ML20065M667

Response to ASLB 820922 Memorandum & Order.Objects to Portion of Order Dealing W/Svc of Documents & Comments on Security Plan & Structure of Discovery Process.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20065M667
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/14/1982
From:	Runkle J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210210348
Download: ML20065M667 (6)

Text

b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

00LKETED i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION US E .

BEFORE *HE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 82 OCT 18 P1 :1 Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter pr - n u,c James L. Kelley, Chairman ~'+'a

.: 3D*

' \ZH In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-400 OL CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-401 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EAS*ERN )

MUNICIPAI. PCWER AGENCY )

) October 14, 1982 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

RESPONSE TO '/EMORANDUM AND ORDER On S eptember 22, 1982, the Atomic Safety and Licensing 4

Board issued its Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference)," in the above-captioned

. matter. The intervenor Conservation Council of North Carolina objects to that section of the Order dealing with the service of documents. The Intervenor also makes comments as to the security plan and to the structure of the discovery process.

l Objection as to the Service of Documents We did not respond to the Applicant's objection to the Board's tentative preference for a Catawba-type order relating l

to the service of documents as our considerations were adequately l

l covered by the responses filed by CHANGE, Dr. Wilson, and I.~.r.

l Eddleman. The commitment by the Staff to serve all papers l

l they originate in this matter to all Intervenors is heartily i

l 8210210348 821014 l PDR ADOCK 05000400 i

G FDR BSO3

(2) welcomed as it allows us to keep up on all developments in this matter, especially in regards to new material which might be the basis for additional cont'ntions.

e However, Section F of the Memorandum and Order, p. 77-79, orders the Applicants to serve copies of relevant documents, besides those offered for filing in the adjudication, only on two of the- six Intervenors admitted in this proceeding. The other four of us must find out from the " lead Intervenors" in our area what was served and then set up appointments to review the new material. This makes our task of intervening in this matter much more difficult: it will be a logistical problem in keeping up with new developments. We are already constrained in reviewing material that might form the basis for new contentions by factors for late contentions listed in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1).

A week or two time delay while arrangements were worked out with I the " lead Intervenor" would increase our vulnerability to the claim of " lateness."

There are two other considerations, coe' erd discovery, which need discussion. In constructing a nuclear power plant that.

will inevitably cost several bi11 ion do~1i^ s, the additional expense of serving _six -cop 1Topgfy#0$f the material generated g

, .._... a t fortheNuclear;Rigd(5,prau'*C t.ory Com51ssion doesinot seem to be excessive.

Further, the cos't of Yhe additional materials can easily be shifted to the rate-payers of the Applicant' and spread out all the customers in their service area. Intervenors, whose involve-men't in this matter is to help the Applicants and NRC insure as safe a power plant as possible, should not.have to bear the

(3) burden of copying relevant material supplied only to other Intervenors. Further, if the material is supplied to all Intervenors the discovery process will be stream-lined as in many cases, the material the Applicant supplies to the Staff is the very material which will need to be discovered. It i 1

will be easy for us to miss material if we have to rely on it l being supplied to us by " lead Intervenors."

We hereby request the Board to alter its Memorandum and Crder, Section F, to include the service of all materials generated by the Applicant in this matter to all six Intervenors, an order similar to that in the Catawba proceeding. If that is not done, the Conservation Council requests that they are at least served with the cover letters and summary statements from the materials generated in this matter so that we can better monitor the progress made by. the Applicant in responding I

to. Staff requests.

Comments on the Security Plan The Conservation Council has joined several other Intervenors in seeking to litigate the adequacy of the security plan. This motion will be filed separately and is an effort to consolidate the process of reviewing the security plan. We reiterate our acceptance of a Diablo Canvon-type protective order as to'the security plan information.

Comments on Discovery The Conservation Council found the discussion on the

s

• 1 1

(4) -

^

discovery process with the Applicant and Staff at the special prehearing conference to be useful. We would like to meet again as a group to continue that discussion and formulate a workable schedule for discovery.

Conclusion Intervenor Conservation Council of Nerth Carolina i respectfully requests that the Board revise its !.:emorandum and Order of September 22, 1982, as herein provided and grant such further relief as is just and reasonable.

Respectfully submitted John D. Runkle Attorney-at-Law Executive Coordinator Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Rd.

Chapel Hill, NC 27514 October 14, 1982 9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COXXISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) 50-401 OL AND NOR"H CAROLINA EASTERN )

MUNICIPAL P0'ilER AGENCY )

) October 14, 1982 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

NO" ICE OF APPEARANCE The undersigned,- having recently been admitted to practice before the courts of the State of North Carolina and being an attorney at law in good standing, hereby enters his appearance as counsel on behalf of intervenor Conservation Council of North Carolina in proceedings related to the above-captioned matter.

I am still serving as Executive Coordinator for the Conservation Council and am currently representing the Conservation Council in both capacities.

Respectfully submitted, ohn D. Runkle Attorney-at-Law Executive Coordinator Conservation Council of Nortn Carolina 307 Granville Rd.

Chapel Hill, NC 27514 9

4, e CERTIFICATE CF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of this filing were served this' ,/ day of , 19h,bydepositintheU.S. -

mail, first class, postage prepaid, or by hand-delivery, to the following:

James L. Kelley Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4., QC .

Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Mr. Glenn O. 3right same address 'S2 cm

"" 28 P T :p; Dr. James H. Carpenter _,

same address 5; Charles A. Barth Cffice of Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulatory Con.ission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Com..ission Washington, D.C . .20555 Daniel F. Read Richard E. Jones Chapel Hill Anti-Nucl' ear Group Vice President and Senior Counsel PO Box 524 Carolina Power & Light Comp:ny

Chapel Hill, NC 27514 PO Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602 M. Travis Payne Edelstein and Payne George F. Trowbridge PO Box 12643 Shaw, Fittman, Potts & Trowbridge Raleigh, NC 27605 1800 M Street, N.u.

Washington, D.C . 20036 Dr. Richard D. Wilson 729 Hunter Street Apex, NC 27502 Wells Eddleman J6hn Runkle 718-A Iredell Stree'c Conservation Council of North Durham, NC 27705 Carolina' Patricia and Slater Newman '

Citizens Against Nuclear Power 2309 Weymouth Court Ralei Gh, UC 27612 Dr. Phyllis Lotchin 108 3ridle Run Chapel Hill, NC 27514

. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _