ML20062G773

Answer Opposing Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort/ Environ Law Project 820713 Renewal & Reformation of 820316 Motion to Postpone or Separate Proceedings.Issues Before ASLB Common to Both Units.Unit 2 Will Not Be Canceled

ML20062G773
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	08/10/1982
From:	Baxter T CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208130160
Download: ML20062G773 (5)

Text

-

. $4 00LKETEn usse

'02 /5012 ;c 2a August 10, 1982 GFFICE Di SECnap ECCXETc1G & epe -

SPANCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )

)

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2). )

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO RENEWAL AND .

REFORMATION OF MOTION BY CHANGE /ELP On March 16, 1982, the Environmental Law Project ("ELP")

filed a " Motion to Postpone or Separate Prcceedings or Othac Relief" (" Motion"). In its Motion ELP requested that the Board: ,

(1) recognize " consideration of an operating license at this time for Shearon Harris Unit No.

2 is premature, separate these two dockets pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.402, and postpone the proceedings for Unit No. 2 until such time as it appears likely that said power reactor will, in fact, be p,ut into operation"; or in the alterna-tive (2) " postpone further proceedings in Docket ~

50-401, Shearon Harris Unit No. 2, until such 8200130160 820810 DR ADOCK 05000 gg

time as comments on the PRM [ Proposed Rulemaking submitted by Mr. Wells Eddleman (47 Fed. Reg. 4310) (January 29, 1982)] have been completed and analyzed and the NRC has taken action"; or in the alternative (3) " grant such other relief which may include conducting hearings on Unit No. 2 under the condition that such hearings may be rsopened on motion by a party or intervenor after a certain period if the plant is not nearing completion as may be appropriate to ensure a full and fair hearing on all issues of concern."

On March 31, 1982, Applicants filed their answer to ELP's Motion, opposing alternatives 1 and 2 and noting that the relief requested by ELP in the third alternative was, in effect, provided by existing Commission rules. On April 5, 1982, the NRC Staff filed its Answer to ELP's Motion in which i the Staff also opposed the requested relief. On May 14, 1982, ELP moved to consolidate with Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort (" CHANGE"). On July 13, 1982, CHANGE /ELP filed " Renewal and Reformation of Motion" (" Renewal"), which petitions the Board for a deferral or stay of hearing in the case of Harris Unit 2. Applicants continue in their opposition.

CHANGE /ELP has abandoned its argument that the two Shearon j Harris dockets should be separated pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

S 2.402. It also has abandoned its arguments with respect to postponement of proceedings on Unit 2 pending action on the l proposed Eddleman rulemaking. Finally, it no longer asks for the third alternative, recognizing that such procedures are .

presently available under the Commission's rules.

l l-

While CHANGE /ELP attempted to reply to certain of the arguments advanced by Applicants and NRC Staff in answer to ELP's original Motion, the Renewal ignores Applicants' position that the requested bifurcation of the operating licensing proccading is outside the Board's jurisdiction. Furthermore, CHANGE /ELP fails to address the compelling practical arguments against bifurcation of th6 operating license proceeding.

Harris Units 1 and 2 are identical units with certain common facilities, and the safety issues presented are equally applicable to both units. It is in the public interest for these issues to be considered simultaneously and as early as possible. Similarly, it is not appropriate to segment envi-ronmental issues artific'ially. CHANGE /ELP has failed to suggest one litigable issue that would more appropriately be considered in'two separate proceedings.1/

3 The issues being placed before the Board in this pro-ceeding -- e.g. stedm generators, management capabil'ity, emergency plans, cooling tower discharges -- are clearly common to both units. As Applicants pointed out in their Answer of March 31, 1992, it would be a tremendous waste of the Commission's and Applicants' resources for this Board to consider issues germane to both Units in two separate 1/ The only issue raised by ELP in the original Motion was need for power, which by Commission rule is not to be consid-ered in the operating license proceeding. ,

proceedings. This is particularly true where the only harm alleged by CHANGE /ELP to justify a deferral of the hearing with regard to Harris Unit 2 is grounded in mere speculation that there could be new issues to contest in the future and Intervenors would then be disadvantaged in raising them after the conclusion of the licensing proceeding.2/ As suggested by Applicants' March 31 Answer, Intervencrs also have available to them the procedural options of motions to reopen the proceeding and petitions for show cause to bring new information before the Commission. See Answer at 7-8.

At the Prehearing Conference, Counsel for Applicants reported on the status of construction of Harris Units 1 and 2.

Harris Unit 1 is approximately 60 percent complete with an estimated fuel load date of December 1, 1984. Unit 2's estimated fuel load date is June 1, 1988. See Tr. 17-18.

Applicants reiterate here that they do not intend to cancel Harris Unit 2. The present construction level of Unit 2 (approximately four percent) is consistent with the 1988 fuel load date and indicative of the primary focus of construction i

2/ In Cleveland Electric Illuminating C,ompany, et al (Perry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2), LBP-81-24, 14 N.R.C. 175, 209-l (1981), the Licensing Board was faced with and rejected the same legal. argument offered by CHANGE /ELP. The Perry Board noted that the license for Perry Unit 2 -- scheduled for com-I plation six years later -- would not be issued unti!. the l Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation determined that it had met the standards of 10 C.F.R. S 50.57, including a finding that the facilit.y was substantially completed.

1

r efforts on completion of Unit 1 and common facilities to both units by the end of 1984.

For the reasons set forth in Applicants' March 31 Answer and hereinabove, ELP's Motion and CHANGE /ELP's Renewal should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, n .

George F. Trow' bridge, P.C.

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

John H. O'Neill, Jr.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: August 10, 1982 ,

i e

- -