ML19305E142
| ML19305E142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1980 |
| From: | Baker B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004230024 | |
| Download: ML19305E142 (4) | |
Text
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION March 21, 1980 Before the ATOMIC SAFEIT AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of 0
l 0
HOUSTON LIGRTING AND POWER COMPAhT O
Docket No. 50-466 CP (Allen's Creek Nuclear Generating 0
Station, Unit 1) 0 NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL MARCH 10, 1980 ORDER OF ATOMIC SAFEIT AND LICENSING BOARD I hereby notify the ALAB and other concerned parties of my intent to appeal that portion of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards March 10 Order which rejects my second contentien (served on Sep 18,1979).
In a telephone conversation with NRC Staff counsel Colleen Woodhead on March 21, she advised me that although I had only ten days in which to notify ALAB of my appeal, I would have thirty days in which to file a brief.
I am unclear whether this would be thirty days from when the Order was served (Mar 11 + 30 days = Apr 10), thirty days from when I received the Order (Mar 15 + 30 days - Apr 14) or thirty days from today (Mar 21 + 30 days =
i Apr 20).
l I will strive to have my appeal prepared as soon as possible before Apr 20.
In order to make the best use of this brief time, I would like for the ALAB or its representative to contact me as soon as possible to guide me in identifying the basis for the Licensing Boards rejection of my
<\\
/
( Set f.
DOWEND 3
contention.
umme tt APR 81980 >
~
SUMMARY
OF CONTENPION # 2 Omco dthe secretary Dod@t & Smice My second contention stated that Applicant has skewed its cost g A
4 benefit analysis in favor of nuclear generation by projecting (without m
~
800423g,d (7,
2 l
i apparent basis) that ACNGS will operate for 30 years at an average 80% capacity factor. As basis for challenging this assumption, I cited the most recent study I could find on nuclear plant performance, which projected (based on a computer analysis of BWR performance records through Dec of 1976) that a BWR of the size of ACNGS could be expected to operate at an average capacity f
factor of 37.6%, less than half the capacity factor projected by the Applicant.
j Neither the Applicant, nor the Staff, nor the Licensing Board, have anywhere disputed this figuro as an accurate projection of probable ACNGS performance.
I also cited the "most generous" projection of probable performance, in which performance data from Brown's Ferry L%its 1 & 2 were completely elimina-i ted from the data base because of the allegedly " anomalous" nature of their poor performances. This "most generous" figure, 50.4% average capacity factor, was seized upon by the Applicant, which pointed out that its " comparative ana-lysis covers a range of capacity factors reaching as low as 50%," and asserted that even at this " low" capacity factor nuclear-generation costs were projected
[
t to be 5% less than coal-generation costs.
(Applicant response, Oct 5, 1979).
Further, Applicant said that "the Board has previously ruled that com-parative economic costs of Allen's Creek with alternative energy sources in f
the absence of assertions regarding environmental superiority is not an issue in this proceeding."
l Staff in its response to my contention (Oct 9, 1979) echoes the Applicant's second point, but fails to mention Applicant's first objection.
Staff's
{
l response was hand delivered to me by an employee of the Applicant's attorney, j
some four or five d2ys prior to the opening of the Special Prehearing Conference.
{
I went to the Oct 15 prehearing conference as well prepared as I could be to deal with these two major points, as well as minor points in Applicant's and Staff's objections.
I resolved to be guided by the Board in responding to its concerns about the admissibility of my contentions.
Although I have f
l r
3 l
not been able to refer to the transcript in the last week, my recollection is that the Board (like the NHC Staff) was most concerned with the question of environmental superiority, rather than the actual nuclear / coal cost com-parison, and I addressed the bulk of my remarks to this point.
I was surprised, therefore, to find that the Licensing Board's March 10 Order rejecting my second contention makes no mention of the " environ-mental superiority" question but instead refers to the fact that the FES and FSFES consider capacity factors "as low as 50%" in its coal / nuclear cost comparison.
REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE IN PREPARING APPEAL This shifting of apparent concern on the part of the Licensing Board has left me confused as to the proper ccurse in appealing the March 10 Order.
I am inclined to appeal purely on the issue covered in that Order, i.e., my alleged failure to acknowledge that the Applicant has contemplated capacity.
~~
factors "as low as 50%".
However, in addressing this issue alone, I would be ascuming that the question of nuclear power's " environmental superiority", which has been of past concern to Applicant, Staff, and the Board, is a " dead issue" as faz as the Licensing Board and ALAM are concerned.
In order to conserve everyone's time, not least my own, I would
~
appreciate guidance from ALAR whether I can saely limit my appeal to the issue discussad in the March 10 Order or whether I must cover all the con-cerns raised by all parties in the course of the proceeding.
i Bryan Baker 1923 Hawthorne 98 Houston, TI, 7705 ALL PARTIES PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF ADDRESS
I 4
I Copies of this Notice of Appeal have been sent to:
i Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.
Dr. E. Leonard Cheatum i
Nr. Gustave A. Linenberger i
t J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
l r
Docketing and Service Section, NRC Colleen Woodhead, Esq.
i b
I i
[
i l
L i
I 1
i i
r I
.