|
---|
Category:INTERVENTION PETITIONS
MONTHYEARML20206G4051999-05-0505 May 1999 Applicant Answer to Petitioner Board of Commissioners of Orange County Contentions.* Requests That Technical Contentions in Section III & Environ Contentions in Section IV Not Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc ML20206F9491999-05-0505 May 1999 NRC Staff Response to Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* None of Petitioner Proposed Contentions Meet Commission Requirements for Admissible Contention.Petitioner 990212 Request Should Be Denied.With Certificate of Svc ML20206A0851999-04-22022 April 1999 Erratum to Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Citation to Vermont Yankee LBP-87-17,should Be Amended to Read Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station).With Certificate of Svc ML20196K8771999-04-0505 April 1999 Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Informs That Orange County Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation in Proceeding ML20206J9151986-06-24024 June 1986 Response to Petition of Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (Cash) for Leave to Intervene.Petition Filed on 860609,4 Yrs After Deadline.Cash Should Be Foreclosed from Participation.W/Certificate of Svc ML20205T4071986-06-0909 June 1986 Petition of Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20204A4891986-05-0808 May 1986 Response to Conservation Council of North Carolina & W Eddleman Request for Admission of New Contention WB-4 Re Falsification of Exposure Records.Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc & SA Browne Affidavits Encl ML20210K6981986-04-22022 April 1986 Motion for Admission of New Contention WB-4, Falsification of Exposure Records. Records Systematically Falsified to Reflect Lower Doses to Workers.Requests Opportunity to Respond If Contention Opposed ML20136J4171986-01-0303 January 1986 Answer to W Eddleman 851223 Response to Contention 57-C-57 Re Contaminated Injured Persons.Contentions Should Be Limited to Issues Heard in Guard Vs Nrc.Contention Opposed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137H7251985-11-22022 November 1985 Petition of Atty General of State of Nc for Leave to Intervene ML20133J2301985-10-15015 October 1985 Response in Opposition to W Eddleman Proposed Contention Re Emergency Planning Exercise.Svc List,Exercise Evaluation Rept,Operations Journal & Insp Rept 50-400/85-20 Encl ML20133K6601985-10-15015 October 1985 Response to W Eddleman 850930 Proposed Contentions Based on Emergency Planning Exercise.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133F3661985-09-30030 September 1985 Requests That Listed Contentions Based on May 1985 Emergency Planning Exercise Be Admitted as There Are No Other Means or Parties to Protect or Represent Author Interests in Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134H2051985-08-26026 August 1985 Response in Opposition to W Eddleman Contentions Re Spill of Reactor Water.Contention Should Be Rejected for Failure to Comply w/10CFR2.714(b).Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134H2201985-08-23023 August 1985 Response to W Eddleman Proposed Contentions EM-1,EM-2 & EM-3 Re Notification of State & Local Emergency Mgt Agencies. Contentions Should Not Be Admitted Due to Lack of Requisite Basis & Specificity.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133A0341985-07-31031 July 1985 Petition of Lh Thornburg for Leave to Intervene ML20128H4071985-05-22022 May 1985 Response Opposing W Eddleman 850429 Proffered Contentions 227-CC & 227-DD Re Allegations That Public Info Brochure Must Provide Directions to Evacuation Shelters & Title on Evacuation Routes Chart Misleading.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20117H6751985-05-0909 May 1985 Response Opposing Eddleman Proposed Contentions 227-CC & 227-DD Re Brochure Evacuation Route Chart.Contentions Constitute Editing of Brochure & Therefore Not Litigable. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116L7211985-04-29029 April 1985 Petition Requesting Admittance of Contentions 227-CC & DD Re Brochure Additions Served on 850416 Concerning Emergency Plan Evacuation & Shelter for Settlement or Litigation. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20102A7691985-02-0606 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor 850118 Request for New Contention WB-3 Re Drug Use During Const.Contention Lacks Basis & Specificity & Unsubtantiated Broad Issues Delay Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20102A4201985-02-0404 February 1985 Submits Diesel Generator Info & Contentions 178-AA & 179-AA for Litigation,In Response to Past ASLB Order ML20113D9501985-01-18018 January 1985 Request for Admission of New Contention WB-3 Re Drug & Alcohol Abuse at Const Site.News Article Supporting Contention & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20108A2281984-11-13013 November 1984 Response to Late Filed Contentions of W Eddleman & Conservation Council of North Carolina Based on Cv Vo Affidavit.Contentions WB-1-2 & 41C-414H Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20096B8661984-08-31031 August 1984 Responses to Discovery on Emergency Planning Contentions (First Set).Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20096B5131984-08-28028 August 1984 Response to Eddleman 840810 Contentions on Emergency Plan Brochure.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094N1511984-08-10010 August 1984 Eddleman Contentions on Emergency Plan Brochure, Safety Info for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093G1341984-07-20020 July 1984 Response in Support of Preamble to Revised Contention 9 Re Environ Qualification of Electrical Equipment.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092N7151984-06-29029 June 1984 Response to Eddleman Proposed Contentions 65-A & 65-B Re Questionable Structural Integrity Due to Voids from out-of-spec Sump & Improper Vibration Technique. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092D9521984-06-19019 June 1984 Response Opposing W Eddleman 840605 Motion to Reinstate Contention 58(2d) Re Financial Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20197H3921984-06-14014 June 1984 New Eddleman Contention 65-A Re Questionable Structural Integrity Due to Voids from out-of-spec Slump,Improper Vibration Technique & Inadequate Strength of Harris Containment Concrete ML20091M5611984-06-0505 June 1984 Withdrawal of Eddleman Contentions 85/86 & Second Motion to Reinstate Contention 58(2d) Re Financial Qualifications ML20084E1331984-04-28028 April 1984 Answer Opposing Eddleman Proposed Contentions on Emergency Response Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084D0341984-04-27027 April 1984 Response Opposing R Wilson 840413 Contentions Re State of Nc Emergency Response Plan.All Contentions Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083P7471984-04-16016 April 1984 Motion to Require Svc of All Amends & Changes to Emergency Plan on Intervenor & Motion to Amend Emergency Planning Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20083L2951984-04-13013 April 1984 Contentions on State of Nc Emergency Response Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083M0871984-04-12012 April 1984 Contentions on Emergency Plan (Second Set).Plan Fails to Indicate Number of Volunteer Personnel Necessary or Assuredly Available to Perform Assigned Responsibilities. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20088A0771984-04-0505 April 1984 Suppl to Feb 1984 Petition for Leave to Intervene in Intervenor Charge Re State of Nc Emergency Response Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087P5211984-04-0303 April 1984 Partial Response & Contentions 157 & 151 Re Offsite Emergency Plan ML20087P8701984-04-0303 April 1984 Contentions Arising from Review of Emergency Response Plan, Per ASLB 840308 Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086R9141984-02-28028 February 1984 Response Opposing W Eddleman Motion to Admit Contention 58(2d) on Financial Qualifications of co-applicants.ASLB Has No Basis or Authority to Reconsider Original Ruling on Contention & Motion Must Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086M8231984-02-15015 February 1984 Certification to Applicant 840118 Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 65.Motion Identifies One Instance of Honeycombing or Voids in Containment Base Mat, Exterior Walls & Dome.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086N5051984-02-15015 February 1984 Motion to Withdraw Contention III Re Mgt Capability. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080L0401984-02-13013 February 1984 Motion to Reconsider & Admit Contention 58 Re Financial Qualifications of co-applicants.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080D2701984-02-0606 February 1984 Answer to W Eddleman Motion for Further Deferral of Parts of Contention 107 & Eddleman New Contentions & Amended Deferred Contentions in Response to NRC Ser.Aslb Should Deny Motion & Reject New SER Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G2391984-02-0606 February 1984 Request for Clarification & Objections to ASLB 840127 Order Re Eddleman Contentions 37A,37B & 8F2.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079L4371984-01-23023 January 1984 Response Opposing Eddleman Contentions 169-172 Re Safety Parameter Display Sys.Contentions Wholly W/O Basis, Operate on Faulty Understanding of Sys & Should Not Be Admitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H4571984-01-17017 January 1984 New Contentions & Amended Deferred Contentions,In Response to NRC SER ML20083H5711984-01-0303 January 1984 Filing of New Contentions 169,170,171 & 172 Re Inadequate Safety Parameter Display Sys Design ML20081K0091983-11-0404 November 1983 Response to Applicant & NRC 830929 Responses to Joint Intervenors 830906 Contentions Re Security Plan.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21).Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E0091983-10-28028 October 1983 Response to Util Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Ii.Veracity of All General Facts Disputed.List of Matters in Dispute on Contention II & Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-05-05
[Table view] Category:RESPONSES & CONTENTIONS
MONTHYEARML20206G4051999-05-0505 May 1999 Applicant Answer to Petitioner Board of Commissioners of Orange County Contentions.* Requests That Technical Contentions in Section III & Environ Contentions in Section IV Not Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc ML20206F9491999-05-0505 May 1999 NRC Staff Response to Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* None of Petitioner Proposed Contentions Meet Commission Requirements for Admissible Contention.Petitioner 990212 Request Should Be Denied.With Certificate of Svc ML20206A0851999-04-22022 April 1999 Erratum to Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Citation to Vermont Yankee LBP-87-17,should Be Amended to Read Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station).With Certificate of Svc ML20196K8771999-04-0505 April 1999 Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Informs That Orange County Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation in Proceeding ML20206J9151986-06-24024 June 1986 Response to Petition of Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (Cash) for Leave to Intervene.Petition Filed on 860609,4 Yrs After Deadline.Cash Should Be Foreclosed from Participation.W/Certificate of Svc ML20205T4071986-06-0909 June 1986 Petition of Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20204A4891986-05-0808 May 1986 Response to Conservation Council of North Carolina & W Eddleman Request for Admission of New Contention WB-4 Re Falsification of Exposure Records.Request Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc & SA Browne Affidavits Encl ML20210K6981986-04-22022 April 1986 Motion for Admission of New Contention WB-4, Falsification of Exposure Records. Records Systematically Falsified to Reflect Lower Doses to Workers.Requests Opportunity to Respond If Contention Opposed ML20136J4171986-01-0303 January 1986 Answer to W Eddleman 851223 Response to Contention 57-C-57 Re Contaminated Injured Persons.Contentions Should Be Limited to Issues Heard in Guard Vs Nrc.Contention Opposed. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20137H7251985-11-22022 November 1985 Petition of Atty General of State of Nc for Leave to Intervene ML20133J2301985-10-15015 October 1985 Response in Opposition to W Eddleman Proposed Contention Re Emergency Planning Exercise.Svc List,Exercise Evaluation Rept,Operations Journal & Insp Rept 50-400/85-20 Encl ML20133K6601985-10-15015 October 1985 Response to W Eddleman 850930 Proposed Contentions Based on Emergency Planning Exercise.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133F3661985-09-30030 September 1985 Requests That Listed Contentions Based on May 1985 Emergency Planning Exercise Be Admitted as There Are No Other Means or Parties to Protect or Represent Author Interests in Matters.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134H2051985-08-26026 August 1985 Response in Opposition to W Eddleman Contentions Re Spill of Reactor Water.Contention Should Be Rejected for Failure to Comply w/10CFR2.714(b).Certificate of Svc Encl ML20134H2201985-08-23023 August 1985 Response to W Eddleman Proposed Contentions EM-1,EM-2 & EM-3 Re Notification of State & Local Emergency Mgt Agencies. Contentions Should Not Be Admitted Due to Lack of Requisite Basis & Specificity.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20133A0341985-07-31031 July 1985 Petition of Lh Thornburg for Leave to Intervene ML20128H4071985-05-22022 May 1985 Response Opposing W Eddleman 850429 Proffered Contentions 227-CC & 227-DD Re Allegations That Public Info Brochure Must Provide Directions to Evacuation Shelters & Title on Evacuation Routes Chart Misleading.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20117H6751985-05-0909 May 1985 Response Opposing Eddleman Proposed Contentions 227-CC & 227-DD Re Brochure Evacuation Route Chart.Contentions Constitute Editing of Brochure & Therefore Not Litigable. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20116L7211985-04-29029 April 1985 Petition Requesting Admittance of Contentions 227-CC & DD Re Brochure Additions Served on 850416 Concerning Emergency Plan Evacuation & Shelter for Settlement or Litigation. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20102A7691985-02-0606 February 1985 Response Opposing Intervenor 850118 Request for New Contention WB-3 Re Drug Use During Const.Contention Lacks Basis & Specificity & Unsubtantiated Broad Issues Delay Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20102A4201985-02-0404 February 1985 Submits Diesel Generator Info & Contentions 178-AA & 179-AA for Litigation,In Response to Past ASLB Order ML20113D9501985-01-18018 January 1985 Request for Admission of New Contention WB-3 Re Drug & Alcohol Abuse at Const Site.News Article Supporting Contention & Certificate of Svc Encl ML20108A2281984-11-13013 November 1984 Response to Late Filed Contentions of W Eddleman & Conservation Council of North Carolina Based on Cv Vo Affidavit.Contentions WB-1-2 & 41C-414H Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20096B8661984-08-31031 August 1984 Responses to Discovery on Emergency Planning Contentions (First Set).Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20096B5131984-08-28028 August 1984 Response to Eddleman 840810 Contentions on Emergency Plan Brochure.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20094N1511984-08-10010 August 1984 Eddleman Contentions on Emergency Plan Brochure, Safety Info for Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20093G1341984-07-20020 July 1984 Response in Support of Preamble to Revised Contention 9 Re Environ Qualification of Electrical Equipment.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092N7151984-06-29029 June 1984 Response to Eddleman Proposed Contentions 65-A & 65-B Re Questionable Structural Integrity Due to Voids from out-of-spec Sump & Improper Vibration Technique. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20092D9521984-06-19019 June 1984 Response Opposing W Eddleman 840605 Motion to Reinstate Contention 58(2d) Re Financial Qualifications.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20197H3921984-06-14014 June 1984 New Eddleman Contention 65-A Re Questionable Structural Integrity Due to Voids from out-of-spec Slump,Improper Vibration Technique & Inadequate Strength of Harris Containment Concrete ML20091M5611984-06-0505 June 1984 Withdrawal of Eddleman Contentions 85/86 & Second Motion to Reinstate Contention 58(2d) Re Financial Qualifications ML20084E1331984-04-28028 April 1984 Answer Opposing Eddleman Proposed Contentions on Emergency Response Plans.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20084D0341984-04-27027 April 1984 Response Opposing R Wilson 840413 Contentions Re State of Nc Emergency Response Plan.All Contentions Should Be Rejected. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083P7471984-04-16016 April 1984 Motion to Require Svc of All Amends & Changes to Emergency Plan on Intervenor & Motion to Amend Emergency Planning Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20083L2951984-04-13013 April 1984 Contentions on State of Nc Emergency Response Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083M0871984-04-12012 April 1984 Contentions on Emergency Plan (Second Set).Plan Fails to Indicate Number of Volunteer Personnel Necessary or Assuredly Available to Perform Assigned Responsibilities. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20088A0771984-04-0505 April 1984 Suppl to Feb 1984 Petition for Leave to Intervene in Intervenor Charge Re State of Nc Emergency Response Plan. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20087P5211984-04-0303 April 1984 Partial Response & Contentions 157 & 151 Re Offsite Emergency Plan ML20087P8701984-04-0303 April 1984 Contentions Arising from Review of Emergency Response Plan, Per ASLB 840308 Order.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086R9141984-02-28028 February 1984 Response Opposing W Eddleman Motion to Admit Contention 58(2d) on Financial Qualifications of co-applicants.ASLB Has No Basis or Authority to Reconsider Original Ruling on Contention & Motion Must Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086M8231984-02-15015 February 1984 Certification to Applicant 840118 Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 65.Motion Identifies One Instance of Honeycombing or Voids in Containment Base Mat, Exterior Walls & Dome.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20086N5051984-02-15015 February 1984 Motion to Withdraw Contention III Re Mgt Capability. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080L0401984-02-13013 February 1984 Motion to Reconsider & Admit Contention 58 Re Financial Qualifications of co-applicants.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080D2701984-02-0606 February 1984 Answer to W Eddleman Motion for Further Deferral of Parts of Contention 107 & Eddleman New Contentions & Amended Deferred Contentions in Response to NRC Ser.Aslb Should Deny Motion & Reject New SER Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G2391984-02-0606 February 1984 Request for Clarification & Objections to ASLB 840127 Order Re Eddleman Contentions 37A,37B & 8F2.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079L4371984-01-23023 January 1984 Response Opposing Eddleman Contentions 169-172 Re Safety Parameter Display Sys.Contentions Wholly W/O Basis, Operate on Faulty Understanding of Sys & Should Not Be Admitted.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H4571984-01-17017 January 1984 New Contentions & Amended Deferred Contentions,In Response to NRC SER ML20083H5711984-01-0303 January 1984 Filing of New Contentions 169,170,171 & 172 Re Inadequate Safety Parameter Display Sys Design ML20081K0091983-11-0404 November 1983 Response to Applicant & NRC 830929 Responses to Joint Intervenors 830906 Contentions Re Security Plan.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21).Certificate of Svc Encl ML20081E0091983-10-28028 October 1983 Response to Util Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention Ii.Veracity of All General Facts Disputed.List of Matters in Dispute on Contention II & Certificate of Svc Encl 1999-05-05
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20217L8481999-10-25025 October 1999 NRC Staff First Supplemental Response to Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Staff Objects to Document Request as Being Overly Broad & Unduly Burdensome. with Certification of Svc ML20217H9661999-10-20020 October 1999 NRC Staff Second Supplemental Response to Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Listed Documents Requested to Be Produced.With Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence ML20217E0881999-10-18018 October 1999 Order (Granting Discovery Extension Request).* Board of Commission of Orange County 991013 Motion for Extension of 991031 Discovery Deadline,Granted,In That Parties Shall Have Up to 991104.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 991018 ML20217F7711999-10-17017 October 1999 Corrected Notice of Deposition of SE Turner.* Orange County Gives Notice That on 991104 Deposition Upon Oral Exam of Turner Will Be Deposed with Respect to Contention TC-2. Related Correspondence ML20217F7681999-10-17017 October 1999 Orange County Third Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Submits Third Set of Discovery Requests & Requests Order by Presiding Officer That Discovery Be Answered within 14 Days. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D6181999-10-14014 October 1999 Request for Entry Upon Harris Site.* Staff Hereby Requests That Applicant,Cp&L Permit Entry Into Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant,For Viewing & Insp of Plant Spent Fuel Pool Bldg. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217E2611999-10-13013 October 1999 Orange County Second Suppl Response to Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests & First Suppl Response to NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests.* Clarifies That G Thompson Sole Witness.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217E2581999-10-13013 October 1999 Orange County Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline.* Orange County Requests Extension of 991031 Deadline for Concluding Discovery Proceeding.Extension Needed to Permit Dispositions of Two CP&L Witnesses.With Certificate of Svc ML20217E1461999-10-13013 October 1999 Request for Entry Upon Harris Site.* Entry Requested for Purpose of Inspecting SFP Bldg & Associated Piping.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D5561999-10-13013 October 1999 Applicant Second Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Board of Commissioners of Orange County.* Applicant Requests Answers to Listed Interrogatories & Requests for Admission. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D5761999-10-13013 October 1999 Applicant Third Supplement Response to Board of Commissioners of Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests.* Provides Addl Responses to General Interrogatory 3.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D6201999-10-12012 October 1999 NRC Staff Response to Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Staff Will Respond to Applicant Specific Requests within 30 Days of Receipt of Applicant Requests.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20217D5661999-10-12012 October 1999 NRC Staff First Supplemental Response to Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Supplements Response by Naming C Gratton as Person Likely to Provide Affidavit.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212M0271999-10-0707 October 1999 Notice (Opportunity to Make Oral or Written Limited Appearance Statements).* Board Will Entertain Oral Limited Appearance Statements Re CP&L 981223 Amend Request. with Certificate of Svc.Served on 991007 ML20212L1441999-10-0505 October 1999 NRC Staff Response to Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff.* Staff Is Now Voluntarily Providing Responses to Orange County'S Request for Production of Documents.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212J0801999-09-29029 September 1999 Orange County Second Set of Document Requests to NRC Staff.* Submits Second Set of Document Requests to NRC Pursuant to 10CFR2.744 & Board Memorandum & Order,Dtd 990729.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212G0001999-09-24024 September 1999 Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to NRC Staff.* Requests Access to Documents Given to Board of Commissioners by Staff Pursuant to 990920 Discovery Request. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212G0081999-09-24024 September 1999 Applicant First Suppl Response to Board of Commissioners of Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests.* Suppl Provides Addl Responses to General Interrogatories 2 & 3. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212D7151999-09-20020 September 1999 Applicant Response to General Interrogatories & General Document Requests in NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests.* CP&L Filing Responses Per Staff Request within 14 Days....With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20212D8521999-09-20020 September 1999 Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests to NRC Staff Including Request for Order Directing NRC Staff to Answer Certain Discovery Requests.* with Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence ML20212C1231999-09-17017 September 1999 Orange County Responses to Applicant First Set of Document Production Request.* Orange County Has No Documents Responsive to Request.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211N7481999-09-10010 September 1999 NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Applicant Cp&L.* Staff Requests Applicant Produce All Documents Requested by & Provided to Bcoc. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211N5021999-09-0808 September 1999 Orange County Objections & Responses to NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests.* County Objects to Questions to Extent That Staff Seek Discovery Beyond Scope of County Two Contentions.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211M4201999-09-0707 September 1999 Applicant Response to Specific Document Requests in Board of Commissioners of Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests.* with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211M5001999-09-0303 September 1999 Orange County Supplemental Response to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories.* with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211H4931999-08-30030 August 1999 Orange County Objections to Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests & Response to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories.* Objects to First Set of Discovery Requests.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211B7951999-08-23023 August 1999 NRC Staff First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Board of Commissioners of Orange County (Bcoc).* Staff Requests That Bcoc Produce All Documents Requested by Applicant. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20211B8361999-08-23023 August 1999 Applicant Response to General Interrogatories & General Document Requests in Board of Commissioners of Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests.* with Certificate of Svc. Related Correspondence ML20210T3531999-08-16016 August 1999 Applicant First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Board of Commissioners of Orange County (Bcoc).* CP&L Requests That Bcoc Answer Listed General Interrogatories by 990830. with Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20210L9571999-08-0606 August 1999 Orange County First Set of Discovery Requests Directed to Applicant.* Interrogatories & Document Production Requests Cover All Info in Possession,Custody & Control of Cp&L.With Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20216E2041999-07-29029 July 1999 Memorandum & Order (Granting Request to Invoke 10CFR Part 2, Subpart K Procedures & Establishing Schedule).* Board Grants Carolina Power & Light Co 990721 Request to Proceed Under Subpart K.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990730 ML20210B2271999-07-21021 July 1999 Applicant Request for Oral Argument to Invoke Subpart K Hybrid Hearing Procedures & Proposed Schedule.* Applicant Recommends Listed Schedule for Discovery & Subsequent Oral Argument.With Certificate of Svc ML20209G7371999-07-16016 July 1999 Notice of Hearing (License Amend Application to Expand Sf Pool Capacity).* Provides Notice of Hearing in Response to Commissioners of Orange County Request for Hearing Re CP&L Amend Application.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990716 ML20209D1791999-07-12012 July 1999 Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Standing & Contentions).* Grants Petitioner 990212 Hearing Request Re Intervention Petition Challenging CP&L 981223 Request for Increase in Sf Storage Capacity.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990712 ML20212J5831999-07-0101 July 1999 Notice of Appearance.* Informs That SL Uttal Will Enter Appearance in Proceeding Re Carolina Power & Light Co.Also Encl,Notice of Withdrawal for ML Zobler,Dtd 990701. with Certificate of Svc ML20196A8751999-06-22022 June 1999 Order (Corrections to 990513 Prehearing Conference Transcript).* Proposed Corrections to Transcript of Board 990513 Initial Prehearing Conference Submitted by Petitioner & Application.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990622 ML20207D6991999-05-27027 May 1999 Orange County Proposed Corrections to Transcript of 990113 Prehearing Conference.* Orange County Submits Proposed Corrections to Transcript of Prehearing Conference of 990513.With Certificate of Svc ML20207D6651999-05-27027 May 1999 Applicant Proposed Corrections to Prehearing Conference Transcript.* ASLB Ordered That Any Participant Wishing to Propose Corrections to Transcript of 990513 Prehearing Conference Do So by 990527.With Certificate of Svc ML20207D6891999-05-27027 May 1999 Orange County Response to Applicant Proposed Rewording of Contention 3,regarding Quality Assurance.* County Intends to Renew Request for Admission of Aspect of Contention.With Certificate of Svc ML20206R8731999-05-20020 May 1999 Memorandum & Order (Transcript Corrections & Proposed Restatement of Contention 3).* Any Participant Wishing to Propose Corrections to Transcript of 990513,should Do So on or Before 990527.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990520 ML20206R2411999-05-13013 May 1999 Transcript of 990513 Prehearing Conference in Chapel Hill,Nc Re Carolina Power & Light Co.Pp 1-176.Supporting Documentation Encl ML20206H9331999-05-11011 May 1999 Notice (Changing Location & Starting Time for Initial Prehearing Conference).* New Location for Conference, Southern Human Resources Ctr,Main Meeting Room,Chapel Hill, Nc.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990511 ML20206G4051999-05-0505 May 1999 Applicant Answer to Petitioner Board of Commissioners of Orange County Contentions.* Requests That Technical Contentions in Section III & Environ Contentions in Section IV Not Be Admitted.With Certificate of Svc ML20206F9491999-05-0505 May 1999 NRC Staff Response to Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* None of Petitioner Proposed Contentions Meet Commission Requirements for Admissible Contention.Petitioner 990212 Request Should Be Denied.With Certificate of Svc ML20206A0851999-04-22022 April 1999 Erratum to Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Citation to Vermont Yankee LBP-87-17,should Be Amended to Read Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Co (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station).With Certificate of Svc ML20205Q8121999-04-21021 April 1999 Order (Granting Motion to Relocate Prehearing Conference).* Initial Prehearing Conference Will Be Held in District Court of Orange County Courtroom,Chapel Hill,Nc on 990513 as Requested.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990421 ML20196K8771999-04-0505 April 1999 Orange County Supplemental Petition to Intervene.* Informs That Orange County Contentions Should Be Admitted for Litigation in Proceeding ML20196K8861999-04-0505 April 1999 Declaration of Gordon Thompson.* Informs of Participation in Preparation of Orange County Contentions Re Proposed License Amend ML20205E3101999-04-0101 April 1999 Memorandum & Order (Protective Order).* Grants 990326 Motion of Petitioner for Approval of Proposed Protective Order to Govern Use & Dissemination of Proprietary or Other Protected Matls.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990203 ML20196K9041999-03-31031 March 1999 Declaration of DA Lochbaum,Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists,Re Technical Issues & Safety Matters Involved in Harris Nuclear Plant License Amend for Sfs.* with Certificate of Svc 1999-09-08
[Table view] |
Text
333 y ..
August 23,19gTED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 - y g M '4 ' *- -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD GFFlcr ce SECRETAFv COCKETytGx S5gyg, zRA NC.q In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY. )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) )
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO EDDLEMAN PROPOSED CONTENTIONS ON NOTIFICATION OF STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCIES I. INTRODUCTION On August 6,1985, intervenor Wells Eddleman filed with the Board a pleading entitled "Eddleman Contentions on Notification of State and Local Emergency
. Management Agencies." Mr. Eddleman proposes the admission of three new contentions, denominated EM-1, EM-2, and EM-3, all of which relate to Carolina Power & Light Company's alleged failure to timely notify state and local emergency management of a spill of water at the Drunswick Steam Electric Plant, as allegedly required by the l Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a basis for these proposed contentions, Mr.
Eddleman relles upon a newspaper article from the August 2,1985 edition of the Raleigh News and Observer. He also discusses the five factors to be considered in weighing the admission of late-filed contentions (See 10 C.F.R. S2.741(a)(1)).
Applicants herein submit their response in opposition to the admission of late-filed Eddleman Contentions EM-1, EM-2, and EM-3. As discussed below, Applicants submit that these proposed contentions lack the requisite basis and specificity for litigab'e
- ;PoR***J ?o n W 3 8
- r. - -
1)SO3
contentions. Further, the five factors to be considered in weighing the admissibility of late-filed ~ contentions militate against admission of these proposed contentions, in that Mr. Eddleman cannot reasonably be expected to contribute to a sound record on this issue and the admission of the contentions would substantially broaden the issues and delay the proceeding.
II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF CONTENTIONS Applicants have previously discussed at length the general standards governing the
(- admissibility of proposed contentions in an NRC licensing proceeding. See, eg.
" Applicants Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman" (June 15, 1982), at 2-19. Accordingly, there is no need to restate in full the Commission's requirements; rather, Applicants simply summarize here the general princit .:es to be applied in determining the admissibility of these late-filed proposed emergency planning contentions.
A. Bases with Reasonable Specificity The Commission's Rules of Practice, at 10 C.F.R.S2.714(b), require that an intervenor -include with proposed contentions'"the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity."
There are several purposes which underlie the Commission's standard in section 2.714(b):
A purpose of the basis-for-contention requirement in Section 2.714 is to help assure at the pleading stage that the hearing process is not impropvly invoked. For example, a licensing proceeding before this agency is plainly not the proper forum for an attack on applicable requirements or for challenges to the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory
- process. Another purpose is to help assure that other parties are sufficiently put on notice so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose. Still another purpose is to assure that the proposed issues are proper for adjudication in the particular proceeding. In the final analysis, there must ultimately be strict observance of the
, requirements governing intervention, in order that the adjudicatory process
- i p ..
L
Is invoked only by those persons who have real interests at stake and who seek resolution of concrete issues.
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C.13, 20-21 (1974) (footnotes omitted).
The notice aspect of the " bases with reasonable specificity" requirement is a natural outgrowth of fundamental notions of fairness applied to the party with the burden of proof. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board has observed:
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.
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1), ALAB-279,'
1 N.R.C. 559, 576 (1975) (emphasis supplied: footnote omitted). Moreover, the Licensing Board is entitled to adequate notice of a petitioner's specific contentions to enable it to guard against the obstructionism of its processes. As the Supreme Court has noted, in NRC proceedings,
, * *
- It is incumbent upon intervenors who wish to participate to structure
- their participation so that it is meaningful, so that it alerts the agency to the intervenors' position and contention.* *
- f Indeed, administrative proceedings should not be a game or forum to engage In unjustified obstructionism by making cryptic and obscure reference to
~
matters that "ought to be" considered * * *.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S.
L 519, 553-54 (1978).
Yet, important as the notice aspect of the standard is, the requirement for bases with reasonable specificity goes beyond the " notice pleading" allowed in the federal courts, which has been found to be insufficient for NRC licensing proceedings. See Wolf Creek, supra, ALAB-279,1 N.R.C. at 575, n.32 (1975). On the other hand, the regulation does not require the intervenor to detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each proposed contention. Peach Bottom, supra, ALAB-216, 8 A.E.C. at 20 (1974); s e
.--~
sq #. .
also Mississippi Power and Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-
~ 130, 6 A.E.C. 423, 426 (1973); Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Geaerating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 N.R.C. 542, 548-49 (1980). In short, the standard falls somewhere in between, and "[t]he degree of specificity with which the basis for a contention must be alleged initially involves the exercise of judgment on a case-by-case basis." Peach Bottom, supra, 8 A.E.C. at 20 (1974).
There also are certain practical considerations which should play a particularly .
Important role here in the Board's application of the " bases with reasonable specificity" standard to a particular proposed contention -- beyond the question of whether the proposed contention provides clear and precise notice of the issues on which Applicants may bear the burden of proof. The contention should refer to and address pertinent documentation, available in the public domain, which is relevant to this facility. See Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP 124,14 N.R.C.175,181-84 (1981). In the instant case, this documentation includes the on-site emergency plan and Plant Emergency Procedures (PEP's) for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant which have been served upon the parties to this proceeding.1 In addition, there should be either a reasonably logical and technically credible explanation,
- or a plausible and referenced authority for the factual assertions in the contentions. The intervenor's personal opinion alone is not adequate for this purpose.
B. Standards Governing Late-Filed Contentions in addition to the normal pleading requirements,10 C.F.R. S2.714 sets forth five-factors that must be balanced in admitting a late-filed contention, and a contention is untimely if it is filed later than fifteen days prior to the 10 C.F.R. 52.751a special 1Rev. O of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Plan ("the on-site emergency plan") was served on the Board and parties on March 29, 1983. Rev. 3, the latest revision of the onsite emergency plan, and the Harris Plant Emergency Procedures were both served on September 12, 1984.
et *. .
prehearing conference. 10 C.F.R. 52.714(b); Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19,17 N.R.C.1041,1043 n. 2 (1983). The five factors are:
I. Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
- 11. Availability of other means whereby the petitioners' interest will be protected.
iii. The extent to which the petitioners' participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
iv. The extent to which the petitioners' interest will be represented by existing parties.
- v. The extent to which the petitioners' participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings.
10 C.F.R. S2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v).
III. APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS A. The Proposed Contentions Fail to State a Litigable Issue with the Requisite Basis and Specificity.
Applicants first address the standards required for timely-filed contentions, since the application of. those standards to proposed contentions EM-1, EM-2, and EM-3 clearly l warrants rejection of the contentions, and thus, obviates the need for careful analysis and balancing of the five factors which govern the consideration of good cause for the
- untimely filing.
l l The proposed contentions are based upon three sentences from a newspaper article l
reporting an incident that occurred at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Although Mr.
Eddleman characterizes them as three separate contentions, each is really a variation of the same general theme. Although it is difficult to ascertain Mr. Eddleman's precise point from a reading of the contentions, their general thrust seems to be that CP&L's alleged failure to timely classify the incident as an " unusual event" and consequent alleged failure to promptly notify emergency management officials of the incident at the Brunswick Plant demonstrates an inability to comply with NRC notification
.- ~
requirements.2 For several reasons, the contentions lack the necessary basis and specificity.
First, the contentions do not challenge any of the emergency classification and notification procedures in- place for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant or the capabilities of Applicants' personnel to implement them. The Harris on-site emergency plan and Plant Emergency Procedures (PEP's), which have been served on Mr. Eddleman and other parties to this proceeding, contain detailed information on how to classify emergencies, and what actions should be taken and officials notified in various emergency situations. See Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Plan (Rev. 3, August 1984) ("on-site emergency plan") at sections 4.1 and 4.2; Plant Emergency Procedures PEP-301, section 9.2 entitled " Notification of State and County Officials,"
and PEP-101 entitled " Initial Emergency Actions." Mr. Eddleman makes no reference to this available information; indeed, there is no evidence that he has even considered it.
The proposed contentions do not specify any Harris procedures that are alleged to be inadequate or provide any basis for suggesting that Applicants' personnel will not follow the procedures. Mr. Eddleman does not describe how the Brunswick incident relates to or renders inadequate the established procedures at Harris.
Nor do the contentions suggest any remedial actions that the Board might order with respect to the Harris on-site emergency plan and PEP's. As the Wolf Creek Appeal Board stated, supra, Applicants are entitled to know what relief is being asked by Mr.
Eddleman. Given that the contentions do not allege deficiencies in the Harris on-site
. emergency plan or PEP's or suggest any relief, it is unclear what purpose would be served by litigating the contentions raised.
2 Proposed Contention EM-3 is cast in terms of "CP&L's management capability for emergency response." Applicants' management capability is the subject of a separate admitted contention, Joint Contention 1. On August 20, 1985, the Board issued a partial initial decision which resolved the issues in Joint Contention 1 in Applicants' favor.
q , -
In addition, there is no basis in fact for the allegation that CP&L violated any provisions of the NRC's emergency planning regulation or the criteria in NUREG-0654 by not classifying the event and notifying state and local emergency planning officials until eleven hours after the initial event which gave rise to the proposed contentions. The newspaper article upon which Mr. Eddleman relles quotes a CP&L spokesman as saying that "No report [to_ the emergency management coordinator for Brunswick County] was necessary under Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines and that the utility declared an unusual event,, lowest of four emergency classifications, voluntarily." This is in fact the case.
In order to address this point, it is necessary to briefly summarize actions taken by CP&L in the aftermath of the Brunswick spill. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on July 30, 198'5, the "A" core spray pump on Brunswick Unit I was inadvertently activated causing approximately 20,000 gallons of watet to be pumped from the condensate storage tank to the reactor _ vessel cavity and fuel pool. Since Unit I was in a scheduled refueling outage, with the spent fuel gate open, the core spray flow caused the spent fuel pool to overflow. This overflow ultimately resulted in damage to some electrical circuits and to ventilation ducting.- The core spray flow was stopped about four minutes later by deactivating the core spray pump. On-site personnel implemented Plant Emergency Procedure PEP-02.1, entitled " Initial Emergency Actions." The use of this procedure j does not by itself imply that an emergency condition exists, but rather the procedure serves as*Ja guideline for evaluation of the plant conditions and comparisons with Emergency Action Levels (EAL's). The on-site supervisor performed a comparison of plant conditions with the EAL's and determined that an emergency condition did not exist
. in view of the fact that the unit was in the refueling mode. The situation had been stabilized and there was no potential for a radiological release to the public.
I Accordingly, immediate notification of state and local emergency preparedness officials was not required.
_7-i i
?. .;~. ..
However, while analyzing the situation, plant personnel reviewed plant procedure RCI-06.5, entitled "NRC Reporting Requirements," to ascertain whether the incident should be reported to NRC. This procedure indicated that the event required notification to the NRC 'within four hours. The basis for this plant procedure is set forth in the NRC's regulations at 10 C.F.R. S50.72, which identify the immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors. Notification to the NRC was made approximately two hours after the event, well within the four hours required by the NRC. Pursuant to plant procedures, personnel continued to monitor and evaluate plant conditions during the night.
After consideration of the situation the following morning, a discretionary decision was made that it would be appropriate to declare an " unusual event" based upon Plant Emergency Procedure PEP-02.1, S15.1 which states that " plant conditions exist that warrant increased awareness by plant staff. ...
Although the decision to declare an
" unusual event" was not mandated by any regulatory requirements, it was based upon a number of factors including an assessment of the damage resulting from the spill and an assessment of changes in the environmental and radiological conditions inside the reactor building that had occurred since the spill. While none of these factors represented a significant potential for safety system impairment, it was recognized that a potential airborne radiation problem could arise inside the reactor building if the water evaporated prior to cleanup and that other equipment could be damaged. (However, neither of these potentialities actually occurred.)
No NRC requirements specify a time period within which an incident must be classified as an " unusual event," the lowest emergency classification. Because there was no potential for a radiological release to the public, protective actions were not needed, and immediate classification of the event was not necessary to assure public health and safety. Thus, further evaluation of the event prior to declaring it an " unusual event" was entirely proper.
An " unusual event" was declared during the morning of July 31, and the State, Brunswick County, and New Hanover County warning points were notified shortly thereafter. Actions had already been initiated to clean up the spill. Offsite governmental agencies were informed of the status of the cleanup activities and that the
" unusual event" status was being maintained as a precautionary measure. Offsite emergency agencies were notified during the morning of August 1,1985 that the emergency classification had been terminated based upon progress made in damage assessment, cleanup and repairs in the reactor building. From the time of the initial spill and then throughout the " unusual event," there was no patential for radiological release to the public. No safety systems required in the refueling mode were impaired. During the cleanup activities, no personnel received any physical injuries nor were they exposed to airborne radioactivity.
Given these facts, there is no basis for suggesting that notification procedures were disregarded during the Brunswick incident, much less any basis for claiming that these events cast doubt upon Applicants' capability to comply with emergency classification and notification procedures at the Harris Plant. Even conceding arguendo that the Brunswick personnel acted improperly in this one incident, that is not a basis for claiming that different personnel at the Harris Plant would disregard NRC procedures or that Applicants' capability to comply with NRC procedures is generally flawed.3 The broad allegations in Mr. Eddleman's proposed contentions are simply without factual basis.
Accordingly, proposed Contentions EM-1, EM-2, and EM-3 must be rejected.
3 During the May 1985 emergency planning exercise for the Harris Plant, the NRC observed the Plant emergency classification system and notification methods and procedures. . In its Inspection Report No. 50-400/85-20 dated June 5,1985, the NRC found no violations or deficiencies in either area.
_g_
j'. ..
B. The Five Lateness Factors
- 1. Good Cause for Failure to File on Time.
Applicants do not contest the fact that Mr. Eddleman did not have previous access to the specific public infor mation about the Brunswick spill described in the newspaper article, and that he promptly filed the proposed contentions after the information became available. However, as discussed supra, Applicants submit that Mr. Eddleman has a further obligation to specify any alleged deficiencies in the Harris on-site emergency plan and PEP's. This information was made available to him previously.
- 2. Availability of Other Means Whereby M r. Eddleman's Interests will be Protected.
This factor would weigh in favor of the contention, although it should be given less weight than the others.
- 3. Extent to Which Mr. Eddleman's Participation May Reasonably be Expected to Assist in Developing a Sound Record.
The proposed contentions depend upon a newspaper article for their basis, and Mr. Eddleman does not even address the established procedures at the Harris Plant for emergency classification and notification of state and local emergency planning officials. This casts doubt upon Mr. Eddleman's familiarity with the issue of Applicants' emergency classification and notification capabilities, and calls into quest'.on his ability to contribute to the record on this issue.
Mr. Eddleman does not identify any expert witness upon whom he proposes to rely in connection with this contention, although he makes the vague assertion that he has "no doubt that appropriate witnesses can be located and made available" and that he "proposc{s] to do so." Mr. Eddleman further suggests that likely witnesscs include the emergency management coordinator of Brunswick County (Mt. Logan), the operations officer of the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management (Mr. Munn), "and/or other State emergency response officials," and unidentified CP&L personnel involved in dO "
the Brunswick incident. He does not explain, however, what contribution these individuals may be able to make regarding Applicants' emergency classification and notification capabilities at the Harris Plant. At the very least, it is unlikely that Mr.
Logan, who is the emergency planning official quoted in the newspaper upon which the proposed contentions rely, or personnel at the Brunswick Plant could contribute very much to the issue of Applicants' capabilities at Harris.
Finally, Applicants submit that Mr. Eddleman's performance during the hearings on safety issues in October 1984 and most recently during the emergency planning hearings in June 1985 casts additional doubt upon his ability to contribute to a sound record. See
" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Certain Safety Contentions and Other Matters)"
(January 14,1985) at 3 ("the hearings on Mr. Eddleman's several safety contentions sometimes left us with the feeling that he had spread himself too thin");" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions Concerning Diesel Generators, Drug Use and Harassment at the Harris Site)" (March 13,1985) at 9-10 ("From the Boarc's perspective, Mr. Eddleman's contributions to this record have been uneven. Having repeatedly bitten off more than any two people could properly chew -- despite this Board's cautions against over-extension -- Mr. Eddleman's resources have been spread too thin much of the thne. For example, at various points in the fall safety hearing, it was obvious to the Board that Mr. Eddleman was only preparir.g his cross-examination one day in advance, or less. We expect all parties to be better prepared than that, and most are.")
l
- 4. Extent to Which Mr. Eddleman's Interests will be Represented by Existing l
Parties.
Like the second factor supra, this factor weighs in favor of the contention but l
should be given less weight than the others.
l l
t l
t-
- 5. Extent to Which Mr. Eddleman's Participation will Broaden the Issue or Delay the Proceedings.
Mr. Eddleman concedes that admission of his proposed Contentions EM-1, EM-2, and EM-3 will broaden the issues and has the potential to delay the proceeding. Although Mr. Eddleman does not specify what course he expects the litigation to follow, past experience indicates that he will engage in extensive and protracted discovery. With the exception of Eddleman Contention 57-C-3 for which a hearing is scheduled to commence on November 4, 1985, all other emergency planning contentions have been tried.4 Proposed Contentions EM-1, EM-2, and EM-3 could not easily be heard on the schedule set for Eddleman Contention 57-C-3, and it is likely that a later hearing would be required on these contentions alone (unless they are resolved by summary disposition).
An additional time period would be required for the Board to issue an order on the contentions. Given the expected fuel load date for the Harris Plant (March 1986), there is a very real possibility that litigation of these contentions could result in a delay in plant operation.
IV. CONCLUSION Factors (iii) and (v) of the lateness factors weigh heavily against admission of Mr.
Eddleman's proposed contentions, and in view of the lesser weight given to factors (ii) and (iv), warrant rejection of the contentions. In any event, Applicants submit that the Board may dispose of the proposed contentions because Mr. Eddleman has not asserted a cognizable issue with the requisite basis and specificity. broposed Contentions EM-1, EM-2 and EM-3 should not be admitted.
4 The only other contention before the Board that has not gone to hearing is WB-3.
Applicants have submitted a motion for summary disposition on WB-3, and a hearing has tentatively been set to commence on September 30,1985.
eF O ?% e*
C Respectfully submitted,
. I Dale E. Hollar, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 '
(919) 836-8161 Attorneys for Applicants:
Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Delissa A. Ridgway, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones, Esq.
Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517 Dated: August 23,1985
)
e
.ot ~. .-
00LKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g NE 26 N1:40 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ..
f0C T 3NG SEPlb RANCH In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to Eddleman's Proposed Contentions on Notification of State and Local Emergency Management Agencies" were served this 23rd day of August,1985 by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
. /
Dale E. Hollar Associate General Counsel Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-8161 Dated: August 23,1985 j '- , ,
. i.
SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley,' Esquire M. Travis Payne, Esquire At:mic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 12643 W:shington, D. C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Dr. Richard D. Wilson
~ At:mic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D. C. ' 20555 Mr. Wells Eddleman Dr. James H. Carpenter 718-A Iredell Street
, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Durham, North Carolina 27705 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission >
Washington, D. C. 20555 Thomas A. Baxter, Esquire Delissa A. Ridgway, Esquire Charles A. Barth, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Myron Karman, Esquire 1800 M Street, NW
~ Office of Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20036 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wcshington, D. C. 20555 Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio 1 Docketing and Service Section Region 11 Office of the Secretary 101 Marietta Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D. C. 20555.
1 Robert P. Gruber Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Executive Director Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Public Staff Group Effort North Carolina Utilities Commission Post Office Box 2151 Post Office Box 991 R:leigh, North Carolina 27602 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dr. Linda Little Mr. Joe Flynn G:vernor's Waste Management Board Associate General Counsel 513 Albemarle Building Federal Emergency Management Agency 325 Salisbury Street .
500 C Street, S.W.
R21eigh, North Carolina 27611 Room 480 Washington, D. C. 20740 John D. Ruakle, Esquire Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Road Steven Rochlis Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515 Federal Emergency Management Agency 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
. Mr. Steven F. Bryant Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Assistant Attorney General P st Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 s .
- .ot - ". .-
_ _ , _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _