ML19210E643

Response to Util 791016 Rept Re Status of Application.Util Application Must Be Dismissed Per ASLB 791016 Order

ML19210E643
Person / Time
Site:	Green County
Issue date:	10/24/1979
From:	Butzel A BAKER & BOTTS, GREENE COUNTY, NY
To:	NEW YORK, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML19210E638	List: ML19210E637 ML19210E643
References
NUDOCS 7912050451
Download: ML19210E643 (4)

Text

= '. , ,, D CORREspo,g *fl 8#

t$b A

u. -

29 5Slsv

~

i ot3 ,, 73 STATE OF NEW YORK (\ , e. w.

5

• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE , y,a%,+* js

' 5,

.6 BOARD OU ELECTRIC GENERATING "'

.feg SITE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

---

x In the Matter of the Application of  :

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW  :

YORK Case 80006 (Greene County Nuclear Generating Facility)  :

---

x RESPONSE OF GREENE COUNTY ET AL.

TO REPORT OF POWER AUTHORITY ,

Greene County and its associated municipalities (collectively, the " County"), as parties to this prcceeding, submit the following response to the " Report by Power Authority of the State of New York on Status of its Applicaticn" filed with this Board on October 16, 1979. :t is the Ccunty's position that PASNY's application to construct the Greene County '.4uclear Generating Facility must be dismissed under the terms of the Board's October 1 Order and, of ecual importance, as a matter of equity and justice.

Discussion By order issued October 1, 1979, the Siting Board stated its intention to dismiss the application in this ctse unless, on or before October 16, 1979, the Power Authorite

" demonstrated af firmatively and in detail how continuatio:t of the application would serve the public interest." The Siting Board further cautioned that "a mere repetition of the arguments previously presented. . .will res ult in dismissal of the application..."

On October 16, 1979 -- essentially at the last possible moment -- PASNY's colnsel submitted t:Ae Authority's self-styled Report, purportedly in response to the Octobe.:r 1 Order. Measuring a grand total of two double-spaced pagos, 1494 309 7912050 /$'/

s o -

the Report was unsupported by any affidavits or documentary evidence of any kind, and it was completely without detail.

All that was set forth was the same general plaintive statement, made previously to the Hearing Of ficer, that dismissal of the license "could" (not would, but only could) have anNo adverse financial impact on PASNY and its customers.

details of these possible impacts were offered, nor any '

explanation of why the impact would be more serious now than later. Furthermore, all that PASNY of fered for the future was the possibility -- clearly impossible in reality -- that "a successor applicant may be found who will wish to continue licensing at the Cementon, New York site."

All of-this is, we respectfully submit, rubbish.

PASNY has not provided any details, or, indeed, any showing, as to why dismissal would be ccunter to the punlic interest. The vague, unsworn statements of its counsel clearly do not rise to the level specified in the Siting Board's October 1 Order; and te rule etherwise would make a mockery of that order. On this basis alone, the application must be dismissed.

PASNY has also failed to advance any new argumen s.

The contention that a possible sale of assets could be jeopardized by the dismissal of the application is simply a repetition of the earlier arguments made by ?ASNY. The Siting Board ruled that such a submission wculd not be enough. On this basis as well, the application must be dismissed.

In the end, however, the application should be dismissed because it serves no public interest to continue it.

PASNY's suggestion that a successor applican migh he found is pure fantasy in light of (A) Three ::ile Island, (3) the recommendations of the NRC, PSC and DEC Staffs, made well before Three Mile Island, that the Cementoa application be denied on environmental grounds, and (C ). :he vast cost increases for Babcock & Wilcox units (such as that proposed here) following from the Three Mile Island incident.*

Furthermore, it is beyond credibility that if PASNY, as a-

• To these obstacles facing a successor applicant might also be added (A) the consicerable possibility that a nuclear moratorium may be declared, (B) the State Encrgy Office's recommendation against construction of additional nuclear plants in the State, and (C) the Governor's opposition to nuclear construction.

1494 310

a -

public authority, is unprepared to proceed with the plant, any private, investor-owned utility (and they are the only ones remaining in New York who would have authority to cuild at a New York site) would be interested in doing so.

Against this background, it is hardly surprising that the PASNY Report offers no details (and, infeed, nothing at all) on the interest of the utilities with which 1: has purportedly conducted discussions.

As to any possible sale of the project assets, there is not the slightest indicatien :n PASNY's F.ep rt as

. :o why the dicmissal of the. proceeding night adversely affect that effort. And the reasc.. for this sile..:e is c bvious : i: would make no difference. The asse:s are available for sale, either as a uni or as cenpanents, whether or not the a'pplication in this case is dismissed.

Given the reality that a nuclear plan: :annot and will not ce built at the Ceme.nton site, PASNY's generalized and 2nsupported claim that it and its cus:cners migh suffer significant financial disadvantage as a resul: Of he dismissal Of the a v.clication is without support.

This is not to say tha: finan:ial har dship ...C_1..c:

be suffered; it will be -- but not as a resul: of the dismissal cf the application. The hardship was created when FASNY invested large sums of money bef:re i: Obtained .e:essary licenses, and it became locked i.. vhe.. :he entireif prcper decision tas made to abandon the pr: ject. Bu: the resulting hardship is surely far less than w: id '. ave :Sen incurrad _f FASNY had pursued the application, since it is :~ ear cha:

the proje:: would in the end hace reen re e:ted n an, event. PASNY is to be credited for its decisic.- :: withdraw --

a decisic.. which, both environne.. tally and ec:..onicall j, will minimize the costs that would ctherwise have seen incurred oy PASNY, as well as the publi:. PASNY's reward, however, should not be to continue the license application in abeyan:e.

The Greene County Nuclear Generating Facility is dead, and it should be accorded its burial. Ecwever painful for PASNY, the law does not allcw an application to remain li) '  !

{O

pending in the abstract. That is the case here. It should be ended by dismissal of the application.

Dated: October 24, 1979 Respectfully submitted, BUTZEL & KASS Attorneys for Graene County, et al.

SY "' '

N Alteit K. Satzel Office & P.O. Address 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New Ycrk 10020 (212) 765-1800 cc: TO All Parties 1494 312

.