Agenda - 02-02-1999 - 9e1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

these same individuals and entities have expressed concern about the lack of and process for the providing of public input into the regulatory approval procedures. Some individuals and organizations have advocated opening a dialogue with CP&L to create the opportunity to have technical concerns addressed and to provide public scrutiny into the planning, permitting and operational process. CP&L's participation in any such dialogue is strictly voluntary. It is required only to conform to NRC standards, policies and procedures. In the event that the process of voluntary dialogue fails, only the federal regulatory and judicial processes are available to address unresolved issues. The NRC's process for providing comment relative to permit and permit modification applications is complex and appears to be designed to discourage, inhibit or preclude public participation in its review and approval process. The comment process requires that a concerned party submit comments or contentions to the NRC relative to inadequacies in NRC staff findings, the permit application or problems with the activity or action being permitted. The NRC staff reviews both the contentions and the credentials or particulars of the party making the contentions. If the staff deems that the contentions may have potential validity and that the party making the contentions has a legitimate or valid claim to being affected by the permitted activity, the party is deemed to have the "standing" necessary to participate in the permitting comment and review process. The fact that a party is deemed to have standing or have submitted valid or potentially valid contentions does not mean that the permit applicant will be forced to abandon or modify its plan. The NRC may ultimately require that the applicant submit additional information or it may deem that the contentions have been addressed adequately. The NRC may issue the permit over the objections of any and all parties deemed to have standing. Those parties may then appeal the NRC decision in the federal judicial system. It does appear, however, that any party having concerns about or objections to the activity being permitted must get or have attempted to get standing before the NRC to preserve or establish its right to appeal NRC decisions. If Orange County wishes to intervene in the permitting process by establishing standing before the NRC or by judicial appeal of an NRC decision relative to the CP&L permit application, it must act immediately to fund and acquire technical and legal assistance. The technical and legal consultants will evaluate the NRC staff finding, the CP&L proposal and the permit application materials. They will work together to develop and evaluate contentions to be submitted to the NRC and will handle the process to establish standing for Orange County. The cost of this consultation and activity is estimated to be between $12,000 and $18,000. It may be possible to convince other concerned local jurisdictions to ultimately fund some of these costs. However, the comment period time frame is so short and the consultants' work so time consuming as to preclude efforts to coordinate the legislative actions required to obtain such funding commitments prior to beginning the work. Other than the obvious financial issues, there are additional potential implications to an Orange County action to intervene in the permitting process. CP&L may be alienated or threatened by County intervention activity to the point that it withdraws from any voluntary public discussion and input activities. Conversely, the intervention may provide leverage necessary to convince CP&L to participate in a voluntary discussion and public input process. At this time, no one -including County staff -has knowledge or information sufficient to predict a CP&L reaction to a County or local government attempt to become formally involved in the actual NRC permit approval process. If I may provide additional information, please advise.