ML19347D556

Discusses Intervenor Position Re Util 810310 Response to ASLB 810225 Inquiry Re Indefinite Suspension of Const Plans at Site.Application Should Be Suspended or Dismissed Until Issues Re Schedule Commitments Have Been Resolved

ML19347D556
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	03/16/1981
From:	Pfefferkorn W PFEFFERKORN & COOLEY, P.A.
To:	Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8103260595
Download: ML19347D556 (4)

Text

. _ _ .

r PFEFFEREORN & COOLEY, P. A .

LAWY ERS AND C OU N SC LLO AS 202 wCST THI AC STREET we. ooTTwoLOT prgrrtanon4 WIN STON-S ALEM, N O RTH C AR OLIN A Joycg aocLg as ELY o aos J. wsL504 *ammEn Zip CODE 27102

,aana,cfL;g, c March 16, 1981 ggr,*3,<,,

e  %

9-war c 1 h%o.191981 > -

Ms. C. Jean Bishop, Secretary L Ottice c!:Se Semten -2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 0;;hetini &SdC' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g N'"* g Washington, D. C. 20555 Cn J>

Re: Duke Power Company Perkins Nuclear Station

- Units 1, 2& 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-488, 50-489 & 50-490

Dear Ms. Bishop:

In response to the letter of Mr. William L. Porter of Duke Power Company, the intervenors make the following points in regard to applicant's letter and then wish to deal with the substantive' issues presented in your inquiry of February 25, 1981.

The undersigned counsel for intervenors did not receive a copy of the applicant's letter until Saturday, "

March 14, 1981, after having called the home office of Duke

. Power Company on Friday, March 13, 1981, and asking why he had not received a copy of the letter. Applicant's letter which is dated March 10, 1981, indicates that a copy should have been sent to the undersigned, but as of Monday, March 16, 1981, the letter, which should have been sent on Tuesday, March 10, 1981, had not been received. Despite this obvious shortening of the time, we do respond by Express Mail on Monday, March 16, 1981.

The letter of March 10, 1981, by Duke Power Company concedes the first question put forward in your letter of February 25, 1981. The Board wanted to knca if the plans for Perkins were in a state of indefinite suspension. The second paragraph of the' letter of March 10, 1081/ evidently concedes that there is no schedule or plan, based upon an actual time in the real world, for the beginning, much less the middle or the end, of the construction of the Perkins Nuclear Plant. Y This indefinite status should make the application subject to O dismissal pursuant to recent opinions of either the Licensing _....

Board or the Appeal Board of the Nuclear Regul'atory Commission, _,,

1 l

Q 81032603q3 ' -

~

I

. - - - - - --- - L-- ~ - - - ---

Ms. C. Jean Bishop, Secretary Page Two March 16, 1981 which the undersigned has not had an" opportunity to recheck.

The undersigned recalls reading a recent opinion, when scanning the Nuclear Energy Reporter, in which either a Licensing Board or an Appeal Board held that unless the utility was prepared to commit itself to some definite time frame, that it must either withdraw its application or have the application dismissed by the Licensing Board. The reason for such a rule is obvious.

A license is based on factual information which changes every day and certainly every year. If a license is obtained based upon information produced and analyzed in the 1970's and is not acted upon until six, eight or ten years later the resultant activity presents a much graver risk. There are many changes in the basic data which will effect the impact of the construction

which occurs at a later period of time. Thus, there is authority and sense behind the logic that unless there is a present intent to commit itself to a definite s,chedule the application of Duke Power for the Perkins Plant should be withdrawn. If Duke Power wishes to refile in six or eight years, then it certainly has the benefit of the information derived from the past five years of the Perkins case. However, a new application would mean that the parties could then build on the old information without being locked into it as would be the case if this application is allowed to remain on the shelf until Duke makes some definite decision and commitment.

The Duke Power Company letter ignored and did not answer the specific inquiry regarding the validity of the factual findings on the alternate site issue over an extended period of time. The Duke Power letter goes on for over a page ,

discussing Douglas being a decision which favors Duke Power's decision to go ahead with this appeal for the reason that Douglas dealt with a decision to go ahead with an evidentiary hearing, I whereas we are involved in an appeal at this point of the l Perkins hearings. However, in Douglas the applicant had a i plan to start construction in four years. No such plan exists for Perkins. .

The Duke letter contains one sentence which is simply incomprehensible. It states, "There is a high degree that t findings will retain their validity." This nonsense sentenc is followed by several other sentences which make no argument but merely state that the matters concerned on the alternate site question will not change. This is simply not the case.

The water issue which is the primary issue on this appeal is presently undergoing an extensive study known as a Level B, Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Study, which has been going on for several years and which is a study involving all levels of government and deals with all aspects of the Yadkin River Basin, s .

m

e Ms. C. Jean Bishop, Secretary Page Three March 16, 1981 in particular, a study of the Yadkin River Basin as suggested by the interveners' expert witness, Miguel Medina. Dr. Medina, at the hearings in this case, suggested that it was inconsistent with good hydrological practice for a plant such as the pro-posed Perkins Plant to be situated on the Yadkin River until a complete modeling analysis had been done of the river for the effect of water quantity and quality. The Licensing Board in this case recog'nized the failure to consider the long-term effects of water usage in the Yadkin Basin:

If the river flow is only marginally adequate, then an alternate site on a river with much larger flow might well be " obvious?.y superior."

Refusal to consider future demands for water is in contrast to Staff's predictions on future needs for power. (At page 34 of Partial Initial Decision of February 22, 1980)

All the evidence in this matter has indicated that tne growth of the Piedmont area of North Carolina will result in much greater water shortages in the Yadkin Valley and these shortages will grow, particularly in the years after 1990, and after the year 2000.

The Duke Power letter admits that there is a possibility of issues being. reopened because of changed circumstances, and then goes on to state thatthe likelihood of ,

the physical aspect of the Perkins Site changing is remote.

This statement ignores all the evidence produced in this case which was that water usage would continue to grow. There-fore, even though the intervenors feel that their case for winning the appeal at this time is very strong, they further realize that all of the parties should not be put through additional time and effort if the moving party is not even willing to act if it were successful. Tite argument in the next to last paragraph of the Duke Power Company letter, that we should not worry about this appeal as it has other hurdles to clear in this case is a rather strange one. The applicant simply wants to have its foot in the door permanently on the alternate site question in this case, and yet refuses to enter the house if asked to do or to leave if requcated. It is the s

. ,.e.

-T --er ""

Ms. C. Jean Bishop, Secretary Page Four March 16, 1981 position of the intervenors that the applicant should be put on indefinite suspension in regard to the Perkins Plant as long as applicants' plans for the Perkins Plant are in indefinite suspension. It would be better to dismiss the entire proceeding but if the matter is suspended for their purposes then it seems to make sense that it be suspended for all other purposes until there is some definite decision made with definite dates of construction, completion and ^retation.

Very truly yours, *N h

William G. Pfefferkorn'

. I WGP:scs Enclosure xc: Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.

Dr. John S. Buck Mr. Thomas S. Moore Ms. Elizabeth S. Bowers Dr. Donald P. deSylva Dr. Walter H. Jordan Charles A. Barth, Esq.

William A. Raney, Jr., Esq.

Mrs. Mary Apperson Davis ,

Mr. Chase R. Stephens l ,

Quentin Lawson, Esq.

l l

l l

l l

l l

s .

_.