ML18230A503

Letter Furnishing Response to Carolina Power & Light Company'S 7 February Ansewer to Appeal Brief and Notice to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board

ML18230A503
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/15/1979
From:	Eddleman W - No Known Affiliation, Kudzu Alliance
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML18230A503 (18)

Text

-. o A

~.~,

Q pshz uarv 1979 Bv-Dockets: 5O-QOO/403 Response of Kudzu Alliance a.nd::dwells I;ddleman to p.pplicant's 9 Pebruary answer to cia'o+

' " their A@peal

' Brief

",~ and . Motice 0 <<i" . aTO'GC SAT:F.. ~ ~ y-A36 LZC;X.7.R; A gamp L PAfg>~~

l. 'rlith resoect to our, petition or general Intervention, we

, find the. e are facts contrad5.cting George P. Trowbridge's argument that no one can be made a party fo all heari'ngs associated with a nuclear

\

aowe. polant license. Dennis iver s of the AC Attor'ney General's office told me he believed that office was a party to the upcoming safe management capabil5 ty hearings "because we were a nartv 5.n the origina'ase. tt

'o our knowledge, the Conservati.on Courcil of Liorth Carolina has not had I

to file sena ately to Intervene ~n each hearing .as "t com~s along.

Wus, while we don'. know enough about,ÃPC precedents to sav whether an orde. making us a marty t:o all hearings nn the ha~ris case 5 s al'wed al owed, we see other parties apparently contInuing their varticinatinn w'l'.out continual filing of petitions t:o inter vene. This prectice seems sensib'e k

as ic avoids wasting tice 5.ntervenors, ASLB's, and Annlicant's attorneys~

time re-arguing the same questIons over and. over. (Th t latte. s5tuatinn, .

4 Annlicant's lawyers profess to abhor.,)

Briefly, given the extensive interests of Kudzu /~115.ance. members (lives health., property, businesses near the plant; owning shares of CP ~:

stock; paying the costs of the plant ".l:. ough electric bill.s; saving the costs of r.uclear research through t;axes; rossibly pav"..ng nr wast:e disposal thro'gh ".axes,, etc etc 'as cited 7 and 29,!November 1978, 4 January 79), =

we think that we are xzxxgM so deathly and extensively intere .ted '.n he case that our vartic.'.aAtion nnw nn the 'same bas',s as the CCI!C and tl;e NC Attorney General's of'fice is )ustified. '>le note aga'n that the A."-iTiH did not consider our interests; as required by'.section 2.71$ (d) with the command "shall, in ruling on a aetitinn for leave to intervene, . ~

cor'sider the ol" owing factors, among ot} er things" list5ng r ight to be made a party under the (Atnm5c l",nergy) ."~ct, financial, croaerty o.

other interest, and. the possible effect of any order in the case on

to Kudzu Alliance/ Kddleman anneal I

the petit'one's'nterests. Since Tro~gr idge didn't object to our extensive assertion on aages 4. and 5 of our ai~peal brief that the .-".SL9 erred in not weighing these factors together w'th those of sect'on 2.714 (apt (1)., and that all three of these factors weigh in our favor, we feel that an o. der admitting Kudzu Alliance and ':,'elis Eddleman as parties would h ve been very much in order. Further, participation on the same basis as the CCNC and the HC Attorney General's office (i.e. not having to ..e-file petitions to.; intervene in every hearing) would save time and effort '.n the hearing process, which saving Aaplicant says i" desires.

As noted ' the h. Jan 79 amendment to our aetTtKon to *ntervene {which sho old be considered part of this response for auranse o giving the AS~M.'9 the info~tion it contains), '..'elis Zddleman has all thc interests listed '.n naragra~h 3 of page 1 o9 this response, and indeed as an ener~ conservation 5 management consultant 's a direct comvetitbt w'.th the oroaosed Harris facility. ".'hus he is entitled to the same status as is ti.e Kudzu Alliance.

None of thetypes of hearings and proceedings listed by Trowbridge on sage 3 of his "Answer". are such that Kudzu Alliance and ~elis Fddleman dn not have an interest in them; nor does he argue that we are not possessed of an interest in each and all of them. Xn fact, we hove s!.own 'n our petition, its amendments and our a~seal orief that we have interests in every aspect of the plant fiom antitrust to zoology,i.e.

extremely inclusive interests of both net'.tioners.

7he efore we urge at minimum that the ASLB be directed to reconsider the two oetf.tions for. general intervention, because of its err'n rot weighing the 2.714 (d) factors no"ed above, and because seve~el of the othe. factors were erroneously ruled aga'st us among the 5 '; n P,714 (a ) (1).

gyy<z~e>>~~~ Pnneaz C ~ '~ ~ i" ant! s answe ~ to <z<zz Ku zuz

'3 ~esQonse 0 '.

2. 'Jith reference- to the petit ons to intervene in the upcoming hearings on, safe management capability:

i. st, Trowbridge 's argument that the original IPC x'enand order includes only the narrow toaic of the OXA (Office of Inspector and Auditor?)

internal NRC investigation of mislead'.ng testimony in the original 2:earing, hr should be re)ected. The NRC staff has reneatedly taken the nnsit4nn that the subject of the hearin'g is .CP h L's financial and management ca~ability t:o construct and overate the harris fac'.lity thout urdae w".

The Staff has taken tl.is vos'.t'.on risk to nublic health and safety.

often and reoeatedly (see footnote 1 below) d.n this petit'.on, as we' as the hearing case. A~nlicant and its attorreys have had amnle onno~tunIty to dispute these assertions '.n resnonse to the ."PC Staf.".

filings. o our information, they have never done so until now.

Petitioners believe the issue is twofold: safe f'inancial-const uct$ on and management capability AYO the quest'on of how 'nfn. mat'on was w'thheld',rom the PSLB. Unless we can be sure that; the ASLB 's gett',n full factual information, we cad have no real faith in its dec'sions on manageraent capab.'.lity or any other question. A hearing ecord in which bnt;h is ues (accuracy of information in the hearing and safe management/financ'al canabil'ty) are ..ot resolved is by definition unsound. his is ar!nth~.

reason why we desire to aa ticinate 'n t?!use hearin"s, nd wt h~ve a .sed ~

these ouest'.ons before on 7 rd 29 November a..d elsewhere.

rowbridge gives no . easnn why limitinp the 2!carin:~s'ub tect 13arth tn 7Ãdleman 6 November 78 "!Je exaect to hold hearings in Raleigh before the end of the year (lo7") nn ac'.1 CP 6 L's mana<a~".ant ca~ability to cc nstruct and n~e~ate the Harris, ty." .n Rarth's

+?lg Novembe~ 70 res,nnse to netitt~n to int:ervene, eau:e 2, "3v an o~der=

dat d S.~i!sm'oe < 1978 the Commission . emanded tn t?:is L.'cens'..p ~oa-d fo~ a =urther bearin~ on the issue of the manage.sent caaab. 1. t..es nf (..

to construct and onerate the p, nnosed Hhearnn Ha . is fac'.lit-.r w'-.t'.c ut.

undue risk to the health and safety of the public." NPC Staf me-".nrandum nn legal issues for t?.is heaxring asserts the same issues '<<nd states the burden ne proof of these issues 's on the Anolicart, as always.

g+j $ i ol 5' p ((gy y p J (j,ppg +c? g~>;,? p~j~ +8C7&gg R Cc 7 ZX

5. ~ ?~ ~';~+

~~ -~~/ C

g-response lt Q'n to'"ar~plic~ s anawuer'ee;kud.".u alllaueddleean anpea l5 pe. 79 tn the narrow ouestions he describes. (OTR audit only, basically) will result ".n a sound record or a'comnlete hear. ng. ;.e'o te ecbnve that such 3 <<citations we'l frustrate tht se object< ves, '?',o~enver, n rnwbriage 4

makes no s h ow Ing th.a t th e issues we'raise are irrelevant to safe marage-C ment; canabilitv." Thus Jheir exclusion may make the record unsound, end

'";: . =

necessitate still more hearings later, when mneme 1 re money .Inves~e~ ..n the l

Harris riant construction will make a decis<<on based on the facts, that (0

much 'more difficult to render g'.,ven the weight of CP h L'a investment, particularly if 1 If suc }i d ec isinn were to -.equi.. e major changes in cc nstruction or ita ausnension;:;;e have C

argued g 29 H<<vernier 78,and elsewhere t!'at; J(

L r se is relevant tn some ~ay (often d'ectly) to sa e aue we ra" every issue management and nr scund financial canability nf C~ 5 L. i.'owever, e

even some of the issues are relev8:nt, that ia a furti:er argument 'n favo~ of aL~Itt<ng ua, 'n the 'nte.eat nf'eveloring a anund recn~d and protecting aetitoners'.nterests aa well aa A"nl'cant;'a r pht tn vrnmp~

resolution of "asues (which an~licant'a attorneys, by their Relaying tactics, slav ]eoaa~dize; but acti't nners a~e nnt nn>> cnnce~ned t 42e ~

legal tact'.cs of the anrlicant being he best for. thai. Interestaq.

I T. nwbridge's argument Is particularly weak when ile asserts tiiat the fitness of'iie Anal'cant'nntractoro is nnt a aron, va. t of'hese hear n< s. "ie t are n ow hearing of base-mat problems at ~:"twn 04l~r Qr t'9c, nuclear nlants (one, Callaway, YiO; anotiier:it MaQ Mo3.f Creek, impar aas ),

'"C How can It be safe'anagement to i;<re an unsafe bu':.lder? 5f

~

" l.

s,,

lV

'X~z this Is ".,ot mismanagement it '.s certainly furthe~ au"o~eaa'nn nf relevant;t

..his P."-

Inf'omatinn tn tr,r to keen the issue nut of thea e hearings snrt e

of unwed.llirgness to face the oroblems wttii nuclear nower is p. eciael- the rt, reason mor and more nenple are coming to d'strust tile ower cn".~angies and tiie i'JQC. 1 u ge that these issues be consid ered befo-e 't 's too late, and ii;e I'.sue becomes wheti:e. to license a nlant that, '.a bu'lt w'.th dangerous construe t 'n e. rors, o to st Ic>c L and t t:s shor eholde a

4'5 reanonse to'-anglicans- anawex'--to '.- o k kudzu al7.ianc dlenan appeal

'I with ~ billion-do13.ar (or mucro more)) loss. That would be She height of'egulatory irresponsibility.

Zn s , Trowbridge is wrong: the,issue e is safe n sup, ,

nanajement ca??ability and f5 nancial resaons ib'lit, aa well aa su,.aresa5on o.. 'n ortMti~n

'nfo.. ~

Keeping th e sa fe e anagement issue and. relevant: aside ct;s of "". such as the qualifications of contractors nut of the currer. er.t hear'n s can onl-. "esu' in an unsound record and further bearings an and dela s,as the ?3~C then tries to correct the errors Applicant's attorr.eys would have. the".-T make. ~ ~

<inally, it <<s absurd to argue here(r'e the sub)ect of the hearings)

P<<nally, that the new or different issues .aised bv petitioners may not be heard,

("A~awe~" ~ages c: and 6) and then argue later ("Answer" ~~age 7 and 8)

~)

th t netitinners have nothing new to contribut e to the sound record of any hear'ngs. Xndeed, in <<oo t no "e ~ oon

~~

~

rage 7, Trowbridge contradicts his earl5.er a gument on the hea. ing 'sa ue savin "Since under the "o;~ud.asion?a order toe remanded issue includes A",.plican'ta management can'bility to overate as well as construct the liar a ?.n units ...". Ne will leave Trowbridge to resolve this argument with h msel1 f but ',n no case should 1 ".th e A@pea 1 Board take seriouslv his self contradicted ideas e

abou" limiting t;he acooe of the hearings.

Concerning the 5 issues of'.71$ {a) (1), we have al eady n<'ted the:".PLB~a failure to consider the 'aauea of 2.7ll. (d) w:. c'.

favor st ongly; the e is no langu"ge in sects o n 22.77" h..".tat n- that any ice ~ive factors l<<ated ahoul d be 84'ven greater weight than any o.

of t."e all of tne o tixers. Rather "a balanc5ng of the follow'g factors in addition to t:hose seO out in earagravh {d) of th's sect'on" Is reaui, ed.

hgsgh~~~g~XqLhghdhn~g~g~h~~haUagoghghxBa~fh8~hrf~gh~g The Board avoca~a to have given greate weigh't hginhjP++h'O~QWt)xgm~~gkgm~ga to %he "gnod cause" factor then any othe.. %>is may well be an error.

However, it is the comnlete balance of all e'ght f'acto. s involved that petitioners believe should rronerlv decide the quest5on of nur admission

~ rsVr " ' +t 4< V(I

C response to a~ol~nt's answer to 'kudzu allis'e/eddleman

-*' a c' neal 2.1..-.79

'or )*!.

~ ~

f as intervenors, wit2x respect to al3..f6ur petitions citea iin our a peal brief. (17 Jan" 79}

nontimelv 'filing

!ie believe that "good cause" should nnt be given more weig2't than tne other factors involved, particularly if it <<. to be narrowly.

interpreted as the ASL3'eems bzh5xaR tn have taker. it.

I

~..'e have explicitly addressed the question of other neo~le moving

. 'ntn the power alan area 'and other organ'zations forrJ.ng. ':.'<< th respect I

"to us, their was certainly no intent to circumvent NRC regulations in the formation of Kudzu Alliance or Zddleman's moving to th's area nea=

I the Harris nuclear site. No one has argued that the. e was any intent v'o circumvent the rules and regulat'ons of'he NAC.

A~plicant maintains that ~ ruling in our favor on ti.is point would sub]ect CP E' to cont'.nual litigation on the plant. If applicart's attorneys will note some facts, nuclear powe plants a. e sub]ect tn cnnt'nual litigation <<n many cases: consider e.g.'rc ]an, humboldt Hay, North Anna (reacto, s sim<<lar to 2Larris~s according to C> L~s PSALM), Z-.

Indian Point etc. Thus a ruling against us on t2.<<i point w<<.11 not elieve CP 5 L of continuing litigatinn unless they can subvert the Cnnserrat<<on Council of "fC as they evidentl~ did'V'.ke .'hviroraent (as we have mentioned earlier) and persuade the ';VC Attornev General to withdraw fro~ the case. In that Qhgkj64~ event, no one wr;~'ld be renr esent'G citizens 'ights "n the case,,and doubtless other 'ndiv<<duals srd '-:"ou" would trv to ga'n c5 tizen. re~r esentst'.nn, sh.". eholde~ . enresentat'nn etc, lead';.np tn st'1> more 1'igat<<.on. Thus, <<n no way does deny" ng our. petitinn to 'ntervene (any of'he h.) rel',eve CP 5 L of f'urthe.

(

litigation on the issues, nuclear oower~s r.roblems, not <<ntervenors, assure further litigation.

tlhat deny<<ng our partic',oat'on does assure is th"t we are den'ed 0he ri,-.hts of c<<ti" ens to partkcip" te 'n decisions a;ffect~n~' us. In a society as mobile as America today, where orrani-at;ons a. e f. ee tn form

~,%>+

7 resoonse to a~olicaWs. answer to,kidzu. a2.'lianc~dleman anneal 2.15.79 tt I et without government a~nroval:";.{,or. CP 5 Lls), ever-larger numbers of oeoa~e t

and grouas wI'll'he den" ed; t1;e right or ebilig>> to airticipate In nuclear deci'sions that do affect many of. their- vital interests. Tnis is undemocratic and contra~ to the Constitutionts general welfare clause, I

g lI tt'n the nrohibition against, tak1ng.. ".life liberty or aronerty without due prooess of law".~ and other moins's of .the Constitut'on and federal law.

I sum, denying our intervention will not,elieve CP L L of further litigat'on; but."'it'ill den7:

I our rights, Purther, since onlv a balancing ef the e'ght 2.71$ factors. is required to ~ admit an intervenor, G,

't is t, t perfectly possible that all g petitions to intervener. could be a~r>roved

.without assert'ng .any general right Sf new residents and new, grouns to=-

aarticioate in licensing of nearby nuclear slants that affect them (much I

's we endorse that ripPt). Thus CP h L~s argument at best adks for relief II>

from lit.gation which the NRC is powerless to grant and wh'ch experience

~

shows w.'ll likelv not be forthcoming in any case, at the ~rice of denying c"

the- rights of hundreds of'ersons. explicitlv.and m.'.ll'ons tmnlicitly,.

~ I I'

'He have also argued that- the lack'of Information, and the mis-5 'I information stroll circtulated about. 'Intervention, contributes to our f5.ling only Sll'I I when we'id; sr'elis Eddleman'decided, to test the assertion that we could g

not intervene.. Kudzu'Al'liance. concurred n this., test and here we are.

The exoeriment "s not over yet. Me must point out that znry Ind< visuals and grouns don'0 know the ~lant is be'.ng bu'.lt, what 't does,

~uch radioactive materiaL it will contain the hazards of nuclea=

I'ow G

'I I

waste, etc. Xt is absurd to argue that -citizens must be experts with un%cue

'I inf'o~t'on (this seems the intent of Trowbridge's arguments nave 7 and 3) 4n order to oar&cinate <n the hearings. Trowbridge himself, if re will excuse- such an. exam@le, has not to our 1mowledge shown any special exoertise in nuclear nower nlants or evaluat.'.on ot'heir haze ds, nor to ou knowledge 's any such expertise requi~d nf attorneys f n this or an- oAer nuclea. c'se. o ask that we meet requirements a~nlicant's

reer>onse to 'agnlicant>s answer to'udzu alliance/eddleman snpeal 2.15,7n

,I R IP btorneys have given us nn indication t)>at thsy meet,

>I is unfair and absurd.

applicant bears the burden of proof, "i.ich may well be onerous. Zf they o nnt need special qualifications tn bear that burden, it is strar.ge xey should ask use tn be general exoerts with all possible information S

s order tn bear- the smaller burden nf assist'.ng 'n deve1noing a sound

~cord. Indeed., the vnluminou's 'nf'crmatior..on nuclear hazar ds available Aes nur task much easier. than theirs, since they must prove their case.

we introduc'e reasonable doubts, we can prevail. Yet, what exr>e~tise

~ required to do that?, Surely no more than we have already shown we

~ve.5QMHH On one exr>licit point (footnote 6, p.8) Trowbridge a ~ears

> ouest'nn the value of invest'pative exnerience. Ilells middleman

ates that while he may not be the best investigator known, he has debit the investigations listed with many peovle who skill~oily attemr ted conceal relevant information, and often revealed the information.

uxt is the poi,nt of th'ese,hearings, as Trowbridge would have it (we

ink the point is bros)der, see aoove): Concealed information.

One does not have tn have managed" a nuclear r>nwer slant to raise ind questinns about management (Trowbridge omits to mention the managers iong Kudzu membe>.s, o. Hddlemn>s graduate.mnagement courses). (r>.8)

'rowbridge really requires ex~licit ernlanat'on, systems enginee 5.ng exactly the branch of engineering aeoroariate 4o independent evaluation nuclead vower plants (comr>lex systems, weber e sure he>11 agree) and a their. management i'n a safe manner (also a cnmolex task). >He ex~licitly hte that nur knowledge will. be useful 9n ccatching technical errors test'mony, in understanding what can and cannot easor.ably be exr>ected E

peonle working in a plant in terns of accuracy, tiredness, er mrs, erwork etc. (all these- issues are raised e.g. in Ployd Centrell's -.est'mony the upcoming hear'r.gs, which tn ter Knowledged ddlemar alnne of e inter venors and petitioners has yet ead).

I 10 response Co answer by applicant to kudzu alliance/eddleman a~peal

':70'.r. 2 continued: Ue have stated that we can serve as a condu<<C ~or

. such information (the NRC allows for confidential <nformants on nucIear proUIems) wh<<le assuring that the persons who give the <<nformat<<on The NRC'evidently is not do"ng well st aroviding

p',

"'ill be orotected.

such arotection {'Hm. Smart case again involved Daniel,- CP 8 J.'s we wou3.d hope we vere mast the time in th<<s country when constructor)':.'hile some sorrv cnrnoration (or the US government) would fire someone for Cell<<ng tkie truth, we know from the congressional ressort on whistle-,

biower s (who reveal govt waste','orruation etc,) and f om numerous nuclear cases, that th' << s not so. 'Sius. people with informat<< on r<<.ghtly feai ~

for their fob secur<<ty. Zndded, 'we ve heard Kudzu members say that they co ld lose the<<r no@-nuclea~ .'.,obs <<f they were to vocallv anti-nuclear.

That .'s ;he sorry situation in this case.

For example, CP 0 L might f'ind snme non-nuclear deficiencies <<n the ae. formance of our. informants who say the true cost of Che Harris plaint 's now figured from .C6 & Co y8 billion. .he employees'ould lose the<< - .Jobs and have nn .recourse. The facts, however, can be revealed.

.Let CP 2 L come forward with their current cost account'ng, quickly lest thev prepare a faked statement, and show what they now estimate the cos. to be..

In sum, leaked information is vita3. to many investigations, and m"rv who hav~ such informat"on. rightly fear for their fob. securitv tk;ey were revealed as information sou.ces. This <<s the reason Kudzu Alliance has undertaken to protect the "names of'ts sources.

The info. ~at<<on we'll speak for itself.

~,

I ~I I

Contrary Co Trowbr1dge's argument on page 9 of his answer',

the ASLB~s intent'on to @ursus the further develop>ment of. the, record ~ ~~I,C:

is only'@art. of the ASLB'8 duty,. and to admit us as intervenors m1ght I

be to admit Chat the ASLB could 'stand'ome help in that task. The

-reco. d of the ASLB~s'nterview.with OIA indicates. Chat that may well, we the case (October 1978). -To hxmm'orrow Trovbrldg'e's. language, the

.. "~X~

ASLB does not indi'cate how it v<<.'l3.. pursue the case or what expertise w'll be brought Co PI; bear'.on it-.-,;..Only.one;boa%'ember states exr l<<citly

~

~ ' ... -.'...~...-'.'~ =.: immediately Chat he would have pursued, the "1'ssue -.'further<on. hearing Cantrell's concerns"N-'

had they not been su~iressed~ -though"Ck:e fu11 ASLB says".Xt now w.'ll-

'nvestigate. 'de submit Chat 1n no'wIaTI does'he ASLB's 1'nt'ention Co participate now guarantee,a sound, record Co the extent that we'ould not be able to provide. further assistance.'. in dev'elooihg -the, r'ecord.

It is absurd'.to. clainr Chat 'the.:-ASLB deserves special, deference "gv to its oromises- Cn "nvestf pats, such.-..that'Ur o~.w111fngn4s'a, to ir vest%gag~<<>'.'ay not even Pe'll'owed'. Beware.'in;:iriyestigaMon'.= thaC=&11'ot allow

~

~we. tn kudzu al.l'ance!eddleman a~seal ?.15.79

'.nund record" ' reqvu.r e o us.

lear managers; we can ca ll th em m as witnesses or nersudde the Board call them (a.g. snme o f t. h e m anapers Crntrell ment'ns as res '. pni ng g ~

Ce>

(

l

~>~ L): we Lave exnl.a".. ned how we can assi1 "t ' c os s -examinat ion h~ r Q ce. t~ nlrb'ssists .rt d eve'oof ng a sound .. ecord; why else would a~'gs st'll be requiredd wh en there a, e rn '-.nte~verors, '. f nc t sn the

-.1'an 's assertions car. h e exam ined'? ne } .".'e have also showr, 'ncnntra-cced, that severa 1 'e~venn n .e s can be of more assistarce tnan one

! devel.o~'g a soundd recor, . d ass ther e w'.ll be mo~e ti me for study e neonle availa 1 bl e t o 0 nn centrate on nar ticular tonics and to r

.zc"! er~os or cuest'ons '~s in "testimony "that otherss may na m m~ s" s~.

"'. na>> y as mentioned Q january, Kudzu Alliance members a. e the I

n  ! ores (based on d~ u <,on with scuss,o ~om irwin o.- CCRC and Der nis '~re s, G ""t r( Qen ~

s office } tn have read over the pref iled HRG testi (onv or this case. Fddleman. ' particul r has read eve~ 'thin ,

' tr!is filinp

~

xc cot for every LFP on 9..runswunswick c( 2 (yet ) tho he k:as reviewed eve~~i L'Z~

. ister) for Rob.; nsnn 2 ard Brunswick 1 reactnrs . This map not be spec ial x e~t~ se but it is necessary ureaarat..on to effactitivel~. aarticirate n a case ((ro o ffense to '.4 ers or Erw~ n .:le have or.e t other Kudzu

) ~ {

h have read ~arts o f th e t es timnny also, we a. not in nosses sion

. e 'e!bars

• >>C; a cony of 6 6 L's resnonse,'ut w4 ll get one and k,o.o over f t if indeed sc"!e Kudzu members haven ' <<lready done so j.

le find ~.t absurd that we who ar e wo) king most on a case maoe karat nut of ' at this noint. 'Zf Tr owbridge will oermit, we w' 1 gladly si ow h m how our knowledge and <.nformation may be broug ht to bear on this 2

case.

2'ProwbrMge mentions that many of our" tvXorma nt will not ive thei~

names ~ He characterrizes zes them em as.as unwilling to come forward and 'oe nf ronted.

cnnf ronte'd; the accurac of their statements. he gnores fear f0~ t!lair,~obs if the% o so, see c.

'I l' esnonse Co answer by anal'icant to kudzu al" Ianc~eddIeman area '2eI5,'$9'.",

e

~~ ~t. i%

check" ng on the InvesCIgator.'t'..best this Is a very weak argmnen because our assistance is considered null In order, ft Co nrcvaig.

A~ we have anointed out, Kud u; may wel1 be better aualified than-any existiz Intervenox tn a~sist'n developing this record. Ne 've certainly'.'".;;.,'".

done more work on IC C'hah

~ I, other" intervenors have. To'. d'sallow our i -',:."',-;;.!:-.

narticipation while allow'ng others 'who've-done less on this matter to oa.ticfpate .1s absurd.

This, brings us Co the issue of representation of ou. Interests bn- exist~.ng parties. As we have argued (29 November,'c mage )

+he e..~ st~.nr.. na. Cf es can -Cake no mo. e interest In us (at best)

I a cou55-ao~ointed, o'verbu. dened public defender could take 4n one of Icsnc non clients. he I

onset'on is "the Rxtent to ':Ihich 't.e petItionerIs inte>>.est sill 'oe nrepresented by eristing nerties." (2.71$

if I II ~

(a) (1) (iii)). Tsven the other parties did re@resent the same interests, all of them; Chat we do> Che extent of that epresentation I

I I is not addressed by Trowbridge.. Ne have arguecK in detail in our petition.,-".'.

and appeal brief Chat'he extent of representation afforded, us by.

-intervenors ClCNC and Ht". Attorney General's office is Inadequate, Chough.

we endorse their, eXTorts. The inadequacy Iof.'.such epresentation I s shown by existing intervenors not read"ng the material for these hearings (certainly not in Che deta'l we have), not planning to call witnesses, etc. Hone= of'hese. facts have -been chal" enged. Thus we sav that the extent of representation- afforded'our 'nterests by other ~art'.es ,! .\*

Is inadequate even on the intere ts we have in commons Our other inte. ests (e.g. as sharenolders, as energy competitors of (;P 6: L's) we have only ourselves,: to give any e representation. Thus the extent to w'ttich our '.nterests are now represented is quite inadequate.

3 hey do not; e.g. Eddleman and other Kudzu members. a ee e

~

C.0 R~

L shareholders. No one has shown. another @arty re@resenting this .n .eres i:ave eo'ted out financial- risks, Co shareholders'n this case roneatedll.'<

Wl 12 he z'vale r comedy is to ad~it us as 1ntervenors in the basis o. ti)e 4 total balance nf all the eiCht facto, s, which we 'have shown al. eadv L strnn8:1".r .'.n our favor.

nwbr'dye's f'nal ercument, about 0~lay, ~em'.nds me of ".utntus P. Cunctatn~, te "th d e 1 aye, r" whn would neve~ meet iiannibal ir, o~en battle. t I

X-nl~cant ~rd the  !!HC staff are the source of delay '.n these hea~" ngs.. r

o. cc used have had nearly lg months to deal with all the que.~t'.cns follow'ng au:-d:i~~ssion as '.ntervenors had they nct nnrosed us. Thol, 2:avon;.

a ~oli cant dela~r. d us sn long, xzx conn!.a~ns conn a that to cd, it us now wo ld d<<Lay matters s .,'l~ =nre (wi ile they exorcise other rights, witi: which the~. may delay us further! -- b..u." we .'.~ vee ro ob'ect J on, to the'> exercis'rp thai~ .'.bahts rul')

Fo-turatelV, oetItioners have not been idle, ":.rd have done much o

o& the prepur~t'on we 'ntend~d anyway, tnouQ wi t!. less oner<; ".<<r.iaos

~ue "o t? << '-ie~icultv nf gett~rg more z.e~rle to w! r'i on so:"et!.~ ~g 2".- i'.n. "4at - t zw nnt be listened c ! t all when it counts. '::e submit the" our act'.ons have not delayed this case, we stated early on that we wanted the iiearfngs speeded up, not sin!red down, and t?:at any delay

'n tiie case be ~~ooerly ascribed to Anplicant and the KC staff wbo have caused toe dela~ f and L not to us, wbn have none nothing to cause

)iy it, has anrone eve~ said we have delayed ti!is case '..n any wa;r.

~

nc n sum: 'lf e ver asl '.ntezvenor was cualSfied te nartic'~" e in uc3.ea. case bv virtue . " extens ve n..egest,s

~

n etc, we

~4 'A4 yw gqted 7 ad tgoscpet fnnsn it feneral ..n+ even<<<<

A" - er. ed Kn omitting 3 mandated 2.71!,

~ ~

al d factors f. nw .s

~

fi cto~, and te e'linp w?iere 't 't er. ed '.n .'ts dec s..ons who ly nn a

~!~. t'a>]y erren and ('1} +2:e co~rect ." in' that ax a

. tain whetl c. T>owbridpe's page 1 statement dea's with t's question be ause be does nr t sa.- when ne rece'e nu e "~ea

~le would like the anoeal bna~d to review the date the a "zeal .:;s sert

'f T~owbridpe's resp~ nse is late w't2:out, ccd cause. from the ".t:te our a"r eal got tn him. As Trowbridge could .tave . ead, we as i.e xmas ~GI 9 to forward conies of our filings to othe. ".a~ t es becauae we e ck he t'me ..me and mone.r tc make and m.il suci. co~ies in suc.'; numbers.

Pn one has ruled against tbe ASL9's evident granting of that renuest, and to 9o 6o would imnose financial renuirements for 1nte vent'n". u... easnnablp

0 ~

V L there. are no other means whereby our interest may, be represented, ":",','>".<,-,.f which factor should nave been driven greater'eight, and that therefore-, '" "~i:)

the AS;.3 dec'sion den ing intervention in 'the upcom'.ng hea. ings, ought to be reversed,. or at. least-remanded fox further consideration.and accurate weighing n'f".the, evidence ori all 'eight.:factors the NRC rules., .:;; ..-;.','~+; ~

require to be considered..  :;',':.", '. -...; '.-.:" ." ';"' . .',;-* ".g+"

g "~g%W~P

le- wish final.ly to -no'te. that we'steem

George'P; Trowbr..'dge as

~

e a person and in his riEhts'.is. a,'citizen .etc;'nd- wish.no offense to 'be taken if we reject. his argument' 'with some force.

. '7',"

,<Qh'.,behalf of myself an8 the Kudzu Alliance,~I."

.'. --.:.."'" " '.:: - .,>',-. '-.. Hells 5'dd1eman,"' -.:..,

.Pebruarp;.,1979 ma'1ed same date.

'.. '<-'jli~g>

Mote: conies. of this, are. cX.'carer'-;Ma'n the -origiyu3. so I'have sent'

',.:.;~s+ ~

signed copy to'he ASLAB...

C (

Correction:,to Trowbr'dge 's '-note.$ 1~ e.2. oX'nswer:

Only Uells Zddleman. ha's re'quested:;,the W?C t'o ., coven, the orris hearings..

.he suggest"on; the-ASLB, made was:-too good. foe.pie to. pass,'., up.. Kudzu.'-,

All'ance may goin,~'n th+s reouest~.or make 'its: own i'equests to the NRC at azvr future time. X.look forward to the. NHC's deteMnat'on of how to treat: this" petit.I;cn',. but .Xt .is in, no way oart, of this a~real, 1 or. relevant to. it. As:,we r have stated, 'we want intervention. Then /.

we can decide whether= as Cntervenors we should ask for mo.e-hearing's on issues of 'moortance..

C

.,'g

/

~

he 5

~1

' 1' "ItC ~

I IA 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.'~a.sISSIOX In the i~fatter of CAROLXaB. PO:TER AND LXGHT CO~PAVLZ Docket No.js) 50-400 50-401 (Shearon Harris Nuclear PQT, e- 50-'02 Pl nt, Units 1, 2, 3, nd 4.) 50-'03 CERTIF ICATE OF SERV ICE I hereby certify that X have this day servec the foregoing document(s) upon each person designated on the official se~>ice'list compiled by the Of fice of the Secretary o f the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 t;FR Part 2-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Co.";emission's Rules and Regulations.

Dated at Washington, D.C. this day oc . Qc<ccA pl/! i o'f th(e Secretary of the Commis ion

/UA'ffice

0 'P UNITED STATES OF A.fERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

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

) 50-401 (Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power ) 50-402 Plants, Units 1-4) ) 50-403

)

SERVICE LIST Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chaixman Richard E. Jones, Esq.

A'tomic Safety and Licensing Board Carolina Power and Light Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Boz 1551 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. Glenn 0. 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 "M" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. J.V. Leeds, Jr.

Rice University Thomas S. Erwin, Zsq.

P.O. Boz 1892 P.O. Boz 928 Houston, Tezas 77001 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Ezecutive Legal Directox'.S. Dennis P. Hyers, Fsq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attorney General's Office Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Boz 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Alan S. Rosanthal,'sq., Chairman Atomic Safety and. Licensing Appeal Mr. O. Gene Abston, Acting Director Board Office of Inspector and Auditor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. John kl. Buck 'Mr. '.lells ="ddle ~n Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Rou e 1 BO'z 183 Boa.rd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dur'.sam, North Caxolina 27705 Washington, D.C. 20555 Kudzu Alliance Boz 3336 Michael C. Farrar, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Cnapel '.lill, North Caxolin 27514 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

0