ML20041B721

Response Opposing P Lotchin 820208 Petition to Intervene. Petitioner Fails to Particularize Interest Which Might Be Affected by Results of Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20041B721
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/23/1982
From:	Trowbridge G CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8202250120
Download: ML20041B721 (9)

Text

.. . . . - - -

Licensee 2/23/82

$$ff

, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '82 gg 4 NO:34 i-BEFORE THE COMMISSION j In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Do'cket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL ) 50-401 OL POWER AGENCY NO. 3 ) 4 g

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power }

O D Plant,~ Units 1 and 2) )

2 EgggVED 'l fER,93 L APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PET TIO h[

INTERVENE BY DR. PHYLLIS L T' CHIN 4' o

On January 27, 1982, notice was published in the Fed-4 eral Register concerning the application of Carolina Power &

Light Company and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 3 (Applicants) for licenses to operate the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. The notice afforded interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene. On February 8, 1982, Dr. Phyllis Lotchin (Petiti,oner) filed such a request and petition for hearing on

! a timely basis. According to the petition, Dr. Lotchin is a resident of Chapel Hill, N.C. (approximately 20 miles from the plant) and Chairman of the Mayor's Task Force to Assess the Effect of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant on Chapel Hill, a citizens committee appointed by the Mayor and Council of Chapel Hill. rg df p

8202250120 020223 I 05000400 l.@PDR ADOCK PDR

. = -- - _ - . . .- - ~ _ - -

l The notice of opportunity for a hearing requires, as do the Commission's present regulations, that a petition to intervene " Set forth with particular;.ty the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be af-fected by the proceeding." (Emphasis added) It also requires i

that the petition specifically explain the reasons why inter-vention should be permitted with particular reference, inter alia, to the "possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest." Applicants object to the petition for failure to meet these requirements.

The difficulty with the petition is its failure to specify an interest which would be cognizable in the requested hearing and which could therefore be affected by an order re-sulting from the proceeding. There is, of course, NRC case law which affords a presumption of interest where the assertion of interest relates to perceived threats from plant operation to the personal safety of an individual living in the proximity of a nuclear plant. Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54 (1979).

1 Where other interests are asserted, however, there must be a specific showing as to how those interests might be affected by the outcome of the proceeding. Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613-14 and fn.4 (1976). Nuclear Engineering Company, Inc. (Sheffield, Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 741-2 (1978).

Petitioner's only particularization of her interests is contained in an enumeration of the assignments given to the Task Force. The assignments are amplified by a set of nine Task Force recommendations, attached to her petition, which de-fine in somewhat more detail the ways in which the Task Force is to work with the Town of Chapel Hill. As shown below, these assignments and related recommendations cannot form an adequate basis for Petitioner's standing or for specific contentions cognizable in an NRC licensing proceeding.

Recommendation 1: " Prepare a plan for evacu-ation and other measures for use as needed in any sort of nuclear incident."

The Commission's regulations establishing the criteria for emergency plans call for evacuation plans only out to a radius of approximately 10 miles from the plant. In the absence of special circumstances, not alleged to exist by the petition to intervene, any request for an order by a Licensing Board governing evacuation plans for Chapel Hill would be outside the scope of, and an unpermissible challenge to, the Commission's regulations.

The petition's reference to "other measures for use as needed in any sort of nuclear incident" is too vague to constitute a particularization of Petitioner's interest in the proceeding or the possible effect of any order which might be entered in the proceeding. To the extent the petition seeks to assert Petitioner's interest in transportation accidents, i

the routing of radioactive material shipments, or background radiation measurements, these interests are discussed below in connection with other specific recommendations.

Recommendation 2: " Develop training and information programs for governmental units and citizens on the topic of nuclear power j generation and the effects of radiation."

To the extent the Town of Chapel Hill plans to sup-plement training and information plans initiated by Applicants and other entitites, these plans are not within the province I

of an NRC licensing proceeding.

Recommendation 3: " Develop an emergency team to respond to transportation accidents involv-ing radioactive materials."

Response to an off-site transportation accident in-volving radioactive materials involves the transportation carrier and State or local agencies having emergency responsi-

! bilities. It is not a responsibility placed by NRC regulation on the licensee of a plant from which the material may have been shipped and is thus not a matter within the scope of a plant operating license proceeding. No action by the NRC or-its Licensing Boards is necessary to enable the Town of Chapel Hill to work out with appropriate State and local agencies l

l such plans as the Town may consider necessary to supplement the actions of those agencies.

l l

l l

I

(

Recommendation 4: " Work out a way for the appropriate town officials to be notified about shipment routes of radioactive mate-rials and try to assure that high-level radioactive wastes are routed as far as possible from heavily populated areas and hospitals."

While licensees'of nuclear power plants are required under 10 CFR 71.5 and Department of Transportation regulations to give advance notice to affected States of proposed shipments of certain radioactive materials prior to delivery of the mate-rials to a carrier for transportation, the permissible routing of such shipments falls under the regulation of the Department of Transportation and of the affected State, not the NRC. Peti-tioner's interest in proper routing of such shipments is not an appropriate subject for, and will not be affected by, the Shearon Harris operating license proceeding.

Recommendation 5: " Insist on receiving full information from officials at the Shearon Harris Pir.nt if there is any reason to sus-pect that public welfare is in jeopardy and ascertain whether there has been surveillance of opponents of nuclear power generation and i whether the civil liberties of citizens are in any way compromised by their living within a twenty-mile radius of a nuclear plant."

Petitioner's broad statement of interest in possible jeopardy of the "public welfare" does not define with particu-larity the interest which Petitioner has in the proceeding.

Licensee questions whether Petitioner's interest in possible surveillance of opponents of nuclear power and compromise of civil liberties qualifies as an interest cognizable in an NRC

I licensing proceeding. In any event, however, the petition to intervene falls short of the threshhold requirement established ,

by the Appeal Board for similar claims of interest in other NRC licensing proceedings, namely that there must be adequate par-2 ticularization of the perceived threats to Petitioner's civil liberties. Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Re-ceiving and Storage Station), ALAB-328, 3 NRC 420, 422 (1976);

Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Gener-ating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390 (1979).

Recommendation 6: " Determine the economic rights of individuals and the community vis a vis the challenges presented by proximity to a nuclear power plant."

Applicants are unable to discern in this recommenda-tion any connection with the issues in an operating license proceeding.

f Recommendation 7: " Establish direct commun-ication between the Shearon Harris Plant and the appropriate officials in town and county governments."

In the absence of any particularization of the nature and purpose of direct communications between the plant and town and county officials, this recommendation does not state an interest cognizable in the operating license proceeding.

Recommendation 8: " Designate a citizens committee to keep informed about nuclear power issues around the country and world i

and to receive pertinent mailings related to the Shearon Harris Plant."

The designation of such a citizens committce requires no action by the NRC or its Licensing Board.

Recommendation 9: " Establish an independ-ent monitoring system which would gather baseline data on present radiation levels in the air, soil, water, milk, vegetation, etc. in the Chapel Hill area and to moni-tor radiation levels in the area after the plant goes on line in 1985."

Applicants' Environmental Report submitted in support of its operating license application describes in detail the pre- and post-operational radiation surveys to be conducted by Applicants. No order of the NRC or its Licensing Board is re-quired to enable the Town of Chapel Hill, if it so elects, to establish its own independent program.

Applicants also comment on a different aspect of the petition. Petitioner apparently seeks to intervene both as an individual and as Chairman of the Task Force, in which latter I

category she would presumably represent the Task Force. Even if the petition were otherwise acceptable, Petitioner should be required to demonstrate, by affidavits or otherwise, that the Task Force has a continuing function and that Petitioner has been authorized to act on behalf of its members. In any event, Appli-cants would object to Petitioner's request that other members of the Task Force also be extended the privilege of intervention gi----,

--mm4 m.- - . . - - . . - . . . _ , . . - . . __,

,7_

if Petitioner intends by this request to add an unspecified number of individual intervenors to the proceeding. Members of the Task Force would, of course, be free to assist Petitioner in the proceeding, to make special appearances in accordance with Section 2.715 of the Commission's regulations, and to appear as appropriate as witnesses. Applicants would oppose, however, multiple interventions by individuals having common interests. Should other members of the Tack Force seek inte;-

vention in their individual capacities, Applicants wcald request consolidation in order to reduce the substantial additional paperwork and inevitable schedu. ig problems associated with multiple interventions.

Accordingly, the petition to intervene should be de-nied for failure to particularize an interest which might be affected by the results of the proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, 'ITTMAN, POTTS TROWBRIDGE Wl t , -/8, 4 y- ,1./

l

. orge g. Trowbridge /

omas A. Baxter l

John H. O'Neill, Jr.

Counsel for Applicants

(

I i

1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 l Dated: February 23, 1982

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO3 BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL ) 50-401 OL POWER AGENCY NO. 3 )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Peti-tion to Intervene by Dr. Phyllis Lotchin," dated February 23, 1982, were served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of February, 1982.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Dr. Phyllis Lotchin U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 108 Bridle Run Washington, D.C. 20555 Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Docketing and Service Section (3) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Office of Executive Legal Director Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

/Af/ n /$4fd N M Geo!geF. Trowbridge /

Dated: February 23, 1982