ML19224A685

Supports Petition to Intervene Submitted by Columbia County, Ny,Town of Stuyvesant,Ny & Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy,Inc.Notice of Appearance & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19224A685
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	03/12/1979
From:	Kafin R KAFIN, R.J.
To:
Shared Package
ML19224A684	List: ML19224A683 ML19224A685
References
NUDOCS 7905240106
Download: ML19224A685 (10)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERZCA MUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION In the Matter of 1 Docket Ncs. STN 50-596

) and STN 50-597 New York State Electric )

and Gas Corporation and )

Long Island Lighting Ccmpany ) AFFIRMATICN IN SUPPORT

) CF PETITION TO INTERVENE NYSE&G 1 and 2 )

Robert J. Kafin, an attorney admitted to practice before the United Sta+.es Supreme Court, hereby affirms the following to be true .nder the penalties of

. .rjury:

1. I am the attorney for Columbia County, Town of Stuyvesant and Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc. and make this af firmation in support of their petition to intervene -

in this proceeding as parties.

2. This is an application by the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSE&G) and the Lcng Island Lightina Ccmpany for ccnstruction permits for two pressurized sater nuclear reactors, each of which will be designed to cperate with net electrical output of approximately 1250 megawatts.

While the application requesta a permit for the construction of the proposed facilities cn the so-called "New Haven site" in the Tcwn of New Haven, Oswego County, New York, the Environmental Report sets forth a prime alternate location for such facilities in the Tcwn of Stuyvesant, Columbia County, New York.

418 307 7905240/06s

3. Columbia County and the Town of Stu 'esant are each municipalities within which the prime alternate site is located.

4. Concerned Cici: ens for Safe Energy, Inc. is a corporation, with principal offices in the vicinity Jf the Stuyvesant site, organiced under t..e New York State Not-For-Profit Corporation Law whose primary purposes are:

(a) To study and investigate ensironmental and public safety concerns involved with the construction of nuclear and/or fossil fuel pcwer generating plants in Columbia County, the Hudson River Valley and elsewhere.

(b) To ecmmunicate publicly its findings and opinions.

(c) To study, investigate and communicate findings and opinions Jegarding alternate sources of electric power other than nuclear fuel.

(d) To study, investigate and communicate findings and opinicns regarding the conservation of electrical energy. Cn behalf of t :e hundreds of individuals who have joined Concerned Citizens, it has actirelv partici.:.ted in cases before the New York State Public Service Commission relating to energy planning and NYSE&G rate making.

5. A large portien of Columbia County is within the service area of NYSE&G. Furthermore, all of Cclumbia County and, in fact, all of New York State is served by 418 308

private utilities (and the Power Authority of the State of New York) who are members of the New York Pcwer Pool which operate a totally integrated system of electrical generating stations and transmission capacity within New York State.

The proposed facilities are part of an integrated, comprehensive plan for the construction of numerous generating and transmission facilities *.hroughout the State of New York, scme of which will inevitably be located in Columbia County if the proposed facilities are approved for construction. Their financing, construction, operation r.nd : uletenance will necessarily affect the interests cf the petit.'oners herein as representatives of distinct groups of consumers of electric power.

6. Each of the petitioners has the following interests:

(a) It i. cor. erned that the citizens it' represents _

will be unable to cbtain a safe, reliable and econc.alcal supply of electric energy if the ccnstruction permits are granted in this proceeding.

(b) It is concerned that as a direct or indirect result of this proceeding, electrical facilities will be constructed in Columbia County which will have a substantial, adverse envircamental and economic impact on the citizens of such area.

7. While -he 3RC most likely cannot grant a constructic.

permit for facilities at the Columbia County site in this proceeding, it could decide a number of engineering, econcmic, 418 309

enviromaental, health and safety issues which are not strictly site related, but which could be binding upon the applicant and the petitioner should a construction permit be denied for the New Haven site and an application then be made relating to the Stuyvesant site. For example, the folicwing issues might be decided, regardless of site specific considerations:

(al need for pcwer (b) financial qualifications of applicants (c) technical qualificatiens of applicants (d) design of ccmponents (e) antitrust imp 1.ications of the application (f) costs of the facilities (g) energy generation costs th) expected average annual electrical energy generation from the facilities til deccmmissioning costs

3. Each of these issues materially relate to the ultimate cost-benefit analysis which the NRC must make in this case.

If, for some reason, the New Haven site is icund not to be acceptable, then, it is apparent that the applicant will appij for a construction permit for the same facilities at the Stuyvesant site. Unquestionably, the applicants will argue (and presumably be joined by the NRC Staff in this argument) that the issues litigated and resolved in connection 418 310

with these facilities at the New Haven site, to the e:ctent they are not strictly site related, should not be relitigated in any application for facilities at the Columbia County site. For that reason, if the petitioners are not granted leave to intervene in this proceeding at this time, they will be forever foreclosed from participating in the determination of st ac of the most significant issues relevant to the grant or not of a construction permit for these massive facilities.

9. At present the specific aspects of the subject matter of the rroceedings as to which petitioners wish to intervene are described by the folicwing general categories:

(a) need for power _

(b) compa.stive costs (c) health and safety (dl site suitability (e) applicants' capability (f) secondary impacts.

A brief description of petitioners' interest in each folicws.

10. Need for Pcwer. Petitioners are concerned about the impact on the electric pcwer supply available, and its cost, to the individuals and institutions -hey each represent of the construction of the proposed facility, or its failure to be constructed.

418 311

11. Comparative Cests. If additional capacity is to be added to the systems which service petitioners' constituents, petitioners want to be sure that the ... cst cost effective plan is folicwec.

12. Health and Safety. Since a number of non site-related health and safety issues may be resolved in this proceeding with respect to the design of the proposed facility, petitioners wish to be heard en those.

13. Site Suitanility. Under the National Envircnmental Policy Act and in CFR Part 51, consideration of alternate sites is an integral part of this proceeding. Since the applicants' primary alternate site is in Stuyvesant in Columbia County, Petitioners wish to participate in the consideration of alternate sites.

14. Acolicants' Cacabilitv. Petitioners believe that inflation, peor planning, decline in electric pcwer ese growth and other factors make it unlikely that applicant NYSE&G has the capability of financing, constructing and operating the proposed facilities. Granting a construction permit in these circumstances would have a material, adverse impact on pes _tioners.

15. Secondary Imcacts. It is perfoctly clear that, amon, other things, the co.astruction of the proposed facilities at the New Haven site wi.' require substantial new extra high 418 312

voltage transmission capacity to be built in Columbia County since the existing 765 kv transmission system now runs from near the New Haven site to points in or adjacent Calumbia County. The only possible route for New Haven power to the scutheastern New York load ceaters is through Columbia County. Therefore, petitioners wish to be heard on this and other secondary impacts on them of granting a construction permit in this proceeding.

16. It is believed that none of the other parties to this proceeding will represent the particular interests of the petitioners and that no means other than intervention is available to petitioners to protect their respective interests.

17. Inasmuch as a large part of the proceeding will apparently involve consideration of alternate sites, and -

expecially the Stuyvesant site, the participation of Columbia County and the Town of E.ayvesant, che two municipalities within which the site is located, will be of substantial assistance in developing a sound record.

18. Finally, since the aspects of the proceeding relating to environmental impact will be carried on jointly with the N.Y.S. Scard on Electric Generation Siting and the Er"ircnment, befor? whcm the pe*_ ioners are already parties, their intervention herein as well will make the proceeding more efficient and less confusing.

March 12, 1979 o

i

/[ (

,[ .', -

Robert J. Kafin 418 313

goc..D%

7 8 '? '

\1 s- c

.A 7 c',

4 z-. s

~1 UNITED STATES CF AMERICA Qebp

\

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICN 9 E 8

% sd

/ 2.

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. STN 50-596

) and STN 50-597 New York State Electric }

and Gas Corporation 2nd )

Lcng Island Lighting Company )

)

NYSE&G 1 and 2 )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned matter. In accordance with 10 CFR S2.713(a), the following information ,

is provided:

Name Robert J. Kafin Address Miller, Mannix, Lemery & Kafin, P.C.

P.O. Box 765 11 Chester Street Glens Falls, New York 12801 Telephone (518)793-6611 Admission United States Supreme Court Parties Represented (1) Columbia County Columbic County Planning Board 70 North Third Street Hudson, New York 12534 (2) Tcwn of Stuyvesant William J. Spampinato, Esq.

10-12 South Fourth Street Hudson, New York 12534 418 314

(3) Concerned Citizens for Safe Energy, Inc.

Anne F. Curtin R.D. 1 Box 32-A-40 Valatie, New York 12134 Respect: fully submitted ,

March 12, 1979 Robert J. Kafin 418 313

g c5!

7 9 ..,

q G" -1 17 g.

a g \t's.+

s -

-l

\hg'i* +r-y. T/ [h 9 C'[,. *' W /,g 4 J a

I hereby certify that I served copies of the Notice of Appearance of Fcbert J. Kafin, Esq., and Petition to Intervene with supporting Affirmation by mail on March 12, 19 79 cn the folic- ing :

Executive Legal Direcacr, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Washington, D.C. 20555 Roderick Schutt, Esq.

Huber, Magill, Lawrence & Farrell 99 Park Avenue, New York, New York '_0016

/m

'v o

4 s

s '.

~

y, 4 ,, s -.

Pat Gibbcns Sworn to before me this day of March, 1979 l- llL

Notary Public - Ccem. Exp. 3/30/ -

RCBERT J. :.Wt etary % cue.:>..,-:"=w':vt Ni * .Mll Ouant.aa n h2rren CourW ammission Excirn Mareft 30,13(f I