ML20073P814
| ML20073P814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1983 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073P807 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8304270261 | |
| Download: ML20073P814 (4) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g
NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE AMMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bri Dr. James H.ght Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman
)U In the Matter of
)
Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO, et al.
50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
ASLBP No. 82-h66-01
)
OL W.E. Notes re Schedule and Caracity Facto = Ir n o
Concerning the schedule, I've received a 3-Ph 83 sunnary of
~
NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel meetings with CP&L in Tebruary 1983, which states (p,3) "the estimated concletion date deternined by the CFP is Decet.ber 1985. " vs. An911 cants ' June 1985 The CFP veviewed
" completion of such itens as large and small bore n*pe, nipe hanFers, and electrical work" fron Applicants' info. and.on-site obsa"vati ons.
This suggests that slinpage of up to 6 nonths in the hearing schedule would not prevent conpletion of hearings befo=e fuel loadinF.
I raise this point because 7 believe it would be highly desirr'M a for the sane persons to hear the entire evidence in this nroceeding, if at all possible.
If the sane fact-finders actually hear all the evidence, I believe their ability to coherently decide the case as a whole will be enhanced, by direct knowledge of all the matters at issue, by knowing the "denaanor evidence" of all witresres,
=tc.,
ennnaved to what would be available to different panels of fact-finders hearing different phases or parts of this ease.
8304270261 830420 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0
PDR i
2-I intend to address these latter issues in a 2.758 petition and affidavits by 6-30-8), specifically re need for power and alternatives.
I believe the answer to question 1 above is No.
But if it 2.
were considered to be Yes, then (a) the Staff cannot include any operating cost savinEs comoared to alternate fuels -- or their asso-ciated O&M and other costs which depend on tyne of fuel or vary from nuclear to other fuels -- in its cost-benefit analysis, since every cost and benefit is litigable under NEPA and Calvert Cliffs and the NRC regulations 10 CFR 51.52(b) and 51.26(d) as cited by the Board 3/25.
(b) If the Staff does include such benefits, I believe the choices would be (1) to waive the rule of 51 53(c); (2) to exclude those benefits frou consideration, as a matte = of law; or (3) to certify or otherwise apnropriately brine the question before the Anneal Board as promptly as possible.
I favor options 1, then 2; but option 3 may be necessavy since this is an imnortant issue likely to arise in all other onerating license cases under 51.53(c) and it would clearly delay the proceedings significantly if these issues had to be re-litigated later.
With respect to option 3, 51.26(d) requires that the EIS be evidence and 51.52(b)(1) requires it to be sunnorted as evidence It is by the staff and allows any navty to take a notition on it.
clear that nothing can be litigated in these hearings except con-tentionat and issues raised sua sponte by the Board. The only way for an intervenor to take a p;osition is thus to raise a contention in which case the (unless the intervenor agrees with the DEIS intervenor need do nothing).
Calve =t Cliffs, however, veouires a full opportunity at each stage of major federal action (e.g.
issuing an operating license) to litigate NEPA issues, and the cost-benefit is clearly a central NEPA issue under that decision and in this case.
1
' proceeding, which is a dilemma of perhaps taking more tine than would be required for hearing the same natters before a nanel that had actually seen the other phases of the case, versus not being abixe to make connections needed to prove a noint.
There may well he other complexities of hearing the case befove nultiple nanels that I, a non-luwyer, an not aware of and have not analyzed yet.
I think the best course of action at this no'rt wou'd be to exnlore the extent to which hearing the case before the cane beard in all nhases is (a) possible or more possible if the later connletf on of Harris orojected by NRC's CFP is correct, and (b) how desirable it is to do so.
NOTES ve CAPACTTY PACTOR The following facts have recent1 come te ny attention; s f ree they are relevant to Eddleman contention 15 and its 2-11-F3 "orfsnring*!, I bring then to your attention, please:
In a 3-24 83 letter from G.S. Knighton, ?PC's Chief of Licensing Branch #3, to CP&L, the power distribution neaking factor, Fg, is stated to be 'nadequately justified for the F9AK chaptav 15 LOCA (loss of coolant accident) analysis.
Knighton stctes (n.2)
"The only conclusion that one can draw from this irfornation, as it stands, is that it will be necessary to debate the reactor to 91 percent power".
As snown by the exnerience of McGuire 1, Ringhals 3, Krsko, et al, such deratings have the effect of decreasing catacf ty Detor.
According to Worldwide Nuclear Dower (USnor, January 1982), p.7,
'Ringhals 3 had a capacity factor of 39.6 nercent for the year end'nF October 1991.
Ringhals 3 has a Westinghouse Model D stea9 Fenerctor, as do Harris 1 and 2, McGuire 1 and 2, V.C. Suncer #1, Catawba 1 and 2, and numbers of other Westinghouse PWRs.
I understand the Swedes have ordered fu11 scale tests of the _
Westinghouse "fix" for the problets with Westinghouse model D stean generators. /
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATOPY C0! MISSION
)
Dockets 50-h00 i
In the matter of CAROLIEA POWDt k LIGHT CD. Et al.
)
and 501.h01 0.L.
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and 2 CERTIFICATE 0F SE%VICE
.E. Notes re Schedule and Canacity I hereby certify that copies of
. InkbY"r fAppgg $oJgarLCyepp qqs,,,1 R
a
- n.,
' ~~~~~~ '~ ' " " " ' ' " " '
~'
or Apolicants 1983, by deposit in EAVE been served this a day of __ a m.n the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon 511 parties whose names are listed below, except those whose names are tarked with an asterisk, for whom service was accomplished by _ n,yg 2 was mailed direct, with enclosures, to him, Judge Kelley and Nnc Staff Counsel Barth on h-15-83. hbO,'.N!'d{ 8arpen[ter (1
- / %
. y<,-j l
p Judges E=.9es Kelley, Glenn Bright and Jame i
Atomic Safety and Licens'.ng Board b ;.
I US Nuclear Regulatory Commission c.
Washington DC 20555 i
- George F. Trowbridge (attorney for Aeplicants)
- Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge ILuthanne G. Miller ASLB Panel 1800 M St. NW Washington, DC 20036 USNRC washington DC 2(55 5 Office of the Executive Legal Director Phyllis Lotchin, Ph.D.
Attn Dockets 50-!+00/401 0.L.
105 Bridle Run Chapel Hill Nc 2751h USNRC Washir.gton DC 20555 Dan flead Docketing and Service Section CHA?KT/ELS l
Attn Dockets 50-1400/h01 0.L.
Box 52h Office of the Secretary Chapel Hill Nc 2751h USNRC i
Washington DC 20555 Pat & Slater Newnan CANP John Runkle Karen E. Lons 2309 Weynouth Court l
CCNC Public Staff Atty Raleigh NC 27612 l
307 Granville Rd Box 991 Chapel Hill We 2751k Raleigh, NC 27602 Bradley W. Jones USNRC Region II 101 Marietta St.
'Travi s Payne Edelstein & Payne Atlanta GA 30303 Box 126h3 Raleigh NC 27605 Richard Wilson, M.D.
Certified by h
729 Hunter St.
Apex NC 27502
.