ML18230A546
| ML18230A546 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1978 |
| From: | Eddleman W - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18230A546 (17) | |
Text
9 7 November 1978
~o Atomic Saf ety R Licensing Board lQ US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NM rfashington DC 20555 (pt Dear A.S.L.B.
By postcard received 6 November 78, Kudzu Alliance and I are advised that our requests to become intervenors on Che Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant being built near New Hill NC has been referred to you. 'Phile we are unable to list all possible grounds for intervention (because, for example, a crucial question may never have been asked.
yet; we cannot be expected to predict accu ately all the problems that may beset a nuclear power plant) our concern for our health, safety, power bills (wh"ch nuclear power ra'ses), water resources (which nuclear power wastes), environment, lives, civil liberties, and our right to pursue happiness by creating safe, clean alternative energy systems with our money which will otherwise be seized by construction-work-in-progress to build nuclear plants, prompt usE (Kudzu) as an organization of several hundred persons living within 30 miles of Che plant site (including one whose, farm was partly taken for the site), and I as an individual so situated, feel we must make our views on nuclear power count now before this wasteful and dangerous plant is built.
With regard to the upcoming hearings on CP h L's ability 'to pm properly manage and finance the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (NRC dockets 50-$ 08 through -$ 03), we again are unable to predict all issues, now known or yet to be revealed., that willnuclear substantially affect CP R L~s finances or the safe management of a plant.
Therefore we (Kudzu Alliance and l individually) request finance and management personnel including those responsible that CP R L for Che fiscal planning of the Harris plant, Che actual operation and maintenance of the Raz Brunswick 1 and 2 plants and the H.B. Robinson 2 plant, be called to testify at this hearing so Chat we may dete'rmine exactly how they have assured themselves of their ability to pmgt properly finance and. safely operate nuclear 'power plants, and so that we (Kudzu Alliance and I) ~ may cross-examine them regarding their contention that. they can safely finance and operate the Shearon Harris plant as proposed.
Me (Kudzu'lliance and I) wish to raise at least the following specific issues in addition:
(1) Need for power. arith Roxboro Pg on line, CP8cL will have a generating capacity 50$ above its alltime peak demand. Power sales by CP 8c L grew only 1.9'n Che last year reported (ending 9/30/78) and no new summer peak was reached. Thus, with no nuclear plants operating, CP 8 L would. have adequate generating capacity and reserve.
Ne will raise further argument=- on this issue also.
(2) Improper design, verification, construction and maintenance of the electrical systems at the Brunswick reactors, and the Robinson reactor.
(3) Setting trip setpoints of instruments outside the safe operating ranges a+proved by the NRC for those instruments.
(lg) Failuhe to prepare safety analyses and proper plans for maintenance work performed at reactors.
(5) inadequate verification of pipe cracks in the reactor systems,
I K~idzujf Alliance and the NRC's 8: M. ~iddleman to t
ASLB, 8 7 November 1978 page 2 granting variances to verification requirements, inspection requirements, safety standards, inspection by independentx
\
persons and agencies. not profiting from the nuclear .reactor, and any other exceptions'hich.=the HRC'as- made'to its normal rules, regulations and procedures at tne request of CP hpersonnel L.
(6) Fmoloyment of unqualified and underqualified as workers, supervisors, safety inspectors and zx use of such personnel in other resoonsible positions.
(7) Financial responsibility to the CP 8c L stockholders (T., 'rlells Fddleman, own 92 shares of CP R L common stock) including dilution of stock to finance the plant in the face of mounting evidence that it. will not be needed assumption if of unwarranted not used, will be perhaps an and excessive debt to finance a plant which, untenable loss to a heavily mortgaged company such as CP h L, and which, if used, will necessitate many customers will tend to generate such their higher power rates that own power (particularly office complexezs, mails and Industries) thus reducing power sales while the rate base, inflated with $ g.2 billion (CP h L estimate) of nuclear power (compared to $ 3 billion or less total investment in all CP 5 L's current generating caoacity) is more than doubled.,
thus causing ever-higher power prices which will cause ever more conservation and cogeneration measures which will reduce demand for electricity still more, leading to further rate increases or to to rate maintain the company's rate of return on investment, no increases and substantial losses tc the company, or possibly to legislate o9 utilities commission action to remove CP 8cL's franchise as a public utility due to mismanagement and excessive power rates.
Further financ"al issues include imvosition of construction-work-in-progress rates which force consumers to finance nuclear power which will not increase the value for of their homes and buildings, instead of having the money avhilable insulation, conservation, waste heat recovery, solar-assist heating and cohling and other sources of energy which do increase the value of homes and buildings which incor@orate them; consistent misrepresentation of the need for mower and consistent uhderestimation of the costs of the Shearon Harris slant, leading to reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of 'nformation supplied by CP 8c L; inaccurate or incomplete reporting of the tax credits and depreciation allowances for nuclear construction; et cetera.
(8) Fitness, responsibility and reliability (or the lack of all 0hese) on the part of contractors DanEiel international and Research-Cottrell, including Daniel's mismanagement of nuclear ofconstruction in Missouri, deaths and injuries on that job, firing the a NRC's general foreman who revealed improper construction ther~,and a@parent failure to have this worker reinstated, and Daniel's attempts to cover up or deny improper construction practices and other improper, unsafe, untruthful practices on any of their construction jobs. Plant CP h L's award of the cooling tower contract for Shearon Harris to Research-Cottrell so soon after one of their towers collapsed killing 51 workers is particularly suspect. Did CP dc L re-evaluate their decision in the light of this disturbing and grievous news? How willR Research-Cottrehl's plans and work be independently supervised by CP L, the NHC, and local build"ng inspectors to assure that no such tragedy or other serious problem occurs in building four towers at theforemen Harris Plant site'? Research-Cottrehl's management, supervisors and on that job that had the collapse should be present at this hearing to be cross-examined by the intervenors, since their reliability is called into serious question by 51 unnecessary deaths which government investigators have already blamed on numerous deliberate safety violations by Research-Cottrehl.
S Kudzu All'lanoe and VFddleman to ASLB, 7 Neverc 1978 page 3 (9) The lifetime of operation that can be expected for nuclear power phants in general, and the Harris olants "n particular, due
,to the buildup of.radioactive matezial $ nside the reactor and loops (and elsewhere),'he increasing radioac'th.vity and primary'oolant thermal, radiation and. other stress on the me".nl ln reaotora vessels, vipes and other systems; the radiation hazard to workers repairing, maintaining,x x~ refueling and operating reactors, particularly in light of recent data indicating exoosure limits should be lowered 50$ to 90$ in order to minimize cancer risk to workers; failure of systems in older reactors; increasing costs of repairs; and the cost of greater downtime for repairs. Considering steam tube leaks at the Brunswick reactors, and numerous generic issues raised in a report by MHB Technical Associates concerning BUR's and PiiiR's such as those alarmed for the Harris site, there are serious questions whether these reactors will have a lifetime of omeratinn of 30 to
$ 0 years. Yet many cost-benefit calculations assume such lifetimes of operation (as they formerly assumed 804 capacity factors). To what extent have the NRC, CP RL, the NC Utilities Commission and other responsible parties calculated the marginal costs and benefits of shorter operating lifetimes of reactors? "vthat contingency plans are ahvailable if one Harris unit must be decommissioned after only 15 to 20 years'pezration? ttihat assurances have we that reactors will last 30 or $ 0 years, without extensive and expensive (and hazardous) repairs such as are being made now on certain reactors due to denting, buildup of radioactive crud, and need to replace steam generator s (and other issues requiring refits, modifications and alterations). Many other questions on these aoints can be raised.
(10) The safe and sound. operation of any industry today includes protection for the environment. Considering the doubts expressed by many responsible authorities (see e.g. US Geological Survey Circular 779) as to the cost, safety and reliability of any proposed method for long-term disposal of radioactive waste, and considering the huge quantity of dangevous radionuclides (an enormou~ curiage or radiation) produced n both high-level and low-level waste by nuclear ~ower plants,
.~
and considering the Q-reactor size of the Harris Plant as proposed, it is improver and unsafe management to proceed with an investment of billions of dollars of consumers'nd stockholders'oney without a proved, mass-production, guaranteed and backed-up method to totally isolate radioactive waste from the point of production to an assured safe noint of final long-term disposal. (See e.g. John Gofman's paper On the slav to the Bank, CNR 1977-7, which we would like read into the record of these hearings.) Me believe the best way to safely dispose of the radioactive waste problem is not to create this deadly pollutant in the first place. Me will argue among other things that without a compelling necessity to create nuclear waste or suffe~ the sort of genetic, health, environmental and property damage it can and has caused, any action to create more radioactive waste is irresponsible, unwise, unsafe, immoral, and quite possibly illegal.
(ll) Ne zx wish to raise quite specifically the issue that limitations on topics to be discussed, who can ask questions, when issues may be raised, etc., though rationalized by legal and bureaucratic principles, may often tend to impede a Max~ thorough and. accurate examination of the wisdom of construction of nuclear vower plants. Snecifically, the suppression of Floyd Cantre'll's vieQs on CP h L~s safe management abilities for nuclear plants as demonstrated by their operating record.
shows mhqpcWzxX that the N'RC is making important decisions on incomplete and dishonestly presented information. Similar questions can 'oe raised (and will be) about the proper limits on citizen intervention, on which
0 statements w" 11 be included in hearing records, on when and how ouestions can be raised, on the information the NRC. and CP R L are reou<r ed to make oublic, on where such "nformation is available, on the reversibility. of decisions..takeo by CP 5 L, .its contractors and the NRC and its boards and departmen'ts',"independent verification of such things as the +roper sett"ng of concrete being poured now at the site land all other matters relati~ to vroper construction),
on the suooort the NHC will give to emoloyees and others who raise doubts about nuclear power (which the Wi C is established to regulate, not promote), et cetera.
(12) The work history, financial holdings, and relationshivs of NRC personnel, CP 5 L officials, and others are clearly relevant to their current views, activities and the zeal (or lack of it) with which they verify the safety, financing, construction and all other aspects of nuclear power. IXK therefore amK milling as imkhxhut~am
~xhtmcGuxaa an individual to disclose my work history, financial holdings and. contacts and relationships with power company and NRC and nuclear industry personnel as part of this hearing. Kudzu Alliance and I formally request that all other parties to this hearing, including the ASLB members who conduct it, all witnesses, and all NRC emnloyees involved with the Shearon Harris Plant proposal, evaluation, or involvement with the Carolina Power h Light Company make as any'ther full a disclosure as possible to their knowledge and belief, of their work histories, financial holdings, consulting fees paid, and personal relationships with the nuclear industry and its emoloyees. Me will oe prepared to question these personnel about hfc such matters if they do not make voluntary disclosure. ':le request that all parties to the hearing and all witnesses be advised of our disclasure request in advance of the hearing so that they may voluntarily comply with it if they freely wish to.
(13) Kudzu Alliance and I reserve the right to raise any question concerning any topic that may properly or imoroperly come before the ASLB, the N'.?C, or any other government entity, at any time. vie recognize that some of our questions may be ruled. out of order, but still reserve the right to ask if they would be accepted, to a~veal anv dec."sions made, and to file dissenting opinions or concu ~ing ooinions.
(14.) Nothing above shall be interoreted as any acceptance in advance by us of the soecifics of any ruling, decision, rule, etc. of the ASLB, the NRC or anyone else. In a democracy the peoale ere entitled to know the full story of what is being uone with their money and by the"r reoresentatives and government agencies, and to questinn and peaceably attempt to change government policy, Presented by 'rlells Mdleman, Rt. 1, Box 183 Durhaun NC 27705, phone 919-383-6602; and by the Kudzu Alliance, Box 3036 Chapel Hill NC 2751$ phones 919-929-21'.; 919-286-2276; 9" 9-4.67-1693 by authority of the general membersh'p meeiing. Pl ase address all communications to both Nells middleman and the Kudzu Alliance.
Signed on behalf of myself, and ~ith the general membership meeting's authorization, on behalf of the Kudzu Alliance, a nonprofit organizat'on, Nells Eddleman
0 fP ~pic
~~0 2
o~>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~e6" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0.
SQR //Q) f<OV < 6~ayg
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-400 50-401 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 50-402 50-403 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power (Remanded Issues)
Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Board conducted a telephone conference among the parties on November 14, 1978. Participating were: Dennis P.
Myers, Esq., for the State of North Carolina; Edwin J.
Esq., for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff; 'eis, George F. Trowbridge, Esq ., for the Applicant; Thomas S.
Erwin, Zsq., for the Intervenors, and Board members Ivan W. Smith and Dr. J. V. Leeds.
As a result of the conference the following provisions for prehearing activities in the remanded proceeding are directed by the Board or agreed upon by the participants:
- 1. The Board requests each party to file in advance of the hearing, written testimony, copies of proposed exhibits, and a memorandum of law setting forth that party's position, if any, remanded to the on the legal standards issues.
to be applied
0 The NRC Staff intends to file its proposed, evidence about December l. The Board re-quests that the Staff file its memorandum of law with its proposed evidence, and to confer with the Board and parties if there will be a significant delay beyond December 1st.
The Board may request information in addition to the proposed evidence submitted by the parties. We will make any such request to the Staff soon after it files its proposed evidence.
Staff counsel assured the Board that any Staff witness requested by the Board (presumably Inspection and Enforcement officials) will be available .
Within thirty (30) days after the Staff serves its proposed evidence, Applicant, Intervenors and the State will file their respective pro-posed evidence and memoranda of law, if any.
The Board will then make any requests for ad-ditional information from the Applicant, Intervenors and the State. The evidentiary hearing will be scheduled for a time at least two weeks after all proposed evidence, in-cluding the supplemental information produced at the Board's request, has been in the hands of the parties and the Board.
When the results of the inquiry by the Office of Inspector and Auditor are filed with the Board pursuant to the Commission Order of September 5, 1978 the Board will provide for a schedule and method by which all parties may assess the effect of the results of the inquiry upon the remanded issue.
Sessions of the evidentiary hearing will be .held in Raleigh, North Carolina. If it appears that a large number of witnesses from NRC Region II in Atlanta will testify, the Board will consider holding some evidentiary sessions in Atlanta.
0
- 8. During the telephone conference the Board inquired whether the Intervenors and the State of North Carolina have any needs which are not being met by the procedures adopted by the Board. Except for a request that all evidentiary hearings be held in Raleigh, no procedural problems were reported.
- 9. The parties are requested to file any motions for correction or modification of this order within ten (10) days of its service.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ivan W. Smz.th, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of November, 1978.
0 4 l
~ ss s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhQIISS 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 1 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 pioceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2a712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and
~ Regulations.
Dated at Washington,'.C. this day of u/dV 197~ .
Offic he Secretary of the Commission 4 ( 4& ~md(-(,a(( < Mi-8.dad( r(/n/gP g Pgp /3@,,f~'~& m ((/(</0~
~ ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMlKSSION In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER AiK LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No.(s) 50-400
) 50-401 (Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power ) 50-402 Plants, Units 1-4) ) 50-403
')
SERVICE LIST Ivan W. 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 Washington, D.C. ,20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Erne'st L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 20555 1800 "M" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. J.V. Leeds, Jr.
Rice University Thomas S Erwin, Esq.
P.O. Box 1892 P.O. Box 928 Houston, Texas 77001 Raleigh, North Carolina 2P602 Counsel for hRC Staff Jesse C. Brake, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director Robert P Bruber, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney 'General's Office Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Alan S. Rosanthal, Esq., Chairman Atonic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
0