ML20072K704
| ML20072K704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1983 |
| From: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072K706 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307060383 | |
| Download: ML20072K704 (2) | |
Text
'
9kS@
u 2
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION
- ""* 3 k,
'x j&y c
'5 u
1-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDi JUL 5 1983 ) 3r Glenn O. Bright ts
'l Dr. James H. Carpenter Y '.
- n a n se James L. Kelley, Chairman
~ ' ' M ' *.
Q 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-!t68-01
)
OL j
PETITION UNDER 10 CFR 2 758 RE ALTERNATIVES AND NEED FOR POWER RULE On March 26, 1982, the NRC adooted its final rule on "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceedings," (47 PR 12940-h3), barring consideration of whether a nuclear plant's power is needed or whether alternatives are environmentally and/or economically superior. to it, at the operating license stage.
The announced purpose of the rule (see h6 FR 39440 ff) is "to avoid unnecessary litigation at the operating license stage".
In the final rule, the Commission said "An exception to the rule would be made if, in a particular case, special circumstances are shown in accordance with 10 CPR 2.758 of the Commission's regulations."
om QW (47 FR 129h0).
As an examnle (h7 PR 12941), the Commission says 4o
@8
" * *
- special circumstances could exist if for exa 1ple, it could 0
n n
be shown that an environmentally and economically superior
$U j
O8 alternative existed."
ao <:
i The attached affidavits set forth an environnentally and T
om economically superior alternative to the Harris plants, which gains d
(
2 credibility from CP&L's 1981 cancellation of Harris 3 and 4 in f avor of conservation, load management and alternative energy sources.
Given the existence of an environmentally and economically superior alternative (as described prima facie in the attached affidavits), litigation of the need for power and alternatives issues are necessary for the Harris operating license.
The Commission, by using the words "An exception to or waiver of the rule will be permitted in particular cases if special circumstances are shuown in accordance with 10 CFR 2.758" (48 FR 12942),(emphasis added), and "An exception to the rule would be made if, in a particular case, special circuzkmstances are shmown in accordance c
with 10 CPR 2.758 of the Comnission's regulations", provides that such a waiver must be made where such an alternative exists.
The existence of the environmentally and economically superior alternative makes litigation necessary at the operating license stage in this particular case.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceedings" rule (47 FR 12940-43) be waived in this proceeding, and that evidence be taken on Eddleman contentions 59,60,15 (and all its additional versions,15A thru 15 S,15x, and 15r), or on the conatention: 15 T: Applicants and Staff have not shown that the completion of Harris 2 and operation of the Harris plants are environmentally and economically superior to the alternatives i
described tu the affidavits supporting intervenor Eddleman's l
2.758 petition of 6/30/83 BASIS: Those cited affidavits."
Respectfully subnitted, [l} / /
.[f,s,
/7/.., z c This 30th day of June,1983 Wells Eddleman