ML19211C783
| ML19211C783 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perkins  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Neal S HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001140484 | |
| Download: ML19211C783 (2) | |
Text
M6_
% * } ^e?Cu g[
UNITED STATES y ' g (/( g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
af y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
( w,/
NOV c o s,;
Docket Nos. STN 50-488
~
STN 50-489 STN 50-490 The Honorable Stephen L. Neal United States House of Representatives Washington D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Neal:
Chaiman Hendrie has requested that I reply to your letter of November 6, 1979, regarding a matter called to your attention by Mr. David Springer concerning the application by the Duke Power Company to build the Perkins nucigar generating units. The Perkins construction pemit application is currently pending for a decision before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Since Chaiman Hendrie may be called upon to review decisions or rulings of the presiding Board it was considered inappropriate for him to respond directly. Consequently he has requested that I respond to your letter.
Duke Power Company has filed an application with the NRC for licenses to construct and operate three nuclear powered electric generating units, known as the Perkins nuclear generating units, to be located near Mocksville, North Carolina, with a total output of 3817 megawatts electric and 4018 megawatts themal.
This application has been the subject of extensive public hearings in North Carolina by the NRC, the North Carolina Environ-mental Management Commission (EMC) and the North Carolina Utilities Commission. At these hearings, testimony has been received regarding the number of-units to be built, their location, and the availability of water to cool these units. The North Carolina Env.ironmental Management Commission has detemi,ned that sufficient water is available for the Perkins station without declaring the river basin a capacity use area which would require withdrawal pemits; the North Carolina States courts confimed the actions of the EMC. The North Carolina Utilities Comission has found that the designated Perkins site is appropriate. Because of the extensive nature of these hearings, there is, we believe, no question that the North Carolina.
Commissions as well as the North Carolina Attorney General's office are well aware that the 4018 megawatts of themal energy are to be produced by three
, units rather than one unit.
In addition, the Attorney General's office pa'rticipated in the NRC hearing and presented to the NRC the State's pos'ition on water availability and water use for a 4018-megawatt station; the State has expressed the opinion that the Perkins site is an appropriate site and that there is sufficient water available to cool..the facilities' condensers.
1741 190 1
011 10 f
The Honorable Stephen L. Neal.
The letter from Mr. Charles Barth of the NRC which is annexed to your letter detailed the fact that three nuclear units would produce this energy, and we believe that all parties to this proceeding are aware of this fact.
- However, you should be assured that neither Mr. Barth nor anyone else in the NRC has represented that the letter from Mr. Benton is other than the position of the Chief of the Environmental Operations Section of the North Carolina _
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
At the present time the issues of station location and availability of water are before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board which is not expected to issue its initial decision until the summer of 1980.
I shall see that you are furnished a copy of the decision when it is issued.
Sincerely,
' ORIG.
.g Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations 1741 191 w
w
a
- w. c,v Congress of tije Unitch 6tates 3 c, n 3. g.
STEVE NEAl.
November 6, 1979 STee District, NonTH CAnouMA Mr. Joseph M.
Hendrie Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 RE:
Duke Power Company's application to build nuclear powered electric generating units on the Yadkin River (Perkins)
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Mr. David Springer, a constituent and concerned resident, has brought to my attention the request from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to the State of North Carolina requesting the state's view as to the availability of condenser cooling water for thermal electric generating units.
The enclosed copy of a letter to Mr. William A. Raney, Jr. from Mr. Charles A.
Barth, Counsel for the NRC staff, dated October 11, 1978 advised the state that NRC is reassessing site alternatives to the Perkins site proposed by Luke Power Company "for a facil-ity of approximately 4,000 megawatts of electricity."
The fact is that Duke Power Company is not planning and never has planned one 4,000 megawatt facility.
The company is planning to build three 1,280 megawatt units.
The significance of this is that even though there would not be water capacity to handle cooling for one 4,000 megawatt unit, I am told it would be entirely possible for Lake Norman, a considerably larger reservoir of water on the Catawba River, to accommodate the building of a combination of condenser cooled and tower cooled units if there were a mix among the various units.
I am advised that NRC has licensed a number of stations that have mixed cooling facilities.
Mr. Barth, as you can see from the correspondence, had written to an Assistant Attorney General of the State of North Carolina.
He received a reply, not from the Attorney General's office, but from Mr. Benton in the Environmental Operations Section of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources in which Mr. Benton says that it is his personal opinion that technology other than 1741 192 wasumesTom orrerr HOME OrFsCE 33t Camamos House Orrcs IBuiLDuem DistnicT woeu errts:
421 Frot Ehm. DING Waswenovoas. D C.
tCSt5 Tuvru Tiet DistnicT WrestomS CAHOUNA 27101 PMossa; (202) 225 2071 To sanvt You 761 3125 41II 0
b 2
once through cooling would be required.
Mr. Barth is now using the personal opinion of one state government employee as the official position of the state of North Carolina before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The fact is that the state of North Carolina has not yet developed an official position on this issue, although they have been requested to do so and we anticipate some action relatively soon.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that you will soon be called upon to make a judgment as to whether or not there are alternate sites in North Carolina which can be available to Duke Power Com-pany and I strongly urge you not to make such a decision based on the obviously incomplete information at your disposal at this time.
It is imperative that we get the state's position on this issue before final judgment is made, rather than using the personal opinion of just one person.
Your very careful consideration will be, appreciated.
Best wishe9, l
STEPHEN L.
NEAL U.S.
Congressman SLN:mh Enclosures 1741 193
.j.
j.-
- mn n Ar: nr ::tst Alor:v co;. wmcr.:
i.aumaniw is c....
"c.
October 11, 1578 I
Mr. William A. Rar:ey, Jr., Esq.
Assistint ?.ttorney General P.O. Cox 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 In the flatter of Duke Power Company I
(Perkins I;uclear Stction, Units 1, 2 and 3)
Docket Mos. STf' 50-488_, STf150-409, and 511150-490
Dear Mr. Raney:
As you are aware from the papers we have previously sent to you, the NRC Staff is engaged in re-assessing sites alternative to the Perkins site which is proposed by Duke Power Company for a facility of approxi-mately 4000 MWe.
The type of condenser cooling to be employed is a necessary ingredient in our review.
Therefore, we would appreciate having the vicu of the state os to what type of condenser cooling would be acceptable for a nuclear facility of the 5.ize of Perkins to be cons ructed in the f uture anti to come on line af ter July 1,1983 (see section 301 FWPCA amendments of 1972 and 40 CFR 423.1S(6)).
Sincerely,
(.?!
l.
-/ ',
./
Charles A. Barth Counsel for flRC Staf f cc:
Elizabeth S. Bc.sers Dr. Donald P. deSylva Dr. Wal tc r 11. Jordan J. flichael f!cGarry, III, Esq.
William L. Porter, Esq.
William G. Pfef ferkorn, Esq.
Mrs. Mary Davis
/.tomic Sa'ety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board l[4) l94 Docketing and Service Section Qot
)
i
~
.Mn \\orh Caroino Jeoarimen o' Na ura
~
9g]? Resources &Comrhuni'y Jeveoamen James B. Hunt Jr. Govern, r llo.ord !J Lee, Set. ret.,r y i
DIVISION OF EfWIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Environmental Operations Section October 19, 1978 Mr. Charles A. Barth Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingt;n, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Barth:
Your letter of October 11, 1978 condenser cooling has been referred to me for response.to Mr. William A. Raney, Jr dense,You asked the view of_ the State. of North Carolina "as to what type of con-r cochng would' be acceptable for a nuclear facility of the size of Perkins to be constructed in the future and to come on line af ter July 1,1983."
In view of the remand of the EPA regulations concerning thennal discharges by the U. S. Court of Appeals, North Carolina has no effluent limits for thermal discharges from steam electric plants.
For this reason the effluent limits for thermal discharges from such plants would be based on the maintenance of water quality standards for the receiving waters.
Temperature standards for North 2B.0211(d) (3) (H), and 2B.0211(e) (3) (F). Carolina waters are fou Other than the Atlantic Ocean, I know of no body of water in North Carolina a violation of water quality standards for temperature.that could be Therefore, it is my,
, opinion,that some technology other than once through' cooling would b,e required in order for such a facility to receive a North Carolina water quality pennit.
Very truly yours, Original S'gyd b3 L.P.BENTON,JR.
L. P. Benton, Chief Environmental Operations Section 1741 195
/pI i
t q ll P. O. Dos 2708 7 R A ra:h, N,e t h (, u e.sm.i l 's.1 I
.t n l ens.rI Op**rtu sors al tror* nro n -
1.r..on I n.co..s.*