ML20206R869
| ML20206R869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1986 |
| From: | Barth C NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-847 OL, NUDOCS 8607070241 | |
| Download: ML20206R869 (17) | |
Text
~ ~
94 7 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION KE ED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 00j5NRC i
j In the Matter of ) ~86 Ji -3 All :11
! )
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )
FF'CE COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA ) Docket No. 50-400 OL O0CX[ ks tp ip y' EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER ) BRANCH
. AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION BY COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SIIEARON HARRIS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE s
Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff June 30,1986 8607070241 860630 v.
PDR ADOCK 05000400 G PDR D S6'l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00LKETED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA D 116 JL -3 41:11 In the Matter of )
' )
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )
5(3FFICE fdhhPICh OF SLt R:.TA COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA ) Docket No. .
. EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER )
. AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) ) ,
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION BY COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES
- TO EHEARON HARRIS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Charles A. Barth
- Counsel for NRC Staff 4 June 30,1986
I l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 1
J In the Matter of )
)
. CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT )
COMPANY AND NORTH CAROLINA ) Docket No. 50-400 OL EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER )
1 '. AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) ) ,
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION BY COALITION.FOR ALTERNATIVES
, TO SIIEARON HARRIS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE :
. INTRODUCTION -
1 The Coalition For Alternatives to Si,1e' aron Harris' (CASH) filed on Junc 0,1986 a Petition For Leave To Intwverie. (Petition) The Staff's reply in opposition follows.
BACKGROUND On January 27, 1982 the Commission caused a notice of receipt of 4 application for operating license and opportunity for hearing to be published in the Federal Register (47 Fed. Reg. 3898). That notice established February 26, 1982 as the deadline for filing petitions for leave to intervene. On June 9,1986, more than four years later, CASH filed its petition to intervene. During this period since the notice was published , the Licensing Board has held and completed an extensive
! proceeding with several intervenor parties at which a large number of i
-y --. - . - _ _ _
2-contentions were raised and ulti m ately resolved in favor of issuing a license for the Harris facility. R,gP-8 5 -5, 21 NRC 410 (1985); LBP-85-28, 22 NRC 232 (1985; LBP-85-49, 2g kjtC 899 (1985); LB P-86-11, 23 NRC (April 28, 1986) (Final hecttgiott). Jurisdiction over the proceeding
". has passed to the Appeal Board where appeals from the second and third
- Licensing Board partial initial tiecisions are pending and before whom Intervenors CCNC and Wolls Edd leman filed on June 9,1986 a brief on appeal from the Final Licerising Bo8?d De, cision .
O The Commission's rules estatb li sh' a structure for public participation -
by permitting intervention irl accord with I0'C.F.R. I 2.714. That structure requires that petittortebe mus t denionstrate standing, an interest within the zone of interests prQtected by, the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Protectf00t Act, a Poteni^tial injury in fact that may result from the contemplated action arid that they have at least one viable contention. In this instant sittagtfon , where the petition to intervene is untimely, the Petitioner must demo n stt ste that a balancing of the five factors set out in 10 C.F.R. 5 2,714(a)(1) weigh in favor of entertaining the petition. It is the Staffa view that CASli cannot satisfy these requirements and its petition sinuld be denied.
~
A. NRC Standards Applicable @ ens To Intervene
. The Appeal Board has recognited that participation by the public in licensing proceedings serves a valuable purpose. Sg eg, Virginia Electric and Power Co. (Nort11 Antla Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
A.
ALAB-243, 8 AEC 850, 853 (1974); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-229, 8 AEC 425 (1974). This does not mean, however, that any member of the public or any group is automatically entitled to intervene in a licensing
- proceeding. Section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice requires that a petition to intervene set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, and the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding for which intervention is sought. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(a)(2). In addition , a petitioner' is required to explain affirmatively why intervention should - be permitted. Id. In connection .
with the latter requirement, the petition shoulil discuss: (i) the nature of the petitioner's right under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2239(') s to be made a party to th'e proceeding; (ii) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (iii) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. See 10 C.F.R.
I 2.714(a)(2) and (d).
Where a group or organization, here CASH, seeks to intervene it must either establish that the organization itself has an interest within the zone of interests protected by the NRC which may be adversely affected by the contemplated action or that a member has an interest
-E which could be adversely affected by the action and that member has authorized the organization or group to represent him. I?dlow International CLI-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 572-74 (1976); Public Service Co.
of Indiana, Inc. (Marble 11111 Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
- - - . _. .- . . . . ~ _ . . - =. .
1 4
ALAB-322, 3 NRC 328, 330 (1976) Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2) (LBP-79-1, 9 NRC 73, 76-78 (1979);
}
! Duke Power Company Oconee Nuclear Station and McGuire Nuclear Station) l LBP-79-2, 9 NRC 90 (1979), especially pages 95-97 which cite and discuss
. and analyze Sierra Club v. Pforton , 405 US 727 (1972 and Portland f,- C;eneral Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
{' CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 614 (1976) which establish the applicable standards for standing and interest of, groups and organizations in an NRC proceeding.
A petitioner that is an organization may have standing to represent
]- its members, as long as at least some of its members would be entitled to ;
,I r intervene in their own right. To establish representational standing, an organization must identify by name and address at least one of its
~
- members who ,has the requisite interest and 'who wishes to be represented by the organization and set forth sufficient fasts to demonstrate standing j by the member. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear i Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-536, 9 NRC 402, 404, (1979).
j Furthermore, where an organization's authorization to represent the member is not self-evident (e.g. where it cannot be inferred from the j organization's character), a specific representational authorization by that
! individual must be provided. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 396-97
- i. -
(1979); flouston Lighting and Power Company (South Texas Project ,
Units 1 and 2), LBP-79
- 0, 9 NRC 439 (1979). It must also be noted
! that when pleading injury to a " group" interest, the organization seeking I
relief must cogently allege that it will suffer actual injury resulting from i
l
the contemplated agency action. Abstract concern with a subject that could be affected by an agency action does not substitute for the need to plead injury in fact. See Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Export To South Korea), CLI-80-30,12 NRC 253, 257-261 (1980), the opinion of Chairman
!. Ahearne and Commissioner Hendrie which was adopted as the Commission's
> Order.
I '.
Finally, it should be noted that the Commission's Rules of Practice provide that petitions to intervene not filed within the time period prescribed in the Notice of Ilearing will not be ' entertained absent a determination that the five factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) weigh in favor of granting the petition. The factors to be considered ;
are: (i) whether good cause is shown for falldre to file on time; (ii) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be protected; (111) the extent to which the petitioner's participation reasonably may be expected to assist in developing a sound record; (iv) the extent to which petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; and (v) the extent to which the petitioner's interest will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) .
CASII filed its petition to intervene more than four years late.
Consequently, the petition is untimely and should not be considered in the absence of a determination that the balance of the equitable factors listed in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) (1-v) " favor [ petitioner's] tardy admission into the proceeding. " Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-615, 12 NRC 350, 352 (1980); see Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273, 275 (1975). The burden is on CASII to demonstrate that the 1
4 balance of the equities lies in favor of granting its petition to intervene.
See Perkins , supra, 12 NRC at 352. The Commission has recently reemphasized the importance of closely following the criteria when consideraing late-filed contentions. Commonwealth Edison Company (Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-08, 23 NRC , (April 24,
,o 1986) Slip. Op.
The first factor to be considered in passing upon a late-filed petition is whether good cause has been shown for filing out of time. 10 C.F.R.
I 2.714(a)(1)(1). The Appeal Board has indicated that the more compelling the justification for filing late, the more attenuated the showing may be with respect to the four other factors listed in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a). -
See eg Puget Sound Power & Light Co. (Skagit Nuclear , Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-523, 9 NRC 58, 63 (1979); See also
! Wisconsin Public Service Corp. (Kewaunee' Nuclear Power ' Plant),
LBP-78-24, 8 NRC78-83 (1978); see also Florida Power & Light Co. (St.
Lucic Muclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-420, 6 NRC 8, 22 (1977),
aff'd , CLI-78-12, 7 NRC 939 (1978). Conversely, where good cause is not shown, the burden of justifying intervention on the basis of the four other factors necessarily is greater. Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. (Perkins Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB-431, 6 NRC 460, 462 (1977).
With regard to the second factor (the availability of other means whereby a petitioner can protect its interest) and the fourth factor (the
'i . , extent to which other parties will represent that interest), the Appeal 1
Board has observed that these factors are accorded relatively less weight than the other three factors in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1). South Carolina i
- - . = - _ - - . - _ . __
Electric & Gas Co. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1),
j ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 895 (1981); Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant , Unit 2), A LAB-707, 16 NRC 1760, 1767 (1982);
Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704,16 NRC 1725,1630-31 (1982). In fact, the Appeal Board
! ,. has stated that it is most difficult to envisage a situation in which [these two factors) might serve to justify granting intervention to one who fails i to make an affirmative showing on the other three factors." Summer, I
i supra,13 NRC at 895.
1 The third . factor, the extent to which petitioner can assist in
) developing a sound record, is accordedl significant weight when balancing :
the factors in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1). The Commission's case law j indicates that the proponent of an untimely contention must affirmatively demonstrate that it has special expertise yhich could afd in developing a j; -
1 sound record. See Shoreham , supra, ALAB-743, 18 NRC at 399-400; Summer supra, at 892-93; Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. ,
Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-80-14, 11 NRC 570, 576 (1980)'. The i
petitioner .is required to " set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses and summarize its proposed testimony. Vague assertions regarding k petitioner's ability . . . are insufficient." Grand Gulf, supra,16 NRC at l 1730; see Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear
]
!' Project, No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 NRC 1167, 1177-78, 1181 (1983); 18 NRC at 1182-83 (concurring opinion of Judge Edles).
! The fifth factor, the extent to which a petitioner's participation will t
brosden the issues or delay the proceeding, also is given significant i
i f
~v-.w, --.,~.,.n..- - , . . . ~ . _ , .-n , -r.--- , , - ,--,,,v-- ,- - . ,
,-,,-..n.. ..-an- -,e- .- -- .--.- - . - , - - - -
i weight in balancing the factors of 10 C.F.R I 2.714(a)(1). The d Commission's case law indicates that only the delay to the proceeding attributable directly to the tardiness of the petitioner is to be taken into account in applying this factor. West Valley, supra, 1 NRC at 276;
. '. Long Island Lighting Co. (Jamesport, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-292, 1 NRC 631, 650 and n.25 (1975).
1-The Staff has applied the foregoing principles in responding to the petition to intervene. The Staff's analysis is set forth below.
B. CASH'S Petition Does Not Satisfy The Requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714 As noted above, an organizatiori may establish standing based upon ,
an injury to itself or through members of t'he organization who have f interests which may be affected b:' the outcome of the proceeding. Edlow International Co. , supra , 3 NRC at 5172 ,74; Marble Hill, supra, 3 NRC at 330. In its Petition, CASH provides ~no details concerning its organization and purpose. II Accordingly, CASH is not seeking to establish standing based upon an injury to itself, but rather is seeking standing through its members who have interests which may be affected l
by the outcome of the proceeding.
1/ Appendix VI to the Petition appears to indicate that the purpose of CAsil is to oppose operation of the Harris Plant. Its membership is
~
open tc individuals and groups which endorse the " Apex Declaration." Some of the individuals and groups who are members and appear to be founders of CASH include the Kudzu Alliance, the Conservation Council of North Carolina (CCNC), Chapel 11111 Anti-Nuclear Group Effort (CHANGE) and Wells Eddleman, all
+
Intervenors in the proceeding before the Licensing Board. See Attachments 1 and 2 to " Applicants' Responso To CASH's Petition For
- Leave To Intervene" (June 24, 1986).
4 L
4
The Petition asserts that it is filed on behalf of Calvin Ragan and five other persons who have signed a document attached as Appendix I to the Petition and Ms. P. Muriello, a former employee of the Applicant.
Commission case law establishes that when an organization claims standing based on the interest of its members, at least one of its members must
,- have standing in his or her own right and the organization must demonstrate that such members have authorized the organization to represent their interests in the proceeding. Allens Creek, supra, 9 NRC at 393-97. The Petition is deficient in that it does not establish any of the above named individuals are members of CASH. Further, with regard to Mr. Ragan and the other five individuals, aside' from the assertion that .
they live within five miles of the plant, ther'e t is no indication of how these individuals consider themselves potentially harmed by the outcome of the proceeding.~ See Allens Creek, supra, '9 NRC' at 383. (There is no presumption that every individual who lives' riear the plant will consider #
himself potentially harmed, therefore, it is important that the nature of the invasion of an individual's personal interest be identified). While it is true that Commission adjudicatory boards have found that persons who -
live near the site have standing to intervene merely if they allege a potential for injury from operation of the facility, such an allegation is not made in the Petition. With regard to Ms. Muriello, there is no showing in the Petition how her past employment at Harris gives her standing in this proceeding.
In addition to satisfying the standing requirements of 10 C.F.R.
I 2.714, a petition must "also set forth with particularity ... the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to
which the petitioner wishes to intervene." 10 C.F.R I 2.714(a)(2). In its Petition, CASH states that it seeks to intervene because of the legitimate interests of local residents as well as the interests of current and former employees of the Applicant have not been properly and effectively represented. Petition at 3-4. Such a general statement does not satisfy
}
the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(2). In addition, CASH states that it does not intend to raise any new contentions. U Petition at 4.
Not only is this assertion a further indication that CASH has not identified the specific aspects as to which it wishes to intervene, but it represents a. fatal defect to CASH's petition. A requirement of 10 C.F.R.
( I 2.714(b) is that a petition to intervene must ' set forth at least one .
cognizable contention and the basis therefore. Failure to meet this requirement mandates denial of the Petition. .Alabam'a Power Company (Joseph fil. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 a,nd 2), ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C. 210, 216-17 (1974).
C. CASH's Petition Does Not Pfeet The Standards For A Late-File Petition Recognizing that this is a late-filed petition, CASH has addressed the five factors of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a). Petition at 5-11. As discussed below, the Staff differs with Petitioner's analysis of tha factors.
l 2/ If CASH is seeking solely to be a party in the appellate proceedings, then Commission regulations and case-law require denial of CASH's Petition as an impermissible non-party appeal. 10 C.F.R. I 2.762; J
- Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant , Units 1 l and 2), ALAB-237, 8 AEC 654, 655 (1974).
i (1) . Good Cause For Failure To File On Time CASH tsserts that their Petition is timely " based on its awareness of i
I the facts in the Muriello allegations and its awareness that this issue is still ripe within the context of the current ASLB proceeding." Petition at 8. The Licensing Board has denied the late-filed contention regard t
Ms. Muriello's allegations and clearly stated that the ASLB proceeding is concluded. Memorandum and Order (Rejecting Late Proposed Contention Concerning Alelged Falsification of Radiation Exposure Records), June 13, 1986. Thus, the Muriello allegations cannot serve as good cause for the late-filing of .the petition. No other reason is explicitly provided.
However, t'hroughout the Petition, CASH indicates it believes the ,
Intervenors and other parties have not effectively represented its interests. If this is the basis for filing the petition at this time, it is i
! clearly untimely. CASH and its members 'have had over four years to i
i observe the effectiveness of the parties in the ' proceeding. It was their i choice to stand on the sidelines and await the outcome of the proceeding.
I i The Appeal Board has observed that where a proponent of a contention remains on the sidelines and does not file its contention while the l 1
i proceeding moves closer and closer to trial, the proponent of the
! l contention voluntarily assumes the risk that its participation in f the proceeding can no longer be sanctioned without destructive damage to i
j both the rights of the other parties and the integrity of the adjudicatory process itself. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, et.al (Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881 at 185 (1981).
l In this proceeding, the hearings before the Licensing Board have been completed and the decisions rendered. It would be even more destructive l to the rights of the other parties and the integrity of the adjudicatory I
-__ . - _ _._ _ , . . . _ - ~ - - -- _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._ . _ - , . _ _ - _ , _ . - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . , ,
j i
4 1
process to grant admission of CASH's Petition. The Commission has observed that parties to Commission proceedings must live with the
- choices they make. Braidwood, supra, Slip op, at 4. That is also true of persons who delay in seeking to be parties. In sum, CASH has had the opportunity to participate in this proceeding for more than four years but j ,
- chose not to do so. Commission case law is clear that they made this a.
choice at their risk. The Appeal Board should find that there is no good cause for CASH's more than four year delay in seeking intervention.
Having failed to show good cause for its late petition, CASH must make a compelling showing on the remaining four factors. Braidwood, supra, Slip op. at 2. .
4 (ii) and (iv) Availability of Other Means to Protect Petitioners'
- Interest And Extent To Which Other Partie's Will
- Represent Intervenors' Intere~st These factors are accorded less weight , under established Commission precedent, than factors (1), (iii) and (v). Summer, supra, 13 NRC at 805. Usually, these factors are found to weigh in favor of the proponent of the late-f111ng. In these proceedings, however, where it appears that the admitted Intervenors are included in CASII's membership and given the fact that CASil wishes to participate in the appellate process on the same issues previously litigated in this proceeding, it is likely that CAS!! may be able to consult with the existing Intervenors i throughout the remaining states of this proceeding. Thus, it appears i.
'* that these factors weigh against CASII.
I 1
. - - , - . . - - - - - - . . - - - - - , -_.-a-,n.- ,, , ,- . , - - . . _ .- . . . . - - -- -
(iii) Developing A Sound Record The record before the Licensing Board is closed and a Final Decision issued by that Board. CASII does not seek to reopen that record.
Petition at 4. In such circumstances, CASH cannot at this stage of the proceeding contribute to the record. To the extent CASH wishes to raise
- matters about the record below on appeal, it has made no showing that it has any special expertise on these matters or that it will be any more familiar with the record than the admitte,d Intervenors who participated in the making of the record. This factor weighs against CASH.
(v) Droadening and Delay Of The Proceeding -
At this stage of the proceeding, where the Licensing Board has ;
ruled on all contested issues and the Appeal' Board has ruled on one l appeal and has the briefs from Appellants on all other issue 'on appeal; any participation by CASH would cause de, lay in these giroceedings. This factor weighs against granting CASH's Petition; In summary, all five factors required ~ to be considered under 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) weigh against grant of CAS H's Petition." The Petition should be rejected as untimely-filed.
1 CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, the CASH Petition For Leave To Intervene should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
- 9 u l Charles A. Barth , / j Counsel for NRC Staff i Dated in Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of June,1986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ED BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD TsM[c In the Matter of ) I JA. -3 m1 :II
)
C CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT ) hgE F SECRt TAny -
Docket No. 50-400 OL 4 I COMPANY AND NORTII CAROLINA ) ggjgCh
- EASTERN MUNICIPAL POWER ) ;
,, AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
j Unit 1) ) ,
! CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION .
1 TO PETITION BY COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SIIEARON HARRIS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE" in the above-capti'oned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail first class, or (*) through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 30th day of June,1986:
James L. Kelley, Chairman * ' Richard D. Wilson, M.D.
i Administrative Judge 729 Hunter Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Apex, NC 27502 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright
- Travis Payne, Esq.
Administrative Judge 723 W. Johnson Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12643 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27605 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter
- Dr. Linda Little Administrative Judge Governor's Waste Management Building Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Albermarle Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 325 North Salisbury Street Washington, DC 20555 Raleigh, NC 27611 Daniel F. Read John Runkle, Esq. Executive Coordinator CIIANGE Conservation Counsel of North Carolina e P.O. Box 2151 307 Granville Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27602 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 l 1
l l
1
Steven Rochlis, Esq. H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Regional Counsel Associate General Counsel FEMA Office of General Counsel 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E. FEMA Atlanta, GA 30309 500 C Street, S.W. Rm 840 Washington, DC 20472 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
Board Panel
- Regional Counsel, USNRC, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta St., N.W. Suite 2900
- Washington, DC 20555 Atlanta, GA 30323 Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Thomas A. Baxter, Esq.
Public Staff - NCUC ^
John H. O'Neill, Jr. , Esq.
P.O. Box 991 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Raleigh, NC 27602 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036 Wells Eddleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 812 Yancy Street Panel * .
Durham, NC 27701 -
U.S., . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esq. H . A . Cole , Jr . , Esq .
~
Vice President and Senior Counsel Special Deputy Attorney General Carolina Power & Light Company ,P'.O. Box 629 411 FayetteviDe Street Mall Raleigh, NC 27601 Raleigh, NC 27602
~
Steven P. Katz ;
604 W. Chapel 11111 Street .
Durham, N.C. -
/ />
Charles N. Barth gj Counsel for NRC Staff I
e
,