ML19256A382
| ML19256A382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sterling |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1978 |
| From: | Larson L LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE |
| To: | Buck J, Rosenthal A, Salzman R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901050112 | |
| Download: ML19256A382 (22) | |
Text
I
. LEBOEU F. LAM B. LElBY & M AC R E 1757 N STREET, N.W. DOCU3g 00y WASHINGTON D. C. 2Oo36 TTLEPMONE 202-457-7500 LEON A . A L LE N, J R. CAMERON F. MAC P AE 4 RANDALL J. LEBOEUF,JR.1929-197S JOSEPH E. B AC H E LDE R.IE CAMERON F. Mac R A E, tr & LESWIN,WASHsNGTON.D C.
HO R AC E R. LAH 4 19 34-1977 G S PET R ERGE
- S H E LA H MARSHALL TELEA.440274 ADRIAN C. LElBY 8952-1976 GEOFFR * .C.BEST J AMES G. Mc ELROY DAvfD P. F- ;MS jaggg p, pe g gg g g g y, j g,. , T E L ECOPI E R-'
^ ' " "
C,lAa"E ~ .".'3nE R ~',ar;;g, E g" o u'o^" =o=-*>>$" " "" o^ o*"
AR E
- g* *D=,"ua,1 ., JAM o C M AuEv.JR. . "E*' "" " ' ' o o o "
Lc C UGE N E R. FIC ELL *
- J . MIC HA EL PARISH *E L E P'* C N E 212 - 2 6 9-e 100
"*c " '" '^" "
ER D JORO A #" *f.S'A Ju "v "'" * '*" December 15, 1978 c^ * ^ o " ' 5 5 DON ALD J.GREENE PATRICK J. SCOG N AMIG LIO LEBWIN, NEW YORM JOH ' L ROSEe' H LCYON G.S NNER DOUwLAS W. HAwCS JOSEPH S. STRAUSS C AR L D. HOSE LM AN S AMUEL M. SUGDEN MIC H A E L IOV E N mC EUGENE B T H O M A S . J R.*
- a LEX M.LARSON*a H. RICH AR D WAC HTEL GRANT 5. LEWIS GERARD P. W AT SO N MIM B A w. LOVEJOY THOM AS A. ZIERM
- R E SIDE N T PARTN E R S WAS HINGTON OF FIC E a ADMITTED TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUM81A BAR Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. Dr. John H. Buck Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 g 4
//
Richard S. Salzman, Esq. c0 3 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board g- )g'{%
Y1 -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory "
., 9 b Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Q.h(h 8 y
N #
Re: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, et al.
Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1 NRC Docket No. STN 50-485 Gentlemen:
I enclose for your information a copy of the " Order Defining Scope of Rehearing on Public Need", dated December 5, 1978, issued in the Sterling Article VIII proceeding by the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment. he order provides that the record developed through the Public Service Commission's hearings in Case 27319
("149-b hearings") will be the basis for the Siting Board's determination of need for power in the Sterling Article VIII proceeding. The 149-b hearings are in process. The utilities' 790105olIR
testimony has been received and cross-examined; the testimony of all other parties is due to be filed on January 5, 1979, with cross-examination thereon to follow in February.
In another development, the New York Public Service Commission recently issued an order in Case 26559 dismissing the application by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for Pannell Road to Volney and Oswego to Sterling transmission facilities, but did so without prejudice to the filing of a subsequent application dealing with the same or similar facilities. In taking this action, the Public Service Commission explained that it con-sidered the evidentiary record on the application to be stale.
The applicants plan to file a new Article VII application for transmission facilities on a schedule consistent with revised generation planning and schedules.
Very truly yours, Lex K. Larson Attorney for Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Enclosure cc w/ enc.: Edward Luton, Esq.
Dr. George C. Anderson Ms. Sharon Morey Jeffrey L. Cohen, Esq.
Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
Steven M. Sohinki, Esq.
Secretary, USNRC Hon. Joseph M. Hendrie Hon. Richard T. Kennedy Hon. Victor Gilinsky Hon. Peter A. Bradford Hon. John F. Ahearne
1 .
~
STATE OF NEW YORK BOARD ON
'LECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT At a session of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment for the Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1 held in the City of Albany on November 8, 1978.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Anne F. Mead, Chairman, Alternate for Charles A. Zielinski, Chairman, Public Service Commission Peter A. A. Berle, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation Roger C. Herdman, M. D.
Alternate for Robert P. Whalen, M. D.,
Commissioner, Department of Health Dr. William E. Seymour, Alternate for John S. Dyson, Commissioner, Department of Commerce -
David B. Weinstein, Ad Hoc Member CASE 80005 - Application of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation on behalf of itself, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Central Hudson Gas
& Electric Corporation and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need to construct an 1150 MW standardized nuclear plant in the Town of Sterling, Cayuga County, New York.
OTOER DEFINING SCOPE OF REliEARING ON PUBLIC NEED (Issued December 5, 1978)
The Sterling-SNUPPS participants have responded to our requirement that they furnish a comprehensive justification of the public need for the Sterling-SNUPPS facility in light
. I.
CASE 80005 .
of demand projections contained in the 1978 Report of the New York Power Pool filed pursuant to Section 149-b of the Public Service Law. Responses to the applicants' filing have been received from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), PSC staff (staff), Rochester Safe Energy Alliance (RSEA), Ecology Action of Oswego (EAO) , West Eranch Conservation Association, Genesee Peoples' Power Coalition (this intervenor filed two responses) and the Consumer Protection Board (CPB) .
We have considered all of this material and we have determined that our reexamination of the public need for the Sterling-SNUPPS facility should continue in concert with the Public Service Commission's ongoing proceeding that deals with the 1978 Section 149-b report.
APPLICANTS' POSITION The applicants first suggest that the " timing and conditions" of our January 11, 1978 certificate and our implication that the facility would not be required until 1986 were responsible for their efforts to put Sterling-SNUPPS facility on a "more realistic schedular footing." They also admit, however, that a deferral of the in-service date of Sterling to 1988 " appears prudent in relation to the companies' present best estimates of load requirements in the late 1980's."1/ In summary form, it is the applicants' position now that the Sterling-SNUPPS facility will be needed in 1988 to offset major deficiencies anticipated in that year by the applicant utilities and to meet statewide reserve requirements in the late 1980's. The applicants also have modified the 1/ Response By Sterling Participants to Siting Board Order of May 4, 1978, at p. 5.
CASE 80005 construction schedule for the Sterling-SNUPPS unit so that it now encompasses a 91-month period as compared with the earlier 72-month construction schedule. Accordingly, the applicants contend now that they must commence construction in September, 1980 to assure that the Sterling-SNUPPS unit will be in commercial service by April, 1988.
The Sterling participants declined the opportunity we gave them to present evidence that might justify licensing construction and operation of the Sterling unit on an economic basis as opposed to one based on a capacity deficiency.
What has changed, the participating companies say, is that the Sterling unit is still needed to meet anticipated capacity deficiencies, but not until 1988. The longer construction schedule they now propose suggests that certification should be granted in time to commence construction in the fall of 1980, assuming the existence of public need fur the f acility.
Our earlier analysis, performed on the basis of the record of Case 80005, as amplified'by other material incorporated therein, found that the Ste.: ling-SNUPPS facility would be required to offset anticipated capacity deficiencies by 1986.
The companies responded to our request for a full explanation of che change in projected peak load indicated in the 1978 Section 149-b filing by analyzing each participa-ting utility's method of ccmputing projected peak loads and by answering the specific questions we raised. The major points of that effort are summarized next.
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation The projected reduction in gronth in residential load for this company is said to be dua largely to use of new appliance energy efficiency standards adopted by the CASE 80005 .
Federal Energy Administration and to a revision in the population forecasts of the New York State Economic Development Board (EDB). For cccmerci 1 sales, the reduction over earlier forecasts is attributable to use of a new historical base period for its forecast and the company's judgment of the expected level of economic activity in the Rochester area. For industrial sales, the large reduction over earlier forecasts is said to be caused by a recent survey of the company's 17 largest industrial customers, which suggested curtailment of plans'for expansion over the next five years.
The company says that it made no separate computation of the impact of " conservation," because no acceptable formula has been found for distinguishing conservation from other trends such as reduced economic activity.
Orance and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Orange and Rockland attributes the more than 50%
reduction in its anticipated growth rate to a substantial downward revision in the estimate of future regional population and a compendium of emerging factors that affect demand for electricity including: energy management; peak load pricing; use of storage facilities, customer load cortrol and energy efficiency. It asserts that a large part of the reduction in anticipated peak load can be attributed to increasing efficiencies for air conditioners. The residential growth has been reduced to reflect (1) the population factor and
~~
the belief that outmigration from New York City will be reduced from historical levels, (2) the increased use of more efficient appliances and (3) a reduction 'n the saturation of water heating, space heating and air conditioning. The commercial sales estimate was reduced because, under Orange and Rockland's method of projecting these sales, the commercial CASE 80005 growth has a lockstep relationship to residential. No change was made in Orange and Rockland's anticipated industrial growth rate because the company believes that it will track national economic growth trends which have not changed from previous "crecasts.
Central 1 son Gas & Electric Corporation Central Hudson attributes the projected reduction in peak load to load management techniques and a reduction in sales due to several factors. In the residential area, the reduction is said to be caused by use of lower population forecasts from the EDB and the factoring in of new appliance efficiency srandards. The company reduced its estimate of commercial nonheat sales to reflect a slower growth in this area which was indicated by budgeted sales for 1978 and 1979. In the industrial sector, Central Hudson used the Federal Reserve Board's index of industrial production which indicated a slower growth rate than last year's model.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation The reduction in Niagara Mohawk's load forecasts is accounted for by changes in variables such as economic activity, demographic patterns, energy prices, etc., and a change in the method used to convert these assumptions into a load forecast. In the residential area, Niagara Mohawk's new forecast has changed from the one used previously because of the addition of population per customer into the equation used by the company to forecast growth. Other factors affecting the forecast included lowering of the personal income projection and a slight cutback in expected household growth. The new "DB population forecast would not, according to Niagara Moha .., affect its service area. Another factor affecting the new forecast is an appliance saturation survey CASE 80005 ccmpleted by the ccmpany which indicated that saturations were higher than thought previously. The new appliance efficiency standards were assc=ed in the company's 1977 Section 149-b report and, therefore, did not influance the observed reduction in 1978. In the commercial sector, a lower expectation of growth in the nonmanufacturing area, a revision in the household forecast and a change in specifi-cation of the forecasting equation account for the new lower forecast. A revised forecast methodology accounts for a lower industrial sales forecast in 1978 than it did in 1977.
Connosite Summary of hvised Forecasts A composite summary of deficiencies from the 1978 Section 149-b report is reproduced here.1/
-1/ Table 12 of the applicants' response should contain the same information as this table; but an unexplained variance in O&R's deficiency is contained in Table 12. Specifically, Table 12 shows the following deficiencies for O&R:
S W 1985 (66) (58) 1986 (117) (107) 1987 (166) (154) 1988 (219) (172)
O n
STERLING-SNUPPS UTILITIES m 8"
Composite Surplus (Deficiency) Based on 1978 Section 149-b Report SNUPPS '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 Share S W S W S W S W S W Central Hudson 196 147 159 102 113 (13) (1) (66) (53) (119) (107)
Niagara Mohawk 253 447 376 274 153 65 (75) (163) (327) (423) (586)
O&R 379 (21) (59) (71) (107) (120) (154) (173) (207) (226) (260)
RG&E 322 91 72 10 (17) (63) (88) (133) (159) (204) (242)
Totals 664 548 497 142 (131) (310) (535) (747) (972)(1195)
CASE 80005 Sterling versus LEGS We asked the applicants to discuss each Sterling participant's need for its share of Sterling-SNUPPS capacity and, to address, in particular, Niagara Mohawk's need vis-a-vis its pending application to build the Lake Erie Generating Station (LEGS) in the same time frame. The applicants failed to relate projected deficiencies by each company to each one's share of Sterling-SNUPPS. Niagara Mohawk views LEGS as the next large increment of capacity needed on its system following the Sterling-SNUPPS unit. Therefore, the applicants assert that the company coes not view LEGS :.s occupying the same time frame as Sterling. The applicants say that Niagara Mohawk is pushing for "early certification" of the LEGS facility to protect against the contingency that Sterling will not be available in 1988. They do not discuss why both units would be required by 1988; but an admission that LEGS is not needed as early as 1988 is clearly implicit in the statement that LEGS is viewed as the large increment of capacity to follow Sterling.
Statewide Analysis of Public Need We next requested the applicants to conduct a statewide analysis of the public need for an 1150 MW generating station using the 1978 Section 149-b forecasts. The applicants state in response that the 1150 MW of Sterling generating capacity is an integral and necessary element of the Pool's expansion plan. They point out that Exhibit 15B of the 1978 Section 149-b report shows that rese:ve capacity on a statewide basis will barely be adequate in the year in which Sterling is assumed to enter service and that, in the absence
. CASE 80005 of Sterling, reserves would be inadequate, attaining only 19% in 1988 under those assumptions.1/
Excess Capacity Opportunities We next incuired of the Sterling-SNUPPS participants what opportunities may reasonably be expected to exist for the sale of excess capacity should some of the companies not need their full share of available Sterling capacity. The applicants respond that Sterling energy will be efficient and economic for each of the participating systems so that the entire energy output of the unit will be utilized by the owning companies immediately. This can be expected to free up for sale excess capacity frcm each system and such energy as the company would be generating for its own customers but for the availability of the Sterling unit. The companies state further that prcjected Pool reserves in the years 1988-1989, which will be barely adequate, suggest that there will be opportunities for sale of excess capacity. As to competitive Canadian power, the applicants state that the only available firm capacity from this source has been incorporated into the Pool's planning but that Canadian energy will compete effectively with oil-fired generation on the interconnected systems of the Pool.
Project Schedule Finally, we asked the applicants to submit a detailed explanation of any changes in the construction schedule for the Sterling-SNUPPS unit. As noted above, the applicants now say that it will require 91 months to construct
-1/Exnicit 15B is the Pool's base plan assuming the Power Pool load forecast and delayed service dates so that Nine Mile Point 2 ccmes on line in 1985, Somerset in 1986, PASNY 700 megawatt fossil plant in 1987 and Sterling in 1988.
CASE 80005
- the Sterling-SUUPPS facility whereas they earlier projected a 72-month construction schedule. They claim that the disparity results from three sources: (1) regulatory delays, (2) deferral of need for the facility until 1988, and (3) schedule expansion to achieve "a more realistic sequencing of construction activities." Much of the difference between the old and new construction schedules can be attributed to an increase in the time required for site preparation.
Whereas the applicants projected six months for this activity in 1975, the new schedule calls for 21 months of site ~
preparation work. The longer pericd of time for this activity is said to be due to a reassessment of the complexity of the work involved and revisions of the schedule to capture labor productivity gains that otherwise might have been foregone.
PSC STAFF POSITION PSC staff claims that the applicants have merely translated a two-year deferral of their projected capacity deficiencies into the position that Sterling's availability should be delayed for two years. Accordingly, staff concludes that it is reasonable to direct further inquiry to determine whether these companies will indeed face capacity deficiencies in 1988 as has been forecast in the 1978 Section 149-b report. Observing that this question is being addressed in the PSC's ongoing 19/8 long-range planning hearings, staff suggests that we base our rehearing decision on the evidentiary record being compiled in that planning proceeding instead of conducting a duplicative independent remand. Staff points out that it and at least three other parties intend to submit direct cases based on their own independent load forecasts in the current Section 149-b proceeding and that the Board should have the benefit of the full range of CASE 80005 available projections before it decides whether to reinstate the currently suspended Sterling-SNUPPS certificate. Staff envisions a crocedure which would put parties on notice at this time that a decision on rehearing will be based upon the record of the ongoing PSC case after parties have been given an opportunity to submit briefs. This procedure envisions a Board decision sometime in the spring of 1979; in sufficient time for a construction start in September of 1980.
POSITION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DEC claims the current load growth projections of the New York Power Pool represent a radical departure from anything considered in the Sterling-SNUPPS record. Accordingly, it urges a reopening of the record to consider thoroughly the impact of these significant and material changes on the need for the Sterling facility. The agency then goes on to suggest that it is no longer proper to consider the merits of each planned additional generating facility apart from the other pending Article VIII applications. Accordingly, it suggests a comparative analysis of all proposed generating facilities in the State. It maintains that all pending Article VIII cases reasonably can be expected to be presented to individual siting boards in the next year and that absent a compelling reason to certify any of the proposed units before then, a statewide analysis should be conducted.
DEC agrees with PSC staff that it would be desirable to use the PSC's current 1978 long-range planning case as a procedural vehicle for reconsidering need in this proceeding.
The agency closes out its response by proposing that we a
CASE 80005 incorporate by reference into the Case 80005 record the records of all other pending Article VIII proceedings and generic cases and invite all parties to submit ranking schemes for capacity additions on a statewide basis. To place its proposal into effect, 7EC offers two alternatives:
(1) each party to this case could offer expert testimony on the comparative impacts of the various Article VIII sites or (2) a common record proceeding could be instituted to consider a broad comparative analysis of all primary and alternate sites currently in the licensing process.
POSITION OF WEST BRANCH CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION West Branch asks: why is it reasonable to believe that the Power Pool's 1978 Section 149-b projections will be any more accurate than the attempts they made to project growth in peak load in 1975, 1976 and 1977? The Association then goes on to point out certain questionable assumptions or alleged errors in each companies' forecast that would, if corrected, change the conclusion that the Sterling-SNUPPS facility is needed before 1990. Specifically, they allude to: (1) RG&E's inclusion, in developing a rate of growth for the future, of the growth rate observed prior to 1973; (2) O&R's reliance on an accelerated population growth rate from 1980 through 1988; (3) that company's inclusion of a so-called dummy variable in its forecasting model; (4) Central Hudson's " misjudgment of its industrial growth potential,"
and (5) Niagara Mohawk's " erroneous" industrial growth rate
~~
projection. The Association makes other comments about the burden on ratepayers of excess capacity and contends that the applicant's revision of its censtruction schedule is a
' CASE 80005 manifestation of Parkinson's Law, namely that work expands to fill the ti.1e available for its completion. The Association concludes that the Board should indefinitely suspend the certificate for the Sterling-SNUPPS facility.
POSITION OF RCCHESTER SAFE ENERGY ALLIANCE RSEA supports reopening of the record in this proceeding to investigate fully the public need for the proposed plant and "other issues of substantial uncertainty, such as waste disposal."
This intervenor has presented a preliminary summary of the evidence that it claims it will introduce in the PSC's 1978 Section 149-b proceeding. That summary suggests that RSEA will criticize the forecasts made by the Sterling-SNUPPS participants in the Section 149-b report with respect to the input assumption on population, industrial growth, and the availability of natural gas. The intervenor will also question the reserve margin of the New York Power Pool and the impact on load forecasts of energy conservation measures, improving load factors, marginal cost pricing, energy storage inroads, and increased penetra ion of solar and other alternative energy sources.
Consistent with this intervenor's petition for rehearing of our principal opinion, it questions whether it is safe to assume that the economics of the proposed plant have not changed and it also seeks additional hearings to inquire into recent developments in the nuclear waste disposal area and to take account of the State Administration's announced policy against further development of nuclear resources.
CASE 80005 .
POSITION OF ECOLOGY ACTICN OF OSWEGO Ecology Action contends that further hearings in this proceeding should be suspended at least until the summer of 1979, pending the outccme of the PSC's current Section 149-b proceeding and the presentation of the first State energy master plan. The intervenor also offers a critique of the applicants' response to the Board's inquiries.
It observes that RG&E has relied upon population forecasts of the Economic Development Board which have proved wrong in the past. They also question the use of these forecasts by O&R, Central Hudson and Niagara Mohawk in their projections.
EAO further claims that the applicants' industrial expansion projections ignore trends toward improvements in efficiency and lower energy usage. It contends that the impact of conservation has been underestimated; that recent State legislation such as the Ecme Insulation and Conservation Act and the adoption of energy efficiency standards for air conditioners and hot water heaters has been ignored; that commercial conservation has been underesHmated and industrial cogeneration not fully explored. Ecology Action argues that increases in residential solar and wind energy applications and the increasing use of wood burning stoves has been ignored in the development of the Power Pool's 1978 Section 149-b forecasts.
This intervenor also contends that LEGS should be considered as an alternative to the Sterling nuclear plant.
As to the statewide need for an increment of 1150 MW of capacity, Ecology Action urges that we assess critically the Power Pool's plan to retire 2700 MW of capacity between 1985 and 1993. It seeks an econcmic cost benefit analysis before decisions are made to reti re these units. Finally,.it questions the desirability of the current Pool required CASE 80005 reserve margin, and the impact on New York State's capacity requirements of Quebec hydro-power. The intervenor contends that the existence of Quebec hydro-power will make it difficult for Sterling participants to sell excess power when Sterling comes on line.
POSITION OF GENESEE VALLEY PEOPLES' POWER COALITION GVPPC asserts that all authorizations for the Sterling-SNUPPS facility should be rescinded because of the admission that additional capacity will not be required until 1988. It claims that technological decisions were based on need in 1984 and that these considerations must be reevaluated in light of the new need date. This intervenor also submitted a paper entitled "The Dispute over Nuclear Power Examined from the Perspective of Human Psycho-Social Evolution" by C. A. Hilgartner, which it claims proves that the logic of our principal opinion is flawed and the decision mistaken.
\
POSITION OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARD The CPB contends that the participating utilities in the Sterling project have incorrectly and inconsistently calculated required capability in peak and nonpeak periods.
CPB contends that the total required capability for the group has been overstated because peak and nonpeak requirements of the participating utilities were not coordinated. CPB recalculated the required capability for the four utilities using its method and concludes that the companies would have capacity deficiencies of 102 MW in the summer of 1988, 231 FM in the winter of 1988, 383 MW in the summer of 1989 and 649 MW in the winter of 1989. Characterizing these as
" minimal deficiencies," CPB concludes that excess capacity available from other urilities in New York State during this CASE 80005 .
time frame will be available to satisfy this need for additional power. The agency states that the Siting Board should carefully evaluate whether a smaller coal-fired unit should be certified for construction and operation in the late 1980's in lieu of an 1150 MW nuclear plant.
The CPB also contends that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the utilities' peak load projections contained in the 1978 Section 149-b report are too high.- It submits a list of factors that affect each of the participating utility's forecast which it claims have been mistakenly employed and, which, it says, lead to overestimates of load growth. The CPB is presenting its case in the PSC's current Section 149-b proceeding and the agency asks the Siting Board to review the record being developed in that case before reaching a final decision in the Sterling case.
Observing that some of the parties to Case 80005 may nct be able to participate in the PSC's proceeding, the CPB asks the Board to reserve the opportunity to hold further hearings to give such parties an opportunity to cross-examine the utilities' witnesses and to provide the Siting Board with a record specific to the Sterling unit.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The principal issue presented by this material con-cerns the reliability of the Power Pool's 1978 Section 149-b forecast for our reexamination of the public need for the Sterling-SNUPPS facility. Several of the respondents have questioned the propriety of acceptance of these projections without further inquiry, observing that forecasts of previous years have simply not materialized. Other parties have presented detailed critiques of the bases used by the utilities to develop their forecasts. It seems clear, in light of CASE 80005 these objections, that we should base our redetermination of public need for the Sterling-SNUPPS facility on as complete a factual basis as is possible, provided that sufficient time exists to permit that kind of an analysis. We were reluctant, in our initial consideration of public need, to base our decision on an incomplete analysis of the latest available load projections and there is certainly no reason to do so here. There clearly remains sufficient time for us to await the compilation of further evidence in the Public Service Commission's Section 149-b proceeding before moving to a decision on the reopened public need question. The applicants' revised schedule contemplates a construction start in September of 1980. It is reamonable to expect that the record in the PSC's Long Range Planning case will be completed in the Spring of 1979, leaving us ample time in the following few months to reach a decision on this critically important issue without compromising the applicants' new construction schedule.1/ Quite simply, our decision to continue this inquiry will not affect the ability of the applicants to commence construction in the Fall of 1980, as they now contemplate, should we find a basis for reinstating the suspended certificate.
DEC has suggested that we explore means of con-solidating all Article VIII case records so that we could conduct a comparative analysis of all pending Article VIII applications. In light of our decision to extend the scope of our inquiry to include consideration of additional evidence being compiled in the current Section 149-b proceeding, we are not in a position to accept DEC's proposal. We note, in any case, that the procedural scheme advanced by DEC might prove difficult to implement. We recognize that because of
-1/We stanc ready to modify this procedure to the extent we deem necessary if it appears to us that the PSC case will be delayed and that such delay would jeopardize the construction schedule.
CASE 80005 s
the time required to complete our rehearing of the public need question, some of the assumptions of other parts of our principal decision may change. For example, it is entirely possible that applications for certificates in other cases will be granted in the interim between now and the time we dec.de the issues on rehearing, thus altering the basis for our conclusion that the Sterling-SNUPPS facility is consistent with a plan to meet the long-range power needs of the citizens of New York State. We will evaluate such issues at the time we finally decide the question of public need.1/
It has also been suggested that any further hearings in this case should be suspended pending the outccme of the PSC's 149-b proceeding and the presentation of the first State Energy Master Plan. We think, however, that it makes better sense to proceed to consider the record developed in the PSC's case for our own purposes after receiving briefs from the parties without awaiting either the PSC's final decision or the development of the master plan. If, after reviewing that record, we find a basis for reinstating the certificate, that action should be accomplished as expeditiously as possible in order to provide sufficient time for possible judicial review of our decision and the completion of the EM&CP and licensing package submittals. With the rehearing schedule that we contemplate, construction of the Sterling-SNUPPS facility could commence as is now planned by the applicant.
We shall, therefore, continue our reexamination of the public need for the Sterling-SNUPPS facility by using the record developed in the PSC's current 1978 Section 149-b proceeding (PSC Case 27319 - Phase II) to supplement the information now before us. Many of the parties in Case
-1/We indicated in our Order on Rehearing that in view of the interrelationship of various factors in the comparative evaluation made pursuant to Article VIII of the Public Service Law, our reopenirg on the question of public need may result in further consideration of other matters, as well.
CASE 80005 80005 are participants in Case 27319 so that few procedural problems will be encountered as a result of our decision.
For those that are not, we call upon the PSC to authorize the Administrative Law Judge presiding over that case to permit late intervention of other Case 80005 parties who may wish to participate in Case 27319 from this point in time to the conclusion of that proceeding. Upon conclusion of the hearings in Phase II of Case 27319, parties to Case 80005 will be required to file briefs directly to the Board on the issues we listed in our May 4, 1978 order. Such briefs will be required within thirty days of the close of Case 27319 -
Phase II record.
Applicants' Request for Removal of Condition In our May 4, 1978 order, we conditioned the beginning of the period for EM&CP comments on the termination of the current suspension of the certificate. By letter dated May 25, 1978, applicants ask that this condition be removed to allow some flexibility in its construction schedule. The applicants envision that the time required for review of the need question plus that necessary for comments on the EM&CP may extend beyond the point at which preliminary arrangements to begin the site work must begin.
Granting this request would be inconsistent with suspension of the certificate for the purpose of a thorough reexamination of the need for the plant. The schedule we set out above should provide adequate time for EM&CP review before construction is due to commence. The request, therefore, is denied.
The Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment for Case 80005 orders:
- 1. The rehearing on the question of public need for the Sterling-SNUPPS facility ordered in Siting Board Order issued May 4, 1978 in this proceeding shall be decided upon the basis of the record compiled in this proceeding,
CASE 80005 .
the response by Sterling participants to the Siting Board order of May 4, 1978 dated July 18, 1978, the responses to the applicants' filing received from the Department of Environmental Conservation, Public Service Commission staff, Rochester Safe Energy Alliance, Ecology Action of Oswego, West Branch Conservation Association, Genesee Valley Peoples' Power Coalition, the Consumer Protection Board and in the record of Public Service Commission's Case 27319 - Phase II, on the 1978 long-range electric planc of the New York State Power Pool.
- 2. Each party to Case 80005 who desires to file a brief dealing with the rehearing on the issue of public need as explored in the above case records and documents shall file twenty-five copies of its brief with the Secretary within thirty days of the close of the record in Public Service Ccmmission Case 27319 - Phase II or sooner, if further directed by notice from _his Board.
- 3. The applicants' petition for removal of condition and issuance of the Section 402 construction runoff permit lated May 26, 1978 is denied.
- 4. This proceeding is continued.
By The New York State Board on Electric Generating Siting And The Environment For The
.. Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No. 1, SAMUEL R. MADISON Secretary to the Board