DD-86-05, Notice of Issuance of Director'S Decision DD-86-05,denying Mi Lewis & Citizen Action in Northeast 2.206 Petition to Suspend Limerick Unit 2 CP

Notice of Issuance of Director'S Decision DD-86-05,denying Mi Lewis & Citizen Action in Northeast 2.206 Petition to Suspend Limerick Unit 2 CP

ML20210E335
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	03/24/1986
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20210E279	List: DD-86-05, Notice of Issuance of Director'S Decision DD-86-05,denying Mi Lewis & Citizen Action in Northeast 2.206 Petition to Suspend Limerick Unit 2 CP
References
2.206, DD-86-05, DD-86-5, NUDOCS 8603270317
Download: ML20210E335 (3)

Text

.

t

[7590-01]

U. S. It0 CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-353 PHILADELFHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, OhlT 2 ISSUANCE OF DikECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is heeby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has denied the Petition filed under 10 CFR 2.20C by Marvin I.

Lewis and Citizen Actien in the Northeast regarding Unit 2 of the Limerick Generating Statier (the facility).

The petitioners requested that the NRC suspend thc ccostruction permit and institute proceedings to revcke Construction Permit No. CPPR-107, heretofore issuec to the Philadelphia Electric Cerrpany (PECo) to authorize construction of the Limerick Unit 2 facility. Issues raised by the Petition included the economic viability and cost-benefit ratio associated with further constructicn and operation of the facility. The Director.has concluded that the Petition did not provide a sufficient showing to warrant institution of proceedings.

The reasons for the above conclusions are fully described in a " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206", . dated March 21, 1986,(DD-86-05 .)which is availabic for public inspection in the Comission's Public Document Room located at 1717 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

9603270317 86032133 PDR ADOCK 05 G

4 9 -

2-A copy of'the Decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commissior.'s review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 24th day of March 1986.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

( (,

a re ' G Eis u, eting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

1 l

. - ~ - ,y. -. , , r * - e v -m --

s-v- w -- yr- --c w+pe ----Www-

PLEASE UPDATE ON 5520 SYSTEM OL # #4, 4e

SUBJECT:

Y2E/- &ae P

J. ,0_e 4 -

9fm KD ACTION: Comments Set Up Meeting See Thompson /Miraglia dep  : 'Foy

(

Supply Info To: ,-X4"/g, m .M. Signature

~

Prepare Action Plan (Other) nm Az n MAM d@%

ASSIGNED T0: Lyons DATE ASSIGNED: F Mf4 Crutchfield Black COMPLETION BY THE ' ~

Lainas Stark ASSIGNED:

RESPONSE DUE DATE:$ f/h'/f.S ASSIGNED BY: Mm' s

~

na WM py -

/

~

~

~

_~ ~ n'

} __ _ _~ - ~

a.

M

" * *"w e

me

. - - . . - - - . . _..s e on -- -

F Mt E

/

6{3 _#*

^

M. I. LEWIS cc,M

'. G'A SP M O:!D TERR.

PELA, PA.19149 O L-. g$ o j

Mrectcr Of Nucler.r Reactor Reculation United States Nuclear Regulatery Commision r kp 4[4 Sir:

qq Please accept this letter as my IE*rITICS or RE0 TEST FOR ACTION INER 2.206.

7 Action requested:_ The Action t}nt is being requested herein is the retraction oi' the Constructinn Permit for Limerick II Generating Station.

The Initial Action will be sta:-ting hearin5s to determine whether to lift or retract said conctruction permit.

Bacin f or the reauest: m""mmThe basic fer this request directly involves the new information in the wTeTm rF Allison K. Turner before 2 the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in the Limerick Unit No.

!!uele1r Ganeratine Station Inyceti! . tion I- 8403S1 dates July .L2,19@,

and receivec by inis petit'ionar on July 4+, 19 6 The new information in the heconnen Med Decision directly demonctrates the econoaic non-viability of the Limerick No. 2, Fuclec: Gancratir.g Station. The ccnizsions of the AIJ also agree with the information of the non-viablity economically of the ISE 2.

he construction ;ermit for all najor projects regulated by the Federal Governent require tint a cost benefit analysis show that the project will rcsult in a net benefit. These are part of the environmental regulations in .;rprated into the NEC regulationc. (10CRF 51.1(a))

There regulations require that the NEPA rule that the Environmental Inpact statement show a positive coct / benefit ratio inarder for the C. istuction permit be issued.

In the case of the IGS IandII , the Etaff determined the Cost / Benefit ratio to be positive. This determination was based on inforration The former, inaccurate that has since beer,shown to oc inaccurate, wrong and improper.

infernation is that the ICS II would be needed and econonical. The ncw infor.ation upon which this Petition is baced ic that the IGS 2 ic u~. cede:1 and uneconomical. (PA PUC I-840381 IGS 2 Investigation)

In licht of the fact that IGL 2 it incffcetive in =ceting any need a' the PEco service area in m economical or necessary fastbn,the peitive coct/bancfit analycic upn which the EIS for Li= crick 21s pre:iicated is wrong. The cost / benefit ratio is actually negative. Presently, the conclucion of the EIS for If,52 is wron6 and the Construction Fernit was illegally and improperly issued.

In light of the above facts and bacis, I respectfully petition that the Limerick 2Conctruction Permit be innediately sungnded while any hearings are in progress upon the substance of the Petition herein.

Very truly yours,

/Y . /

f'(Lilt'\- I WO.%. /? 2 bV

Marvin I. Irwis , R .P.E . '

Energy Chairman for Citicen Action in the Northeast.

N M. l. LEWIS

\ 6504 BRADFORD TERR' , t t

8508050239 850728 PHILA.. PA.19149 PDR ADOCK 05000353 G PDR

\

e - ,- ,

I .

t, l

. .. ') g 4,

.n a

T t- .

.e-

[

g-

--Yel. 313. No.17

& 0 s

yfrikhelpfna 3nquirer

.iem. m :4 u se,e.

Wedneaday, July 17,1985 Thirty-l'lve Cents c, s.s ,,,.

PUC judge: Limerick Unit 2 should be scrapped .

take account of many factors which sold too low. IJmerick opponents also that PCs projecinons of future 4

dividend on its common stock, ick 2 "will have en adverse impeet may cause a delay in schedule or en electricity demand istled to considet By Andrew Caneet aho should refuse in advance to in. The ruling, whsch caps a year longacross all customer

'throughout classes Pf"s territory? and Increase in costs? More likely, she the effect of conservetton, alterne-More.

( ****"' clade any additional building costs PUC Investigation into umerick 2 over, she said *the large capital re 539said,t!!the honplant and would cost between tive power generation and the stiti-

$407 billion.

it

• Phltadelphie Electric Co. should be in customer rates drew praise from consumer ar.d in- gotrements necessary to cornplete .

i PE has already spent nestly 5850 destrial gron(, and caused PE's Umerick 2 will have a strong *PE ad. and Bechtel 11he engineering ty) own increasing ratesTurner I

forced to scrap its second nuclear milleen on the 8.0%eegswett plant stock to sily nearly 11 a share in verse effect on firin PE's financtel that designed !neelth, the planti beve , ldec was,whose projections are most not been able to occurately forecast power plant

. totopletion et umerick is "not because in the pubHc la- gomeryits on the Schuylk!!! to western Mont- trodmg on the IWewand, York Stock Ex.

eventually,on its abtfity to pro, the cost of the umerick project,or of reasonabler" she said la en later.

County near Portstown.

1erest* a Public Utility CommHsion change. TopstillPEwere officists maintained vide odequate Eventually, she said, the commis. that they dedicaini to com. reasonable rates?service at just and IJmerick 2, througboat its lus. tory.". . view yest 7.

, sdainistrative

. Eined yesterday. law judge deter.. sion should afktw PE to reeceer its picting teth IJmerick plaats, butsaid umerick 2 would cast she rE has wrote.

Lawyers for groups favoring can*

. Turner did not recommend thag

. ' la e 425 page dectston, the judge. ' *prudentlylocurred*costsfromcon- added that the corspony had "op, 132 billion if construction resumed cellation of IJmerick 2 had argued in celed, ' the PUC simply order the plant taa. f

• Allhon K. Turner, said the PUc sumers.teclading money it spends to - 18 forc*d to cancel Unit 2.

tions* saytrig the commission lected Torner said the 30 pettent rete this year and was completed by the hearings from January to April that (See UMERICK on +A)

should prevent the electric company . dismantle the plant. But she said PEfrom borrowing money to finish the " should earn no i 2 investment, a inove that company to ask for in order to pay for Umer. the company's estimate "does not second entt of its controverstal twin- ..

i reactor plant. Turner said the PUC . officials said could jeopardise the - - -.

4

- . ~ ~ -

1 4

4 f

I

Scraplimerick~Y, law judge urges? The company's ability to maintain

-, gior !. power needs by building tiew UMERICK. from t A m.wg co'.I bred plants, extending the life its dividend through its Limerick

$uch authority under the law. "If R.Q ..i*i 3?( of its existing pisnts and encourag- troubles was clearly on the mind of

.they have to come to you for financ- $J py < :'

ing the growth of conservation and Wall Street investors yesterday, who ing, you can say no to that " she said cogeneration - power generated by lowered the price of PC stock af ter

.$l( ,l [,' 3 in an interview. nonutihty companies in the course Turner's ruling was announced to 11u1 the commission would be ,

of their own operations. 515.50.down trom its Monday close of

' granted such authority under legis- y ,' PE has maintained that all those 516.375.

' lation pending before the state Sen- jj

g projects would cost ratepayers more The decision "is not something ate. The measure, which was passed .

in the long run, but the company's that's going to bankrupt the com-by the state llouse just before the r' M -

. i opponents - who include some of pany, but it can certainly raise con-w~,,,g

• Philadelphia's largest industrial and cern about the dividend " said Tony Jegislature was introduced recessed for the to specifically summer, deal {'

ys commercial concerns as well as con. Osbon, an analyst with Hegulatory

!with Umcrick 2.  !

~'

9 sumer and anti nuclear groups- say Research Associates.

' Turner's recommendation will not ht p -q lhe utility has consistently ignored "We've been maintaining for some be acted on by the full PUC until at t'L_,

4 4 or miscalculated the cost of alterna- time that the dividend might be in

.1 cast September, and could be ap. Ey, tives to I,imerick. danger." said analyst Neal Kuriner Everett said yesterday that if the of the investment firm of Salomon

' pealed even if urheid. Ilut her ex. ,

haustive examination of the issues p.

'L PUC forced cancelletion of I.imerick Dros. "It is by no means a foregone was still seen as a crucial step toward !( ,,. 2. PE would seek to replace it with a conclusion,but the arrows are point-nag jinal resolution of the complex f.im. . coal-fired plant in (?hester County. Ing in that direction "

P_

llut other analysts said the Turs c erick case,which has aroused strong

~

• 4 Ilut the company's ability to build Mords from both sides for years. s that plant hinges on whether PE is ' decision was no surprise, and son.'

'" The decision came just a year after g allowed to recover its " sunk costs" even suggested that it contained as

.the PUC ordered PC to justify com- James I Eve' rett from Umerick 2. much good news as bad for the trou-pletion of Umcrick 2.in the commis- PE chairman So much depends upon how we bled ciectric company.

sion's second formal investigation are treated economically." Everett "This is the first time that anyone into the company's nuclear. plant IIcense from the federal Nuclear said. lf PE is forced to absorb most or on the stafI has publicly stated that building plans. The first Investiga- Regulatory Commission.

in an interview yesterday. PE , all of its Umcrick 2 expenses. "we they be allowed to recover their in-won't be able to build a damn thing." vestment in Unit 2." said Fulton

.tlon. begun in 1980, prompted PE hall construction of the second plant to chairman James  !!. Everett said the he said. llotmes of the Thomson McKinnon Jn May 1982, with the plant about 30 company's top managers " haven't PE maintains that it should be al- brokerage house.

percent complete.

changed our mind one bit" about lowed to recover not only its costs

- At the time,the company had sunk completing Umcrick 2."We need it," but to carn a profit on its investment. - (O VER *-

'about 5550 million into the project. he said.

Since then, the cost of plant mainte- Everett argued that without Umcr.

Ilut Turner's recommendation yes- y

=

q Igg ggg' *$f 8

ick, regional demand for electricity terday would rule that out. If her

. nance and interest on PIN loans has

' raised the total to about 5843 million. would be greater 1han PE's capacity , position PE's carnings is upheld, by about it would 10 cents per reduce

and that . figure is increasing by by the mid 1990s, and that planned ' share, making it uncertain that the rate increases will not push up the THIS SUNDAY, about 59 million a month.

The commission launched its sec- region's electricity costs faster than company could continue to pay its current annual dividend to common JULY 21,IN

' ond investigation in July 1984 with the overall rate of inflation. stockholders. PE chic! financial offi.

l an order that cited the potential for lie said some regions of the coun-

'* vast human suffering"in the Phila- try are already pinched for power cer Joseph Paquette Jr. said yes.ter-g IMIkITI~

,* delphia region if electric rates were during hot summer days, and that day. .

. to rise to cover the plants' total cost. Ptiladelphia will eventually be in -

• PE expects to ask this year for about the same position unless more power '

a rate increase of 30 percent to cover plants are built.

, the cost o! Umerick's first unit. now flut Turner said that instead of . . , .

1 complete and awaiting an operating '. Umerick 2. PE should meet the re . ,

i

+. '

- a

- e .

, r-"a ..ms o***

, - - t ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '

M+-.~. :f T**~.* '.~.

.'u'r.P..'.v ,". .., :. ra.tTe*-e*n N. ~ ,. >

4.A Wednesday. July 17. 1985 The Philadelphia Inquirer 4 (  :. .

The 17-year history of Unit 2 has been a stormy oney llere is a capsule history of PE's October 1980 - Prodded by state cel Unit 2 unless it can finance the mittec. concluding that " strong evt. pro)cct.

I,lmesick 2 project: Consumer Advocale Walter Cohen, plant internally. dcnce culsts that the construction of June 28.1985 -The flouse IW6cs October 1967 - PE orders two who believes therc are cheaper ways April 1925 - PtlC Administrative the umerick 2 bill. but the $tde Jaeuary 1964 - PE says it will I.imerkk 2 should not he comple- IJw Judge Allison K. Turner re ' recesws tor the summer without tak.

I.055:negawatt reactors to be built for PE to provide addittonal electric. suspend all work on 1imeikk 2 until ted,' recommends irge s tation that cesves final bricts from PE and its log action.

on the Schuytkill near umer6ck in E'"80"8 F8 city, the PUC tyrins IJmerick I begins commercial opera, would gtve the PtC spretite author. oppements. Separately. PUC Chatr-kloitgornery County, July 14.19ss - Turner says Umer.

investigating 25- the plant's costs and lion. PF. predicts that will occur in ify in order permanent cancellation. .moman unda Tahaferro suggests ick 2 completeon is "not in the pubitc

' June 1974 - U1 Nuclear Regula. April 1985. and that IJnit 2 will go 1)ec. 4.1944 - PE says bmerick 2 that PE abandon Umerick 2 and pur. Interest." and recommends that the lory Cotamission issues construction a -A e ni tra- into operation in 1990 Al this point. remains the most eceromical after. chase excess power frora neighbor. PUC deny PE the rtght to borrow permit, allowing work to begin. The " t** jud 'sOpPorts ' timely com. the company has spent more than native for meeting tis future power eng Pennsylvania Power & Ught.

K more money to build the plant.

company predicts the plants will be plett n . i both umerick plants. $700 millean on the plant. needs. and prc=ents Ilve volumes of completed by 1980 at a cost of St.7 I "* ""

bimon. in of U)t a pr be or e June 19"4 ~ - State liouse of Repre- p,',"y,",N*,, "[ I','

g ,**[ ...

PE to either suspend or cancel con. sentauves names a commutee to in- $J9J 6 billion from 1945 through 2020 '

f October 1973 - PE postpones com-pletton dates of Unit 2 to 1982 be* struction on Unit 2. Unit 2 construc. mittate the need for Umerick 2.

tion is suspended. July 1984 - The PtFC. citing the to build and operate the plant, February 1965 - The state enn-hg }I gg ciute the company says it is unable i.% '

to obtain adequate financtog- September 1982 throuti n May 1983 Potential Inr " vast human suffering

• sumer advocate, the City of Philadd-

- PE and the PUC go to court over because of projected rate increases phts and groups representing resi.

1 r T'"- DOZEN i

. Spring 1976 - Completion dates whether the commission has the an. for each new PE reactor, orders n' dential, commercial and industrial i ..

• ar* sgala postponed, with I'nt 2 thority to order work stopped on second investigation of its own, de- customtrs urge the PUC to order l ..

scheduled to go into operation in Unit 2. The state Supreme Court manding that PE prove that bmer- umerick 2 scrapped opponents say 1985. later, date is moved back to eventually supports the PUC. which ick 2 is needed ' PE has overstated the need and un. ...

1987. orders PE either to suspend or can. November 1954 - The flouse com. derstated the cost of completing the .

C p 1D+.. .-=GTO wwmw w

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ - _ - -____ _ _ ______-