ML18230A543

After Receiving Response to Petition to Intervene, Letter Advising Alliance Members Should Be Allowed to Intervene

ML18230A543
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	11/29/1978
From:	Eddleman W - No Known Affiliation, Kudzu Alliance
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML18230A543 (24)

Text

~9 November 1978 Ac1LB ), - ~

s 3P $80~3 Today I received a response to petition to intervene, filed by Bells= Eddleman and Kudzu Alliance. I reported on this response and other developments discussed on the phone with Charles Barth, NRC Staff Counsel, to the Kudzu Alliance General Meeting held at 7:30 tonight.. (It is now 11:20 pm). numerous A111ance members exnressed concern that the Alliance should be allowed to intervene " n this case.

Also new information came to my'ttention.

I am writing to inform you oi some facts relevant to ooints rai'sed by Shari.estBarth in his filing urging denial of our request to intervene. Since we are not lawyers, we didn't know about these things when we << l.ed and ask that the ASLB admit these facts expressed below (and any others we can supply w1thin a reasonable time set by the ASE,B) as mart of the petitions to intervene by the Kudzu Alliance and by Wells Fddleman as an 1ndividual.

Enclosed is a copy of a statement signed by John P. Soeir.hts, now a Kudzu Alliance member. Ea states that he "requested to be intervenor around 1971. Has turned down. Has allowed to make lim1ted appearance. {Is now member of the Kudzu Alliance)." Further "As I recall, the Chairman (of the Incensing Board) asked if the other intervenors couldn't represent some of my. areas of concern. I said I would prefer to represent myself. (signed) John Sneights 29 Nov. 1978" John Speights resides within Ig miles of the Shearon Harris slant s1te.

4 8'ti t4 W] 8 444t 5 ay>

O'I 44 r PH Kg C.vj La) g 4 eede A.

.W tN @~md;AQP,~

~]f y'-'

4 Q ijr~~~3 IIc ~ "

>p

[pp~/ ) ~ c.

Charles Barth states (p.3 of his response) that "no show'..ng s<

made in the oetition to intervene as to how the inte"ests of !'lr.

Eddleman or the Kudzu Alliance could be affected bv the vroceed1ngs."

Pie feel to the contrary that: every'ssue we have raised is relevant; t;o C? h L's ability to manage a g-reactor nuclear vower slant '.n a safe, environmentally sound manner without unacceatable risk t<. vubl<c

ASLN 29 Novembe". 19'i'r~ m vlells eddleman ariQ isu Alliance health orivate primae ty. Rather than restate those concerns here, we add that the record of imoroper and unsafe activities bv CP I L and at Brunswick (to my personal knowledge from review' ofw" public documents) and perhaos also at H.P. Robinson F2, and the NRC llingness to accommodate to these practices, as evidenced by allowing issues to remain un esolved witnout penalty to C~ I L, acceptance of assurances insvectors, that tnings had been done without '.ndeeendent checking b-.

and suaoressing the concerns of inspector Floyd Cantrell, ~aise in our view risks tn health, life, and orooertv of everyone 'n the area of the plant and of all CP h L stockholders ~nd bondholders. b'llCP h L, with ~ ~ate baso. unde~ +3 b'll'on, proposes to invest %~.2 on

' tne Harris'uclear olant alone. Host of tnis money will be raid by rateoaEzyers under Construction Work 'n Progress. Cp R L chair-person Shearon Har. is stated at the Shareholde s Meeting nf May 196)78 that ell costs of the plant would uibtimately be paid

' by the ~atenayers.

Thus anyone who has electric service from CP h L be'g forced tc invest in a nuclear vower aslant owned by someone elxse. If the plant is built thev w'll then be forced to pay fixed o~ofits on that @lant, needed or not. >le therefore anneal for rezooening hearings on the nr:ed for vower and the availabilitv of alternative sc urces of energy and effic'ency and conservation measures that co.~ld el'm'nate the need for this nlant.

Kudzu Alliance and 'efells Fddleman believe that our interests are vital'v involved in CP 8c L's ability to safely manage a nuclear vower @lant. First, we suspect; that there 1s no such th'ng as adeauate safety for a nuclear aslant within the actual performance of orofitmaking cornorat'ons, government agencies, or otner grouos. If safe management does orove iaoossible-, we as local residents w'll bear the health and genetic consequences; and as taxpayers and . atepayers we w:.11 bear the economic conseauences. Since nuclear waste products are so terribly dangerous (see Uofman's "On the Mav to the Bank" cited in av letter of 7 November) for examole), we want to be assured that the most stringent and adequate @lans to contain this waste "n 'he olant and until final disposal (for w2:<ch no adequate method has been demon-strated: see USCS Circular 779 and the I>G resort) a~e made. '.le also vitally need to be assured that CP 0 L can and w~,ll carry the out this very str.'.nugent nuclear ~aste containment p ogram both in operation of tne olant and after the nuclear fuel 's anent. 'le want':o oe assured that '.f waste d'soosal costs turn out to be vers high (as the Con>."ress<anal >ewart "Nuclear Tower Cost;s" suggests) that: CP R L can and will @ay for adequate disposal, and not dump ti'>> waste nn the taxaavers or charge the ratepayers for its er.or in judging t2:e cost; of nuclear waste disposal. I could go on for rages on this one ~o'rt, as the~e a~e'many o0her ssues where nuclear olant management; v'all.y

.~

affects us as residents near the ~lant and in other roles. But how can there be a clearer interest t2:an knowing that only CP h L's safe management capabfl~t;y and tne we'll to carry out tha". safe management will st;and between us and the radioactivity of 3,o00 Hiroshima atomic bombs, for the ver'.od 1986 unt.'sl the Harris plants are coaoletely decomiss1oned (2025'?). vou'll excuse us for ti..'nk'. ng it m'ght be better management not to create that; waste and that isk

' tne first olace but if CP 8c L and the WC are determ'ed

-.

tr create the thousands of tons of nuclear waste t:hat th's olant w:ll r-oduce, each ounce able to we wnat; tive very kill,

'oest

'njure or genetically damage many pec".le, assurance that you are goirg to do it safelv.

de cannot; be sure unless we can cross-examine tne Oitnesses,;;nd call our own witnesses, and ask ti-e auestions th-t tt.e po'-'~r cu>>.'r'.~ny surely will not raise itself concerning imoerfect nonaget".ent, on an

Op

~ 03M ASK,B P9 November 1 from Wells Eddleman and dzu Alliance Issue where perfection to one part In 100,000 day In and day nut for 50 years at the plant and perhaos 500,000 years at tice ~ante dumo Is simoly acceptable safety, and anything less may well be unacceptable.

further issue concerning the credibility of CP L We and the RRC note a staff's ability to orotect 197$ environmental statement f'r us from radiation.

the Harris olant, it is on oage 3-17 that liquid radioactive emisslons from normal would produce a 12.6 mrem oer year oer oerson dose at the plant

~ Er, In the" said.

ooerat',on boundary. Further, on oap.e 3-22 lt states +2'~t noble gas radioactive ea'..~s$ ons h w'll be less than 10 mrem oer year, but that the dose to an i,nfant's thyroid cnuld be conslderaly higher. The guldel'e for radiation dose to the oubllc from all radIoactive emlssf ons at the plant boundary Is 5 mrem oer year. We are assured only that If everything works right, the emisslons s?.ould be below 22.6 mrem oer year and that state-of-the-art technology will be used to reduce these doses. Nevertheless, the (then-AEC) staff found 22.6 mrem oer year"acceptable " tresumably the staff ls not at risk from this radiation as they are several hundred mlles from the source.

Comoare the situation of times the government guidelines ls "acceotable" to the NPC still, If4$ ..--

what trust can oeoole have thet even the regulator s (to sav nothing Ct h L which cannot guarantee perfect ooeration because thev are

'f human) will orotect them from excess radiation. NPC Staf" have informed me that there are no penalties levied against plants that emit excessive radiation, though one could be shut down until It demonstrates that it has solved an excessive radiation emission problem).

The EtA's funds for radiation monitoring have been cut (as has t?.ei.r staff for that purpose) every year from 1972 to 1978 according to reoorts In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. And the General Accounting Office has called for aggressive NRC monitoring of nuclear olant construction, finding the current work whollv inadequate.

Considering the badly belmlshed records of Danieit Internat'onal and research-Cottrell, contractors for Cl' L's Harris nuclear slant, the lack of aggressive, lndeoendent NRC monitoring ls verv disturbing.

How can we be sure Ct b: L Is checking its contractors If the NRC isn't checking them adequately'F Obviously, safe radiation guidelines are r~nuired, safe slant construction Is reoulred, and radlat'on monitoring Is ~equi ed fo~

safe operation of a large nuclear power olant. The Fnvlrnnmental.

Statement and QAO reoorts (CED 78-27 and others) mentioned <<Jove cast serious doubt on the verification of safe construction, safe radiate o'n guidelines, and radiation monitoring, both bv nower comoanies and by the NRC and EPA. We want to raise these Issuxes before the ASLB and to examine C? h L and NRC witnesses about them.

>a6lation at the rate of 22.6 mrem oer year would yield 1 em cr re.tted dose over 45 years. If the Mancuso-Stewart-Kneale results nold uo, this 1 rem could double risk for several types of cancer, for neo~le near the Harris olant lf It operated perfectly. In realltv, '.-.oerfect ooe ation cnuld mean a silent sentence to painful battles with cancer, and oerhaos .early death, to many residents near the olant. he specter of Infant deaths from thyroid exoosure to radiat.'nn, of stlllbirths and retardation and genetic damage, 's raised '.n other studies. He know the NRC has considered these nnlnts, but new evidence continues to come In, and the perfection of power nlant safety necessary to avowed such damage is onerous j.ndeed.

!

ASLB from Kudzu

~

Alliance and Wells middleman,

~

29 November 1~&78 Por example, Dr. Thomas Elleman, Chairperson of the Department of Nuclear Engineering at NC STate University, has told that me that his d<<.scussions with other experts lead him to believe lowering the worker exposure limits to 500 mrem ver vear could be "the death knell of the nuclear <<ndustry." Surely safe ooe~ation includes safety for employees. CP 8 L has won ma-,y safety awards, and we hove that thev w'.n all the prizes for nuclear safety (s'nce that 1<mits will mean we G~e bet te~ ~~detected). But what <<f the worker exposure must belower ed? W111 we have to pay the cost if the nuclear vlants just bu<<lt with our CWIP money have to shut down? Or w<<ll wacke"s be forced to be a suicide souad to save CP h L's stockholders and the vower customers? Prudent planning will address such issaes and have contingency alans ready. We hope the NRC and CP h L have such

@lans. We 'd like to ask them about their plans and examine risk them.

to Since D . K.~. Morgan has nointed out that extra genetic worker s will. oe distributed to a~ 1 their descendants, even we who are not nuclear workers have a genetic interest <<n reducinp the nerson-rem dose to the wi;ole population, for the sake of our desc8endants who may 'nher1t genes from nuclear workers.

>e "late" f iling, we 'e already oolnted out that Kudzu Alliance did not exist at the last opening for intervention, nor was Wells Fddleman resident 'n this area at that time. We also note that at least one re~son now a Kudzu member did try to intervene in 1971, hardly "sitting am bv silently for six years" as Garth al.leges.

We were not aware of the four factors listed in 10 CFP section 2.71/a(l) (11-v) as mentioned by Sarth. We ask the ASLB to consider

~ur in<<it<<al addressing of these anoints here, since we we e not informed bv the "."?C after our 16 October reouest for Information on legal orocedures for intervent<<on, that these ~et u<<rements existed. ~e still have, to my knowledge, nothing frow the N'?C nn this nuest'on.

(1) Re "availabi13 tv of other me~ns vh~reby the petit<<.nner 's

<<nte e~t wall be ~ ntected", o'thout disparaging ".""C, the only act<<ve inte~venors according to our understanding, we can sav that CC'AC is not ra<<.sing all the auestions we would like to, and certainly not cross-exam1ning as we would like to, on many <<ssues. CP h L and the N C ar e our other means of protection, and we have c<< ted above and ~n 7 November and 23 November several reasons why we are concerned that their protection nf our interests, lives, health, etc, mav not now be adequate. Kudzu Alliance we formed in pa-.t bee~use the efforts of other grouos co@os<<ing nuclear vower were not deemed adenuate by many neonle now members of Kudzu. We do not ouestic n o"hers'fforts; but we wish to add our areown.edecuatelv I, Wells orotected middleman, have no reason to believe my Interests bv CP 0, L, the NRC, or even CCRC right now. The language:e is 'w'lj. oe orotected" rot "Hay be protected", so it 's ua to the NPC atto~ne~-s L to show what all nur interests are and that CC'..C 's NC":i or C~ Ec n~otecta'.ng- and will cont'ue to protect them in the future, demonstrat'cn

'f

's the.:

don~t want us to <<nter vcne. We believe suc2' I..oossible 'n logic and in fact, as wi:o can even determine all ur ~

interests for us. Further, CP 5: L has interests of its own,;n ch w'uld oe compromised if t found. our 'nterests '.nadenuateLy r~ntected

<<

the cu rent s1tuat<<on; and the N'?C staff may al o wish to be orotecto"s rather than letting us protect ou. so~ ves.

. ~

5- +B 11-29-78 Thus we feel that both 'C~ L and the NRC legal staff, ).av<<ng Ec asked to keen us out of the proceedings, are biased judges of t).e protection our interests have. Ue feel they must s)row our <<.nte~ests are In fact orotected by CC'AC or oth~'rs, <<n the face of our contentions =bout the Inadeouacy of. others'rotection. There is an old say'g, "Zf you want somet?.'ng +~re r'ght, do it yourself."

Kudzu Alliance was formed to dn fo~ ourselves the 1<<>>'ng >as>('.

onnos" ng nuclear power. For reasons c<< ted bbove and oth..r reasons, Kudzu Alliance and 1 do not believe our Interests are be<<.ng n~otected adeauathly by any others at present. He have no say In what (;(,'!uC attorneys ask, wl".at witnesses thev call. Me have no ab<<lity to cross-examine witnesses. LJe tiiink we have shown many reasons w)iy we could make a oositive contribut'..on to the hearings'decuacy by

. a<<sing and exploring Issues, and by corr-examinat<<on. Nore, easons are driven below.

(2) Pe "the extent to wh<<ch the petitioner's partic" pation may reasonable be expected t~ assist In developing a sound =ecord"; we assuage the A">LB is the one that must expect our oarticiaaticn to helo develop a sound record. Since the NFC has 8 ruled a record developed w'hout our oarticioati( n unsound, we ti.<< nk we have a good case to make. Kudzu Alliance includes many Indiv'duals fro~'. all walks of life wno are constantly <<nteract<<.ng with others 'n the'r communities. He are tnus informed of marv things that go wrong in construction, or have been seen by local r esidents, or ar known to oeoole w'tnin C<<' L who are afraid to try tn change t?;ings throug)>

CP R L channels or through the N>C for fear of their jobs. Me snnke to several such persons at the N(; State Fair. Nany .'ould not give their names, but gave us informat'on which a<<ght not otherw<<.se be available to the ASLB. "'Je can protect the anonymity of'uci'ources securelv and ask the ASLB to Investigate ooints raised by these oeorle.

Wells middleman Is a working conservat<<on manager and energy consultant, knowledgeable in general eng'neer<< ng, systems eng'.neer<<.ng, and energy <<ssues, with access to many o".h. r knowledgeable profess<<onals and lav persons. The greate,.t legal w<<zardry cannot n~ 'tsel detect even elementary engineering or techn<<cal e7 rors "n h<<ghly techn.'col "estimony. But aeooke'w< bh scibntific training are mo e able to do so.

Kudzu Alliance has several other members with professional exeter<< ence In medicine, health, engineering and alternative ene.gy sources, who can review documents and ask the tough auestions that lead to full dh.sclasure on the issues. Concerning management, several Kudzu members are Indenendent bus<< nesspeoole w'h mtxk oractical exner'ence '

management; others, e.g. '<<fells Eddleman, have taken graduate management subjects. Both this pract<<cal and theoretical exeter<<ience can be o.

value <<n assessing the real performance of management schemes that must be executed t:o an almost superhuman perfection to vrotectx t)'e nublic from nuclear radioactive oollut<<.on.

There is also the ~ld orinciple that "two heads are better than one".

Since CC)'fC is to our knowledge the only active <<nte, veno~, anyth<<np that; slios by the<<.r lawyer or their exnerts 's home free, even ti;oug?: <<.t might be a dangerous error . The oresence of other knowledgeable <<nte"venors will reduce the likelihood of errors sliooing bv <<n t).is wav. No c ne not even CP I L, benefits from errors not be<<.ng noticed, s:nce when tne errors are noticed late~, hearings mav be re-omened aga<<n or CP h L's license mIght be su~vended or and operating license not granted.

Considering that these hear<<.ngs have to do with suanress<<on of evidence, Investigative experience will also be helpful. Many Kudzu membe"s have such exne Ience, e.g. 'rlells Eddleman who Investigated the educat<<.anal nol<<cies, history, din'ng policies, and C~A connect<<.ons to Y T w?.Ile )ie 3 as an <<nvest<<gat<<or of (? e

Finally we note that we are no., on ou.~ own own, expected xp to develop sound r cord in the hearings, but only to assist. Me believe our tablished by . > expe. ience and knowledge; our willingness to assist ts ev'~ent; and the fact t a some n issues we . aise (or or even aall) have already been considered should ro bar our participation, since neww ev evidence e cont'.nues to come to 'ight, and there are many oues ouestions that have not yet been as ked e ou all aabout

i. sues; unless, like the death penalty, hit NRC decisions ec are all final, f

previous d scussion o issues we raise siiould not be use o a even s,

es a g ain whe... e our ro n t s aa~e aree new or different.

t'.nue tn do research on our own time, in a .. on fi "k and marm we continue to n d ou t things most Mort'h Carolin ans are completely unaware of regard 'nng CP h L, its contractors, 'ts manage~ent nolic1es, and nuclear vower. For reasons c e a ove b e 1 ow, we think we can assist in developing a mo. e sound reco-for these nuclear power slants than has yet been develooed.

(3)3e "the extent tn which petit oner s inter. crest will be re@resented by exist.'.ng par ties, as we hove stated Xn (1) above, we do not fee ~ e the extent of others'epresentation of us (if any s a enua e ve also note that one Groua of intervenors, named we believe N:;ke "nv'rorment collapsed wrien a CP ec L empl o y ee was elected vice ores en automatically to become president the nex ext ear xm so we are r t.ld o

le cannot of our own initiative n protect the Conservat'.on Counc n.

ZeromeKo1 ..

from am similar fate. Ue note that strong lv h oof NC State conser t on. o p y pro-nuclear pro-n a e University are active in the Sierra Club, a so oeo~le like

. en no t w ~ hh t o have means ) to determine the leaders 1 u t that means we have no guarantee whateve - that they w'.ll v o, o

..

. ~

Cl u b ~

be a bib e,oo, otect our interests after ~;' e. r nextt eelections. evidence b

has come t

>

o,li g ht thata some power com~ar es hav~ 1 nf nuclea o. ganizations ',n Georgia and Cal fornia ~::e cannot be sure lt. a.e <<nti-f<lt~ated it won't hanoen to CCNC.

The Kudzu Alliance as a separate organization wn~.ld not e xxiat

. d no. a had not its founders be 11 eve d that a CCNC as needful tn reo esent their interests. ',fiiile we en dorse it is now had not done ~ verything orse CC1l<' s e forts, our interest 'o is'o re aall thee facts out, a task we do not believe anv

@et single individual or o rganization can oe". orm. Thr~e intervenor s can do a much better ob b th an one,'ach can concentrate onm @art nf ar. issue that sne, h e, or~ <t . <ss best e able to address and back.".too the ot h~ i~.~ss on oth.,r tonics. Since we want the fullest ooss ble check in on c

1 t; licensing and procedu es, we do not think the extent to which any one groun can reoresent us is adeoua .e. ~e a represent ourselves so that we can do all

. ea~esentation of our interests. Unfortunately, the burden o'. ~roo b the ntervenors, rather than cn the applicant vower

<<

companies as it; si.ould be. This gives us, in nur v ew, even more

~eason .o w hh too defend

<< e ourselves from nuclear power. A)m eau~

d attorney Ks KrkmxzMx far less adeouate than one's own lawve.,

jud"

'4 ' n- bv convictio:: rates ' e 1.ave ice rd o R CCivCos at. orne r can Kudzu or ~ddleman than a court-a~ro nted

'awyer can take %n a floor client, a.anny many clienis. Since we ~e

( . f>C- ~ CPS L+) a~oo< need attorney won't helm us much, and we can'0 ve a; or 0 Qa t~c<oate directlv w'thin t1ie legal lawve s we . es~nn~ that .~e a-.e able t f 1 rules..s rd our own lawyers, we'd like to de erd ot, s o

we ar".re told the p. ocedures, and feel we h:>ve~ 42 ~ ~ ) .. e .ri t 2'i tn 0e end

.he ssame

<<"selves befo e the AS'3 and FC as we wo"ld - coi>>t. .

e ~ s 0 ~ 44- 4 w I 4

A

/

s

. so ..ethinjr wrens., CPKOand the HPC 's attorneys rN1 be the,"e to. object and 'nstruct us as the.r have already tn th's matter.

(a) >e "the extent to w!:ich the oetitioner's oarticiootlnn will broaden the>>ssues or delay t!se oroceed>>ng", we ..annot sav how much of'he cur"-ent delay from November until (according to Ba th br n2tone)

February, 's due to us, if any of the delav is. ':fe have nox wish to delay proceed>>.ngs; rather, we'0 like them soeeded up so we car. Cet ou. cc.ncerns befo~e tne hearings and Krjrxxx cross-examine w'nesses and start olanning what witnesses we want to call.

';fe believe there ls some contradiction between develor.lng an adequate reco, d (wi'ch requires broad investigation at tines) and not tending to broaden t2ie issues or delay oroceed'ngs. Zt would be

. >>diculous if a orosecuting attorney, having oresented a case, asked that the defense be forced to withdraw>>n silence as the case went to the jurv, because the defense mlghtlntroduce new issues, and their time taken uo on defense wouibd delay the verdict. Since construct" on on the Harr>> s olant has not yet been susoended, there>> s r.o r eason to believe that our oarticipat>>on w'll actually delay the olant (unl .ss you begin to susoect that we'e rig2it about the rjlant not be'ng needed, and its being a very expensive, job-dest, ov'ng alte"native as a sou ce of energy). b'e believe that our tendency to broaden issues

's a subjective judgement unless issues we have raised ay e c>> ted as both wit!.ln the jurisdiction of tiie hSLB and as not having oeer. raised before.

9ut >>f we have raised sucii issues and their are w>>thin the A::LR's aut: or'ty tn consider, our rais>>.ng them>>.s a case for our be'ng .":ade

'.ntervenors. Ef we have not raised new issues, but slmnly o. o~ose (as we 2!.-.ve) to add our exoertise and cross-exaainat'.on and witnesses to the hea~'.ngs, we are not broadening the 'ssues but s'.,moly b. oadr n]ng the conslderatior. of the issues, which we tr:ink w.'.ll h tend tn make the hear>>ng record mo~e adequate. Zf we raise no new issues "nd wnn't do anything (wn>> ch neither CPRL nor t' .;BC staff at toy ney seem to believe, s'nce if we wouldn't do anythlnp, why waste t>>.me ~~oos>>na us? ), then we would nave no effect on the hearings and cause only a minor dela;r lf we were admltjjrted to intervention. gut we do oro .ose to oert'c'~ate w'th soeclal. knowledge and information, to ass'st existing 'nte"venor

>>.n develoolng a full and comolete record on issues vital to ~

u~ '>> ves an" finances, of whici'P b; L's management abll'.ty 's clearly one.

Since the hear'nps have allegedlv been o~!)oned from November to February (3 mont2>s) we would have to do a lot of tal.k'r>p s.j-.d take uo a lot of the AST.,!3js tIme to add even lCf~ (9 days) to the cu-. ent estimated delav>>n these hear>>ngs on a very comolex 'ssue. ':fe do not bel>> eve t2'at our oartlcioation w".11 significantly delay the 2.cay" nps beyond the delays necessitated for other reasons not of our doing, and we note that we h .ve ra'ed mar.y 4 ssues fo the our~ose o f general nte, ventlon, which we are also ouzrsulng; ouy oartlc'>> thorn

>>

3n hear>>r.ys on CP b: L's management caoabil>>ties wil! of course be on that issue. Our statement tiiat we reserve ti.e r>>g2't to ! aise <<vv t<.~lc (cited bv Barth on oage Q of his res~ nse) ls nc t an>>.nsult to the !..'rL;-3

o. a promise tn ra,'se irrelevancies, but merely an attemot to ~. event our future oartic>>oation as a general 'ntervenor (we horje) from be-'nr if lli'llted to the spec ic set of concerns we f" rst listed on 7 &jovember.

~le .iooe t.'is is understood and have no w>>sh to offend anyone, only to protect our rights and ackr.owledge our .'.nab" lity to ored'ct >>r. advance all issues wnich we may learn of and w2:ic2r may be imoortant 0 "a'.'e later in our>>.nterventions.

~ I I

(

f

It may justice be true hat,"litigation has to en sonetIme,"

Is done or adequate .ev'.~w of the facts but we hope developed.

not before t~e are not r ~n~r s< ng to ~e-do 'n~evi ous litigation, but to pres er t relevant issues further new facts and information on It'ronic in this z'esnect that as that informa-tion becomes ava'lable to us. He find many grouns have to resort to the Freedom of Information Act or press leaks to obtain important Information about NRC practices such as current NRC chairpzaxerson Hendrie 's long-suppressed letter whic2i (excuse the language) proposes to ban a proposal to ban dynam'c suppression systems, an Inoortant reactor safety feature than @one of us had been told by OT,', CP h L or anybody else was suspect. (CP R L has two ('K 0'~P? 's at Brunswick, the plant Floyd Cantrell based ignis concerns about theIr management capability on. ) 'de t2 nk that wher.

new evidence comes to light, It should go Into the record, just as new evidence can be introduced 'n an attenpt to get a new trial.

.Ve do not presume that just because we bring a point up, full hearings w'll automatically be held on it; we may be led to assume the opposite from CP 5 L's and garth's respiinses.;le dc contend that C. 8- L and the NRC staff may be less likely to bring certain matters embarrassing to them to the ASLB's attention than we would be. Once we 2:.Uve raised an issue, the ASLB can dec'e if It warrants reheaTing or new hearings, raised were raised or not. As stated above, many of the issues we have because we have heard that legal rules we do not fully understand mav limit us to evidence only on matters we 2iave specifically listed

'n advance,'o we list a lot of topics and "any other to~.'.c th<<t may

...arise" to preserve what we wnuld see as our right to cur be 2:~ard on futures Issues that affect us. '4e do not feel we can mortgage by fo-cgoing our right to . aise an issue that we have not yet thought of but which mav vitally affect us later. Thus we say we would like to be able to raise any Issue not f'cT ~"volcjus purposes, but to protect our ~iahts. 'Wnz can sa~ ref~nit'vely that all tl.e poss.'ble "'ays of r'diation release or health effects rom radiation are yet knc~ n'?

~

Tri~ s ' only one example. As science and experience continue, .<<ny uhexpected things are noted, some of w:Ich are sIGnificant.:~ie w .sh to . aise t2;e new and significant problems found wIth nuclear ~owe~,

since we are vitally concerned that It be made safe if it Is m:.de at all.

i3arth states that we need not list contentions to be admitted as an interveno~.

list'g vie find it difficult to state our conce'rrs w< ti;out issues wr"ch may be termed contentions. If we have snown sufficient interest, justification for our tine of filing, and justIficatio accord'rg to the four factors addressed above (any one of ti.ese 3 ."-eewing to be sufficient to admit us si,nce we were not here at the l="st o~~ortunity tn Intervene), then we wo 3.d like to make a list, of contentions In the formal sense at that point, wiM'.out prejud>>ce to our future d'coverv of furthe r Issues of imnortance tn be raised for consideration, or- of furtl;er evidence on issues already .<<Ised.

'de wo:.ld also like to know what legally constitutes a c<irtention and resow specifIc they are legally rec,uIred to be, as 's "safet~"

a contention or "adequacy of ECCS" or "adequate conta'.nmert of fission products" o~ do vou have to list the exact third s, and all of th e-.,

you think can and will go wrong?

Barth states that the work h.'story and financIal hold'n-.s of CP'L and ",1RC personnel a~e be rond the score of the N>C's authority.

Ne do not propose to br.-'np people's finances or jobs under tt~".'s authority, but merely to revel.l and such relationship's as are relevant to the credibility, expertise~ << nancia~ and other interests of witne

'N in tne hear'..nba. r1e believe that a oerson w?:o q.,pts ti.ei r.cn-..e -:

f. nn a hearty to ti'e heurin~~, or who has workpd for so"..)cone w.'h a clpa. interest in an issue, ras d fferent credib'1'.tv t.;:.n a oisintp~este9 n". son wnnse incoap 's fron nr!evendent sources

<

."ot oartv to <;he hearings. 'le wr '.ild st'.ll 1'ke o pxnlo"p t!.at issue, s'.nce n -'0" 1>> 'harp "none@

savi n>

talks" and w?v t their cone r is sav 'f and we w. ld like to dist.'.ng. isr. wnat

'na~ ty, we ask t?>p cERTB to bear w'.ti. us 'r. ou~ 'yro~ance "f e~nv le~,al ~en!~irpments of which the h>~~ has ~<<t info".. pd us excerpt br!,pf <~nosinp, us 'de w~ 11 '.<- ou>> .~st to present <<11 t j".n eau'"., and

~

~at~ nn ~oo>>i ~p9 n< ua as sr on .qs we k-,.ow i t '

ask that Jou consider our netition on ti.e basis n~ all '.".,fc'-"..~t'< n sub>>itteR that is relevant, and that we st'.ll be allowe,'. t~ ~:"pnd

~ur ncti t.'.on tn provide any furthpr <i fo".mat~on le@all;p -eo '< "ed fro."! ua 'n olde-, to hav>> the oetiti<<n az ~rnved or <<t leaa. c~na-'.de"ed

<<n tive facts and not on ou. legal ignorance. s citizens wp feei.

we have a rivi't to rear esent our .',elves and w'l do so as l~ n!'s we can: we .)o not wish tn cause vou E inconvenience; ~louse excuse ou lack of exne~i enced lawyers wo kinr. fulltixe (which thp cus" or.".prs n.iv; o" . or ti:e nower coaaany and tiie government nays fc. --i-e.

taxnavers b'av -- for tne tiPC). '.iost of us w<<rk full t.'ve and '.:.ve aoae difficult7 find<no t!me to even research the le/81.'.t;ps. ":E';a eved ou~ e<<c-r ts best nut ) nto f'.nd np out i '; ~or~at~ or abr

.".uclear no:e-:hand C~ 2 L and 'ts nlann~ d ?i:~~ is nlant. How wp w'i'. to u=e so'e of ti:at '.nfnrmation befo~e the A'.:T>B.

On behalf of ~@self an .

T?:e Kudzu i~lliance,

!';~ella <ddl pman

0 ~

l in

)

F,-

I~ ~ ~

,:: -2 ~ I 8':,', gin.,:"-P'kg::,"A='~e",:::':-"',.':."",...

( 2',"I,':;;::;,

.

':::::., P.. (e,"L';,';:iv., i~~j,':;:,..:.'-".:

.",:.;,,i .':..',',-:.-'.-,--:;=:.,

~~" II 'I,c.g~

...,.. '<arrow C r,(

,.';P "..

'; ~ J', ~ .I r

I fP- ...'-:.::;,;-:i'-.:,

I$ lj~

' . >IMP I 0~

I( ~ '

- *-

I 'J

~  ; 'I

~I

', II. L..

~ ~

4I

'I

~

' .I, I

p

'

I

~

1 I

",0c', .

4 ~ i.

.I

~ y = 'I II~g

~

i', r' h II V r I.~~ $A ~QQQQ

IM 0

UN1TED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO! MISS ION In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No.(s) 50-400

) 50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) 50-402 Plant, Units 1,. 2, 3, and 4)- ) 50-403

)

)-

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon each. person designated on the official service'list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of. 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice. of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.

Dated at 4'ashington, D.C. this

~1 day of / 197&

Office of , e

/

Secretary of the C ..mission

'JJ i/

I

UNITED STATES OF PZlERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Hatter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER AR LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. (s) 50-400

) 50-401 (Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power ) 50-402 Plants, Units 1-4) .

) 50-403

)

SERVICE LIST Ivan V. Smith, Esq., Chairman Richard E. Jones, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Carolina Power and Light Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1551 Vashington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ernest L, Blake, Jr., Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts 6 Trowbridge 4ashington, D.C. 20555 1800 "H" Street, N.h.

Washington, D. C. 20006 Dr. J.V. Leeds, Jr.

Rice University Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.

P.O. Boz 1892 P.O. Box 928 Houston, Texas 77001 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Fxecutive Legal Director Dennis P. Myers, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney General's Office

'ashington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Alan S. Rosanthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Mr. 0. Gene Abston, Acting Director Board Office of Inspector and Auditor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i~ashington, D.C. 20555 tiashington, D.C. 20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bashington, D.C. 20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boarc U.S.- Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- ashington, D.C. 20555

1 t