ML20041F620
| ML20041F620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1982 |
| From: | Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203170227 | |
| Download: ML20041F620 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o March 12, 1982 C G y '. i[ '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 IIM 15 00:17 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i.
7 In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Dock 6t Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL
)
50-401 OL POWER AGENCY NO. 3
)
g
)
.4 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
gg D
-3 i,
IO82A APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PETITION TO IN
.,/
BY WELLS EDDLEMAN-74 Dg 4
-eNS ' x 3
On January 27, 1982, noticewaspublishedin'gthe{_ Fed al Register concerning the application of Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 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 25, 1982, a petition to intervene was filed by Mr. Wells Eddleman (Petitioner).
Petitioner bases his interest on his residence, employment and personal property located in Durham, North Carolina, a distance "well within" 50 miles of the Harris Plant.
He asserts among other things that his interest would be affected by routine radioactive emi3sions from the Plant and by the possibility ~of a nuclear accident.
The specific aspects of the proceeding as to which Petitioner wishes to intervene include the adequacy of emergency response plans.
To this extent Petitioner hO 3
0203170227 820312 j i PDR ADOCK 00000400 7
Q PDR 1
s has in Applicants' view sufficiently stated an interest in the proceeding to meet the initial requireme'nts for intervention under Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
At the penultimate paragraph of his petition, Petitioner states his belief that " issuance of any operating license for the Harris nuclear plant to CP&L and Agency would contravene the antitrust laws of the United States and the policies underlying those laws."
Such a contention is outside of the scope of the notice of opportunity for a hearing as published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1982.
Thus, the antitrust issue is outside of the jurisdiction of this Board.
Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-316, 3 NRC 167, 171 (1976).
Petitioner has alleged other interests and effects upon those interests, some of which in Applicants' view are not cognizable in an NRC operating license proceeding.
Applicants propose, however, to await the formulation of Petitioner's contentions pursuant to Section 2.714 (b) and to address at that time the allowability of the contentions, including their relationship to an interest cognizable in the proceeding.
Applicants note that Petitioner represented the KUDZU l
ALLIANCE (KUDZU) in a petition to intervene at the management capability proceeding at the Construction Permit stage.1/ Furthermore, l
1/
See letter from Wells Eddleman to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated November 7, 1978 (requesting intervention status on behalf of himself and KUDZU).
6
. as Petitioner has indicated at page 6 of his petition, he participated as en adviser to the Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC) during the management capability pro-ceeding.
Both KUDZU and CCNC have also petitioned to intervene in the instant proceeding.
Applicants may at a later date request the consolidation of two or more of these petitioners or the designation of a single individual to represent their interests in the proceeding.
I Petitioner relates that the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and Environmental Report (ER) were not available at the Wake County Public Library until February 5, 1982, contrary.
to the notice in the Raleigh News & Observer of January 27, 1982, Furthermore, Petitioner states that he has determined that certain documents from the Harris Plant file are missing.
He thereby 4
moves that the Board extend the period of time for filing intervention petitions to coincide with thirty days after the date of delivery of the FSAR and ER to the Wake County Library or nine days from l
the publication of the notice that the period of time for intervention has been extended.
Later in his petition, he requests that a copy of the FSAR and ER be delivered to him at his home address, that a complete copy of all proposed technical specifications and any 1
draf ts of an operating license be delivered to his home address, and that he be given thirty days frce receipt of such documents to file l
contentions.
Applicants oppose Petitioner's motions.
Even if, in fact, the FSAR and ER were not delivered to the Wake County Library in a l
. timely manner,-2/ Petitioner (and a number of other parties) were nevertheless able to file petitions to intervene within the requisite period of time and to meet the initial requirements for intervention under Section 2.714 of the Commission's rules, and there is ample opportunity now for the preparation of proposed contentions.
Thus, there is no harm to Petitioner.
Petitioner has no standing to represent the interest of anyone else.
Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-413, 5 NRC 1410, 1421 (1977).
Furthermore, Petitioner has no right to have these documents delivered to his home.
The FSAR (including proposed technical specifications) and the ER are available for Petitioner to inspect at the Wake County Library as, Petitioner has himself related to us.
While Petitioner has such materials available to him to assist in formulating contentions, they should not be necessary.
Con-tentions in an NRC proceeding are similar to pleadings in civil cases and are to be formulated prior to an opportunity for discovery i
of Applicants' documents.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, et al.
(Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-74-45, 8 AEC 928 i
(1974); BPI v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424, 428 (D.C.
l Cir. 1974).
As such the Commission's rules do not permit discovery until after the issues in controversy are established.
See 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740 (b) (1) and Part 2, App. A, S IV (a).
The intervenor's role 2/ We note that the Commission's regulations only require that such Hocuments be available for inspection and copying at the Public Documents Room in Washington, D.C.
10 C.F.R.
SS 2.790 and 9.7; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-179, 7 AEC 159, 184 (1974).
As a matter of convenience they have been made available at the other location.as.well.
i
. 4 is not to duplicate the review function of the NRC Staff but rather to present its case regarding those matters which may affect its interests.
Thus the Commission's rules do not contemplate, at this stage of a proceeding, providing copies of the FSAR or ER to a petitioner for leave to intervene.
Petitioner's requests should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE George F.
Trowbrid'ge, PlC.
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
John H. O'Neill, Jr.
Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000.
Dated:
March 12, 1982 l
l l
t l
l l
l i
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIESION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 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 Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman," dated March 12, 1982, were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid this 12th day of March 12, 1982.
James L. Kelley, Esq., Chairman Mr. Wells Eddleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 325 East Trinity Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Durham, North Carolina 27701 Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Mr. Glenn O. Bright Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. James H. Carpenter Panel l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Charles A.
Barth, Esq.
Board Panel Stuart A. Treby, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marjorie Rothschild, Esq.
Washington Dg:.
20555 Office of Executive Legal Director e
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
Washington, D.C.
20555
/
Johd H. O'Neill, Jr I/
i
\\
1 V
l
.