ML20206J915
| ML20206J915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1986 |
| From: | Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#286-675 OL, NUDOCS 8606270313 | |
| Download: ML20206J915 (23) | |
Text
--
s x \ 191 lf %
~,
d' $
U IR Z Jung 24'AE 3 ,
7 # #ab f)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ')s L ':3 _ [ .3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A Q
- 7igyG BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POhER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO CASH'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter " Commission")
published a notice of opportunity for hearing concerning Appli-cants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency's application for an operating license for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (hereinafter " Harris") on January 27, 1982. The Commission's notice stated that all re-quests for hearings and petitions to intervene must be filed by February 26, 1982. 47 Fed. Reg. 3898 (January 27, 1982). More than four years later, on June 9, 1986, the Coalition for Alter-natives to Shearon Harris (hereinafter " CASH") filed its 8606070313 G60624 PDR- ADOCK 05000400 PDR g
T)S 03
I e i
" Petition for Leave to Intervene" (hereinafter " Petition").1/
CASH's late-filed petition has been submitted subsequent to the issuance of all four Licensing Board decisions 2/ ruling in favor of issuing an operating license for Harris and to the bulk of the appellate review thereef.3/ As discussed below, Applicants sub-mit that the Petition should be denied because a non-party may not appeal the decisions of the Licensing Board, and because CASH does not qualify to become a party.
CASH provides few details of its organization and purpose.
Appendix VI to the Petition fixes its date of organization as April 19, 1986 and its purpose as " quick, creative, and concerted 1/ On the same day, CASH filed with the Appeal Board a ten-page, untitled pleading which discusses the criteria followed in Commission immediate effectiveness reviews, and the stay criteria of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788(e). Unless and until CASH is granted status as a party to the proceeding, its papers should not be enter-tained, and Applicants assume that a reply would not now be appropriate. (Adding Intervenor Wells Eddleman's name to the pleading cannot serve to impart party status to CASH or legitima-cy to its filing. Mr. Eddleman filed his own immediate effec-tiveness comments with the Commission, pursuant to an extension of time, and did not otherwise move for a stay.)
2/ LBP-85-5, 21 N.R.C. 410 (1985) (Environmental Issues);
LBP-85-28, 22 N.R.C. 232 (1985) (Management & Safety Issues);
LBP-85-49, 22 N.R.C. 899 (1985) (Emergency Planning & Safety Issues); LBP-86-11, 23 N.R.C. (April 28, 1986) (Final Deci-sion).
3/ The Appeal Board's affirming opinion on environmental issues already has issued. ALAB-837, 23 N.R.C. (May 29, 1986).
Briefing of appeals from the second and third Licensing Board partial initial decisions was completed in December, 1985, and March, 1986, respectively. Appellants' briefs on the appeal from the Final Licensing Board Decision were due by June 9, 1986.
o
collective action" to oppose the Harris Plant. If CASH's promo-tional literature and avidly sought media publicity can be be-lieved, the founders and guiding lights of this "new" coalition include the Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC), the Kudzu Alliance, the Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort
, (CHANGE) and Mr. Wells Eddleman. See Attachments 1 and 2 hereto.
These organizations and Mr. Eddleman have been the active Inter-venors in the instant p'roceeding for over four years. CASH's principal argument to justify its untimely Petition is that the
" crucial interests of residents of the EPZ and of current and format 609[, wschaM2 has4 giaf neen adequately represented thus far in the proceedings." Petition at 9-10; see also Petition at 3, 4, 8. To now create a new coalition with many of the same orga-nizations and individuals who have participated in the Harris operating license proceeding for over four years as Intervenors, and to a~soutL, 4t the basis for late intervention, a deficiency in the actions of these same Intervenors in that proceeding is no more than a sham.
Before specifically addressing some of the more significant deficiences in CASH's eleventh-hour Petition, Applicants are com-pelled to comment generally on the extremely unusual and unprece-dented nature of CASH's Petition. There are no provisions in the Commission's Rules which contemplate intervention at the appel-late stage of a proceeding. Although 6 2.714 does not 1
unambiguously establish a point in a proceeding beyond which a petitioner simply cannot intervene, either as a matter of right or discretion, the following Appeal Board declaration is instruc-tive:
...a licensing board simply has no latitude to admit a new party to a proceeding as the hearing date approaches in circumstances where (1) the extreme tardiness in seeking intervention is unjustified; (2) the certain or likely consequence would be prejudice to other parties as well as delay in the pro-gress of the proceeding, particularly attrib-utable to the broadening of issues; and (3) the substantiality of the contribution to the development of the record which might be made by that party is problematic.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-643, 13 N.R.C. 898, 900 (1981). Here the situation is even more extreme and the potential for prejudice to -
Applicants is certain; the record is closed, the Licensing Board decisions have been issued, and all appeals have been briefed by the appellant parties.
1 The impropriety of granting eleventh-hour petitions to in-tervene was well articulated by the Appeal Board when it stated i that:
... persons potentially affected by the li-censing action under scrutiny would be en-couraged simply to sit back and observe the course of the proceeding from the sidelines unless and until they became persuaded that their interest was not being adequately rep-resented by the existing parties and thus that their own active (if belated) in-volvement was required. No judicial tribunal would or could sanction such an approach and
it is equally plain to us that it is wholly foreign to the contemplation of the hearing provisions of both the Atomic Energy Act and the Conmission's regulations. Although Sec-tion 2.714(a) of the Rules of Practice may not shut the door firmly against un-justifiably late petitions, it assuredly does reflect the expectation that, absent demon-strable good cause for not doing so, an indi-vidual interested in the outcome of a partic-ular proceeding will act to protect his interest within the established time limits.
Puget Sound Power and Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-559, 10 N.R.C. 162, 173 (1979) (footnotes omitted). CASH's filing makes clear its utter disregard for the Commission's Rules of Practice.4/ Those allegedly " interested" individuals whom CASH purports to represent, that reside within five miles of the Harris facility, clearly may not maintain that they have not been aware of the activities surrounding the con-struction and licensing of the plant over the past eight years.
Their decision to do precisely what the Appeal Board in Skagit warned against has rightfully precluded their timely participa-tion in these proceedings. Indeed, this Board should be even more inclined to " shut the door firmly" against an untimely peti-tion from a newly created organization founded in large degree by existing Intervenors seeking another bite at the apple.
4/ The Commission's Rules of Practice are not mere niceties that may be dismissed at will. See Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-739, 18 N.R.C.
335, 338 n.4 (1983).
Notwithstanding Applicants' belief that CASH's Petition is unworthy of any level of consideration by the Commission, the Ap-peal Board or the parties to this proceeding, the following sec-tions briefly address some of the major deficiencies in CASH's arguments in favor of appellate intervention.
II. Non-party Appellate Participation CASH seeks "to be recognized as a party in the appellate proceedings," without reopening the record and without raising new contentions. Petition at 2, 4. The Commission's Rules of Practice, at 10 C.F.R. S 2.762, set forth the requirements for appealing initial decisions. Specifically, S 2.762 states that
[w]ithin ten (10) days after service of an initial decision, any party may take an appeal to the Commission by filing a notice of appeal."5/ 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762(a) (emphasis supplied). Pursuant to the clear meaning of 6 2.762(a), it is well settled that a non-party to a proceeding may not appeal from a licensing board's decision in that proceeding. Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-433, 6 N.R.C. 469, 470 (1977);
Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-251, 8 A.E.C. 993, 994 (1974); Tennassee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
5/ It is noteworthy that 10 C.F.R. $ 2.762 does not provide any allowance for late-filed appeals.
l
ALAB-237, 8 A.E.C. 654, 655 (1974). The facts before the Appeal Board in Bellefonte are analogous to those presented by the Peti-tion. In Bellefonte, an organization filed exceptions to a li-censing board decision although it had not sought to intervene in the proceedings before the licensing board. The Appeal Board ruled that "only parties to the proceeding may appeal from an initial decision. . ." and therefore promptly dismissed the orga-nization's appeal. Bellefonte, supra, ALAB-237, 8 A.E.C. at 655.
Similarly, here, since CASH did not participate in the develop-ment of the record during the course of the proceedings before the Licensing Board, it may not take issue with the Licensing Board's decisions at this late date.
Since a non-party may not appeal, CASH's Petition should be denied out-of-hand as an impermissible non-party appeal.
III. Participation as a Party Even if CASH had filed its Petition to intervene in a timely manner, CASH has nevertheless failed to establish that it should be admitted as a party. First, CASH's Petition is technically deficient because it does not establish that any of its members have the requisite standing to participate in these proceedings and wish to be represented by CASH. CASH instead merely asserts that it represents Ms. Patricia Miriello, Mr. Calvin Ragan and five other people who live near the Harris facility.6/ See 6/ CASH purports to represent Ms. Miriello based on certain of her allegations which are currently under investigation by NRC's (Continued Next Page)
Petition at 1, 12, Appendix I. CASH does not establish that these individuals are members of CASH. Nor does it appear that Mr. Hughes or Mr. Katz are attorneys who are otherwise authorized to represent their interests individually or collectively.
Therefore, there is no asserted basis for CASH's representation of these individuals as required by 10 C.F.R. $ 2.713(b).2/ Nei-ther is there any showing of how Ms. Miriello's status as a former CP&L employee at Harris gives her a ccgnizable interest in this proceeding.
Moreover, the Petition fails to set forth with particularity CASH's interest in the proceeding as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2). Instead, CASH alleges that it seeks to intervene-to " raise the interests of the current and former employees" of ,
CP&L (Petition at 2), " raise compelling issues which are now ripe for appeal" (Petition at 4), and " represent interests which have (Continued)
Office of Investigations. Contention WB-4, filed by Mr. Eddleman and CCNC, concerned Ms. Miriello's allegation that CP&L falsified her radiation exposure records. After careful review of the In-tervenors' motion to admit Contention WB-4 and the responsive pleadings submitted by Applicants and the NRC Staff, the Licens-ing Board denied the Intervenors' motion to admit WB-4 because, inter alia, it was inexcusably late. See Memorandum and Order (Rejecting Late Proposed Contention Concerning' Alleged Falsifica-tion of Radiation Exposure Records), June 13, 1986 at 4-5, 8.
2/ While admittedly a supplemental pleading might remedy such a technical deficiency, the Petition is otherwise so fundamentally flawed as to render providing the opportunity for such a correc- ,
tion meaningless.
heretofore not been brought in front of the Commission" (id.).
Such general proclamations clearly do not satisfy the mandate of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2). The Petition also fails to state with particularity the reasons why CASH should be permitted to inter-vene with respect to the factors in 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(d).g/ For example, as the right to appeal is confined to participants q before the Licensing Board (which CASH was not), it is incumbent upon CASH to explain the nature of its right under the Act to be made a party to these appellate proceedings pursuant to
& 2.714(d)(1). The Petition is silent on this point.
Fatal to CASH's Petition is its failure to set forth at least one cognizable contention and the basis therefor. See 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b); Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Earley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C. 210, 216-17 g/ 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(d) provides:
The Commission, the presiding officer or the atomic safety and licensing board designated to rule on petitions to intervene and/or requests for hearing shall, in ruling on a petition for leave to intervene, consider the following factors, among other things:
(1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.
(2) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceed-ing.
(3) The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
f
_g_
(1974). Indeed, CASH states that it does not intend to raise any new contentions.9/ Petition at 4. Having failed to satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S-2.714(b), it is clear that CASH could not be permitted to intervene -- even if its Petition were time-ly.
IV. Standards for Late Intervention The Commission's Rules of Practice at 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.714(a)(1) require that nontimely petitions to intervene will not be entertained except under certain compelling circumstances.
A late-filed petition to intervene should therefore only be granted if such a decision is just based upon a balancing of the five factors set out in 5 2.714(a)(1).10/ While it is clear that 9/ The only arguable " contention" submitted by CASH is that.the Licensing Board decision is fatally flawed because its interests were improperly represented by the existing parties. See Peti--
tion at 3. Given the participation in CASH by existing interve-nors and their members, this argument is absurd. CASH's dissat-isfaction with the representation of its interests, as it belatedly has come to define them, by the existing parties does not provide a basis for its admission to this proceeding. See Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3),
ALAB-440, 6 N.R.C. 642, 644-45 (1977). More importantly, for purposes of meeting the requirements of S ^.714(b) a contention must be within the scope of cognizable issues to be considered in an adjudicatory proceeding, i.e., issues involving health, safe-ty, national security or environmental impacts from operation of the Harris Plant.
10/ 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1)(1) - (v) provides the five fLctors to be balanced:
(Continued Next Page) 1
the Appeal Board need not ever reach a balancing of the instant Petition, we briefly address the arguments made by CASH in this regard.
The burden of satisfactorily addressing these factors is quite fairly on the petitioner. Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), CLI-83-25, 18 N.R.C.
327, 331 (1983). Furthermore, if a petitioner fails to articu-late good cause for an untimely filing, then a petitioner must make a compelling showing on the other four factors in order to justify late intervention. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743, 18 N.R.C. 387, 397 (1983). An application of the aforementioned standards to CASH's petition makes clear its utter failure to discharge its obligation to satisfy the requirements of S 2.714.
(Continued) i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be pro-tected.
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 l parties.
v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceedings.
A. The Petition Fails to Demonstrate Good Cause For Its Untimely Submission Petitioners for intervention who inexcusably miss the filing deadline by several years have an enormously heavy burden to meet. Skagit, supra, ALAB-559, 10 N.R.C. at 172. This is so be-cause the promiscuous granting of an intervention petition inexcusably filed long after the prescribed deadline poses a clear and unacceptable threat to the integrity of the entire ad-judicatory process.
Id.
CASH's tendered explanation for filing its petition more than four years after the deadline does not adequately address, much less meet, its heavy burden to provide good cause for its delay. CASH contends that its Petition "is timely based on its awareness of the facts in the Miriello allegations and its aware-ness that this issue is still ripe within the context of the cur-rent ASLB proceedings."11/ Petition at 8. While it is not clear what argument CASH is groping to make, it is perfectly clear that CASH has made no showing of any kind to explain why it or its I
members have waited co long to petition to intervene.12/ Thus,
( f'
{
11/ Note that the Licensing Board found the late-filed conten-tion regarding Ms. Miriello's allegations inexcusably late. See i
note 6, supra.
12/ Certainly if the impetus for CASH's Petition is its asserted view of the ineffectiveness of Intervenors and other parties in representing its interests, this Petition is inexcusably untimely (Continued Next Page)
nl having failed to show good cause for its late petition, CASH must make a " compelling" showing on the remaining four factors in order to justify its late intervention. Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 N.R.C. , slip op. at 2 (April 24, 1986).
B. CASH's Interests May Be Protected By Other Means CASH is not without practical alternate means of protecting its interests. Given the level of similarity between the inter-ests of the existing Intervenors and CASH and the degree of coop-eration among the Intervenors and CASH in pursuing those inter-ests, it seems quite likely that CASH may be able to consult with the existing Intervenors throughout the remaining appellate stages of the operating license proceedings.13/ Hence it is quite likely that CASH's articulated litigable interests will be represented and protected. Even after the close of these operat-ing license proceedings, CASH may have its grievances addressed (Continued) as CASH and its members had over four years to observe the effec-tiveness of the parties in litigating numerous issues in the
- operating license proceed'.ng. It cannot wait until after an ex post facto critique to jump into the fray.
13/ Mr. Eddleman, CCNC, the Kudzu Alliance and CHANGE appear to be members or sponsors of CASH. See Attachments 1 and 2 hereto.
CASH's assertion that " numerous contentions were dismfssed summa-rily because of a ' lack of interest' by the Joint Intervenors" is simply not a true statement.
l by filing an action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.206. For these
, reasons, Applicants maintain that CASH has failed to establish i
that the second factor weighs in favor of granting the late-filed I Petition.
C. CASH's Participation Will Not Assist in Developing a Sound Record It is inconceivable that CASH may reasonably be expected to i contribute significantly to the record of this proceeding at this extremely late juncture. The record below -- which is now closed
-- is extensive and CASH's familiarity with it can be no more than that attributed to its members who participated as Interve-nors before the Licensing Board. To the extent that CASH seeks to revisit the Licensing Board's decisions concerning the dis-missal of the existing Intervenors' contentions, CASH has made no showing that it could add anything beyond that which the Interve-nor parties sponsoring those contentions did or could have done.
CASH has utterly failed to demonstrate "it has special expertise on the subjects which it seeks to raise." See Braidwood, supra, CLI-86-8, slip op. at 5.
D. CASH's_ Interests May be Adequately Represented by Existing Parties Since CASH's membership includes the existing Intervenors to this proceeding, it is reasonable to assume that CASH's interests will be represented by existing parties. Not surprisingly there is an overwhelming similarity between the issues raised by the Intervenors and CASH. Compare, e.g., Petition at 10-11, 13, with
" Request ...
for Admission of Contention WB-4 (Falsification of i Exposure Records)," April 22, 1986 (filed by Wells Eddleman and CCNC). CASH's arguments regarding deficiencies in the In'.erve-nors' litigation of these issues are hollow, especially since CASH can point to no special expertise that it could bring to bear beyond that of its Intervenor members.
E. CASH's Intervention Would Only Serve to Delay Resolution of the Proceedings The Licensing Board has resolved all contested issues in this proceeding. The Appeal Board has already affirmed the first partial initial decision of the Licensing Board and has received briefs from the appellants concerning the remaining issues on ap-peal. At this extremely late stage in the operating license pro-ceeding, it is clear that CASH's desire to litigate the Licensing Board's summary disposition rulings, the correctness of all four of its initial decisions, and certain unarticulated new issues would severely delay these proceedings. As Applicants approach I
p
fuel load, such a delay would cause all of the parties interested in the expeditious resolution of these proceedings to be unduly prejudiced.
V. Conclusion CASH should rightfully be foreclosed from participating in the appellate phase of this operating license proceeding. The filing of a petition to intervene at this extremely late date flies directly in the face of the Commission's Rules concerning the orderly conduct of the adjudicatory process. CASH did not participate in this proceeding before the Licensing Board; thus, it has no right to participate in the appeal of the Licensing Board's decisions. Moreover, CASH has neither established that it is qualified to be a party pursuant to the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714, nor that it is justified in filing its Petition more than four years after the time allotted for such filings had expired.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Petition should be de-nied.
Sespectfully submitted, l\T<hp///j.' ','L.,k~k s
u )1 f~
,il Thomas A. Baxter, P.C. \
g John H. O'Neill, Jr., P.C.
'Wilbert Washington, II -
i SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE j 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1090 Richard E. Jones Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY-P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
- Counsel for Applicants i .
- Dated
- June 24, 1986 l
I
+#
- t w- _ ,, --- , ,,,,,,,,-,,-4
Attachment 1
. BE AWARE! r rr >
The Sheeren Harris lhseleer Power Plant, e Durham Raleigh
, leerth Carollne s last nuclear plant, is being 8 Chapel
- built neer the center of our Triangle region. Hill Cary p ,,
it Is neer New Mill off U.S. highway I on NC e It U Apem,/
751 South,10 miles up=Ind er Cary,15 miles -
up-wind of Raleigh, 7 miles from Apen, neer O Crusquey-Pittsboro, Chapel Hill Durham, and Fuguay.
yartne. aandom =Inds sould carry Its radiattaa . -
~~
g - Vartne
- Mtf ,
anywhere. CPEL will carry its costs to yons ;
Pittsboro ar Y every month if they get to operate it. U//i AON Should Sheeron Marris nuclear plant operate?
- pggggg Here are some factst Sanford h Shearon Harr's plant plans to toed redloective fuel in the summer of 1986-.
ten years behind schedule and over $] billion over the original cost estimete. h plant is not needed, and $1 billion worth of insulation and solar equipment could save
( nore energy than the Nuclear Regulatory Casumission staff thinks Shearon Harris will put l out. N plant has had a cost over-rise of over 800 percent and will produce poser for between 15 and 25 cents a kilomett-hour. Present rates run 5 to 8 cents a hwh.
N Shearon Marris plant is being built by Caroline Power s Light Co. (CPtL).
This company Is well known for the poor performence and large safety risks of its Brunswick nuclear plants in eastem North Carolina. These are the worst performing bolling water reactors In America. CPsL repeatedly says it has solved the bad management problems at grunswick. They said so in 1979 (to get the construction l permit for Shearon Marrls) and then had three years of terrible performance at Brunsulck from 1980-82, including a lowest-In-the-netlen NRC ranking for nuclear i safety In 1982. In 1984, they said the problems were solved again. Within months, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fossed the first of 5 straight sets of problems with examination of vital safety welding at Brunswick. In June, 1985, the NRC said the cause of these repeated problems was poor manegament.
' Why a nuclear p! ant right next to usff CPsl claimed in 1971 that the heron Marris nuclear plant would produce power cheaper than cool or oil,'saving hundreds
. of millions of dollars ever Its 40-year life. Now, Shearon Harris s power output will cost twice as ansch as power from a new coal-burning plant, and 5 to 10 times as much as power from an old coal-burning poser plant. Shearon Harris power will cost more then poser made from burning imported oli at $100.00 a barrel. -
How can the p!ast hurt us?? Through nuclear weste, low-lar<el radiation, and accidents. The Shearon Harris plant will start producing high-level nuclear weste as soon as its nuclear chain-reaction starts. Some atoms will escape, spreading
' radlation throughout our arse. " Death is unpleasant", CPEL's nuclear lawyer says, but CPst will not kIII meny people with les-level radiation. (Trust them.) CPGL plans to release low-level radiation continuously, every hour of the year. This radiation can cause cancer, birth defects, spontaneous abortions, and diseases In future generations from genetic demenge.
N Marris plant will produce 1000 tons of high-level nuclear weste in the nemt 30 years. It is designed to store high-level weste from three other reactors.
CPsL has 3 other reactors but dentes any present plans to ship waste here.
The Shearon Harris plant will split stans to produce host. 707,of the heat will so into the air and only 307, will become electricity. But the split atoms will make the whole plant's lasides redloactive. Eventually, the whole plant will be too redlo-actlve to operate. It will be nuclear weste, not safe to store. What will we do then?
There Is also a 50-50 chance of a mejor meltdo-i, 10 times worse than Three MIIe Island, in the next 30 years, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If this hoppens at Shearon Harr!s, all of Eastern North Carolina could become too radioective to live in. If a stone brought the redloective cloud down on a city, thousands of people could be killed, according to a study by the US Government's Sandla Labs.
(NUREG/CR-2239). Even If we were " lucky", cancers and genetic diseases would result.
Is the plant well built? CPst has spent years re-doing pipe supports. A pipe engineer who had worked at the plant charged in 1985 that CPSL had " lost design control" of safety-related pipe supports. Other problems keep popping up. Are they all flued?
you bet your Ilfe. (Because if they aren t fixed, your life is on the line.)
e Why take all these Sheeron Harris nuclear risks just to get higher electric bills?
h Shearon Harris plant will rolse the average CPEL bill $200 a year, and be more dangerous than a high-level nuclear weste receiving facility or a nuclear weste Incinerator. The State of North Caroline will not take the high-level weste dw, or the nuclear Incinerator proposed for Bladen County. So why take Shearon Harris?
What's the alternettvet Energy-saving appliances, light bulbs, and solar energy.
Hundreds of energy-saving devlees for business and industry. Energy empert Amory Lovins pelated out in IS$4 that even lf the Shearon Herrls plant were finished, it's cheaper NOT to operate it. you can save energy for about one cent a kilmeett-hour, including the cost of the energy-saving equipment. Why pay CPsl 20 cents for what's worth I cont?
Alternatives produce no nuclear weste, and cause Lgg,[L,ig OR.
VEY SEQULD WE SIT TEE IdA *a, NUCLIAR PLANT ? It's made to hold over 1000 tons of high-level nuclear vaste, ci t to earth's surface.
- To find out what you and your friends can do to end this threat, contact CASE, the Coalition for Alternativen to Shearon Harris, at 362-4790 (Apes), 942-8289 or 942-1000 (Chapel 5111), 683-3209 or 688-0076
, Durham), ( or 828-3403 (Rafeigh) or write 307 Granville Rd. Chapel Hill NC
Attachment 1
~
EMFRGENCY Fight A NuclearWaste Factory InYour Backyard Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is " finished." They want to turn it on!
p n e he 6 eees ,,=n= c and L.
she -d evp===
= a ~s
, to. e.n e e. in -e=a e= --e p==eian 100 == p.m
=d be=me ef - num n-evw..- in n.w ==: e= T===e,s= a = b=e.n e i e= ki.ane ==m. ..m
.e==e
=do = prev .n r ampnped assMe a ha81 case oper.non es hi An emergency meeting of the region has been called to:
a = ion.--.4e.,,'s" O'S "."ndoe.r d T ."., " ,'e",."'
i * **'" " . A i Location of Power Plant
, e Durham Raleigh Chepel
- sinii cary REGIONAL ASSEMBLY Apem Fuquey-Saturday April 19th,10:00 AM 3:00 PM, verine e *Hou RamadaInn, Apex pitt. hor. %y Ron/sprinse Highway 55 South at US1 interchange ,
Apex, NC sectord Kedau Alliance
- Cittaene Against Shearon Harrte Nuclear Power Plant + The Conservation Council of North Caroline
- North Carolina People *e Alliance. Durhaan Chapter
- War Reeteter's League
- Women's laternational Leeguc for Peace and Freedorn
- Apez Community Action Group
- Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group : ' wt (CHANGE)
- Unkarrian Nature / Spirit Collecties (parna, v fosponsors)
- FOR FURTHER IN; >RMATION CONTACT:
Chapel Hill 942 8289. Durhasm 683-3209/488 0076. Raleigh 828 3403. Apen 362-4790 l
Please deench and rei.rm se hei, un pa in. A e ba, d e,, tae she cas ,.aen. send a co.eitmo.n W ve.re .bae.
Ne'ne O Yes. II be therW Ade." O FI need ched can br ctdJrert O No rt be unM to anend tna hoop me poned so I can help l C rt help nahe now be undrie 510 825 550 $100 1500 fd hke to he9 weh (chect af ther appfyl- O researdi O communey outreach O fund-ramng C media /pubadry l
C direct acnon/ovildisobedence C legal support O legislanve lobbying O usher (describe)
Ican provide thew shde/ resources Mall ese meny 8- - . 237 McCa.asy St Chapel Heft. M.C. 27584
- COA &JTION FOst ALTralMATIVES TO SHEAftON HMtfuS (CAS44
--._ - - , . , - . -,.a - . _ - . . _ _ . - . . - - - - - _ . _ - m a -,
GREENSBORO (NC) NEWS & RECORD 5/13/86 - Section A, page 4 Attachment 2
.* \\
Chernobyl residue in South; a
- f. .
h ,
nuc ear debate is heightened
.y , . - ,.
l By DAVID BOUL dent has caused people to ask ques- ted far more nervousness," after the
. AO e sem wrw ' '
tions," said Mae Harris, a CP&L Russian accident, he said. ."I've k1The first traces of radioactivity spokesqsn 'm Raleigh. - been appalled at the lack of phone ;
linked to the disaster at Chernobyl Both utility companies said their calls. - u
'were reported in several Southern information on the Russian disaster ~
Officials at Duke Power and
' states Monday as the Soviet acci- is coming from industry sources in CP&L said their plants are con-dent continued to prompt increased this country as well as European structed. differently than those in debate in North Carolina among experts. , the Soviet Union and are safer.
utility companies and anti-nuclear "We have a network of engi- Both utilities surround their nuclear activists. "
- 8 M." ~ , neers," Thompson said. "The indus- reactors with so-called containment The higher levels of radioactivity try is tied together very closely buildings designed to stop the )
were reported in the atmosphere in since Three Mile Island." spread of deadly radioactive materi-South Carolina but no traces have Anti-nuclear activists are plan- al that might enter the atmosphere yet been reported in North Caroli- ning a meeting in Chatham County after an accident. ..
na, said Mel Fry, deputy chief of the tonight to discuss evacuation proce- . ' 4 'O At Duke,s McGutre nonh of Char-
. statei radiation protection division. dures, amcng other things, and pre.
' Experts in' South Carolina said the ', pare for the expected opening latere lotte, for example, the containment
' levels were very low and do not ,~ this year of the Shearon Harris buildmg is made of three, feet. thick warrant protective actiors. plant. That facility is now completed concrete, lined. with %-mch-thick although the federal government steel. The plant also has a back-up .
la,r.Meanwhile,. Duke fower officialse' prep'aring a special ~ mailing to ' has yet to issue a licenl ,
' residents who live near the utility's ., Debbie Russell, an organizer of th,e plant m Russia - that would three nuclear power stations to ex- the meeting at the Pittsboro court- rmtigate the effects of any accident, Jplain the' difference between the So- house, said experts will detail the Thompson,said.g $1 g L ; l; ,,, .
viet reactor and the.three nuclear continued dangers of nuclear power.
- These assurances, however, are plants that Duke operates.
Residents "It's in the planning stages now," . Mile who lived Island Plant, whichnear was the dam- Three stsnot suchsufficient for anti-nuclear as Wells Eddleman, a Dur - activ- l said Andy Thompson, a spokesman . aged in an accident seven years ago, for the utility in Charlotte. . - .. '. Y are also scheduled to attend. kam school _ teacher who _was aadetof_th The mailing will include a letter from the local power plant manager, p Roughly 300 anti-nuclear not demon- maintain necessarily work. containment buildings wil as well as other technical informarally ,,strators attended at the Shearon a Mother's Harris plant on Day .
. .. y tion, according to Tommy Smith a Sunday to, protest its planned open- Eddleman said the prospect oflo ,
community " relati'ons . directof ,at ,. . ing. .c.. . . . cating a nuclear waste dump in ,.
" Duke's Catawba plant ""*D North Carolina has also galvamzed
" ".+"We" feel like we sho ild *f M '7."I'here iras a lot ofinterest before pen Ytle Chernobyl accident. There defi- m re supports for activists who op j with our customers and our neigh- nitely is more interest now," said pose nuclear power. .n . .< .
6 bors," Smith said. Russell, a medical student who is a "We've had a lot more people call-Carolina Power & Light officials member of the newly formed Coali- ing in and getting involved," .he 4 have briefed employees who staff tion for Alternatives to Shearon said. "You see a lot more curiosity."
visitor stations at the Southport nu- Harris (CASH). " People realize it is clear' plant near Wilmington and the real. It can happen, she said, Eddieman said the Che'mobylY-soon-to-open Shearon Harris nucle- Smith said he was surprised that e dent has made the prospect of a ar facility near the border of Wake nuclear catastrophe seem more real.
and Chatham counties. . ...a v,% morePowerpeople, have not called seekm information of the "TheDuke Russians said it couldn't hap-
. ,"Certainly, the Chernobyl acet _ company's nugar plants. I expec- pen there. You see how valid that.
was." r1 ,t.~ft 4 l
June 24, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
4 )
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Response to CASH's Petition for Leave to Intervene" were served this 24th day of June, 1986, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List. -
o i
r~ i
/ e l -r 'I ,
N i f, f
\sQ \ _ / ;.L --[, \ 1 -
John H. O'Neill, Jr., P.C.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
- In the Matter of ) l l ) I CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-400 OL !
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN )
MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
, )
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant) )
SERVICE LIST Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Charles A. Barth, Esquire Chairman Janice E. Moore, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of Executive Legal Director '
Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commmission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,-
, Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Daniel F. Road, President CHANGE l
Mr. Howard A. Wilber P.O. Box 2151 Atomic Safety and Licensing Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
, Appeal Board
! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 John D. Runkle, Esquire Conservation Council of i
James L. Kelley, Esquire t lina om afety and Licensing Board Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, D.C. 20555 M. Travis Payne, Esquire Edelstein and Payne P.O. Box 12607 At a f ty a Licensing Board Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard D. Wilson 729 Hunter Street Dr. James R. Carpenter Apex, North Carolina 27502 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i
i
- - - - - -. ..,.--,,n -- , , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ , . , _ -
, , _ -.--__,..,_.__.,._.n,-_v_ren,_,,_w~,n-n,-
i Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -
Mr. Robert P. Gruber
. Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC P.O. Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 H. A. Cole, Jr., Esquire Special Deputy Attorney General 200 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Joseph Flynn, Esquire FEMA 500 C Street, S.W., Suite 480 Washington, D.C. 20740 Steven Rochlis, Esquire Regional Counsel ,
- FEMA 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Richard E. Jones, Esquire Carolina Power & Light Company P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dr. Linda W. Little Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Mr. Wells Eddleman 812 Yancey Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (C.A.S.H.)
604 W. Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 l l
- )
i l
I
--