ML20031B323
| ML20031B323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1981 |
| From: | Silberg J ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110010229 | |
| Download: ML20031B323 (8) | |
Text
r Septembcr 23, 1981 o
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA q
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ E' Mm f-venac
.g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND I,ICENSING BOARtg SEP2 31980
- 2 0/14 of l':e Secretary 3 0xhtg2 SeMce In the Matter of
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
.c
)
and
)
Docket Nos. 50-387
)
50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATI7E, INC. )
e
)
e
/A
' 'I1N % $
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )
D Mil Units 1 and 2)
)
M6:.0LMLJ 0
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO NRC
~
SEP3 0198* i
?!
O p ross s.j STAFF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION u.5.ng* sson OF CONTENTION 4 7if
\\h On September 2, 1981, the NRC Staff filed a Mo Summary Disposition of Contention 4.
The Motion was supported by an Affidavit from Dr. Sidney E. Feld, a Regional-Environmental Economist with the NRC Staff, and accompanied by a Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard.
Applicants support the NRC Staff's Motion.
Applicants' support is based upon the substance of the Staff's I
Motion as well as the attached Affidavits by William F.
I:echt, Grayson E.
McNair and Preston L.
Roberts.
These Affidavits show that:
1.
Operation of the Susquehanna units will result in very substau.'al savings to Pennsylvania Power & Light c3 Company's cu=. omers in comparison to not operating g$
Susquehanna.
(Affidavit of William F.
Hecht.)
/ //
2.
These savings will accrue over a range of variables, including load growth, capacity factor and in-service dates.
(Affidavit of William F..Hecht.)
n110010229 810923 PDR ADOCK 05000387 g
fDR.
3.
Conservation alternatives have been considered and will not affect the need for the Susquehanna units.
(Affidavit of Grayson E. McNair.)
4.
Solar energy alternatives have been considered and will not affect the need for the Susquehanna units.
(Affidavit of Grayson E. McNair and Preston L. Robercs.)
A review of the three attached Affidavits clearly demonstrates the 4
absence of any genuine issue as to Contention 4.
Susquehanna Environmental Advocates (" SEA") has filed a
" Motion Opposing Summary Disposition of Contention 4," dated September 17, 1981.
SEA's filing doos not meet the requirements established by NRC's rules for responses to summary dirjosition motions.
Nor does it provide any substantive reason for denying summary disposition.
Under 10 CFR S 2.749, when a motion for summary disposition.is supported by aff Adavits, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact.
SEA's answer clearly fails to meet this standard.
It rests upon
" mere allegations or denials".
It is not supported by affidavits or as otherwise provided in 52.749 (i.e. by answers to interroga-tories or depositions).
Nor are the specific matters mentioned in SEA's answer grounds for denying the Staff's motion.
SEA's first point states that PPEL has 35% excess capacity without Susquehanna.
- However, the Staff's motion is based on the conservative assumption that the electricity generated by Susquehanna will be substituted for electricity generated by less economical generating units, - -... --
rather than being used to meet load growth.
Statement of Material Facts, para.
1.
Furthermore, as shown in the attached Affidavit of William F.
Hecht, the economic hanefits of Susquehanna have been analyzed assuming " excess caph:Aty" (i.e. reserves) as high as 45%
See Affidavit of William F.
Hecht, Exhibit "A",
Chart II and Table 20.
SEA's second point is that PP&L " sold less electricity last year than the year before".
However, the Staff's motion is not based on assumed increases in growth in electrical energy require-ments, but rather on h-substitution for electricity generated by less economical generating units.
Statement of Material Facts, paras.
1,3.
SEA's third point is that "PP&L has been attempting to sell power that will be available from the Susquehanna plant, if it operates, to other utilities largely without success".
This would seem to have no relevance to the Staff's summary disposition motio.:.
The Staff assumed in its analysis that the electricity generated frot. Fusquehanna would be substs.suted for electricity generated by less economical units.
Statement of Material Facts, para. 1.
The Staff's determination of the benefits from operating Susquehanna was based upon the fuel cost differential from this substitution.
Id., para. 12.
As stated in the Affidavit of Mr. Hecht, Susquehanna will have the lowest operating costs of any non-hydroelectric facility on the EP&L system and will displace energy genernted by other PP&L and PJM plants using more costly fuels.
Affidavit of William F.
Hecht, Exhibit "A",
p.3.
i i., _
SEA's fourth point is that "the NRC Staff has given insufficient weight to costs that could be recovered from sale of equipment and tax deductions".
SEA's totally unspecific, unsupported allegation would seem to have no relevance to the Staff's fuel substitution analysie.
SEA's final point is that the economic benefits of operating Susquehanna "should not be considered apart from the inclusion of the plant in the rate base. and the resultant effects on electric rates".
While the turuot of SEA's argument is not totally clear, it appears that SEA is asserting that the benefits of operating oesquehanna muct include consideration of its effect or. PP&L's rates.
This argument is inconsistent with the National Envi;onmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
NEPA requires only that costs and benefits of operating versus ntt operating Susquehanna be considered.
This has been done by both Staff and Applicants.
The effects of Susquehanna upor. rate base and electric rates go only to the allocation of costs.
SEA's implicit argument udsinterprets NEPA by suggesting that this allocation question is relevant to a cost-benefit analysi s.
In any case, the differential fuel cost savings identified in the Staff's motion are pcssed directly through to PP&L's customers through i
its " Energy Cost Rate".
Supplement No. 83 to Tariff Electric Pa. PUC No. 198.
Furthermore, the analysis prese,nted in Mr. Hecht's Affidavit is in terns of the " net revenues required from PP&L's customers".
Affidavit of William F. Hecht, Exh1Dit "A",
pp. 16-17.
Mr. Hecht's analysis of the net economic benefit is i
presented in te rms of its effect on PP&L's customers.. -
_. _ - _ _ - - - - - ~ _,.
For all of the above reasons, Applicants support the NRC Staff's motion fe summary disposition of Contention 4 and respectfully request that it cre granted.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
/ b f
MaGah.Silberg Jag E j
F.
Travieso-Diaz I
Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Telephone: (202) 822-1000 Dotad:
September 23, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLE R REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
l In the Matter of
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
l'
)
and
)
Docket Nos. 50-387
)
50-388 i
ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )
)
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
CE*"IFICATE OF SERVICE l
l This is to certify that copies of the foregoing " Applicants' Answer to NRC Staff Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention 4",
l were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of September 1981, to all those on the 1
attached Service List.
Jay 5 ilberg' ~
t1*
Dated..
September 23, 19 fs1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC UAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
AND
)
Dccket Nos. 50-387
)
50-388
' ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
(Susquehanna Steam Elactric Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST Secretary of the Commission Dr. Judith H.
Johnsrud U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Co-Director Washington, D.
C.
20555 Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Administrative Judge James P.
Gleason 433 Orlando Avenue 513 Gilmoure Drive State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates Mr. Glenn O.
Bright c/o Gerald Schultz, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Post Office Box 1560 Board Panel-Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvani3 18703 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mr. Thomas J.
Halligan, Corresponden%
The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers Dr. Paul W.
Purdom Post Office Box 5 245 Gulph Hills Road Scranton, Pennsylvania 18501 Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 Ms. Colleen Marsh Atomic Safety and Licensing Box 558 A, R.
D.
- 4 Board Panel Mt. Top, Pennsylvania 18707 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Jessica H.
Laverty, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Docketing and Service Section Director Office of the Secretary U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D.C. ~20555 l
l j
r-Robert W.-Adler, Esquire Mr. Thomas M.
Gerusky, Direct 3r Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Radiation Protection Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 505 Executive House Resources Post Office Box 2357 commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 90st Office Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 J a n e a l'..
Cutchin, IV, Esquire Office of the Executive Legal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Director Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wachington, D.
C.
20555 Washington, D.
C.
20555 DeWit t C.
Smith Director Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Transportation and Safety Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 P
e D
T*
ee F-T e
'--'-"d
^*
4
+ ' ' ""
r-r"-tt-
'" ' ~
---e&'*-~'v-
-'"1 W
V