ML19338C802

Brief of D Springer in Support of 800415 Petition to Hear Oral Argument Re Opposition to Location of Facilities.No Consideration Given to How Energy,Water & Financial Resources Can Be Conserved.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19338C802
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	09/02/1980
From:	Springer D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML19338C800	List: ML19338C797 ML19338C801 ML19338C802
References
NUDOCS 8009050303
Download: ML19338C802 (7)

Text

'

.7%, ,' A.

O

'\,./ , -

I j

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSII:G f IPPELL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

, DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488 l ) 50-489 (Perking Nuclear Station ) 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) )

BRIEF OF QAVID SPRINGER IN SUPPORT',OF HIS PETITION OF APRIL 15, 1980 8009050 3 0 3

., ;f ' ,

' '.,'/:, , . ' .. g - '

. ,' . ,n'~ * '. (,1 i '

/.

s \-

, -f , .-

THERE IS HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE BRIEF OF DAVID SPRINGER BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN SUPPCRT OF HIS PETITION OF APRIL 15, 1980 ON FILE IN THE HEREIN CAPTIONED PROCEEDINGS 4

i

[

1 I

o .

1EDEI Page

1. Incorporation by reference to Brief of David Springer before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in support of his Petition of bril 15, 1980 ...................... 1

2. Argument .............................................. 2 ARGUMENT Three of the most important- problems of the nati6n are:

a. conservation of energy, b, conservation of water, and,

c. conservation of financial resources.

One of the major reasons for the very existence of NRC is to implement the accomplishment of two of these objectives.

10 CFR 51.20 formalizes the substative proceedural duties of Staff to implement these objective and the Cemmission in S'terling, CLI 80-23, 11NRC (:4ay 29, 1980) further refines Staff} c/vhy (a non-delegable duty) to take an "even handed hard look" methods of achieving these objectives in alterna te site analysis.

Staff has not discharged this duty and the Atocic Cafet';

& Licensing Board has made no finding that it has. They advance as reasons for not echhidering a site with future potential for once through cooling the following:

h. A letter from a single individu.a1 stating as ho a 4000 Mw unit that "it is my opinion that some other technology other than once through cooling would be i

required". There was no even handed hard look at this hearsay statement

-L - - - _ . _ _ _

No calling of the writer for either direct or cross examinationc No statement that this is the opinion of State Staff or that it is the opinion of the State. No showing this was the opinion of State Staff. No showing as to whether his.iopinion would be different if asked about a combination of 1280 Mw units. I:o evidence as to his qualification to offer such an opinion. No evidence as to whether the Enviromental Management Commission would waive thermal standard. No statement tha,t he had consulted with the State Agency with authority to license once through cooling - The Enviromental Management Commission. No opportunity to cross examine him as to possible personal biasior the 1

accuracy of his information relative to thermal standards,

b. A similiar hearsay statement from an Assistant Attorney General who was likewise not subjected to the fire of the even handed hard look enumerated in para. a, supra,

c. Both Staff and Board found only that urese1f.ly consideration of once through cooling is precluded. (0f inion of Feb. 22, 1980, page 30). Elementary common sense dictates consideration of whether or not once through cooling will be permissible at the time the cooling ontion needs to be made.

(about 48 months before each unit meeds to go on line)

That time is at least ten to fifteen years in the future.

The answer to once through cooling availability is anticipated l in 1983.(para. 20, page 20 of 1.icensing Board Opinion of Feb. 22, 1980).

d. Staff and the Board considered only sites capable of handling a 4000 Mw station. No even handed hard

' n 2-L

look at sites with present capability of a combination of tower and once through cooling in single or multiples of each of Perkins units,

e. On the single issue of water conservation and the availability of water in the Yadkin River Basin in the future the Board foddd "We are disappointed with Staff's failure to addresa this important issue either in the original proceeding 10 / or in this re-opened hearing."

Hardly an even handed hard look at the irretrivable irreversible commitment of the water resources of the Yadkin River, a resource the State says: "The Yadkin-Pee Dee River is on of the most important natural resources in North Carolina. It may be more important to future industrial development than any other stream in the State."

(page 34 of the Board's Opinion of Feb. 22, 1980 and State's study of " Water Resources Aspects of the Proposed Perkins Station Nuclear Plant", page 1). This is a positive l finding of the Board' itself that Staff has not taken an I

even handed hard look.

It is crystal clear Staff misrepresented the position of the State. (See Appellant's Affidavit of May 21, 1980 pages 3,4,5 & 6). These specific facts are undenied by Staff under oath and uncommented on by the Board although the Board pointedly requested such response by Staff in the Board's Order of June + 17, 1980s Whether or not the Board found it misled by the misrepresentatiog, itself J

themisrepresentationjfispersuasiveifnotconclusiveevidence of Staff's lack of even handedness.

. _ . _ -- .- FL _ _ _ _ _ .. . _ . .

4 It is speculation unsupported by fact that once through cooling will not be available at the time needed at the Lake Norman site. There is a high probability supported by facts that once through cooling will be available at the time needed at the lake Norman site. One road leads to waste the otherito probable conservation.

CONCLUSION There has been no even handed hard look at how energy, water and financihl resources can be conserved. Only a superficial look at how they can't.

i e

f I

i I

I d

4 6 m

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Notice of .ppeal and Brief in the above captioned matter have been served on the following by i

by deposit in the United States Mail this 20% day of September, 1980 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

, Dr. Donald P. deSylva Associate Professor of William A. Raney, Jr., Esq.

Marine Science Special Deputy Attorney General Rosenstiel School of Marine State of North Carolina and Atmospheric Science Department of Justice University of Miami Post Office Box 629 Miami, Florida 33149 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dr. Walter H. Jordan William L. Porter, Esq.

881 West Outer Drive Associate General Counsel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Duke Power Company Post Office Box 2178 Chairman, Atomic Safety Charlotte, Netth Carolina 28242 and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Chase R. Stephens Commission .

Docketing and Service Section Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety Commission and Licensing Appeal Board 2ashington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. J. Michael McGarry, III Washington, D.C. 20555 Debevoise and Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Dr. John H. Buck Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Mr. Richard S. Salzman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Appeal Board i Washington, D.C.{}VySE, }. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555 j William G. Pfefferkorn, Esq. I ,~

~

N P. O. Box 43 _,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 jw DM 2 RMi r ,

l l

1

.