CP&L, Orange Co. Face Off in Court

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a federal commission, heard arguments from lawyers representing Orange County, CP&L and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the Jane S. McKimmon Center in Raleigh.

The board will decide in two to five months if a statement will be necessary to determine the environmental impact of increased nuclear waste storage at CP&L's Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Orange County officials had previously requested an Environmental Impact Statement from the NRC, but their motion was denied. The arguments were oral versions of written statements the parties submitted to the board Nov. 20.

A group of about 10 protesters attended and requested a chance to voice concerns about the Shearon Harris proposal.

Members of the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network stood up before the hearing adjourned for lunch and asked to speak at the hearing, but were ignored by presiding judge Paul Bollwerk.

When activists stood to read prepared statements, Bollwerk adjourned the hearing, and the board and most of the lawyers left the room. Members of the press and public remained to listen to the protesters, but were asked to leave by N.C. State University campus security.

N.C. WARN member Jim Senter sat through the hearing and protested by placing a piece of duct tape with the words 'NRC Gag' over his mouth.

"Why don't they want to debate these issues? If it's so safe, why not?" he said.

Orange County Commissioner Margaret Brown was present and said the county wanted the chance to hold an open meeting later to discuss safety concerns.

Orange County was represented by Diane Curran, a lawyer from Washington, D.C. CP&L was represented by John O'Neill and Douglas Rosinski of Shaw Pittman, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm. The NRC was represented by attorneys Susan Ettal and Jennifer Euchner.

The three-judge panel, composed of Thomas Murphy, Peter Lam and Bollwerk, questioned the lawyers on behalf of the ASLB.

The hearing primarily debated the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Earlier, the NRC said a statement was not needed in this case based on a standard ranges for the data, but Curran said the present data warrants an EIS.

"The NRC has the burden of defending its decision not to require an EIS," she said. "The board needs to find if the staff has satisfied its burden. It would take a lot more to rule out an EIS than what's been done here."

The county's desire for an EIS stems from reports by Dr. Gordon Thompson, a nuclear accident risk expert.

But CP&L and the NRC have raised questions about Thompson's qualifications, specifically the fact that he has not held a top position at a nuclear plant. Thompson, the county's only expert, serves as the county's expert on operations of a nuclear facility. "If and when we go to an evidentiary hearing, would you rely on other witnesses or just Dr. Thompson?" Lam asked the Orange County Board of Commissioners.

Curran said she was not sure whether the county would be able to find other witnesses should the case go any further.

Orange County officials are concerned that CP&L has not made any calculations about radiation levels or damage to employees in the event of an accident. "NRC, in comparison, has done dose calculations and has modeled radiation levels," Curran said.

But she said Thompson believes that the model the NRC used is too simple.

Another issue was the use of peer reviewing of the reports submitted. Peer review is the process by which reports and surveys can be examined by colleagues to determine their credibility.

"There are a lot of holes in CP&L and NRC's analyses," Curran said.

Curran also said Orange County feels that the peer reviews of the other parties' reports were not done independently.

But when asked if Thompson's report had gone through a peer review, Curran said no. She said the county simply wanted the board to call for an evidentiary hearing. "What is needed here is an opportunity for the issues to join with the experts."

The City Editor can be reached at citydesk@unc.edu.