ML20040C000

Reply of Greater Ny Council on Energy to NRC & Licensee Responses to Contentions.Economic Impact Study of Facility Shutdown Must Be Done W/Ref to Economic Sys in Which Plants Operate.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20040C000
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/15/1982
From:	Corren D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
*SD-01, *SD-02, ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8201270155
Download: ML20040C000 (7)

Text

.

7-

/

00LKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'82 Jtd 20 ' P4 :11 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING E0ARD Before Administrative Judges: g  : -2 :-

Louis J. Carter, Chairman DCCL Wi 4 5:

Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shon

)

in the Matter of: )

)

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ) Docket Nos. 50-247 SP

) 50-286 SP (Indieu Point Unit Number 2)

)

Power Authority of the State of New York ) January 15, 198 'g A

) p (Indian Point Unit Number 3) E b

RECGIVEO - .

'9 JANyg;ggg ,

i REPLY OF THE CREATER NEW YORK COUNCIL ON ENERGY T flatw g NRC ETAFF AND LICENSEE RESIONSES TO CONTENTIONS 38C8Cfp p

, '/ ,/

1. CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES CONTAINED IN CONTENTIONS It is apparent from the responses to our two contentions that some clarification is necessary with regard to the issues they contain.

Some of these issues, including our rejection of Con EdisonLc inter-pretation of footnote 5 of the Cosnission's September 18, 1981 order and the interconnection of Commission questions 1 and 6, have already ,

been addressed in our response to answers to the GNYCE petition for leave to intervene (which see). Confusion may have been created by :the inadvertant placement of what should have been a paragraph in Contention II We regret proper as the first paragraph of the basis for Contention II.

any incorvenience this error may have caused.

In question 6 of its order of September 18, 1981, the Commission wishes to learn the economic consequences along with any others of the shutdown of the Indian Point nuclear plants. Such a question would be entirely meaningless without reference to some economic system. The p58 8201270155 820115 5

{DRADOCK 0500')247 PDR ll

. j

, T

_2 relevant economic system in this case is the economy of the greater New York area. The cost and availability of electricity is just one of many factors in that system. It would be absurd and unfruitful to attempt to study the economic impact of a shutdown of Indian Point in vacuo, that is, without reference to the economic system in which the plants operate. To recognize this is te appreciate that along with the narrowly-defined excess costs associated with shutdown are, at least potentially, negative coces o' shutdown, or benefits. It is the argument of our Cont e ntion I that the excess costs can be mitigated according to which sources of alternate eners are used. It is the argument of our Contention II that there are indeed r number of benefits of shutdown, i.e. costs of continued operation, the largest of which is the cost associated with the potential costs of variou accidents.

The only economic analysis relevant to question 6 is one which compares the impacts of a shutdown with those of continued operation to determine the net effect. By establishing this proceeding, the Commissior has acknowledged that it is considering taking a virtually unprecedented -

action with regard to an operating nuclear generating plant. It wished to have as complete a set of relevant facts before it as possible when it makes that important decision. For the Board to permit testimony on only one-half of the economic picture, i.e. the gross fuel costs of a shutdown without regard to negative ccats (benefits) and net costs, would be to present an incomplete and useless record to the Commission.

Especially in this particular case in which the costs of continued operation (benefits of shutdown) are so large that they are significant on the scale of the costs of shutdown, compiling only half of the economic record would seriously-distort the Commission's understanding of the :

situation.

There are several costs of continued operation including operation, maintenance, repairs , and insurance. Also to be included is some allowant.e for the costs of potential accidents. This cost allowance is not zero evec if[ ultimately no accident occurs, and it cannot be ignored. Rather,'in this case which involves probabilistic events, an appropriate economic aralysis will present such costs calculated on a weighted basis and accompanied by

~

maximum and minimum cases. For a normal commercial endeavor the cost of insurance represents the allowance for potential _ accident costs. In the case of Indian Point there is strong reason to believe that the insurance carried is entirely inadequate to the task, and that an _ appropriate allowat

-~

would greatly affect the overall economic picture.

Therefore, Commission questions 1 and 6 cannot logically be separated entirely, nor, despite the implications of responders to our contentions, is such a separation asked for or required. Nowhere has j the Commission indicated that its questions must be addressed entirely independently of one another. Indeed, such a notion makes no sense. It would be illogical and erroneous to arbitrarily exclude all question 1 centent from question 6.

II, REPLY TO NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS ,

l CONTENTION I.

Staff responded that GNYCE did not indicate which Commission question was addressed by Contention I. As we perhaps erroneously ex-pected to be clear from the introduction to the contentions and by its content, Contention I pertains to Commission question 6 and is entirely within the scope of that question.

Staff also asserted that GNYCE failed to demonstrate an "important relationship'between the contention and question 6 in that the Commission did not ask for information concerning alternate energy sources. If not originally obvious, our clarification above should serve to demonstrate the ineluctable relationship between Contention I and question 6. By asking for the energy and economic consequences of a shutdown, the Commission clearly wants to know if alternate energy sources are available to replace the Indian Point power, what they are, and how much they would cost. Such 4

information is clearly necessary for the Commission to determine the feasibility of a shutdown.

CONTENTION II.

Again, Staff wished a direct indication of the Commission ques-tion addressed by this contention, which is question 6.

According to Staff, "the question ... of the comparison of the risks of operation with the costs of shutdown" is not to be found in the Commission's questions. Certainly risks cannot be compared with costs, just as apples cannot be meaningfully compared with oranges. However, the cost of a risk can and must be compared with other costs for an economic 2

analysis to be complete. To reiterate: the costs of operation (negative costs of shutdown) must include the costs of various potential accidents a

_ , _. _ . _ , . _ . _ . _ _ ~, ._- .

. \

which are weighted by the respective likelihoods of such accidents. This is true of any endeavor subject to economic analysis.

III. REPLY TO CON EDISON RESPONSE TO CONTENTIONS CONTENTION I.

We appreciate Con Edison's qualified concurrence with GNYCE regarding the acceptability of a contention which addresses economic energy alte'rnatives to Indian Point. While we believe Contention I is specific enough for the purposes of a contention, we would, of course, elaborate on it further if so requested by the Board. GNYCE especially appreciates Con Edison's acceptance of the last sentence of Contention I which we believe to be a key concept.

Con Edison disputes the acceptability of the second sentence of Contention I on the basis that it does not comply with footnote 5 of the Commission's September 18, 1981 order. As we have previously argued (see section I. , " Clarification. . ." above), Con Edison's interpretation and use of footnote 5 ir erroneous. It applies to the record acquired by the board, directing that it take account of probabilities as well as con-sequences of various accidents. It does not require.an equal effort in both areas on the part of each party. There is nothing inconsistant in the Board's taking complementing testimony from different parties if it so chooses. In any case, the limitation in footnote 5 does not apply to the wording of contentions.

CONTENTION II.

Con Edisoh states that this contention "does not address Question 6

... because it relates to the costs of a postulated aerious accident

! rather than the costs of shutting down the Indian Point units." (Con

[ Edison, p. 23', emphasis added.) On the contrary, GNYCE holds that the costs of a postulated accident must be included as a factor in the cost of continued operation (benefits of sh'itdown) which is a necessary referent in order for any analysis of the cost of a shutdown to make sense.

Our intent would better be described by replacing Con Edison's words "rather than" with "as a part of evaluating." Indeed, in substantial agreement with our position, Con Edison states in its " Initial Statement of Position Regarding the First Six Questions Posed by the Commission" that e

e w ,,

o

. " costs other than the increased costs of production such as emergency planning, decommissioning, operating and maintenance costs, equipment repair / replacements, and safety related and environmentally required modifications, must be considered in an evaluation of the economic impact of a shutdown of the Indian Point units."(Con Edison, p. 25. )

Con Edison again invokes " footnote 5" to argue against what it correctly surmises to be the question I content of our second coatention.

As previously explained, GNYCE rejects such an interpretation of footnote 5.

IV. REPLY TO PASUY RESPCNSE TO CONTENTIONS CONTENTION 1.

PASNY argues that Contention I is lacking in factual basis. GNYCE disagrees, but if the Board would require greater detail, we would supply such.

PASNY also holds that Contention I is outside the scope of Commission question 6 by reason of all alternate energy strategies we will present being "non-realistic." GNYCE obviously resents such an assertion since the individual and collective goal of its members, Director, and consultants is specifically the implementation of realistic energy systems. PASNY fails to present any factual basis for its. claim. Interestingly, GNYCE and PASNY are involved in many of the same areas of energy technology including hydro and wind power. Indeed, PASNY's counsel, Mr. Frey is a strong advocate 'of cogeneration (just as he accused GNYCE's Director of being) and has publicly advocated its promotion by PASNY. PASNY does not dispute GNYCE's creden-tials or those of its consultants, nor could it succesfully. Its argument here, as it has done before, is not presented in good faith.

CONTENTION II.

PASNY argues that this contention is outside the scope of the Commission',s questions. As we have argued above, GNYCE believes this contention to be completely within question 6 with necessary question 1 content.

PASNY essentially invokes a " footnote 5" argument against our assertion regarding accident cosequences which did not also include men-tion of probabilities. GNYCE rejects this argument, as before.

PASNY argues that this contention also lacks an adequate factual basis. GNYCE believes the basis to support the contention adequately, but if the Board wishes to supply criteria for more detailed bases, GNYCE

6-will elaborate to its satisfaction.

V. CONCLUSION GNYCE has found no substantial merit in the arguments of NRC Staff and licensees against our two contentions. We hope that comments here have helped clar'ify those contentions with respect to their accepta-bility in this proceeding.

We believe our contentions raise issues are necessary to compiling the complete record the Commission desires from this proceeding as pre- .

scribed in its seven questions. It is disturbing to realize th'at the areas of investigation raised in our contentions would apparently be neglected by Staff and licensees were GNYCE not to intervene.

An additional implication of the logic of the Commission's ques-tions, as de=anstrated by our Contention II, is that question 1 should be considered in this proceeding first, for as we have shown here, infor-mation assembled during that phase will be required when question 6 is addressed. This reinforces arguments we proffered in our response to answers to the GNYCE petition for leave to intervene (p. 12) regarding the position that question 1 be addressed first in this proceeding.

Respectfully Submitted,

?! ,

,/l .

Dated: January 15, 1982 " -

~

Dean R. Corren Director, Greater New York Council ,-

on Energy c/o Dean Corren New York University 26 Stuyvesant Street Ne.< York, N.Y. 10003

.m_ _ _ . . _ __

. u 4

• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-247-SP 0F NEll YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2) 50-286-SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF )

NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3) ) .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Reply of the Greatcr New York Council on Energy to URC Staff and Licensee Responses to Contentions" have been served on the following parties to the above-captioned proceeding by first-class mail this 15th day of January,198;2.

o Louis J. Carter, Esq., Chairman Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

Administrative Judge Steve Leipsi:, Esq.

Atoinic Safety and Licensing Board Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Attorney Washington, D. C. 20555 General's Office Two World Trade Center

'Dr. Oscar H. Paris New York, N.Y. 10047 Administiative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board . Charles 11. Pratt, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Themas R. Frey, Esq.

Washington, D. C. 20555 Power Authority of the State of New York

• Mr. Frederick J. Shon 10 Columbus Circle Administrative Judge New York, N.Y. 10019 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ellyn R. Weis, Esq. ,

Washington, D. C. 20555 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

Hannon & Weiss Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq. 1725 I Street, N.W. , Suite 5C6 .

Assistant General Counsel Washington, D. C. 20006 Consolidated Edison Co.

of New York, Inc. Joan Holt, Project Director -

4 Irving Place Indian Point Project New York, N.Y. 10003 New York Public Interest Research Group Docketing and Service Section 5 Beekman Street Office of the Secretary New York, N.Y. 10038 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.

New York State Assembly Albany, N.Y. 12248