The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 07-31-2008Orange County Board of Commissioners Agenda Special Meeting Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:00 p.m. Link Government Services Center 200 South Cameron Street Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 1. Opening Remarks 2. Discussion of the Qualifications of Consultants to Engage in a Search Process for a County Attorney ( please bring proposals that were sent out to Commissioners on July 18`h) 3. Board Consideration of Hiring Attorney to File Necessary Documents with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Request an Extension for Comment on a Proposed Expansion of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, leading to the possibility of a Subsequent Intervention by Orange County 4. Adjournment rol AGENDA ITEM #3: Memo from Chair Jacobs: Whether or not the BOCC decides to proceed with Diane Curran,. one option may be that the Board may want to adopt the attached resolution that was distributed at the June 24, 2008 BOCC Meeting, titled: A Resolution In Opposition to the Progress Energy Plan and Permit Application to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Opposition to any Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to the NC Utilities Commission for the Expansion the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant by the Construction of One or More Additional Nuclear Reactors and Associated Storage Pools for Spent Fuel Rods. Attachments: 1. Memo from County Manager, June 24, 2008 — Shearon Harris_ Expansion Application 2. Resolution 3. Email correspondence between Chair and Diane Curran (2 emails) Pwo�/ a MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: Laura Blackmon, County Manager. &B E DAT: June 24, 2008 fy SUWECT: Shearon Harris Expansion Application In. February 2008, Progress Energy, the Raleigh based utility that provides electrical service to much of North Carolina, filed an application with the NRC for a license to construct two addition reactors with associated additional waste fuel pool storage at its Shearon Hands nuclear power plant. While publicly maintaining that it Is unsure that the reactors will ever be needed or built, the NRC currently plans to move ahead with the permitting process, giving opponents of the Hams proposal until August 4, 2008, to evaluate the proposal and to file an Intervention. Progress Energy and Duke Power, another North Carolina based utility are also in a te=aring process with the NC Utilities Commission that will allow the uitiliies to present their respective long term forecasts as to power demand. The hearings, which will occur at the end of June 2008, serve to allow the utilities to request that the Utilities Commission approve the Integration of costs related to planning new construction into their respective rate structures. The hearings serve as a precursor for Progress Energy and the NC Utilities Commission to apply for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (a de facto approval to construct new power generation facilities). There is at .least one serious problem with the August 4, 2008 deadline. given for NRCs hearing, intervention and- permitting process. Progress Energy is basing ft s' proposed design for the two new reactors around the Westinghouse Model AP4100 reactor system. However, the design for this system has yet to be completely developed or reviewed and approved by the NRC. The designheviewl approval process for the Westinghouse Model AP4100 will not be completed before 2011. The design, which is apparently In Its 156 or I e iteration,' has at least some iterations in Which the spent fuel rods In the storage pools will have an wily dense , storage configuration (and a corresponding greater potential for spontaneous combustion of the spent fuel in the event of a low water condition In the pools). The North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network (NCWARN), has recently flied a motion with the NRC to delay the permit application process until the design of the Westinghouse Model AP4100 reactor has been completed, reviewed and approved. Those who wish to formally Intervene in the permitting- process will be extremely limited in their ability to evaluate and present technical information (contentions) based on that design. MR The BOCC will not be In session again prior to the Public Utilities Commission hearings or the currently scheduled deadline (August 4, 2008) for filing an intervention in the NRC permitting process. The SOCC will have to determine at this time whether it wishes to forego any action on the Harris expansion or to submit resolutions opposing the construction of new reactors at the Shearon Harris plant to both the Utilities Commission and/or to authorize the staff to begin the process of securing legal and technical assistance Wthe filling of a formal intervention. Orange County's previous intervention effort and subsequent appeal to the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, resulted In out -of- xxW expenditures of approximately $300.000 along with grants and donations from other local governments and NC WARN. Two Resolutions — one for the NC Public Utilities Commission and one for the NRC are attached for the Board's considerationtreview, revision and approval. If I may provide additional information or clarification of this information, please advise. L ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A Resolution In Opposition to the Progress Energy Plan and Permit Application to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Opposition to any Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to the NC Utilities Commission for the Expansion the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant by the Construction of One or More Additional Nuclear Reactors and Associated Storage Pools for Spent Fuel Rods WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has a long and well - established practice of opposing activities that could prove harmful to the public health, safety and welfare, particularly in regard to feasible threats to that health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has a long and well - established record of concern as security and safety issues at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant and the potential magnitude and catastrophic consequences of a nuclear power plant fire leading to an airborne release of nuclear waste materials; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, through the work of Dr. Gordon Thompson and Diane Curran, Esq., has established to the satisfaction of the scientific community the potential for spontaneous combustion of spent nuclear fuel rods during low water conditions in the spent fuel rod storage pools; and WHEREAS, the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant already has the largest quantity of pool stored spent nuclear fuel rods in the United States; and WHEREAS, the expansion of the pool storage of fuel rods at Shearon Harris nuclear power plant would be vastly increased by the addition of one or two new reactors and associated fuel rod storage pools at the facility would only exacerbate the consequences of a fuel rod fire; and WHEREAS, the vastly increased quantity of pool stored spent fuel rods at Shearon Harris nuclear power plant and the relative ease of bringing about conditions that would lead to fuel rod combustion and associated catastrophic atmospheric release of highly dangerous nuclear material will serve to enhance the attraction of this facility for terrorist attack; and PI WHEREAS, regardless of the safety and security findings made by NRC inspections of the plant, NRC and Progress Energy polices and procedures promote inadequacies in security measures to protect the plant and spent fuel pool storage area from terrorist activities culminating in fire and airborne release of toxic nuclear waste materials; and WHEREAS, absent terrorist attack, approximately 50% of the risks (as calculated by the NRC) of catastrophic nuclear plant failure are associated with fire- related accidents; and WHEREAS, information has been presented to the community at large and the Orange County Board of Commissioners as to ongoing problems with fire safety problems and practices at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant; and WHEREAS, Progress Energy has indicated that it will take seven to ten more years to bring the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant into compliance with the NRC's adopted fire safety standards and regulations; and WHEREAS, Progress Energy /CP &L has indicated that it has or will apply to the NRC for a twenty year extension of its operating license for the Shearon Harris plant while the plant is not in compliance with existing fire safety standards and regulations; and WHEREAS, Progress Energy /CP &L is in the process of evaluating, permitting, designing and constructing two nuclear power reactors at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant while the existing plant is not in compliance with existing fire safety standards and regulations; and WHEREAS, The permanent storage facility for spent nuclear fuel rods and other high level radioactive waste at the proposed Federal Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada appears to be no closer to fruition than it was twenty years ago and will probably not be available for another twenty years, if ever; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the community have grave concerns about the NRC's objectivity in evaluating the nuclear power industry's proposals and programs related to the concerns outlined above; and WHEREAS, numerous technical reports and papers by environmental groups, the utilities themselves and the NRC have shown that additional power generation capacity in this area is unnecessary for the foreseeable future; and SHIA WHEREAS, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has set a deadline of August 4, 2008 for submitting objections to the issuance of a permit for the construction of two new reactors at the Shearon Harris plant, even though the Westinghouse Model AP4100 reactor technology proposed for use there is not expected to have been designed, reviewed and permitted by the NRC before 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, do we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, hereby resolve to: • Oppose in the strongest terms possible, the issuing of a permit by the NRC or of a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity by the NC Utilities for the Progress Energy plan to permit, design and construct one or more nuclear power reactors at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant; • File a formal intervention with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if necessary, in opposition to the permitting of one or more additional nuclear reactors at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant • Direct the County Manager and staff to proceed with the acquisition of the necessary legal and technical consulting support to develop and submit the intervention documents. This is the 31 day of July, 2008 Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Donna Baker From: barryj @earthlink.net Sent: , Tuesday, July 08, 2008 1:49 PM To: Donna Baker Subject: Fw: RE: Proposed legal work for Orange County up Page 1 of 3 009 ?iJ g�PA 3 Our ability to proceed on any legal matter regarding Shearon Hams, and the constraints whereby we might take any action, are addressed in the e-mail from Geof Gledhill that follows. In light of his advice, at this point I would only ask if board members have an interest in pursuing an arrangement with Ms. Curran. If they do, we must confront the issue of calling a meeting. Barry — Forwarded Message From: Geof Gledhill Sent: Jul 8, 2008 11:23 AM To: barryj @earthlink.net, Donna Baker Cc: lblackmon @co.orange.nc.us Subject: RE: Proposed legal work for Orange County Barry, A contract with Diane Curran will require BOCC approval and at a BOCC meeting. Similarly, the budget decision will also need BOCC approval at a BOCC meeting. I will want to work with Diane on some of the language in her proposed contract if the BOCC authorizes the County to contract with her for these legal services. Geof Geoffrey E. Gledhill Coleman, Gledhill, Hargrave & Peek, P.C. 129 E. Tryon Street P.O. Drawer 1529 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Telephone: (919) 732 -2196 Fax: (919) 732 -7997 IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: In order to comply with certain IRS regulations regarding tax advice, we inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachment) is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer or law firm and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. The sender does not intend to waive any privilege, including the attomey - client privilege, that may attach to this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to intercept, read, print, retain, copy, forward, or disseminate this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by email and delete this communication and all copies. From: barryj @earthlink.net [mailto:barryj @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:31 AM To: Donna Baker Cc: Geof Gledhill; Iblackmon @co.orange.nc.us Subject: Fw: Proposed legal work for Orange County 7/22/2008 Page 2 of 3 I spoke on Friday with Diane Curran, our attorney in our previous intervention re Shearon Hams safety issues. We discussed the possibility of Orange County again intervening, and what that might entail. Ms. Curran suggesting filing for a 60-day extension to comment, thereby allowing more time to gather information for an intervention. She does not offer a cost for the more extensive effort, but her letter projects a cost of between $2,500 and $3,750 to file the motion for an extension, including a $1,500 retainer. She asks for an answer today. I received this yesterday. I stressed in our conversation that, while we remain interested, we are in circumscribed financial straits. I asked that Ms. Curran outline the steps necessary for Orange County to proceed, but made no commitment. I also pointed out that we are in recess, and so might not be able to give a quick answer. If possible, please let me know if you would like to authorize the initial step outlined in Ms. Curran's attached letter. If three commissioners agree, we can take the money from the BOCC contingency. Of course we will retain the option to desist depending on the cost of filing our objections in detail. Whether the motion for delay is cost- effective absent a firm resolve to proceed is an open question. I realize this is not the optimal way to proceed, but given the timeline it seems the best option. If I don't get three ayes, I will so inform Ms. Curran. I have also copied the manager and our attorney in order that they may provide comment. Bart' — Forwarded Message — From: Diane Curran Sent: Jul 7, 2008 2:02 PM To: barryj@earthlink.net Cc: pthames @co.orange.nc.us, Gordon Thompson Subject: Proposed legal work for Orange County Dear Barry: As we discussed, I am writing to propose that Orange County hire me to prepare and submit a request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 60 -day extension of time to request a hearing on Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.'s application for a combined operating license for a new 2 -unit nuclear power plant on the site of Shearon Harris Unit 1. An extension of time would allow the County to evaluate whether to challenge the safety and security risks posed by Progress Energy's proposed use of high- density pool storage of spent fuel at the new reactors. This is the same issue that Orange County raised several years ago in an NRC license amendment proceeding for Shearon Harris Unit 1, when Progress Energy proposed to expand the plant's high density fuel pool storage capacity. In that case, Orange County's expert witness, Dr. Gordon Thompson, demonstrated that high- density pool storage of spent fuel poses the risk of a catastrophic fire, and therefore should be abandoned in favor of combined low- density pool storage and dry storage of spent fuel. I have consulted with Dr. Thompson, who is interested in assisting Orange County on that issue by preparing an expert report and assisting me with the preparation of a contention regarding the issue. Unfortunately, he is not available during the month of July. Therefore, we would be unable to meet the NRC's August 4 deadline for the submission of a contention. A sixty -day extension would give Dr. Thompson and me time to prepare a proposal to you for litigation of the spent fuel storage issue in the hearing. If the extension is granted, we would submit the proposal to you in time for your August 19 regularly scheduled meeting. If you approve our proposal, we would prepare a contention and expert report in time for an October 3 filing deadline. I am attaching a proposed retainer agreement for your consideration. If it is acceptable, please counter -sign it and return it to me with a retainer of $1,500. As we discussed, we should file the motion as soon as possible. Therefore I would appreciate it if you could get back to me by noon tomorrow (Tuesday). 7/22/2008 Page 3 of 3 Please call me if you have any questions about this e-mail message or the attached retainer letter at 202 - 328 -3500. Sincerely, Diane Curran "He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough." Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching "He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough." Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching 7/22/2008 Page 1 of 2 Donna Baker (9 From: baryj @earthlink.net Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:31 AM To: Donna Baker Cc: Geof Gledhill; Laura Blackmon Subject: Fw: Proposed legal work for Orange County I spoke on Friday with Diane Curran, our attorney in our previous intervention re Shearon Hams safety issues. We discussed the possibility of Orange County again intervening, and what that might entail. Ms. Curran suggesting filing for a 60-day extension to comment, thereby allowing more time to gather information for an intervention. She does not offer a cost for the more extensive effort, but her letter projects a cost of between $2,500 and $3,750 to file the motion for an extension, including a $1,500 retainer. She asks for an answer today. I received this yesterday. I stressed in our conversation that, while we remain interested, we are in circumscribed financial straits. I asked that Ms. Curran outline the steps necessary for Orange County to proceed, but made no commitment. I also pointed out that we are in recess, and so might not be able to give a quick answer. If possible, please let me know if you would like to authorize the initial step outlined in Ms. Curran's attached letter. If three commissioners agree, we can take the money from the BOCC contingency. Of course we will retain the option to desist depending on the cost of filing our objections in detail. Whether the motion for delay is cost- effective absent a firm resolve to proceed is an open question. I realize this is not the optimal way to proceed, but given the timeline it seems the best option. If I don't get three ayes, I will so inform Ms. Curran. I have also copied the manager and our attorney in order that they may provide comment. Barry — Forwarded Message From: Diane Curran Sent: Jul 7, 2008 2:02 PM To: barryj @earthlink.net Cc: pthames@co.orange.nc.us, Gordon Thompson Subject: Proposed legal work for Orange County Dear Barry: As we discussed, I am writing to propose that Orange County hire me to prepare and submit a request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a 60 -day extension of time to request a hearing on Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.'s application for a combined operating license for a new 2 -unit nuclear power plant on the site of Shearon Harris Unit 1. An extension of time would allow the County to evaluate whether to challenge the safety and security risks posed by Progress Energy's proposed use of high- density pool storage of spent fuel at the new reactors. This is the same issue that Orange County raised several years ago in an NRC license amendment proceeding for Shearon Harris Unit 1, when Progress Energy proposed to expand the plant's high density fuel pool storage capacity. In that case, Orange County's expert witness, Dr. Gordon Thompson, demonstrated that high- density pool storage of spent fuel poses the risk of a catastrophic fire, and therefore should be abandoned in favor of combined low- density pool storage and dry storage of spent fuel. 7/22/2008 Page 2 of 2 I have consulted with Dr. Thompson, who is interested in assisting Orange County on that issue by preparing an expert report and assisting me with the preparation of a contention regarding the issue. Unfortunately, he is not available during the month of July. Therefore, we would be unable to meet the NBC's August 4 deadline for the submission of a contention. A sixty -day extension would give Dr. Thompson and me time to prepare a proposal to you for litigation of the spent fuel storage issue in the hearing. If the extension is granted, we would submit the proposal to you in time for your August 19 regularly scheduled meeting. If you approve our proposal, we would prepare a contention and expert report in time for an October 3 filing deadline. I am attaching a proposed retainer agreement for your consideration. If it is acceptable, please counter -sign it and return it to me with a retainer of $1,500. As we discussed, we should file the motion as soon as possible. Therefore I would appreciate it if you could get back to me by noon tomorrow (Tuesday). Please call me if you have any questions about this e-mail message or the attached retainer letter at 202 - 328 -3500. Sincerely, Diane Curran "He who knows that enough is enough will always have enough." Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching 7/22/2008