ML20126C464
| ML20126C464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1980 |
| From: | Coll N, Reis H FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO., LOWENSTEIN, NEWMAN, REIS, AXELRAD & TOLL, STEEL, HECTOR & DAVIS |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17208A366 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-579, NUDOCS 8004020265 | |
| Download: ML20126C464 (25) | |
Text
,
st pa r, s e -- w C.*s e
D,,.v. m.
D S m. m. s o,.
.c n 2 ey L
2n
.-.....6
..i Lv.
44 0 6 w.e
..,,g.
.~.L V -
I.
a L n.~.
-cr
- e. r n....... y..
- c...... u I.- thc.?;;;er of:
1--.,-
r n.,.....
3
.-....-....v..-
c.
\\
e (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Uni: No. 2)
)
JL,, 1.
FPL'S RESPONSE TO MOTION CONCERNING CLASS 9 ACCIDENTS On December 12, 1979, Intervenors filed a motien relating to the further consideration of " Class 9" accidents in this proceeding.
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) hereby files its response in opposition to the motion.-1/
The motion appears to be based upon the Intervenor's view of the obligations which the Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission imposed upon itself as a necessary consequence of the measures it directed to be taken in its memorandum and order of last September relating to floating nuclear plants (FSPs).-2/
1 l
There, in response to certification of the cucz icn by the Appeal Board, the Commission held that "the Licensing Board
]
should be allowed to consider the environmen:2. consequences 1/
This response is filed in accordance with the schedule
]
the c:- c; cf a hearin:
I
-established bv the A eeal Board durin. Decembcr', 1979.
it was then conducting.
Tr. 877-878, 2/
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear P ' Or Plants);
Docket No. STN 50-437, - NRC September 14, 1979.
The memorandum and order is attached as an "Ac..cenzu " to the 4
I motion and we cite it here as "__ a."
i I
tc
~B004020 1
l e
. *== : accidsn s a:
h: EM?z..._:: :ffs.:r_ pr:;:ees ::
~:
.._.. - _ _ ; ; _ r _.
Th C:mmir:::r :2n: :: :: ::::
htt:
ur gran: cf rev_c'. ir this pr::::1_nr the narrow questi:n certified
.:as ' imited ::
is.either us by the Appeal Scard and it
- empl:y necessary ner appropriate for us this particular adjudicatory proceeding to resolve the generic issue of considera-land-based tion of Class 9 accidents at Such a generic action is more 2
reactors.
properly and effectively done through rule-making proceedings in which all interested persons may participate.
Therefore, we are not today expressing any views on the question of environmental consideration of Class 9 accidents at land-based' reactors which, as the Board noted, present risks.different in kind and perhaps in magnitude frem those risks presented by J
See 8 NRC at 218-19.
F.owever, we FNP.
are concerned about this question and in:end to complete the rulemaking begun by l
the Annax and to re-examine Cc= mission policy in this area.
To aid in that re-examination we ask our staff to:
1.
Provide us with its recommendations on how the interim guidance of the Annex might be modified, on an interim basis and until the rulemaking on this subject is completed, to reflect developments since 1971 and to accord more fully with current staff policy in this area; and i
2.
In the interim, pending completion of the rulemaking on this subject, bring to our attention, any individual cases in whic'h-it believes the environmental consequences of Class 9 accidents should be considered.
(Sa; footnote omitted)
The instant motion is based upon the following theory:
.i g.
e
}
C*.u. :...:
e......'-
.... t::
..O e
-v&*
....-....e.-n.
n.-.e.
-y--..-. --=..:
- y..
-y,*
7
- .-, * + ; *
<m.
- 3..:.. '.. = -
.-.-.-m..
.n.
_.- a-
_..e.
e -....._A-e
...u c.-.-..
. i:- -: --
_:.2, c _...
ze a-,-,
.....u.
.......:.. u
(::otioni
- e. 3; emphasis sucolied)
Proceeding from this interpretation, the motion asks that this Board direct the NRC Staff to file a proposed supple-ment to the St. Lucie 2 Final Environmental Statement:
which either (a) gives consideration to the environ-mental consequences of possible class 9 accidents at the proposed St. Lucie Unit No. 2 and recommends the weight to be assigned the resulting risk to the human environment in the Commission's determination of the enviren= ental impact of a decision to license construction of the proposed plant at St. Lucie on Hutchinson Island; or (b) fully justifies why such considera-tion should not be given in this particular Case.
(Motion, pp. 1-2)
The motion also requests that the Appeal Board direct that a hearing be held, preceded by prehearing procedures, "for a determination of the adequacy of the FES J
as suc.clemented."
Consecuently the r.ec.uest ac.carently is that such a hearing be conducted even if the FES Sup.1ement 1
merely justifies why consideration should not be given to l
Class 9 accidents.
Two possible alternatives to the relief described I
I i
absve are succ.ested in the motien.
One would be to sta"a l
l l
_4 s;
.e..% & M y----
-c
.u..=.
-=
s.-
=
...a w-......----..
.u..s -
. =
by t..h o
-='a-:..,
o
~.u.e s =.-=
= --
e a-1'ah
- c. " =- >- - ' c.. a-Staff in determining the individual cases in which Class 9 accidents should be considered as well as the'precedures for the review of such Staff determinations and how the FNP direction relating to seecific proceedings "is to be imple-cented with respect to pending proceedings."
(Motion, p. 2; see also p. 4)
FPL submits that the motica should be denied in its We demonstrate in greater detail below that the entirety.
relief primarily requested, as well as the alternatives, are neither legally necessary consequences nor a c.ropriate extensions of the action taken by the Commission in the FNP proceeding.
In addition, the Class 9 issue has been finally disposed cf in this construction permit proceeding and should nt: again be addressed in this c.roceedinc.
If the Interven:rs believe the issue should be considered again with res,ect to St. Lucie Uni: "o. 2o thev. may invoke a r
.M..O Y
.9 9**
-S
$Y$
- [
-3
---=:.-,
..-...< c.. -,. -... - _... -
....i.
.....- _.= -..
- -. -.....- _n.
- =....... _...... -.---.
. u..
.....-.u s.
_:,3,
. -... =.. - -.. -
='
C.=.".._=s=,-=._--_._____--~'=__..'...=_~__=_..-_..-
g _a....
Board on environmental and site suitability matters which authorized the issuance of a limited work authorization to FPL.
1 NRC 101 (February 2 8, 1975), as supplemented 1 NRC 463 (April 25, 1975).
This was affirmed in part and reversed in (with respect to the consideration of alternative sites) 3 NRC 830 (Jane 29, part by the Appeal Board in ALAB-335, and the Intervenors appealed the decision to the 1976);
of Appeals for the District of Columbia United States Court 3/
Circuit (No. 76-1709).
the Licensing Board, af ter having On April 19, 1977, heard the remanded alternative sites issue and the remaining undecided construction permit issues, released its initial 5 NRC decision authorizing the issuance of the permit.
4/ That decision was affirmed bv. the A.cc.eal Board on 1038.
October 7, 1977.
ALAB-435, 6 ::F.: 541.
Intervenors sought review bv the Cc =_ssion under 10 CFR S 2.786 (b),
i discretionary e_:ernative sites issue, the 3/
Because of the outstandir.
._:hcri ed by the partial-limited construction activit;-_
- rfer of the Court of Appeals initial decision were stayed h;In the same crder the Court directed on October 21, 1976.
that the appeal in No. 76-1709 he held in abe"ance.
j J
f
}
I 4/
Thereaf ter, on May 12, 19~7, the'C:urt of Appeals dis-0 -. - " a.- U sM.. ". c c'
- k.. a.
s ~ a v. o# co..s-_-"-.- ~.~. 4.
- k. a c'
-os"a.
v..
~_,
1976, and directed tha: the appea'_ in ::o. 76-1709 no 1cnger be held in abeyance.
i
]
I i
l I
l
l
~
I i
l i
1
_o u,
....,a
.n......
. = -.,........,..
.......,a-.,..i :--
=---.
......,..... =.
m u.,-.
- ..,s
,.....a
.a. - -..= o -. =. - c ;. --..-..
,--c.-
- ...:---= (...
i.
1978.
559 F.2d affirmed them in one decision en December 26, of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing 1115.
The Court
-5/
cn January 15, 1979.
On October 1, 1979, Ihtervenors' of certiorari was denied by the United States petition for a writ Supreme Court, 100 S.Ct. 55, and a petition for rehearing was denied on November 26, 1979.
48 U.S.L.W. 3357 (Novsm.-
i ber 27, 1979).
The " Class 9" issue was fully litigated and finally decided in the course of the proceedings described above.
On June 5, 1974,.while prehearing procedures were being conducted by the Licensing Board, the Intervenors filed a-
" proposed refined stat.ement of matters in controversy,"
contending, among other things, that FPL had failed "to consider Class 9 accidents as part of their design h::is."
In its comments on the refined statement, FPL objec;ed to the contention on the ground, among others, that the C:m-m.ission's rec.ulations did not rec.uire clants to be desic.ned
- nd to withstand the consecuences of a Class 9 accident, 5/
The judgment and accompanying memorandum of.the C:urt to e:her of Appeals are' reproduced in the Appendix hereto, with the order denv.ing rehearing.
Pursuant to Lcc.al Rule
)
13 (c), the memorandum was not included in the repor:3d to be sited as a precedent opinions of the Court and is not"Hcwever, counsel may refer to such orders, under Rule 2 (b).
i 4--
^#
e--
and
..e-
- ..d','.# c - s " ' s - " - - = = = = s a r '- c = - - -.. - - - -.. -.. a. a e--r of res judicata, collateral.er: ppel, and lat. cf th: :::e, s ". 4 c.5 * "u -. -..
.' a.
b.4. e i.. -
a,. # # a..-. c.e
- .'e 3'" d -..=..., -...... c.
l its qualit; as prececant."
L::a1 Rule S (f).
- . j
'~'
-m._.,
_._ j
'~.:_-
' ~-~~
.c
.n heen 7..ie :: mac: :..
- a parti-
_ ::r 2 1. :::::ib_li / cf the :::urrence
'::ing ir
- -- :*Je cd
- idan: gancri:1_;. r:r:rded :
n- --
e,
.u-6/
w----
Thereafter, en June 25, 1974, the Commission Staff and the Intervenors filed a " Stipulation and Joint Motion" con-statement of the issues those' parties thought taining a joint The docu-to be appropriate contentions in the proceeding.
also described issues the Intervenors wished considered.,
ment but which the Staff thought should not be litigated in the proceeding.
Therefore it included (p. 12) an expression of the Staff's view that the Class 9 issue should not be litigated because there had been "no showing of reasonable possibility" of a Class 9 accident at St. Lucie 2, as required by the Shoreham decision.
FPL concurred in that view,~7/ but Inter-venors replied that:
6/
" Applicant's Comments on Intervenors' Proposed Refined Statement of Matters in Controversy," June 18, 1974, p.
2.
The Shoreham test referred to was that set forth in Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 833-36 (1973), affirmed by unpublished order f
sub nom.
Lloyd Harbor Study Group v. Atomic Energy Commission l
(D.C. Cir., No. 73-2266, November 11, 1976), vacated on o:ner l
grounds sub nom.
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Lloyd Harbor Study Group, 435 U.S. 964 (1976).
l 7/
" Response of Applicant to Stipulation and Joint Motion,"
i i
June 28, 1974, p.
15.
l l
l i
l
.\\
l... h :. c ; ;. ; rc:.;..._
I..:__..= i;cizi:n ithe;.
.1-
- ;;f _1; t i.. _.-_;n
- irr t: th:t
" :liir : _.
c.;; tha Ir p u_~
n zupp ::ir-
- h2 d;;_;__.
- 2s
.:: 1:ri: 2 '_ _ ; uph:li che result.1 "Irehearing C:nference Order 73,"
datef
- eearcheless, ir _:s July 12, 1974, the Licensing Board ruled as follows:
As to statement on Contention 1.7 (page 12, Joint Motion) Board agrees that,there has been no showing of a reasonable pos-sibility of class 9 accident at St. Lucie and therefore an issue relating to a class 9 accident' is denied.
8 AEC 117, 124-125.
The Intervenors excepted to this ruling and briefed the exception,-9/ but this Board affirmed.
ALAB-335, 3 NRC 630, 841 (1976).
The Class 9 issue was central to Intervencrs' case 10/
when they sough judicial review.--
The issue was also fully S/
"Intervenors Response to Applicants Response to Stipula-tion and Joint Motion," dated July 5, 1974, p.
7.
9/
"Intervenors Exceptions to the ASLB Partial Initial Deci-sion (Dated February 28, 1975) as Supplemented," May 2, 1975,
- p. 1; "Intervenors Briefs on Exceptions 2-45 and Motion for Additional Time to Brief Exceptions," July 3, 1975, pp.
1-2.
10/
See " Petitioners Brief on Partial Initial Decision"
?Eled in D.C. Cir. No. 76-1709, February 15, 1978, pp.
3, 14-19; " Petitioners Reply Brief to Respondents, U. S.
- ,uclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America,"
July 24, 1973, pp.
2-5.
.g__
9-
~
-......-=,...: --
- ..=-......
..u..,,.---....:
.u =-
- ==
u
.u
- n. --- o : c-..=
- - - - - - -.. - - -.. = - - - - - - - - - - - -. - -
u:.:
-=:
v.<. --. u... - - - - -. - -:
"cuestien presented" or one of the " issues presented for review."--12/The memorandum of the Court of Appeals affirm-ing tn,e cecasson expressly deals with and disposes c:. the issue in the first and third paragraphs.
See Appendix hereto.
The petition for rehearing filed in the Court of Appeals and the petition for a' writ of certiorari were devoted solely to the Class 9 issue, as was the petition for rehearing
). 3_/
filed in the Supreme Court.
When it issued ALAS-435, affirming the initial decision, the Appeal Board sua sponte asserted and retained jurisdiction over one issue, steam generator tube integrity.
6 NRC at 544-546.
It later amended ALA3-435 to cover matters relating
_1_4 /
to grid stability, and on April 11, 1978, the Commission l
11/
See Brief for " Respondents United States Nuclear Regula-
)
E3ry Commission and the United States of America" in Nos.
~
76-1709 and 75-1149, pp.
1, 3-4, 7-9.
12/
See Inter /eners "Brief on Partial Initial Decision,"
E. T 2.; Governmen: Brief, p. 1; and FPL's Brief, p. 1.
l f:r Rehearing and Su gestion for Rehearing 13/
See Peti:..
EE Banc filed in 2.0.
Cir. Mcs. 76-1709 and 78-1149 on Janu-ary 10, 1979; Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Petition for Rehearinc filed in Hodder et al. v. United States Nuclear Reculatory Cerr.issibn et al., Supreme Court of the United j
~
States, oc:ccer :erm, 1970, No. 78-1652.
j 1
1 14/
See A: ea' 5: arf crder issued in this proceeding on l
i c< w- - w w,.
O, aga-..
e I
w-i 1
l
- Iv i:2.f i:.:. _ :: i th:: the rc::r_
_ _ :: ::nsii:.;
^
r..__.=.,__...
(_.
.:... w =_. _-
. e. m...
.._.... _,. : m.,,....
..a ;,
.ee, 9 NRC 407, 417 (1979), the Appeal Scard c::pressly terminatef leaving its jurisdiction over the steam generator tube issue, open to the exercise of.ippeal Board jurisdic' tion only the grid stability and radon issues.
2.
Final disposition of the Class 9 issue.
From the M
foregoing, it is clear that the Class 9 issue in.this pro-ceeding has been fully litigated and finally decided -- both within the Cc==ission and in the courts.
Once a decision has become final because the time for Cc= mission review has expired, both the licensing boards anf the Appeal Board lese jurisdiction over the proceeding.
10 CFR S 2. 717 (a) ;l Houston Lighting and Power Company et al.
(Scuch Texas Project Unit Nos. 1 and 2), ALAB-381, 5 NRC 582, 590-591 (1977);
Washington Public Power Sucply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5), ALAB-501, 8 NRC 381 (1973); Public Service Comocny of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill..uclear Generating Station, Units 1 and.2), ALAS-530, 9 ::R 2 61 (1979).
As s
the Appeal Soard stated in the Scu:1-U " s proceeding, "the-total regulatory scheme does not centemplate the resurrec-tion of a terminated construction permit proceeding [even] in the' event of a later material.chcng,in' circumstances."
5 ::P.C.
a 591.
It went en to state:
l-
t
- u.. m.,....,.,
have heer supervening dera ::=2nts bring-
-.., -.... -.... =. -. u. =-
-..-....::........=......
. u..
.e
=-- ---
.a
.would appear :: be :::11-; f:rs:1:sen.
Unfer cur regular:r. schc=c, f th: parscr were n:: prere-=# :o stife the arrira; cf the operatin~v license stage, his remede would lie in seeking the issuance of an order -- not by a licensing board but by the appropriate official on the NRC Staff -- which would trigger a show cause proceeding (i.e., one of the types of pro-ceedings expressly provided for in the Rules of Practice).
5 NRC at $93; footnote omitted.
Here the Class 9 issue was decided by the Licensing and Appeal Boards; the Cc= mission permitted the time for review to pass; and judicial review of the Class 9 issue was conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2342, which applies only to " final orders."
The South Texas, WPPSS and Marble Hill decisions demonstrate that if jurisdiction over the grid stability and radon issues had not been retained, the Appeal Board would have had no authority whatsoever to reopen the issue.
Other precedent makes it clear that the retention of authority over those issues does not change the result.
of New Hameshire.
Directly in point is Public Service Co.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-513, 8 URC 694 (l'~~
There a party sought to reopen the record of a construction permit proceeding en the issue of financial cualifications cfter
-a
__:,..;;, i :::..s; :: the resoluci:: :f
-_ r :r ' -- fr i r.;
b; c;rtuc Of nffirman:e b; :n e C :_.-
7 ss::r :n; b;. the Ccurt cf App ;12 f:r th ri :: Cir:;_1.
3: arf still had before it the "entircl; fiserste
~hs 2 7ps2_
to an earlier C==issi n issue" of alternative sites pursuant The Board held that the pendency of the latter directive.
" preserve our jurisdiction over other, unrelated issue did not
" including the issue earlier resolved.
questions Shortly thereafter, in Virginia Electric and Power Cc=pany (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALA3-551, 9 NRC 704 (1979), a similar issue was raised in the context of an operating license proceeding in which all three discrete issues had been finally decided.
In but that proceeding, the Staff had informed the Appeal Board of the existence of a "significant new development," as it was required to do in all pending cases,.concerning the " current practice of relying on non-safety grade equipment to mitigate 9 NRC the severity of anticipated operational occurrences."
l at 706.
With respect to the question whether it had juris-t diction to consider the issue, the Appeal ~ Board held that the authority vested in adjudicatory boards to raise new issues must be limited by the principle of finality which governs NRC proceedings to the same extent as any other proceedings, and once review of an issue has been terminated, the Appeal Board loses all jurisdiction over 4:.
~., = _, :_g_.=..
.._c_
._ v.._-
,,.=...__.u_._
- s. _ a._.,. _.: :- _. _ _... ~
c.
.. =..,
a
. =. _. =. _ =. _. _ -
.. = _ -.. _ _.
o v..
However, the issue involving Class 9 accidents is a
709.
a new issue in the proceeding.
Rather, review of that not issue has been completed.
This Board has, therefore, lost jurisdiction over it.
The fact that the Board has retained authority over the grid stability and radon issues does not modifv. this result.
The motion totally ignores the line of authority just discussed.
It argues that the Appeal Board should exercise iurisdiction over the Class 9 irsue simelv. "[blecause the s
crder was entered prior to completion of these proceedings.
1 et al. (Peach Bottom citing Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-480, 7 NRC 796 (1978) as authority.
(Motion, pp. 2-3).
There the Appeal-I:ard held that the Comission " wishes the radon question to reexamined in every pending proceeding 7 NRC at 5;~, n.
4.
However, this is but an example of the exercise the Commissicn of authority similar to that of the Appeal
_.;;d, "to raise sua scente issues which were neither pre-sented to nor considered by the licensing board."
ALAB-551 sucra, 9 URC at 707.
We are not presented here with such an issue, but rather with one which has been finally decided.
m
=-.....
n
... =..... -
= - - -. -
n.
-... -.. = -. -
.-.=.. - - - - - -..
=:-
-...... -...- - c.: -- --..
- -c..=
= -,
.--=.....,=. ----
-- --.~
- = :
u =-
- .u-
.. =
...=-.-..
. =.
1~
as established in the proposed " Anne.x"~~- -,.to its environmental regulations, was that Class 9 accidents need not be considered In incivicua.3 3icensinc. proceec ncs.
T.ne po, icy has been re.ce atediv. uc. held both by the Ao.ceal Board and the courts.
(Floating Nuclear Power Plants),
See Offshore Power Systems ALAS-439, 8 NRC 194, 209-210 (1978), and cases there cited.
The impact of that decision, as confirmed by the Ccmmission, to orovide for consideration of such accidents "in was sico.lv.
licensing proceedings concerning offshore plants.
Public Service Company of Oklahoma et al.
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAS-573, slio oo. po. 30-31 (December 7, 1979).--16/
the Commission's FNP decision clearly
- However, "The states that it is addressed only to offshore reactors.
existinc colicy on Class 9 accidents was not set aside for land-based plan :.
(cupra, at p.
31)
Nor were Licensing or Appeal Boards even authorized to conduct Class 9 proceed-ings with respect :: 1:.nf-based plants.
To the centrary, as the Appeal Board h; - _. Black Fox, "the Commissicn has l
l 15/
36 Fed. Rec. 22251-52 (December 1r 1979).
See errata filed in the Black Fo:. dcchets on December 17, li/
- c. t sc.
-s 1
i
t 8
2s30!*.*55 20 _ ; ; ; 2 L.'. C rijn: 00 C.E ; ' ' e '.T.*.i t h 6 0 IU Ch = ~.:0 0 l*2 LZ1 t~
ha " ;. J _1 ".* $ in in*
pi7iT OLIe 0L:11 it aiOp~2 0
- 7. F.
l gs n e l*; l p : 11 '",*. "
~hii.
Interven:rs, nevertheless, assert tha the Cctmissi:n
. I
}
consideration has " abandoned any generic prohibition against 1
1 of class 9 accidents
." and note that it has directed the Staff to bring to its attention individuai cases in
]
which the Staff believes Class 9 accidents should be con-sidered.
They go on to argue that the Commission "must now either give, or provide a reasoned explanation for its refusal It to give, such consideration in each individua1 case.
c:nnot delegate unreviewable discretion to the Staff."
(Motion, pp. 2-3) assertion that the Conmission has abandoned Intervencrs' any generic prohibition against consideration of Class 9 As the Appeal Board stated l
accidents is plainly erroneous.
in Black Fox, the Class 9 policy "was not set aside" except with respect to offshore plants.
In light of the f act that the Commission is " rethinking the. policy," it is entirely appro-that it be advised of the priate for the Commission to direct cases, if any, that the Staff believes should now be excepted 17/
The fact that the Commission has announced its intention Eo hold r'ulemaking proceedings on the Class 9 issue is another reason the issue should not be considered in a specific adjudication.
Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point
- uclear Generating Station, Unt
- s.1 anc 2), ALA3-218, 8 AEC
\\., - t n ).
- lae, On s
i 9
G
- ~ -
9 v.c
. ~.
,.-.y.,,,y,.,,y,.
- 7
~ - - ~ _
o O
16 -
.a
....~..
y....,
e...-
w.
m.....:.
. ~...
.... '.. -. g. f.
r
..v
.. ~.
...-n........'a._e
.,w
_m..
- -..=..... -..
..a.=-
v.e-.
=.<. a. n...
.... -s.e...... -
In connection with the Commission's FNP and the Black Fox
-.he ctac.c
--. a. a. a. a +
22-
+
nn, c.e c 4. 4 o.. s,.we
.,.o e. e e h _, #.
.ne nypea.
--c.
w a.
to make a recommendation to the Ccamissicn as to whether the Class 9 issue should be considered in that proceeding.
We a similar direction would be inappropriate here.
submit that The Board issued the direction in Black Fox because:
The c. roceedinc. before the Licensing Board is now half completed.
Mani-if that Board is to reexamine
- festiv, tu..e rams:: cations c: C, ass 9 events, an e o.
.t s a+
.us.,un.
. u. n.
e_ _4 -,. m.
.e after the record closes and new, not its decision issued.
Slic on at c.. 32.
No such consideration exists here.
The Class 9 issue has been finally ruled uPon and the decision has alreafy issued.
4.
'.allable relief.
All of the forms of relief suggested
- "=* s o...a
'r..d..c' o."
- h e a.- c; "...a...~
"., "
- k.. e T.... c..- ". =... a-
"...n u y ^..
wa -.
j C 3. a s s a
.# d =..".*. s
.4.s
.e.~w '.egu.d.v e d.i.n tb.4 s o
c -..c.4 c =. - =.3...
w
.- o C 2 2 w.;...... - "..e n.
o:..k. m.
.r".. o. C' e. 4 r.a L.*e s,,w-..4.
. k.a *
- h. e w..
2 a s..
y
+ ' B +. v e a s o e.r vnv
.D
+wm.
- .%. 4 s 4 s
.4 n o.w.e e n.
%.,,w,e c~ c.... e.
a-. =-)
w w..
.w.
7 n 4 n.4 6. 4 3 12/
- m..a. n.
.e..:
k..ms --
,42 4
- u. m. C r.....4.e s.4 o - b.l * '3 f.
o.
u
_._.f
. b..W W
. b.
...h.
L.......
.g.
... r.N.%.
- k. o.,... %. 3 4.
.. 4... -. 4. A.- - 3 c,.:
- Wm
.,.c.. e s..
...4 w *
.b., e
.'..o d.d #.# e d 2
3...
..w c.
4 9
c'.e. m. 4 4 e n +.
- e..n.
w.
.J
..e.J..
L.3
- 5. e.
l'
(*._e) q s...
18 C.1, e e
-a a
21 Q */ 5 e C,"C'p h..
p%pe.
M.m
?.4 E..o...... *
- r V.,*n
.. *.* e s
..n
..w.
. g
.. y
~. -..
? '
nc;;..;; :.._ ;_;i. r; C _.5 reguest:; :n the m::::....;-_
~
th; ru p. - -
_:;rr.;; ices sh uld he gr:nted.
The moti r sh:_ -
(
- nersd:r: le isnied.
In
- rdance.ich this 2:;rl's r2; ult:-
ce als addrars the questier "whether there is any other avenue of relief open within the Ccmmission."
(Tr. 665)
We believe the answer to this question has been supplied Intervenors are I
in the South Texas and Seabrook proceedings.
I free under 10 CFR S 2.206 to request the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to institute a show cause proceeding under 10 CFR S 2.202.to revoke or suspend the construction permit.
ALAS-3 81, 5 NRC at 588;.ALAB-513, 8 NRC at 696.
By making
}
this suggestion we do not admit or suggest that the merits of such a petition would warrant its grant.
As did the Appeal Board in Seabrook, we merely point out that the Intervenors i
are "now in the wrong forum."
Respectfully submitted, 1
Harold F. Reis Lowenstein, Newman, Reis,
)
l Axelrad & Toll t
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 l
Telephone:
(202) 862-8400 Norman A. Coll Steel, Hector & Davis 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami,.FL 33131-Telephone:
(305) 577-2800 A: crneys for Florida Power &
1 Light Company Dated:
January 16, 1990 j
4
~ " ' ~
--m._'.,,,
5 I
2 APPENDIX f
I e
a t
I I
e 4
f 1
0 i
l 1
i t
- r___,
'"'"=t'r'-'
-ww
-a w,,
,-m__w 9
4 e
J
/*-
......,,...n
.,-e.....
.n e.,,.,.,.
3.,s
~,._...s-w
....s
,n
(
..... ~..... -....,....-;.-,.
., r,3..
- 3...
.c-.
Pe:iti:ners e.. e *.h g
I
ff"~'
{
,[d sI,
, l ;,. i 71 1,' "(.,
, 3,.,f *,,, ; n 4 N 'A ' g',.. i
('.....".
U.S. Su:le:: Eegulatery C =issica and United Stat es of A.. erica,
,g'g 1 $ 1979 Respendents G ORGg A. FISHER h :rica reuer s 1.ign: C::pany,
- c. cu In:ervenors And Ccnsc11da:ed Case '!o. 78-1149 McGowan and Uilkey, Circuit Judges; Tiannery*, Judge, United B ETC?.I:
States District Cour; for the Dis:rict of Colunbia O'R D E R Upon consideracien of petitieners' action for ' leave to file a petiti:n tine having expired, fer rehearing and/or su;;gestien for rehearing g bant, appearing that petitieners' no cppositien having been filed thereto, and it petition for rehearing and/or suggestion fer rehearing e,n bane is lodged with the Clerk's Office, i: is 0F.0EF.ID,'by the Cour:, that the notion of petitioners Rodder, et a1. for leave is grsnted and the Clerk is directed te file peci:icners' lodged petitien and/or suggestion and to enter same on the de:het.
Per Curiam
..,... C O...
t u r, i n:.
.u.
f^
')
G'G$hy &,WPQ C " -.. s~ ~
n' u.e "..'".. r ?.,
Cic k
- Si::in:; by desi;;ncti:n pursunn: to Ti:~.;....Z.::. 9 292(c).
l j
s.
Q
- . ;. ?.. -... -..-.. - -.
,.....,.,.,,g.,.,.,,
.v.,, y,.,.
.,. m -...,.. o.. s.-,
r>
- i.,.s g
,p
, / n.
,.n m.
- 1...... ;.... :.,
a,_
e
..., :. c...e. a -....
....s, g.p r",..' e ;. i r.. a 0 ' N.....
r*
eM
,,,,",'.,,."..,',',"g,*"'g"*"3
- t. g..... c,,
.. e u_.,.. C. i s s....
d 3
3
"" ~~ "'"
and United S ta:es of Ansrica, Respondents 3 OEC 2 6 1978 Florida Pc er & Light C:npany, Intervener 78-1149 GEORGZ A. I ISHER i
c'_cu 1:crtin Harold Hodder, et al., Peti:ioners v.
U.S. Suelear Regulctor/ Cct.. mis s io n and Uni:cd States.of Anerica, Respondents Flcrida 5'c;ter and Light Co., Intervenor FETITICUS FOR REVIEU OF ORDERS OF THE SUCLEAR REGULATORY CC'O Judges, and T'.':::ET.Y,* United States d
Ecfore: McGd'..'AN and WILREY, Circui:
District Judge for the District of Columbia
_J_.U. _D..G.M.E_ _N_ _T.
These causes came.on to be heard on petitions for review of orders of the Nucicar Regulatory Cor:.ission and were argued by ecunsel. On censideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by this Court, that the crders of tr.c Suclear Regulato:j Concission under revie'.7 herein are hereby af fi: ::, for the ressens forth in the attached nctorandu=.
sc:
?:: Curic:
.....C..,..
( h. 'f 1
- * ". '. ' A \\
(. ~ ' 3.. m
- .i G
- ::;cy.. Fisher C1crh
,r.
.n..
- n.,,
.,. c u..
e.. :.. :
.4...,
,,s.
d o.
.o..
.... u..
.:... e c.....,,.,,,.
4 a..
...,. e.
t...,.,..
.....,....a...
r.
,.o
_e.. S,C.
y...(F,,.
s c :.
- Sit *ina b.
- h. e 4
.st,......
u.
v
-.w.....-
e.......
~
r-
,..m.s.-..
a.:.. ) :.:... -..
u...
.?
..a.....
- : s
..;......r...
u.
.:: r..
- m. -.
t.
g.
"....u.;,...
e......,
.n - ~..4 c
.C. a # a '."; E.A T.4 - a a.. e #.. :*
n' r.~ a -. T., = # A a..# -
.s
--' 1 C'..* ' '. a..
a S 7.
"..O..,.
- - - -... 4.. : - den 4 c:. - c.. o #.
'vF.a-Atomic Safety and Licensin e:4 s
3
.e...
pg :..... a s t...:, 1.4....t e A. c n.. cs-.v s;on wo_., u
- ".
- _ s# 'a ova-u-
p, S.ie tu -
o,.: a, u.; c,. s
.u.. a
~r - r.,u1r,s;o.. g.e.... tun g 7. :.
s 2
u u
u;
-, u.:s._;
.e e
e and were not in accordance with the NRC's own regulations, tion.
e.# # eC's c #.
- a.4.' 1.'. c t o e a a~...4 n e
'.k..e e.
.#. ~..~...a..'..M.
".. R r.. ' e tk.. r
' '4 a
'w.. a "..='.4...".'
b a". 4 # e. i.. e.c... s '..4 '.- ' ' '.. a. # a v4
-'_.# -.*. o#
c
...a:,-
.* '.a--
42 U.S.C. S 4321, _et sec. (1976).
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, challenc.e is brought to an Appeal Board decisica Inho. 73-1149, that the NRC's e:.:ar.ination and consideration of alternative sites for the proposed project complied with NEPA.
claim on the regulations issue is that Hutch-Petitioners' inson Island itself should be considered a " population center" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. part 100.
We disagree.
The no-tion of a population " center" implies sc=e centralized grouping c.. c -... a n _.- a '.i o. o #.
_- a_ e.4 c' a. n '...e, 7 " *. ' k.. a. '"-e o# di s. a _ s e.d.
."'.$-a rm. -
-; r
- _ a_ s e..'.. c. i rI" ' '.. d.n e..
s ' a..#.
c - a_
"..a_".. r_...'__=...'
C - e ' _# * # ~..
u_
4e ae r
c. ".. ". 7 c. - P o '_ 1 n' '_4. e n v. U.. _i _ a_ # s t '_ a_ s
'.c. ". ' e - - Ra ' ',=. '_ o v. C -.... # e -
sion, Mos. 77-1219, et al.,
slip op. at 7 (1st Cir., Isugust 22, t
,n/3 ).
l l
e S
o t
I [
I
...:.. e
=...
...._.._..-.......,._e:.u..,,.
n.:
.c -
z.-
v
.......:....-.....e.:. -,..... _
Carolina Envirc.-rent.1 Stuf / Grouc v.
a
" Class 9" accidents.
510 F.2d 796, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
It is United States, Carclina was decided prior to the p'ublication in final true that (1975),- that found draft of the Recctor Safaty Study, WASH-1400 a probability of Class 9 accidents significantly greater than (1957).
had'b'een indicated by the previous study, WASH-740 howe */cr, has been reaffirmed by decisions of this
- Carolina, Lloyd subsequent to the" publication of the 1975 study.
court Harbor Study Grouc, Inc. v. NRC, No. 73-2266 (D.C. Cir., Nov. 29, 1978);.Aeschlim.n v. MRC, 547 F.2d 622, 632 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1976),
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
rev' d on other grounds sub nom.
- v. NP.DC, 435 U.S.
519 (1978).
These decisions accord with the
~
Long Island Lichting reasoned and consistent view of the NRC.
(1973).
(Sh5reham Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831 Co.
On remand frcm a previous decision of the Appeal Board, ALAB-255, 3 MF.C 830 (June 20, 1976), the NRC's staff conducted an investigation of sin actual alternative sites, including Hutchinsen Island.
':'he Appeal Board concluded that this analysis gave adequate consideration to possible alternative sites.
Florida Licht and Pcwer Co. (St. Lucie Muclear Power Project, l
c...:..... ' ), 5 ". ":.w 103o, 10:0
('. o 7 7 ).
" e = #. #. #.... * '...e c..'"e4^^
a--..,
.i
.l
4 s
J h
a e
O ame a
.,g m see === -
=
=
um m e g
be g4 m
. e se
+,,
d e.=.
se'ea em -
g
.,e a-w
.. w ~ ~ e. =w a *= =. - -
. a.
M. g ge.g gem, y e
=
e
.e w
=
O d
en E9y g8 ut ee#It *
- em a
we a,,
e
.~p
, *s,
ee,=
-[m-
..e-s -
w em
$ W
$O O $ e p
- 1 i *1 g
.a -,
e vew e e
S 6
l 1
l O
I I
O 8
4 O
O
-~
.- ~. - -. - -
U....h-e. e...:, L'... _......
....~._....e.
- e.._e c..... 9 e.v. en v.n.. e q IO
i.
- --..~.- -
~. ". = ~ * * - ~
..:.~...... :;-a L..
.T th" I!!^r Of:
~
-- ;ec
^
~ --,
a-.., G..: r..
.-=
k
.n.
.. : -.. :.n c.
.a s
)
,$:. Lu cie.:ucle = -
~ = '- Olan:,
)
Unic do. 2)
- -.e.u.
C r er r
Cre., r a.-.r C.r s
E I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and correct copies of "FPL s Response to Motion Concerning Class 9 Accidents," captioned in the above matter, together with the Appendix thereto, were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, properly stamped and addressed, on the date shown below:
Mr.
C. R. Stephens, Supervisor Richard S. Sal:: man, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety & Licensing Office of the Secretary Appeal Board of the, Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq.
Michael C.
Farrar, Esq.
Chairman Atemic Safety & Licensing Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Nuclear Regulatory Com.ission Appeal Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
' ashington, DC 20555 Edward Luton, Esq.
Dr.
W. Reed Johnson Chairman Atomic Safety.& Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing i
Board Panel Appeal Board Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Cc=.ission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 g
,r g.
l 5
- _~ -
- ":. -.c.v
.1
-~~..
....u.-'.
.,e
..,... - =... -.. _
-...-....w.,4.~....
e.,
w...
2....
- 4. g..:.J
- m -
r...s. 4-w. ~.-
, ~.
l 7
.O.,,,..
...s
.....r
.e.
<aa.......
s
........=.=...:
4
= -_..._.=..
'~
. & ' ' c o.~. s '. ~ B o '
"..'..'=.c-
=. =. - ".. ' ='...-';
w.--..-. =. = - -. ~.
c. : w. '
"uclear Regula: cry Cc==ission Washing:On, DC 20555 n w.... w 1
i Washincron, DC 20555 William J. Olmstead, Esc..
i Dr. David L.
Hetrick Nuclear Rec.ulatorv. Commission Professor of Nuclear Engineering Washington, DC 20555 University of Ari cna Local Public Document Rocm Tucson, AZ 85721 Indian River Junior College Library Dr. Frank F.
Hocper 3209 Virginia Avenue Chairman Rescurce Ecoloc.v. Program Ft. Pierce, FL 33450 School of Natural Resources Norman A.
Coll, Esc.
University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Steel, Hector & Davis 1400 Southeast First National Bank Suilding Martin Harold Hodder, Esc.
4 Miami, FL 33131 1
1130 NE 86 Street 1
Miami, FL 33138 i
l l
V Harold F.
Reis Lowenstein, New=an, Reis, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Azanue, NW Washington, DC 20.2i (202) 862-8400 January 16, 1980 1