ML19309G556

Petition to Intervene Requesting Appointment of Special Staff to Represent Public Interest W/Integrity.Alleges That Position of State of Nc Was Willfully & Knowingly Misrepresented.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19309G556
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	04/15/1980
From:	Springer D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8005070141
Download: ML19309G556 (6)

Text

'

soo m, /f/ = i

&e Docreeo

,

'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APR ga y , I '

Officeo!!he seeret,y k.cg 5 %

,

-

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSL4G BOARD C) cn  ?'

In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488

) STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station ) STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) )

)

PETITION :

(a) To Intervene; (b) For this Board to Appoint Staff Who Will Competently And With Integrity Represent the Public Interest; or, (c) For Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Appoint Special Staff to Represent the Public Interest.

1. Petitioner is a citizen of North Carolina, the owner of some miles of riparian property located on the Yadkin Riber some five miles downstream from the Perkins site, a rate paying customer of Duke Power Company, and a member of the general public with an interest in competency and integrity in the administration of the government.

2. Petitioner has previously petitioned this Board to intervene asserting interest in conservation of energy, control of inflation, overbuilding of electric generating units, conservation of water and other interests generic to the public interest. This Petition was denied on the ground, amongst others, that Staff would competently and with integrity repre-sent the public interest and such of Petitioner's rights that

• O

.

that are identical to those of the general public. Petitioner's Petition to intervene cated April 22, 1977, and Petitioner's Affidavit of Basis for Contentions Raised in Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing on New Issues Raised by the National Energy Policy and Appalachian Power v. Train dated May 3, 1977, and on file herein are by this reference incorporated and made a part of this Petition. These documents state in detail the specifics of the public's interest and interest of Petitioner in conservation of energy, control of inflation, overbuilding of electric generating units, con-servation of water and other interests generic to the public interest by the use of once through cooling rather than closed cycle cooling.

3. On February 28, 1980, this Board made a partial initial decision that there is no other site suitable for closed cycle cooling only that is "obviously superior" to the Yadkin River site, a closed cycle only site.

4. This Board did not consider whether or not there is either a once through cooling site or a site capable of a combination of once through and closed cycle cooling for one or more of the Perkin's thermal generating units that is "obviously superior" to the Yadkin River site.

5. Sites suitable for closed cycle cooling only were exclusively considered by this Board based upon Staff's

representation that the position of the State of North j

Carolina is that the only cooling option available to Applicant in North Carolina is closed cycle cooling.

~

l I

,

6. Staff, Petitioner is informed and believes, knew at all times mentioned herein that their representa-tion as to the position of the State of North Carolina was false and willfully and knowingly misrepresented to this Board the position of the State of North Carolina for the purpose of avoiding consideration of other than closed cycle only sites to the great detriment of petitioner and the general public.

7. Staff had actual knowledge from December 1, 1979, and at the time of the above decision that their representa-tion as to the position of the State of North Carolina was false and knowingly, willfully and falsely failed to take addequate steps to correct their previously false representa-tion to this Board to the great detriment of petitioner and the general public in the conservation of energy, control of inflation, overbuilding of electric generating units, con-servation of water and other interests generic to the public interest as set forth in paragraph 2 hereof.

8. Staff in this proceeding has,in addition to their hereinabove alleged willful false representation to this Board, through incompetence, design, or as an advocate for the nuclear industry instead of a representative of the general public, or as an impartial competent Staff presenting without fear or favor all material facts persistently and consistently either not presented all facts material to the availability

,

of once through sites or sites suitable for a combination of 4

-

closed cycle and once through cooling or withheld material facts that were known to them or should have been known to any

-

.

i l  !

,

,

competent staff. These material facts are:

(a) That the individual who gave his personal opinion as to the availability of sites in North Carolina, which opinion Staff falsely represented as the position of the State, thought Staff was asking about a single 4,000 Mw thermal generating unit; that his view might have been very different if he were asked re a single or combination of 1280 Mw units; (b) That North Carolina could and can in the public interest waive the State's thermal discharge standards; (c) That EFA can waive Federal thermal discharge standards and must consider some, if not all, of the factors set forth in paragraph 2 hereinabove; (d) That Lake Norman was an existing cooling lake at the time of the passage of the Clean Water Act and may be by the Statute's specific terms exempted from EPA thermal dis-charga standards and thus be a once through cooling site; (e)' That the decision as to whether to cool a plant by closed-cycle cooling or by once-through cooling needs to

[

be made, as in the case of Applicant's McQuire Station also 1

handled by Staff, approximately four years or less prior to the l

l time each 1280 Mw thermal unit goes on line; that tne Perkin's l

l first unit was not scheduled at the time of the decision and for a substantial period of time prior thereto; that the deci-sion as to the method of cooling Perkin's first unit needs to be l

made , not now but at the very earliest in 1989 and probably not until 1995 or after;

..

e

.

(f) That Applicant intends to use Lake Norman, site E, for once through cooling the.imal generating units and strongly asserts in other forums that Lake Norman, site E, has substantial unused once through cooling capacity without violating State or Federal thermal discharge standards; that Applicant has substantial data establishing Site E's capability to accommodate Perkin's first 1280 Mw unit without  !

l violation State or Federal standards; i 1

(g) That Staff has failed to fairly and fully 1

present the requirements of NURegs re water.

I WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests:

l (1) Sixty days to file documents in support of the above allegations; (2) An evidential hearing on the above allegations; Petitioner be entered as an Intervenor;  !

(3)

.

'4) This Board appoint independent Staff who will competently,and with integrity develop and represent the public 1

interest; and, (5) Failing granting of (1), (2) (3) or (4), that the Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Connission, after due public l hearing, appoint special staff to represent the public interest 1 l

and remove present Staff for misrepresentation of material j facts and failing to fairly and adequately, through incompe-1 I

( tence or otherwise, represent the public interest.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of April,1980.  ;

-.

1

,. .- ,./, \

,

,

K s' -

• ~. c' C r n d f D A L , A _..

DAVID'SPRTNGER - f-- J I

The Point Farm, MocMsvllle, NC 27028 i Telephonet/ (919) 998-9235 )

-

5-

-

.

.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j 1

I hereby certify that copies of Petition (a) To Intervene; l l

(b) For this Board to Appoint Staff; and (c) For Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Appoint Special Staff to l Represent the Public Interest )

in the above-captioned matter have been served on the follow-ing deposit in the United States mail this 15th day of Apr , 19 80.

I Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Charles A. Ba r th , 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, North 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 Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. J. Michael McGarry, III Washington, D.C. 20555 Debevoise and Liberman 700 Shoreham Building William G. Pfefferkorn 806 Fifteenth Street Pfefferkorn & Cooley, P.A. Washington, D.C. 20005 P. O. Box 43 202 West Third Street cs '

.

Winston-Salem, N.C. 27102 -

9 ~

6s //s w w

/

DAVED-SPRINGER'[

The Poin -Farm

! 6 DCCKETED  %

Mocksvil e, Nort Carolina 27028 USNRC '

1

- Telephone: (919) 998-8235 l t' APR 181980 > ~2 * '

l Office of the Secretut L Docketing & Sanice .

Branch 8 -

cn

f

.

.

"

.

,e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAI '

In the Matt.or of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488

) STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station ) STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) )

)

PETITION :

(a) To Intervene; (b) For this Board to Appoint Staf f who Will Compet.ently And With Integrit.y Represent the Public Interest; or, (c) For Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Appoint Special Staff to Represent the Public Interest.

_ _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

l. Petitioner is a ci tizen of North Carolina, the owner of some miles of riparian property located on the Yadkin Riber some five miles downstream from the Perkins site, a rate paying customer of Duke Power Company, and a member of the general public with an interest in competency and Integrity in the administration of t.he government.

2. Petitioner has previously petitioned thi.s Board to intervene asserting interest in conservation of energy, control of inflation, overbuilding of electric generating units,

'

conservation of water and other interests generic to the public interest. This Peti tion was denied on the ground, amongst

'

others, that Staf f would competent.ly and with integrity repre-sent. t.he public interest and such of Petitioner's rights that

.

S

.

1

.

that are identical to those of the general public. Petitioner's it' Petition to intervene dated April 22, 1977, and Petitioner's Affidavit of Basis for Contentions Raised in Petition to Intervene and Request for !! earing on New Issues Raised by the National Energy Policy and Appalachian Power v. Train dated May 3, 1977, and on file herein are by this reference incorporated and made a part of this Petition. These documents state in detail the specifics of the public's interest and interest of Petitioner in conservation of energy, control of inflation, overbuilding of electric generating units, con-

~ervation of water and other interests generic to the public int erest by the use of once through cooling rather than closed cycle cooling.

3. On February 28, 1980, this Board madi a partial initial decision that there is no other site suitt ble for closed cycle cooling o,n1_y, that is "obviously superior" to the Yadkin River site, a closed cycle only site.

4. This Board did not consider whether or not there is either a once through cooling site or a site capable of a combination of once through and closed cycle cooling for one or more of the Perkin's thermal generating units that is "obviously superior" to the Yadkin River site.

5. Sites suitable for closed cycle cooling only, were exclusively considered by this Board based upon Staff's representation that the position of the State of North ,

Carolina is that the only cooling option available to

. Applicant in North Carolina .is closed cycle cooling.

.

6

y

-

-

.

~

6. Staff, Petitioner is informed and believes,

,r knew at all times mentioned herein that their representa-tion as to the position of the State of North Carolina was false and willfully and knowingly misrepresented to this Board the position of the State of North Carolina for the purpose of avoiding consideration " other than closed cycle

!

only sites to the great detriment of peti tioner and the

_  ;

.

general public.

7. Staff had actual knowledge from December 1, 1979, and at the time of the above decision that their representa-tion as to the position of the State of North Carolina was

,

f alne and knowingly, willfully and f alsely failed to take  ;

'f addequate steps to correct'their previously falso representa-  ;

tion to this Board to the great detriment of petitioner and '

the general public in the conservation of energy, control of inflation, overbuilding of electric generating units, con-servation of water and other interests generic to the public interest as set forth in paragraph 2 hereof.

8. Staff in this proceeding has,in addition to their

,

hereinabove alleged willful false representation to this Board, through incompetence, design, or as an advocate for the

+:

nuclear industry insteaa of a representative of the general 'l public, or as an impartial competent Staf f presenting without fear or favor all material facts persistently and consistently either not pr'esented all facts material to .the availability of once through sites or sites suitabic for a combination of closed cycle and once through cooling or withheld. material f acts that were known to them or should have been known to any

. ,

. .

,.

'

\

_ _ _

• _ ,_

._.

- , - , .J

0 1

i

.

competent staff. These' material facts are: ,,

(a) That the individual who gave his personal opinion as to the availability ru sites in I; orth Carolina, which opinion Staff falsely represented as the position of the State, thought. Staff was askine about a single,4,000 Mw thermal gerrera ting uni t; that hir, view might have been very different if he were ar;ked re a single or combination of 1280 Mw unit.u; (b) That I: orth Carolina could and can in the public interest waive the State's thermal discharge standards; (c) That EPA can waive Federal thermal discharge standards and must consider some, if not all, of the factors set forth in paragraph 2 hereinabove; (d) '1 hat Lake IJorman was an existing cooling lake at the time of the pa:. sage of the Clean Water Act and may be by the Statute's speci fi c terms exempted from EPA thermal dis-cha rge standards and thus be a once through cooling site; (e) That the decision as to whether to cool a plant by closed-cycle cooling or by once-through cooling needs to be made, as in the case of Applicant's McQuire Station also handled by Staff, apin oximately four years or less prior to the time each 1280 Mw thermal unit goes on line; that the Perkin's f i r t,t unit was not scheduled at the time of the decision and for a substantial period of time prior thereto; that the deci-sion as to the method of cooling Perkia's first unit needs to be .

made ,

not now but at the very earliest in 1989 and probably not until 1995 or af ter;

.

)

.

h

!

(f) Tha t Isispl ica n t. intends t.o use Lake I;orman, w

site E, for once through cooling thermal generating units and strongly assert.s in other forums that Lake Norman, site E, has substantial unused once through cooling capacity without viokating State or Federal thermal discharge standards; that Applicant has substantial data establishing Site E's capability to accommodate Perkin's first 1280 Mw unit without violation State or Federal standards; (g) That Staff has failed to fairly and fully present the requi rements of NURegs re water.

WilEHUFOHE, Petitioner requests:

(1) Sixty days to file documents in support of the above illegations; (2) An evidential hearing on the above allegations; (3) Petitioner be entered as an Intervonor; (4) This Board appoint independent Staff who will competently and with integrity develop and represent the public i nt erest; and, (5) Failing granting of (1), (2) (3) or (4), tha t t.he Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, after due public hearing, appoint spoeial staff to reprocent the public interest and remove present St af f for misrepresentation of material facts and faili ng to fai rly and adequately, through incompe-tence or otherwise, represent the public interest.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of April, 1980.

~~ ~ s , ..

5 ,;- r ,/"

,/ e

.

'gN g_b'M -

' % .dNgLb&c'WL TL '(n -

DAVI D~ ~S PRI NG'EIV The Point /arfn, Moc1, s ille, NC 27028 Tel ephone </ (919) 998-9235 .

[ .

-

.

.

.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVJCE

..-

I hereby certi f y tha t copies of Petition (a) To Intervene; (b) For this Board to Appoint Staff; and (c) For Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Appoint Special Staff to Represent the Public Interest in the above-captioned matter have been served on the follow-i ng by deposi t in the United States mail this 15th day of

_..Apri1 __. . _ _, 19__60_.

Elizabeth S. Bowrrs, IM q . Char 1en A. BarIh, Esq.

Chaiiman, Atomie f.a f e ty Counsel for r:1<C Regula tory Sta f f and Licenning Brard Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Co: uni s s ion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washingion, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Donald P. deSylva te,sociate Profennor of Wil1iam A. Raney, Jr., Esq.

Marine Science Special Deputy Attorney General Reisenst iel School of Marine Si a t o of Nort h Cai al ina and Almospheric Scisnce Departmint of Just ice Univerni t y of Mi, uni Post Office Box 629 M i . uni , Florida 33149 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dr. Wa1ter H. Jordan Wi11iam I,. Porier, Esq.

881 Weqt Outer Drive As;ociate General Counsel Oak Ridge, Tenneusee 37830 Duke Power Company Post Office Box 2178 Chairman, At omic Sa f ety Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Chase R. Stephens ro:: m i s s i on Docketing and Service Section W, u : h i n g l o n , D.C. 2 0 5 '> 5 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Chaiiman, At omic Sa fety Commisuion and Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ro;ma i n s i on Mr. J. Michael McGarry, 1II Washington, D.C. 20555 Debevoise and Liber:ran 700 Shoreham Building Wi11iam G. Pfefferkorn 806 Piftcenth Street '

Pfefferkarn & Cooley, P.A. Wa sh i ng t o n , D.C. 20005 P. O. Box 43 202 West Third Street w .

Winston-Salem, N.C. 27102 'k__,__.-

L d__ f_ M*dit., - i DAVID-SPRINGER ThePoint/ arm .

MocksvilIe, Nortl Carolina 27028 Telephone: (919) 998-8235 6

4 .

D