ML20024D039
| ML20024D039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1983 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, CLI-83-19, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308030050 | |
| Download: ML20024D039 (48) | |
Text
. ___ . _ . - . - - .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Jul s 'y O
', NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION g-
~~
Y Aug --
BEFORE THE AMMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD D> 77 Glenn Dr. O. Bri James H.ght v.
- Carpenter c"U@%' fg
) 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.arul 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-166-01 4
) OL Wells Eddlenan's filing re 5 factors and answer to Staff and Aunlicants re DEIS contentions and 15AA .
This' filing is made pursuant to a conference call of 7-lh-83 l and the Board's menorandun and order of 7-15-83 (pp 2,3). It addresses
~' t!he 5 f actors of 10 CFR 2.71h(a)(1) pei CLI 83-19 (served July 1 '83) for my DEIS contentions and contention 15AA filed prior thereto.1 As di,scus. sed in the conference call, this also includes my answers to Applicants and Staff on these contentiens, which cannot be rnde in the prehearing conference since it was called off, q Because there is much overlap among the above contentions with respect to .the 5 factors, I first address each factor gnenerally for groues of contentions. Other information regarding some or all factors is later given for contentions, along with my' answer to Applicants and Staff re adnissibility of that contention.
1 Emer6ency Plan (site) contentions and Control Room (DCRDR) contentions uill have these 5 factors addressed in a separate submission due 8-31-83 7-15-83 order at 3 8308030050 830729 PUR ADOCK 05000400 G PDH
- DsP3_
Where I. de not exolicitly accept an argument by Applicants or Staff,
- it can be assumed that I do not agree with it.
THE FIVE FACTORS
- 1. Good cause for failure to file on time:
The deferred Eddleman contentions -were filed on time. .Thus,
.particularly for those that I let stand, the 5 factors should not be~ applicable. (I address them anyway just to be safe).
The Board's 9-22-82 and 5-27-83 Orders are also, in my view, good cause since they provide 2 time deadlines for filing contentions .
- or revising or withdrawing them when the DEIS comes out. These deadlines were met or (in the case of the DEIS) an extension of time was granted and the filing met that extension.'.
The Board's 5-27-83 Order also requires a paragranh saying why the conten, tion couldn't be filed earlier. For contentions not deferred, such a paragraph is provided (Eddleman DEIS contentions, see e.g. at 17, 19,22), and I adopt it- (and any other information re why any contention covered herein could not be filed earlier) as evidence of good cause for not filing "on time", i.e. 5-14-82.
For deferred contentions amended on the basis of information I
i (or lack thereof) in the DES, the unavailability of that information is good cause for reformulating the contention (to give it more L
specificity), and for revising the basis to reflect the DES's actual content. The Board (9/22/82 Order at 4) has stated that the See 5-27-83' Order at 8 (footnote 8) re Contention 15AA on i
capacity factor; same order at 25 re DES (DEIS) which requires statements
- on wh the contentions on the DES (DEIS) could not be filed earlier; l '9 2 Order at 4-8 (re catawba, ALAB-687 and deferral of contentions)
The filing deadlines are set in the 9-22 82 Order at 8; numbers of l
d 8ferred c ntentions appear in the table, page 9 ibid.
aC
, ,- ~ , . , w. , , . . . m -
r specificity requirement is,what leads to the idea of deferred contentions re documents not available at the original filing time for contentions. The Board went on to say (p.5) that if "all contentions had to be filed before the first prehehring conference, even if essential documents were not available. Many intervenors would then file necessarily vague contentions that were vulnerable to exclusion for lack of snecificity." (emnhasis original)
Thus, making up for the lack of snecificity in a deferred conclusion contention is clearly permissible. This isg reinforced .by the fact that the Board went on to pose the alternative to such a non-specific but timely filing as vulnerability to a claim of " lateness" and possibly being required to meet the five factors of 10 CFR 2.714 Revision in the light of more specific information (e.g. the exact content, words, or lack of consideration or lack of analysis in the DES) is clearly not " lateness" and was snecifically contennlated and allowed (p.8) in the Board's 9-22-82 Order. (Note that Eddleman 15AA can be viewed as a revision of Eddlema 15 and 151, and that such a view comports with NRC's CLI-83-19 (at 12-13) where contentions based on the ER (like 15 and 15A) are to be filed based on the ER, but those based on the DES *cannot be expected to be oroffered at an earlier stage of the uroceeding before the docunents (DE S or FES) are availablo" (p .12 ) . This last apolies to contention 15kA.
As to new contentions, my new contentions question the adequacy of the DES. Under CLI-83-19 as cited above, the fact that the DES was not available (I got mine May 19, 1983) is good cause for not filing these contentions on 5-14-82 (" timely"). The new contentions were all timely filed under the Board's 5-27-83 and 9-ggr82 orders.
1
Further, as to new environmental contentions based on the DES, (and 15AA if it is considered to be such a contention), the Staff's actual failure to comply with section 102 of NEPA (cited by me in my original contentions supolement, see at 12-13 and at 2S) does not occur until they actually issue the DES without giving the ' consideration "to the fullest extent possible" to " alternatives to its action which would reduce environmental damage" as required by NEPA under Calvert Cliffs, $9 F 2d 1109 at 1128. The-staff's failure to actually give this consideration, which must be '"' full and fair", violates my rights as an interested party and resident within 50 miles of Harris, under NEPA. Such a violation, allowed to stand unchallenged (i.e. without contentions on such violation (s) being admissible) violates my right to equal protection of the laws l under the U.S. Constitution. I think the requirements of NEPA section 102, as elucidated in Calvert Cliffs, supra, are just what is addressed as the " adequacy" of the DES in CLI 83-19 (see at 12).
l Thus, the non-existence of the DES is good cause for not filing a specific contention about the adequacy of the DES, such as the contentions in the class described at the top of this page, "on tine." 3 FACTOR 2. The availability of other means whereby the l
! petitioner's interest will be protected.
I am the only party pursuing DEIS, cauacity facator, DCRDR and site emergency plan contentions. The Staff, in its DES and 3 Even where there was some warning that the Staff would violate the. requirements of'NEPA and Calvert Cliffs as cited above,e.g. as to the environmental impact of spent fuel, (2-2h-83 transcript at 540),
any contention alleging that the Staff would in fact violate the law by omitting analysis of the issue (or alternatives to reduce the environmental damage therefrom) would have been held uremature most l
kely, DES.
and deferred. Then it would have to be made snecific based on e ( This issue fuather discussed re suent fuel contentions.)
_.__--m -r .c _ r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _
5 in its pleadings on Contention 15AA and the DEIS contentions, opposes my position on all DEIS contentions. (I seem not to have their response to 15AA yet, but Staff counsel indicated they do not wish to have a capacity factor contention in the proceeding. )
Applicants likewise oppose my position on everything excent some parts of coratention 8F. Even on that contention, Applicants are extremely unlikely to act to protect my interests, based on their reaction to Joint Contention II, Eddleman 29, Eddleman 37B and other health effects contentions.
So, for all the DES contentions (DEIS contentions) and 15AA, there are no other means whereby my interest will be protected.
please note the language of the rule is "will be", not may be or could be.
8 FACTOR 3 The extent to which the petitioner's carticipation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
First, without contentions admitted, there will be no record any of ong these issues. The adequacy of the DES, the extent of benefits from the plant (as exparessed by capacity factor) and the issues 2
of the deferred / revised contentions, are all quite imoortant in an NRC operating license croceeding. (Adequacy of the DES is what the new contentions are about. ) Obviously the record is l
more sound if all these issues are explored by litigation:
the adversary process is considered a very important tool of fact-finding in the USA's judicial system. More facts mean l a sounder record.
I think my handling of Eddleman 15 and other environmental 1
contentions, my ability to pursue discovery thereon, and my ability to conduct technical cross-examination and possibly to find witnesses ,
demonstrate that I of my owng can assist in developing a sound record on each of these issues.
To summarize, then, without admitted contentions there will be no record on these important issues (covered by the DES new contentions, deferred contentions, revised / reformulated contehtions deferred (including " resurrected" old contentions), and 15AA).
I have demonstrated ability in discovery and cross-examination to be of assistance in developing a sound record on these sorts of issues (environmental and capacity factor). My abilities and resources are applicable to each such contention as described above.
FACTOR 4 The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be renresented by existing parties.
As with factor 2 above, the key point here is that I am the only party. pursuing these issues. In the , conference call of July 14,1983, it was made clear that all other parties, by not filing DES contentians and/or by not addressing their deferred contentions on DES natters as the Board had ordered (9/22/82 and i 5/27/83), had dropped their uursuit of. these matters.
l_ The Staff opposes all the DES contentions and doesn't like the idea of litigating 15AA. Applicants opnose all of these p
contentions except sone parts of 8F, but it is very unlikely that l
they will represent my interests with respect to 8F or anything else, given their consistent opposition to my interests on all other
-environmental issues.
The above shows that no existing party will represent my interests on any of the DES contentions or on 15AA. Again, the test is "'will", not "may", "might", or "could". There is no showing that i
l any other party will represent my interests en any of these matters.
i L -
FACTOR 5 The extent to which the petitioner's carticination will beoaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Capac.ity factor (15 AA, see original contention 15 and the admitted version 9/22/82) and all Une deferred contentions have
~
been issues since this proceeding began, so admitting them (or revisions of deferred contentions) cannot broaden the issues.
Even where a revision might be read as " broader" than the original deferred contention, the broadening is not significant in a case of this conclexiety. I would say that the revisions are more specific and thus " narrower" than the original deferred contentions on which they are based (or from w hich they derive).
As to the new contentions, they go to the adequacy of the DES.
10 CFR 2.104(b)(3)(1) provides that connliance _ with NEPA sections 102(2)(A),(C) and (E) must be established in this proceeding.
The DES is how the NRC Staff conn 11es with NEPA (CLI 83-19 at 12, Appendix thereto at 4). Thus, challenges to that connliance (which must be very full and fair under Calvert Cliffs, sunra, l
at all stages of NEC review including the OL stage) have been at issue in this croceeding from the beginning also.
Assuning, arguendmo, that any new contention (or all of them) is considered to be broadening of the issues, again, one or a few l
is very little broadening in a proceeding where about a dozen environmental contentions are already at issue. And the other l
l factors are unanimously in favor of admission of each contention, so the broadening factor is outweighed, particularly for issues imnortant . for a sound record to be established. (Additional information on this issue may be found for specific contentions below. )
l l
I
As to the question of delaying the proceedings, virtually all the delay in getting the DES contentions and 15AA to the stage of Board consideration has been due to delays in issuing the DES, which had been scheduled for 12-17-82, was then revised to 2-21-83, and which finally issued May 11, 1983 Compared to this delay of nearly 5 months, assuming that rulings on contentions could issue by 8-15-83 and allowing 60 days for filing discovery, 30 more days for getting in all requested production of documents, and perhaps another 3 weeks to prefile testimony, the current hearing schedule on environmental matters could be met, though barely. Putting the DES contentions and 15AA (such as may be admitted) at the end of this hearing would give a little more time; another alternative would be a solit hearing with perhaus a week or two break between the other environmental hearings and hearings on any of these issues admitted. In any of these cases, the delay is not significant in a proceeding that will last about 3 years. The Staff exnects i CP&L to load fuel 6 months later than CP&L schedules it, so even a month delay would not be significant in this proceeding as far as impacting oneration dates for the Harris ulant.
Obviously, the potential for delay is greater the more contentions are admitted, but the split-hearing nronosal above should handle the case where all of them are admitted. Even then the delay is modest and outweighed by other factors, particularly the need for a sound record and that the contentions were tirely filed or have good cause in the lateness of the DES (and etc, see factor 1 above, pp. 2-4); the fact that only myself, the Staff and the Applicants are involved in all these issues may also streanline the proceeding with re8pect to dhem, limiting delay,
GENERAL CONCLUSION: A balancing of the 5 factors, as addressed above generally for contention 15AA, deferred contentions unrevised, deferred contentions revised, and new contentions, shows that the 5 factors favor acceptance of each contention. Further discussion of some of the_ factors, where given for any contention below, is intended to lend further basis to this contiusion.
ANSWER TO APPLICANTS AND STAFF ON CONTENTIONS In my June 20 filing, pp.1-5, I list conatentions the DES (qua DEIS)does not affect: Eddleman 150-161; Joint I,IV,VI,and VII; Eddleman 41,h5,64f,65,67,9,11,116 and 132; Eddleman 2,24,32(excent 32(3)),26,29&30 (re emergency planning), 5h,_ .56,57,63,6hA,99,100,
'l 117,118,121,124,133,35,88,103,107, 137,139 and ih0. Possible
~
continued deferrals also include 57B, 81 and 97. Except as noted below, Applicants and Staff do not anpear to challenge any of these r
contentions as being affected by the DES. Thus, those deferred l
in the above list should remain deferred, and those not ruled on sho.uld go through the normal process of being ruled on, but l independently of the DES. That is 21 deferrals, 3 uossible deferrais, 14 not yet ruled on, 9 admitted Eddleman safety contentions and h Joint Contentions not on environmental natters.
Since they did not challenge my analysis in their resconses to my DEIS (DES) contentions, I assume Applicants and Staff agree that Joint Contentions II and V are also not affected by the DES; l and, on the same basis, I assune they agree 37B is not affected.
Eddleman 57D was deferred. Applicants noint out an evident
! oversight in that the part about emergency plan costs was with a separate "# "before it. Applicants, Staff and I all overlooked this and I assumed (in setting objections to the Board's 9/22/82 Order)
that this was part of Eddleman 57D and therefore deferred.
At any rate, this part was timely filed, and even if we all did overlook it, it's a good contention even by Staff and Applicants' view, in that it identifies (from analysis missing in the ER) a failure that shows un in the DES. Why should this be included?
It's a cost (emergency planning) caused by running the plant.
If the plant doesn't run, you don't need an emergency plan.
I thought it obvious that the Staff needs to fully consider all the costs and benefits of Harris operation. To do otherwise would violate NEPA. If you throw out sone costs in your analysis, you are stacking the deck of the cost-benefit analysis. That's wrong.
Of course, the cost of emergency planning doesn't depend on need for power or load forecasts or anything like that. It only depends on the plant getting an operating license, which is Ebe main issue in this case. Therefore the cost of emergency planning should be included in the Staff's analysis under NEPA, as Contention 57D ("# ") asks. (See page 12 for additional info and re 5 factors on this contention. )
As to 57B and 81, I have no objection to continuing to defer them to the emergency plan stage. The Staff does not address them.
Nor do Applicants appear to. (See middle of page 2 of my 6-20 filing).
I do not assume that Applicants or Staff approves these contentions.
I think the basis for Staff's underestimating the erobability of severe accidents (UCS, Nuclenzus,"the probability of a core-melt accident", odds around 1333:1 ( gj{,
- q. 65 Q4 f f~k 10 to1orsolorStafj) by UCS' analysis, or 1000:1 to 2000:1 by Okrent and Moeller for ACRS) is clear enough as basis for admitting them both if they are ruled on now. They appear to be adequately snecific.
Eddleman 97: Again, I have no objection to further deferral re the emergency plan. But the Staff's failure to analyze very rapid accidents is plain on its face. Staff & Apolicants do not address #97.
I think the citations to the DES (6-20 filing at 2-3) show how the Staff has failed to make such an analysis. Why is it needed?
Because very ranid accidents are possible and their environmental effects are very very bad. The Staff assumes effective evacuation with respect to accidents (see p. 5-62, "Early evacuation within and early relocation of people from outside the plume exuosure pathway zone . . . and other protective actions as mentioned above are considered essential secuels to serious reactor accidents involving significant release of radioactivity to the atmosphere.
Therefore, the results shown for Shearon Harris include the ben 8 fits of these protective actions."
Yet, as noted (6420 at n -3) by me, the, Staff really didn't take very ranid accidents that could preclude such protective actions into account. It remains to show that such accidents are possible. They are. One scenario (incorocrated into Eddleman-97 by reference, see my 5-14-82 submission at 205, referencing last i
part of Eddleman 96 on page 204) is an ATWS event, followed by a power excursion that blows the lid off the reactor vessel and through the containment, releasing the reactor contents to atmosphere (American Physical Society,1975 Supulement, beginning p. S 1, describes how this accident works). This is obviously a very fast, very serious accident (potential to release the entire core inventory to the environment under considerable pressure). Its scenario is set in original Eddleman 97 (by reference), timely filed.
Staff should assume near 100% core release & no nrotection to analyze it.
I believe the above, original Eddleman 97 and the 6-20 filing show plenty of basis for a specific contention which may be phrased:
Eddleman 97A The DES does not sufficiently account for the environmental effects of very rapidly develoning nuclear accidents in which emergency plans could not take effect or would have limited eff-ect.
_ _ J
The above is the rewording of 97 I'd have put forward at a orehearing conference if we'd had one (the 7/20-21 one was called off). In the conference call of 7/14/83 I understood that this pleading can .
include any resnonses that would (or could) have been made at that prehearing conference.
More on the $ factors: Eddleman 97 was timely filed, and does not broaden the issues. The notential for delay from this contention is modest since the Staff can address it in the FES which they hagve to produce anyway. No other party is pursuing this_, issue and there are no other means to ovotect my interest in it.
NOTE The Staffre Eddleman 57D (see (DES section 5.8 p)considers age 10): other socioeconomic costs (if you can call their 2-paragraph inse dixit conclusions consideration), but they onit this cost, which is clearly caused by Harris operation. Emergency planning is now raid for by the taxp_ayers, so it's a socioeconomic cost of the Harris plant.
It is clear that emergency n1anning costs will be incu" red, and the Staff's f ailure to include then biases the cost-benefit analysis required by NEPA. This analysis must give the full _and fair consideration required by NEPA. Calvert Cliffs, suora,at 1128.
More re $ factors: This contention was tinely filed, and thus cannot broaden'the issues since it's always been an issue (even if it has been overlooked in the nast). Delay potential is modest because Staff nust issue the FES anyway, and as noted under the general discussion of the $ factors (see p.8 above) there is time to do discovery and litigate contentions like this with either no delay in the environnental chase hearing, or modest delay.
No one else nursues this issue, and there are no other means to represent my interest on it.
Joint II, Eddleman 37B, and Joint IV, V and VI and Eddlenan 2 (discussed at pages 3-5 in my 6-20 filing) are not affected by the DES. Staff and Applicants do not question this view in pleadings so far.
Eddlenan 88 (6-20 at pp 5-6): The Staff response (Staff at h-5) shows they may not have read beyond the first sentence of Eddlenan 88 (5-14-82 at 198). I mention (6-20 at 6) that the " ' benefits ' (of public use of places inside the exclusion area) should continue to be excluded from the cost-benefit analysis in section 6 of the (DES)."
In negotiations I have also agreed to 5dthdraw the part of 88 which alleged that such benefits were counted in the DES, since they aren'T.
I think my 6-20 filing is quite consistent with that position.
However, there remain 88(A) and (B) (5-14-82 at 198), the first of which asserts that there should be no public use of the areas inside the exclusion area boundary due to accident risk.
(This may be viewed as a safety contentien and remain deferred, but the basis for it exists now. See radiation release and dose discussion in my 6-20-83 filing at 5-6.) Staff does not address this issue. The Boavd noted (9-22-82 Order at 63) that Eddlenan
- 88 alleges deficiencies in the forthcoming environmental statenent and emergency plans. It was thus deferred.
Applicants assert (their resnonse at 33-34) that 88A re the DES " ignores the assessment of severe accidents"; it does not, and in fact references discussion of severe accidents. That is the basis the DES supplies. Citing that basis simply provides greater specificity for 88A. It gives official estinates of the " risk of radiation exposure to persons in (the exclusion) area (whole body and thyroid)" as stated in original 88A. (Whether I have also challenged Applicants' ability to evacuate the exclusion
area re the Site Emergency Plan is irrelevant, since I have elsewhere challenged the ability)to Apulicants (p.34 show evacuate this arearead they-haven't safely the(Eddleman end of 88A-contention correctly.
88B & 32)). It says "should continue to be excluded" for recreation " benefits".
88B: The Staff doesn't address this one either. Applic atts (response. at 34) misread 885.. The " costs it discusses" are those of " establishing adequate transnort, warning, medical treatment and other emergency resnonse facilities, means, plans and the hiring of trained personnel to carry them out, which are all necessary to assure the prompt evacuation and/or other protection of the health and safety of those engaged in hunting, fishing and recreation within the LPZ in the event of a nuclear accident at Harris" (original contention 88B, 5-14-82 at 198). Above the quoted words on p.198 it is clear the exclusion area is included inIthis zene.
Applicants say, correctly but irrelevantly, that the only benefits of Harris in dhe DES are electricity and additional generating capacity. So what? 88B addresses COSTS left out of the analysis.
I never said commercial fishing and local fishing was counted as a benefit, only that the staff had bothered to consider that, but had not bothered to consider that in the event of an accident, 1
i folks fishing (or otherwise engaged in recreation in the exclusion area) might be killed by radiation releases. I still think the best to handle this problem is to prohibit such use of the exclusion l
way(See original contention 88A at lines 4 thru 10)
I area.A But if you're going to allow peonte into the area, then the cost of planning and ureparing to evacuate then has to be included.
The planning and preparations are not "renote and sneculative";
they are required by NRC. These costs (inside the Exclusion Area for contention 88B) are what the Staff has failed to consider.
(5-14-82, at 198, lines 15 and following, "the ES fails to consider").
L
,--r . .= _ - . - . . . - _ . . . . _ _ - - . - _ _ _ . _ - . - - - - . - , - . - - . - . _ -
I can find no basis in the Board's 5-27-83 Order for ADD 11 cants' naked and unreferenced assertion that the Order bars consideration of such costs. Costs of emergency planning and p-eparation in no way depend on need for power, plant performance, or energy alternatives or load forecasts.
In sum, 883 is fully suovorted by the DES. (6-20-83 at 6, lines 7-8 thru "DEIS" (DES)). What the Staff d1ould have done instead is to figure out the costs of energency evacuation plans and preparations and include them in its cost-benefit analysis. They are a socioeconomic cost and there's no excuse for leaving such costs out of their analysis, especially when they have included costs they characterize as "nond" (DES pp 6-2 and 6-3, e.g. at ton line of table on 6-3 and several lines on page 6-2).
5 factors addenda for 8BA and 88B: The contentfons were timely filed and also cannot broaden issues, since they've been issues fron the start. The revisions to them above reflect sinply the exact content (or lack thereof) of the DES, consistent with CLI 83-19 at 12-13 (challenges to the adequacy of the DES ca-not be expected to be proffered at an earlier stage, i.e. before the DES is prepared.
This covers the revisions that explain how 88A and 88B relate = to the DES). CLI 83-19 (at 13) says that the filing of an environmental concern based on the E9 should not be deferred . . .
in this case, a guess addressed to the ES (DES) based on information available a year before it was issued, proves correct on two counts (88A and 88B). While intervenors should not be exnected to nake such accurate guesses about everything (or even most Unings), it's been done.
Note that CLI 83-19 says that if the Staff provides a differing analysis in the DES,Othere will be ample onnortunity to amend or dispose of the contention. (p.13)
A , _
Staff has had Eddleman 88A and 88B in hand for nearly a year before issuing the DES, yet provided no different analysis. That's their Applicants & Staff sa I need to say what they should do inistead.
fault, not mine With respec to 88A, I've said that Applicants or Staff should not permit use of the exclusion area for recreation, or in the alternative should analyze the risk to peoole in it -
due to accidents. With respect to 88B, Staff should figure out the costs of LPZ and exclusion area emergency planning and take them into account as socioeconomic costs in their cost-benefit analysis. I've explained why above; to summarize, it 's not consistent with NEPA or protecting the health and safety of the public to not analyze the effects of accidents on folks inside the exclusion area if people (the nublic) are allowed in there.
(They are, see DES 5-54/55). ( 88A ) . For 88B, NEPA requires all the known costs to be considered. This should take care of the "snecific critique" requested by Staff (response at 3-h) and Applicants' (their resuonse at 9-11) for a rationale.
Coming back to the 5 factors (begun above, 3d varagrarh p.15),
the no-other-meand and no-other-parties are the same as the general situation for these contentions. As to a sound record, I'd add that I have experience in cost-benefit analysis and cost estimation, l and have access to considerable data on radiation health effects (see e.g. responses to interrogatories on Eddleman 37B and Joint II).
With this information, I can assist in develoning a sound record 1
! on the issues of (88A) accident effects on p_eonle very near Harris in the exclusion area, and (883) cost of evacuation plans /oreparedness to take care of peoole in the LPZ and exclusion area.
l
= , - - - . , , _ , , . , . - --
y _
_ _ _ ~ __ -
Eddleman 105 (6-20 filing at 5, 6-7) -had been rejected (9/22/82 Board order at 66) in part because if it alleged a more severe in setting the LPZ and exclusion area sizes, accident should be used A it was not sufficiently specific.
That is exactly what Eddleman 105 alleges. The Staff says at pages 5-55/56 of the DES that it has not reviewed the emergency plan for taking care of people in the LPZ and exclusion area.
(see also at 5-54/55). They do go on to say, page 5-57, that they have not done the analysis of very serious events (nuclear accidents) doses of rr diation to individuals under 10 CFR 100 Thus, at minimus, this revived contention 105 should be defearred until the SER issues. The SER is where the Staff will nresent those 10 CFR 100 calculations. (DES at 5-57).
NOTE: The staff methodology is a bit strange in that they assume no evacuation / protection fer design basis accidents (DES p. 5-58, top), which are lesser accidents. But on 5-62 they do assume protective action for the more severo accidents, and they assume it will be taken and work. These more severe accidents are the ones Eddleman 105 is concerned with. The assumntion, however, hasn't been justified by NRC, esnecially inside the LPZ.
NRC says review of Anolicants ' plans isn't connlete, so the a
ability to take protective action inside the LPZ isn't demonstrated.
The Staff DES claims that 10 CPR 100.11(a) allows them to assume only the leak rate f rom containnent denonstrated by tests. (Note, p.5-57). But 100.11(a) actually says to use the
" expected demonstrable leak rate" for containment. This could be virtually 100% for an accident that blew the containment open.
10 CFR 100.11 requ'res consideration of an accident not exceeded in its effects by any other accident considered credible. I believe Staff should therefore consider the worst accident shown
n ,
credible so far, which in my tentative view is the blown-open containment (overpressure blowing off reactor vessel lid, forcing lid through containment) demonstrated possible by the American Physical Society in 1975 There may be worse accidents, but that's a bad enough one to start with at " worst". It 's credible, ace'ording to APS. This is the "what should be done" or " basis for what 'ought to bet " that Staff & Applicants ask for, re 105.
l The Staff's position (response at 5) is confusing. They do not address what I was citing as new in the DEIS (DES).
Without reference to this design-basis business, they assert that their methodology is like that of the ER. (Even if this is true, I've already asserted the ER was wrong too on this.
l The Board found such assertion lacked specificity. The DES supplies the specifics. )
The footnote 1 to 10 CFR 100.11 says nothing about a 1%
core meltdown. It says meltdown with subsequent release of "acpreciable quantities of fission products", but it also says
! the accident used should have effects not exceeded by any accident considered credible. As noted above, the containment breach accident is credible (can hanpen).
The Staff then cites TID 14844 (tyco-dated March '82 instead of the actual date of March 1962) in the note at the end of 10 CFR 100.
I thank the Staff for a very clear citation. At the place cited, the note says that calculations used in this document "may be used as a point of departure for consideration of earticular site re-quirements which may result from evaluation of Une characteristics of a particular reactor, its purpose and method of operatien" at (10 CFR 100.11(b)(3) note, 1983 edition, page 742, 2d col. )
In the DES Staff says they have not yet performed this evaluation.
So it's very clear the requirements of the rule aren't met yet.
i _ .
e Applicants assert re 105 (response at 37) that it could have been advanced earlier with the requisite degree of specificity, but they do not suggest how. As stated above, in my view the DES provided the needed specificity. Specificity is evidently the
~
bulk of their argument (see 37-38).
I M11nk it's being plenty specific to describe the accident that should have been used in setting the LPZ and exclusion area sizes. Nothing prohibits their being changed. The Staff admits (in DES) it hasn't even done the analysis, but will in the SER. (So much for Anplicants ' claim that the draft SER covers this. ) As noted (6-20-83 at 7) unless one assumed the Staff wouldn't do its duty (and a contention to that effect was rejected), the format of the Staff's analysis, and their failure to perform it, could not have been known 5-14-82.
(6-20-83 at 8; 373 already discussed above)
Eddleman 29, as it addresses meeting Apnendix I limits
-for radioiodines, is unaffected by the DES; Eddleman 29/30 as they affect emergency plans, likewise. See Staff statenent, DES at 5-57.
l Neither Applicants nor Staff address either of these.
l l
Eddleman 75 (6-20-83 at 8), evidently stands or in Stafr's view.
(Staff resnonse at 5, "has already been admitted"). Apnlicants, in a footnobe (#8, response at 30) dispute this idea a bit correctly (i.e. Staff did have a method of getting Corbicula into the reservoir, which I did not notice, DES at 5-20), and more incorrectly. They say that the Staff's expectation that Corbicula will get into the main and auxiliary reservoirs (DES at 5-20) contradicts my statement that Staff hasn't shown that Corbicula won't get into the auxiliary reservoir. I view these statements as confirming each other.
Finally Applicants assert that Corbicula will have no adverse impact on reservoir biota. What this has to do with Eddleman 75 (or 75B) is beyond me. (Bd Order 9/22/82 at 60-61 no mention of other biota. Ditto Eddleman 75 original, f-lh-82 at 181.)
Concerning Eddleman 75B, Staff says (resnonse, pp5-6) that it adds "nothing of substance to the contention but only additional proliyity". -If Staff is saying that including Corbicula in the auxiliary reservoir in Eddleman 75 adds nothing to it, I will agree, though of course from the auxiliary reservoir the ultimate heat sink, RHR and so on may be directly blocked by infestations of Corbicula or debris (e.g. dead Corbicula). " Prolixity" means long-windedness, and if the 25-word contention 75B is " additional pdlixity" then the Staff nust expect intervenors to be most laconic.
(I could try: Eddlenan (joking) catchall contention 1: Plant's no good.)
Applicants (pp 28-32 of response) raise a more substantive objection to Eddlenan.758, that the presence of Corbicula near Harris was known in 1981. This is only part of the "what's new" for 75B, however. (6-20-83 at 9). The Staff's opinion that Corbicula will eventually get into the auxiliary reservoir (as cited by Apolicants)(fn 8, resnonse at 30, cited above on p.19) is new and Applicants do not assert otherwise.
Contrary to Applicants, I think the 5 factors are covered for this contention 753. Corbicula has been an issue in the proceeding from the beginning. 75B's basis in the Staff thinking Corbicula will get into the auxiliary reservoir is new, and this inclusion is clearly an amendment within the terms of CLI 83-19 at 13.
There will be no delay from including the auxiliary reservoir in the contention. There 's plenty of tir.e for discovery on thit as noted above in the general comments on the 5 factors. No other party is renresenting my interest on this, and NRC staff, the only "other means" to protect my interest, doesn't seen very interested in exploring Corbicula problems in the auxiliary reservoir. Applicants' repeated failure to chlorinate their RER at Brunskick is clearly
l 1
1 cause for concern here. The Staff's assunction that Corbicula can be controlled in the reservoir and auxiliary reservoir (DES 4-3,4-11 and 5-20 as cited by Applicants, resnonse at 29), does not translate into a reasonable assurance that Corbicula will be controlled, in view of Applicants ' negligence at Brunswick for over 2 years (the breakdown resulting was discovered in April May and My 1981 for both Brunswick units and is in the docunents supplied under FOIA 82-261. There are other NoC renorts on this event which describe how chlorination was onitted for over 2 years for the systems which becane so full of organisms (mussels and mollusks) that they were inoperable and damaged. I presume Apolicants are bluffing when they fail to admit that such events occurred.)
In sum, there is less that is new for 75B if the docunents Applicants cite (resnonse at 31) , but stil'. enough to add it to existing 75 or accept it as an amendment of 75 under CLI 83-19.
The 5 factors on balance weigh in favor of this latter course.
Eddleman 80 and 83/84 (6-20-83 at 10-12) are unaffected by the DES. Annlicants and Staff do not address them.
Eddlenan 8F is filed specifically under the Board's 9/22/82 see at 38. '83 Order /
This is surely good cause for its filing now. (6/20 at 11)
The parts Aunlicants anprove of adnitting, 8F(1) and (2) as they redraft it ( underestimation of health effects) which I think should continue to include the part about inaccuracy because nodels are based on raked experinents (see 6/20/83 at 15, top),
have all been issues from the beginning. They can't broaden the 3
Rules are rules, and intervenors and others in this proceeding are bound by them. But I can't help noting that the burden on intervenors to know everything in every existing docunent is much more burdensome than any requirenent on Annlicants or Staff. If license applications had to reflect perfect knowledge of everything known at l the time of docketing, I suspect there wouldn't be any..- - _ . . . .
~
l issues or _ delay -the proceeding much (similar issues re plant operation being litigated already as Joint II and Eddleman 37B and Eddleman 80, less discovery will be needed on these).
No one else is pursuing these issues or protecting my interests in them (Staff can't be expected to, since its models are the ones where deficiencies are pointed out). I daink my work on Joint II .and 37B so far shows that I can assist in developing a sound record on 'all the Eddleman 8 issues, also.
Staff's objection (response at 6) is confusing to me.
I can't find an assertion on page 12 of my 6-20 filing that says Table S-3 is defective. I can't find such an assertion anywhere on pages 13 to 16 either, which is all of Eddleman 8. I am getting at the health effects of these effluents and the validity of the methods of estinating them. Staff gives no reason for rejecting 8F, and makes no reference to original 8A, 80, 8D and 8E. Without some explanation, their opposition can't count much.
Applicants do challenge the assertion that dosses from wastes were not considered. (Resnonse at 15-16). I referenced specifically low-level wastes (6-20-83 at 14), and pointed out (p.15) that Table S-3 only says there will be no "significant releases to the environment" for LLW. That neans to ne that there will be releases. This is what S-3 says, not a challenge to it.
The health effects of releases (including from LLW) in Table S-3 are thus litigable. I also reference studies done since the S-3
. rulemaking that Maow dhat LLW can and does leak from burial sites.
(I agree that HLW consideration is barred because table S-3 says there'll be no HLW releases and the Suurene Court in Baltinore Gas
- 82-254,6/6/83, slip opinion, upheld it. I surely hone the Court can enforce this decision upon reality.)
u _ . .
. These studies do not challenge S-3'sstatement that there will be releases from LLW associated with the nuclear fuel cycle.
(Again, to the extent they say these releases are significant, they may be barred by the rules, but some releases are still assumed under Table S-3). The Table S-3 assumption that LLW radioactive releases will not be significant still does not bar litigating this part of 8F(2), for both Applicants and Staff assert that all radioactive releases from Harris will be insignificant, yet the health effects of these are being litigated right now.
As to 8F(3), the Staff does not respond. Aunlicants assert that there is more information in Apuendix C of die DES, but they don't say what information is there. The rest of Annendix C, which I have re-reviewod, is about radon, technetiun-99, and other matters not covered in S-3 At pages 2 and 3 of Appendix C (ref. p. 15 of 6-20-83 pleading by me) there is no reference to what nodel(s) were used . The staff gives no reason for its choice of only 100-year dose comnitnent from the nuclear fuel cycle (I daink they should have used a minimun of 30 half-lives of the longest-lived nucinide enitted in the cycle to air or l
water, as 30 half-lives decays the emission of radiation down to a billionth of its original value. Even that is not a " safe f dose" as there is no sale dose of nuclear radiation). The l' Staff gives no details of how its dose comnitments were calculated.
In Eddleman 80, Joint II, Eddlenan 37B, and Eddleman 8 I have made criticisms of their dose-deternining methods and the under -
l estimation of health effects from radiation doses. Those cast l
l doubt on NRC's conclusions in Aupendix C of the DES, e .g . a t C-3, but without knowing what nodels NRC used I can't specify a contention more fully now. The contention that the information l
needed to justify these models and results is not nrovided, has
basis in the lack of such information in the DES.
Why should that information be provided? Health effects of effluents in Table S-m3 are litigable. Environmental costs (e.g. radiation health effects) are litigable under NEPA. To
~
allow NRC Staff to escape litigation because it has not provided information about how it made its calculations would make a sham of both NEPA and of NRC's allowing these health effects to be litigated.
Applicants ' a ssertion. (response at 16-17) that section 5.10 of the DES gives the information requested, is wrong. That section states twice (pp5-83 and 5-84) that the NEPA consideration is given in Appendix C only for Harris. Nowhere else. Annendix C references none of the docunents Auplicants cite. But Apnendix C is where the NRC did its NEPA calculations for Harris (or presents results of them). Without knowing what they used to make those calculations, I can't assess their accuracy. I do not know if they do or do not conforn to any of the sources cited by Anplicants, because the Staff doesn't say in either DES section 5.10 (of one page or so) or anywhere in Apoendix 0.
If Anplicants truly represent the recent Sunrene Court decision in Baltimore Gas, it anpears that 8F(h) would be out except as to low-level waste, which Table S-3 admits could be released. Staff may mean this part when they say I challenge Table S-3 As discussed above, no challenge to S-3 is made, since the rules don't allow that (I don't think S-3 is right, but that isn't litigable under the rules and nothing above is based on my opinion that S-3 is not right).
L
l -
Eddleman 220: Staff's opposition (resconse at 6-7) seems to assert that this contention violates the need-for dpower mule.
It says nothing about need for power.
It does say that the NFP rule appears to preclude considering additional capacity as a benefit. The A'oueal Board cases cited by the Staff (p.7) talk about electricity need, not need for canac ity.
Missing entirely from Staff's discussion is the allegation that Staff underestinated the probability and consequences of serious reactor accidents. Nor does the Staff argue that the capacity of Harris will be a benefit. (The contention should be amended as benefits are classed as large, none or small, as are costs.
,6-20-83 at 16, line 12). The costs of emergency planning and preparation do not nam depend on need for nowe'r (see discussion above re Eddleman 88, ppl3 ff). They are socioeconomic costs and socioeconomic costs should count against the " benefits to society", i.e. the net benefit to society is what should be balanced against net environmental costs. Otherwise, a plant with m'nor benefits to society, non environmental innact, but huge socioeconomic costs, would get aonroved. This is a ridiculous perversion of the NEPA requirement of cost-benefit analysis for projects affected by major federal action. Since the Staff's view leads to an absurd result, it cannot hold.
Apolicants appear to first raise the Staff's arguments (responca at 19-21) and then assert that the contention c ould have been filed earlier (it was, but wasn't OK'd because the FES wasn't issued.). To the extent that the FES only is the relevant document, 220 could be deferred. But I think it is clear that basing the contention on the available info in the DES is OK under CLI 83-19, and is an " amend" action under that (see at 13).
.J
Applicants also assert, pp20-21, that litigation of the magnitude of the benefits vs. costs of Harris is barred by the Board's 5-27-83 Order. I cannot read the order that way, an The Order says that quantitative costs that depend on load forecasts or need for power cannot be considered in this proceeding, nor can quantitative benefits (e.g. fuel savings) that depend on the same factors.
But I think it is clear that any cost or benefit in a DES can be litigated under NEPA. Since I had no way to predict how the Staff would do its cost-benefit analysis (they changed it entirely under questioning from the Board in this case,. March and April 1983, but did not say how they were gof ng to do the analysis until they issued the renort on 5ay 11,1983 (DES);
I didn't get it til May 19), I had no way to challenge that analysis until the report existed. This is exactly the type of challenge to adequacy of . the DES that CLI 83-19 contemplates (see at 12).
I also think the need for power rule does not bar a l
l challenge to additional capacity as a benefit, since that rule is adopted under the assumotion that additional capacity may not be needed. See 47 FR 12942 and 12941. Certainly the ma6nitude of the benefit of additional capacity is subject to challenge, sinply as a matter of fact. The need-for-nower rule only assumes the use of the electrical output of the plant, not the use of its capacity. NRC assumed that if additional capacity wouldn't be needed, the nuclear output would be used to displace generation from fossil fuels. By nutting that assumption into the need-for-power rule discussion, NRC divorced l the benefits of capacity from the benefits of power.
L
>_m_ - --
As to the 5 factors, even if you consider 22C an ordinary late-filed contention, they on balance favor its adoption.
Adequacy of cost-benefit analysis has been an issue since this proceeding began, e.g. in Eddleran 15, 16 and 22.
Good cause for not filing on time is that the FES isn't out yet (Bd. 9/22/82 Order at h3-hk); filing now is justified because of CLI 83-19 which contenplates filing before a critical document appears if the info needed to give it snecificity exists.
(That info is the DES cost-benefit analysis, which would be hard if not innossible to challenge with adequate snecificity before it existed. Staff's changing the analysis af ter stanting to write the DES for Harris, which the Board is awarc of via the March conference call on the need-for-nouer rule where Staff mentioned intent to include many other benefits and to do quantitative analysis, is further a reason why a challenge to the nresent nethod could not be made with basis earlier. )
No other party is pursuing the issue of overall cost-benefit balance for Harris. There are no other means to represent ny interests on this issue. Staff is opnosed to me, Annlicants sunnort the Staff, and other parties are not involved on this issue.
As to a sound record, clearly the overall cost-benefit analxysis is a crucial issue in this or any other licensing nroceeding.
I believe my experience in cost-benefit analysis willk be helpful in develoning a sound record on this issue. I have done such analysis of nuclear plants under contract with Palmetto Alliance Inc.
(Cktawba project), and for Public Research Inc. of Columbia SC re southeastern states ' energy needs. Staff nust do the FES any-This contention cannot significantly delay the proceeding. A way.
That completes the 5 factors, and all favor admission of 220.
J
~
There may also arise the issue of whether 220 is specific enough. I think it is, since it clearly seferences the Staff's 6- 20 -83 analysis, but it could be delimited clearly by an > addition to pl61. 7 "In the fb11owing respects: (1) underestimation.of the orobability and consequences of severe nuclear ' accidents (11) ignoring costs of emergency planning and preparation- (iii) overestimating the (iv-a ) justifying assignment of costs as "small" benefits of capacity from the pla~nt; (iv) showing that when the l
above errors are corrected, the benefits of Habris oneration still outweight the costs." So reworded, I daink 220 is plenty specific.
It is clear fron the basis (6-20-83 at 16-17) that the above are the areas of concern in it. ,
Insofar as Staff or Applicants assert that "need for nower is assumed" orthatthe"b$nefitsofnower
. . . are imneasurable", they are going to \the nerits of this l
l contention. That they can't do. I've shown basis, and whether' l
this is a late-filed regular contentioncor a DES contention, the
$ factors favor its admission on balance. Specificity in detail. . ,
is given above as I would have had we had a prehearing co.nference.
contrary to Staff resuonse at 8, -
Eddleman 25 has basisj i n the Staff's failure to consider fully alternatives (such as discussed in it and 25B)- to action that have less l
(allowing spent spentfuel toonce be s:aicped aas less to Harris)han shioning it twice (to4' Shipping fuel impact t environmental inpact. Calvert Cliffs, supra, at 1128, clearly fi-000 requires this. I assumed the Staff would do its duty under Q NEPA and this decision. When they failed to do so, I have basis to challengo the adequacy of the DES under CLI 83-19, see at 12.
~
While I might have guessed this would happen etr11er, any earlier contention would logically have been premature. You can't critique the DES without seeing what'the DES says. CLI 83-19, ibid.
. ~ .-.-_.
Apolicants resporld to all my spent fuel filings, including 25,
. with a motion and brief ('8 July 1983, received July 13). I think it most officient to resnond here to that with a "nini-brief" which will apply to all the spent fuel contentions (25,25B,6hD,6hE,126X etc).
This also addresses a number of the Staff's concerns.
MINI *BRIEF re spent fuel.
Applicants' position on spent fuel is fundamentally illogical.
First, if they really have no firm plans to ship suent fuel t o Harris, thN remedy is to sever the question of authority to possess snent fuel from other reactors (in storage at Harris) from this proceeding.
If they're not planning to do it, why should a license to keen suent fuel at Harris even be considered.at _this time? It would be a waste of time and energy to consider something Applicants have no plans for (storing other plants' suent fuel at Harris) now.
Second, they begin by saying the Board would recons $ der the spent fuel issues in the light of the Staff's analysis, and then use the ! fact that the Staff has done no analysis as a re ason for reconsi~deration. In fact, the Staff has not addressed any alternatives of less environmental impact, but not shinning to barrisissuchanalternative. Table S-14 addresses inpacts of shipping spent fuel from one reactor to ancther receiving site.
~
Thus, shipment to Harris involves the nreviously unconsidered inpact. of shipning FROM Harris to uitimate disposal. That is in addition to t he environmental impact of storing spent fuel at Harris and the environmental inoact of Harris ' own spent fuel.
s Obviously, if Harris were not licensed to receive spent
' fuel fron other reactors and store (possess) it, no shipnents to Harris would take place.' That would certainly lower the environmental impact on the area around the Harris clant.
~ - --- - - - --_- --- _ _ __- _ _.________ _________ _____________ ____
Spent fuel MINI *BRIEF continued three This request for . .. authority to store other reactors '
spent fuel at Harris is part of CP&L's application in this case.
Granting such authority surely has additional environmental impact on the area around Harris, not just because the shipments will come here, but because the spent fuel must then be unloaded at Harris, and later reloaded for shipment to ultinate disposal.' Loading and unloading nuclear fuel increases the potential for fuel handling accidents that can have significant environmental impact. The nore you load and unload, the more likely you make an accident. This additional environmental impact (as well as the impact of more transshipment, 3 reactors' worth for the spent fuel stored at Harris from other reactors, to ultimate disposal, and 2 reactors ' worth from Haerf s itself) is' clearly litigable under the decision in Calvent Cliffs, kh9 F. 2d 1109 at 1128, that federal agencies must _ throughout their review processes give ful and fair consideration to alternatives which have Icss environmental inpact. In this case those alternatives are (1) not transshipping and storing spent fuel at Harris, and (2) not I operating Harris (so it would nroduce no spent fuel). Staff has considered neither and its failure to do so in the DES is a basis for litigating the spent fuel contentions.
l y I distinguish the Catawba case relied on by Applicants (e.g. at h, 5,8-9, 12,14 of July 8 Motion and Resnonse re scent fuel) from this one bNeither Applicants nor anyone else proposes Harris as a high-l l, level waste ultimate disposal site so far as I know, so the waste (snent fuel) must go elsewhere for ultimate discosal.
l h
l ,
l l
' . f- - .
Spent fuel MINI *BRIEF continued because in that proceeding an extensive record, the Oconee-McGuire case specifically on spent fuel transcortation by the utility in Catawba (Duke Power) was available. No such record has been developed on CP&L's clans to transship spent fuel, or the additional environmental inottet cyhed by transshipment. That innact, as noted above, is that of having to reship the spent fuel af ter it gets to H_arris.
Finally I note that the IF-300 cask CP&L owns is one of a series that anpear to have been taken out of service in December, 1982, because the fuel could not be guaranteed not to have criticality in the basket in the cask under all conditions. (M. Resnikoff, The Next nuclear Ganble, footnote to p.164) .Thus it annears that at present Apolicants lack means, as well as plana, to bring any spent fuel to Harris for storage. This is all the nove reason to simnly remove the license authority for storing spent fuel from this caso. As long as that license authority is nart of this case, the impacts of scent fuel transoort from Harris (fron Harris reactors and for fuel from other reactors being stored at Harris) need to be litigated in this case.
END of MINI *BRIEF I do ask a ruling on Eddleman 25. I think it might be suu:- ;
- ed by 25B if that is adnitted, and I would not object to lettinF it stay deferred if 253 is not admitted. The part of Eddlenan 25 that may be ripe for ruling here is that the "various alternatives should be considered under NEPA in the ES, includaing re-racking and saving all the spent fuel for transnortation in a single train when the license expires" (Applicants ' motion /resnonse at 11) .
Eddleman 25 was tinely filed, does not broaden the issues (because it was an issue from the beggining), and its admission
now would not significantly delay the proceeding since the Staff has to do the FES anyway and could prepare responsive analysis in that. Apolicants have not so far suggested that admission of any of the Eddleman spent fuel nontentions would delay the nroceeding.
Although other parties (CCUC and CHANGE) are involved on this issue, I an not sure to what extent they will (or will be able to) reeresent my interests. Other than a contention, there are no other means whereby my interest in environmental inpacts of snent fuel will be protected.
This entire discussion also ann 11es to the 5 factors for Eddleman 64D, 64E and 126X. Eddlenan 25B differs only re gpod cause for not filing on time, which is discussed below re that contention.
The Staff is wrong (response at 7, bottom), to say that Eddlenan 25 has been ruled on. Applicants reconnend deferral. I do not oppose continued deferral, but as noted above, think that nart of 25 as set forth by Anplicants (responset at 11) is ripe for ruling. , [h4' The above 5-factors discussion covers that nart of Eddleman 25.
storing spent fuel /at, f#
Eddleman 25B. Thiscontentionshouldread}shippingscent fuel FROM Harris, including spent fuel fron other niants stored at Harris",
after the words " cost-benefit of". See Annlicants response at 12, middle)
This rewording nerely clarifies the concern. 25B then reads,
. THE DEIS has improperly failed to consider the radiological impacts and NEPA alternatives to storing soent fuel fron other plants at Harris, and of shipning snent fuel fron Harris, including snent f uel from other plants stored at Harris.
Contrary to Applicants, 25B is wholly deoendent on the DES (resp at 12-13) since only the DES's contents give it basis. Even if I took Staff at its word (I had not recalled this statenent about not considering spent fuel from the 2-24 conference when filing the June 20 pleading), they were proposing to violate the law, which I see no reason to take seriously.
And if any contention had been
made based solely on this statement by Staff's attorney, it would have been vulnerable to rejection for lack of basis in that the DES didn't exist, and perhaps lack of specificity (what is the "no analysis" the Staff intended to include?). Such a contention at best wohld have been simply deferred to the present. CLI 83-19 is clear that a critique of the adequacy of the DES depends on having the DES.
(see at 12). This contention does not depend on the ER, though he lack of such analysis in the ER actually underlies the discussion in Eddh man 25, see at 90-91, 5-14-82. To that extent, 25B can be seen as an amendment of Eddleman 25 (which did refer to the inadequacies of the ER in respect to spent fuel transnort alternatives) whibh sinoly takes into account the new information in the DES. This is clearly allowed by CLI 83-19, see at 13 '
15 Applicants address the merits of 25B (notion /brief at 13-1.),
but it is clear the nerits are not to be reached in ruling on contentions.
They note a f ailure to address the 5 factors for 25B. All of the above 5 factors discussion (pp31-32, the " generic spent fuel 5 factors) applies to 25B exceot the good cause. Good cause for 25B is the l
new info in the DES, which would allow it as an amendment to 25 under CLI 83-19 if not as a new contention; also the Board's <-27-83 Order and ny discussion (6-20-83 at 19) as to why it couldn't have been filed earlier are good cause. 25B does not broaden the issues, it simply clarifles the criticisn of the DES and ER made in original Eddleman 25 (5-14-82 at 89-91) which was tinely filed.
Eddleman 24 and 26, deferred, are not addressed by Staff or Applicants (6-20-83 at 19). Also at page 19 of ny 6-20-83 pleading, Eddleman 29/30 is discussed to note that the evaluation of accident-mitigation systems awatts the SER (DES at 5-54). The DES also says that analysis of the emergency plan is incomplete as is analysis of severe accident doses per Appendix I (DES 5-55/,56,5-57). So 29/30 re emergency planning should remain deferred.
I an going to depart from the order of this discussion of contentions (which is the order of the 6-20 pleading) to wran un discussion of all the spent fuel contentions here.
Eddleman 64D and 6kE (6-20 at 25) were timely filed and are ripe for ruling now. The reasons the Staff needs to consider alternatives are given above in the MINI *BRIEF (29-31) and the 5 factors duplicable to both these contentions are at 31-32.
The Staff needs to consider 5 times the Table S-4 values because daipment fron Harris of fuel fron 5 reactors (2 Harris, scent and 2 Brunswick and 1 Robinson which have fuel stored at Harris if Applicants are allowed to possess and store the fuel there).
The Staff needs to use correct nudbers in its DES and hasn't done so.
That's plenty of basis and says what the Staf$ should have done (64D).
As to 6hE, re estimation of effects of transoort accidents, since Table S-h says the probability of transnort accidents cannot be estimated (fn.4), the Staff needs to either essess this probability (and consequences of such accidents), or at least assess the con'b ination of estimated probability and consequences. The consequences of snent fuel transport accidents can be quite severe. See Resnikoff, TheNext Nuclear Gamble, chapter 6 and 1st box especially; studies l
l referenced therein, narticularly Sandia and PNL.
Staff's suggestion (resnonse at 9) that these 2 contentions attack Table S-4 issinnly unfounded. Table S-h gives no transoort accident costs and says accident nrobabilities can't be estimated.
So calling for an estinate and cost data in no way violates the rules allowing S-4 to be used. (6hE). AS to 6hD, it says that the use of Table s-4 once is inproper because Harris involves more than one reactor and Table Swh is for one reactor by its own statement.
The Staff has made a silly error, but one that should be coFrected.
Such an estuimate by the staff is subject to 1* tigation under NEPA b
as to the proper application of Table S-4, surely.
Applicants make basically the same arguments the Staff does (motion / response at 15-16), but in more detail. Applicants concede that some multiple of the Table S-h values may reflect the innact of spent fuel transnort from Harris. (17-18) But then they jump thus to the merits of the contention (6h E) af tergconceding its basis.
Merits are irrelevant to admission of contentions, as Applicants should know.
Applicants other arguments are also mostly on the merits --
how much fuel will be at Harris, what the innact is, see at 15-16.
I do not disnute the use of Table S-4 in the DES, but its mis-anplication by underestimating innacts from the transnort of fuel from two Harris reactorms and 3 other r$ actors.
~
Table S-4 does indeed have a footnote about the radiological risks anzmaquamman of accidents (10 CFR 51.20 at p.504, 1983 editi on),
which says that the overal? risk is small. I take that to means that the urobability, though incanable of being ouantified,as Table S-h says in the same footnote, is assumed to be low enough to make the probability x consequences nroduct small for such accidents.
Apolicants are wrong about this addressing the radiological efffects.
Applicants' argument about what other analysis the Staff may have in a rulemaking record does not excuse their not referencing l
it or including it in the DES. It only mentions transport at nages
- a 5-23 (3 lines) and 5-30 (10 lines plus Table S-4) and makes no analysis of number of reactors involved (64D) or accidents (6hE).
Yet, without the reactors operating (and license to store spent fuel from other plants at Harris), there would be no snent fuel to transnort from Harris and no environmental impact therefrom.
l Likewise, there'd be no risk of accidents from such transnort.
The Staff should have at least figured out how many times Table S-84 should be used in evaluating innacts for Herris; they should have analyred accidents or at least referenced a discussion of then or sono other analysis they did. Sosnt fuel transport
~
accidents are a possible consequence of Harris operation (and of a license to store spent fuel fron other plants there) and need to be sonsidered under NEPA. The NRC 3anguage anoted by Applicants (notion / response at 16-17) doesn't say no accidents should be considered, just that innrobable ones require no further analysis.
Eddleman 126X (6-20-83 at 29-30). The Staff's failure to use a jultiple of Table S-4 gives basis to this contention.
Catawba is a distinct case where an extensive record on snent fuel transport for the utility involved is available. The fact that wording of a contention may cone from another proceeding is.
irrelevant. Applicants (notion /resnonse at 18) raise no arguments against 126X not dealt with above. The MINIo3RIEF at 29-31 and discussion of 25,25B and 64D and E above cover their objections.
The generic 5 factours for scent fuel, pp31-32 above, cover this contentien also. The Staff does not appear to address 126X.
As to Apolicants' view that Eddlenan 126X should be dismissed along with CCNC 4 and CHANGF 9, I think that the only valid way to do that is to remove the audbority to store scent fuel at Harris from:their (Applicants') anplication in this case. Only if they are definitely planning to store spent fuel from other niants at Harris should the parties and Board spend tine on this issue.
Applicants say they have no such plans, only a " possibility" 1-(L.H. Martin affidavit, appended to notion /resconse re spent fuel, at 2).
Thus, the issue should be renoved from the proceeding.
But if this issue is left in, these contentions should be left in also: they allege deficiencies in analysis and compliance L .
with NEPA and other rules.
This concludes all the spent fuel contentions of nine. 6hF is safety and not affected by the DES.
Eddleman 34, deferred to the FES, was addressed 6-20 just in case the DES was meant or the DES were ruled under ALAB-687 to trigger the need for filing or re-filing such contention.
I have no objection to its remaining deferred to the FES, but I think it has sufficient basis to be adnitted now. As a timely-filed contention, it is covered by the initial discussion of the 5 factors in this pleading. The revision (6-20-83 at 21) is simply an anendnent of the type contemplated by CLI 83-19 (at 13).
Eddleman 34 is about NEPA consideration of the effects of sabotage and terrorian (9/22/82 Board order at h7-h8). The Staff simply goofed in not analyzing these effects. See DES 5-58/59.
Staff recommends deferral, but do not commit to ever analyze these effects in the FES. Therefore Eadlenan 34 as anended should be adnitted; basis is given on pn 20-21 and 21-22 of 6-20-83 niending.
Applicants defend the Staff better than the Staff did (resnonse at 22-23). However, dae Staff submits no analysis and no reasoning as to why sabotage cannot cause more serious events than those they analysed. I had thought it obvious that nore sericus events could be' caused by sabotage, e.g. by disabling key safety systens like the ECCS while rigging indicators to show them still onevable, janming the SCRAM relays for automatic and manual shutdown, cutting off nower to the control rod drives, and so on. These are the kinds of things that could be done to cause " Class X events" as described in my original contention 3h (5-14-82 at 102). The very designatien " Class X" innlies greater severity than the Class ~ IX i
events considered by Staff in the DES. Freeing the spent fuel pool's contents to atmosphere by explosion (5-lh-82 at 102) is surely beyond Class IX for a single reactor, as many reactors' worth of spent fuel could thus be released to the environnent.
But there is another uroblen with the Staff's analysis also.
Having said (without basis) that the sabotage events are no worse seismic, than what they've already considered, and ditto for weather,and offsite-caused events (also w/o basis)(these are unatalyzed by Staff) theydon't add anything to their risk, probabilities or consdquences due to these events. I point this out at 20-21, see at 21 top.
(6-20-83 filing). This is the failure of the Staff and I give reasons why they should have considered these additional consequences and cite sources that propose such considerat!'on. That consideration is what Staff should have given, and did not. Therefore Eddlenan 34 as revised should be admitted.
(Additional info re 5 factors f or Eddlenan 3h is on 22. WHAT'S NEW and WHY COULDN'T FILE EARLIER)
Eddlenan 36, also deferred to the FES (6-20 p.22) is addressed because the DES night be considered the trigger docunent for its "being able to be filed" under ALAB 687 even though it was filed l
l 5-14482. The staff, response at 8-9, says that it should renain deferred under the Board's 9/22/82 Order at 48 (i.e. until the FES issues) l I would not object to this course.
Auplicants (resconse at 22-23) treat 3h and 36 the sane.
I stand on ny rewording (an amendment under CLI 83-19 at 13) of 36 i
(6-20-83 at 23) particularly the lack of consideration of attacks on the spent fuel pool and DES pn 5-58/59 are basis, if it's considered ripe for ruling now.
L _ . . _ .
Applicants appear to allege that 36 isn't specific enough, but I think the rewording (anendment) on page 23 is clear as to its concerns, and is reasonably specific. Since 36 original (5-14-82 at 103-104) discusses its NEPA rationale in sone detail, the specifics are there. Class X accidents are the main one.
Applicants simply ignore all this.
(p.23 6-20-83)
Eddleman 57D is covered above, pp 9-10 and p.12 note re 57D.
The "WHAT'S NEW" on p.23 of 6-20-83 filing shows how it depends on the DES (per CLI 83-19, p.12). Where a deficiency is rrojected guessed (guesed) and the Staff nroduces that deficiency, the contention must be -admissible. Contrary to Applicants (response at 25),
the contention was raised earlier. Staff's resnonse (at 9) sinply admits the basis of $7D"# " is correct -- there's nothing in the DES about this . But emergency n1anning is a socioeconomic cost, and to consider socioeconomic benefits without their offsetting costs biases the DES.
Eddleman 57B should remain deferred. DES at 5-55/56, 6-20-83 at 24 Eddleman 61A and B (6-20-83 at 24): If Applicants represent accurately the Commission policy (CLI 83-1h), either continued deferral to the FES (per Board 9-22-82 Order at 54-55 in this case) or rejection is appropriate for dhese. I think the Board's language in rejecting 61B as redundant of 61A shows that including 61B's concern with synergistic effects of radon with tobacco snoke and into Eddlenan 61A, other chemical carcinogens;gis reasonable. Neither Staff nor Applicants show how these issues are addressed in the Derkins record or the Peach Bottom proceeding re radon (where CLI 83-lh and ALAB-701 are the cases). Deferral for this issue may be the L best course pending a decision by NRC whether to review ALAB-701.
l i
Please note that Eddleman 64D and E (6-20-83 at 25) are covered above at pp 34-36. Continuing in the order of the 6-20-83 filing:
Eddleman 85-86 (ibid at 26) are opposed by Staff (pp 10-11) and Apolicants (response at 32-33). I'll stand on what's said in my 6-20-83 pleading (p.26) and the generic 5 factors at the first 'of this pleading (since 85 and 86 were filed timely, 5-lh-82).
Unless the Board finds that the Staff's failure to document its modeling of the Harris reservoir tenneratures, and to actually compare these temperatures with the tolerance of fish species in the reservoir, a deficiency in the DES, then I think both of these could now be rejected. The Staff hasn't shown how its calculations are made for reservoir tenneratures; if Anplicants '
were really presumed " reasonable" (Anplicants sat 32), then the original 85 and 86 wc uld anply since Anolicants ' ER tennerature calculations are included i in them.
Eddleman 88A and B (6-20 note at 27 top) are covered at pp. 13-16 of this pleading.
The Staff's critique of Eddleman 80 as discussed 6-20 (Staff response at 8-9) does not seem to oppose the nosition that Eddlermn 80 is unaffected by the DES. Staff distinguishes DES its CRAC codewhich (p.5-82, staff resp. at it apparently 10 admits have sone of the defects of the models critiqued in Eddleman 80) from Eddleman 80, f However, Eddleman 80 as admitted states its concern with l
l exactly such deficiencies in the mixing and dispersion models used re Harris, including those used in estimating doses from accidents. Staff admits (response at 10) that CRAC lacks the ability to handle rainout or " wash 6ut" (see also DES, p.5-82).
While I don't think this admission requires revising Eddleman 1
80, which refers to "nodels" without specifying A licants ' or Staff 's,O' f hes SQ k WhC- Cmka. \SONedM & E0%
0 % WIU L _-
Eddleman 95 (6-20-83 at 27) was tinely filed, and the whole discussion of the 5 factors for contentions that were tinely filed (above in this pleading), and the " filed earlier" paragrach at p.27 of the 6-20 pleading adequately cover the 5 factors for it.
It accurately guessed a failure Staff made in its DES. The "What's new" simply adds basis, an amendment reasonable under CLI 83-19 since the DES is needed to identify snecifically a failure of the DES.
I think such may have been the rationale for deferring Eddlenan 95.
(It is callod "prenature", 9/22/82 Bd. Order at 65).
Apolicants are sinply wrong that 10 CFR 51.53(c ) or the Board's 5-27-83 nenorandun and order could bar this contention.
/ The cost of property insurance for Harris does not d enend on capacity factor, need rcr power, load forecasting, or any such thing. 8evertheless, this is a cost that must be naid if Harris operates. Thus it is a socioeconomic cost (stockholders or rate-paers will pay it) that reduces the NET socioecononic benefits of the plant. Whether the Staff did actually ignore the insurance (Anp reso at 35-36) benefitsinitsaccidentanalysisisnotveryrelevanpfsince I've shown the discussicn of such benefits by the Staff is inconsistent with their accident urobability estinates.
l l
l (Indeed, this is nove basis for Eddlenan 22C: The insurance
! connanies don't buy the Staff's probabil$ ties when their noney is at risk: They nust not believe the numbers. ) Staff's response (at 11) l asks for a law or regulation that requires this analysis. How about NEPA, which requires costs and benefits to be conpared in a DES?
t L B_ asis is in the original 95 (5-14-82 at 203) and at 27 of 6-20-83
(
! pleading, where it is given by the DES, consistent with CLI 83-19 at 12-13 The basis in the DES is an amendnent to Eddlenan 95 that was only possible to specify when the DES becane available (5-19-83).
-k2-Eddleman 110X (6-20-83 at 28) is deferred (Brd. 9/22/82 at 68),
not proposed as Applicants say (resnonse at 38). Applicants ignore the request of 110X to include health effects for 11 million years (the period or increased radiotoxicity of nuclear fuel cycle paroducts conpared to uranium ore left in the ground). The Staff likewise ignores this (response at 11-12).
in 110X As to the rebaselined RSS (the other itenjApplicants do not claim is redundant of other contentions), the DES says, p.5-58, that the re-baselined RSS was the starting noint for Harris-seecific calculations that the staff made by (sone unsnecified method).
It doesn't say how the differences between Harris and the rebaselined RSS were taken into account. Annendix E to the DES (referenced by Applicants) fails to take into account virtually all of the criticisms of the RSS (see, e.g. UCS critiques of Reactor Sofety Study) except for the smoothing. Lack of data base on actual occurrences
~
in nuclear plants, assumed probabilities of events or parts of sequences that are (for the RSS) set much lens than their actual occurrence rates, and obviously absurd results (e.g. the RSS - method probability of 10-18 or so for the wiring-fault / control-setting fault event (with nultiple triple faults) that actually hanpened at Bak i
Ridge, see UCS critique), are some of the obvious failures not addressed. The fact that the rebasedlined RSS does not use a complete failure nodes and effects analysis (FMEA ) is a significant
~
fault. RSS* type methodology was rejected by the space progran (NASA) because it underpredicted accidents; they turned to FMEA (see UCS critique). I think these are sufficient specific criticisms of the rebaselined RSS to detail the basis for this contention. Lack of FMEA is in original 110X, 5-14-82 at p. 221, botton, so this basis for critiquing the RSS (rebaselined or not) has been in 110X all along.
L _ _ .
-h3-I would, of course, be willing to dron the " redundant" narts of 110X if contentions of which those parts were redundant wer_e admitted (and the redundant parts would likely be rejected if the contentions they are redundant of are rejected).
~
Eddleman 126 (6-20-83 at 29) was deferred by the Board until the FES 99/22/82 Order at 70). I addressed it here in case ALAB-687 were internreted to require filing on it now, since the DES and FES are often very similar. While I would not hold that state government or university students are inherently more valuable than other members of the nublic, conventional analysis of the "value" of lost lives includes earning potential (high for university students, due to their education, selection, and long working lives before then), earning nower (high for u ivensity personnel who teach or administrate), and this value should include the losses to society of disrupted education of, or the deaths of, such peopte. The cost of disrupting state government, or killing its personnel, include the resulting disarray in the state. That would disrupt normal business and lead to large economic losses.
Contrary to the Staff (response at 12), I don't have to show I
that the DES contains anything new for this contention, where the contention was timely filed and the DES doesn't analyze the impacts (e.g. on university students l stated in the contention.
l (see 5-14-82 at 233, medical facilities, state govt and univ, students are referred. to there ) .
Anplicants attennt to address the merits of the contention.
That's no good. Where the DES lacks analysis I said a year ago it would lack, that's basis of the contention. The 5 factors for Eddleman 126 are as stated for the general case, for a contention l
timely filed, at the start of this nieading. 126 should be admitted.
I A
r . .- - -
- . - - . - ~ - . . . . -
-hh-Eddleman 126X (6-20-83 at 29-30) is treated above in this pleading at pages 365'-37.
Eddleman 162 (6-20-83 at 30-31) has a 5-factors consideration attached for it as if it were a regular late-filed contention.
That discussion, together with the "why 'couldn't file earlier" (p.31, 6-20-83) and the general 5-factors above for new contentions (beginning of this pleading), I stand on.
The Staff discusses this under a (tyno?) heading of Eddleman 126, response at 12-14 The Staff does not annear to allege that NUREG/
CR 2591 includes corr .olon of the groundwater problens alleged in Eddleman 162 (see at 12-13). Staff also alleges that there is an error in the DES which I base my concern on (ppl3-14).
Section 5.9.hh (3) which the Staff cites, is about emergency plans, not airborne doses. I think they neant 5.9.h.5(a), DES p 5-62, but it only says that the calculations were performed. It says nothing about how possible releases to atmosphere were calculated or all possible pathways being considered. It only says it weights the Table 5.7 accidents by associated probabilities.
Even if Staff were correct on all the above points, they have not sufficiently analysed vanorization of water ahead of a molten core. Apnlicants (pph2-h3) give no real reasons for denying this contention, which indeed is based on the Staff's description of the site geology. (see resnonse at h3, and my 6-20-83 at 30).
Dr. Michio Kaku's statements about the mud volcano effect appear in a speech I heard him give; in a conversation I had with him, and, I believe, on videotape and in his article in Technology Review.
Dr. Kaku is a physicist and has been an exnert witness in NRC proceedings, e . g . V . C . S ummer .
e s
o -
Eddlenan 163 (6-20-83 at 32): Applicants' objections (response at h3-kh) annear to attack the nerits and quibble with the basis, While admitting the basis exists. As to specificity, Contention 163 is quite specific in its basis as to what the Staff should have taken into account.
Staff response (at ik) is that a data base not cited in the DES was used, and I should have known that. Are intervenors expected to have ESP and clairvoyantly know what data base the Staff will use? Is it reasonable to think I should know what they use for their projections when they don't cite it and l
it ISN'T the ER or other " predecessor document"? I hope not.
Staff annears to suggest deferral to the PFS, or onnortunity to i make a new contention then. I wouldn't object to either course, if I could revise this based on the FES.
t Applicants claim 163 is P untinely" (without any reason why) i (resnonse at 44). Under CLI 83-19 I couldn't be exnected to j specify the inadequacy of the DES until I saw it. (see at 12).
If a contention like this is ruled out, intervenors would seen to have no choice but to allege every conceivable defect nossible in the DES and FES (and by similar logic, in the SER and ACRS letter and emergency plan) at the outset of the proceeding, in order to against cover themselves againist such claims.
I addressed the 5 factors for Eddleman 163 (6-20 at 32) and the generic 5 factors discussion for new contentions at the beginning of this pleading also aunlies to 163 I think the basis is clear particularly for Apex and Cary (6-20 p.32 at lines 9-13).
i Eddleman 15AA (filed senarately 6-30-83 under Bd. order of 5 !
83). The 5 factors for Eddleman 15AA are discussed at the start of this pleading. I don't seen to have Staff's objections to it, t
- t g Applicants filed a 7-page pleading challenging 15-AA.
Their argument that the basis may be redundant of dae basis of other contentions (ibid at 1-2) is kkxn thoroughly irrelevant.
Several contentions could have similar facts or the sane facts as basis. In CP&L's case, the Brunswick plant (which they had a nuch larger role in building than in the Robinson plant, which was a turnkey plant built by Westinghouse for then) is the worst two BWRS in terns of design-ratinc capacity factor int the nation. That depression bbings then well below the C.F.
ratings af many larger plants, despite the well-known tendency of capacity factors to be lower for larger reactors.
Applicants anpear to attack the nerits of the basis.
I cited the worst olants, but there are other , westinghouse PWRs below $5% lifetine C.F. B eaver Valley 1, as of 6-30-82 (data in NUREG-0020, at p. 2-010) had a lifetine C.F. of 31.45 (MDC net) or 29.8 percent (DER net) after operatine nearly ? years.
Trojan, at the sane tine, was 50.8% DER net. DER net is how App.licants and Staff have been calculating Harris capacity factors.
(id. at h)
Contrary to Apnlicants, McGuire 1 has held in the 40%
C.F. range for a year and a half af ter startup; the other niants cited above had onerated quite a while. We don't have 30 or 40 year lifetine CFs for any large Westinghouse PWRS built nostly by utilities / contractors yet.
The low site stringency of the Robinson plant (CP&L's other PWR), and the tendency of NRC not to impose backfit requirements on older nuclear plants where the sane requirements or stricter ones are imposed on new plants or olants not yet finished, are well known. Applicants (ph) seek to obscure this issue.
As tox sinilarity of stean generators, the restrictions on
-h7-power level at plants with Dh's (Krako, V.C. Sunner) were the sane as at McGuire unless and until a stean-generator "fix" was innlenented at each.
Applicants next try to confuse the ISSUE of 15-AA with its BASIS (5-6). This is sinnie obfuscation. The issue is, has the Staff overestinated Harris' likely capacity factor.
To the extent that the "CP&L factor" depressed Brunswick's capacity factor, that would be at issue in this contention, legitimately so. But that doesn't nake capacity factor into solely a managenent capability (or steam generator) issue.
At pp 6-7, Applicants argue the merits of 15-AA.
They ignore the obvious fact that the lower the capacity factor, the less are the benefits of Harris. NRC has ~assuned need-for-power, but I know of no NRC assumption (or guarantee) as to the output that nuat necessarily be expected fron any nuclear plant.
Applicants' suggestion that I have to wipte out the whole Staff cost-benefit analysis goes f ar beyond what the Board 's 5-27-83 Order asked about contentions on capacity factor.
The Board is going to have to weigh those benefits against the l costs, and capacity factor is one thing that gives weight l to (or subtracts weight from) the benefits of Harris.
l In that sense the contention is litigable, l
i l
I think it obvious that 15-AA couldn't have a specific figure to challenge until the Staff DES estinated capacity facator. A tinely i
contention (15),adnitted, did challenge the ER estinate. This l
contention 15-AA would supersede admitted contention 15 (and revised 15A) because if 55% capacity factor is too high, 70% surely is.
N.t 'ga'gr'ekn i
- att only worked on security. She had nothing to do with the DES contentions,15AA, or any other Eddlenan contehtions.
Applicants (response at 8) should know this and are silly to raise thino
I *
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA rw NUCLMR REGUIATORY CCMMISSIoN t
~
In the matter of CAg._m FUpsn 4 LIC,HT CO. Et al./ J Dock o Ebearon Barris Nuclear Power Plant. Units 1 and 2 l') '
$ 01 ,.
'l "IU i CMEIFICATEoF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of M NIk bs Cir%deffWhahusau cf tgRig4 re s44qd4c$i%j S+GFF ft PELS Cw+enM bdMMW l
-hEAVE'been A-ppI eserved cah +his t 2 day of JU4 V 1983,, by deposit in the US Mail, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose names are erked with l an asterisk, for whom service was acconplished by l
Judges Ja tes Kelley, Glenn Bright and James Carpenter (1 egy each)
Atomic Safety and I.icensing Board US Nuclear Megulatory Commission Washington DC 2o555 '*'.
George F. Trowbridge (attorney for Applicants)
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge R uthanne G. Miller
, 1800 M St. NW ASLB Panel .
l Washington, DC 20o36 USNRC Washington DC 2C55 5 Office of the Executive Legal Director Phyllis Lotchin, Ph.D.
Attn Dockets 50-400/401 0.L. 105 Bridle Run USNRC Chanel Hill NC 2751h l Washington DC 2o555 l Dan Road Docketing and Service Section (3x) CEAfM /ELP Attn Dockets 50-400/h01 o.L. .
Waleigh,Sto7 NC wayerons Office of the Secretary 27606
""' Li"d* "* Littl*
i r
Wash neton DC 20555 Governor's Waste 3%gt. Bd.
John Runkle Karen E. Long (,
CCNC Box 991 Raleigh, NC 611
, 307 Granville Rd Raleigh NC 27602 -
! Chapel Hill Ec 2751k mradley w. Jones l USNRC Region II
'Travi s Payne 101 Marietta St. *
! Edelstein & Payne Atlanta GA 303o3 Slex 12601 Raleigh NC 276o5 Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by h 729 Hunter St. ,
Apex NC 275o2
_ _ , . _ - . _ _ _ . . _ _ . .