ML19289C633
| ML19289C633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1979 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901220012 | |
| Download: ML19289C633 (7) | |
Text
~
sC PUDGC DLCU.' ENT ROOM g
q?$
s SEWEO j.ui 1 1 C '
s g7_
h ;3hM 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA cgA NUCLEAR RFULATORY COMMISSION y
,p
- cs 6
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-400
^
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
)
50-403 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, (Remanded Issues) f Units 1, 2, 3 and 4)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING INTERVENTION PETITION The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has received three le tters da ted respec tively November 7, 27, and 29, 1978 from Mr. Wells Eddleman of Durham, North Carolina.
He seeks to intervene in this proceeding on behalf of him-self and the Kudzu Alliance of Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
The Board has regarded all three letters as a petition for leave to intervene under 10 CFR 92.714 and we deny the petition.
The petition raises many safety, environmental and economic issues, some within and some without the juris-diction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
With the exception of its relation to the single issue remanded by the Commission's Order of September 5, 1978 (management capabilities of Applicant), the petition to intervene is too late to be considered by this Board.
We issued an 7901220012
. initial decision authorizing a construction permit for the Shearon Harris facility on January 23, 1978.
7 NRC 92.
That decision was affirmed by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on August 30, 1978.
8 NRC 234.
The matter is pending before the Commission.
This Board is without authority to reopen the record of this pro-ceeding for the full hearing demanded by the petitioner.
Therefore, with respect to all issues except the remanded issue, the petition is denied for want of jurisdiction.1/
However, in his Contention 11, Mr. Eddleman raises the issue of Applicant's management capabilities as demonstrated by its operational experience.
Letter of November 7.
This is within the scope of the Commission's remand and we have jurisdiction to consider the petition with respect to that issue.
1/
Even though this Board does not have the authority to conduct the hearing requested by Mr. Eddleman, we reviewed his correspondence to determine whether a basis exists for alerting the Commission to extra-ordinary circumstances warranting a new hearing.
We find no such basis.
The NRC regulatory staff is aware of Mr. Eddleman 's assertions.
We see no reason why the matter should not be handled in the normal post-licensing manner.
The petition is very late.
A Notice of hearing and opportunity to intervene was pu'.,lished on September 29, 1972.
37 Fed. Reg. 30344.
Because of the long delay in the proceeding, the Board on June 23, 1977, issued a second notice notifying the public concerning procedures for late intervention.
42 Fed. Reg. 31844.
Sub-sequently, pursuant to another notice of hearing (42 Fed.
Reg. 44615, September 7, 1977) a public hearing was ceu-ducted in Raleigh, North Carolina in September and October 1977.
Evidence on the issue of management capacity was received at the public hearing.
There was no request to intervene from Mr. Eddleman or the Kudzu Alliance until the petition presently under consideration was filed. /
2 In explaining the lateness of his petition, Mr. Eddleman reports that the Kudzu Alliance did not exist, and he was not a resident of the relevant area on June 23, 3/
1977, the date of the second intervention notice.-
The 2,/
Mr. Speights, a member of the Kudzu Alliance, having failed in an effort to intervene, was provided an opportunity to make a limited appearance statement.
3/
Letter of November 27, p.3.
. Board does not regard this reason as good cause for accepting a late petition under the standards of 10 CFR 92.714 (a ) (1).
Under Mr Eddleman's theory, there could never be finality to this administrative proceeding because the proceeding would always be subject to additional litigation as even more new residents move into the area or new organizations are forned in the future.
This, of course, would be incompatible with 4/
administrative due process.-
The Applicant and the public are entitled to a timely conclusion to this pro-ceeding.
The Board has also considered the four other factors 5/
to be balanced under 52.714(a)(1).-
Mr. Eddleman addresses 4,/
See The Cleveland Electric Illumina ting Comoanv, et al.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 750 (1977) and the cases cited therein.
5/
10 CFR 12.714(a)(1)
Non-timely filings will not be entertained absen a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the following factors in addition to those set out in paragraph (d) of this section:
(1-)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii)The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
. these factors as if he is entitled to a new hearing on all issues to be considered in a construction permit proceeding.
Consequently his arguments do not provide much guidance.
Letter of November 29, p.4 et seq.
There are no other means by which the petitioners' interests in the remanded issue will be protected.
This factor weighs somewhat in favor of granting the petition but not enough to outweigh all of the other reasons why the petition should be denied.
We have carefully examined the petitioning papers to determine whether the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
Mr. Eddleman makes only passing reference to the renanded issue, and we can see no indication that he has information or ideas which will make a significant con-tribution to the record.
As noted above he seems to be greatly occupied with matters that do not even concern the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Other parties will be representing the petitioners' interest in the remanded issue.
Both the Attorney General of North Carolina and counsel for the consolidated inter-venors have indicated that they expect to participate in the hearing on remand.
Moreover, the remanded issue is one raised by the Board itself, and we intend to actively participate in the development of the record.
- If the petitioners were permitted to intervene, their participation would not broaden the issues simply because the Board would not permit the issues to 'oe broadened.
Therefore this factor weighs slightly
,a favor of permitting intervention, but not enough to tip the balance in petitioners' favor.
The Staff has already filed its proposed evidence on the remanded issue.
The Applicant, Attorney General and Intervenors are expected to file their proposed evidence on January 16, 1979.
If the petitioners were permitted to intervene, it would either cause a delay in the pro-ceeding while they prepare their case, or, if no delay were permitted, their ability to assist in developing a sound record, if any, would be diminished.
Either way, ad-mitting the petitioners on the eve of the evidentiary hearing would add nothing to the orderly and timely dis-position of the issues on remand.
The petition to intervene is denied.
However, con-sidering petitioners' manifested strong interest in the subject matter of this proceeding the Board will provide a special opportunity for Mr. Eddleman or another repre-sentative of the Kudzu Alliance to make a limited appearance
~
. at the evidentiary hearings pursuant to 10 CFR 92.715.
Mr. Bright did not participate in this consideration.
Pursuant to the provision of 10 CFR 92.714a this order may be appealed within ten (10) days after service.
FOR THE NIOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD J
/!A
/
[IVan W. Smith, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of January, 1979.