ML19263D243
| ML19263D243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000502, 05000503 |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1979 |
| From: | Luton E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903260357 | |
| Download: ML19263D243 (10) | |
Text
- '
- 'c PLTLIC DOCU'. INT ECOM V.o It%
UNI'IED STATES OF M'EFICA f
D, N
.#1 Y
NUCLEAR REGLLATOKf CCMESSIC"
/
Q,N }, @I-l N
50#
4Y EEFORE THE ATOHC SAFETY AND LICZ EING ECz-
),\\b@j *g.
N g
gw c p..y c/
g4'/
t tf In the Matter of
)
~
)
WISCONSIN ELECIRIC POWER CG 9ANY,
)
50-503
)
(Haven Nuclear Plant, Lhits 1 and 2) )
ORDER A.
The petiticn of Northem Thunder fails to state an adequate
" interest," within the cuanirg of 10 CFR 52.714, in this proceeding. The petition is denied.
B.
"ihe State of Wiscensin Public Service Ccanissicn has previcusly been admitted as a participant pursuant to 10 CFR 52.715(c).
C.
'Ihe Board hereby approves the stipulaticn, filed Neverber 21, 1978, accng the organizaticn Safe Haven, Ltd., the Applicants, and the Cctrissicn's Regulatory Staff.
In accordance with that stipulaticn, Safe Haven, Ltd., is hereby admitted to this pro-ceeding as an intervening party.
D.
"he October 9,1978 notion by Safe Haven to dismiss the const.:c-ticn per=it arplicaricn is hereby dismissed.
Supervening events, nannly, pursuit of the applicaticn fcr authcrity to ccnstreet but cne of the originally planned tm nuclear units, have re:cved 79032Go351
_2_
the grounds for the noticn.
E.
The follcwing Safe Haven cententicr.s, their nMssibility stipulated by all the parties, are achitted as issues in ccatroversy:
1.
Applicants have failed to adequately censider the
~
following energy sources new available, or available by 1987, as alternatives to the nuclear eption:
a.
photovoltaic cells; b.
solar generating statiens:
c.
wind generaticn; d.
wood as a fuel for space heating ard for large generating stations;
=enicipal solid waste as a generating fuel; e.
f.
cogneration; and g.
ccebinaticn of above.
2.
Applicants have failed to adequately detail tieir asst =pticus and predicticns relative to the need for core crerating capacity in that not enough censideraticn has been given to the flattening of the birth rate in Wisconsin or the possibility of the develcpment of negative pcpulatica grcwth in this state.
Such a trend cculd dranatically lower c'emd during the lifeti n of the Haven nuclear plant.
. 3.
Applicants have failed to pmvide a discussicn of the degradaticn of the aesthetics of the lakeshcre area brou;ht en by the construction of the Haven nuclear plant.
The Lake Michigan shore betm en Manitcw c and Sheboygan is a beautiful and prime example of Great Lakes aesthetics.
The constructicn of the proposed Haven nuclear plant would severly degrade the scenic and natural beauty of the area.
4.
Applicants' discussica of transmission line corridors and their envircrmental, aesthetic, and econcr:ic inpact is inadequate in the folicwing respects:
a.
All transmissicn line ccrriders are not delineated and their total impact cannot be judged until they are.
b.
An ccencric value for the produce and grain potential of the land affected by the constn:cticn of transmissim lines is not provided.
5.
Applicants fail to discuss the folicwing merits of putting all transmissicn lines underground:
a.
The aesthetic and enviren=cntal values of underground transatssion lines.
b.
The greater reliability of underground transmissicn lines and the fact that they are protected _ San inclement weather.
. 6.
The preposed narral draft cooling twers will have a significant inpact en the envircrcat of the area in the following respects:
a.
They will cause icing of roads, fogging, and an increase in the heat and humidity in the area of the plant, as well as an increase in the scunt of sncwfall.
b.
The cooling tcwers, easily the largest structures cn the lakeshore in Sheboygan County, will be aesthetically unpleasing and destroy an ctherwise natural skyline.
c.
Fogging frcm the cooling towers may adversely affect navigaticn en Lake Michigan.
d.
Noise pollutim frce the tower (44-62 dBA) will degrade both the aesthetic quality of the area as well as the wildlife habitat.
e.
Data relating to the configuratica and characteristics of the visible plumes en the cooling tcwers ny be deceptive in light of the fact that ensite reteorological data were obtained frca a twer located as such as 4200 feet RM of the #2 cooling twer.
f.
The Haven ER states, and we conc =, that the cooling towers represent a hanard to birds, especially :igratory species, killing as many as several thousand birds at a time.
Olaven ER, 55.7.4.2) khereas such kills can cause a significant imoact en migratcry bird populaticts
. and the tcsurs are a disn:ptive ele:nent in the flyafs of such birds, and stereas cooling towrs would be mandatory on the Haven nuclear plant, we centend that this reascn alone shculd cause the Applicant to seek another generating opticn.
7.
The renoval of 3-4.5 million cubic yards of soil frcn the site will have the follcwing adverse envircnrental effects:
a.
The terporary renoval cf vegetatica frcm 282 acres will cause considerable erosion and a li.q;c arount of solid unterials to be transported into the lake waters and increase the turbidity of the lake water.
b.
The natural nutrients fotnd in the soil ray cause potential degradation of the wacer quality, c.
Ranoval of vegetaticn will disrupt the natural wildlife habitat.
8.
Applicants state the need for a ten-mile terpora f pe e r trans-missicn line to the site but offer no route for this transmissicn line nor do they provide an envireccental i=cact discussicn for the creaticn of such a temocrarf rcute.
9.
Applicants have failed to discuss t!r correswe effects en the spent fuel and its clacding within the spent fuel pcol for the tern of the cperating license.
. 10. Applicants have failed to discuss the cuthods of handling spent fuel asserblies in the event of corrosict the loss of physical integrity of its cbMmg.
- 11. Applicants have failed to fully assess the cumulative thermal burden of having five nuclear reactors operating within a fifty mile radius along Lake Michigan.
F.
Applicants' discussicn of the means of redicing the perceived electrical demand is inadequate and inccr:plete in that:
(a) Applicants fail to det. ail the effect an inversion of the current rate structure muld have en predicted denund.
Industrial and cccrercial areas, a major portien of tFA Applicants ccrmercial sales, are particularly sensitive to the pricing of electricity.
Leed rates have the potential for draratically affecting derand.
(b) The effects of unndatory load management programs (e.g., use of load cerrrol water heaters) are not adequately discussed by Applicants, nor is there adequate descripticn of the effects of allowing load canagement as an option with fi: uncial incen-tives beycnd the actual savings in rate charges.
. 'Ihis could be a valid opticn for those already using electricity to heat water md pmvide then with an incentive to participate in the progran.
G.
'Ihe follcwing disputed (Attachment C of the stipulaticn) con-tenticas are hereby adnitted as issues in centroversy:
1.
Applicats have failed to adequately detail their asstrptiens and predictions relative to the need for more generating capacity in the follcwing respects:
a.
Much of the perceived need is based en the asstupticn that natural gas supplies will be unavailable, but Applicants fail to adequately consider the substitution of synthetic gasses, hydrogen, or gecpressurized natural gas in meeting the needs currently ret by natural gas. Especially in space heating and industrial processes, synthetic gasses may have a sericus effect on the demand as predicted by Applicants, b.
Applicants fail to accotnt adequately for the growirs "scudreard trend" of the pcpulaticn. Khile this trend is in e.xistence among individuals, it is also quite streng in indust f.
Southern states offer milder
_g-clirates, abundat and cheap wrk forces, and other advantages attractim; industrv.
Much of Applicants' perceived dad is due to the requirements of industrial processes; yet Applicants fail to provide analysis of those industries plaming to nove into the state, cut of the state, or expand within and curside of the state; nor is there analysis of those caganies which ray sirply close dem instate operatix.s within the lifetime of the prcposed Ewen 1.uclear plant.
(thstipulated cententicn ntrber 2.a, b.)
2.
The shoreline placemt of certain structures of the Haven plant are placed so as to be subject to dmnge due to the erosicn of the shoreline. Scre plant structures are placec as close as 50 feet to the edge of the shoreline bluff with the arosica exrected to be as high as 60 feet within the forty year lifetime of the plant.
(Unstipulated contentien nu er 13) 3.
Applicants have not adequately discussed the roles a ccubined program of lead ranagenent, peak pricing, tire of day rates, strmr pricing policies, condatory energv efficiency legis-laticn, and eccccz::ic incentives muld have in reducing the demand perceived by the Arplicants in sole er in part.
. (thstipulated cententien nu er 16) 4.
Applicants have failed to establish a baseline for radio-activity in milk in and around the Haven site. The cost i:rportant agricultural product in the area around the Haven site, c: ilk, should receive the rest careful censideratica in radiaticn nenitoring.
(thstipulated contentien nuter 22)
H.
The follcwing disputed cententicru (Attachrnt B and C) are rejected for the reascns stated:
1.
(thstipulated no.1(a)-D)) Pe centention raises only retote and speculative, rather than reascnably available, alternatives to the nuclear cpticn.
2.
(thstipulated nos. 7(a)(b) and 8) These cententions state unre speculation and raise no iss'.:e prcperly deter nnable through litigation.
3.
(thstipulated non 3, 4, 5,10(a)(b),11,12(a)-(c),14, 15,17,18,19, 20 and 21) These cententiens seek to impcse upon the Applicants obligaticns which they do not have in ecnnecticn with this constructicn perait applicaticn.
4.
(thstipulated no. 9) The cententicn ccnstitutes an irrer-
=issible attack en t.e Cctrdssicn's reg 21aticns at 10 CFR 550.46 and Appendix K.
. 5.
Thstipulated no. 23) The contention acot.
6.
(Attachment B, no. 2) The cententien is purely ccaclusory, lacking both basis and specificity.
Discovery shall proceed en all adnit*.ed cententicns in accordance with the Coccissicn's Rules of Practice.
SO ORDERED.
THE KiUiIC SAFETY ASD LICENSING BOKO s
~s 9 Ecward inton, Chairman Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of March 1979.