ML18230A519: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML18230A519 | | number = ML18230A519 | ||
| issue date = 01/04/1979 | | issue date = 01/04/1979 | ||
| title = Further Amendments & Clarification of Petition of Intervene, Kudzu Alliance & Wells Eddleman Respectfully Request | | title = Further Amendments & Clarification of Petition of Intervene, Kudzu Alliance & Wells Eddleman Respectfully Request ASLB or Lawful Appointee to Hear Petitions | ||
| author name = Eddleman W | | author name = Eddleman W | ||
| author affiliation = - No Known Affiliation | | author affiliation = - No Known Affiliation | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:Q SHlC~To the ATOMIC LICENSES BOAND~,~~~~/7'l' | {{#Wiki_filter:Q SHlC | ||
a oitixen residing with1n 9+~p m!les of the sita and owning 92 shares of Carolina Power Ec Light co~on v',""" stock: Ne x wish to outline our nrevious arguments for our admission es'.ntervenors 1n clearer fashion, cl'arify sons ooints, and make add.'tie nal arguments. | ~ | ||
:le fur thor resncctfully roquest that 1f the ASLB has.time, nr arv other ASLB aanel may lawfully be appointed to hear nur petitions, that we together or sonaratoly be granted a hearing on our netitione to!n:ervene, at any convenient date as set by tho nanel that will | ~ | ||
Because many Kudzu Alliance (hereinafter,"Kudsu") | To the Further ATOMIC amendments and LICENSES BOAND ~, | ||
members are cmsloyed or in scnool full time>it would bo most convorient if sucn a hearing (if granted)were hold in Durham, Falelgh, Chanel Hill, oesea~cn Triangle'Park or some other location near the nlant site, nrefemblv at night or on a weekend, on the Kudzu netit!on to intervene. | clarification of | ||
Nells"Rdleman has no nreference as tc.a local or Msshington DC hoar!ng s'.te"n~himself.Kudsu is w~ll~ng to send~en~esentacives to a l:ear!ng in':1ssh'nc ton DC also.This~equ~st ts not meant tn delay the hoarinss maddst~d by the N>C concerning CP b: L's safe management caoabil!ty, (an!psst suooress~on of evidence~elevent thereto), but simnlv to fscil!tate nur mal:ing our asm nnints and to allow t!.e wembershin of Kudsu to bc heard directly as to their interests, exnertise, and willingness to assist!n doveloning a pound record, among other tc.ings.(~y~J Q+(4 C lC~frj g.((5 ipgn~F97 | ~ | ||
" ~ ~~~/ 7'l' | |||
"'8P+ | |||
PETITIONS TO XNTERVFNE "bv the KCDZU ALLIANCE, a voluntary nonprofit organirat1on with numerous 1 | |||
menbe"s es!ding within 2{) miles of the prooosed Shearon Harris Nuclear- j I | |||
Power >lant site, and'KLS PDDLFHAN,. a oitixen residing with1n 9+~p m!les of the sita and owning 92 shares of Carolina Power Ec Light co~on v',""" stock: Ne x wish to outline our nrevious arguments for our admission es '.ntervenors 1n clearer fashion, cl'arify sons ooints, and make add.'tie nal arguments. | |||
:le fur thor resncctfully roquest that 1f the ASLB has.time, nr arv other ASLB aanel may lawfully be appointed to hear nur petitions, that we together or sonaratoly be granted a hearing on our netitione to !n:ervene, at any convenient date as set by tho nanel that will hear our netitions. Because many Kudzu Alliance (hereinafter,"Kudsu") | |||
r members are cmsloyed or in scnool full time> it would bo most convorient if sucn a hearing (if granted) were hold in Durham, Falelgh, Chanel Hill, oesea~cn Triangle 'Park or some other location near the nlant site, nrefemblv at night or on a weekend, on the Kudzu netit! on to intervene. | |||
Nells "Rdleman has no nreference as tc. a local or Msshington DC hoar!ng s'.te "n~ himself. Kudsu is w~ll~ng to send ~en~esentacives to a l:ear!ng in ':1ssh'nc ton DC also. This ~equ~st ts not meant tn delay the hoarinss maddst~d by the N>C concerning CP b: L's safe management caoabil! ty, (an! psst suooress~on of evidence ~elevent thereto), but simnlv to fscil! tate nur mal:ing our asm nnints and to allow t!.e wembershin of Kudsu to bc heard directly as to their interests, exnertise, and willingness to assist !n doveloning a pound record, among other tc.ings. | |||
( ~y ~J Q+(4 C lC~ | |||
frj g. ((5 ipgn ~F97 | |||
~ l | |||
\ | |||
s ~ s tr1ai s ~ ' eI ws 'je4'vli ~ ~ 1 KUD'X <<LLX<<gDE AND MRS'" EDDLFtikN TG: fNIN g JAN% | |||
,"s page 2 de also request an extension of'ime to address the <<aauea of section 2.714.. (d} of 10 CQFR 2 because we have been unable as yet to locate a copy of the Atomic Energy Act. '>le pronose to forward our co.ments concezning our rights undez'hat Act to the ASLB as soon aa nossihle, and in no case later than 31 January 1979. He will do ou" best to meet any earl<<er deadline specified to us. There ere ma may also he additional information on Kudzu A111ance and Hells Eddleman~s property, financial and oMer interest (2.7lg {d) (2)) in the proceeding both w'th respect to C P R L~s management and financial capability, ordez'or lack of action) and concerning the poas1ble bv the ASLB affectming wish tn f<<le as amendments effect of ouz'or an to our of petit any us~.} interests, that we may on along with comments re | |||
~ the Atn~ic Fnergy Act. 'rJe ask similar leave to file such comments Chen. | |||
Concerning our "property, financial or other" interest in the | |||
'proceeding (both CP 8c L~s management capability hearing and the general case ol'he Harris plant, dockets $'0-$ 00 Chz'ough $ 03), we first note w'th interest that these recently revised regulationa (Q3 Pederal Register page 17798, dated September 1, 1978) expihicitly 11st property and financial 'ntereats, but apparently consi'der health, life, safety, concern fol. the genetic health of'enerations yet unboz n, and many other Issues as simply "other". This does not speak well of'he rulemakers'oncern for people,. but does affirm their concerns for money and property. | |||
Ve may 1ater petition the HRC for proposed revision of the rules it has made on this count. | |||
lvella Eddleman as an indiv1dual and other members of the Kudzu A111ance are now possessed of life, health, zeeaaonable safety iron nuclea~ | |||
contamination since most operating nucleaz planta are ovez 150 miles frowy us and Che Barnwell reproceasing plant <<s not yet operating, civil liber ties as yet uncomnromiaed by the Secretary of'nergy's dzaconian powers to emnloy the military to guard nuclear izzstallations and obtain intell lgence 1 .e on anyone uho sosnRdxn coula nose a sthpeats to such nucleon | |||
0 | |||
/ sage 3 Kudzu Alliance %d Mell's Edd1eman.to,ASLB~';. January, 1979 plants (as the DOF. Secretary's authority has been renorted in an artt.cle l read), and many other "assets" which are not: financial nr neoperty (unless a person is said to own h1s or her body and its | |||
.health, et;c.). rfe cannot assess our genetic makeup, but we hear respected scient;ists such as Linus Pauling say< ng that most radiation-caused genetic damage is recessive, that is, it will not show up f'r | |||
~ | |||
' | generations after the damage has been done. Since radioactive em1ssions from nuclear. oower plant's can get inside our reproductive organo to damage our genes from very close range for 'a long time (many years in the case of many isotopes), we feel future generations, and we as t:heir narento, have ou< te an 5n~e~est in genetic safety also. 'Ve are aware that mony other things, such ao industrial chemicals and excessive heat, can damage genes. He note that some of these industrial chemicals are resolutely defended by their producers as harmless far years after it hao been scientifically demonstrated that; great dan@ger ex1ot;s. | ||
A stmilar bias appears to exists 1n the argunts of the nuclear industry and the vower companies about nuclear emiosions from power plants and the fission products contained in operating nlants and nuclear waste. | |||
They keep saying it's safe, or that; it haon't been proved unsafe. | |||
Me think this is due to their "property and financ1al" (and other'2} | |||
in. crest;s more than any dedication to scientific truth they may have. | |||
Even if nuclear radiation isn't safe, the nuclear and power industry is quick tc argue that other risks are greater. Mell, is it a good reason to oteo in front of a speeding car, because t;he risk would be greater ' vou stan~ed <n Wont of a speeding train~ Kudzu Alliance and Ye~is Fdlleman do not believe that; damage .to people's health, lives, and their children's health and lives are excused because gr eater damage is'betng done by someone else. 'vthat" if a murderer pleaded in self<<defense that"others have killed 30 or QO people, and I only killed one." Does that excuse murders Me find the concept of a "statistical death" very | |||
It gcdrca Alliance and 'nl%s Eddlaaan <<c. dgLB, g Jan page g disturbing. It seems that: "subtract:ing 70 years fram the total nnnulation's life span" is acceptable, but killing outright is not. | |||
Ne wonder how much difference that fine dist;inction makes to a victim or radioactivity-induced cancer? There is an argument we have heard, | |||
'hat the $ 5 mph speed limit; is no good, because it takes more t1me fcr the whole population to drive at 55 wherever it goes, than the remaining lives of the accident victi.ms who would be killed at a 6p limit (versus 55) total. Yet they would be dead, while the others are merely "on the road". Given a choice, I would certainly choase a road delay ave~ death. I know no ane who would choose differently. Yet we are told "statistical deaths" are acceptable as a price for "naeded" electric nower. The power companies are fond of the false picture nf "freezing <<.n the dark" if nuclear construction is stn~ped. (In fact, | |||
~ore pen"..le freeze ' the dark due to having installed electric heat ro and t:i:en getting into an ice storm; and people have literally frozen tc ~eath because their power was cut aff when they could not imnediately pav very high electric bills in winter.) Yet who, given the choice af death nr better insulation on one's house or water heater, would not choose tne <<.nsulation? Gofman has shown ("Groos Energy Available from Light 'dater Reactors" CNH Box 11207, San Francisco CA 94101) that if tiie power companies'rofections of energy growth are correct, the maxi~urn share of total Us energy available from LNR nuclear power in tile year 2000 is about gg, tAe same percentage now used for heating water 'n people's homes. Better insulation on home and industrial water heate. s could doubtless eliminate wast of this "need" since cur ~ent ~nor ly insulated water heat:ers waste most of the energy su~plied tn the .. And of course manv other 'sulation and conservation opt<<ons a"e ava'1bble t;o the public. They also lead to lower power bills. | |||
submit that construction of nuclear power plants imposes an unnecessary risk to our lives, health, safety and our children's lives. | |||
0 KUTPtiX <LLIANCE AND MPt,Ls EDDLHfAN '20 ASLB 4;;Zen 1979 page 5 The~e can be no more vital considerations thah these for living nersons, at least not Co us in our opinions. | |||
Ae be" ieve the relation of our health, life, safety and genetic C | |||
inta eats to CP k L's safe management canability and Co the Harris olant construction is obvious: >1e are residents near Che plant. | |||
Acro. ding to the 1974 FIS, winds blow in all directions from the plant, at an average speed of over 7 miles per hour (over ll km oer hour). | |||
About 1/9 of the time, conditions are calzm, says the EIS. tfany of those calm davs are days of temperature inversicins, when plant emissions, routine or accidental, would shay closer to the ground than normally. | |||
Thus, 'f the nlant is built, we residing near the plant would be ~ | |||
among the f'irst potential victims of radioactive mater1al released from it routinely and accidentally; we would also be among Che first pbtential victims of a nuclear dimsaster (4 plants makes it 4. times as 11kely for us, C~o.'he figures are usually given 1n accidents per ~actor ver year). | |||
An inadequate emergency response plan (NRC~s staff filing for the C~ hL safe management hearing states that EB Robinson's plan is still inadequate) for Harris could also victimire many of us. In sum, )ust by be'ng near the plant, we get its radioactive and other effects whetner we like Chem or not, 1f the plant 1s built; moreover, only CP h L's "safe management capab1lity" and the NRC's regulatory power stand between us and many problems. Me note that excessive radiation releases averaged 2 per reactor per year (or close to it) through 197$ .. | |||
Also ? near-misses in Eaves'eactors (Brown's Ferry and the Hanfozd N-reactor', | |||
cculd have been meltdowns except for luck and o~erator skill at Brown's ferry (not design or Che NRC or the TVA); and the second shutdown system on the iV-reactor (samarium balls) that overrated when all the ECCS was KO'd by a shmole short; circuit, so we understand. (Me omit the Fermi b-oeder partial meltdown and FRR melt accident here.) Mhat we are reallv not'rg is that "accidents CAN hanpen" and they do. These | |||
F~ | kudzu Alliance and rEe Eddleman to ASLB, 4 Jan l 9 page 6 acc>> dents threaten our lives, health and safety. The roles of the AFC, F~DA, DOF. etc in suppressing information about accident and radiation dary. ~s make us wonder how honest the NRC and CP R L have been about tt:~se ~a" te~s. If they make mistakes, the damage is done to us f'ir st. | ||
The Romans had a different idea about their engineering pro)ects. | |||
Nio,n t2.e saaffolding was taken down from a Roman Arch, we are told tne Roman engineer who designed it had to stand underneath, If the arch fell, he would be the first victim, Roman arches are known for their durability, Kudzu Alliance and Wells Eddleman have no wish to bar~ or see any engineer harmed. But we Chink it would be reasonable to require HRC staff, CP RL executives, and nuclear nlant designers to live at the plant s>> te boundaries of nuclear power plants. Many affirm their willingness to do so, but we know of none w2>o actually do. | |||
('4e do not suggest C2iis as a rule. He s'.mnlv point out that we are among the f'erst nostential victims of errors made by others who may be much farther out of harm's way.) | |||
~ | So we t2:ink our health and safety etc. interest in Che Harris Plant and CF R L >>s safe management capability is very clear. Me also have financial, property and other interests affected. Por one th>> ng, if nformation about nuclear dangers is | ||
as | >> st'l being suooressed, and we find (legally) and disseminate suc2i information, we may still be in danger from nrooomnents of nuclear po~er, both 'n our civil rights, which may be violated by surve" llance etc., and for harm Co our health and possibly even 3c~ Mvos. He have no evidence as of now that such danger exists to us, but it could develop at any time our legal activities we e seen as sufficient threat to the enormous financial and property interest of the nuclear and sower industry. Me do not seek or invito any'uch attacks; our aolicy is nonviolence and we reasonably expect nonviolence f n retur n; even if we are attacked, most of's expec t to adhere to nonviolence (though I cannot cnmpromise the legal right of self-defense). | ||
0 F | |||
~ - ~ ~ | |||
~ | |||
Kudzu Alliance and Yells Fddleman to ASLB, g January 1979 page 7 | |||
/ | |||
'Ae no..e that su~ve<11ance of nuclear oanonents has occurred legally and 'lie@ally in Georgia, California, South Carolina, and other places, Nuclear nnnonnents have been threatened with violenco, e.g. by the Ku Klux Klan in New Hampshire. Xt could be argued that we could remove such ~ossible danger by simoly acauiescing in nuclear sower; but only at tne cost of free exorcise of our. rights of free speech, association, I | |||
a free nress, petitioning for redress of grievances, privacy, free movement w! thin the USA, etc. Me do not believe anyone should be reauired to sacrifice her or his rights due to threats or aossible threats. | |||
Aga'n, we emphasize t;hat we have no evidence of such threats to present at t!.ls time, and are not accusing anyone of anything in North Carolina. | |||
;de certainly hope that no one will waste oub15.c or corporate funds on | |||
'llegal surveillance, or make any illegal mzM~ threats .to anyone. | |||
'rate carta.'nly have no intention of violating others'ghts or of any violent act! on or threat of violence whatsoever. | |||
One last; note on civil liberties etc.: Ne are not certain, that ktliing someone by radioactive means is not a violatt.an of the C1vil Rights Act. That a license was issued for such killing may or may not be a defense. Me do know that radioactivity is very dif'ficult'o det;ect, wi ti rut sonhisticated instruments, and- that it can k111 and leave no evidence of its role that can as yet bo detected, Ne do believe there is a civil right to life, which may be violated by unsafe management of nuclear power planes. | |||
niitn respect to our financial, property and other interests: | |||
Many Kudzu members are ratepayers of CP 8c L and thus have a direct financial interest in tho costs of the plant, eSPEcially under Construction Mark Xn ~roq;..ress (CMTP} whic2.'s now legal in NC. Ne have heard from a sou. c~ 'n CP h L's financial denartment weri does not w:hh to be named that the cost estimate for the nlant is $ 6 to $ 8 billion now, versus | |||
~ | ws~ as+~.e s ~ ~, ~ ~ | ||
'UD:3.'X ALLIANCE AND. EDM EQH TO. ASLB,. Q .Za page 6 g.~ b'llion estimated in 1976. Me therefore are intexested in having the cost-benefit analysis reopened, and updated annually or more often, to ascerta' if the costs can still reasonablv be expected to be less than the beneff t:s at +~esca t value, given the numexous problems PHPs are developing wt.th denting, gripe cracks, steam generator corrosion, rad toactKvtty 'n pipes, and possible lower radiation exposure standards for nuclear workexs, as well as other problems. Ne submit tha't our f'.nancial interests as ratepayers will be ill served if a slant is built that carnot repav to us, the consumers, more in value than we have gut into it:, and. suggest a cost-benefit analysis to consumers also be perfo med, Ne not:e that CP hL is said, in the N~C staff filing | |||
{wi i.c?;;>>'elis middleman has read, but not melioris.ed) to not do mox'e than | |||
'.s recu'red to do. Thus we would be int;crested in seeing if t.P ~L is willing to perform such an ahalysis voluntax ily. 8'e also ask whether CP 8c L w!11 d'sclose its curxent; cost estimates for the Harris plant, and how ve can be reasonably sure these estimat:es are accurate and not biased due tn C~ h L's financfa1 interests. | |||
Rate saver s we'll also be 'll served if a -'g.2 b'llion (or 6 or 8 or wha".e rex billion) powernlant is built, out into their rate base, and then not fully used. Since nuclear power has very highcapital costs, the nlant must run baseload (all the t;ime it can operate) t;o keen 'ts elect.! citv costs competitive (see GAO PHD 70-76 on nuclear, coal and alte~nat'.ve source costs in the Pacific No: thwest;, 1978-1995). Needed | |||
' | : o. not, the plant would be in the rate base and customers would have to n~y C~ 6: L full profit;s on tt. Moreover, if the plant failed to ho1d its assumed capacity factor over its full lifetime, the cost ot 's e1ect;r'city could be much higher than paredicted. 'rie ask that, Kf a sens'tivity analysis to capacity factox and plant lifet;ime has not already been prepared as Dart of the cost-benefit; analyeis (none | ||
! s reference in the 197( F1S to our knowledge) that the NRC staff consider preparing>> such an anhlysis, and C>> hL consider do1ng likewise and | |||
I nf.l TAt'CE aND ~~. S ."..ODLTXAN TO ASLB Q Jan page 9 pub'.! st> tbeir results. | |||
;,:;c th r obvious interest of Hells Eddleman and other Kudzu | |||
~~woe"s is ownership of shares of CP h L common stock. The value o" '.?;ese shares depends on sound amnagement, especially when a cozmpany wn "tt: less than 4<b<11<on (and in debt)axaz arnnosed to scend more tha".'. >4 b'llion on a single fac'.lity. The risks are high if the facility | |||
:s not virtually assured of complete success. For exam@le, the NC public utilities commission has a rule mandating that if nuclear slant CF falls below 65/, costs of replacement power fuel should not be charged to consumers if management caused the capacity to be. be'.ow be%. A plant that wasn't needed would have a real risk of such nroblems, It m'ght even be excluded from the rate base. | |||
Then stockholders would have tn pay for a plant that earned them noth'ng. | |||
A plant badly operated mIght; generate billions in claims for deaths, in)ur1es and property danage; it might also depress property values near it, and these damages mme could also be the sub)ect of lawsu" ts N: | |||
against CP 8c L. North Caroliana law may not limit damages as the Pri,ce-Ande. son Act does; or the additional damages might have to be pa' bv tax@ayers -- that t s, . by stockholders, Kudzu members and | |||
'rlells Fddleman among others. There is also the risk the riant may ?iave to be abandoned before completion due to new necessary ~egulations on en~loyee health, public health, safety,'r financing. (Look am t Seabrnnk to soe that repeal of CHIP can also make it hard to fin'sh a costly nuclear n3.ant.) Then the cost of construction completed would either be borne by stockholders (as a great loss/) or by ratepayer s, as a nossibl.y illegal charge for a @lant nowt providing them any oower, shoi:ld the Utilities Commission allow the plant to stay in the rate base. | |||
Moreover, escalating uranium costs, uranium mining hazards, uncertain suoply of ofreign uranium, and CP 5 L's lack of assured uranium sur olies for the Harris slant (to our current knowledge as of'ay 1978), may also make the Harris plant economically dubious or dangerous. | |||
I p ( | |||
~ ~LLI.".NCH AND EOmZe N my.her&.4. Sai:.X9, page I .. hv'D/t.'hese | |||
~ iO.:'l uncertainties about fuel constitute a Zurthex danger of financial bu. dens to ratepayers and stockholders, ox'oth per~apsg M>> note that if we had only'o show that it is reasonably likely that th( se problems would'aterialize, we wnuld have a stronger case. | |||
But i.t aooears that util< ties need only prove it is reasonably likely that problems will be solved by the time the plant ia operating, and they t et approval. Me feel this procedure exposes ratepayers and shareholders to unknown risks, since for example, the HB Robinson ll | |||
.emergency response (evacuation) plan 1s still not ready as of November 1979 according to N~C staff, (over g years since such plans should have been made and approved).. Mho knows what promises (such aa findl ng a safe wag to diaaose of nuclear wastes,. holding costs down, etc) can actually be kept in, 198$ or 1985 for latex ) | |||
l if the Harris nuclear plents are built'he govornment and. nucleax'ndustry's record on such promises is*about as good's the typical politician&', which 1s-to say, good enough to get'the )ob, 'but not good. enough to keep most of the oroMses. Por exawly3.e, radiological monitoring is identified in Long 8c Dance ~a prefiled testimony aa:a weakness at HB Robinson, in 1978. | |||
It ! a also identified 5n 1975 on pages 1 and 2 of'he NRC staff exhibit 1, for six separate probloms. Over 3 years,, a dlearly health h safety-related program remains weak, but thin. is evidentlv "acceptable" ? | |||
Pardon us, we don~t know whether we ax o suvoosed to talk about this stuff in the staff filings unless we.;are admitted as 1ntervenors. | |||
Ne do know both staff and:.CF h L have the. right to respond. to what I | |||
we sav here. Our main point ia that there are no penalties and checks being used to make sure that +heI promisea that phoblema: | |||
will be solved, axe kept, or at least it certainly doesn't look that | |||
>>ay. Indeed, it looks like the NRC "solves" problems like the EPCZ trips at Brunsw1ck, by )ust eliminating the requirement that the I | |||
p. | |||
.'to>U Al.i.IAACP'ND'KLS'E)DLF)QH'O ASLB .8 Q'.Zan'..I 9.. p g ten work right, 'if CP) 4 T can ' get it Co wox k right S | |||
C | |||
~ | ~ '7s | ||
:~e note fur ther that. safe management does not Just'ean management that con~lies on time with. all NHC'- rules given tn them'. It implies a management that aims for safety. CP h L has won numerous safet;y awards for in)uries and accidents (i..e.. for not having so many as other utile.ties). Ve hope they can'win radiation safetv awards too, but we'0 like'to see Setter evidence than the working people 60 hou s a week for years nn end that Ploys.Caritrell alleges, and Chan blowing un their offgas system due Co. numerous h | |||
errors., Xf CP Ec L. was as dedicated to inspection and safety. as 'they are to making. excuses for that explosion and their unlocked. Qoors at Brunswick, I fox one would be more at ease with their operations. lioWFver, as a classroom teacher, CF Fc L~s brilliance at @aking excuses seems to mme me to be more in. | |||
line w~ th the type of pex son who goofs'off, confident that if something goes wrong or s/he gets caught in the. >no, a good excuse nillsolve th" ngs,'udzu Alliance membex s and Hells. Fddleman also own'roperty in the region around the Haxris plant site, both x'eal and personal land propertv, y including ~,businesses," equipment, homos, personal p x'o p ert etc. Land values have 1n places decreased near nuclear plants, especia>iy ~ | |||
where nuclear wastes are Cransnorted.'to and from the nlants. This could r east lv affect some Kudzu m~mbe~s'x'operty since they are vex'v close to the aslant, in one case on the boundary I believe. All our oronerty could be affected in an accident;; as::wou3.d the value of ow CP 8c L sto'ck. | |||
'r/e believe this is another very real interest: we have in the safe F | |||
manage~ant of the plant if 1t is built', and'n the entire issue of | |||
~ | |||
f lp, whether and how it is built. V | |||
'rlells Fddleman and Kudzu Alliance wish to be, cax'sful Ca say that we have other interests not ment:ioned'ero which the plant: may affect, but we don't wish to try to list: them.. all here or make t?.is letter too P we) | |||
~, ) | |||
> | |||
~ | |||
p~} ~ '.". Kudzu Alliance and Hells Eddleman to e | |||
ASZB g Zan 1979 lonp. | |||
As to how the ASLB's ruling could affect our interests, we believe tho.t s'.nce the plant directly affects so many of our inter ests, and since the board {says Charles Barth) has the authority to ma}ce any ruling wTthin its power consistent with Che facts in the hearing, and s're CP 8:, L~s safe management capability and financial capab'ity directly affect how ~muham@ (and if) the plant may be built ard operated, we thTn}c the effect is obvious. If the ASLB does nothing, and leaves things exactly as'hey are after this hearing, then our interests are impinged upon by t}e power chant exactly as they were e | |||
befo. e. So that affects our interests by leaving the planth, effect on the~ 'n force. Zf the board were to cond1tion the construction permit nn certain actions by CP hL by'- certain C1me, e.g. training its pe. sonnel so that it was clear that plenty of qualified people wo>>ld oe available to operate t}ie Harris plant, or clean~ up certain I | |||
problems at 3runswick and/or Robinson, or tightening up its internal ru3.es, etc. eCc., that affects our interest by aft.'ording Chem a promise of some additional protection soon-. .If the board were to rule CP 5 L can take an even freer hand in its ac'tions, and can omit some qua11ty assu"ance o9 safety proecdures now used and still have "adequate'anagement fnr the health L safety of the public, that aff ects our Tnter eats by nuttTng mo~e "esnonshbility Co nz~Mx protect our | |||
~nte. ests on CP 5 L and less on the NRC.'~le are not suggestIng rulings to the board at this time, but )ust showing hoM a range of possible rulings, or no ruling, would have an effect on our interests. Our financial i nterest is very large because each person- served by CP 8cL will have to nay ~1400 to build the plant at Che 1976 est1mato, and perhaps more, and certa'.nly more to have the plant operate and pay CP h L a fair profit. | |||
If t}>e plant; ', delayed or stooped noMat .3g complete, "he Loss on it vw, jP 1 ~ | |||
.' | ~ ~ f ~ V | ||
' | ~ << ~ | ||
page 13 Kudzu.-A13.'iance and:=.Hells.: MQXqiian. Co.'+S@B..:'4;;.J'an. 1979~". '- | |||
the | f~ '. C would be "only" )126 million (3g or g;P"billion dollars). That is 2 ~e~ ocrson served'y CP' L. Xf, as seems likely based on CP h L figures, the plant would raise power rates 60$ or more if completed, | ||
~ | |||
~ | t-the present value of aower savings at auvmnasz residential rates (about 3000 Kwh per consumer per year, at about 3$ c/kwh) ~ould be much C | ||
: g. cate~ than that @2, even assuming,.the. ratepayer s had Co: take all the loss. But if f construction continues, and the, plant is not needed f | |||
when it comes on line, Che loss to cnnsumers will be"very large, as | |||
~ | |||
have to.pay for- it | |||
~ | |||
f J~. | |||
'f | |||
't could the loss to stockholders be, if':they No.~over, if for any reason the plants do- not serve their useful f | |||
1'.fetime as assumed, costs cr"ld be. very high. Zt is important to make our best efforts and'ensitivity'-analyses to understand the t ~ | |||
consequences of such possibilitiesfand"probabilities Qow, .before. | |||
construction has gono so .far that finn'ncial interests begin Co outweigh the public interest, consumers'osts,. health, safety etc.',.Me believe Che NRC's decisions on the North Anna'plant, built- on. a fault with the'id of lies by Virginia. Electric h Power Co (according, Co reports) and | |||
\ | |||
with complicity in these lies by NRC staff, illustrates the, dangers. | |||
';1ith +00 million invested, the weight of this raoney was considered greater than the dangers of connlethng the plant,, which is now operating (so we understand)>>ith the aid Gf many emdifications to Che pla'nt and mary variances to engineeri~.g and safety requirements. | |||
'vie particularly feel our interests are compromised if we are not allowed to i.ntervene because Che issuet,Xa really suppression. of evidence. | |||
' | lf evidence had not been su~. essed CM.s heariz@ upcoming." would never have been orde> ed. lf >>e cannot azR questions~ ea11 >>itnessee and cross-examine, we cannot be at all assured Chat much more evidence is not still being suooressed. Me have not.. proof now Chat izt ii,.but no assurance whatever that it is not. Only by direct and cross-em',nation can we probe the truthfulness and completeness of the record in this case. | ||
' | ~ W | ||
r, ~ | |||
\ | |||
s'e'I4 Kudzu Alliance and Pell's Eddlyeja'.,to. ASX'8 III".-- nuary. X979",-'' | |||
*p vt He note in passing 0hat, both CP 5 L and HRC staff. have apparently | |||
'I filed responses Co our peti.Cion and amendments late under the HRC's own r ules. Hells Kddleman desires that, the Pull arguments of both be hea. d, and thus does not ob]ect to this; Kudzu Alliance has not taken a posit~on on C2d.s issue, and reserves the right to raise r | |||
it "ater, particularly if and when a hearing is granted on Kudzu'a petition Co 'ter uene .. | |||
ale also note that we cannot find. anMh4iig in Charles" Barth's first response (dated 6 November 1978 but received on 17 november, referring to a letter of "November 16, 1978" no doubt a typo) about tire H>C's rules or how Co become an intervenor. Indeed we received ng until Wells Fddleman ohoned Che office of Rep. Ike And. ews, 'oth'. | |||
6 December 1978. Andrews'ff'ce obtained a cony of 10 CFR 2 and sent '.t to Eddleman. It a~rived about 18 December 1978. | |||
I | v Charles Barth r | ||
also sent a cony of 10 CFR 2, pursuant ta a phone conversation of 13 December 1978 I believe. T2iis arrived about 20 December., | |||
Ve did not rr intend to ask the ASLB~s assistance in this matter; we merely desired to note XX that we still had recei'ved not."iing from the HPC staff on its rules, and to r cnew our request Co them to supoly such lnfomation. It has been helpful.to us, and we are endeavoring to com~1y with every par C of it that we can under stand. | |||
Another factual matter concerns the a~reness of Kudzu Alliance members nf'he last deadline for intervention iM the Harris prnsceedings. | |||
At tire General meet'.ng of 3 January 1979 I asked the 31 members ~resent (28 he~re members before Chat date) if'ny knew or had read of the last date fc r ntervention. Hone had. Only 10 had ever heard of Che Federal | |||
~ | |||
Re~'.ster, according to their statements and a sirow of hands, None read it on a regular basis, ',le submit that ordinary persons, includ'ng | |||
1 F>>. | |||
t I '4 ~ | |||
15 Kudzu Alliance and Hells: F~ge..to', AS';:g:Zan 79;--".." | |||
'ost of the founding members of Che Kudzu Alliance, could not have l | |||
intended to circumatvent any NRC rules,,begcause they do not know those rules and never did. de are advised..by a Kudzu member that it is presumed in Iaw that everybody reads';the Federal Register (or should)~ | |||
we s'.'denly point out Chat in.fact'p oven concerned citizens such as Kudzu Alliance members do not read it'and in many cases are not even aware that it- exists, or that NHC notices for hearings are i'n it. | |||
'.4e do not know if any other publicity than tho Federal Pegister notice was given 23 June 1977 for aotential h.ntervenors. Ne do know that numerous Kudzu Alliance members now cannot recall ever hearing of such a notice; and many o4'hem weve very concerned with nuclear power '.n 1977 also. 'c1e believe that it is unfair to presume Chat people can catch every legal notice put past them, and would ask that both the earlier intervent:ion attempt by J'ohn Spoights, now a | |||
~>> | |||
Kudzu member, any other intervention attempts from 1967 to l977'y oersons now Kudzu members, and the fact. Chat Kudzu Alliance was formed af"er t;he July 1977 deadline without knowledgo.of that deadline mum and M" th no int;ont to circumevent NRC procedures, beaux considered as good cause for having our petition Co intervene considered at this time. | |||
Me also note that it takes time fox an organization to establish itself and create a st;ructure that; enables it Co Cake on responsibilities e | |||
such as 'ntorvention. Xf CP h L can get delays in implemnting its QA progra~, then Kudzu~s need t;o get established and organized should also be cc nsidered good cause for. filing Co intervene at this time. | |||
rle1ls ><<1eean is perplexed bv the idea that; he should simnly ave'd nuclear vower plants when he moves. X have here the best fob T'ave ever had, as a conservation manager, teacher and watchperson. | |||
Neve. thewless, had X known a nuclear plant was nearby under ccnstruction, T '~.'.'}it have reconsidrcd my'ecision'Co move here, or made t;he dec'shen | |||
0 | |||
>age 16 Kudzu Alliance and Mells Eddlenan to ASLR g J'anuary'979 to accent some risk by staying in the area.,But I did not have a chance to make that choice. Xn effect, I am being Cold X have no right to move near a proposed nuclear power plant, unless I am willing to sit idly by and watch it go up. Considering the number of 'nuclear alants that have been proposed, I would have greatly reatrktted choice of living acus sites. I certainly didn~t move hexe Co spend my time arguing against nucleax power plants,. If I'D known one was this close to me, even though my present Job is very attractive Co me, the best I <ve x ever had, I might not have taken it. But since I was already here w'th all my equipment and a good Job when I fix st heard where. | |||
the nlart was and when it was going Co.be built, I Chink I should have the right to intervone. If''d moved hex'e a few years earliex, v>ile construction was suspended, I'1 have had a chance to say, "No, I'd rather not run f'rom this nucleax plant. I do'n>t th'nk it's safe ox a good r | |||
economic deal or good for Jobs or good for me, and I'd like to say why and get witnesses and cross-examine Che power. comnany~s witnesses." | |||
I realize Chat the question of whether new residents in an area sho."ld be allowed to intervene is L tricky one. People who wo.ld.move to a ~lace just tofight a nuclear plant are not rare anymore. But X didn't do t2iat. I moved here without knowledge of the olanth being th s close to me, and without intent..to do anything about it (since I didn 't know about it). Compare the situation of a person who 1 | |||
There is no requirement Co tell proyerty buyers a gas piaeline is near. | |||
The gas company people probably won'C. advertise that their line is leaky, or nut out maps o9 its location. Yet our ness propexty owner is in danrer from this gas r incline, and has, every right to petition for. | |||
improved safety etc. I am going to get effects from that nuclear | |||
i | |||
~ page i | |||
17 | |||
'viells Eddleemn and Kudzu A1X$'y'g@e; | |||
--Sl Qo A'aaao Lp, J'an 1979 fl a | |||
i'iant if 1th built, Yet by CP h L's attorneys) response, they propose to Cie my legal hands, and say 1n effect, "Nuclear power: | |||
i!. Tove it or leave it," X happen to like my fob and my location here j> | |||
j,'. extremely well. I do not wish to have to 1~ave this area, but I almost certainly will 1f Che Harris nuclear plant begins operational testing. | |||
) | |||
f (Yhe uncertainty is, I)m not 10+ sure that nuclear plants cannot be made safe, that: waste cannot'e transported and. stored siafeklv etc. | |||
i'a/ere these issues resolved to my satisfaction, X.might stay -- or X might leave )ust to be safe, because X could be wrong,) I am very disturbed now by much evidence, including that for rising cancer rates in regions of nuclear facilities, evidence that various radioactive materials ~ose greater health risks than previously thought, etc. | |||
I w'.ll endeavor to protect myself and, others from these risks, using nonviolent means only, but if I cannot I can m move away. Many peor.le mav not have that option, so X hope the Kudzu Alliance is admItted as an intervenor, as even i if I were, I could lose my legal status if l moved away due to my assessment of Che dangers. {Catch 22, nuclear i | |||
version: You have Co be in danger to do anything about the danger. | |||
to escape If you take yourself away ~faqthe danger, you lose your right to do Is nuclear sower safe? You bet vour life. Catch 22 again.) | |||
anything about itgp At any rate 1 am no lawyer and couldn't hi. e one at cur.ent rates. (One Kudzu member tcld me of a legal b111 over $ 10,000 in one vear, which that member, paid in trving to stop the Harris plant..) | |||
I horse the AST B gill excuse my- legal ineptness. I work on this petition for a lot less than $ 10,000 a year (and some may feel that my work is worth its price, or.less]). I am complying with everything in the rules I have received that I can undersCand or get trustworthy advice from Kudzu members about. | |||
I il)Ave a further personal interest in these proceedings because I do energy consulting work, Energy consulting work t.s most needed | |||
~ j l | |||
'I il P | |||
- :--o . e | |||
~~~~ 18 Hells Eddleman and Kudzu AI1iaace to ASLB g Jan 1979 wiiero energy is oeing ~asted and can be saved cheaply. In my experience these ccndi t nns preva<<l in much of Che immediate area around Raleigh, Durha~ and ".hapel H<<.11, New Hill, etc. If consumers in th<<s area are I | |||
forced t;o spend large amounts of money on nuclear power plants v" a CII? and rate increases, thev will have le~a money ava'lable to <<nvost; "n ne~"y c~nserv<<.ng equipment and systems, and thus hav'e less business to ..1vo me. Iron<<cally, as the price of electricitv rises, there will be greater advantages Co energy efficiency and consor vation, but less mone:- available to do it;. I believe I can show how the ent:ire expected annuo'utput of one of the Harris .units (900 Kfe) could be saved by'n | |||
<<nvest~ent of less than gl00 million in Insulat t.on (about $ 1 b'llion less than the cost of the Harris unit). The insulation w<<ll have a useful lifetime co~arable tn the plant (30 to 50 years) have minimal npe. at'np. and . epair costs, and continue Co save energy without add1.t'onal 0 | |||
~ | |||
effor t oy Its owners. Ny fees are eit;her by Cho hour worked (variable to the size of tne organization 1 im working for and the pot;ontial energy sav'ngs), or a small per cent:age of the cost of energy saved over several years.;bus I could expect income from the Insulation pro)ects, but only, if the ca~<<tal to install this Rnatch <<nsulation is available.'he more nowe~ b'lls po up, the less canital people vill have to Invest In | |||
<<nsul:.t'.on. L!y C> I L dividends, however, should not su~for, s nce they a. a a fa<<r rate of return on an existing Investment whether more nuclea~ nlant:s aro built or not. Bill Lee, President of Duke Powe., has told ~e that not building new poworplant;s would help D~lko stockholders bv red 'c'r.~. the need Co soll new stock (which dilutes t;he prov.',ous stockho1":ers 'quitv) .. I imagine a sim1lar advant;age m<<ght occur for CP + L shareholders like myself. So oui of personal f'nancial interest, | |||
<<t ~ekes sense for mo to oppose nuclear power because it <<s so can~ital Intone.:.ve that it reduces tno money ava<<lable to do my gob- energy | |||
0( | |||
~ ~ ' | |||
n ~,;>>- l.'.>>'elis Fddle.".gf and Kusdu'Alliance to ASL~Zan 79 S | |||
consArvat!on and efficiency. X believe the issue of whet2.er nuclear vower 'i the BFST available use of the huge amounts of capital '-nvolved needs ser*ous considerat>>on, both by the NRC, the Congress, and people and s>ate ut>>litotes commissions. Many authorities agree with 'rfilliam Si non that we may face a capital formation crisis in the USA soon. | |||
Under such condit1ons>>e should make the best investments>>'t2. our ava'lable capital. I believe the best return on capital in energy is frna conservation, Cnsulat>>>>on and efficiency measures at Ch>> s C>>me. | |||
Numerous studies su~port that belief. I do. not know whether Cli>> s | |||
'.=.sue 's within NRC )urisdiction, but I do hopo prudent and sound management vill address it, Considering the opinion of Shearon.Harris (h>>'nself) at the last CP 5 L stockholder's meeting, I do not believe CP 5: L management had yet taken energy conservation ser>>.ously. The exper'ence of 'blest Gsrmany Among others shows that much 2iigher efficiency ene~gv use is available to us Cn the USA. Ha.ris s>>emed'to deny this, c'ting higher agricultural and transportation energy use 1n Che USA Chan in Germany. Virtually none of'uch use is electrical 2>owever. Xt would make energy sense to have more ele'ctric mass transIt', 'out I cannot see electr" c tractors be>>ng economically competitive anyt>>me soon. electric ~ | |||
m'ates Xx still make electricity our most; expens1ve form of energy. | |||
For th'.s reason I believe the future holds much slower grewt2: rates | |||
>> n ~lectric demand, and reluct>> ons in central power system demand >>n many cases. it I think >>s time for CP h L and others Cn face the po:=sibility thah 3.ongterm demand growth may be much smaller, and to ver. orm sens'tivity analyses fox costs and benefits oi nms poweralants under varv" ng assumptions including verv low demand growth. ader such conditions the long construction. times of all large nowernlants are v~rv problematical -- >>nterest charges eat up pro ]ected benefits Before the oallant is finished. Smaller plants may be an answer, but sea.'.1 nuclear plants are distinctly uneconom1cal to build today. | |||
Oj | |||
~ c | |||
'/ ' I I ~ ~ ~,- | |||
/ ';leils Alliance to AST:H.g J'an 1979 | |||
~ ~<<~:" .'<) T.'ddleman and Kudzu | |||
:iaae these concerns -can be raised somewhere, if not before t: he NRC. '-'any Kudzu members share my concerns about best use a~ resources an" ".:er nlant "size cit;ed on oaves 19 and lq, as we.'.1 as conservation, on w':.'.ch i'.udzu members gresented testtmoney last fall (1978) before t'ai~ i~~ r'uviic iiti3.ities Conn).ssion. 'I Onbehalf'f myself and the Kudzu Alliance I want to note that I have r~ad the entire text of t;he KRC staff filing for the uoconing hea. 'ngs, and have now completely read Exhibits 1 and 3 and skirruned Exhibit 2, which is all tne LZRs (Licensee Event Reports, i.e. thinEs that wert wrong) and plan to finish reading all of Exhibit 2 this week. | |||
0 (Tne fact that Fxhibit 2, the t;roubles at CP h L nuclear plants, is so th'ck, is of int;crest to me. I would like to investigate in some denth what is "accentable" and "unacceptable" performance by a nuclear licensee.) At any rat'e, I~ve read, all this stuff, by myself, which I | |||
CP 8c L had t;o ask an extension of time to respond to. Kudzu h,115.ance has seve.al other members (indeed, a whole research comittee and others) who can also read testimony and reports. capably, raising questions and draw.'ng inferences and making comparisonsMe think this shows we do have something t;o offer in developing a saund record, because we understand CCNC's lawyers could not, or did not have time to read all the information filed by the staff of the HRC. (At'awyers'ates, we aouidn't blame CCNC for not; wanting all that stuff read ->> 7 spent about 12 hours on it so fax'.,) Me think 'it; is important for some intervenor t;o check and question everything that is asse. t:ed . if that is hm~n~ possible, so that questions- can bo raised in the record as the tooics come up, and not lat:er. XS is. clearly easier for 3 intervencrs to covm this demanding )'eb than it is. far one to. | |||
'de also t;hink our reading and research./ (Kudzu research people each concentrate an a different area) can be useful resources in our ly.. | |||
0 intez vention which we'll help .develop 'L- more sound; x'ecord. | |||
Concerning the issue of whether other intervenor s can represent our .'.nterests adequately, David Yiartin, president of CCNC, does not believe CCNC has adeauately represented. oux interests, he tell@ me. | |||
I Xf thev have not in the past, can we 'expect they Mill do so in the, future? Me knox of no planned changes 4n CCHC's efforts, though continue to support them. do. a3.so >tish to make further efforts | |||
~ 'I of our own~ | |||
. '.4e understand CCNC is prepar1ng to appeal on the need for power issue now that the NC Utilities Coren~ssion has published lower dermnd forecasts, (still far above actual increases 1973-78).. Me wish them luck, and if granted intervenor status may. wish to )oin in that appeal as intervenors; we would certainly irish to. represent ourselves or have ourselves independently z epz esehnted at any futme 1mar9.ngs on | |||
-need for power. Me believe CP h T ~s sending in dRata. showing lower demand a.ter the construction >errant was.issued,. plus the capx'1cious I | |||
denial of the CCHC's first anpeal (since neM evidence favors intervenors, | |||
~ It they hsve no xight to cross-examine ib,. yo.they cannot have more hear".ngs, I '~elieve is how the ruling- went, -.- Catch 2)), already shows a dangerous disregard for pertinent"X'acts an the NRC's part-- | |||
dangerous to our poc)cetboolcs and our:potent'ial safety and health and life etc. At any ate we view: the HC- Mili'ties Commission re@art as a stew closer to realisrz in,their pa@or';Pemand pro)ections, and their recLuiriny, CP h L to snow cause wzzy construGtioQ:of the Harris units should not be delayed is very reasonab3.e, CP h,7 has now, according to news z snorts, indefinitely deferzed ite two.proposed South &ver nucle.~r units. Considering the overcapacity CF 4 X now has (and the. | |||
difference between the generating capacity in Meir annual report 1~77 | |||
0 | |||
~ [r[> . | |||
[ P* | |||
~ | |||
Ir KQQ~g All gyrE Avg- ~ - EDIKKGN'%4%40t 4 ~.'+i%:',",'w@8~: '"-'. P P P | |||
[ | |||
and the Utilities Commission repoz C Xs, curiouss 2 sets of books'F), | |||
we assume that it's further x'easonable to ask why Harz is 3 and g should not be Tnclefinitely deferz.ed at this time, Me would seek to evaluate the accuracy and honesty of'ower pro)ections as p art of the questions of financially resnonslble management, and as part of'he . q uestfon of f'P | |||
~ | |||
aossible conCinued suppression of'nforzmtion. Xf f demand p ro]ections i [< | |||
continue to drop toward rea"liCy, the."need"foz>>.e:, all Che Hazris units will | |||
[ ~ | |||
soon be Xn grave 'doubt, Concerning the NRC staff f91inaa',''there az'e issues in there of i [" | |||
managements | |||
~ e xepeated failure Co cox rect ox improve problem situations f | |||
in eoutpment, %/QC, emexgency response plans, radiation safety and mn<< | |||
[ | |||
I[ | |||
y | |||
~ | |||
ito"in~ etc. etc. which we would leyte to raise at a hearing. The large i; r'. | |||
number of'ERs and xtr~M:~x inf'reactions/def'iciencies etc. do not show i a downtrend of'ignificance by our 'statistics. Ãe think at somo point;s i p ~ | |||
the dat;a is Msread or perhaps misrepresented, by Che staff. staf 'vie further h r not;e that CP h. X, personnel policy.is- in question due Co Cantrell's and h., | |||
i j staff filings e | |||
other testimony. There 'axe other L'ssues xaised.by Che I | |||
\, | |||
if we | |||
'I | |||
~ | |||
)~ | |||
which we may wish to comnent on later,. or raise Nhen and musC prepare a list of contentions. [ | |||
' have now discussed twice Mith NHC staff Che possibilities intervention, Kudzu Alliance.,and Hells Fddleman continue to o''ie'[ted I'[ | |||
[p' | |||
/ doubt that limited appeazances afford us anything moze than a chance | |||
[ | |||
to make a speech. Me'annot, foz'xample, call as witnesses persona | |||
[ [P | |||
~ | |||
(( P | |||
[4 ~ who 2iave resigned fzom CP'c L and others>>ho cont,'nue to work there; P | |||
ic we cannot czoss-oxamjM<ne testimony. filed by t'e staff and CP iver. L's | |||
[ | |||
Me desize to. do Chess things if nossible, and feel that 1 | |||
[P resnonses. | |||
' ~ | |||
thev wnuld assist in establishing n moz e sound rocord. | |||
[ Ne also undezstand C}>at the expertise and direct kno>>ledge oi z ca)<ep~ >e~o | |||
[ | |||
~ the APT.R are taken !nto account in evaluating | |||
V KuV.U ArZZ~NCE ~m ~ELZa'.mZk28h,:;%4WE5.;Jj:.;;lanai:-'~%., page,23:, | |||
r that teat'.mony, and since fox) of us '~e'xot'ic experts or directly saw what is wrong wit;h nuclear power.,'we thirQc our time and the ASLB's would bett;er be devoted to those expert and dixectly knowledgeable witnesses Mich we could call were ne.intervenoro. >le do not propose to experd this sort'f strolleffort: Just R v>al:e limitod, and probably P | |||
uncorsid~red, statements outside the l testimony of the ui>coring hearings | |||
'I ox anv others. Me feel only interventt.on.o.: fers us any. rea1 chance to make any useful contribution, and we are not into be'ng useless. | |||
'de understand I'rom HRC staff that the competence of contractors has@ not been raised in a previous pro'ceeding. Ne think Daniel International and Research-Cottrellts records (e.g. Callaway AO @lant | |||
'~lilliam Smart case for-Daniel, and W.Va. t'ower co3:3.apse fox Pe,.earch-Cottrehl) warrantxx inquiry at snme point, preferably before they build too much if they have likelihood of building thinEs iraproperly. | |||
Otherwise extensive, expensive repairs or s'crapping costly construction might be necessitated latex. k~e note Mith interest that lf!?C st'aff did not mention Callaway among Daniel~s prospects severe they discussed Daniel. >whether this was omission, accident ox suppression, we do not know, '.4e would 1ike to find out. Ve believe this is a serious issue fo~ ~z t;he lives and safety of const'ct;ion workers as well as t;he health 'erd safetv and f$ nanc.'sl interest of the public in a safely built plant, and the enormous financial'nterest of CF', L and t.ts shareholde. s in a safely, built, operable plant without defects that could force e long shutdown for repairs, or reader the plant: inonereble. | |||
Wor ovp2i review now is the best way to resolve these questions of contractor 'reliability and CP 5 L~s management capability in hiring su'cn contractors.';le (Kudzu Alliance and tiells Fddleman) believe that furthex new evidence comes tn light that affects these and other issues, and reserve | |||
e | |||
.'CD!U ALTIAUCF.'A2lD MEi r RDUEyy4lF 'PO ASLB ly Zss 19 psgs 24. | |||
r | |||
: --P':l'I | |||
~ r | |||
,r ' | |||
\ | |||
Gal'e managem nt: i'biXiide5 'jiov's exx'or unknown, conti ng nc i insofar | |||
" as th<s is 'noss2M&,:@nrem V | |||
reisoaaMe", Me t&,hk. it shou3.d be requt.red. | |||
r;;; | |||
Mgn'ed on bebiM".-'af,mp'seK+.;ad@ the Kudzu'Alliance, to Mhi h ,, | |||
-n '<!'~~. | |||
.rl Hells. Eddleman Sr ~~ // /'8 LXS2'P PAXSFD PBEVXOUSLY'. ., Pg~~/grfg~r ~au r/g g ZRSQES - | |||
~- | |||
. Need f'r xroweri '((new: evevidence"3.2 | |||
:. w: onc ". 2'8-78, me~~ | |||
r men'cioned herein, NC PUG,)l,': | |||
2 Xmpr oper d e sign; verif'icatiori;,. construction h main .~tenance enance | |||
: 3. Setting trip setaoints outsi'de a~proved operati g g ~ "~ | |||
.Q. Failure to perform safet;y analyses and planning for ma'.nter.ance | |||
$ Xnadequate verification of pipe cracks, exceptions to requiremen s ox ''~., | |||
6 Employrrrent of'-aqua'lified.san8;=underqua raualified personnel Pinancial x is~a to CP h L sharreholders; t;o consumers a .~ an ra increases,'r>isrepresentation of.'o sex needs for financial reasons | |||
: 8. PAb s,"r sbos Abilibg. (or I' of, Ab) by. actoraRPxt Daniel Xntl A',;r and Pesearch -Cottr ell. | |||
o o exation of plaht~.payback'eriod 5 cost;<<bene it; new that may,reduce opex ating li."e timee 5 x eequire expense.ve A repairs'actors 7 shut'do>Rls I | |||
: 10. E ironmental pr otectinn, incrluding safe di'sp osal of nuclear wastes ~!.'. ~ | |||
: 11. Limitation of topics to be discussed requires us tn guess what w. | |||
go wx~nE; fncomp.e t e h dishonest presenta'ions to h~C h its boards, | |||
: 12. Hork history and -financial hoXdings of witnesses, sstaff af e. etc financial and curxicu1um vita (resume) disclasure request;ed | |||
: 13. Pos siMe addi. tional topics 1~. Heed to preserveP oux right to*'x'aise additiona 1$ . l'P?C staff not re ~onding to'xequest {3) of 16 October 1978 for rules R .procedure informa ation for intervenors les Good cause fox' " ate" fili ng -- Kudzu did area (elaborated above: neither knew o f d eaadline didn 't ex ~ s t'dlemarr wasnrt in ne; nno intent to circum ":. - | |||
ven t ruuleses or deadline in forrnat$ nr n+ .'<udzu; etc. ) | |||
: 17. Ask5.ng fo. mo~e requt~ed nntice of hearings 8e n ew non or t ur ..'. t r es for intervention with wide publicity. | |||
: 18. Xnaccessibility of federal register. | |||
: 19. Service of cories -- we cannot afford 20 ' Xnf on Ku d z, u and a Fddleman, author ization to represen", n", Kudzu, eetc. c. | |||
: 21. Lack oi 'nformation about requirements for our aaetit$ orr /ask "eave to 2P. Kudzu membe Jnl Jn m 8 p ei g hts tried to 'nt;ervone 'n 1971 | |||
: 23. Sound management and ASL3 ruling r elevan too Fddleman em C; Kudzu 'r.t;crests, life, saf ety, financial, property etc. | |||
24.. Nuclear waste disposal costs 2~. Excessive radiation orrd.."sions allowed by 1974 KXS 8c by fox'uclear workers ma~ shut down .-.u.saba | |||
~ | |||
25.. | |||
: 25. New exposure ure standards s an lear industry 1 | |||
0, | |||
~ '" RK)ZU,,ALElAH('e,'.an@.:,,liB EhDLZRdiW;;,.'I'Qi'A'SL3 Q Zan: 79 page.2$ | |||
iSSueS rSi Seed nreViouS'ly'-"..';Centiilred " '-"..".:;. -..-..' ";.---'"..:....*'; | |||
~ ~ ~ | |||
: 27. CCNC unable to represeaC. our::interests; Kudzu formed to do more. | |||
than burden. of proof'= is'on ~'"~eCafX'..or. CP 8;. L to sno>> our "nterests ">>i11 CCNC>>as.,'doS.ng.',-~, | |||
"~ | |||
28. | |||
be protected'~ not niay be protected, by others. | |||
: 29. NRC staff and. CP h T Is commitment Kudzu is 'suspect if | |||
- they.. >>ould have toanyacknow>>ledge to protect middleman and/or. | |||
errors, less likely to do that thk'e are to point then1 out, | |||
: 30. He desire to repre'sent ours'elves- to protect our interests d'rectly. | |||
: 31. There are other z.easons to.represent ourselves (more, late. ). | |||
: 32. Record developed >>ithout .our participation >>as unsound. | |||
: 33. Possible continued. sunpraj3sP:on of evidence. | |||
3LI.. 3 fnterver~o~s can backstop each othe'- catch thinLs one ...ight not | |||
'.-'' 3$ . 3 <ntervenors can share. thb. liork, concentrate on o>>n expertise areas. | |||
~ | |||
: 36. TechIlical kno>>legis.needed to.. detect technical errors. Eddleman 8: | |||
Kudzu have such hno>Q."edge;": '.'' | |||
$ 7. Kno>>ledge of mai>element in practical business experience h theoretical; course work and'LUplied GDurse work, of Kudzu 01ombel'8 (incl ~ddletflan, ~ | |||
on last 2 nointx) .. = | |||
: 38. Xnvestigative e'er ieace.-'belpf u3.i in'evelopin' sound record. Eddleman has so1$ 0 ~ | |||
, 3Q ~ Continuing 'P86~ch bp'QQEu 'L Required OIIXy- 0'ox.%bassist" 'fe. developing a sound record, not do t alone., | |||
M@%890an'0. | |||
S | |||
$ 1. PosaiMlity oth@w inbervcnors Ixkl2., collop e of be taken over, leaving-', | |||
s" - | |||
no .one .'Co repi-esenb us/ Case'f Vznke Environment l~2e CCNC's attorney. c'arnot give us the help s:e nee6 . | |||
g3. Ve have a right te represent ourse1vvs. | |||
Qlg a 88 Mill'olio>f all*'rules ''le kno'M and aY G told Iie have.no des'~re, to delaj- proceedings; >>ant t'hem seceded up if | |||
~ | |||
~ | |||
45. | |||
possible l~6. Contradiction between."not broadening issues" and."devel.opir~ a sound record", our desire is to develop, the issues. | |||
-" $7 ~ Xf >>o raise near issues that have not been raised before, that is an argument FOB ou1 admiss'IOQ Gns intel venors, not against. | |||
lIB.. Do not knoll iS:. >>0 have de).ifed proeeodings at all; doubt we could ad@.:. | |||
much to current de.ape. '.: | |||
h9. Do not >>f.sh to 3;nsult anyono ow raise things improperly, )ust to preserve odr .1~9ght to:,raise- additional issues as new info becomes avaS.labl e | |||
: 50. There map be hh9:ops. >>e haye raised'hat X* have missed in this suomarv, thous"h Y. tr~oP.'o: get thorn all into this the r'ight to reX'er. to, previous petitions. and amendments. | |||
list. Me reserve | |||
: 51. Purther suppression of ~nf'qz, by HRC current chair~erson, re dynamic sunpression systems.. | |||
$ 2. Hard to state concerns Mi'thout ma'iing a list of thiht's that cnuld bo termed contentions.'12.1 make this Work history 0 financial holdings beyond NRC's autnority? (Contradicted: | |||
list >>hen/if legally allo>>od to.,'3. | |||
by staff filing '- "nspectoz s h their families etc may not own nuclear or no>>er company stock, bonds etc.) Holdings relevant to test'.mony, so its'chere shalary comes from or has coyIe f'rom. | |||
Q,. Ask leave to furthe1 amend our petition to comply fully with legal requirements | |||
: 55. Ask that petition be- gudgod- on the facts, not on our 3.egal 'eptness, *= | |||
$ 6; Do not >>ish to inconvenience board (ASLB) but >>e have to ":. | |||
for anyone>>orLLng on this, unlike NRC (paid by taxpuyers)nayandouICPselves h L Me 4>ink':by nabepayeef. | |||
I I | |||
a i .i 's ( | |||
~g '-~ g~ +~>. ~e~yq~+~l+(pg gAjQ~"e+ ~~i,, 'eV~~/Rg~~iV ~34 Q@) bep w | |||
~ll'i Q~~~'. Q j ppj' ' J~QQViFLPTZ' | |||
e | |||
'J | |||
'H | |||
UNITED STATES. OF A~KRICA REGLLATORY CO.'C'!ISSXON'UCLEAR Xn the Hatter of ) | |||
) | |||
CAROLIKK PO'3ER AND LIGHT COHPAHY ) Docket No. (s) ''50-400 | |||
) 50-~01 (Snearon Harris Nucle" r Power ) 50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and ~i) -) 50-403 | |||
) | |||
) | |||
) | |||
CERTIFICATE OF SE16'ICE | |||
, X hereby certify that X have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon each person designated on the official service'list compiled oy the Office of the<<Secretary of the Commission in this'roceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear-Regulatory Commission's 'Rules and | |||
~ Regulations. | |||
Dated at Li~ashington, D.C. this | |||
@ay oS 197 / | |||
Of f icd f the Secretary o'f the Commission | |||
UNITED STATES OF AHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMKSSION | |||
.In the Hatter of ) | |||
) | |||
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No.(s) 50-400 | |||
) 50-401 (Shearon-Harris Nuclear Paver ) 50-402 Plants, Units 1-4) ,) 50-403 | |||
) | |||
SERVTCE 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 Hr. Glenn O. Bright George F. Trowbridge, Esq. | |||
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq. | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 20555 1800 "H" Street, N.M. | |||
D.C. 20006 'ashington, Dr. J.V. Leeds, Jr. | |||
Rice University Thomas S. Erwin, Esq. | |||
P.O. Box 1892 P.O. Boz 928 Houston, Texas 77001 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director Dennis P. Hyers, Fsq. | |||
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney General's Office Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Alan S. Rosanthal," Fsq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 'Hr. 0. 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 Hr. -klells -" dle~n Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Route 1, Boz 1.">3 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Durham, North Carolina 27705 Washington, D.C. 20555 KUdzu Alliance Hichael C. Farrar, Fsq. | |||
Boz 3036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal :Chapel Hill, :cnorth Carolina 27514 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C; 20555 | |||
0 | |||
'4}} |
Latest revision as of 06:59, 17 March 2020
ML18230A519 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Harris ![]() |
Issue date: | 01/04/1979 |
From: | Eddleman W - No Known Affiliation |
To: | Cho J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
References | |
Download: ML18230A519 (53) | |
Text
Q SHlC
~
~
To the Further ATOMIC amendments and LICENSES BOAND ~,
clarification of
~
" ~ ~~~/ 7'l'
"'8P+
PETITIONS TO XNTERVFNE "bv the KCDZU ALLIANCE, a voluntary nonprofit organirat1on with numerous 1
menbe"s es!ding within 2{) miles of the prooosed Shearon Harris Nuclear- j I
Power >lant site, and'KLS PDDLFHAN,. a oitixen residing with1n 9+~p m!les of the sita and owning 92 shares of Carolina Power Ec Light co~on v',""" stock: Ne x wish to outline our nrevious arguments for our admission es '.ntervenors 1n clearer fashion, cl'arify sons ooints, and make add.'tie nal arguments.
- le fur thor resncctfully roquest that 1f the ASLB has.time, nr arv other ASLB aanel may lawfully be appointed to hear nur petitions, that we together or sonaratoly be granted a hearing on our netitione to !n:ervene, at any convenient date as set by tho nanel that will hear our netitions. Because many Kudzu Alliance (hereinafter,"Kudsu")
r members are cmsloyed or in scnool full time> it would bo most convorient if sucn a hearing (if granted) were hold in Durham, Falelgh, Chanel Hill, oesea~cn Triangle 'Park or some other location near the nlant site, nrefemblv at night or on a weekend, on the Kudzu netit! on to intervene.
Nells "Rdleman has no nreference as tc. a local or Msshington DC hoar!ng s'.te "n~ himself. Kudsu is w~ll~ng to send ~en~esentacives to a l:ear!ng in ':1ssh'nc ton DC also. This ~equ~st ts not meant tn delay the hoarinss maddst~d by the N>C concerning CP b: L's safe management caoabil! ty, (an! psst suooress~on of evidence ~elevent thereto), but simnlv to fscil! tate nur mal:ing our asm nnints and to allow t!.e wembershin of Kudsu to bc heard directly as to their interests, exnertise, and willingness to assist !n doveloning a pound record, among other tc.ings.
( ~y ~J Q+(4 C lC~
frj g. ((5 ipgn ~F97
~ l
\
s ~ s tr1ai s ~ ' eI ws 'je4'vli ~ ~ 1 KUD'X <<LLX<<gDE AND MRS'" EDDLFtikN TG: fNIN g JAN%
,"s page 2 de also request an extension of'ime to address the <<aauea of section 2.714.. (d} of 10 CQFR 2 because we have been unable as yet to locate a copy of the Atomic Energy Act. '>le pronose to forward our co.ments concezning our rights undez'hat Act to the ASLB as soon aa nossihle, and in no case later than 31 January 1979. He will do ou" best to meet any earl<<er deadline specified to us. There ere ma may also he additional information on Kudzu A111ance and Hells Eddleman~s property, financial and oMer interest (2.7lg {d) (2)) in the proceeding both w'th respect to C P R L~s management and financial capability, ordez'or lack of action) and concerning the poas1ble bv the ASLB affectming wish tn f<<le as amendments effect of ouz'or an to our of petit any us~.} interests, that we may on along with comments re
~ the Atn~ic Fnergy Act. 'rJe ask similar leave to file such comments Chen.
Concerning our "property, financial or other" interest in the
'proceeding (both CP 8c L~s management capability hearing and the general case ol'he Harris plant, dockets $'0-$ 00 Chz'ough $ 03), we first note w'th interest that these recently revised regulationa (Q3 Pederal Register page 17798, dated September 1, 1978) expihicitly 11st property and financial 'ntereats, but apparently consi'der health, life, safety, concern fol. the genetic health of'enerations yet unboz n, and many other Issues as simply "other". This does not speak well of'he rulemakers'oncern for people,. but does affirm their concerns for money and property.
Ve may 1ater petition the HRC for proposed revision of the rules it has made on this count.
lvella Eddleman as an indiv1dual and other members of the Kudzu A111ance are now possessed of life, health, zeeaaonable safety iron nuclea~
contamination since most operating nucleaz planta are ovez 150 miles frowy us and Che Barnwell reproceasing plant <<s not yet operating, civil liber ties as yet uncomnromiaed by the Secretary of'nergy's dzaconian powers to emnloy the military to guard nuclear izzstallations and obtain intell lgence 1 .e on anyone uho sosnRdxn coula nose a sthpeats to such nucleon
0
/ sage 3 Kudzu Alliance %d Mell's Edd1eman.to,ASLB~';. January, 1979 plants (as the DOF. Secretary's authority has been renorted in an artt.cle l read), and many other "assets" which are not: financial nr neoperty (unless a person is said to own h1s or her body and its
.health, et;c.). rfe cannot assess our genetic makeup, but we hear respected scient;ists such as Linus Pauling say< ng that most radiation-caused genetic damage is recessive, that is, it will not show up f'r
~
generations after the damage has been done. Since radioactive em1ssions from nuclear. oower plant's can get inside our reproductive organo to damage our genes from very close range for 'a long time (many years in the case of many isotopes), we feel future generations, and we as t:heir narento, have ou< te an 5n~e~est in genetic safety also. 'Ve are aware that mony other things, such ao industrial chemicals and excessive heat, can damage genes. He note that some of these industrial chemicals are resolutely defended by their producers as harmless far years after it hao been scientifically demonstrated that; great dan@ger ex1ot;s.
A stmilar bias appears to exists 1n the argunts of the nuclear industry and the vower companies about nuclear emiosions from power plants and the fission products contained in operating nlants and nuclear waste.
They keep saying it's safe, or that; it haon't been proved unsafe.
Me think this is due to their "property and financ1al" (and other'2}
in. crest;s more than any dedication to scientific truth they may have.
Even if nuclear radiation isn't safe, the nuclear and power industry is quick tc argue that other risks are greater. Mell, is it a good reason to oteo in front of a speeding car, because t;he risk would be greater ' vou stan~ed <n Wont of a speeding train~ Kudzu Alliance and Ye~is Fdlleman do not believe that; damage .to people's health, lives, and their children's health and lives are excused because gr eater damage is'betng done by someone else. 'vthat" if a murderer pleaded in self<<defense that"others have killed 30 or QO people, and I only killed one." Does that excuse murders Me find the concept of a "statistical death" very
It gcdrca Alliance and 'nl%s Eddlaaan <<c. dgLB, g Jan page g disturbing. It seems that: "subtract:ing 70 years fram the total nnnulation's life span" is acceptable, but killing outright is not.
Ne wonder how much difference that fine dist;inction makes to a victim or radioactivity-induced cancer? There is an argument we have heard,
'hat the $ 5 mph speed limit; is no good, because it takes more t1me fcr the whole population to drive at 55 wherever it goes, than the remaining lives of the accident victi.ms who would be killed at a 6p limit (versus 55) total. Yet they would be dead, while the others are merely "on the road". Given a choice, I would certainly choase a road delay ave~ death. I know no ane who would choose differently. Yet we are told "statistical deaths" are acceptable as a price for "naeded" electric nower. The power companies are fond of the false picture nf "freezing <<.n the dark" if nuclear construction is stn~ped. (In fact,
~ore pen"..le freeze ' the dark due to having installed electric heat ro and t:i:en getting into an ice storm; and people have literally frozen tc ~eath because their power was cut aff when they could not imnediately pav very high electric bills in winter.) Yet who, given the choice af death nr better insulation on one's house or water heater, would not choose tne <<.nsulation? Gofman has shown ("Groos Energy Available from Light 'dater Reactors" CNH Box 11207, San Francisco CA 94101) that if tiie power companies'rofections of energy growth are correct, the maxi~urn share of total Us energy available from LNR nuclear power in tile year 2000 is about gg, tAe same percentage now used for heating water 'n people's homes. Better insulation on home and industrial water heate. s could doubtless eliminate wast of this "need" since cur ~ent ~nor ly insulated water heat:ers waste most of the energy su~plied tn the .. And of course manv other 'sulation and conservation opt<<ons a"e ava'1bble t;o the public. They also lead to lower power bills.
submit that construction of nuclear power plants imposes an unnecessary risk to our lives, health, safety and our children's lives.
0 KUTPtiX <LLIANCE AND MPt,Ls EDDLHfAN '20 ASLB 4;;Zen 1979 page 5 The~e can be no more vital considerations thah these for living nersons, at least not Co us in our opinions.
Ae be" ieve the relation of our health, life, safety and genetic C
inta eats to CP k L's safe management canability and Co the Harris olant construction is obvious: >1e are residents near Che plant.
Acro. ding to the 1974 FIS, winds blow in all directions from the plant, at an average speed of over 7 miles per hour (over ll km oer hour).
About 1/9 of the time, conditions are calzm, says the EIS. tfany of those calm davs are days of temperature inversicins, when plant emissions, routine or accidental, would shay closer to the ground than normally.
Thus, 'f the nlant is built, we residing near the plant would be ~
among the f'irst potential victims of radioactive mater1al released from it routinely and accidentally; we would also be among Che first pbtential victims of a nuclear dimsaster (4 plants makes it 4. times as 11kely for us, C~o.'he figures are usually given 1n accidents per ~actor ver year).
An inadequate emergency response plan (NRC~s staff filing for the C~ hL safe management hearing states that EB Robinson's plan is still inadequate) for Harris could also victimire many of us. In sum, )ust by be'ng near the plant, we get its radioactive and other effects whetner we like Chem or not, 1f the plant 1s built; moreover, only CP h L's "safe management capab1lity" and the NRC's regulatory power stand between us and many problems. Me note that excessive radiation releases averaged 2 per reactor per year (or close to it) through 197$ ..
Also ? near-misses in Eaves'eactors (Brown's Ferry and the Hanfozd N-reactor',
cculd have been meltdowns except for luck and o~erator skill at Brown's ferry (not design or Che NRC or the TVA); and the second shutdown system on the iV-reactor (samarium balls) that overrated when all the ECCS was KO'd by a shmole short; circuit, so we understand. (Me omit the Fermi b-oeder partial meltdown and FRR melt accident here.) Mhat we are reallv not'rg is that "accidents CAN hanpen" and they do. These
kudzu Alliance and rEe Eddleman to ASLB, 4 Jan l 9 page 6 acc>> dents threaten our lives, health and safety. The roles of the AFC, F~DA, DOF. etc in suppressing information about accident and radiation dary. ~s make us wonder how honest the NRC and CP R L have been about tt:~se ~a" te~s. If they make mistakes, the damage is done to us f'ir st.
The Romans had a different idea about their engineering pro)ects.
Nio,n t2.e saaffolding was taken down from a Roman Arch, we are told tne Roman engineer who designed it had to stand underneath, If the arch fell, he would be the first victim, Roman arches are known for their durability, Kudzu Alliance and Wells Eddleman have no wish to bar~ or see any engineer harmed. But we Chink it would be reasonable to require HRC staff, CP RL executives, and nuclear nlant designers to live at the plant s>> te boundaries of nuclear power plants. Many affirm their willingness to do so, but we know of none w2>o actually do.
('4e do not suggest C2iis as a rule. He s'.mnlv point out that we are among the f'erst nostential victims of errors made by others who may be much farther out of harm's way.)
So we t2:ink our health and safety etc. interest in Che Harris Plant and CF R L >>s safe management capability is very clear. Me also have financial, property and other interests affected. Por one th>> ng, if nformation about nuclear dangers is
>> st'l being suooressed, and we find (legally) and disseminate suc2i information, we may still be in danger from nrooomnents of nuclear po~er, both 'n our civil rights, which may be violated by surve" llance etc., and for harm Co our health and possibly even 3c~ Mvos. He have no evidence as of now that such danger exists to us, but it could develop at any time our legal activities we e seen as sufficient threat to the enormous financial and property interest of the nuclear and sower industry. Me do not seek or invito any'uch attacks; our aolicy is nonviolence and we reasonably expect nonviolence f n retur n; even if we are attacked, most of's expec t to adhere to nonviolence (though I cannot cnmpromise the legal right of self-defense).
0 F
~ - ~ ~
~
Kudzu Alliance and Yells Fddleman to ASLB, g January 1979 page 7
/
'Ae no..e that su~ve<11ance of nuclear oanonents has occurred legally and 'lie@ally in Georgia, California, South Carolina, and other places, Nuclear nnnonnents have been threatened with violenco, e.g. by the Ku Klux Klan in New Hampshire. Xt could be argued that we could remove such ~ossible danger by simoly acauiescing in nuclear sower; but only at tne cost of free exorcise of our. rights of free speech, association, I
a free nress, petitioning for redress of grievances, privacy, free movement w! thin the USA, etc. Me do not believe anyone should be reauired to sacrifice her or his rights due to threats or aossible threats.
Aga'n, we emphasize t;hat we have no evidence of such threats to present at t!.ls time, and are not accusing anyone of anything in North Carolina.
- de certainly hope that no one will waste oub15.c or corporate funds on
'llegal surveillance, or make any illegal mzM~ threats .to anyone.
'rate carta.'nly have no intention of violating others'ghts or of any violent act! on or threat of violence whatsoever.
One last; note on civil liberties etc.: Ne are not certain, that ktliing someone by radioactive means is not a violatt.an of the C1vil Rights Act. That a license was issued for such killing may or may not be a defense. Me do know that radioactivity is very dif'ficult'o det;ect, wi ti rut sonhisticated instruments, and- that it can k111 and leave no evidence of its role that can as yet bo detected, Ne do believe there is a civil right to life, which may be violated by unsafe management of nuclear power planes.
niitn respect to our financial, property and other interests:
Many Kudzu members are ratepayers of CP 8c L and thus have a direct financial interest in tho costs of the plant, eSPEcially under Construction Mark Xn ~roq;..ress (CMTP} whic2.'s now legal in NC. Ne have heard from a sou. c~ 'n CP h L's financial denartment weri does not w:hh to be named that the cost estimate for the nlant is $ 6 to $ 8 billion now, versus
ws~ as+~.e s ~ ~, ~ ~
'UD:3.'X ALLIANCE AND. EDM EQH TO. ASLB,. Q .Za page 6 g.~ b'llion estimated in 1976. Me therefore are intexested in having the cost-benefit analysis reopened, and updated annually or more often, to ascerta' if the costs can still reasonablv be expected to be less than the beneff t:s at +~esca t value, given the numexous problems PHPs are developing wt.th denting, gripe cracks, steam generator corrosion, rad toactKvtty 'n pipes, and possible lower radiation exposure standards for nuclear workexs, as well as other problems. Ne submit tha't our f'.nancial interests as ratepayers will be ill served if a slant is built that carnot repav to us, the consumers, more in value than we have gut into it:, and. suggest a cost-benefit analysis to consumers also be perfo med, Ne not:e that CP hL is said, in the N~C staff filing
{wi i.c?;;>>'elis middleman has read, but not melioris.ed) to not do mox'e than
'.s recu'red to do. Thus we would be int;crested in seeing if t.P ~L is willing to perform such an ahalysis voluntax ily. 8'e also ask whether CP 8c L w!11 d'sclose its curxent; cost estimates for the Harris plant, and how ve can be reasonably sure these estimat:es are accurate and not biased due tn C~ h L's financfa1 interests.
Rate saver s we'll also be 'll served if a -'g.2 b'llion (or 6 or 8 or wha".e rex billion) powernlant is built, out into their rate base, and then not fully used. Since nuclear power has very highcapital costs, the nlant must run baseload (all the t;ime it can operate) t;o keen 'ts elect.! citv costs competitive (see GAO PHD 70-76 on nuclear, coal and alte~nat'.ve source costs in the Pacific No: thwest;, 1978-1995). Needed
- o. not, the plant would be in the rate base and customers would have to n~y C~ 6: L full profit;s on tt. Moreover, if the plant failed to ho1d its assumed capacity factor over its full lifetime, the cost ot 's e1ect;r'city could be much higher than paredicted. 'rie ask that, Kf a sens'tivity analysis to capacity factox and plant lifet;ime has not already been prepared as Dart of the cost-benefit; analyeis (none
! s reference in the 197( F1S to our knowledge) that the NRC staff consider preparing>> such an anhlysis, and C>> hL consider do1ng likewise and
I nf.l TAt'CE aND ~~. S ."..ODLTXAN TO ASLB Q Jan page 9 pub'.! st> tbeir results.
- ,
- ;c th r obvious interest of Hells Eddleman and other Kudzu
~~woe"s is ownership of shares of CP h L common stock. The value o" '.?;ese shares depends on sound amnagement, especially when a cozmpany wn "tt: less than 4<b<11<on (and in debt)axaz arnnosed to scend more tha".'. >4 b'llion on a single fac'.lity. The risks are high if the facility
- s not virtually assured of complete success. For exam@le, the NC public utilities commission has a rule mandating that if nuclear slant CF falls below 65/, costs of replacement power fuel should not be charged to consumers if management caused the capacity to be. be'.ow be%. A plant that wasn't needed would have a real risk of such nroblems, It m'ght even be excluded from the rate base.
Then stockholders would have tn pay for a plant that earned them noth'ng.
A plant badly operated mIght; generate billions in claims for deaths, in)ur1es and property danage; it might also depress property values near it, and these damages mme could also be the sub)ect of lawsu" ts N:
against CP 8c L. North Caroliana law may not limit damages as the Pri,ce-Ande. son Act does; or the additional damages might have to be pa' bv tax@ayers -- that t s, . by stockholders, Kudzu members and
'rlells Fddleman among others. There is also the risk the riant may ?iave to be abandoned before completion due to new necessary ~egulations on en~loyee health, public health, safety,'r financing. (Look am t Seabrnnk to soe that repeal of CHIP can also make it hard to fin'sh a costly nuclear n3.ant.) Then the cost of construction completed would either be borne by stockholders (as a great loss/) or by ratepayer s, as a nossibl.y illegal charge for a @lant nowt providing them any oower, shoi:ld the Utilities Commission allow the plant to stay in the rate base.
Moreover, escalating uranium costs, uranium mining hazards, uncertain suoply of ofreign uranium, and CP 5 L's lack of assured uranium sur olies for the Harris slant (to our current knowledge as of'ay 1978), may also make the Harris plant economically dubious or dangerous.
I p (
~ ~LLI.".NCH AND EOmZe N my.her&.4. Sai:.X9, page I .. hv'D/t.'hese
~ iO.:'l uncertainties about fuel constitute a Zurthex danger of financial bu. dens to ratepayers and stockholders, ox'oth per~apsg M>> note that if we had only'o show that it is reasonably likely that th( se problems would'aterialize, we wnuld have a stronger case.
But i.t aooears that util< ties need only prove it is reasonably likely that problems will be solved by the time the plant ia operating, and they t et approval. Me feel this procedure exposes ratepayers and shareholders to unknown risks, since for example, the HB Robinson ll
.emergency response (evacuation) plan 1s still not ready as of November 1979 according to N~C staff, (over g years since such plans should have been made and approved).. Mho knows what promises (such aa findl ng a safe wag to diaaose of nuclear wastes,. holding costs down, etc) can actually be kept in, 198$ or 1985 for latex )
l if the Harris nuclear plents are built'he govornment and. nucleax'ndustry's record on such promises is*about as good's the typical politician&', which 1s-to say, good enough to get'the )ob, 'but not good. enough to keep most of the oroMses. Por exawly3.e, radiological monitoring is identified in Long 8c Dance ~a prefiled testimony aa:a weakness at HB Robinson, in 1978.
It ! a also identified 5n 1975 on pages 1 and 2 of'he NRC staff exhibit 1, for six separate probloms. Over 3 years,, a dlearly health h safety-related program remains weak, but thin. is evidentlv "acceptable" ?
Pardon us, we don~t know whether we ax o suvoosed to talk about this stuff in the staff filings unless we.;are admitted as 1ntervenors.
Ne do know both staff and:.CF h L have the. right to respond. to what I
we sav here. Our main point ia that there are no penalties and checks being used to make sure that +heI promisea that phoblema:
will be solved, axe kept, or at least it certainly doesn't look that
>>ay. Indeed, it looks like the NRC "solves" problems like the EPCZ trips at Brunsw1ck, by )ust eliminating the requirement that the I
p.
.'to>U Al.i.IAACP'ND'KLS'E)DLF)QH'O ASLB .8 Q'.Zan'..I 9.. p g ten work right, 'if CP) 4 T can ' get it Co wox k right S
C
~ '7s
- ~e note fur ther that. safe management does not Just'ean management that con~lies on time with. all NHC'- rules given tn them'. It implies a management that aims for safety. CP h L has won numerous safet;y awards for in)uries and accidents (i..e.. for not having so many as other utile.ties). Ve hope they can'win radiation safetv awards too, but we'0 like'to see Setter evidence than the working people 60 hou s a week for years nn end that Ploys.Caritrell alleges, and Chan blowing un their offgas system due Co. numerous h
errors., Xf CP Ec L. was as dedicated to inspection and safety. as 'they are to making. excuses for that explosion and their unlocked. Qoors at Brunswick, I fox one would be more at ease with their operations. lioWFver, as a classroom teacher, CF Fc L~s brilliance at @aking excuses seems to mme me to be more in.
line w~ th the type of pex son who goofs'off, confident that if something goes wrong or s/he gets caught in the. >no, a good excuse nillsolve th" ngs,'udzu Alliance membex s and Hells. Fddleman also own'roperty in the region around the Haxris plant site, both x'eal and personal land propertv, y including ~,businesses," equipment, homos, personal p x'o p ert etc. Land values have 1n places decreased near nuclear plants, especia>iy ~
where nuclear wastes are Cransnorted.'to and from the nlants. This could r east lv affect some Kudzu m~mbe~s'x'operty since they are vex'v close to the aslant, in one case on the boundary I believe. All our oronerty could be affected in an accident;; as::wou3.d the value of ow CP 8c L sto'ck.
'r/e believe this is another very real interest: we have in the safe F
manage~ant of the plant if 1t is built', and'n the entire issue of
~
f lp, whether and how it is built. V
'rlells Fddleman and Kudzu Alliance wish to be, cax'sful Ca say that we have other interests not ment:ioned'ero which the plant: may affect, but we don't wish to try to list: them.. all here or make t?.is letter too P we)
~, )
p~} ~ '.". Kudzu Alliance and Hells Eddleman to e
ASZB g Zan 1979 lonp.
As to how the ASLB's ruling could affect our interests, we believe tho.t s'.nce the plant directly affects so many of our inter ests, and since the board {says Charles Barth) has the authority to ma}ce any ruling wTthin its power consistent with Che facts in the hearing, and s're CP 8:, L~s safe management capability and financial capab'ity directly affect how ~muham@ (and if) the plant may be built ard operated, we thTn}c the effect is obvious. If the ASLB does nothing, and leaves things exactly as'hey are after this hearing, then our interests are impinged upon by t}e power chant exactly as they were e
befo. e. So that affects our interests by leaving the planth, effect on the~ 'n force. Zf the board were to cond1tion the construction permit nn certain actions by CP hL by'- certain C1me, e.g. training its pe. sonnel so that it was clear that plenty of qualified people wo>>ld oe available to operate t}ie Harris plant, or clean~ up certain I
problems at 3runswick and/or Robinson, or tightening up its internal ru3.es, etc. eCc., that affects our interest by aft.'ording Chem a promise of some additional protection soon-. .If the board were to rule CP 5 L can take an even freer hand in its ac'tions, and can omit some qua11ty assu"ance o9 safety proecdures now used and still have "adequate'anagement fnr the health L safety of the public, that aff ects our Tnter eats by nuttTng mo~e "esnonshbility Co nz~Mx protect our
~nte. ests on CP 5 L and less on the NRC.'~le are not suggestIng rulings to the board at this time, but )ust showing hoM a range of possible rulings, or no ruling, would have an effect on our interests. Our financial i nterest is very large because each person- served by CP 8cL will have to nay ~1400 to build the plant at Che 1976 est1mato, and perhaps more, and certa'.nly more to have the plant operate and pay CP h L a fair profit.
If t}>e plant; ', delayed or stooped noMat .3g complete, "he Loss on it vw, jP 1 ~
~ ~ f ~ V
~ << ~
page 13 Kudzu.-A13.'iance and:=.Hells.: MQXqiian. Co.'+S@B..:'4;;.J'an. 1979~". '-
f~ '. C would be "only" )126 million (3g or g;P"billion dollars). That is 2 ~e~ ocrson served'y CP' L. Xf, as seems likely based on CP h L figures, the plant would raise power rates 60$ or more if completed,
~
t-the present value of aower savings at auvmnasz residential rates (about 3000 Kwh per consumer per year, at about 3$ c/kwh) ~ould be much C
- g. cate~ than that @2, even assuming,.the. ratepayer s had Co: take all the loss. But if f construction continues, and the, plant is not needed f
when it comes on line, Che loss to cnnsumers will be"very large, as
~
have to.pay for- it
~
f J~.
'f
't could the loss to stockholders be, if':they No.~over, if for any reason the plants do- not serve their useful f
1'.fetime as assumed, costs cr"ld be. very high. Zt is important to make our best efforts and'ensitivity'-analyses to understand the t ~
consequences of such possibilitiesfand"probabilities Qow, .before.
construction has gono so .far that finn'ncial interests begin Co outweigh the public interest, consumers'osts,. health, safety etc.',.Me believe Che NRC's decisions on the North Anna'plant, built- on. a fault with the'id of lies by Virginia. Electric h Power Co (according, Co reports) and
\
with complicity in these lies by NRC staff, illustrates the, dangers.
';1ith +00 million invested, the weight of this raoney was considered greater than the dangers of connlethng the plant,, which is now operating (so we understand)>>ith the aid Gf many emdifications to Che pla'nt and mary variances to engineeri~.g and safety requirements.
'vie particularly feel our interests are compromised if we are not allowed to i.ntervene because Che issuet,Xa really suppression. of evidence.
lf evidence had not been su~. essed CM.s heariz@ upcoming." would never have been orde> ed. lf >>e cannot azR questions~ ea11 >>itnessee and cross-examine, we cannot be at all assured Chat much more evidence is not still being suooressed. Me have not.. proof now Chat izt ii,.but no assurance whatever that it is not. Only by direct and cross-em',nation can we probe the truthfulness and completeness of the record in this case.
~ W
r, ~
\
s'e'I4 Kudzu Alliance and Pell's Eddlyeja'.,to. ASX'8 III".-- nuary. X979",-
- p vt He note in passing 0hat, both CP 5 L and HRC staff. have apparently
'I filed responses Co our peti.Cion and amendments late under the HRC's own r ules. Hells Kddleman desires that, the Pull arguments of both be hea. d, and thus does not ob]ect to this; Kudzu Alliance has not taken a posit~on on C2d.s issue, and reserves the right to raise r
it "ater, particularly if and when a hearing is granted on Kudzu'a petition Co 'ter uene ..
ale also note that we cannot find. anMh4iig in Charles" Barth's first response (dated 6 November 1978 but received on 17 november, referring to a letter of "November 16, 1978" no doubt a typo) about tire H>C's rules or how Co become an intervenor. Indeed we received ng until Wells Fddleman ohoned Che office of Rep. Ike And. ews, 'oth'.
6 December 1978. Andrews'ff'ce obtained a cony of 10 CFR 2 and sent '.t to Eddleman. It a~rived about 18 December 1978.
v Charles Barth r
also sent a cony of 10 CFR 2, pursuant ta a phone conversation of 13 December 1978 I believe. T2iis arrived about 20 December.,
Ve did not rr intend to ask the ASLB~s assistance in this matter; we merely desired to note XX that we still had recei'ved not."iing from the HPC staff on its rules, and to r cnew our request Co them to supoly such lnfomation. It has been helpful.to us, and we are endeavoring to com~1y with every par C of it that we can under stand.
Another factual matter concerns the a~reness of Kudzu Alliance members nf'he last deadline for intervention iM the Harris prnsceedings.
At tire General meet'.ng of 3 January 1979 I asked the 31 members ~resent (28 he~re members before Chat date) if'ny knew or had read of the last date fc r ntervention. Hone had. Only 10 had ever heard of Che Federal
~
Re~'.ster, according to their statements and a sirow of hands, None read it on a regular basis, ',le submit that ordinary persons, includ'ng
1 F>>.
t I '4 ~
15 Kudzu Alliance and Hells: F~ge..to', AS';:g:Zan 79;--".."
'ost of the founding members of Che Kudzu Alliance, could not have l
intended to circumatvent any NRC rules,,begcause they do not know those rules and never did. de are advised..by a Kudzu member that it is presumed in Iaw that everybody reads';the Federal Register (or should)~
we s'.'denly point out Chat in.fact'p oven concerned citizens such as Kudzu Alliance members do not read it'and in many cases are not even aware that it- exists, or that NHC notices for hearings are i'n it.
'.4e do not know if any other publicity than tho Federal Pegister notice was given 23 June 1977 for aotential h.ntervenors. Ne do know that numerous Kudzu Alliance members now cannot recall ever hearing of such a notice; and many o4'hem weve very concerned with nuclear power '.n 1977 also. 'c1e believe that it is unfair to presume Chat people can catch every legal notice put past them, and would ask that both the earlier intervent:ion attempt by J'ohn Spoights, now a
~>>
Kudzu member, any other intervention attempts from 1967 to l977'y oersons now Kudzu members, and the fact. Chat Kudzu Alliance was formed af"er t;he July 1977 deadline without knowledgo.of that deadline mum and M" th no int;ont to circumevent NRC procedures, beaux considered as good cause for having our petition Co intervene considered at this time.
Me also note that it takes time fox an organization to establish itself and create a st;ructure that; enables it Co Cake on responsibilities e
such as 'ntorvention. Xf CP h L can get delays in implemnting its QA progra~, then Kudzu~s need t;o get established and organized should also be cc nsidered good cause for. filing Co intervene at this time.
rle1ls ><<1eean is perplexed bv the idea that; he should simnly ave'd nuclear vower plants when he moves. X have here the best fob T'ave ever had, as a conservation manager, teacher and watchperson.
Neve. thewless, had X known a nuclear plant was nearby under ccnstruction, T '~.'.'}it have reconsidrcd my'ecision'Co move here, or made t;he dec'shen
0
>age 16 Kudzu Alliance and Mells Eddlenan to ASLR g J'anuary'979 to accent some risk by staying in the area.,But I did not have a chance to make that choice. Xn effect, I am being Cold X have no right to move near a proposed nuclear power plant, unless I am willing to sit idly by and watch it go up. Considering the number of 'nuclear alants that have been proposed, I would have greatly reatrktted choice of living acus sites. I certainly didn~t move hexe Co spend my time arguing against nucleax power plants,. If I'D known one was this close to me, even though my present Job is very attractive Co me, the best I <ve x ever had, I might not have taken it. But since I was already here w'th all my equipment and a good Job when I fix st heard where.
the nlart was and when it was going Co.be built, I Chink I should have the right to intervone. Ifd moved hex'e a few years earliex, v>ile construction was suspended, I'1 have had a chance to say, "No, I'd rather not run f'rom this nucleax plant. I do'n>t th'nk it's safe ox a good r
economic deal or good for Jobs or good for me, and I'd like to say why and get witnesses and cross-examine Che power. comnany~s witnesses."
I realize Chat the question of whether new residents in an area sho."ld be allowed to intervene is L tricky one. People who wo.ld.move to a ~lace just tofight a nuclear plant are not rare anymore. But X didn't do t2iat. I moved here without knowledge of the olanth being th s close to me, and without intent..to do anything about it (since I didn 't know about it). Compare the situation of a person who 1
There is no requirement Co tell proyerty buyers a gas piaeline is near.
The gas company people probably won'C. advertise that their line is leaky, or nut out maps o9 its location. Yet our ness propexty owner is in danrer from this gas r incline, and has, every right to petition for.
improved safety etc. I am going to get effects from that nuclear
i
~ page i
17
'viells Eddleemn and Kudzu A1X$'y'g@e;
--Sl Qo A'aaao Lp, J'an 1979 fl a
i'iant if 1th built, Yet by CP h L's attorneys) response, they propose to Cie my legal hands, and say 1n effect, "Nuclear power:
i!. Tove it or leave it," X happen to like my fob and my location here j>
j,'. extremely well. I do not wish to have to 1~ave this area, but I almost certainly will 1f Che Harris nuclear plant begins operational testing.
)
f (Yhe uncertainty is, I)m not 10+ sure that nuclear plants cannot be made safe, that: waste cannot'e transported and. stored siafeklv etc.
i'a/ere these issues resolved to my satisfaction, X.might stay -- or X might leave )ust to be safe, because X could be wrong,) I am very disturbed now by much evidence, including that for rising cancer rates in regions of nuclear facilities, evidence that various radioactive materials ~ose greater health risks than previously thought, etc.
I w'.ll endeavor to protect myself and, others from these risks, using nonviolent means only, but if I cannot I can m move away. Many peor.le mav not have that option, so X hope the Kudzu Alliance is admItted as an intervenor, as even i if I were, I could lose my legal status if l moved away due to my assessment of Che dangers. {Catch 22, nuclear i
version: You have Co be in danger to do anything about the danger.
to escape If you take yourself away ~faqthe danger, you lose your right to do Is nuclear sower safe? You bet vour life. Catch 22 again.)
anything about itgp At any rate 1 am no lawyer and couldn't hi. e one at cur.ent rates. (One Kudzu member tcld me of a legal b111 over $ 10,000 in one vear, which that member, paid in trving to stop the Harris plant..)
I horse the AST B gill excuse my- legal ineptness. I work on this petition for a lot less than $ 10,000 a year (and some may feel that my work is worth its price, or.less]). I am complying with everything in the rules I have received that I can undersCand or get trustworthy advice from Kudzu members about.
I il)Ave a further personal interest in these proceedings because I do energy consulting work, Energy consulting work t.s most needed
~ j l
'I il P
- :--o . e
~~~~ 18 Hells Eddleman and Kudzu AI1iaace to ASLB g Jan 1979 wiiero energy is oeing ~asted and can be saved cheaply. In my experience these ccndi t nns preva<<l in much of Che immediate area around Raleigh, Durha~ and ".hapel H<<.11, New Hill, etc. If consumers in th<<s area are I
forced t;o spend large amounts of money on nuclear power plants v" a CII? and rate increases, thev will have le~a money ava'lable to <<nvost; "n ne~"y c~nserv<<.ng equipment and systems, and thus hav'e less business to ..1vo me. Iron<<cally, as the price of electricitv rises, there will be greater advantages Co energy efficiency and consor vation, but less mone:- available to do it;. I believe I can show how the ent:ire expected annuo'utput of one of the Harris .units (900 Kfe) could be saved by'n
<<nvest~ent of less than gl00 million in Insulat t.on (about $ 1 b'llion less than the cost of the Harris unit). The insulation w<<ll have a useful lifetime co~arable tn the plant (30 to 50 years) have minimal npe. at'np. and . epair costs, and continue Co save energy without add1.t'onal 0
~
effor t oy Its owners. Ny fees are eit;her by Cho hour worked (variable to the size of tne organization 1 im working for and the pot;ontial energy sav'ngs), or a small per cent:age of the cost of energy saved over several years.;bus I could expect income from the Insulation pro)ects, but only, if the ca~<<tal to install this Rnatch <<nsulation is available.'he more nowe~ b'lls po up, the less canital people vill have to Invest In
<<nsul:.t'.on. L!y C> I L dividends, however, should not su~for, s nce they a. a a fa<<r rate of return on an existing Investment whether more nuclea~ nlant:s aro built or not. Bill Lee, President of Duke Powe., has told ~e that not building new poworplant;s would help D~lko stockholders bv red 'c'r.~. the need Co soll new stock (which dilutes t;he prov.',ous stockho1":ers 'quitv) .. I imagine a sim1lar advant;age m<<ght occur for CP + L shareholders like myself. So oui of personal f'nancial interest,
<<t ~ekes sense for mo to oppose nuclear power because it <<s so can~ital Intone.:.ve that it reduces tno money ava<<lable to do my gob- energy
0(
~ ~ '
n ~,;>>- l.'.>>'elis Fddle.".gf and Kusdu'Alliance to ASL~Zan 79 S
consArvat!on and efficiency. X believe the issue of whet2.er nuclear vower 'i the BFST available use of the huge amounts of capital '-nvolved needs ser*ous considerat>>on, both by the NRC, the Congress, and people and s>ate ut>>litotes commissions. Many authorities agree with 'rfilliam Si non that we may face a capital formation crisis in the USA soon.
Under such condit1ons>>e should make the best investments>>'t2. our ava'lable capital. I believe the best return on capital in energy is frna conservation, Cnsulat>>>>on and efficiency measures at Ch>> s C>>me.
Numerous studies su~port that belief. I do. not know whether Cli>> s
'.=.sue 's within NRC )urisdiction, but I do hopo prudent and sound management vill address it, Considering the opinion of Shearon.Harris (h>>'nself) at the last CP 5 L stockholder's meeting, I do not believe CP 5: L management had yet taken energy conservation ser>>.ously. The exper'ence of 'blest Gsrmany Among others shows that much 2iigher efficiency ene~gv use is available to us Cn the USA. Ha.ris s>>emed'to deny this, c'ting higher agricultural and transportation energy use 1n Che USA Chan in Germany. Virtually none of'uch use is electrical 2>owever. Xt would make energy sense to have more ele'ctric mass transIt', 'out I cannot see electr" c tractors be>>ng economically competitive anyt>>me soon. electric ~
m'ates Xx still make electricity our most; expens1ve form of energy.
For th'.s reason I believe the future holds much slower grewt2: rates
>> n ~lectric demand, and reluct>> ons in central power system demand >>n many cases. it I think >>s time for CP h L and others Cn face the po:=sibility thah 3.ongterm demand growth may be much smaller, and to ver. orm sens'tivity analyses fox costs and benefits oi nms poweralants under varv" ng assumptions including verv low demand growth. ader such conditions the long construction. times of all large nowernlants are v~rv problematical -- >>nterest charges eat up pro ]ected benefits Before the oallant is finished. Smaller plants may be an answer, but sea.'.1 nuclear plants are distinctly uneconom1cal to build today.
Oj
~ c
'/ ' I I ~ ~ ~,-
/ ';leils Alliance to AST:H.g J'an 1979
~ ~<<~:" .'<) T.'ddleman and Kudzu
- iaae these concerns -can be raised somewhere, if not before t: he NRC. '-'any Kudzu members share my concerns about best use a~ resources an" ".:er nlant "size cit;ed on oaves 19 and lq, as we.'.1 as conservation, on w':.'.ch i'.udzu members gresented testtmoney last fall (1978) before t'ai~ i~~ r'uviic iiti3.ities Conn).ssion. 'I Onbehalf'f myself and the Kudzu Alliance I want to note that I have r~ad the entire text of t;he KRC staff filing for the uoconing hea. 'ngs, and have now completely read Exhibits 1 and 3 and skirruned Exhibit 2, which is all tne LZRs (Licensee Event Reports, i.e. thinEs that wert wrong) and plan to finish reading all of Exhibit 2 this week.
0 (Tne fact that Fxhibit 2, the t;roubles at CP h L nuclear plants, is so th'ck, is of int;crest to me. I would like to investigate in some denth what is "accentable" and "unacceptable" performance by a nuclear licensee.) At any rat'e, I~ve read, all this stuff, by myself, which I
CP 8c L had t;o ask an extension of time to respond to. Kudzu h,115.ance has seve.al other members (indeed, a whole research comittee and others) who can also read testimony and reports. capably, raising questions and draw.'ng inferences and making comparisonsMe think this shows we do have something t;o offer in developing a saund record, because we understand CCNC's lawyers could not, or did not have time to read all the information filed by the staff of the HRC. (At'awyers'ates, we aouidn't blame CCNC for not; wanting all that stuff read ->> 7 spent about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> on it so fax'.,) Me think 'it; is important for some intervenor t;o check and question everything that is asse. t:ed . if that is hm~n~ possible, so that questions- can bo raised in the record as the tooics come up, and not lat:er. XS is. clearly easier for 3 intervencrs to covm this demanding )'eb than it is. far one to.
'de also t;hink our reading and research./ (Kudzu research people each concentrate an a different area) can be useful resources in our ly..
0 intez vention which we'll help .develop 'L- more sound; x'ecord.
Concerning the issue of whether other intervenor s can represent our .'.nterests adequately, David Yiartin, president of CCNC, does not believe CCNC has adeauately represented. oux interests, he tell@ me.
I Xf thev have not in the past, can we 'expect they Mill do so in the, future? Me knox of no planned changes 4n CCHC's efforts, though continue to support them. do. a3.so >tish to make further efforts
~ 'I of our own~
. '.4e understand CCNC is prepar1ng to appeal on the need for power issue now that the NC Utilities Coren~ssion has published lower dermnd forecasts, (still far above actual increases 1973-78).. Me wish them luck, and if granted intervenor status may. wish to )oin in that appeal as intervenors; we would certainly irish to. represent ourselves or have ourselves independently z epz esehnted at any futme 1mar9.ngs on
-need for power. Me believe CP h T ~s sending in dRata. showing lower demand a.ter the construction >errant was.issued,. plus the capx'1cious I
denial of the CCHC's first anpeal (since neM evidence favors intervenors,
~ It they hsve no xight to cross-examine ib,. yo.they cannot have more hear".ngs, I '~elieve is how the ruling- went, -.- Catch 2)), already shows a dangerous disregard for pertinent"X'acts an the NRC's part--
dangerous to our poc)cetboolcs and our:potent'ial safety and health and life etc. At any ate we view: the HC- Mili'ties Commission re@art as a stew closer to realisrz in,their pa@or';Pemand pro)ections, and their recLuiriny, CP h L to snow cause wzzy construGtioQ:of the Harris units should not be delayed is very reasonab3.e, CP h,7 has now, according to news z snorts, indefinitely deferzed ite two.proposed South &ver nucle.~r units. Considering the overcapacity CF 4 X now has (and the.
difference between the generating capacity in Meir annual report 1~77
0
~ [r[> .
[ P*
~
Ir KQQ~g All gyrE Avg- ~ - EDIKKGN'%4%40t 4 ~.'+i%:',",'w@8~: '"-'. P P P
[
and the Utilities Commission repoz C Xs, curiouss 2 sets of books'F),
we assume that it's further x'easonable to ask why Harz is 3 and g should not be Tnclefinitely deferz.ed at this time, Me would seek to evaluate the accuracy and honesty of'ower pro)ections as p art of the questions of financially resnonslble management, and as part of'he . q uestfon of f'P
~
aossible conCinued suppression of'nforzmtion. Xf f demand p ro]ections i [<
continue to drop toward rea"liCy, the."need"foz>>.e:, all Che Hazris units will
[ ~
soon be Xn grave 'doubt, Concerning the NRC staff f91inaa',there az'e issues in there of i ["
managements
~ e xepeated failure Co cox rect ox improve problem situations f
in eoutpment, %/QC, emexgency response plans, radiation safety and mn<<
[
I[
y
~
ito"in~ etc. etc. which we would leyte to raise at a hearing. The large i; r'.
number of'ERs and xtr~M:~x inf'reactions/def'iciencies etc. do not show i a downtrend of'ignificance by our 'statistics. Ãe think at somo point;s i p ~
the dat;a is Msread or perhaps misrepresented, by Che staff. staf 'vie further h r not;e that CP h. X, personnel policy.is- in question due Co Cantrell's and h.,
i j staff filings e
other testimony. There 'axe other L'ssues xaised.by Che I
\,
if we
'I
~
)~
which we may wish to comnent on later,. or raise Nhen and musC prepare a list of contentions. [
' have now discussed twice Mith NHC staff Che possibilities intervention, Kudzu Alliance.,and Hells Fddleman continue to oie'[ted I'[
[p'
/ doubt that limited appeazances afford us anything moze than a chance
[
to make a speech. Me'annot, foz'xample, call as witnesses persona
[ [P
~
(( P
[4 ~ who 2iave resigned fzom CP'c L and others>>ho cont,'nue to work there; P
ic we cannot czoss-oxamjM<ne testimony. filed by t'e staff and CP iver. L's
[
Me desize to. do Chess things if nossible, and feel that 1
[P resnonses.
' ~
thev wnuld assist in establishing n moz e sound rocord.
[ Ne also undezstand C}>at the expertise and direct kno>>ledge oi z ca)<ep~ >e~o
[
~ the APT.R are taken !nto account in evaluating
V KuV.U ArZZ~NCE ~m ~ELZa'.mZk28h,:;%4WE5.;Jj:.;;lanai:-'~%., page,23:,
r that teat'.mony, and since fox) of us '~e'xot'ic experts or directly saw what is wrong wit;h nuclear power.,'we thirQc our time and the ASLB's would bett;er be devoted to those expert and dixectly knowledgeable witnesses Mich we could call were ne.intervenoro. >le do not propose to experd this sort'f strolleffort: Just R v>al:e limitod, and probably P
uncorsid~red, statements outside the l testimony of the ui>coring hearings
'I ox anv others. Me feel only interventt.on.o.: fers us any. rea1 chance to make any useful contribution, and we are not into be'ng useless.
'de understand I'rom HRC staff that the competence of contractors has@ not been raised in a previous pro'ceeding. Ne think Daniel International and Research-Cottrellts records (e.g. Callaway AO @lant
'~lilliam Smart case for-Daniel, and W.Va. t'ower co3:3.apse fox Pe,.earch-Cottrehl) warrantxx inquiry at snme point, preferably before they build too much if they have likelihood of building thinEs iraproperly.
Otherwise extensive, expensive repairs or s'crapping costly construction might be necessitated latex. k~e note Mith interest that lf!?C st'aff did not mention Callaway among Daniel~s prospects severe they discussed Daniel. >whether this was omission, accident ox suppression, we do not know, '.4e would 1ike to find out. Ve believe this is a serious issue fo~ ~z t;he lives and safety of const'ct;ion workers as well as t;he health 'erd safetv and f$ nanc.'sl interest of the public in a safely built plant, and the enormous financial'nterest of CF', L and t.ts shareholde. s in a safely, built, operable plant without defects that could force e long shutdown for repairs, or reader the plant: inonereble.
Wor ovp2i review now is the best way to resolve these questions of contractor 'reliability and CP 5 L~s management capability in hiring su'cn contractors.';le (Kudzu Alliance and tiells Fddleman) believe that furthex new evidence comes tn light that affects these and other issues, and reserve
e
.'CD!U ALTIAUCF.'A2lD MEi r RDUEyy4lF 'PO ASLB ly Zss 19 psgs 24.
r
- --P':l'I
~ r
,r '
\
Gal'e managem nt: i'biXiide5 'jiov's exx'or unknown, conti ng nc i insofar
" as th<s is 'noss2M&,:@nrem V
reisoaaMe", Me t&,hk. it shou3.d be requt.red.
r;;;
Mgn'ed on bebiM".-'af,mp'seK+.;ad@ the Kudzu'Alliance, to Mhi h ,,
-n '<!'~~.
.rl Hells. Eddleman Sr ~~ // /'8 LXS2'P PAXSFD PBEVXOUSLY'. ., Pg~~/grfg~r ~au r/g g ZRSQES -
~-
. Need f'r xroweri '((new: evevidence"3.2
- . w: onc ". 2'8-78, me~~
r men'cioned herein, NC PUG,)l,':
2 Xmpr oper d e sign; verif'icatiori;,. construction h main .~tenance enance
- 3. Setting trip setaoints outsi'de a~proved operati g g ~ "~
.Q. Failure to perform safet;y analyses and planning for ma'.nter.ance
$ Xnadequate verification of pipe cracks, exceptions to requiremen s ox ~.,
6 Employrrrent of'-aqua'lified.san8;=underqua raualified personnel Pinancial x is~a to CP h L sharreholders; t;o consumers a .~ an ra increases,'r>isrepresentation of.'o sex needs for financial reasons
- 8. PAb s,"r sbos Abilibg. (or I' of, Ab) by. actoraRPxt Daniel Xntl A',;r and Pesearch -Cottr ell.
o o exation of plaht~.payback'eriod 5 cost;<<bene it; new that may,reduce opex ating li."e timee 5 x eequire expense.ve A repairs'actors 7 shut'do>Rls I
- 10. E ironmental pr otectinn, incrluding safe di'sp osal of nuclear wastes ~!.'. ~
- 11. Limitation of topics to be discussed requires us tn guess what w.
go wx~nE; fncomp.e t e h dishonest presenta'ions to h~C h its boards,
- 12. Hork history and -financial hoXdings of witnesses, sstaff af e. etc financial and curxicu1um vita (resume) disclasure request;ed
- 13. Pos siMe addi. tional topics 1~. Heed to preserveP oux right to*'x'aise additiona 1$ . l'P?C staff not re ~onding to'xequest {3) of 16 October 1978 for rules R .procedure informa ation for intervenors les Good cause fox' " ate" fili ng -- Kudzu did area (elaborated above: neither knew o f d eaadline didn 't ex ~ s t'dlemarr wasnrt in ne; nno intent to circum ":. -
ven t ruuleses or deadline in forrnat$ nr n+ .'<udzu; etc. )
- 17. Ask5.ng fo. mo~e requt~ed nntice of hearings 8e n ew non or t ur ..'. t r es for intervention with wide publicity.
- 18. Xnaccessibility of federal register.
- 19. Service of cories -- we cannot afford 20 ' Xnf on Ku d z, u and a Fddleman, author ization to represen", n", Kudzu, eetc. c.
- 21. Lack oi 'nformation about requirements for our aaetit$ orr /ask "eave to 2P. Kudzu membe Jnl Jn m 8 p ei g hts tried to 'nt;ervone 'n 1971
- 23. Sound management and ASL3 ruling r elevan too Fddleman em C; Kudzu 'r.t;crests, life, saf ety, financial, property etc.
24.. Nuclear waste disposal costs 2~. Excessive radiation orrd.."sions allowed by 1974 KXS 8c by fox'uclear workers ma~ shut down .-.u.saba
~
25..
- 25. New exposure ure standards s an lear industry 1
0,
~ '" RK)ZU,,ALElAH('e,'.an@.:,,liB EhDLZRdiW;;,.'I'Qi'A'SL3 Q Zan: 79 page.2$
iSSueS rSi Seed nreViouS'ly'-"..';Centiilred " '-"..".:;. -..-..' ";.---'"..:....*';
~ ~ ~
- 27. CCNC unable to represeaC. our::interests; Kudzu formed to do more.
than burden. of proof'= is'on ~'"~eCafX'..or. CP 8;. L to sno>> our "nterests ">>i11 CCNC>>as.,'doS.ng.',-~,
"~
28.
be protected'~ not niay be protected, by others.
- 29. NRC staff and. CP h T Is commitment Kudzu is 'suspect if
- they.. >>ould have toanyacknow>>ledge to protect middleman and/or.
errors, less likely to do that thk'e are to point then1 out,
- 30. He desire to repre'sent ours'elves- to protect our interests d'rectly.
- 31. There are other z.easons to.represent ourselves (more, late. ).
- 32. Record developed >>ithout .our participation >>as unsound.
- 33. Possible continued. sunpraj3sP:on of evidence.
3LI.. 3 fnterver~o~s can backstop each othe'- catch thinLs one ...ight not
'.- 3$ . 3 <ntervenors can share. thb. liork, concentrate on o>>n expertise areas.
~
- 36. TechIlical kno>>legis.needed to.. detect technical errors. Eddleman 8:
Kudzu have such hno>Q."edge;": '.
$ 7. Kno>>ledge of mai>element in practical business experience h theoretical; course work and'LUplied GDurse work, of Kudzu 01ombel'8 (incl ~ddletflan, ~
on last 2 nointx) .. =
- 38. Xnvestigative e'er ieace.-'belpf u3.i in'evelopin' sound record. Eddleman has so1$ 0 ~
, 3Q ~ Continuing 'P86~ch bp'QQEu 'L Required OIIXy- 0'ox.%bassist" 'fe. developing a sound record, not do t alone.,
M@%890an'0.
S
$ 1. PosaiMlity oth@w inbervcnors Ixkl2., collop e of be taken over, leaving-',
s" -
no .one .'Co repi-esenb us/ Case'f Vznke Environment l~2e CCNC's attorney. c'arnot give us the help s:e nee6 .
g3. Ve have a right te represent ourse1vvs.
Qlg a 88 Mill'olio>f all*'rules le kno'M and aY G told Iie have.no des'~re, to delaj- proceedings; >>ant t'hem seceded up if
~
~
45.
possible l~6. Contradiction between."not broadening issues" and."devel.opir~ a sound record", our desire is to develop, the issues.
-" $7 ~ Xf >>o raise near issues that have not been raised before, that is an argument FOB ou1 admiss'IOQ Gns intel venors, not against.
lIB.. Do not knoll iS:. >>0 have de).ifed proeeodings at all; doubt we could ad@.:.
much to current de.ape. '.:
h9. Do not >>f.sh to 3;nsult anyono ow raise things improperly, )ust to preserve odr .1~9ght to:,raise- additional issues as new info becomes avaS.labl e
- 50. There map be hh9:ops. >>e haye raised'hat X* have missed in this suomarv, thous"h Y. tr~oP.'o: get thorn all into this the r'ight to reX'er. to, previous petitions. and amendments.
list. Me reserve
- 51. Purther suppression of ~nf'qz, by HRC current chair~erson, re dynamic sunpression systems..
$ 2. Hard to state concerns Mi'thout ma'iing a list of thiht's that cnuld bo termed contentions.'12.1 make this Work history 0 financial holdings beyond NRC's autnority? (Contradicted:
list >>hen/if legally allo>>od to.,'3.
by staff filing '- "nspectoz s h their families etc may not own nuclear or no>>er company stock, bonds etc.) Holdings relevant to test'.mony, so its'chere shalary comes from or has coyIe f'rom.
Q,. Ask leave to furthe1 amend our petition to comply fully with legal requirements
- 55. Ask that petition be- gudgod- on the facts, not on our 3.egal 'eptness, *=
$ 6; Do not >>ish to inconvenience board (ASLB) but >>e have to ":.
for anyone>>orLLng on this, unlike NRC (paid by taxpuyers)nayandouICPselves h L Me 4>ink':by nabepayeef.
I I
a i .i 's (
~g '-~ g~ +~>. ~e~yq~+~l+(pg gAjQ~"e+ ~~i,, 'eV~~/Rg~~iV ~34 Q@) bep w
~ll'i Q~~~'. Q j ppj' ' J~QQViFLPTZ'
e
'J
'H
UNITED STATES. OF A~KRICA REGLLATORY CO.'C'!ISSXON'UCLEAR Xn the Hatter of )
)
CAROLIKK PO'3ER AND LIGHT COHPAHY ) Docket No. (s) 50-400
) 50-~01 (Snearon Harris Nucle" r Power ) 50-402 Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and ~i) -) 50-403
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SE16'ICE
, X hereby certify that X have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon each person designated on the official service'list compiled oy the Office of the<<Secretary of the Commission in this'roceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear-Regulatory Commission's 'Rules and
~ Regulations.
Dated at Li~ashington, D.C. this
@ay oS 197 /
Of f icd f the Secretary o'f the Commission
UNITED STATES OF AHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMKSSION
.In the Hatter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No.(s) 50-400
) 50-401 (Shearon-Harris Nuclear Paver ) 50-402 Plants, Units 1-4) ,) 50-403
)
SERVTCE 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 Hr. Glenn O. Bright George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Washington, D.C. 20555 1800 "H" Street, N.M.
D.C. 20006 'ashington, Dr. J.V. Leeds, Jr.
Rice University Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.
P.O. Box 1892 P.O. Boz 928 Houston, Texas 77001 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director Dennis P. Hyers, Fsq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney General's Office Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Alan S. Rosanthal," Fsq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal 'Hr. 0. 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 Hr. -klells -" dle~n Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Route 1, Boz 1.">3 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Durham, North Carolina 27705 Washington, D.C. 20555 KUdzu Alliance Hichael C. Farrar, Fsq.
Boz 3036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal :Chapel Hill, :cnorth Carolina 27514 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C; 20555
0
'4