This process w'ill be done so that as Turkey Point reaches the end of its normal life span the replacement sources of energy will be on-line and capable of meeting the needs of the FPL customers.
| | Intervention in a proceeding before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is governed by 10 C.F.R. g2. 714. Paragraph (b) of that regulation requires an intervenor to file a list of contentions which he seeks to have litigated. Nothing in paragraph (b) gives the staff the authority to file objections to those contentions. Paragraph (c) merely permits the staf f to file an answer to a petition to intervene, with particular reference to the factors set forth in paragraph (d) of the regulation. Paragraph (d) makes no mention of the list of contentions. Nothing in 10 C. F. R. g2. 714 grants the staf f the authority to file obj ections to an amended contention. |
| The Intervenor has filed an answer to a motion to strike.Such a filing is permitted.
| | The staff's objection was not an answer pursuant to 10 C.F.R. |
| The alternatives-suggested bP the Intervenor | | g2.705 nor a reply pursuant to 10 C.F.R. )2.706. The only remain-ing procedure under which its objections could have been filed was the motion practice provided for in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.730. |
| *are wi.'thin the scope'f'a'pr'oper NEPA analysis.The alternative aug.gest.ed by.the.Intervenor were not co.nsidered in the 1972 FES.As time passes, the NRC should not ignore changes in.technology, availability of resources and costs of production.
| | The staff did not file its objection for no reason at all. |
| The alternatives the Intervenor suggests arise'irectly from the proposed repair.Consequently, the NRC staff's motion to strike should be denied.Law Offices of Neil Chonin, P.A.Attorneys for Intervenors 1400 Amerifirst Building One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 30-377-3023 By NEIL.CH NIN 0 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter o f FLORIDA POWER'LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos..3 and Q))Docket Nos.50-250-SP)50-251-SP'roposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generator)Repairs).CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Reply to Motion to Strike Intervenor's Response was mailed on" this the day of May, 1981, to the following addresses:
| | The objection was filed to obtain a result. The result sought was the striking or dismissal of the amended contention. Common sense would indicate that though it gave its document |
| .Marshall E.Miller, Esq., Administrative Judge Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.205'55 Dr.Emmeth A.Luebke, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Dr.Oscar H;Paris, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Mark P.Oncavage 12200 S.W.110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Harold F..Reis, Esq.Steven P.Frantz, Esq., Lowenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N..W.Washington, D.C.20036 Steven C.Goldberg, Esq.Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 I
| | |
| Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,, D.C.20555 Burt Saunders, Esq.Assistant Dade, County Attorney 1626 Dade County Courthouse Miami, Florid'a.331'30'enry H.Har page, Esq.Peninsula Federal Building 10th Floor 200 S.E.1st Street Miami, Florida 33131 Norman S.Coll, Esq.Steel, Hector S Davis Co-Counsel for Licensee 1400 S.E.1st National Bank Building Miani, Florida 33131 LAW OFFICES OF NEIL CHONIN, P.A.Attorneys for Intervenor Suite 1400 Amerifirst Bldg.One S.E.3rd Avenue Miami., FL 33131 Tel: 30-377-3023 By NEIL H.CHONIN}} | | a different name, the staff was attempting to file a motion F |
| | similar in nature to .the motions to dismiss and to strike de-scribed in Rule 12(b) and (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
| | The Licensee, using its common sense, thought that the staff's filing was a motion to dismiss. At page 0 of its Licensee's Res onse In Su ort of NRC Motion For Summar Dis-osition of Amended Contention 1 and Ob'ections To The Amended Contention the Licensee says: |
| | This pleading may be treated both as a response in support of the NRC Staff's motion to dismiss Contention 1 and as'n objection to t e admissibility of the proposed amendments. |
| | (emphasis supplied) . |
| | The Licensee tries to back off this statement in its most recent .... |
| | filing, but a fair reading o f the common meaning of the Licensee ' |
| | words shows that the Intervenor is not the only one who has viewed the staff's objections as a motion to dismiss. |
| | 10 C.F.R. 52. 730(c) permits .a party to file an answer in support of or in opposition to a motion. Pursuant to this rule the Intervenor .chose to file an answer to the staff's motion to dismiss. The NRC staff may have made a tactical error in filing both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment at the same .time but this is no reason for denying the Intervenor an opportunity to reply separately to each motion. |
| | The staff next asserts that the answer to its motion should be stricken, because the alternatives of energy conservation and |
| | |
| | II solar generation "are patently beyond the legal scope of a license amendment environmental review." NRC Staff Motion To Strike at p. 3 The requirement of 42 U. S. C. g 4332 is that the agencies of the United .States include in ~ever recommendation or report on major federal actions significantly affecting the environment a detailed statement on alternatives to the proposed action. |
| | Conservation and solar energy production are proposed by the Intervenor as an alternative not to the original construction of the units at Turkey Point, but to the repairs that are presently .under consideration. The Intervenor merely asks that the staff comply with the mandate of 40 C. F.R'. $ 1502e.14 and rigorously explore and objectively evahate conservation and solar energy as an alternative to these repairs. |
| | In assessing alternative courses of action, the staff is not limited to considering only those actions that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can order or effectuate. The NRC staff must consider alternatives that are outside .its jurisdiction or control and beyond the area of its particular expertise. |
| | Sierra Club v.. L'~n, 502 F'.2d 43s62 (5th Cir. 1974) an Environ-mental Defense Fund v. Cor s of En ineers 492 F.2d 1123,]]'35(5th Cir. 1974). |
| | Given these standards, the Intervenor asserts that an analysis of the alternatives that he proposes are within the scope of the environmental study:that is required for this |
| | |
| | 41 4l licens e amendment . |
| | The staff objects to a "fresh reconsideration of .alter- '." |
| | natives to nuclear generation" at page 4 of its latest filing In State of Mi;nnesota v. U. S. Nuclear Re ulator Commission 602 F. 2d 4 12 (D.C..Cir. 1979), the court, speaking to the scope of an environmental review said: |
| | There is no implication that Congress intended that the NRC ignore new knowledge or analysis in its licensing decisions Ibid at 419. |
| | The Final Environmental Statement relating to the initial operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and' was published in 1972 Many things have changed in the past nine years. Among them are concern and understanding of productive conservation; advances in technology with regard to conservation and'olar energy production;" |
| | increases in the price of uranium; increases in the cost of replacement -power produced from fossil fuels; increases in the cost of constructing and repairing large capital plants; and knowledge |
| | ' |
| | that the tubin g in a W s tinghouse nuclear steam generator is sub-gect to repeated and severe damage during the operation of the plants.. What the staff is really asking is that we all close our eyes to reality, ignore all the changes that have occurred during-the past nine years and relax the requirements of NEPA'hat an in-depth analysis be made of .all reasonable alternatives .to the proposed action. |
| | |
| | 0 4<< ~ |
| | |
| | The licensee, in support of the staff on this point, argues that NEPA does not require that the same ground covered'n an initial FES be wholly replowed in connection with a pro-posed amendment to a license. (See Licensee's Motion 'To 'Strike Or Re'ect Intervenor's Unauthorized Pleadin at p.. 16). |
| | The "Alternatives To Proposed Action And Cost-Benefit Analysis Of The Environmental Effects" is contained in Part X of the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Turke Point Plant .Florida Power and Li ht Com an, Dockets No. |
| | 50-250 and 50-251, Jul 1972. That FES says at p. X-1: |
| | In this section, alternatives to the proposed action will be described in terms of their feasibility, economic costs, and environmental impact. The alternative actions consist of Building a,new plant at an alternative site Using'an alternative fuel at an existing site Once through cooling using intake water from Biscayne Bay and discharging to Card Sound |
| | ~ Once through coiling with both intake and discharge in Card Sound |
| | .. Recirculation system using forced-draft cooling towers and brackish water make-up The FES prepared in July, 1972 did not explore the alter-native action of productive conservation and solar energy. This is not unusual. A''he U. S. Supreme Court pointed out in Vermonr Yankee Nuclear Power Cor . v. NRUC 435 U8 519, 552 (1978), |
| | |
| | .prior to 1973 very little serious thought was given to these alternatives. But as the Supreme Court pointed out in the same opinion, at the same page, the events of recent years have emphasized not only the need. but also a large variety of alternatives for, energy conservation. |
| | The Intervenor does not seek to replow ground that was covered by the 1972 FES. He seeks to force the staff to examine alternatives that were not considered in the 1972 FES and delib-erately ignored in .the 1981 FES .,'despite an opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court which has taken notice of the need for and large variety of alternatives in the area of energy conservation. |
| | The alternatives the Intervenor asks the staff to examine arise directly from the proposed change. The licensee is going to spend $ 731 MILLION of its customers.'oney in. the proposed repair project. This money is being spent directly as a result of the decision to make the repairs for which the licensee seeks approval. The Intervenor suggests that this money can be spent in an alternative manner that will be more cost-effective and provide greater benefits to the licensee's customers and the public at large. The alternatives of productive conservation and solar energy are, thus, alternatives to the proposed repair of the Turkey Point steam generators. And as alternatives to the ro osed re air they could not have been previously explored in the 1972 FES. |
| | Like all other factors in our life, the need for power in Florida |
| | |
| | 0 ~ I I |
| | 1 |
| | |
| | IP is s'ubj ect to change over time. The Intervenori is not challenging the need for power in Florida in the year 1972, nor the need for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 in 1972. The Intervenor does not even challenge the need for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 today or .in the immediate future. .He .does suggest, though, that as an alternative to the proposed repairs the units can slowly and systematically dexated over repairs can be |
| | ~ and be that, the money saved from not making the invested in alternative projects that will be phased-in to replace the energy that will no .longer be produced by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. This process w'ill be done so that as Turkey Point reaches the end of its normal life span the replacement sources of energy will be on-line and capable of meeting the needs of the FPL customers. |
| | The Intervenor has filed an answer to a motion to strike. Such a filing is permitted. The alternatives-suggested bP the Intervenor |
| | * are wi.'thin the scope'f 'a'pr'oper NEPA analysis. The alternative aug.gest.ed by. the. Intervenor were not co.nsidered in the 1972 FES. |
| | As time passes, the NRC should not ignore changes in .technology, availability of resources and costs of production. The alternatives the Intervenor suggests arise'irectly from the proposed repair. |
| | Consequently, the NRC staff's motion to strike should be denied. |
| | Law Offices of Neil Chonin, P.A. |
| | Attorneys for Intervenors 1400 Amerifirst Building One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 30 -377-3023 By NEIL . CH NIN |
| | |
| | 0 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter o f ) Docket Nos. 50-250-SP 50-251-SP |
| | ) |
| | FLORIDA POWER' LIGHT COMPANY 'roposed Amendments to (Turkey Point Nuclear Facility Operating Licenses Generating Units Nos..3 and to Permit Steam Generator Q) |
| | ) |
| | Repairs). |
| | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Reply to Motion to Strike Intervenor's Response was mailed on" this the day of May, 1981, to the following addresses: . |
| | Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Administrative Judge Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 205'55 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H; Paris, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mark P. Oncavage 12200 S. W. 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Harold F.. Reis, Esq. |
| | Steven P. Frantz, Esq., |
| | Lowenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.. W. |
| | Washington, D. C. 20036 Steven C. Goldberg, Esq. |
| | Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 |
| | |
| | I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,, D. C. 20555 Burt Saunders, Esq. |
| | Assistant Dade, County Attorney 1626 Dade County Courthouse Miami, Florid'a .331'30'enry H. Har page, Esq. |
| | Peninsula Federal Building 10th Floor 200 S. E. 1st Street Miami, Florida 33131 Norman S. Coll, Esq. |
| | Steel, Hector Davis S |
| | Co-Counsel for Licensee 1400 S. E. 1st National Bank Building Miani, Florida 33131 LAW OFFICES OF NEIL CHONIN, P.A. |
| | Attorneys for Intervenor Suite 1400 Amerifirst Bldg. |
| | One S. E. 3rd Avenue Miami., FL 33131 Tel: 30 -377-3023 By NEIL H. CHONIN}} |
|
|---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEAR3F0999-05, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Rev 2, Event Reporting Guidelines1999-09-14014 September 1999
Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors & Draft NUREG-1022, Rev 2, Event Reporting Guidelines
L-99-201, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments1999-09-0707 September 1999
Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 72 Re Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors.Fpl Followed Development of NEI Comments on Rulemaking & Endorse These Comments
ML20206H4441999-05-0303 May 1999
Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR170 & 10CFR171 Re Rev of Fy 1999 Fee Schedules
ML20205J0461999-04-0101 April 1999
Comment Supporting Proposed Draft Std Review Plan on Foreign Ownership,Control & Domination.Util Supports Approach Set Forth in SRP Toward Reviewing Whether Applicant for NRC License Owned by Foreign Corp.Endorses NEI Comments
ML20205B3771999-03-16016 March 1999
Comment Opposing PRM 50-64 Re Liability of Joint Owners of Npps.Util Endorses Comments of NEI & Urges Commission to Deny Petition for Rulemaking
ML17355A2511999-03-0909 March 1999
Comment Supporting Amend to Policy & Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions Re Treatment of Severity Level IV Violations at Power Reactors.Util Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Revs
L-98-306, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP1998-12-10010 December 1998
Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Requirements for Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at NPP
L-98-272, Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses1998-10-28028 October 1998
Comment on Draft Reg Guide DG-4005, Preparation of Suppl Environ Repts for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses
L-98-252, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule1998-10-0606 October 1998
Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2 & 51 Re Streamlined Hearing Process for NRC Approval of License Transfers.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Proposed Rule
L-98-248, Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement1998-10-0505 October 1998
Comment Supporting Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings.Fpl Also Endorses Comments of NEI on Policy Statement
ML17354A8741998-03-27027 March 1998
Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication,Lab Testing of nuclear-grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)
ML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998
Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices
ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997
Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20217J4321997-08-0707 August 1997
Memorandum & Order.* Grants Staff Petition for Review & Reverses Presiding Officer Decision Requiring Staff to Issue Tetrick SRO License.Order Disapproved by Commissioner Diaz. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970807
ML20148P8461997-06-25025 June 1997
Memorandum & Order (Determination of Remand Question).* Concludes That Presiding Officer Reaffirms Determination That Response of Rl Tetrick to Question 63 of Exam to Be SRO Was Incorrect.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970626
ML17354A5521997-06-18018 June 1997
Comment Opposing Proposed NRC Bulletin 96-001,suppl 1, CR Insertion Problems.
ML20141F5441997-06-13013 June 1997
NRC Staff Response to Presiding Officer Memorandum & Order (Questions Relevant to Remand).* Staff Submits That Tetrick Request for Reconsideration of Grading of Question 63 on SRO License Written Exam Should Be Denied
ML20141F5711997-06-13013 June 1997
Supplemental Affidavit of B Hughes & Ta Peebles.* Affidavit Re Tetrick Request for Reconsideration of Grading of Question 63 on SRO License Written Exam.W/Certificate of Svc
ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997
Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20148G6531997-05-27027 May 1997
Notice.* Forwards Documents Received & Read by Author from Rl Tetrick on 970317 W/O Being Served as Required Under Procedural Rules.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970527
ML20148G7071997-05-27027 May 1997
Memorandum & Order (Questions Relevant to Remand).* Rl Tetrick May Respond to Questions W/Filing Served Pursuant to Procedural Regulations W/Notarized Statement to Be Received by 970617.Certificate of Svc Encl.Served on 970527
ML20148G7501997-05-20020 May 1997
Memorandum & Order CLI-97-05.* Staff May Withhold Issuance of SRO License to Rl Tetrick Pending Further Order of Commission.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970520
ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997
Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access
ML20141C7331997-05-16016 May 1997
Order Extending Until 970616,time within Which Commission May Rule on NRC Staff 970416 Petition for Review of Presiding Officer Initial Decision.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 970516
ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997
Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty
ML20138J2331997-05-0202 May 1997
Affidavit.* Affidavit of B Hughes Re Denial of Application for SRO License for Rl Tetrick.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20138J2271997-05-0202 May 1997
NRC Staff Response to Questions Posed in Commission Order of 970425.* Staff Respectfully Submits That Commission Should Undertake Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceedings LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6
ML20138J2241997-05-0202 May 1997
Line (Providing Omitted Citation).* Informs That Submitted Citation Inadvertently Omitted from Response to Questions Posed in Commission Order of 970425.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20138J2401997-04-25025 April 1997
Scheduling Order.* Staff Instructed to File W/Commission,By COB 970502,response to Tetrick Argument Re Question 63 & Discussion of Legal Significance of Consistent Staff Practices.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970425
ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997
Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns
ML20137X5921997-04-16016 April 1997
NRC Staff Petition for Commission Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding (LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6).* Commission Should Undertake Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20137X5511997-04-11011 April 1997
NRC Request for Issuance of Order Staying Effectiveness of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding (LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6).* Commission Should Stay Effectiveness of Decision in Subj Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20137R3531997-03-27027 March 1997
Correct Copy of Memorandum & Order (Denial of Reconsideration,Stay).* Denies NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970327
ML20137F5551997-03-25025 March 1997
NRC Staff Response to Memorandum & Order of 970321.* Presiding Officer Should Grant Staff 970310 Motion for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20137F8251997-03-21021 March 1997
Memorandum & Order (Grant of Housekeeping Stay).* Orders That Effect of Initial Decision Postponed Until Close of Business on 970326.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970321
ML20137F5081997-03-17017 March 1997
NRC Staff Motion for Issuance of Stay.* Requests That Presiding Officer Deny NRC Staff Request for Issuance of Stay in Matter of Issuance of SRO License
ML20137F5371997-03-17017 March 1997
NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration in Matter of Rl Tetrick.* Requests That Presiding Officer Deny NRC Staff Request for Reconsideration
ML20136F2981997-03-12012 March 1997
Memorandum & Order (Grant of Housekeeping Stay).* Informs That Initial Decision Issued by Presiding Officer on 970228 Postponed Until 970321 & Rl Tetrick May File Response by 970318.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970312
ML20136F2351997-03-10010 March 1997
NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration Introduction.* Requests That Presiding Officer Reconsider Determination That Tetrick Passed Written Exam & Find,Instead,That Tetrick Failed Written Exam
ML20136F3411997-03-10010 March 1997
NRC Staff Request for Issuance of Order Staying Effectiveness of Presiding Officers Initial Decision LBP-97-2.* Staff Submits That Presiding Officer Should Stay Effectiveness of Initial Decision.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20136F2721997-03-0606 March 1997
Supplemental Affidavit of B Hughes.* Supports Staff Motion for Reconsideration of Presiding Officer Initial Decision of 970228.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20138Q0191997-02-28028 February 1997
Initial Decision.* Concludes That Rl Tetrick Had Passing Score of 80% & Should Be Granted License as Sro. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970228
ML20134A6551997-01-23023 January 1997
Written Presentation of NRC Staff.* Staff Concludes That SE Turk Failed Written Exam & Did Not Establish Sufficient Cause to Change Grading of Answers to Listed Questions. Denial of Application for SRO License Should Be Sustained
ML20134A6661997-01-23023 January 1997
Affidavit of B Hughes & Ta Peebles Re Denial of Application for SRO License.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 970124
ML20129J5681996-10-23023 October 1996
Memorandum & Order (Error).* Informs of Incorrect Caption Identified in Order .W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961023
ML20129D4981996-10-21021 October 1996
Memorandum & Order (Grant of Request for Hearing Scheduling).* Requests for Hearing Hereby Granted. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961021
ML20129D6681996-10-18018 October 1996
NRC Staff Answer to Rl Tetrick Request for Hearing.* Staff Does Not Oppose Request & Will Be Prepared to Submit Hearing File.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance
ML20129D4401996-10-0909 October 1996
Designating of Presiding Officer.* Pb Bloch Designated to Serve as Presiding Officer to Conduct Informal Adjudicatory Hearing in Proceeding of Rl Tetrick Re Denial of SRO License.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 961010
ML17353A6311996-01-19019 January 1996
Decision & Remand Order Re FPL Discrimination Against RR Diaz-Robainas.FPL Ordered to Offer Reinstatement to RR Diaz-Robainas W/Comparable Pay & Benefits,To Pay Him Back Pay W/Interest & to Pay His Costs & Expenses Re Complaint
ML17353A2471995-06-27027 June 1995
Comments on Proposed Rule Re, Review of NRC Insp Rept Content,Format & Style.
1999-09-07
[Table view]
Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML17354B1061998-02-26026 February 1998
Submits Listed Requests for NRC EA Per 10CFR2.206 to Modify OLs for All FPL NPPs Until Licensee Can Demonstrate Open Communication Channels Exist Between NRC & Licensee.Also Requests EA to Address Alleged Discriminatory Practices
ML20217M0751997-08-13013 August 1997
Licensee Response to Supplemental 10CFR2.206 Petitions Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Provides No Basis for Extraordinary Relief Requested. Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20141F5441997-06-13013 June 1997
NRC Staff Response to Presiding Officer Memorandum & Order (Questions Relevant to Remand).* Staff Submits That Tetrick Request for Reconsideration of Grading of Question 63 on SRO License Written Exam Should Be Denied
ML17354A5181997-05-27027 May 1997
Licensee Response to 10CFR2.206 Petition Filed by Tj Saporito & National Litigation Consultants.Petition Should Be Denied,Based on Listed Info.W/Certificate of Svc
ML17354A5631997-05-17017 May 1997
Second Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Against Listed Util Employees by Imposing Civil Penalties, Restricting Employees from Licensed Activities & Revoking Unescorted Access
ML17354A5611997-05-11011 May 1997
Suppl to 970423 Petition Requesting Enforcement Action Against Util Former Executive Vice President,Site Vice President & Maint Superintendent by Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty
ML20138J2271997-05-0202 May 1997
NRC Staff Response to Questions Posed in Commission Order of 970425.* Staff Respectfully Submits That Commission Should Undertake Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceedings LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6
ML17354A5651997-04-23023 April 1997
Requests That NRC Take EA to Modify,Suspend or Revoke FPL Operating Licenses for All Four Nuclear Reactors Until Licensee Can Sufficiently Demonstrate to NRC & Public That Employees Encouraged to Freely Raise Safety Concerns
ML20137X5921997-04-16016 April 1997
NRC Staff Petition for Commission Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding (LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6).* Commission Should Undertake Review of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20137X5511997-04-11011 April 1997
NRC Request for Issuance of Order Staying Effectiveness of Presiding Officer Decisions in Proceeding (LBP-97-2 & LBP-97-6).* Commission Should Stay Effectiveness of Decision in Subj Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20137F5551997-03-25025 March 1997
NRC Staff Response to Memorandum & Order of 970321.* Presiding Officer Should Grant Staff 970310 Motion for Reconsideration.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20137F5081997-03-17017 March 1997
NRC Staff Motion for Issuance of Stay.* Requests That Presiding Officer Deny NRC Staff Request for Issuance of Stay in Matter of Issuance of SRO License
ML20137F5371997-03-17017 March 1997
NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration in Matter of Rl Tetrick.* Requests That Presiding Officer Deny NRC Staff Request for Reconsideration
ML20136F2351997-03-10010 March 1997
NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration Introduction.* Requests That Presiding Officer Reconsider Determination That Tetrick Passed Written Exam & Find,Instead,That Tetrick Failed Written Exam
ML20136F3411997-03-10010 March 1997
NRC Staff Request for Issuance of Order Staying Effectiveness of Presiding Officers Initial Decision LBP-97-2.* Staff Submits That Presiding Officer Should Stay Effectiveness of Initial Decision.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20129D6681996-10-18018 October 1996
NRC Staff Answer to Rl Tetrick Request for Hearing.* Staff Does Not Oppose Request & Will Be Prepared to Submit Hearing File.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance
ML20070E7721991-02-25025 February 1991
NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion to Reject or Strike Appellant Reply.* Sarcastic Language in Reply Should Be Stricken & Applellant Should Be Required to Provide Supplementary Info.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20070C1971991-02-19019 February 1991
Licensee Reply to Appeal Request of Tj Saporito.* Licensee Adopts Position & Argument of NRC as Stated in Appeal. W/Certificate of Svc
ML20066G9711991-02-0808 February 1991
Licensees Motion to Reject or Strike Petitioners Reply to Motion to Dismiss.* Moves Aslab to Reject or Strike Nuclear Energy Accountability Project 910128 Reply Due to Discourteous & Insulting Tone of Reply.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20073E0511991-01-28028 January 1991
Reply.* Board of Directors of Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) Have Not Decided to Dissolve Neap.Tj Saporito Notification That Neap Will Dissolve by 901231 Was Outside Authority.Aslb 910110 Order Is Moot.Appeal Should Be Valid
ML20070A0371991-01-0909 January 1991
Licensee Answer to Petitioner Motion for Reconsideration.* Request for Hearing & Intervention Should Be Denied Due to Petitioner Lack of Standing & Timing of Contentions Is Moot. W/Certificate of Svc
ML20066D5981990-12-26026 December 1990
Reply to Answers to Petition & Amended Petition.* Intervenor Finds ASLB 901206 Order Premature & Requests That Hearing on Record Be Granted
ML20066A2531990-12-21021 December 1990
Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) Should Not Be Dismissed from Proceeding.* Unless Aslab Denies Appeal Prior to 901231,NEAP Should Show Cause for Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20066A1081990-12-19019 December 1990
Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Proceeding Should Not Be Terminated.* Nuclear Energy Accountability Project Should Be Directed to Show Why Proceeding Should Not Be Terminated, Unless Appeal Denied Prior to 901231.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20065T8771990-12-13013 December 1990
Motion to Withdraw.* Withdraws from Proceeding Due to Dissolution of Organization,Effective 901231.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 901213.Granted for Licensing Board on 901212
ML20065T7851990-12-13013 December 1990
Licensee Response to Motion to Withdraw.* Licensee Lack of Objection to Withdrawal of Nuclear Energy Accountability Project from Proceeding Noted.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20065T7921990-12-0808 December 1990
Motion to Withdraw.* Nuclear Energy Accountability Project Will Be Dissolved Effective 901231.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20065T8461990-12-0505 December 1990
Licensee Response to Notices of Change of Address.* Inconsistencies Re Issue of Standing Have Been Injected Into Proceeding by Notices.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20062B9861990-10-11011 October 1990
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
ML20059L8401990-09-14014 September 1990
Applicant Response to Memorandum & Order (Motion to Dismiss).* Board Should Not Undertake Sua Sponte Review Due to Board Lacking Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20059C5021990-08-31031 August 1990
NRC Staff Response to Licensing Board Order of 900717.* Requests That Licensing Board Refrain from Raising Sua Sponte Issues
ML20059A8941990-08-16016 August 1990
Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal.* Requests That Nuclear Energy Accountability Project 900813 Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief in Support of Appeal Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20059B0161990-08-13013 August 1990
Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal.* Board Should Grant Extension of Time to Insure Intervenor Has Opportunity to Fully & Completely Address Issues on Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20059A8791990-08-13013 August 1990
Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal.* Requests Extension of 15 Days to File Brief in Support of Appeal.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900817.Granted for Appeal Board on 900817
ML20056B2181990-08-10010 August 1990
NRC Staff Motion for Extension of Time.* Requests Extension of Time Until 900831 to File Response to Licensing Board 900717 Order,Per 10CFR2.711.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20056B2011990-08-0303 August 1990
Licensee Motion for Leave to Submit Citation to Supplemental Authority.* Licensee Moves for Leave to Call Recent Supreme Court Authority to Attention of Appeal Board.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900803.Granted for Appeal Board on 900803
ML20056A3751990-07-31031 July 1990
NRC Staff Response to Licensee Motion to Submit Citation to Supplemental Authority.* NRC Has No Objection to Granting of Licensee 900716 Motion.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20056A3821990-07-25025 July 1990
Notice of Appeal.* Requests Oral Argument on Issue of Standing & That Argument Be Held in Miami,Fl to Permit Fair & Equitable Opportunity to Address Issue in Proceeding. W/Certificate of Svc
ML20055G6491990-07-16016 July 1990
Licensee Motion for Leave to Submit Citation to Supplemental Authority.* Licensee Moves for Leave to Call Recent Supreme Court Authority to Attention of Appeal Board & Parties. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20055G7851990-07-12012 July 1990
NRC Staff Response to Applicant Motion for Reconsideration.* Advises That Nuclear Energy Accountability Project Has Not Established Standing to Intervene in Proceeding,Therefore, Petition Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20055F5891990-07-0606 July 1990
NRC Staff Response to Motions for Change of Location of Oral Argument.* NRC Does Not See Necessity for Aslab to Depart from Practice of Holding Oral Arguments in Bethesda,Md. Motion Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20058K7551990-06-24024 June 1990
Intervenor Motion for Reconsideration of Appeal Board Order Setting Oral Argument.* Requests That Appeal Board Move Oral Argument Scheduled for 900710 in Bethesda,Md to Miami,Fl. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20055D9241990-06-20020 June 1990
Appellant Motion to Move Place of Oral Argument.* Appellant Motion Should Be Granted.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20043H1801990-06-19019 June 1990
Unopposed Request for 1-day Extension.* Extension Requested in Order to Seek Legal Advise Re Board 900615 Order on Intervention Status.Granted for ASLB on 900619. Served on 900620.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20043A6761990-05-17017 May 1990
Applicant Reply to Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) Response to ASLB Memorandum & Order.* Neap Petition to Intervene Should Be Denied & Proceeding Dismissed.W/ Certificate of Svc
ML20042E6011990-04-20020 April 1990
Intervenors Answer to Applicant 900413 Response & Intervenors Motion for Sanctions Against Applicant & Intervenors Motion for Leave to Amend Contentions.* Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20012F7051990-04-13013 April 1990
Applicant Response to Notice of Withdrawal from Proceeding.* Advises That Nuclear Energy Accountability Project (Neap) No Longer Has Standing Since Saporito Withdrew from Proceeding & Neap Has Not Established Standing.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20011F1081990-02-23023 February 1990
Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief.* Extension Requested to File Brief Due to Intervenor J Lorion Involved W/Family Health Matters.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 900226.Granted for Aslab on 900223
ML20011F1151990-02-23023 February 1990
Intervenors Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Brief.* Requests 5-day Extension Until 900305 to File Appeal Brief Due to Author Family Health Matters Interfering W/ Ability to Meet Commitments.W/Certificate of Svc
ML20006G1171990-02-21021 February 1990
Motion for Reconsideration of Time Extension.* Petitioners Ask That Board Reconsider 900208 Request for Extension of Time Until 900305 to File Amended Petition & Contentions Based on Parties Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl
1998-02-26
[Table view] |
Text
(p ]/
>1, //~~
,~5.K~ "
JU'g () 8 S~~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l t'r 'UCLEAR
~
S M~gp g RNVLA<oa~ RE GULATORY COMMIS S ION BEPG THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD c o In of FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) (Proposed Amendments to Facility (p
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating )
Operating Licenses to Permit Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Steam Generator Repair)
)
REPLY TO MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR ' RESPONSE Intervenor, Mark P. Oncavage, replies to the NRC Staff Motion To Strike Intervenor's Res onse To NRC Staff and A licant Ob'ections To Amended Contention 1 and shows the following.
The NRC staff contends that its Ob ections To Pro osed Amended Contention 1 was not in the nature of a motion. It seeks to strike any answer to its filing. The Intervenor asserts that the staff's filing was in the nature of a motion and that an answer to tEat filing was permissible.
In its Memorandum and Order dated April 2, 1981 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board said at page 4 regarding amendments to Contention 1:
The Intervenor is also granted leave to file 'on or before April 20, 1981, appropriate amendments to Contention 1 in order to plead with specificity the respects in which the FES (due to be filed by the staff by April 1) does not legally or factually comply with NEPA (Tr. 36, 38-9-43). The staff is granted leave to file a motion for summary dis- qQ+
position of Contention 1 as thus amended, c
"ii 4i
/'
k C
on or before. May 1, 1981 (Tr.44-5,'47,50).
The Intervenor shall file its response to the staff 's motion for summary dis-posit'ion of Contention 1 as amended by May 20, 1981 (Tr. 52) .
The staff was not given leave to file objections to the amendments to Contention 1. Nothing in this order can be the source of the
,staff '.s authority .to file the objections that it did file.
Intervention in a proceeding before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is governed by 10 C.F.R. g2. 714. Paragraph (b) of that regulation requires an intervenor to file a list of contentions which he seeks to have litigated. Nothing in paragraph (b) gives the staff the authority to file objections to those contentions. Paragraph (c) merely permits the staf f to file an answer to a petition to intervene, with particular reference to the factors set forth in paragraph (d) of the regulation. Paragraph (d) makes no mention of the list of contentions. Nothing in 10 C. F. R. g2. 714 grants the staf f the authority to file obj ections to an amended contention.
The staff's objection was not an answer pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
g2.705 nor a reply pursuant to 10 C.F.R. )2.706. The only remain-ing procedure under which its objections could have been filed was the motion practice provided for in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.730.
The staff did not file its objection for no reason at all.
The objection was filed to obtain a result. The result sought was the striking or dismissal of the amended contention. Common sense would indicate that though it gave its document
a different name, the staff was attempting to file a motion F
similar in nature to .the motions to dismiss and to strike de-scribed in Rule 12(b) and (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Licensee, using its common sense, thought that the staff's filing was a motion to dismiss. At page 0 of its Licensee's Res onse In Su ort of NRC Motion For Summar Dis-osition of Amended Contention 1 and Ob'ections To The Amended Contention the Licensee says:
This pleading may be treated both as a response in support of the NRC Staff's motion to dismiss Contention 1 and as'n objection to t e admissibility of the proposed amendments.
(emphasis supplied) .
The Licensee tries to back off this statement in its most recent ....
filing, but a fair reading o f the common meaning of the Licensee '
words shows that the Intervenor is not the only one who has viewed the staff's objections as a motion to dismiss.
10 C.F.R. 52. 730(c) permits .a party to file an answer in support of or in opposition to a motion. Pursuant to this rule the Intervenor .chose to file an answer to the staff's motion to dismiss. The NRC staff may have made a tactical error in filing both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment at the same .time but this is no reason for denying the Intervenor an opportunity to reply separately to each motion.
The staff next asserts that the answer to its motion should be stricken, because the alternatives of energy conservation and
II solar generation "are patently beyond the legal scope of a license amendment environmental review." NRC Staff Motion To Strike at p. 3 The requirement of 42 U. S. C. g 4332 is that the agencies of the United .States include in ~ever recommendation or report on major federal actions significantly affecting the environment a detailed statement on alternatives to the proposed action.
Conservation and solar energy production are proposed by the Intervenor as an alternative not to the original construction of the units at Turkey Point, but to the repairs that are presently .under consideration. The Intervenor merely asks that the staff comply with the mandate of 40 C. F.R'. $ 1502e.14 and rigorously explore and objectively evahate conservation and solar energy as an alternative to these repairs.
In assessing alternative courses of action, the staff is not limited to considering only those actions that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can order or effectuate. The NRC staff must consider alternatives that are outside .its jurisdiction or control and beyond the area of its particular expertise.
Sierra Club v.. L'~n, 502 F'.2d 43s62 (5th Cir. 1974) an Environ-mental Defense Fund v. Cor s of En ineers 492 F.2d 1123,]]'35(5th Cir. 1974).
Given these standards, the Intervenor asserts that an analysis of the alternatives that he proposes are within the scope of the environmental study:that is required for this
41 4l licens e amendment .
The staff objects to a "fresh reconsideration of .alter- '."
natives to nuclear generation" at page 4 of its latest filing In State of Mi;nnesota v. U. S. Nuclear Re ulator Commission 602 F. 2d 4 12 (D.C..Cir. 1979), the court, speaking to the scope of an environmental review said:
There is no implication that Congress intended that the NRC ignore new knowledge or analysis in its licensing decisions Ibid at 419.
The Final Environmental Statement relating to the initial operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and' was published in 1972 Many things have changed in the past nine years. Among them are concern and understanding of productive conservation; advances in technology with regard to conservation and'olar energy production;"
increases in the price of uranium; increases in the cost of replacement -power produced from fossil fuels; increases in the cost of constructing and repairing large capital plants; and knowledge
'
that the tubin g in a W s tinghouse nuclear steam generator is sub-gect to repeated and severe damage during the operation of the plants.. What the staff is really asking is that we all close our eyes to reality, ignore all the changes that have occurred during-the past nine years and relax the requirements of NEPA'hat an in-depth analysis be made of .all reasonable alternatives .to the proposed action.
0 4<< ~
The licensee, in support of the staff on this point, argues that NEPA does not require that the same ground covered'n an initial FES be wholly replowed in connection with a pro-posed amendment to a license. (See Licensee's Motion 'To 'Strike Or Re'ect Intervenor's Unauthorized Pleadin at p.. 16).
The "Alternatives To Proposed Action And Cost-Benefit Analysis Of The Environmental Effects" is contained in Part X of the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Turke Point Plant .Florida Power and Li ht Com an, Dockets No.
50-250 and 50-251, Jul 1972. That FES says at p. X-1:
In this section, alternatives to the proposed action will be described in terms of their feasibility, economic costs, and environmental impact. The alternative actions consist of Building a,new plant at an alternative site Using'an alternative fuel at an existing site Once through cooling using intake water from Biscayne Bay and discharging to Card Sound
~ Once through coiling with both intake and discharge in Card Sound
.. Recirculation system using forced-draft cooling towers and brackish water make-up The FES prepared in July, 1972 did not explore the alter-native action of productive conservation and solar energy. This is not unusual. Ahe U. S. Supreme Court pointed out in Vermonr Yankee Nuclear Power Cor . v. NRUC 435 U8 519, 552 (1978),
.prior to 1973 very little serious thought was given to these alternatives. But as the Supreme Court pointed out in the same opinion, at the same page, the events of recent years have emphasized not only the need. but also a large variety of alternatives for, energy conservation.
The Intervenor does not seek to replow ground that was covered by the 1972 FES. He seeks to force the staff to examine alternatives that were not considered in the 1972 FES and delib-erately ignored in .the 1981 FES .,'despite an opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court which has taken notice of the need for and large variety of alternatives in the area of energy conservation.
The alternatives the Intervenor asks the staff to examine arise directly from the proposed change. The licensee is going to spend $ 731 MILLION of its customers.'oney in. the proposed repair project. This money is being spent directly as a result of the decision to make the repairs for which the licensee seeks approval. The Intervenor suggests that this money can be spent in an alternative manner that will be more cost-effective and provide greater benefits to the licensee's customers and the public at large. The alternatives of productive conservation and solar energy are, thus, alternatives to the proposed repair of the Turkey Point steam generators. And as alternatives to the ro osed re air they could not have been previously explored in the 1972 FES.
Like all other factors in our life, the need for power in Florida
0 ~ I I
1
IP is s'ubj ect to change over time. The Intervenori is not challenging the need for power in Florida in the year 1972, nor the need for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 in 1972. The Intervenor does not even challenge the need for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 today or .in the immediate future. .He .does suggest, though, that as an alternative to the proposed repairs the units can slowly and systematically dexated over repairs can be
~ and be that, the money saved from not making the invested in alternative projects that will be phased-in to replace the energy that will no .longer be produced by Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. This process w'ill be done so that as Turkey Point reaches the end of its normal life span the replacement sources of energy will be on-line and capable of meeting the needs of the FPL customers.
The Intervenor has filed an answer to a motion to strike. Such a filing is permitted. The alternatives-suggested bP the Intervenor
- are wi.'thin the scope'f 'a'pr'oper NEPA analysis. The alternative aug.gest.ed by. the. Intervenor were not co.nsidered in the 1972 FES.
As time passes, the NRC should not ignore changes in .technology, availability of resources and costs of production. The alternatives the Intervenor suggests arise'irectly from the proposed repair.
Consequently, the NRC staff's motion to strike should be denied.
Law Offices of Neil Chonin, P.A.
Attorneys for Intervenors 1400 Amerifirst Building One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 30 -377-3023 By NEIL . CH NIN
0 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter o f ) Docket Nos. 50-250-SP 50-251-SP
)
FLORIDA POWER' LIGHT COMPANY 'roposed Amendments to (Turkey Point Nuclear Facility Operating Licenses Generating Units Nos..3 and to Permit Steam Generator Q)
)
Repairs).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the Reply to Motion to Strike Intervenor's Response was mailed on" this the day of May, 1981, to the following addresses: .
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Administrative Judge Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 205'55 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H; Paris, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mark P. Oncavage 12200 S. W. 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Harold F.. Reis, Esq.
Steven P. Frantz, Esq.,
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Station Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,, D. C. 20555 Burt Saunders, Esq.
Assistant Dade, County Attorney 1626 Dade County Courthouse Miami, Florid'a .331'30'enry H. Har page, Esq.
Peninsula Federal Building 10th Floor 200 S. E. 1st Street Miami, Florida 33131 Norman S. Coll, Esq.
Steel, Hector Davis S
Co-Counsel for Licensee 1400 S. E. 1st National Bank Building Miani, Florida 33131 LAW OFFICES OF NEIL CHONIN, P.A.
Attorneys for Intervenor Suite 1400 Amerifirst Bldg.
One S. E. 3rd Avenue Miami., FL 33131 Tel: 30 -377-3023 By NEIL H. CHONIN
