ML17340B227
| ML17340B227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1981 |
| From: | Chonin N CHONIN, N. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8105210383 | |
| Download: ML17340B227 (16) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AIKRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PO-i E'.d LgtiRQ
~,A>'
$ 1981 +
2 tNiDe Ot the SeC.
POeaetinc 4 Se.
era~DC N BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Cn Nos.
50-25 50-251-SP In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket
)
)
)
)
)
)
(Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Repairs)
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos.
3 and 4) this support as a Motion to Dismiss Amended Contention 1.
The legal issues involving the objection an I the Motion to Dismiss are different than those applicable to the Motions for Summary Disposition and shall be addressed separately.
An answer on the merits of the Staff and Licensee's Motions for Summary Disposition shall be filed by May 20, 1981.
REPONSE TO NRC STAFF OBJECTIONS
<~RO~SO
'gD AMENDED CONTENTION 1 AND LICENSEE'S RECTION TO DISMISS CONTENTION 1 aE.I I. VI.~
Me'o >9S)~
LtyggQfAEEIoIP~Im'INTRODUCTION COhVh ISS 8 C Spa f has objected to Amended Contention 1 and the Licensee has filed a response in support of the objections defining POINT AMENDED CONTEN~IINN I IS PLEAD
" WITH SUFFI NT RTICU R T MPLIANCE IT C
R'he
- Chairman, at the March 24-25, 1981 Hearing, ruled that W)SO~
Amendment 1 was not plead with sufficient particularity and an 5
yli Memorandum and Order Pre-Hearing Conference, March 24-25, 1981.
41 0
v
)I
Amendment was necessary.
Contention 1 on that date read as follows:
Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
54332(2)(C)
(NEPA) or 10 CRF 551.5 requires the preparation of an Environ-mental Impact Statement prior to the issuance by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of amendments to the operating licenses for Turk'ey Point Units Nos.
3 and 4 (Faci.lity Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR-31 and.DRP-41) authorizing the Licensee to repair the steam generators now is use in each facility.
The Commission's NEPA Analysis is inadequate in that it fails to adequately consider the following alternative procedures:
a
~b.
C.
d.
e.f.
g
~i.
3
~
Arresting tube support plate corrosion In-place tube restoration (sleeving)
In-place steam generator tube replacement (retubing)
Derating Decommissioning Bioconversion Solar energy Natural gas Coal.2 The Intervenor felt, on March 24, that the alternative issue had been plead with.sufficient particularity, however in-order to comply with the Order of that date filed Amended Contention 1.
The Staff and Licensee now take the position that in order to put into litigation the EIS issues, the Petitioner is required to plead with more particularity.
The Staff and Licensee's position would require the Intervenor 2Order adopting contentions dated Sept 25, 1979.
Amended Contention 1 filed on April 20, 1981.
Ci
to plead, evidence in order for them to prepare for trial.
Previous cases decided by -this Commission show that the Staff and Licensee's position is incorrect.
(See, Grand Gulf 'Nuclear Station Units 1 and -2, ALAB-130, 6AEC 423, 424 (1973) and cases cited in note 7.)
In Grand Gulf, the Board was confronted with the question of sufficiency for pleading purposes of a contention that read "the alternatives of conserving electricity or utilizing other methods of producing energy have not been adequately considered."
The Licensing Board determined that such a Contention ful-fulled the requirement of particularity as is now in 10 CFR 2-714(b)
Prior to the required Amendment of March 24,
- 1981, this Board had ruled that Contention 1 was sufficiently plead.
The original Contention 1 was known to the Staff and Licensee as early as May 2nd, 1979.
The Intervenor filed a Statement of Admissibility of Proposed Contentions.
To this 6
day the Staff and Licensee have not propounded any discovery to the Intervenor concerning Contention 1, yet they complain of being in the dark.
On March 6,
- 1980, the Staff agreed to the Intervenor's Contenticn 1 as framed and stated the Final Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared.
It was filed on April 1, 1981.
50rder of September 25, 1979.
See list of contentions presented to Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Hark Oncavage, dated May 2, 1979.
6Intervenors statement of Admissibility of Proposed Contentions dated Sept.
15, 1979.
4l 4i
The intervenor is not required to voluntarily disclose its entire case
.to the Staff and Licensee, but through proper Rules of Pro-cedure the process will disclose to the Staff and Licensee the theory of the intervenor's case concerning Contention 1.
This Board has consistently held that Section 2.714(b) does not require the Petitioner to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of the contention.
The Intervenor will in its response to the Staff's Motion for Summary Disposition demonstrate that a genuine issue of fact exists respecting the environmental superiority of any one of the suggested alternatives.
The Licensee, as usual implies that the Intervenor has done things to delay these proceedings.
The Inter-venor will point out that the Staff took over one year to.prepare its final environmental statement.
The Licensee has amended its SGRR seven times:
The Intervenor has had six weeks to prepare his case as to the final environmental impact statement.
The intervenor could not prepare a case as to Contention 1
until such time as the FES was filed.
'ir inia Electric and Power Corn an (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, ALAB-522, 9
NRC 54, 56 (1979);
Duke Power Com'n (Transportation of 'Spent.Fuel from Oconee to McGuire, ALAB-528, 9
HRC 146, 151 (1979); Philadel hia Electric Com an (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2
and 3
ALAB-216, 8 AEC13 20-21.(1974).
i~
P 4
J
/
I The Intervenor throughout this process ha's apprised the Staff and Licensee as to their theory of the case concerning Contention l.
The Intervenor will prove that the Staff failed to adequately consider alternatives to the proposed repair as required by Section 102(C)(III) and 102(D) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C.
54332.)
Nore particularly the Intervenor will show that the FES is fatally defective for its failure to examine energy conservation
.as an alternative to the repair of the steam generators.
The evidence will be set forth in the Intervenor's Pre-Filed Testimony and in his Response to the hlotions for Summary Disposition.
The FES will further be shown to be inadequate as a result of the failure of the Staff to examine solar energy as an alternative to the repair'of the steam generators.
This alternative will be substantiated by the Pre-Filed Testimony and the preparation of the Intervenor's
Response
to the Notions for Summary Disposition.
The evidence wi;11 show that conservation and solar energy would allow the derating and decommissioning of the Turkey Point Plant.
CONCLUSION 10 CFR
$ 51.52 requires a public hearing relative to the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
10 CFR
>51.52(b)(1) requires the Staff to offer the Final Environmental Impact Statement into -evidence at the June 2nd Hearing.
There has not been a hearing relative to the Amendment issue and the
0 4i
Intervenor would assume that such a hearing will take place on June 2,
1981.
'This hearing should not be short circuited by a Dismissal with Prejudice of Amended Contention 1.
The Intervenor has plead with sufficient particularity.
The issues for trial will be properly framed according to the schedule adopted by the parties.
7 LAN OFFICES OF NEIL CHONIN, P.A.
Attorneys for Intervenor Suite 1400 Amerifirst Bldg.
One S.
E. 3rd Avenue Niami, Florida 33131 Telephone:
377-3023 By ei Co zn
~
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units Nos.
and 4)
)
)
COMPANY
)
.)
)
3
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-250-SP 50-251-SP (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses to Permit Steam Generator Repairs)
CERTIFICATE;;OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Response
to NRC Staff Objections to Proposed Amended Contention 1
and Licensee's Motion to Dismiss Contention 1 was mailed on this the 12th day of May, 1981, to the following addressees.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq. Administrative Judge
- Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory, Commission Washingto'n, D.
C.
20555 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, Adminstrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. Mark P.
Oncavage 12200 S.
W. 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Steven P. Frantz, Esq.
L'owenstein,
- Newman, Reis 6 Axelrad 1025 Connecticut
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Docketed UNRC tAAY
'. )op) >
4
~
Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and 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 Burt Saunders, Esq.
Assistant Dade County Attorney 1626 Dade County Courthouse Miami, FLorida 33130 Henry H. Harnage, Esq.
Peninsula Federal Building 10th Floor 200 S.
E. 1st Street Miami, Florida 33131 Norman A. Coll, Esq.
- STEEL, HECTOR n DAYIS Co -Coun s el for'icen s e e 1400 S.
E. 1st National Bank Bldg.
Miami, Florida 33131 LAW OFFICES OF NEIL CHONIN, P.A.
Attorneys for Intervenor Suite 1400 Amerifirst Bldg.
One S.
E. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone:
377-3023 By C onion
0~
h~
~ 4