ML19259C820
| ML19259C820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1979 |
| From: | Matias T NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Wenner S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908150234 | |
| Download: ML19259C820 (11) | |
Text
MM*
....., r sr-5Es9 7 o
STATE CF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE EMP!PE STATE PLAZA. ALSANY 1'223 AL;8LIC SE AVICE COYVISSICN c-a a t.E5 A t tu Ns4i aE E,
s c -i s t c3.. -.e V
- 2...... e u..
,Q O A 4
E wa ac a. A ad.N sAvuEt a vAciscN CA RMEL CAa AINGTON VA A A wAAOLO A..EA.1v ;A.
il 3.p e t.r, i
A N N E 8' VEAD
" /vt' KA AEN S SURSTEIN January 10, 1979 x
.-.N
~.
.T
~-
-.s
-1
,d, W-r*
s Honorable Seymour Wenner Administrative Law Judge
_, p.. p:
- i.f /
1[/
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,.-2 1
..4 Atomic Safety and License Board n
,j Washington, D.
C.
20555 j
u, Re:
Case 80003 - New York State Electric & Gas Corporation and Long Island Lighting Company -
Article VIII - :uclear Power Plant, Town of New Haven, Oswego County or Town of Stuyvesant, Colu-bia County.
Dear Sy,
As promised, I am enclosing the Siting Soard's Crder Directing Remand in Case 30003.
That part of the discussion of particular interest to us begins on page 4 of the order.
I am looking forward to seeing you and Dr. Jordan at an early date.
Sincerely, Thomas R.
Matias Administrative Law Judge Incicsure ar k
7908150ts4 tm~.. ns
S'.n'".~'
C.* "."'a'
'. "u P.":'.
SCARD CN
- .C..,.
,, G.
3.a,m
,,s.
a.... G
..-.C...,,.,,
uu.,
- ..s v :
.s..
.. u.s At a session of che '!ew York Stace
- ca A C.. - T aC
-e C..: c.. e -.m.
4.i e.
~.
..w.
S.4 u. a,g a.,,. c
- w. e.../.4 n...e n e
.w
., w..e v,
esyC.
L.. 4 s,
a,..d
.9..e w
,a 4.". '"O v 4
- v. C#.l ' " *.".'./ C n
~
,7os g-we
.e.,,
,-.c
- a..
/
u,n.,a, RD
.v.r y e n..e.
- e..a r - r. -m..
-.I a...
/
[s:/
. qk<),\\
1 Charles A.
Zielinski, Chairman, Public Service Ccc=ission
/
I.y c-
~
,2-w Langden Marsh, Alternate :.c a
e A.
, e., e, C C.a.4 a a,.,.,.a.
. e t a,..,.-
n.
a
.., era-
..e..
c
.r...v--
er.-=-
gg, s
e,t 8
d-.
y g
.; Q /
.j C ^.".a~ e ~ ' c.".
e,
-e e
4.# '
Gcidie Watkins, Alternate for
,.,,s u
n.,.a.,, n, C c.,4 n s.4c.. a.,.,
2.c.,e - ~.
- m..
a D e a.. '_~.a..". ~ o.# =
ea-.
y a-n.3 3 4, n.e.
.d e,/ mot,.,
n.3 1__,., e. ~
n u..
John S.
Dyson, Cc=missioner, Department of Commerce Willia.~<. Johnke, Ad Ecc Me=her CASE 30 003 - LONG ISLA'iD LIGE*I';G COMPANY - Jamescort Generating Station C14.).r..o. U..e.r.
..,., I cU 2 u.n.s-
-r d
(Issued December 22, 1978)
= v a y..' i c a *w.* c *. # 4 ' o d.; p
.d.'. '. '.,
'.o 4,
~.". e. C.. C
/
d
- a -.S
.u
.a 4 "y.h *s d.". "y C.a'"ya.".v.
a.". A.'ie w
%.'c..'%
-7'ec*.4-
..d
- s "s = a" w
Cw~.yc.."'.'C.'.
=. " *. s e *-.*&..".",5 a C* *".' *.* w* a'".*.
O.' e.'."..'
- c.' ~. e.'. ~ * '
w,w....=.2.
E h.i *A.4 e e w,{
p.
y.i.b.,.4
,ae/
J,.,.
r=..
9 *
~,
..C a C 3,y.a w.
.,,,. e s -
r
...s a
-.a. w w-.a.c, 3.'* C.4..'.d. ~. 4 a s.". c. a."
- . ". e O = ~ ' c'
- C.
y ' ~.. o. a y C.* *,,.. ". ". '..b. o,,,
s-4
- ~
w e
l' bz. m ta3 ( O '
CASI 80003
,7 n-e w,..
r
.s 4 v e..'.e = d.i..
,~a u.".# ^ '.'c C. ur.'.";.1
.#. a a. d.." o-
...4 a
proceeding began en October 23, 1974 and centinued for three vears, thrcuc.h October 26, 1977.
In all, 20 carties partici-pated actively developing a record that included sc=e 30,000 transcript pages and 200 documents and required 123 days of hearings.
On October 26, 1977, Presiding Examiner Suss closed the record and called for initial and reply briefs.
All briefs were sub=itted by December 16, 1977.
On January 27, 1978, LILCC announced that it was deferring planned installation dates cf the two 7amesport units frc= 1984/1986 to 1988/1990, and on Februarf 3, 1978, LILCC formally advised che Presiding and Associate Examiners of its revised o.ceratinc. schedule for the. crc.=csed Jamespert L,4*s.
T.m. 4
- s i a. *.*. a.
u..?.CC y 0.4.m.. a4 c u.. b.., *.
?-
- b. O *.%. c.... e
- w applicants had sub=itted new long-range peak lead forecasts which would be included in the Pool's 1978 Sectica 149-b P.eport and that the report would be filed with the Public Service Cc==ission, thus making the information "available to the Siting Scard for its consideration and use."
The LILCC announcement prc=pted a series of =ctions and submissions frc= other arties in the case.,
On February e
21, 1978, the Long Island Far= Sureau filed a =ction for a-e n.4 a.,.
C u.m
.w
./,
.,.o/8,
...e Dapa
.,e...
- o. r v.4
...e
.w v
Conservation star:. :1., ed a rota.cn to recpen the proceedine..
On April 1, 1978, the acclicants, with the other members of the New York Pcwer Pool filed their annual report en long-range service needs, as required by Section 149-b of Article VIII of the Public Service Law.
On April 12, 1978, the PSC
- a.## # 4.' a d. a..~" 4
. ' o.- a.c y e...
C..M a "2 2,
'..o ~ 8, S u.' # ^.'.'<.
a
/
-1/Since Jamesport is propcsed as a nuclear facility, it requires a Federa' -a-se as well as State siting apprcval.
.- a v V : 4., e, a.. u. a.
, n,, a.- a. s..v.. e,,
nn a;
-gw.
=y y..i a ~4 n.,.d-
.d,. u.
. u. e a
w w
E. u, g., a.n
- 7.. a c,, i.s h. m nw w. 4 ~ ~.4 g n.
.. A.
4*-.. 1 4 m e...g e
- g. g a-A g e.. e. o #
a-
,w w
j
.ac 6
w
- r...
.c a. -. =...~ e.-
- c.,
.'.o ' 1'.
"..".."a-w"'se
.a s.4.'.'
f...d.2..c ~e.
/
y
-a 3
- a..b. e "...O.
V d{*" b*f f.,( 1.1.'V i
4 2
CASE 80003 County filed a " supplemental memorandum" in support of its original position that the application should be denied.
Several other parties also filed =ction papers and the applicants have responded to virtually all the motions and submissions.
In a report and recem= ended decision dated May 15,
'1978, Presiding Examiner Suss recommended that nne applicaticn be granted and that the various motions to reopen the record or deny the application shculd be rejected because the record could be supplemented, if necessary, by reference to records cc= piled in proceedings before the ?tblic Service Commission.
The report provides no analysis of the implications of the revised forecasts of facility in-service dates and system peak leads.
Associate Examiner Schwart=, in an alternative decision, found, en the basis of the record as it stands, that the applicants have justified certification of one 1150 negawatt nuclear generating facility at Shcreham.
He reccmmended, hcwever, that the Board consider the "sig-nificant new =aterial" on load forecasts and deferred in-service dates in its deliberations.
Then, en June 5, 1978, Secretary Madison issued a notice inviting cc=ments on the issues raised by the PSC staff and related motions.
Virtually every party in the case has filed either a motion, respense, or ccmment relating to the June 5, 1978 notice.
After considering all of this material, we have decided to remand this case for further hearings.
There have been substantial revisions to the forecasts of both the demand for and supply of electricity through the 19 80 's, in the state and in the franchised service territories of the applicants.
Two evenrs, of which we take official notice, have made us aware of these forecast revisiens.
The first is the filing of the 1978 Report of the Members of the New b f Onj4
-m e
u->
CASE 30003 York Power ? col pursuant to Section 149-b cf the Public Service Law.
That Report indicates substantial,reduct4-ac of forec'n'ad 7rewth, statewide and on Lcng Island.
In addition, the Report indicates long delays in the installation of generating facilities planned to supply electricity through the next decade.
The Report recognizes the delayed in-service dates of the two proposed Ja=esport facilities.
The second event is the application for a certificate of environmental cc=patibility and public need for new generating facilities totaling approximately 2400 megawatts, by LILCO I and NYSE&G. /
The target in-service date for these f acilities is 1991/93, and the alternate sites proposed are at New Haven, in Oswego County, and Stuyvesant, in Cclumbia County.
These two events affect issues in this case in ways that were not adequately considered en the record.
Before us are various notions made by the applicants, the staff of the Public Service Ccmmission, the staff cf the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Long Island Farm Bureau, and Suffolk Ccunty as well as ccm=ents, responses and supporting papers filed by these and other parties.
Implicit in each of the motions is the belief that the record as it stands provides an inadequate basis for us to reach a reasoned decisien to grant or deny the pending application.
We agree.
The submission of a second applica-tien, for similarly sized nuclear facilities to be constructeu in upstate New York by the applicants at approximately the same time as the f acilities proposed here, raises the question of whether facilities located upstate constitute
_ alternates superior to the Lonc_ Island facilities previousiv
, _ cons,iderad s -u ---" -
It is incentestable that with the delayed in-service dates and the fsrecasted reductions in 1/ Case 8000d, Application of New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (New Haven /Stuvvesant), filing received on Neverrer 22, 1973 but not cccketed.
z u 9.a O
' d [ h.', 3
- _4_
CASE 80003 Joad growth, the benefits of the proposed facilities will be less than she applicants claimed on the record.
- Ecwever, such lesser benefits may still be of sufficient magnitude to offset the probable costs and impacts their construction and operation will impose.
Remand in an Article VIII proceeding is the proper procedure whenever there is a strong shcwing that considera-tion of information not available until af ter the close of the record could materially affect a Siting Board's ultimate conclusion with regard to a pending application.b/
That showing has been made here by arguments in the varicus pending motions that refer to the marked sicwdown in growth in demand for electricity and the revised in-service dates
- cr the proposed facilities.
A remand will give interested parties an opportunity to be heard on the impact that the -avised supply
=ad de-'nd
- n-acasts and the New Eaven-Stuvvesa;r #4 'inc;.ay_.haza en m
the various statutory findings we must make in our decision to grant or deny an application for a certificate.
The reliability of the forecasts tha-melves is being examined in Public Service Cc= mission Case 27319 - 1978 Long Range Electric Plans.
We hereby give notice that we intend to incorporate and rely on the record in that PSC proceeding in making the findings required by Article VIII.
The record9 1
of that case will enable us to determine
>ba'ka-7 7' cn
,-A NYSE&G recuire the addi"4 c# re e l'0 0 IC c_# - e r a c trj_
6-l L2_the_1988-Too3 64me frame, But our remand centemplates e
more than mere use of the record in that case.
We shall require the applicants and permit other parties, after all of the demand forecasts have been introduced into evidence in Case 27319, to submit testimony providing their best 1/ Case 80005 - App 2_c tion of Rochester Gas & Electric, et al, (Sterling), Opinion issued January 11, 1978, 4
eo.
p.
138.
.p**{*4.s 9U
<5-
CASE 80003 estimates of the probable high, probable icw and most likely demand for electricity statewide and in the LILCO and NYSE&G service territeries in the next fifteen years, and to assess the implications of each of those esed ates on other aspects of their cases, as set forth in more detail belcw.
On the
. basis of this evidence, we shall make our deter =inations about the cost and benefits of the alternative recemnendations with regard to the application before us.
Sece parties have argued that, in view of the forecast uncertainties, we should terminate this case without further proceedings and deny the application.
The problem with this course of action is that we are uncertain at this point what costs and impacts would ficw frca a decision to deny the application.
We reccgnize that many parties will find further hearings burdensoce.
Ecwever, the proceedings likely to flew frem a s"-~' 7 denial cf the application:
rehearing, judicial review, reapplication, or reconsideration of many of the sane issues in the New Haven /Stuyvesant case could prove even more burdenseme.
We have therefere concluded that a remand for consideration of a limited nunber of issues is the best procedure to deal with the impacts of the forecast revisions and the New Eaven/Stuyvesant applica-tion cn this case.
The issues we specifically want addressed on remand are as follcws:
1.
In light of the revised fc_acas_ts of da-a-d and capacity in_C_ase 2711 h_is__there an oca-c 4c 1"s'd #tcati.cn for IILCO and :fYSE&O to implement.a "?cd 14 M as expansict plan that would add approximately 4700 mega-watts of capacity in the five-year period 1988-1993?
e m n., q
'd ( LL'__
CASE 80003 s
2.
Assuming that less than 4700 megawatts of capacity should be added by these applicants in 1988-1993 and that most of the demand responsible for this addition materializes in NYSE&G's service territory, explain in detail the justification for siting s
\\
capacity on Long Island, rather than upstate.
3.
Has the deferral of the in-service date of the proposed facilities made feasible alternative means of meeting forecasted demand, either frcm technologies that previously were considered not commercially available to meet needs for the mid-1980 's or frca purchases through the New York Power Pool?_l/
4.
Have the forecast revisions materially altered the relative econcmics of meeting public demands for pcwer with the specific nuclear and coal generating facilities proposed in this case?2/
We are mindful that further delay in this proceeding may impose costs on consumers and burdens on some participants.
But we must fulfill our statutory obligation by making our decision in light of the findings required by the statute en the basis of a hearing record.
We remand this case to a Presiding Examiner from the Public Service Cc= mission and an Associate Examiner from the Department of Environmental Conservation with instructions to conduct cnly such hearings as are necessary to ventilate the issues set out in this C.
-1/ Although Sections 146. 2 (c) (i) and (g) limit our considera-tion to "available" technologics, we are concerned that parties fccusing on technology available to meet public needs for additional generating capacity in the mid-1980's may have overlooked alternatives that would be available in the late 1980's or early 1990's to meet those needs.
2/It should not be necessary to : acpen every aspect of this analysis, but certainly the delayed in-service dates and probable reduction in energy ccasumption will have scme effect on this econcaic comparison.
b.. mD (.1.4. d.-
e CASE 80003 Order.
We emphasize that the issues to be considered ce renand are limited.
Supplemental hearings shculd be held to reexamine factual issues only in these areas where the forecast revisions will have a material impact on the statutory decision criteria.
Examination of the under-pinnings of the forecasts themselves will take place in Public Service Ccemission Case 27319.
There has been no showing that the record on the site specific environmental impacts of the proposed facilities, or the relative environ-mental, health, and safety impacts of nuclear and coal facilities is inadecuate.
Further evidenca en these matters
^ need not be taken.
Since there may be evnsideration of cc==cn issues in this remanded proceeding and in the New Haven /Stuyvesant proceeding, we direct the Presiding Examiner, and call upon all parties, to develcp crocedures to crevent i
ac-ulation-of-repetitiva merely_cumu.lative._ exidence_by c-Jase of a c-----
recc d v"a e "sandkla
/
At this point, we believe that we can make our final determinations in this proceeding before the February 4, 1980 statutory deadline for applications filed before August 1978.
If we are to meet this deadline, a recc=cended decision recognizing the revised load and capacity forecasts and the implications of the New Haven-Stuyvesant filing en this application will have to be issued by late Septe=her, 1979.
We direct the Presiding Examiner to call a prehearing conference of all interested parties for the purpcse of further defining issues and establishing schec(ules and procedures designed to meet this deadline.
At that conference, each party shculd be prepared to discuss and reach agreement on what evidence should be adduced pursuant to this remand crder.
The precise 1/It is, of course, not cur purpose to make findings regarding the certification of the facilities and sites proposed in Case 80003.
That is the responsibility of the Siting Ecard in that case.
..~m.
w
b $
s CASE 80002 evidentiary scope of the subsequent hearings will be determined by a ruling of the Presiding Examiners, subject to our review, if necessary.
In the interests of efficiency, we now rule that parties may, in tes*4 ony or submissions to the Examiners or the Board, =ove that relevant portions of the record in Cases 27319 and 80008 be incorporated by reference in this case.
It is our belief that the accuracy of the demand and cac. acit'I forecasts cer _s_e can be adec.uatelv tested in Case 27319.
However, the i=plications of those forecasts in relation to the propriety of issuing a certificate for any of the alternatives proposed thus far in this record must tested during the re=and.
The most expediticus way of doing so would be for parties to =ake demand and capacity estima s
on the basis of "high," "1cw" and "= cst probable" forecasts.
Recc==endations to us regarding the propriety of any alternative, including the no-construction alternative, should be related to each of these scenarios.
The Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment for Case 80003 orders:
1.
This case is remanded to a Presiding Examiner to t_ appointed by the Department of Public Service and an Associate Exn-4ner to be appointed by the Department of Environmental Conservation for further proceedings in accordance with this order.
2.
Except as cranted herein, the motions made by the applicant, the Long Island Farm Streau, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Department of Public Service staff, and the County of Suffolk are denied.
.e 4
-9
CASE 80003 3.
This proceeding is continued.
By The "ew York State Ecard On Electric Generation Siting And The Environment - Case
- 80003, SM1UEL R.
MADISON Secretary to the Scard e
' ' Md
,N D d (.2._..L