ML18230A509

Petition for Remanded or Proposed Hearings, Petition to Suspend Construction, & Petition for Order on Further Opportunities for Intervention & Full Publicity

ML18230A509
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	01/17/1979
From:	Eddleman W - No Known Affiliation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18230A509 (11)

Text

thru i:0-Jg03

".o t'e NUCL>AR ~>GULATORY'(,.'OMISSION,and Its

~~ PN C~ ~I;.%HOED 0~ ~FOP>'b"D H. A~TI'tGS and

.I~ OI'/ TO SUSPKID CC'~IS'PUC'TION P~NOI"!C PKSOLUTI(~';! GT" N:"."/

f TQL njC4'~'QIPTCA'PT('.!'f AP PAC S, ']D I.P!g,'< Ii>Q AI

~ ~-ji ~i 3 '.~OS~ CU~~FN~ DA~A AKD;/ITi: S'AS~-v A'ALv."~.S gq ~A~;gpS (.p pz~ORS, and PIgq ~gq qq VUq~uv, q Paaga~I;,>I~TT;0

- O'P Pogrom A'P) 'WK,L ~Ul3LICI".Y Be'ng 'nformed by the AtoaIc Safety and L'censInc Boa d that the construct'.on ocr<It for the Shearon HarrIs nuclear nowe" nlant l s now be:"o"e "".e Nuclea. ~egulato~v Coma>> ssIon, Kudzu AllIance and ':dwells

~'.die~an to,"ether and Ind~vIdually make the follow'ng petitions to the (1) That the hearIngs be reonened or remanded for further hear'.nps; on al'nd any nf the ~ ssues raIsed 'oy us In our letters 7, 27 and 2o

".november 1~78 and J'anuary Q 1979 to the ASLB. SInce the <>.SLB tells us It cnInzs we a e ask'ng f'r- such henrIngs, and It cannot grant t2:e=.,

we ask ti.e I!>C to act. (Ne had not asked the ASLB fo . suci: nea. '...ps, bu we do t"..'nk theIr sup-estIon s a good and t'mely one. )

~

.~'e sre saecIfIcallv cnncerned avon~'ther thInps w~.th '2 e folio;"=n~~

Cene "~l. 'ssues (see also our letters c"..te.". ~nove):

(A) .he credIb'1' r of wItnesses and the dearth o"; Invest'pat'.~;.

.'".. the exIstIng eco. d. . ':/hy are all the C? R L and il>C experts so w-.one so un'oreleg about need for vower as they ~ro ject It, co~ra ed to what has actually ha~vened s! nce -1973? IIe t2iInk many Issues need tn be ex~in~ed In new death '.n the 1Ig2:t of new evIdence, e.~. radIat on safety

. or c ~nst~uctIon workers (when one or wore nukes are one atIng <'.nd ot2:e~s are unde- cc nstruct'on nea. by) and CP I L e~nloyees, (see the lousy record

NRC anuary, st n Z eob.'neon gZ, <acket 50-261, not imnnove< mention since 1975) esnec~a~ly in the light of new evidence concerning radiation health

~ffec "s and the concerns expressed, .e.g. by Dr. Radfoad of the 3<. 3 Comm'tee of the VAS before Congress in early 1978, ti. conce ns documented bv I'tancuso, Stewart, Kneale, Na)arian and others;, the cnnce ns exp~essed by J. Rotbls.t and K.7.. Morgan in the Sentembe~ 1978 Bull@tin of the~.tnmic Sc'entists, particularly tne person-rem and economic tradeoffs mentioned ov Horgan and ',?otblat which endanger workers and us for others'conomic Ea'n here;is much other evidence that wa-~ants reopening here also.

(another o'ovious issue is need for ~owere Wells:.ddleman strongly su. ~orts the CCNC ~eouest for remanded hear'.n~s on this ouestion..he divergence between estimates and r equality remainsI'arge even as th~

est'~~tes decrease. The "experts' errors snoulId disqualify their figu. es. Ne need rel'ble estimates, wh'h means'mong other thing's realist'..c models that can fit the vast and account for the much decreased IP growth 'n demand; and sensitivity analyses of a r'ange of growth rates and ti'e economic consequences of each, so that r sks and benefits may be o~operlv assessed under, a variety of future conditions. he record is obv" ously unsound 'oecause it contains numbers ',wh>> ch even C~ ~ L admits a re rong the wrong numbers may be the result of deliberate deceot.'.on.

7isis oo~sib1,1ity war. ants investigation. The record 's  ! ncomnlete because it does not take into account prover sensitivity analyses or good mndels of electr'. c demand growth as noted above.

(C) Sources w'ti '.n CP 6: L tell us that riant costs are now be'ng esti-....nted from about $ 6 billion to abnut ~t ~ billion. We seriously question (1) whether the growth 'n value of the expected .benefits is enough to keea the p. o)ect from being an overall loss, especially o consumer s and CP Ec L shareholde s and (2) whether in the light of numerous

>N~ one ating problems requiring extensive repairs (letter of- 7 Hov o.))

and ~n the light o continuing difficulties in finding waste stoppage and

NRC 17 January 1979 f ie d&s~osal meti ods and si that are adeauate to ~r ect the oub'c health and safety and are reasonable ! n cost, the olants can ~easonably be ex~ected to last the'r alleged one ot<ng lifet'.aes or oe. ".o~m over such lifetimes at ti.e'r alleged caoac'ty factors; (3) whether the .=Rded cost o f reoairs, togethe. w:, tn the factors mentioned or refer~ed to above and ~the~ facts, wake the nlsnts uneconomical pro""ozitions; (L) whether the osts and benefits to consumers have been adequately taken .'.nio account and wnezner an enormous loss by consumers should be ir:closed wi;eti:er to cr cate the possib'lity of snme orofi",s for CP h L; <<n'5) nt?'e factors 'n the voluminous evidence on >':P performance, fou~.ups, '~ ~",er c".nst~uction e.g. by Daniexl International, C~ 8c L's or~me contractor fo~ nuclear construction, added to the above, do not ..ake a prima facie case for <.~ed~ ate suspension of the construct~ on license for the Shear~n Harris -site.

(D) The ev'dence of the ERG reoort, the President's science s.dviser's

("9 . P ) ~eao~t ti'e congressional ressort "nuclear Power Costs'nd other ev'dence of technical difficulties including tire ram'..d leaching of very dangerous radioactive arterial f'rom glass nroaosed for was.e d'snosal, ailure of cnnta'ners under heat, oressur e, radiat'. on, co. rosion etc, seews to us- sufficient to co~el rehearing on'he costs and feas'.b'.lity of nuclear waste disposal. Our position has been that the only safe way to dis:.ose of nuclear waste is not to create it. Massive product':on of ~ad',.oactive material (far more than the military nuclear orograms heve or w'll produce(d) ) (see Xxapc Krugmann and von Hiaael SCZ~'=Ci. 26 i.u<,ust 1977 iiages 833-85) i@noses incredible risks and grave hazards to i.ealt?;,

1<.fe and finances. (See our letters cited above. ) Ne do not bel've that,

~

$ ven the i~pressive uncerta~.nties on this @oint (whethe. and at what cos t nuclear waste way be safehy created, transported and/o~ d'.snosed of),

blind o~t'.mism o9 bland reassurances that a way ~$ 11 be found:n 10 o~

15 year s (whici> we'e been hearing for almost 30 years now), can be, justified.

I

-l~- NRC 17 January 79

'~ie ask that the Harris ase 'oe reopened for furt2W hearings on the safet, cost, and risks versus benefits o radioactive waste M creation, transnortat'on and disposal. Me ask that the costs of deaths and '. nguries be valued st the amount CP h: L executives state they would be ~~evaded to accent, n cash, to allow themselves to be killed or iniured '.n the wavs ~oss~ ble for adiat'.or. to ha~ humans, or at he '. ns u" anc e s e t tie went values experienced persons agree would 'oe tn t2ie likely range of awa. ds for suci damage, or the values awarded oz likely to be awarded by furies fo. such da:mp'es, whichever is highest 'n ary case ar.d w'.th further snecial c'onsideratXon that no amount of money iis rreally I 1 r worth

~~

u r I a, human 1I ~

tI l.'.fe, +herefore an especially strong rat<.on nf benefits tc co'sts, ~

I I

~

I at, least 100 to 1, 's necessary to proceed if human l~ ves mav Seasonable t,

be expected to be th eatored o~ lost.

(K) We~e are many other points in our letters that we think

)us t ifv ~exop ene d hear ir@ s . '..'e ask the lPC to review these ~o'nts, all of them, and order such further hear'ngs as the +C deems a~. ~r ~~iate t this time or 'n the future.

(. ) .ie ask oro~ot action on the above and all these petitions,

'I

'n or".er that ti'e hear.'nLs can be completed befo. e the licens'ra 2.ear~ ngs f'r an one. at'ng 1'.cer.se, now most probably tc be 'held in . all:<R2.

'Zn li"ht of the above serious and unresolved 'ssues wh'ch '...d'.v:dually coin.t4on could ~ender the oroposed Shearon L'a"ris nuclear or in any co ~

vower .,1- nt uneconomical, unsafe c an unw se nvestment, and/cr a ~

fl.narcial burden on shareholders and/or the aubl< c And 'oecause ~ower companies seem t~ attest tn cour aa;:uch ~oney

',.to c< ns t~uct.on as nossible, conceal'n;. and denying all faults krowr to the, ~nsnfa. as possible, so that the investnent w'.ll 'oe ~ "eat er.ough I

~

tn " i "st'. f~~" nlant cr a@let.'.'n whatever the risks problems, ."-ee e.g.

,.>eab~ook and ',To-th Anna and ~ro jan and Diablo Can ron cases ar.d otiiers,

!~PC 17- January 1~7~

4

.1e respect lly r est that the WC suspend nst-.uct'.;.n nn the k;a~ris riant until these  ! ssues are resolved, because the r.sos a"e very g, eat end un esolved, and ti~e waste of proceed< ng nn a n~o haec t t?;at mazy well be unnecessary or ha'ed later x~11 be reduced by stor.r!.np cons".ruction now, and bec'ause the added costs of construct'on,'clays '.i~e les= b.r far <<i'.an the added costs ir cu-=ed should any one c ~ "",- concerns

.'.-~ ab, re nr any comb~ n':t'on nf them ard othe s, be @roved co-."ect ever t i:ae.

5'ail':np such '.mmed'.ate suspens" on nf construct'nn, we as~~.- t.' o~C tn recu<.re C" 8: L to sk;ow cause whv construct'..on should rrnt be sus..ended

~u~ tn the '. ssues we and othe. s have raised (c.'ted above,";rd ""-.k:e-s>,

and that hearings on this nuestion be '.-.eld a~ soon as possible t< 1 ~it

".he ci-.nt'nuked>>as:.e of funds on construction and to ~~n~~tly i;".,"e-.vt tn r s~ lve tk eve issues sn construct" on may be halted or ~a ""cc..ed

'i w'tk a ~ore accurate blessing from the ASIA, as contrasted tn tk. current nut-of-date and de/'ective record in this case.

'na" ly, as noted 'n our letters tn the A.",T..B, we cont nue ..n meet mar..." neo"..1e wk.o do not ever. know a nuclear olant is beng bu'lt nea" tkiem, i o w'>u" c and do n~ nse it. These .neonle 's rights <<"e co",~-o .': ~"."avoided wk:en the - are -.ot ""1 v informed and oerwitted to iste. vene 'n ".he case sk.c 'd th e~r sn desi. e. ;-kerefore we ask the i~>C to take uo our sul e t '.: cf 2" .ove .ber 1977 tk'at further oa~ortunities for '..ntervent- n be r.ow an"./or n. the future (we suKgest annually, on the ann'e=s"-r' f tk'.e const uct'.on nermit, as one a~arn~riate tieing fc;r s'h o.. ~o-."~:.-.'ies) with maximum ~ub~ icity ',.n all media 'n .vk .ch CP 5 L advertises 'i.".d '.n a~ 1 -aed<.a r.:ubl.isk;ed or 1.nc~ted << ".he C+ .'- L se~v<ce a~ca n- w'",.i '.n lPO ail.s n~ tk e ~lant s'te. ':ie suggest sucks oublic'~- s necessar;. ~

zen-le tr exerc'e their 0igk ts. .ge renuest that t.";e construct'~" ~er;",it be cordit'. oned on C? 5 L's arov< ding publicity as suggested;:.bn re be ~evoked automaticall r if witk]in 7 days of the new o-.de~ u i%owing

N~C 17 January 79 placed and had aired and published advertisements stating that thev

a. e building a nuclear plant at a given location, that people whose interests are o. may be affected by it (from its costs, radioactivit r, acc".,Rent r'sks, i-.oact nn nroaerty values, radioactive was"e etc.

list of issues such as this one should be aa~t of the ads) can intervene, tel~ '.ng them how to petition and where to write. The intervertion deadline sho>>ld be nart of the ads, wh'ch should al'so state whethe. any othe~ o~ "o. tunit'..es to inte. vene w'll be granted ~n the future, and so, ~hen. Zn our op'nion only publicity of this so rt and extent can assure .hat people know and can exercise their inte rvention rights.

~ip,hts unknown are rights denied, and we do not thi nk the NPC is allowed to deny neo~le their ri=.hts, nor is CP R L. Theref ore they sho~.;ld not conduct their business in ways that have that effec t, e.g. 'adec,uate

~uolicit.r and not informing T.co~le of'hei~ rights. (See also 17 Jan 79 a~veal of ASLB order denying netitions to inte vene, on ~he K~(, staf f g near'v 2 month delay in providing us with the rules for inte~vent'on. )

'<e think it may be a"~rooriate to '.nclude samole forms fo~ request'ng

'rte~vention in the print oublicity so that oeonle! c~:.ld f".11 ~

~

~ i I~inI ti;e'r

~I I

names, '.nterests, .c".ncerns and other pertinent information I I I ~

I I and h~~ve

~

a Wgalg document petitioning for intervention, w~ ti.out needf.nL- tc P..'

consult a lawyer. ';le ask that the NRC conside~ reouir:'ng suck: a fnrm to 'oe ~ublished 'n all public<,ty about nuclear pow er hearings of'ny sort, at: thames tnat will avow the forms to be used for i nterventXon petit'ons (i.e. ~Iell ~

n advance of intervention deadlines i any) .

()ur interests '.n these matters are set forth in our let ters c'ed above (~or all our petit'ons tod'ay), and in, additi on are obvious 'n that construction <,s v~oceeding withm our coney 'n the face of diff.',cult's cited, ~isks to us cited anR othe risks are being advanced at o>>~ e:<~ense, and ou~ rights to 'oe heard on these issues are bei ng in effect denied trivia'.'v ("1'%ted anaearance" ) .

iled on behalf nf myself and tk:e Kudzu Alliance (~e a e ."..esc"%bed hard our ':.nte~ests deta~.led '.n our letters to the ASLB, though "f c<'urse

--.o~e con be added validly to the facts oresented in the lbtters) aut: o"ization of the Kudzu, Alliance general meabershin neet'np, vlells middleman 17 January 1979 pp((JgJ K&mp 6<4

UNITED STATES OF AilERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.'D!1SSION 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 I 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 Corznission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Comm'ssion's Rules and

~ Regulations.

~ Dated at Washington, D.C. thi day of 197+.

Of fic f the Seer tary of the C .mission

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONCESSION In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No.(s) 50-400

) 50-~01 (Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power ) 50-402 Plants, Units 1-4) ) 50-403

)

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman Richard E. Jones,'sq.

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 Geor'ge F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts 6 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 27602 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal- Director Dennis P. Myers, 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,'sq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Mr. O. Gene Abston, Acting Director Board Office of Inspector and Auditor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. John H. Buck Mr. Wells Zddleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Route 1, Box 183 Board Durham, Nortn Carolina 27705 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Kudzu Alliance Box 3036 Michael C. Farrar, Esq. Chapel Hill,:fortn Carolina 27514 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

'I