ML20203K151

Petition for Commission Review of Aslab 860711 Memorandum & Order Denying Coalition for Alternative to Shearon Harris 860609 Petition to Intervene.Certificate of Svc & Svc List Encl

ML20203K151
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	07/30/1986
From:	Eddleman W, Julie Hughes, Katz S COALITION FOR ALTERNATIVES TO SHEARON HARRIS, EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#386-214 OL, NUDOCS 8608060189
Download: ML20203K151 (11)

Text

--

3 SC July 30, 1986

~k f 3$

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h{N; E lC W4Pu HUCLEAR PIGULATORY COM!ISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the !!atter of:

)

Carolina Power and Light Company

)

and Morth Carolina Eastern )

Municipal Power Agency Docket !!o. 50-400 OL

)

)

(Shearon Marris Nuclear Power

)

Plant) )

PETITION FOR C010!ISSIOM REVIEW PURSUANT TO 10 CFR ?.786 I.

The Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (CASM), Calvin Ragan, et.nl.,

and Patricia !!iriello, petition the Commission for review of an Order and Memorandum by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board issued July 11, 1986, which denied CASM's Petition to Intervene. CASM and Wells Eddleman, pro se., petition the Commission for review of the same ASLAB issuance which denied CAS and Eddleman's Motion to Stay Immediate Effectivenese in the Shearon Y.arris Licensing Proceeding. This petition is properly before the Conunission pursuant to 10 CFR 2.786.

8608060189 860730 PDR ADOCK 05000400 PDR e 3 77 Cy

2 II.

SUMMARY

OF DE3ISION FROM WHICH REVIEW IS SOUG"T: On July 11, 1986, the Atomic Safety Licensing and Appeal Board denied CASN's petition to intervene filed on June 9, 1936. CASM seeks, on the basis of three rights to standing, to intervene in the MRC licensing proceedings for the Shearon Merris Nuclear Power Plant (S!!NPP). Cash is a popularly based, public interest organization concerned about the health and safety of it's members and those persons resid-ing around the plant. As is clearly developed in the followinn argument, CAS" is a proper party to these proceedings and should be afforded party status.

Standing to intervene is based upon representation of those persons residing within the five mile zone. Representation of that F,roup is based upon an affidavit by Calvin Ragan, et.al., uho is a resident of the five mile zone, and who asserts that the interests of persons living within the five tile zone have not been adequately raised or represented during the licensing pro-ceeding. CASM should also be afforded party status due to the contentions raised by Patricia Miriello, and her seeking CASM's representation of her in-trests. Ms. Miriello has raised a number of contentions with the ASLB and the Office of Investigations. 10 investigation reports are still pending.

As demonstrated in these and other arguments CASE and the parties and persons it represents should be afforded party status. Where CASE is eranted party status, the Motion to Stay will be properly before the Commission (at least with respect to CASM, }&. Eddelman is already a party to these proceedines).

The ASLAB denied CASF and Eddelaman's Motion to Stay.In light of the Chatham County pull-out, and the resolution of July 7,1986, there still remains a Emergency Management issue on which to base a motion to stay. Further, the

3.

the petitioners contentions establich a strona likelyhood of prevailing on the merits, that there will be irreperable injury, and that the public interest lies with the petitioners.

III.

SINIDARD FOR CO'r!ISSIOI! REVIEU: Commission review is pursuant to 10 CFR ?.706 (4)(1), which states: ...a petition for review will not be granted unless it appears that the case involves an important matter that could significantly affect the environment, the public health or .s afety, or otherwise raises in-cortant public policy cuestions. Uith respect to matters of fact, no revieu will be granted unlesc the ASLAB has resolved the question in a cicarly er-ronious manner. The standard for revieu looks to the follouing four factors to determine whether a petition for revieu is sufficent to prompt Commission review of the matters contained therein:

1. Whether ther is a significant effect upon the environment

2. Whether ther is a significant risk to public health and safety

3. Whether there are important public policy questions raised 4 whether there are questions of fact that were resolved incorrectly IV We begin discussion of these factors by looking to one example of an issue of fact which was resolved incorrectly below. In 1984 the ASLB rejected certain con-tentions concerning genetic damage and cancer caused by radiation. In rejectine the contentions of Eddleman, the Board stated, ...the motion for summary disposit-ion...is granted, notwithstanding the existence of disputes over genuine issues

4.

of fact...(the Board continued)...Ue recognize, of course, that our rulinn represents a departure from a noneral principle of summary disposition lau and that the remedy is not avialable uhere material issues of fact remain.

In the Matter of Carolina Pouer and Linht,, 19 Hnc C37, C39 (1984). A through revicu of the record will demonstrate that other instances where the Board departed fromgeneral principles of law, even where there were disputes as to material facts. CASM is reviewing the record and vill file a complete sum-mary of contested material facts which were not adequately adjudicated below upon review by the Commission.

V.

On July 7, 1996, the Chatham County Commissioners passed a resolution w5ich stated that the County needed to strengthen it's ability to respond to rad-iological emergencies and cited numerous areas of necessary improvement from the plan tested by FEMt. in May of 1985. In particular the Commissioners noted the following necessary improvements: additional personnel and training to reduce the confusion about duties under the plan; the necessity for clearly written standard and operation procedures for emergency personnel; the ident-ification of the needs for specialized ecuipment and training at the Chaham County Mospital for dealing with radiological emergencies; and, the creation of a Disaster Preparedness Committee to advise the Commission on Emergency Planning. Having passed this resolution demonstrates that Chatham County recognizes the inadequacy of the Emergency Management Plan and the test of that plan in !!ay of 1985. CASM as an intervenor, and a principle player in negotiations concerning Chathams emergency palnning, will fully develop the record on review of this petition by the HRC Commission. The Chatham County issue is far from resolved, and as such is the basis for a stay pending the complete analysis by the Commission of the new facts, and subsecuent imolementation

5.

and testing of the plan.

VI.

Two events in June and July of 1996, demonstrate a failure in the applicants emerg,ency notification system. This failure presents a severe'ouestion as to the health and safety of the residents of the five mile zone. There were two failures of the applicants siren system during the past two months and a subsequen breakdown of information dissemination procedures for persons within the ten mile zone. Both incidences were the result of sirens sounding w&ich is the initial signal for evacuation and the imminence of a radiological disaster. Both alarm soundings were beyond the control and accountability of the applicants; citizens attempted to secure information from the plant, local authorities, and even the applicants media spokesperson but to no avail.

It took one person in excess of six hours to determine the nature of the siren.

The applicants ability to give adecuate notice of a radiolor,ical energency, and the confidence of the citizens will place in such warnings in the future has been significantly diminished. The applicant had no control over the siren. mechanisime---and to add to the confusion---failed to inform the public in a timely menner as to the nature of the alarm. Petitioner is concerned about the effect of the fales alarms and believes that such is merely an ind-ication of the problems with applicants emergency notification system. (HOTE:

fuel is being stored at SNMPP, that information is common knowledge; it is not unreasonable to assume that persons hearing the alarm, and being unabic to confirm or verify the existene of an emergency would lead to considerable anxiety and emotional stress. CAS% is presently reviewing the incident and will upon review by the Commission, brief these facts and the effect upon Psysholog-ical stress as cognizable under NEPA)(SEE:, CASH Petition for Institutuion

6.

Proceedings pursuant to 10 C?n 2.?06, July 2, 1986, arguments and affidavits).

VII On January 1, 1986, Patrica Miriello, a for=cr enployee at the applicants Shearon Marria and Brunswick Plant, allened that there vere incidences of falsification of radiation exposure records and questionanic practicos with practices related to health physics. The U2C Office of Investigation has had documented evidence of these contentions since September of 1905, and has yet to do a personal intervics with the complaintant, and has not completed it's fornal investigation. The assertions, uhen substantiated, will result in substantial evidence that the applicant participated in end made materially false statements to the URC. The applicants request for an operation license could be revoked, suspended, or modified for having made materini falso state-ments of fact renuired of the applicant. Mc. Mirrella has made other con-tentions and has provided the HRC with documentation of allenedly forned documents concerning coolant line welds. These issues, in sum or in part, amount to a substantial flau in the decision making process by the Board, and further implicate the applicant. The 10 decision is still pending and the results may implicate the applicants cuality assurance program as well as the radiation protection program for employees of the plants. CAS!! will brief this issue upon review by the Commission.

VIII Finally, there continues to be the unresolved issue concerning the evacuation of the Lake Jordan Recreation Area in the evnet of a radiological emergency.

The bulk of the lake area lies within the ten mile zone. Provision for

- 7 evacuation of the thousands of summer persons recreating on the lake were not addressed in the FEMA Emergency Preparedness Exercise of May 1985.. It is vital to health and safety that remedial provisions be made in the EMP prior to the loading and low-power testing of the SMMPP. It is equally imperative thr.t there be a an exercise of the remedial plan prior to operation, and that there be reasonable assurances that reasonable protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Petitioners note that there is man-datory authority on point concerning the issue of summer recreational areas, and such authority has not been asserted in this proceeding. Petitioners request that the Commission's review include an opportunity to address this issue, par-ticularly with respect to the stay issue in light of recent case law developments.

VIII Petitioners wish to acknowledge that CASK was organized in April of 1936, and that it did not take part in the license proceeding. Notice to intervene was give some four years ago. Many CASM members were either underace or not residence of this state when such notice was given. To argue that such persons were ' sleeping on their rights' or ' awaiting on the sideline prior to c.sserting their right to intervene', is absurd. This is an opportunity for the Commission to review the relative merits of this case. CASH has been instrumental in developirg the emergency management planning for Chatham County, and with other substantive issues 5

arising in concern about the Shearon Yarris Plant. CASM is rich in energy and commitment to advocating the interests of it's members and those within the sur-rounding community, and at this stage of the proceeding has raised numerous sub-

E stantive issues on the basis of unresolved issues and facts, and issues which arise due to ..new fact which occured subsequent to the Boards decision. The decision of the Licensing Board is flawed. There are significant issues to be reviewed by the Commission and the resolution of these issues is essential to the health, safety, and well being of the members of CAS?' and those residinn around the SNMPP.

IV CASM, et.al. petitions the Commission for review:

1. and to allow review of issues raised in the petition for review, the petitioners motion to stay, and the petitioners intervention pleading and, 2 to allow the opportunity to present arcuments concerning lenitimate cuestic raised herein, particularly with respect to issues which have develpoed subsecuent to the ASLB decision, and,

3. to issue an order specifying the issues to be reviewed and direct the appropriate breefs to be filed, and to direct that oral arguments be held on those issues.

l Respectfully submitted to the Commission, this 30th Day of July 1986.

J b Steven P. Katz Joseph 3'/ T.ughes, Jrg$/

CASM Legal Committee CASF. Legal Committec 604 W.' Chapel Mill Street 604 U. Chapel "ill S Durham, MC g 919 929-1870 _

Wells Eddleman, pro.se , Yanceyville St. Durham, !!C 1

U'IITED STATES OF M' ERICA

!?UCLEAR P3CUI.ATORY Co?i'ISSIO:i BEFORE Ti'E C0!"!ISSIO:!

In the !!atter of Carolina Power )

and Light Company and Morthern )

Carolina Eastern Municipal )

Doclet No. 50-400 Power Agency )

)

(Shearon Marris !!uclear Power Plant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Petitioners ' Petition for Com:nission Review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.786 were served this day by deposit in the U.S. !! ail, first class, postage prepaid, to the other parties on the attached service list.

/

/ r Wteven P. Katz V

, --- - - ,- - . - , . . , + - ,, , -, - , , , - - - - , -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULAT?RY COMMISSION In the Matter of .)

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )

and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant) )

SERVICE LIST Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr. Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Mr. Howard A. Wilber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioner James K. Asselstine Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James L. Kelley, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Thomas S. Moore, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. James H. Carpenter Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

t 1

• Charles A. Barth, Esqui.e Dr. Richard D. Wilson 729 Hunter Street Janice E. Moore, Esquire Apex, North Carolina 27502 Of fice of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Wells Eddleman Washington, D.C. 20555 812 Yancey Street Durham, North Carolina 27701

• Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Richard E. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vice President and Senior Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Carolina Power & Light Company Mr. Daniel F. Road, President P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 CHANGE P.O. Box 2151 27602 Dr. Linda W. Little Raleigh, North Carolina Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building Bradley W. Jones, Esquire 325 North Salisbury Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 Region II 101 Marrietta Street H. A. Cole, Jr., Esquire Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Special Deputy Attorney General 200 New Bern Avenue Mr. Robert P. Gruber Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC Joseph Flynn, Esquire t

P.O. Box 991 27602 Federal Emergency Management Agency Raleigh, North Carolina 500 C Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20740 John D. Runkle,. Esquire Conservation Council of Steven Rochlis, Esquire North Carolina Regional Counsel 307 Granville Road 27514 Federal Emergency Management Agenc)

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 M. Travis Payne, Esquire Edelstein and Payne

P.O. Box 12607 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Coalition for Alternatives to Shearon Harris (CASH) 604 W. Chapel Hill Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 .

4

,_.,.-,__,..,__.---_-,_-,..,.._m--

_ ..--.._,,.-._.--..,,.,..-__~,.,~_.._.m...---__.-_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _