ML17339A483

Notices of Appearance in Steam Generator Repair Proceeding. Certificate of Svc & Ny State Dept of Environ Conservation 791227 Ltr Encl

ML17339A483
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	01/11/1980
From:	CHONIN N, HARNAGE H H CHONIN, N., HARNAGE, H.H., ONCAVAGE, M.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8001280175
Download: ML17339A483 (12)

Text

UNITED.STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 poo" (r Cl Qh~CD BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY 6c LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER 6c LIGHT COMPANY.(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos.3 and 4)Docke't Nos.50-250-SP 50-251-SP (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating License To Permit Steam Generator Repair)/~~~NOTICES OF APPEARANCE FOR INTERVENOR NEIL CHONIN hereby enters: his Notice of Appearance as Counsel for Intervenor, MARK P.ONCAVAGE', 12200 S.W.110th Avenue, Miami, Florida.I certify that I am admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of Florida;the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida;the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States.HENRY H.HARNAGE hereby enters his Notice of Appearance as Counsel for Intervenor, MARK P.ONCAVAGE, 12200 S.W.110th Avenue, Miami, Florida.I certify that I am admitted to practice by the Supreme Court of Florida;the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida;the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

~I Docket Nos.50-250-SP 50-251-SP Respectfully submitted, NEZ HON IN Law Offices of Neil Chonin, P.A.New World Tower Building, 30th Floor 100 N.Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Tel.(305)377-3023 NY.HA Peninsula Federal Bldg., 10th Flr.200 S.E.First Street Miami, Florida 33131 Tel.(305)3774501 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that copies of the attached Notices of Appearance For Intervenor was served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, First Class, properly stamped and addressed on January<, 1980: Elizabeth S.Bowers, Esq.Chairperson Atomic Safet'y-and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Dr.Oscar H.Paris Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555

~><Qi Doc Nos.50-250-SP 50-251-SP Dr.Emmeth A.Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Atomic Safety&Licensing Board Panel U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Steven C.Goldberg, Esq.U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington; D.C.20555 Norman A.Coll, Esq.Steel, Hector&Davis 1400 S.E.First National Bank Bldg.Miami, Florida 33131 Harold F.Reis, Esq.Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad&Toll'025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.20036 i'KlL CHONIN Law Offices of Neil'Chonin, P.A.New World Tower Bldg., 30th Flr.100 N.Biscayne Blvd.Miami, Florida.33132'el.(305)377-3023

~I

~anno.n un'ac.~s<-~5'r Nevz Yerk State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Solf Road, Albany, New York 12&~3 De cember 2 7, 19 79~f C~500K~i25~a<<xz<xxRihx Commissioner Robert F.Flacke The Honorable Samuel R.Madison Secretary Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Env ronment Department or" Public Service Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Us<<<Rc I 6."4N Office of the Secretary Bool"in'Senrice c Brzreh Re:: Case No.80008-New Haven Units Applicant s liotion zor Rehearing

Dear Mr.Madison:

and 2 Having reviewed the response by Department of Public Serv-'ce to Applicant's Motion, we wish to highlight the poi'nt made therein that ind'vidual Article VIII appl=cations must not be viewed as being in mutually exclusive univqrses.

In the past, DEC has been concerned by dissimilar"facts" being.proffered on separate records, such"evidence" being tailored to f'it the assertions as needed.Me strongly believe that parties should be held accountable for such inconsistenc'es.

On at least one occasion, the Public Service Commission has concurred in this proposition.

In Case No.80003 (Jamesport), DEC had sought to have that Board take, into its record statements mace in Case No.'80002 (Somerset) oy a party to botn.Our argument proceeded as follows:...even if a slight burden[on Applicant]

were created, it would be only that which would'e necessary for NYSEG to explain how Rider's Cayuga/Somerset testimony is somehow not relevant or does not bear on his credibility.

This is on'burden-some to the extent that such an explana ion is difficult to fcrmu'ate.

It is our view that there is no burden, but only a d fficulty for NYSEG in rehabilitating the tarnished credib=lity of.its-itness.Yet even a

real burden must be balanced against the Boar d'legitimate interest in.knowing the substance of the subject testimony, to wit: that NYSEG knows neither the extent to which insulation obtains in its service, territory, nor what load-dampening benefits could be anticipated from increasing insulation standards for new electric space heating customers.

Examiner Suss'nwillingness to take notice of Rider's extra-tribunal admission against interest rezlects a possible unquestioning acceptance of NYSEG's need presentation.

it.should be understood that DEC's motion is solely intended for the purpose of showing that Rider (as the-personification of NYSEG)has made a statement under oath and subject to cross-exami-nation which casts grave doubts upon the reason-ableness of NYSEG's load forecasts,.

The evidentiary principle which permits admission of such evidence is so well established that it is codified at Civil Practice Law and Rules 54514, has been reaffirmed numezous times, including in~Ca lan v.~Cit of he~York, 34 A.D.2d 549, 309 H.Y S.2d 859 (2nd Dept., 1970), and has even been applied to criminal proceedings

[Peoole v.Johnson, 27 N.Y.2d 119, 313 H.Y.S.2d 72S ((()TQ)--inaamrssible confession can be used to impeacn]and disclosures of grand jury minutes[People v.D Naool.:, 27 N.Y.2d 229, 316 i).Y.S.2d 622.(119/))--P blic Se-vice Commiss'on Staff could see secret minutes}.Additionally, it is clear that the only party which could be prejudiced would be NYSEG;however, since NYSEG'is a party to Cayuga/Somerset,;there is no due process issue.Finally, we believe that tnis Boar'd should and does want to know about such deficiencies as may have existed in NYSEG's forecasting methods.[A eal oz Rulin on Notions for Official Notice (~Dec:, 1977)6]The Commiss'on's action on DEC's Hotion established a most telling and crucial precedent fully appl'cable herein:>le believe that DEC is.free to argue on" brief to the.Siting Board that the Board should look at the testimony oz NYSEG's witness in Case 80002.it need not be formally incorporated into, the record foz that purpose.[Order~Den ins Anneal (Jan.17, 1978)2]

~I Having been so notified two years ago in another'roceeding, this Applicant cannot now be heard to claim that it can exclude from this record damaging admissions made elsewhere.

Sincerely, 6'avid A..Engel Senior Attorney for Energy cc: Member of the Siting Board~'Presiding Examiner Matias Associate Examiner Schwartz Members of the Atomic Safety and License Board All.Par ties gi