ML20205T407
| ML20205T407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1986 |
| From: | Julie Hughes, Katz S COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SHEARON HARRIS |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#286-517 OL, NUDOCS 8606130155 | |
| Download: ML20205T407 (24) | |
Text
9 June 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 \$LLLQb
, ;. fl rr.
4;P hl 4, ws
. .t.r L. '
2,__
ge%'
, .e
) \ A.
) s In the Matter of ) N '
) \ /
Carolina Power and Light Company )
)
and North Carolina Eastern Municipal ) Docket No. 50-400 OL
)
Power Agency )
)
)
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
)
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE The Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (C.A.S.H.), represe i ng Calvin Ragan et al. (Appendix 1), current residents of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), Patricia Miriello, a former worker in the Applicant's nuclear reactors at Brunswick'and Shearon Harris, and other concerned residents of the SHtlPP ingestion pathway, hereby move the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (hereinafter j re fe red to as "the Commission") for leave to intervene with respect to the. Commission's consideration of the request of Carolina Power & Light Company (hereina f ter "the Applicant") for permission to operate a nuclear generating station (hereinafter referred to as "the Shearon
~
Harris Plant"), which is located in Uake County, torth Carolina. The statutory authority for the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon llarris'
. 8606130155 860609 PDR ADOCK 05000400 Q PDR DTO2 l
(hereina f ter "the Petitioners") petition for leave to intervene is found in Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act (Appendix A). This peti-tion to intervene is filed pursuant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings, 10 CFR 2.714(a)
(1), and 10 CFR 2.715(a).
The Petitioners' request to be recognized as a party in the appellate proceedings concerning the granting of a final operating license under 10 CFR 2.106(a) by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for the Applicant's Shearon Harris Plant. The Petitioners petition the Commission for leave to intervene is based on the contention that the current inter-venors, including the Applicant, the NRC Staff, the Joint Intervenors (CCNC et al.) and the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina
. have not had proper standing: to raise appropriate contentions; to represent the interests of the residents of the Emergency Planning Zone; and to raise the interests of the current and former employees of the Carolina Power and Light Company. The Petitioners contend that the pending issuance o f an operating license to the Applicants for the Shearon Harris Plant could cause injury and irreparable harm to both the residents of the EPZ and to the employees of the Applicant, and further that such injury is within the zone of interests protected by AEC 189(a),
which governs the current proceedings under Docket No. 50-400 OL.
Further, the Petitioners contend that because of a lack of proper standing by the current " Joint Intervenors", the Atomic Safety and Licens-ing Board (ASLB), empaneled ~under presiding officer, James L. Kelly, Chairman, (ASLBP No. 82-472-03 OL), has improperly dismissed contentions raised by the Joint Intervenors and limited the scope o f_ fact-finding activities by the Board and the intervenors concerning: environmental safety contentions, emergency preparedness and planning, proper plant i
e
construction practices and the Applicant's qualifications and competence for operating the proposed facility to be licensed as a result of the Board's finding at LBP-86-11 that:
if an operating license is subsequently granted for the Harris facility, the activities authorized hereby can be conducted without endangering the health or safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in com-pliance with applicable NRC regulations. (p. 186)
The Petitioners request that the full Commission give close scrutiny to the findings of fact and conclusions of law which were reached by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLBP No. 82-472-03 OL) in each of its Partial Initial decisions: i.B P- 8 5 - 5 , 21 NRC 410 (1985); LBP 28, 22 NRC 232 (1985); and LBP-85 49, 22 NRC 899 (1985), as well as its Final Decision on the Applicant's aperating license request for the Shearon Harris Plant.
. The Petitioner's " leave to intervene request" in front of the full Commission is predicated on an appellate level contention that the findings of the ASLB are fundamentally flawed because the legitimate interests of local residents living adjacent to the Shearon Harris Plant in the EPZ, as well as the interests of current and former employees of the Applicant at the Harris Plant, have not been properly and effectively represented, and this lack of adequate representation by the Joint Intervenors, the Applicant, and the NRC staff prevented the development of an adequate record, and caused the improper dismissal of legitimate contentions by the ASLB in its findings based on a lack of standing question by the initiators (Joint Intervenors) of the contentions and that the dismissal of the raised contentions was not based on the merits
~
facts and arguments being set forward in the proceedings.
n
The Petition forleave to Intervene attempts to remedy this fundamental flaw in the ASLB proceedings for Docket No. 50-400 OL by representing l 1
interests which have not been properly heard or considered during the l foregoing proceedings. Without reopening the record under the newly l proposed 10 CFR 2.734 and without raising new contentions that have not already arisen from the record, the Petitioners respectfully request l to be heard by the Full Commission.
l l
Standards for Determining the Petitioners' Standing and Right to Intervene Principally, 10 CFR 2.714 controls intervention petitions by interested parties in proceedings by adjudicatory boards under Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act. (405 US 727,1972) The term, " person" as found in the phrase " person whose interest may be affected" clearly includes members of the public, current and former employees of the Applicant and environmental groups whose members meet the interest requirements. (PublicServiceofIndiana,ALA3-322,3NRC328ff0f0ff*
Intervention is permitted as a matter of discretion regardless of a judicial standing doctrine i f the Commission determines that the Peti-tioner may make some contribution to the proceedings. (Portland Electric Co. et al., CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 616 (1975)) The Petitioners contend that its contribution to the appellate proceedings in Docket 50-400 OL will be to raise compelling issues which are now ripe for appeal and represent interests which have heretofore not been brought in front of the Commission in the deliberations of its appropriate adjudicatory bodies.
h
Interest is established by showing some geographical proximity of residence to the reactor, (VEPC0, ALB-146, 6 AEC 531, 633-34 (1973))
or by some reason of some activity carried on in the proximity of the reactor either of which would leave the proposed Intervenors subject to potential harm to either his person or environment. (Gulf States Utilities Co. ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974)) Such activities include recreational benefits which might be diminished by construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. (Philadelphia Electric Co. et al. CLI-73-10, 6 AEC 173 (1973)) With each of these tests of intervenor interests in Docket 50-400 OL, the Petitioners contend that representation of the residents in the EPZ, current and former workers for the Applicant, and citizens who engage in recreational activities within the EPZ, including Jordan and Harris Lakes, is absolutely essential to the creation of an adjudi-catory proceeding which can be found to be fundamentally fair on review and which would involve close scrutiny to the contentions raised by the Joint Intervenors. (Appendix III)
The Petitioners further contend that the potential, irreparable harm to be caused by the issuance of an operating license for the Shearon Harris Plant supports the implied interests of the proposed Intervenors during the appellate review stage in front of the Commission and its appropriate adjudicatory bodies.
In filing this petition to the Commission, the Petitioners request that Commissioners should grant the aforesaid petition for Leave to Intervene based on the five factor test which is found at 10 CFP 2.714 (a)(1)(i)--(v), as well as the factors found in 2.714(d)(1)---(3). In A
e
-,---,,n.- - - - - - - - -~ ,
l 1
l addition, the Petitioners are cognizant of the additional discretionary limitations that the Commission can place on the scope of a late or non-timely intervention petitions, as found at 10 CFR 2.714(e)(1)--(2), (f),
(g), and (h).
In granting the Petitioners' Leave to Intervene, the Commissioners must find that the Petitioners have met their burden under 2.714(a)(1):
(i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii)The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably expected to assist in developing a sound record.
(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represent-ed by existing parties.
(v) The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
(a)-- Timeliness 2.714(a)(1)(i):
The petitioners contend that its petition for Leave to Intervene is timely filed. The Petitioner served the Secretary of the Commission with a copy of a telegram dated April 30, 1986 from William L. Cummings "for the Regional Steering Committee of the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris". In i ts telegram, the Petitioners requested that the Commission " reconsider licensing board decision, prohibit fuel loading and withhold operating license until these hazards are corrected." Appendix 4 Under 10 CFR 2.764 (f)(2)(i), the Petitioners had timely filed, in con-
- junction with Joint Intervenors, a notice requesting a stay of the l
. immediate e ffectiveness of the ASLB's Final Decision on the Shearon
Harris operating license. The Petitioners contend that the scope of the immediate ef fectiveness review by the Commission will encompass both the Final Board Decision on issuance of an operating license, as well as the prior initial pa rti al decisions, since the Board in LBP-85-49 (at p.59) only gave parties the opportunity to request a stay of their initial partial decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.788, not under 2.764. Moreover, the ASLB notes in its final decision on April 28, 1986 that the 2.764(f) review will encompass "this and our earlier decisions" (LBP-86-ll p.187) and that all " issues are ripe for appeal" (LBP-86-ll p. 185).
As noted in the Petitioner's 2.764(f) notice by telegram of April 30, 1986, " local government (is) taking steps to withdraw from completely inadequate. evacuation plans." As predicted, on May 27, 1986, the County Commissioners of Chatham County took a unanimous vote to formally withdraw from the EPZ evacuation plan, creating a new fact situation and calling into question the ASLB finding in LBP-85-49 that the Applicants had met their required burden of proof under 44 CFR 450.ll(b) in deter-mining whether the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) made a co-rect determination concerning the " adequacy of state and local plans and preparedness on the basis of the criteria set forth in 44 CFR 350.5.
In addition to the question of timeliness on raising emergency preparedness contentions, the Petitioners contend that the effort by Ms.
Patricia Miriello to bring to the attention of ASLB Chairman Kelly a number o f allegations about de ficiencies in the Applicant's healt.h physics, 4
4
radiation protection and on-site emergency preparedness programs has been thwarted by a lack of responsiveness by the NRC Office of Investigations, which has made it all but impossible for the Joint Intervenors to file timely contentions concerning Ms. Miriello's contentions. The Petition-ers have learned from Ms. Miriello on Saturday, June 7, 1986, that the NRC OI will be interviewing her on Monday, June 9,1986 in person for the first time, although the NRC OI was requested to investigate her contentions by ASLB Chairman Kelly on March 13, 1986, as part of his inquiry into an alleged pattern of harrassment by the Applicant of its current and former employees.
With this fact situation, the Petitioners contend that their leave to intervene petition is timely based on its awareness of the facts in the Miriello allegations and its awareness that this issue is still ripe within the context of the current ASLB proceedings and as outlined in the ASLB's Memorandum and Order (Concerning Alleged Patterns of Harrass-ment) at p. 4 (3) entered on May 22, 1986.
(b)-- the availability of other means for protecting the petitioner's interests 2.714(a)(1)(ii) l The Petitioners contend that based on the record developed in Docket No. 50-400 OL and the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the ASLB in ASLBP No. 82-72-03-OL, the Joint Intervenors have not adequa tely represented and protected the interests of' the Petitioners.
. In its Partial Initial Decision on Emergency Planning (LBP 85-49), the ASLB completed its resolution of emergency planning contentions on summary l
dispositions by stating: "We see no need to provide in addition detailed l
-statements of our reasoning in dismissing contentions which had been abandoned by their sponsors (in reference to the Joint Intervenors)."
(fn--LBP 85-49 at p. 26) Numbers of the contentions on emergency planning were dismissed because of the ASLB's determination that they did not raise "a serious safety matter" within the meaning of 10 CFR 2.760(a). Moreover, the ASLB, in raising the fundamental flaw criterion (735 F. 2d 1437 (1984))
with respect to emergency preparedness contentions in its partial initial decision, proceeds to dismiss the pendent contentions by citing 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) and writing that it implies "that a Board should give a FEMA finding of adequacy or correctability some deference (emphasis a-ded) at the contention stage. We have done so in this case." The petitioners would like to respectfully ask the Commission: where is the close scrutiny by its fact-finding board in a case where deference to other
- agencies (FEMA) is the basis for dismissing contentions about fundamental flaws in emergency planning? We do not feel that the interests of the Petitioners have been adequately represented, since numerous contentions were dismissed summarily because of a " lack of interest" by the Joint l
Intervenors, contending that they did not represent either the interests of citizens in the E.P.Z. or workers who work for the Applicant and have thus far had no formal representation in the adjudicatory proceedings before the ASLB for Docket No.40-500 OL.
l (c)--the extent to which the petitioners' participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record--- 2.714(a)(1)(iii)
The petitioners contend that the record in Docket 50-400 OL is fundamentally flawed, inherently unsound and incomplete since the crucial interests of residents of the EPZ and of current and former CP & L workers have not l been adequately represented thus far in the proceedings for the Shearon
i Harris Plant's operating license. Partially, the unsoundness of the record is due to the Joint Intervenor's lack of having standing and a stated interest to raise issues that related to protecting workers on the job and residents in the E.P.Z., and then the lack of resources to support the disputed contentions. The purpose of the petitioner's pro-posed petition for leave to intervene is based on its desire to insure that there will be an adequate emergency preparedness plan to protect residents within the EPZ, as well as within the 50 mile ingestion path-way. Moreover, the safety of the Shearon Harris Plant, the protection of the Applicant's employees, and an adequate and effective radiation protection program is a paramount interest and concern of the Petitioners.
(d)--- the extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties-- 2.714(a)(1)(iv)
As noted in factor (a) above, the Petitioner contends that the interests which it is proposing to represent before the Commission have not been previously represented effectively by the existing parties, i
including the Joint Intervenors, the Applicant and the NRC staff. The interests of residents in the EPZ and of current and former exposed employees of the Applicant have not had adequate ef fective representa-tion during the fact-finding proceedings of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Docket 50-400 OL.
(e)--- the extent to which the petitioner's participatio,n will broaden I-the issues or delay the proceeding--- 2.714(a)(1)(v)
The Petitioners contend that the current pending issues including
)
but not limited to the contentions which have been raised by the affa-1 L .-
11-
- davits filed by Patty S. Miriello since January, 1986 which have yet to be adequately investigated by the NRC OI, the formal recision by a unanimous vote of the Chatham County Commissioners on May 27,1986 o f their prior approval of evacuation plans to protect against a radiation release from the Shearon Harris Plant, and the unanimous resolution by the Durham City Council stating that the emergency planning for the Shearon Harris plant does not appear adequate to protect the citizens of the City of Durham raise serious close questions which may prejudice a pending review and be related to new and novel issues which may be crucial to whether a license should become effective before full appel-late review is completed. Appendix V The Petitioners contend that there is a pressing need to delay the proceeding based on the public interest and on the gravity of the sub-stantive issues which have been left unresolved in Docket No.59-400 OL
, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant). It is the petitioners' contention that there is a great likelihood that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's final decision (LBP-86-11) has been incorrectly resolved to such a great degree that the correct resolution of the pending unresolved issues would be prejudiced by the issuance of an operating license for the Shearon Harris plant pending review of novel policy questions which have arisen in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster regarding emergency pre-paredness, on-site and of f-site radiation protection programs and the adequacy and effectiveness of current regulatory policies and practices in the United States.
4
This petition for intervention is filed on behal f of Crivin Ragan et al. and Pat tiuriello. Each petitioner has an interest in the proceeding, pursuant to the requirements stated-in 10 CFR 2,714.
- 1. Calvin Ragan, and others who signed the document made part of tue petition at 5ppendix 1, are residents o f the Emergency Planning Zone.
- 2. Pat Huriello is a former employee of the Applicant and is the subject of an unresolved OI investigatibn.
The petitioners will be affected by the results o f this proceeding:
- l. Calvin Ragan, because of his residence within the five mile zone of the Shearon llarris Plant runs the most severe risk to li fe and property in the event of an of f-site radiologi-cal event. Further, the interes t of a fair and adequate representation of the populace of the five mile zone is of particular relevance to Mr. Ragan.
2.The result of this proceeding on Patricia Muriello remains in question. As of yet, there is no final repcrt by the hRC Of fice of Investigations (OI) concerning the allegations raised directly to the Chairman of the ASLB in Docket 50-400 ,
OL and her af fidavit of April 3, 1986.
The Commission, in considering a petition to intervene, shall ex- ,
amine the following factors as stated in 10 CFR 2.714(d):
- 1. The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding. .
- 2. The nature and extent of the petitioner's prcperty, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(
e
l
- 3. The possible effect of any order which may be entered in the l
proceeding on the petitioner's interest. 10 CFR 2.714(d).
The nature of Calvin Ragans interest in the proceeding is established by the proximity of his residence to the reactor, Virginia Electric and Power Co, (North Anna Power Stations, ALAB-146, 6EC, 631(1973). Ragan and the residence of the EMZ are in close proximity of the reactor, within five miles, and all live and some work within the zone. Where there is some activity conducted within the zone which in the event of a radiological accident which would subject the petitioners to harm, is suf ficent to estab-lish an an interest, Gul f State Utility Co ALAB-183, 7AEC 222, 226 (1974).
Calvin Ragan has an interest in the proceeding due to the nature of the activity which he conducts within the zone. A further basis for Ragan's interest is the fact that numerous contentions, asserted by the the joint Intervenors, were dismissed for the lack of viable interest. Both joint intervenors live beyond the EMI.
The nsture of Pa tricia Miriello interest lies in the fact of her employment with the Applicant at the Brunswick reactor and 'iie Shearon Harris Plant during construction and her. subsequent, and ongoing investigation by the NRC Of fice of Investigations. There are significant questions raised with respect to Ms. Miriello's contentions and disputes of material fact which have yet to be resolved by the adninistrative process.
Prior to formally petitioning the Commissioners for leave to intervene, which will be stated hereinaf ter, we direct the Commissioners' attention to 10 CFR 2.714(3), which provides in pertinent part:
" Any person who has filed a petition for leave'to intervene....
may amend his petition for leave to intervene....without prior approval of the presiding of ficer at any time up to fi f teen (15)
Calvin Ragan and Patricia Miriello are persons whose interest is most a f fected by the pendent proceeding, because of the aforementioned reasons and supplementary reasons to be filed within fif teen days.
The petitioners seek to move the Commission for leave to intervene pursuant to 10 CFR 2.714, in the matter of Carolina Power and Light Co.
and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant) Docket No. 50-400 OL.
The petitionere move for an immediate stay of the effectiveness of the Licensing Board decision of April 28, 1986.
The Petitioners seek further relief: 1. In the form of a remand of the ALB's decision for the resolution of pendent investigations, and other unresolved issues; 2. An AEC 189 (a) hearing in front of he u1 Commission. G 1
/ s
/s/
4-2.z, .
- At%, t oseph T. Hughes Jr.( M.P. .
Durham, NC (919)-682-3818 Coali jon for Alt r tives 30 Sh .A S.
frnHarris ( .
/s/ / Y A /' A n P. V z
/g Chapel Hill, NC
( (919)-929-8078 G!
Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (C.A.S.H.)
GC '{ 0U. 6bufd ($1ll, S .
C.;i h o:u , A).-E, 2 7 70) %
Dated: June 9, 1986.
June 9, 1986.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION B_EFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of: ) '
)
Carolina _ Power & Light Company and Docket No 50-400 OL NC Eastern Municipal Power Agency )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Petitioners' Motion to Intervene and attachments were served this 9th day of June,1986, by hand delivery to the parties marked with one asterisk, and by deposit in US Mail, first class, postage pre-paid, to the other parties on the attached service list.
(l- ,Y J h/
r
//[' ,
r teven P. K tz '
Coalition .or Al ter s to 1 ,
Shearon arris (C.A.S.H.)
s O
e W
~
Thomas S. Moore, Chairman (appeals only) M. Travis Payne Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board PO Box 12643 U$ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27605 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Richard D. Wilson Dr. Reginald Cotchy (appeals only) 729 Hunter Street same address Apex, NC 27502 Howard 4. Wilber (. appeals only) Wells Eddleman same address 812 Yancey St.
Durham, NC 27701 Samuel Chilk
$ Secretary to the Commission Richard E. Jones US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dale Hollar Washington, D.C. 20555 Legal Department Carolina Power & Light Paul Bollwerk Raleigh, NC 27602
! Office of the General Counsel US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thomas A. Baxter WAmhington, D.C. 20555 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW
. James L. Kalley Washington, D. C. 20036 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Gruber Washington, D.C. 20555 Public Staff--Utilities Commission Box 991 Dr. James H. Carpenter Raleigh, NC 27602 same address H. Al Cole, Jr.
Glenn O. Bright Attorney General's Office same sddress PO Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 Docketing and Service (3 copies) -
Office of the Secretary Spence W. Perry (emerg. planning)
US Nuclear Regulatory Comtission Associate General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 FEMA
500 C Street, SW, Ste. 480 4 Charles A. Barth Washington, D. C. 20740 V Office of the Executive Legal Director US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten, D.C. 20555 Bradley W. Jones NRC--Region II 101 Harrietta Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Daniel F. Read _-
PO Box 2151 Raleigh, NC 27602
. . . - , , - - - - . g - , - --
Affidavit My name is Ted Outwater. On Saturday, June 7,1986, I contacted the following residents living within the Five Mile Zone around the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and obtained their signatures on the attached document.
I am a member of the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (C.A.S.H.), serve on the C.A.S.H. Steering Committee, and work out of our Durham Office at 604 W.
Chapel Hill St. Durham N.C. 27701.
Ted Outwater State of North Carolina Durham County I, Julia Borbely-Brown, a notary public, due hereby certify that Ted Outwater the affiant personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing affidavit.
Winess my hand and notarial seal, this the 8th. day of June,1986 ihlb . "
(-1 i
j ridtary public State of North Carolina, Durham County My commission expires: Od /Nh j
APPENDIX I i
l
We would like the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (C.A.S.H.) to represent us and to intervene on our behalf before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of licensing the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. We do not believe that the interests of the residents living within the Five Mile Zone around the Harris plant have ever been recognized or represented.
NAME ADDRESS D0 YOU LIVE INSIDE THE lg-FIVE MILE ZONE?
GL- /} XaL.-
27792-Rri /ScY 7t3 tiwIlutcc. I'd s
/AlAuw Y[~ n klb 377 A,a ALw. >, c .2. 7rs L - Y'S d{ & % h. I, Aox 35-) A;wj H;y nic .21su
/leM NaAna R /9. QA 96Ewfa/71.e.1>nz Ys hands k A2 Noe 96 NwNiff }f8. 2 vs-o.
)%b
'(sk #A h-Tw ly.r h he hdW- hvr+ han<ls)ll DT.spw b h .e- G / Bo y / 2 9 l H vi .L l i;/c z q sc i h[
APPENDIX I i
t l
Coalition for Alternatives To Shearon Harris c/o Durham Research Office 919-682-3818 604 W. Chapel Hill St. Durham NC 27701
APPENDIX II i A Resolution Concerning .
the
- Shearon . Harris :kuclear Power Plant . -
WHEREA5, the nuclear. power pirit accident on April 26 1986 in Chernobyl U55R has aroused widespread . concern witihkn the United States and throughout the.world about the safety or nuclear power planta, and. . -
t WHEREA5, there has surfaced within.Chatham County s' widespread and intense opposition to .the nearly completed Shearon Harria Nuolasr Power Plant : constructed by Ckrolin'a .
Power and Light company, and WHEREAS, there are substantis). and unresolved issues about the chatham County evacuation plan.
NOW, THEREFORE Board of Commissione,rs hereby resoir.da all prior approvalsEE IT RESOLVED t of the shenron Harris Emergency Response Plan pending : -
further crities1. examination of the unresolved issues, c This resolution shall be'effe'otive upon adoptien.
This the 27th day of Hay, 1986. . -
Fw Earl D. .Thoc:pson Chairman ,
g .
- pgnry, .
dasel F. Boone Clark to the Board n.
wvv- * - -
\
APPENDIX II-a P.O. Box 428 2 1-3 )
CHATHAM COUMTY
- * "5"<= Phones 663-2911 Pituboro, N.C. 27312 Office of Emeraencv o I 542 2952 Services MARK SCOTT RRE MARSHAL October 26, 1983 .
Mr. J. L. Willis Harris Nuclear Project P. O. Oox 165 New Hill, N. C. 27562
Dear Sir:
This Letter of Agreement is to confinn that the Chatham County Departinent of Emergency Management will plan for and assist in the management of a radiological emergency at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. This planning and assistance will be in accordance with our disaster plan, the~ special aspects of our plan for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and NUREG 0654.
It is understood that personnel at the Shearon Herris Nuclear Power Plant shall emergency isnotify intnediately discovered.the Chatham County waming point as soon as a radiological In addition to this immediate notification, it is agreed that the Shearon Harris Huclear Power Plant personnel will provide other information including protective action recomendations, plant status information, actual and projected exposure data for meders of the general population, meterological information, requests. for support of off-site agencies and a prognosis for, worsening or termination of any radiological emrgency.
It is also agreed that the Chatham County Department of Emergency Management -
will utilize extsting warning and notifcation methodology to ensure that neders of the general population in'.Chatham County are adequately informed of any protection actions that may be required in the event of a radiological emergency at the Sheafon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
Sincerely, h, cts .k- -
Mark Scott, Coordinator Chatham County Department of Emergency Management e
.e**
l Good Judgment Keys .
Lake Water Safety Ted Ouf water Last year just four people drowded at Jor.
a unch in your eye is a sure sign of improper p safety procedures. ,.
den Lake, really a small number considerms 5) Check the weather; look at the sky. The both the size of the lake and the diveruty of take gets rough in bad weather.
sants, unners and fools who jam the waters, 6) Watch out for the other guy. Keep your beaches and boat ramps. speed and wake down near swimmers, fisher- ., . .p, s . ,. . , g g.y, ~ ~-. *=tr m' WWh7 e b-8 Well, it'd be great to have a year with no 44 man and other slooom folks. 9,7 g w"y p,Q1J drownmgs, so here's a brief hst of safety 7) S'8Y 'way from the bald eagles, period. g. ig g,,
i M M /C ideas. lvs our way of saying. "Have a good Their safety is as important as yours. yt * .g pf4;yp .ggg@h@%a/* '"g , j.j,gqp,g%, W(w e,h ,
time but brmg your whole family back d) A f ter July when the neyby.Ar p Q p.f gpf.g gy
,%,e). MNh{j.jd...
g
.gQ;ph[ "hg f,14.c'M.. .{,
- . , .. , . , fje .. ,y power plant Mans up,, remember to carry d'MD$f'b. j.f . y n,)
l} Try learnmg how I.o swim. It can really .
Jd, m help out. "So I fimshed the last six-pack, YUug@ugask th,_at g ws_is no greatand catc.h.protec3cJear. A fish stood up to _ over the ude and fell over- 9) Fmcily, it is fien more dangerous get-board. The boat skapped away and there 1 e ra sn c : cek d n th ~
, -- anony s suo surrounding roads. "I was bacycling to the --
j
- 2) Make sure everyone aboard your boat has a Coast Guard approved hfe jacket. oor dam down NC 751. A Jeep was coming the [
other way. As it passed me going about 50 ,
swimmers and nonswimmers should always nules an hour, a passet'ger threw a cup of .
j wear them when aboard. crushed ice at me, hitting me on the arm, __- _,
-- _-- f '.P r_
%m,
- ~ - - - #M ' g'
- 3) Let somebody kr.ow where you are going knocking me off the road. By the time I got 3 l r_nd what time you'll get back. Tell both your t my ect, biceding and injured, the jeep was 3% ' C c !
- fy , !
f d 4 i you've just got to dive-off your boat out of range I was only carrying a .38. Next time i,11 carry a rocket launcher." - anony-
-] p x _PTm -
, *a rj a least check the water depth and look for Q
,mous conicsuott.
uri.icrwater hazards. A mouthfulof mud and ,, I inanc. to au uiqin 98 M tbt.ast oP AN EDENTeatO EndLnG&seCY 8'm==~ finacuan0N OF M Lasif ARtA (M - ,
t Vou alLL se esDTWa0 sv h ^g m4 l
- - - -As, ._
u
, -- _un suo rumes_
e 1 r
,3 . ato sanoma p------ ~
.g==
)
.- e 1 '
, - ma. ta -.m 6
ms _
~
a vu i o maa.o on niav,s,o,. .on
'd ' - * *
% arOftesarices assD seb18EIClaQpsk y
r .
P g
<..<.,g
-ww.
, , m,, .. ..w nraD. e-am ^ _
n _ _ yw h
e 5 1,
. ~ . . - mp. , -- =-
w.w.-n m .. e (
Y$Y e
5
!ff==hkEN L, ,
- .w nn.wemqgr..m~ . . m ..
g ni .
3 gis MA% ~' I i
C.4 eT
- fi- i -
g CODMWNji) SPTT5 NEUE JoW UW lswE 1
- 0 02 M m l w y n_ M u , 5aamOt n%
I -_
@P2VMs @B2M ip@%s s. MQ. === =
~
r KoT.WmL
~
APPENDIX IV -
TLX'II RECV CONNECTED Line 1 29-Apr-86 08:26 64 gg N g* , '!$ [fM' Jct DOEFRSTAL WSH , M8 29 p y ,,
WU INF0 MASTER 1-802661A119 24/29/86 oh["ICfj. .
ICS IPMWGWC WSH -it SUSPECTED DUPLICATE M 'h 'a'l4o E844NC 90062 04-29 9742A EDT TWX 7108220176 DOEFRSTL WSH 1-900181A119 94/29/86 **CP:TT MilMBER -
ICS IPMRYNB RNO ~
98121 REND NV 84-28 18179 PDT RYNA PROD. & UTIL FAC N' -Ob
- ICS IPMWGWB 4-900197E119 94/E9/86 ICS IPMBNGZ CGP 9199488289 TDBN CHAPEL HILL NC 111 84-29 1213A EST-PM8 CHAIRMAN NUNZIO,PALLADINO AND COMMIBIONERS ZECH ASSELSTINE ROBERTS AND BERNTHAL. PLR NUCLEAR REGULARTORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON DC 20555 INRDEQUATE EMERGENCY PLANNING. UNRECCLVCD DAFETY ISSUES, CDNSTRUCTION AND TESTING DEFICIENCIES. AND CHRONIC CP&L UNACCEPTABLY INCREASE
, RISKS OF MA. TOR ACCIDENTS SHOULD HARRIS #1 REACTOR OPERATE. IMP.ERATIV'E YOU ACK TO PREVENT POTENTIAL DISASTER AND PROTECT HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF OUR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES BY: RECONSIDERING LICENSING
. BOARD DECISION: PROHIBITING FUEL COADING AND WITHHOLDING OPERATING
- LICENSE UNTIL THESE HAZARDS ARE CORRECTED. LCCAL GOVERNMENT TAKING STEPS TD WITHDRAW FROM COMPLETELY INADE00 ATE EVACUATION PLANS. IF AN ACCIDE_NT LIKE THE RUSSI AN ONE WERE TO HAPPEN HERE PEOPLE WOULDN' T l
EVEN KNOW WHICH WAY TO RUN. -
l RESPECTFULLY.
WILLIAM L CUMMINGS FOR THE REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE COALITION FOR ,
ALTERNATIVE TO SHEARON HARRIS 237.MCCAULEY ST. CHAPEL HILL. NC 27514 Seit EST 8416 EST 8641 EST 8728 EST A
DOEFRSTAL WSH CHAIN;:AN-RLeu [E* 8V 63 UON 99. -
21 Mt E5 ja CO
--- e APPEfl0IX V' g .,g Book # b Paged.t70Y.
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE CONVERSION OF THE SHEARON HARRIS PLANT TO A NON-NUCLEAR FUEL PLANT AND EXPRESSING THE OPPOSITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE LICENSING OR OPERATION OF SAID SHEARON HARRIS PLANT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Durham opposes the movement of nuclear fuel into our region, the licensing and loading of the Shearon Harris reactor, and the activation and operation of the Shearon Harris reactor.
WHEREAS , emergency planning for the Shearon Harris plant does not appear adequate to protect the citizens of the City of Durham, and the City of Durham is not included in the evacuation plan for a nuclear power accident at Shearon Harris.
WHEREAS, the City of Durham does not receive any regular power
. supply from the Shearon Harris facility and does not receive significant benefits from the plant.
WHEREAS, the Shearon Harris plant is located within 25 miles of Durham's City limits and within a short distance of several major population centers in central North Carolina; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DURHAM that the City Council endorses converting the Shearon Harris plant to a non-nuclear fuel plant to prevent the production of nuclear waste and to avoid a nuclear power accident occuring in the Triangle area.
Further, the City of Durham opposes the licensing or operation of the Shearon Harria Nuclear reactor.
This resolution is effective upon adoption.
APPROVED BY
-- CITY COUNCIL
- MAY 151986 d f' hl{LL/Q CITY CLERK
Y
,9 AAPPENDIX VI (30 1 1)f I
[ /dYN I
f I
DRAFT i o
MOTION CONSTITUTING THE COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SHEARON HARRIS (C.A.S.H.), CREATING AN INTERIM STEERING COMMITTEE, AND ESTABLISHING TWO THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE AS BASIS FOR DECISIONS.
Whereas the impending loading and operation of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant is a threat to our health, safety, and economic well-being and necessitates quick, creative, and concerted collective action both within and across our communities this Emergency Regional Assembly hereby constitutes itself as the Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (C.A.S.H.), membership in wnich is open to all individuals and groups which endorse the Apex Declaration. Further, until the convening of a second Regional Assembly, it creates an Interim Steering Committee to guide the Coalition's growth and activities to be comprised of representatives of those working
- groups which may be established to further the Coalition's aims and
- objectives, and representatives of those local organizations which may be created to implement them. Further, it establishes consensus as the ideal to be strived for in Coalition and Steering Committee decisions and specifies that in the event consensus is unattainable decisions shall be based on two-thirds majority vote.
e,
.