ML18192A791
| ML18192A791 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1975 |
| From: | Cardamone C - No Known Affiliation |
| To: | Clark H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18192A791 (5) | |
Text
I 1ltl 5 N. Third Ave.~
~
Tilcson Ai'izona 857O5
. Doceber ?6; 1975 S
t~r. IIugh K. Clark P.O. Box 127A Konnodyvillo, I<arylan<t 2161<5 (I'alo In t ho !~a t, t.<.r o f Ari.zo.ia Pub I i c Service Company,,o
<ior<i<! Ilucloar Ge or:<ting St.ation,'niLs I, L;i1.
2 and 5)
Dock o t. ll O'T'I 4<'>0-'52 'pO-5".9 ',% !) TI] ">0-') >0
Dear Nr. Clark:
Pzi.or to the lett:er I sent you dated December 8,1975 in forming you that I had consoli.dated wi th AC<".C I discussed my pl.ans with Tres
<",n glish.
I would like to rem'ind all parties concerned that I consolidat:ed wi.th AC<<C before they wi.L'hdrow as an. intervenor. Si'nce l'onsolid-ated wit:h ACF:C and they subsoquently'. withdr ew from .the'roceeding, the 'only way that this action can'e inter preted is that there is no l.ongor, n i.nt:ervenor.
I wil'l:iot seek to bo reinstated as an intervenor.
Sincerely,~
CI
~a'i ~
Ca rmi n !'. C;i rda .",on e J r .
~
cc: .".< . IIugh K. Clark l)r. Kenno th A. !'.cCol Lo.<
Dr. ')uen Li n J . S toboi
. Arthur C. Gehr, Bruce 4!nrton, <".sq. Mike <<'.~
- Ir. Tros F..n<. sh li <<@+I 1 Andrew Bet twy, I.".r;q. ~
Arizona Clean nor gy Coali tion I
Atonic Sat'ety and I,i.censing 0J < ii <ii'(Q
< < e Board I'anol, Atomic Sa feLy and I,t censing AI'>p<.'al M p Qgg Q Jr.
Board I!anol Joplin *
'l Docket.i.ng and Servic<. Sec t.ion ~.'
~~
a<n< <
f4 5
e~Q
~ W ~
gV
~O
~
I' ~ a
IIOCKEl hU!NER RROD.GIGI1. F - ~@ ~~~, >9~
'EIugh I'. Cla k poc~ttto MfNRg December 19,1 5 Chairman HRC Hearing 3oard PO Box 1?7A JAN 9 197.6 Kennedyville I(d 21645 Qgc~ 4 yg~egtey 4 ~
64 54cfl~. 8
Dear lir Cla k:
Q7 I wish to n orm you tha. .he Arizona Cle n Hne gy Coali.ion is withdrawing as the intervenor ".. the construction permit hearings for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating S.ation.
'de a e doing so for two basic reasons. The irst is simply a 1 ck of funds. ';ie do not feel .hat our chances ir. the hearings justi y our raising several .housand dollars for witnesses and other expenses.
The second reason is far mo e important, however. I would worth the e fort to raise the money
'I if we el. we had a chanc
'e a a fair hearing, but we can'". ight both the app" icants and the NHC staff a, the sang time.
Virtually eve y c" im bv .he applicant abou. the coo . and need fo" Palo Verde is contrary to present local and na.ional trends and cont arv to national projections, yet apparently all wore accepted by staf ~.ithout any question during he en ire hearing p. ocess.
The nationa" p ojections for the cos of building a nuclear power plant have escalated about'1/3 pcr year o the. last six years. (See A +ached) Staff has accepted the applican s'stim te I
of 7~~ per year.
Present in.crest =ates for long term bonds'are 10.5!~ and higher. Staff'as accep.ed 8 '. At the applicants'rojec.ed construe+ion cos.s .his amounts to an additional S1.7 billion in interest on a 25-ye..r bond.
Uranium has .rip'd in price in the last 2 years and is expec.ed to'ouble again wi .hin a decade. (nuclear .'xchange Corp.)
$festinghouse, the supplier under contract, would have to accept almost a 1/2 billion dollar loss by 1990 for A"HAPP to get fuel at the 822/1b tney project.
Though,it is more difficult to prove, the projected need for the'plant seems to be just as ar from cali.y as the projected
'ost; ."'or at least a decade bef'ore the Arab oil boycott, the real cost of electricity (in current dollars) dropped apidly in 'both the app'cants'ervice a eas and in the nation as a whole. At
'the same tine the economy was booming and most people were completely unzip e of the impending energy sho.tages.
Since the Arab oil boycott,'hese'rends have, ra.her emphatically, been r versed and a e expected to remain that way for the forse able future. Based on '.hese facts, one would expect the projec.ions o need listed in .he 'iM ".inal '"nvironmental Statement to be dif trent rom tnose of .?.e Draft ZS since the DZS used projoc+ions based on pre-'ooyco , data.
They are. They'e higher.
In fact, .he projected grow.h rate in electrica3. consumption for 1976 over 197'j is highe" -!.an any growth ate any of the applicants has.ever experienced in the'ntire h'story. This p ojection follows .he fi s . d ops 'n lectrical conoum~tion any of he app3.ic"nts has eve ezpe ienced 'n .hei enti e his.ory.
I asked oe o the members. of the legal staff to chec?: and find ou+ if the tee<>nical staff h d ever cues . oned .he applicants
)$
on this. He check and said .ha. <<ie (i<<RU staf ) "haven'. done too much .~o=l on that column." "That column" is the basic justific"'tion .
. for even considering building a power plant in the fi.st place.
Tike other.intervenors around .he country, we reoues'ted funds from the hRC to he3.p us @resent -.he po'nt of view o peoplo who stand to ,lo e i= these plants are 'ouilt. Por all pract'c 1 purposes. we,,lilce all the othe.s, were e used.
ihe prospect that (i. .he ?<<RC rules favorably on the basic
.issue) the Board might (a ter .he he. r'ngs a e over) grant us (after the hearings are over) an-indetermina.e fraction o= our expenses,is simply not good enough. Public interest groups like ourselves, th t ope tp on voluntee time from volunteer people, can't survive on maybes.
A part time ooard cannot be ezpected .o bear the full load of protoctine the public. If the inte~onors can"~ and the staf
won'0 that only leaves the applican s who stand o malice seve al billion dollars net pro-it -rom tnese plant...
Until some very basic changes, are maLe, the public will not be protected.
Sincerely you s,
~
gp'c Tres -ng ish Ari"ona Clean Ene gy Coali.ion
DOChET. t(UVi3Eg BIOD. f llIlli FhO.R ASj+8+
ESTll~iATi'D COSTS FOR &CLEAR PO'i'h:"lR
~
(Sou. ce: USA "C ';iViD1!-lr~q5, Power Plan~ Caoital Costa, Oc.. l97r)
VOO 600 500
. 400
~
g JJ 4'
I i C) 500 200 l00 0
68 70 72 Y=;iR