ML20041F782

Response to Applicant Motion to Withdraw.Motion Should Be Granted & Proceeding Terminated W/Prejudice.Applicants Should Pay All Intervenor Costs Including Atty Fees. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20041F782
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	03/11/1982
From:	Pfefferkorn W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8203170410
Download: ML20041F782 (5)

Text

.

DCCHETFI' imi 1

'82 MAR 15 A10:21 UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U: :.:....h ;~ L,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD $b[,

In the Matter of

)

)

~

DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. STN 50-4 q.

-)

50-(Perkins Nuclear Station,

)

50 REC 1NtD I

Units 1, 2& 3)

)

Q.

M

.)

, AR161982w b

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW p.,

NOW COME the Intervenors through counsel and do he N

respond to the Motion by the Applicants to withdraw and do respectfully submit that the application filed in this matter in 1974 be withdrawn with prejudice to the Applicants and that Applicants be required to pay all of the costs in this matter 1

including the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the Intervenors in this matter.

Intervenors consistently advanced the position that these units could not be constructed con-sistent with environmental and financial resources available at this time and into the future and further that the demand i

projections were not reliable.

Intervenors were forced to bear all of the fees and costs of this intervention under a great deal of pressure which was intentionally and continuously applied i

by the Applicants.

It is further noted that peak load pricing and other suggestions by the Intervenors in this matter such as the hiring of an economist have been carried out or are now in

$()3 the process of being carried out by the Applicants.

Therefore, 5

the Intervenors have served not only to make the public aware 1

i

/ /

F203170410 820311 PDR ADOCK 05000488 G

PDR

O of certain matters but to inform and educate the Applicants.

Finally, it is pointed out that on account of the intervention, the Applicants did not have to expend constrution monies which have been expended by them at other locations and by other Applicants not having diligent Intervenors.

This saving of millions of dollars on construction costs not incurred is an additional reason why the Intervenors are entitled to be made whole at the time of the withdrawal of this application.

Therefore, Intervenors assert that this matter should be with-drawn with prejudice with costs and fees to be paid by the App'licant.

The withdrawal with prejudice would mean that Applicant could not reapply for the construction of the same or similar facilities at the site or similar site in question.

In the alternative, Intervenors respond for the same reasons as indicated above and further assert that if the matter is withdrawn without prejudice that such withdrawal be also subject to the aforesaid costs and fees and mean that all findings, conclusions and decisions in this matter be vacated and that in any other related or unrelated proceedings which-are filed by the Applicants that these Intervenors or any other Intervenors or the public be in a position to challenge any and every issue whether that issue was raised or not in these proceedings.

That these proceedings should have no adverse prejudi-cial bearing on the public or Intervenors whatsoever in any future applications by the Applicant or others in regard to matters asserted or which could have been asserted herein.

9 The reason for this result is that Intervenors were never in a position to fully, fairly and completely assert all of its potential positions and strengths on account of the Applicants unjustified pressure and for many other reasons.

Therefore, if the Applicant is going to be allowed to withdraw without prejudice, this should mean that nothing done on even a preliminary or a partial basis should ever be allowed to prej u dice these Intervenors or any other Intervenors or the public in the future in regard to a consideration of the same or similar proposals in the future.

This the lith day of March

, 1982.

1 Jo i

WILLIAM G. PFEFFERKORN, Attorge f.

Intervenors 202 West Third Street, Post Office Box 43 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 Telephone:

(919) 725-0251 l

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOM 3C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2n the Matter of

)

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY

)

Docket Nos. STN 50-488

)

50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station,

)

50-490 Units 1, 2& 3)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Response to Motion to Withdraw in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail this the lith day of March 1982.

Alan S.

Rosenthal, Esq.

Dr. Donald P. deSylva Chairman Associate Professor of Marine Science Atomic Safety and Licensing Rosenstiel School of Marine Appeal Board and Atmospheric Science U.

S. Nuclear Re6ulatory University of Miami Commission Miami, Florida 33149 Washington, D.

C.

20555 Sherwin E.

Turk, Esq.

,Dr.

John H.

Buck Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff Atomic Safety and Licensin9 U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.

C.

20555 U.

S.

Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Washington, D. C.

20555 Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Thomas S. Moore Washington, D.

C.

20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board William A.

Raney, Jr., Esq.

U.

S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Special Deputy Attorney General Commission State of North Carolina Washington, D.

C.

20555 Department of Justice P.

O.

Box 629 Ivan W.

Smith, Chairnan Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Mrs. Mary Apperson Davis Commission Route 4 Washington, D.

C.

20555 Box 261 Dr. Wa l ter 11. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830

=

J. Michael McGarry, 223, Esq.

Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036 Quentin Lawson, Esq.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Room 8611 E25 N.

Capitol Street, N.E.

Washington, D.

C.

20426 Mr. Chase R.

Stephens Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 Mr. Albert V.

Carr, Jr.

Assistant General Counsel Duke Power Company Legal Department Post Office Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 e

f N-a William G.

PfeYferkorn

[f f l Attorney for Intervenors VG PFEFFERKORN & COOLEY, P. A.

202 West Third Street Post Office Box 43 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 Telephone:

(919) 725-0251