ML20070N937
| ML20070N937 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1983 |
| From: | Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070N906 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8301250657 | |
| Download: ML20070N937 (6) | |
Text
f y
i January 21, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO PETITIONER PHYLLIS LOTCHIN'S CONTENTIONS TO AMENDMENT 5 OF THE SHNPP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT By a pleading dated January 10, 1983, and denominated
" Contentions to Amendment 5 of the SHNPP Environmental Report",
Petitioner Phyllis Lotchin submitted comments on 55 8.2.2.2(g),
(i), (k) and (1) of the Harris Environmental Report --
Operating License Stage ("ER").
Ms. Lotchin previously filed i
four enumerated contentions with the Board on May 14, 1982.
In its Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following the Prehearing Conference) dated September 22, 1982, the Board rejected Lotchin Contention 1 and deferred ruling on Lotchin Contentions 2, 3 and 4 until promulgation of the emergency plans for the Harris plant.
Order at 73.
Since Ms. Lotchin B301250657 830121 PDR ADOCK 05000 g
G
failcd to pictd a valid 3
status in this proceedingcontention, chs was not g
- However, ranted party reexamine the question of h the Board committed to ability of the Harris er party status after the for Ms. Lotchin to emergency plan presented avail-of those plans.
revise her contentions bas d an opportunity Order e
at 3 on her Lotchin's January 10 Applicants review 1983 filing as are treating Ms.
amend and supplement her p ti a motion for leave to e
contentions.
tion to intervene by filing new Ms. Lotchin's filing of While new she references Amendment 5 contentions is untimely.
addresses no new information to the Harris ER, she her contentions.1/
contained therein in formul new because she has failed t Ms. Lotchin's Motion mu t ating proposed contention and wh explain what is be denied s
o new about each previously, and because shey it could not have been ad vanced by 10 C.F.R.
fails to make the showi Furthermore, & 2.714(a)(1) for late fil d ng required e
the Board, each contentieven if the contentions h d contentions.
a on fails to been filed timely with i
clarity and fails to demonst meet minimum standards for rate specificity. Ms. Lotchin's discussionadequate basis with requi smergency planning for commu i regarding the cost of s te n ties outside the emergency 1/
Section 8.2.2 with regulatory co.2(1),
sts; Ms. Lotchin'sadded by Amendment 5 to the ER planning zone might incurspsculative costs that com munities outside thecomments, however,, go to deals emergency
~2-i
planning zone is no more than an impermissible attack on the Commission's rules on emergency planning.
A.
Timeliness The five factors to be considered in determining whether a petition for a late-filed contention should be granted are set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(1):
(i)
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.
Perhaps the most crucial of these factors is the requirement that intervenors must demonstrate good cause for their untimely filing.
The proponent of a contention at this stage in the proceeding has the burden of explaining clearly, in appropriate detail, and separate from the rest of the contention, just what is new about the contention and why it could not have been advanced previously.
Absent this explanation and absent a showing on the five lateness factors, a new proposed contention may not be considered.
Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear I
C Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following 1
Second Prehearing Conference), slip opinion at 7-8 (December 1, 1982).
Ms. Lotchin has simply failed to address the Commission's requirements for the admission of untimely filed contentions.
For this reason alone, Ms. Lotchin's motion must be denied.
B.
Minimum Standards of Clarity and Precision As the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board observed in Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-279, 1 N.R.C.
559, 576 (1975):
The Applicant is entitled to a fair chance to defend.
It is, therefore, entitled to be told at the outset, with clarity and precision, what arguments are being advanced and what relief is being asked So is the Board below.
It should not be necessary to speculate about what a pleading is supposed to mean.
(Emphasis provided.)
Ms. Lotchin has not stated one or more contentions with
" clarity and precision."
Her one page pleading is more appropriately described as comments on certain sections of the ER as amended.
It is not up to Applicants or the Board to draft 2, 3 or 4 contentions or more from the comments which Ms.
Lotchin sets forth.
C.
Basis and Specificity; Challenge to Commission's Rules Applicants have previously discussed the Commission's requirement that the contentions which a petitioner seeks to l
b have litigated must set forth the bases for those contentions with reasonable specificity.
See Applicants' Response to supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman (June 15, 1982) at 3-7.
In addressing her comments to ER $$ 8.2.2.2(g) and (i), Ms. Lotchin fails to provide the basis for her allegations of inadequacies regarding certain statements in the ER.
Her one cryptic reference to a "recent study done for NRC by Sandia National Labs reported in Critical Mass, December, 1982" presumably refers to a report regarding the potential for radioactive contamination as a result of a worse-case accident.
She does not in any way link this report to the possible impacts of normal operations of the Harris Plant on regional products.
Her comments with respect to ER $5 8.2.2.2(k) and (1) simply are another way of raising her previously proffered contentions that emergency planning should be required outside the ten mile emergency planning zone (EPZ).
Her earlier contentions are now recast in allegations that the cost of such f
T emergency planning has not been considered in the ER.
The
}
Commission's regulations at 10 C.F.R. 5 30.47(c)(2) establish that the plume EPZ shall consist of an area of approximately ten miles in radius around each nuclear plant.
Therefore, to the extent that Ms. Lotchin contends that emergency planning actions are required for areas outside the ten mile EPZ, Applicants submit that it is an impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations.
See Applicants' Response to 4
-s-m,.
,------p
Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Phyllis Lotchin, dated June 15, 1982, at 4-6; Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LPB-82-16, 15 N.R.C. 566, 582 (March 5, 1982).
Again, Ms. Lotchin has provided. no basis with the requisite specificity to support her allegations concerning the need for such activities and the resultant cost to local communities outside of the ten mile EPZ.
Ear all of the above reasons, Ms. Lotchin's Motion for admission of new contentions in this proceeding must be denied.
Respectf ly
- bmitted, t
u
)
e Ge ge F. Trowbridge,iq.C.
Tho as A.
Baxter, P.C (sl Jo H. O'Neill, Jr.
W, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 i
Richard E.
Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O.
Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Dated:
January 21, 1'83
/
l 1