ML20073P804

Response to Questions in ASLB 830325 Memorandum & Order Re Need for Power

ML20073P804
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	04/20/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:
Shared Package
ML20073P807	List: ML20073P804 ML20073P814
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8304270257
Download: ML20073P804 (4)

Text

. .

'83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '?26 4, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION April 20',.1983 ,

,f i  :

l I

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of

) Dockets 50 400 OL

' CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-h68-01

_) OL Wells Eddleman's Response to Board Questions re Need for Power Rule, Eddleman 15's, and CH_ANGE 79 e

... Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order of 3-25-63, Wells Eddleman resnonds to the four questions (pp 2-3) in it, as follows:

1. I do not believe so, since coal is not an" alternative energy source f r the pronosed plant" under 10 CFR 51.53(c). To my knowledge, the conversion of Harris to a coal-fired plant has not been raised in this proceeding. The comparison here is between operating the CP&L power system without Harris operable, and with Harris operable under some assumptions. That seems an anpropriate question, and without an answer to it, I doubt that sufficient benefits for Harris can be shown to exceed its admitted costs in operation.

gg- If, however, coal is considered an " alternative energy source"

, Ova.

'8 under 10 CFR 51.53(c), then contentions concerning the co st advantage O

! *0 (if any) of nuclear oueration comnared to burning coal at other plants ID:s gg would be batred by that rule (51.53(e)) in my view. Phis would not bQ Q4 apply to quest' ions about (or dependent on) a load forecast, in my view, 85 mmo as long as the contention itself does not concern need for power or alternative energy sources for the prouosed plant.

{ . ..

At the February 24, 1983, special urehearing conference, Judge Kelley indicated he would be unavailable during the tine set in the present schedule for the environnental issue hearings. I cannot determine the extent to which the availability of each, or any, members of the present ASL3 in this case night be enhanced by a rescheduling of parts of the hearing within the additional 6 nonths time Prasad Kadanbi's 'above-referenced sumnary (3-24-83) anpears to allow. I an not certain that c motion is in order at this point concerning the schedule, .since the Staff's nosition that plus or minums 6 months on the construct *c.n schedule.would not lead them to forna117 dispute Applicants' fuel load date, is already on the record in the 2-24-83 conference.

I am raising this noirt because, the more I think about the idea of .different panels hearing different narts cf this troceeding, the more I think that possibil.ity should be avoided, if noscible. There is one ultinate issue here: whether in the light of all the availeble evidence, CP&L et al should or should not ,be granted a license to nperate the Harris nuclear plants (and store spent fuel there from other plants).

While I am not familiar wi th the ins and outs of how a multinle sat of panels might decide this issue, and how the membe s of such panels nicht communicate their knowledge and findings to other panels, it seems to me, straightforward 17, that direct knowledge is nreferable whe"e it is possible. I foresee possible urejudice to ny case if, for exannle,-

Applicants in one hearing object to consideration of information or exhibits brought out. in another (I have seen CP&L object to intvoducing its own filings with the NCUtilities Connission into evidence before that same Commission, when an intervenor sought to do so). The une of multinle panels night also raise the difficulty of intervenors having to try to bring out the relevance of facts found in other phases of the s

- -e A

T It may well be that a reviewing Court would find Commission rule 51.53(c) inconsistent with NEPA and Calvert Cliffs, and I would hone to get that issue before a court eventually. But the question here must first be decided within the NRC franework. .

3 I don't know why the Staff included cost savings as a "large" benefit in its PES (Final Environmental Statement) on Catawba, NUREG-0921. But this position is inconsistent with the position that these issues cannot be raised at the OL stage. If the staff ,

includes an alleged cost or benefit, the aporopriateness of including such as a cost or benefit, and the amount of such cost or benefit, may clearly be contested.

It is worth noting that the Staff has stated that power is the only important benefit of the Harris plant. If financial considera-tions are indeed barred by 51.53(c), dhen the question becomes the environmental benefits, vs. costs (all costs) of generating a given amount of electricity from nuclear as onposed to other sources (e.g.

a mix of hydro, coal, oil and other), given that the costs of the nuclear plant (e.g. Harris) are sunk and may not be considered.

4 I don't know the status of NUREG-0919. If it is intended to guide Aoplicants, one would hope it would have been made official in the eleven months that have passed since it was issued. If it is not official, Applicants are clearly not bound by it, but may choose to follow it. The Staff, of course, is not required to adopt or modify or exclude Applicants' assertions in their Environmental Renort in their DEIS, ,/ [ gg

20 April 1983 Wells Eddleman

April ly, 1063 Re: NRC Dockets 50-h00/h01 0.L.

John O'Nei11 Ebaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M ST NW Washington DC 20036

Dear John O'Neill,

I have reviewed the folder of documents (handwritten notes) re the contentions (referenced in response to Apelicants' let set of inter-rogatories, sent 3/21/83) per our agreement of h/8/63, and they are all legal theories, thought nrocesses, etc. in anticipation of trial.

Enclosed also are whited-out copies of two documents, one related to Eddleman 29 (letter fron B. Molholt, Ph.D. ) and one related to Eddleman 45 (water., hammer). As we discussed on the 6th, I have deleted the names of certain non-exnert and nonwitness expert persons from these conies (reta*.ning the orig $nals unmarkeB2. I am transmitting these to you per our agreement that you will review then and be back in touch with me if you have anything to dispute about re these P docunents (each is one page only). .

I have not yet reviewed the other matters and questions we went over on the 8th nor prepared answers for then, since it's tax time and I've been busy with that and the radiation interrogatories you asked me to give priority to due to Ms. user's pregnancy.

{ it Y Wells Eddleman cc Chas. Barth Judge Kelley All other parties will reveive a cony of this (w/o enclosures) in my next mailing to them.

l L