ML20062E060
| ML20062E060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1978 |
| From: | Darby C HANFORD CONVERSION PROJECT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062E059 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812040084 | |
| Download: ML20062E060 (23) | |
Text
..
.. r
"! 2ED S ATES OF i 'EICA NUCLE.'Ji EEG"~.ATCEY T!::'IS'iTON EE?CEE NE AT^IC E LFET1' ED ET E"S !'C- 30 ' ED In the matter of Doc.cet No. 50-537-OL CASEINGTON PUBLIC IOVER CERTIFIC.'TE OF SEPVICE SU? PLY SYSTEM -
(E??SS Nuclec.r Project No. 2)
I hereby certify that cojies of " Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene" in the captioned manner have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail with proper postage affixed this 10th day of November, 1978 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Nichols.s S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Safety and L_ censing Debevoise 3 Lieber. nan Board Panel 526 15th Street, Suite 700 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7Is.shington, D.C. 20055 Com.nission Vlushington, D.C. 20555 Y!illiam D. Paton, Esq.
Office of the Execu tive Mr. Chase R. Stephens ~
Letal Director Doc.ceting & Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regalatory U.S . Nuclear Regalatory Commission Commission Yi.shington, D.C. 20535 V,..shing on, D.C. 20555
- , m ,,
N. Id-> bb l;.s !.f.
Ui'eg Darby, for Fetitioners l
781204 C6Pf'
d I 8'#
I. f {
&g 1 tiFI ST.d S Q Y2 CA NUCLE REs(IA'" O.Y :SSION Nh 2 ,-
3 4
In the natter of WASHINGTnN PUBLIC PO C f)r
-N 5*
ket no. 50-397-OL I
l SUPPLY SYSTE!! 2 "I?!O IN SUPPORT OF AMEMDED 5 ) PETITION TO INTERVENE (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2) )
7 Colstruction permit for the WPPSS, Unit 2, reactor 8 at the Hanford site was granted in 1973. Washington Public ,
9 Power Supply System (WPPSS, Unit 2), LBP-73-10, 6 AEC 197 10 (1973), aff'd, ALAB-ll3, 6 AEC 251 (1973). That opinion 11 indicates that no members of the public intervened in the 12 construction permit proceedings. Sixteen oral and seven 13 written limited appearance statements were submitted, all 14 in favor of the application for construction permit.
15 How the applicant WPPSS has applied for operating 16 license, and Hanford Conversion Project, Susan Garrett, 17 .5Mlen vozenilcky and Creg Darby have submitted petition 18 and amended petition for leave to intervene, indicating that
/ 's 4 19 they have new evidence developed since 1973 and other jj ,o 20 information not considered in the construction permit
{;. M 21 proceedings.
% em
- Igjg22 The Commission is under no legal obligation to 23
- 23 issue an operating license for a facility built in 24 accordance with its construction permit. Power Reactor Co.
25 v. Electricians, 367 U.S. 396, 402 (1961), aff'g 28 1 AEC 128, 136 (1959); Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant 27 Units 1 & 2), 7.LAn-283, 2 NRC 7, 11(1975), on reconsid.,
28 ALAB-315, 3 NRC 101, 103-112 (1976). In Power Reacto.
1 - memo in support of amended petition to intervene
9 I Co., the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a decision by 2 the Atomic Fnergy Commission which granted construction permi; 3 of a nuclear facility without the same definitive finding 4 of safety of operation the Commission indicated it would have 5 to make later before it authorized operation. The decision 8 emphasizes the stricter standards for granting an 7 operating license than for granting a construction permit, 8 pointing out that the Commission is absolutely denied 9 any authority to consider an applicant's financial investment 10 in the construction of a facility when acting on an 11 application for operating license for that f acility (367 II U.S. at 415) . The Supreme Court and Board decisions in 13 Power Reactor Co. and the Board decision in Consumers Power 14 Co. emphasize that construction of a reactor does not 15 inevitably mean its operation, but that the Commission is fully 16 to consider the public's interest at any stage in the 17 course of its construction and after it is in operation.
18 The Supreme Court stated, ". . nuclear reactors are fast eM h)19 developing and fast changing. What is up to date now g$E q 20 may not, probably will not, be as acceptable tomorrow."
2595 es d.ah 21 367 U.S. at 408.
gd . ~
g 7 J g 22 In Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point
~hiA i '~ 23 Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-277, 1 24 unC 539 (1975), the Commission stresses the importance of 25 a Licensing Board's taking pains to insure that any early 26 site findings will not improperly influence its eventual decision regarding the plant's construction or operation.
28 It states the importance of the Board's remaining open to consider newly discovered environmental costs. (at 552) .
2 - me: c in suonort of amended retition to intertmne
1 Public participation in licensing proceedings is 2 to be encouraged. In Gulf states Utilities co. (niver 3 Bend station, Units 1 and 2), ALAN-lo3, 7 AEC 222 (1974),
4 the Commission stated:
5 "Public participation in licensing proceedings not only 'can provide 8 valuable assistance to the adjudicatory i process' (footnote omitted), but on 7 frequent occasions demonstrably has done so. It does no disservice to the 9 diligence of either applicants generally or to the regulatory staff to note that 9 many of the substantial safety and envir-onmental issues which have received the 10 scrutiny of licensing boards and appeal boards were raised in the first instance 11 by an intervenor" (at 227-8) 12 see also Morthern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Muclear 13 Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), 1 NPC 1, 2 (1975); and 43 14 Federal Register 17798 (4/26/78). Any pressures for a rapid 15 decision should not be allcwed to override the need for 16 the boards thoroughly to examine the safety and 17 environmental issues brought before them. Cleveland 18 Electric Illuminating Co. et al (Perry Muclear Power Plant, 19 Units 1 and 2), ALAB-003, 2 NRC 730, 737 (1975).
~
jg 20 The amended petition on its face indicates
.um 5jg 21 that the proposed intervenors wish to present evidence not
- E E 03 J 22 available in 1973. It should be noted additionally that E n v. ,
- E o i S s?
~4 5 '- 23 the level of public interest was not as great in 1973; that 2
24 the proposed reactor, while being constructed in an area 25 remote from population centers, presents a regional problem 28 because of its location on the Columbia Fiver; and that the 27 Hanford site may become a national waste storage site, with 28 attendant problems of transport, evacuation, and massive 3 - memo in support of amended petition to intervene
I river contamination, so that the environmental impact of the 2 WPPSS 2 reactor should be considered as part of the whole.
3 4 A. Standing as a matter of richt.
5 The amended petition for leave to intervene lists 6 additional members of the Hanford Conversion Project than 7 those listed in the original petition. A.C. Rolls owns land, 8 used for residence, farming, and pasture, within 10 to 15 9 miles down river from the plant. Ruth Long resides with her 10 family, including two minor children, within twelve miles of 11 the plant.
12 An organization whose members are injured may 13 represent those members in an administrative proceeding.
14 Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and 15 storage station), ALAB-328, 3 NPC 420; sierra Club v. "orton, 16 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
17 No stringent showing of particular interest is 18 needed when petitioners' residences are within 40 miles of
() m 19 a proposed facility, for them to have standing to intervene as gg 20 a matter of right. Gulf States Utilities Co. (River onos 54 g j 21 Bend station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222 (1974) (23 miles
" G ?5 ga c 3 22 ,
from plant site; allegation sufficient to establish standing g <n y .m "yj-23 that they were in "a zone that would be severely contaminated 24 by a major loss of coolant emergency cooling failure accident",
25 with attendant health and economic impact on selves and 26 families) (at 223) ; Forthern States Power Co. (Prairie Island 27 Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAD-107, 6 AFC 138 28 (1973)(30-40 miles from site; allegations sufficient for 4 - memo in support of amended petition to intervene
. .' l I standing, that petitioners were concerned about impact 2 on the " health, safety and welfare" of selves and families l l
3 and on environment of area, and that they used the ?tississippi 4 River and other nearby natural resources for a variety of 5 " health, recreational and aesthetic purposes") (at 190);
6 Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1, 7 6 AEC 243 (19.73)(12-15 miles from site; allegations sufficient 8 that " operation of the plant would affect their food, milk, water 9 supply, and the air they breathe. . " ) (at 2 4 4 ) .
10 A distance of 50 miles from a site is not so great 11 as necessarily to preclude a finding of standing. Tennessee 12 vallev Authority (Matts Bar Units 1 & 2), ALAB-413, 5 MRC 13 1418 (1977).
14 The present petitioners have, nevertheless, 15 alleged particular interests in addition to their presence 16 close to the plant, which are legally sufficient to give 17 them standing as a matter of right. One such allecation 18 is that they use the area for recreation purposes. In
) 19 Mississioni Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,
, Q 20 Units 1 & 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423 (1973), petitioner for inter-as O
,j
{ 21 vention lived 50 miles from the site and alleged that he 22 EMgg and his family "use the area in the immediate vicinity of 2 "1 a e 23 S.g the site for recreation and other purposes" (at 425) . His
- z 24 standina was upheld based not on his distance from the 25 plant but on the assertion that he used the area for l
26 recreation purposes.
27 other allegations of the amended petition include 28 that the petitioners consume fish, produce, dairy products 5 - memo in support of amended petition to intervene
r
- I and meat and breathe air uhich would or might be 2 contaminated by the presence of the plant. The fact that 3 these particular environmental interests are shared by 4 many people in addition to the petitioners does not mean that 5 standing should be denied. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S.
I 727 (1972); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 7 1 & 2), 6 AEC 811 (1973).
I Another allegation in the amended petition is 9 that at least one member of Hanford Conversion Project, A.C.
10 nolls, uses land close to the site for farming and grazing 11 purposes. Allied-General Muclear Services (Barnwell 12 Fuel P.eceiving and Storage Station, ALAB-328, 3 M2C 420, 13 found standing for a group called Pickens Street 14 Organization, which operated a restaurant and food store, in 15 proceeding regarding application for a materials license, 16 where Pickens Street alleged that the transportation of spent 17 fuel near its farms might occasion harm to the produce, 18 making it unfit for sale or consumption.
,x II Petitioners also allege that the members of cy E Hanford Conversion Project who own land near the plant may e Ab 21 yj g y suffer economic loss because of decreased rental and sales
,j j@ 22 value and difficulty in renting and selling their land.
85 aR
= "2 j g 23 The allege that some members of the Hanford Con.ersion E4s 24 Project may lose their jobs in event of plant accident.
25 They allege that food costs may rise for all petitioners 26 because of contamination near the site. Allegation of is sufficient to establish standin whe 27 economic harm /is occasioned by the $mpackea tbp
_ac edYt?N[Buhp 28 have on the environment. Jersev Central Power & Licht Co.
6 - memo in support of amended petition to intervene
I 1 (Forked River Generating Station, Unit 1) , ALAB-139, 6 !
2 AEC 535 (1973); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon 3 Muclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-223,-8 AEC 241 4 (1974). The environmental effects of the proposed plant 5 would cause the decrease in property values, the loss of 6 jobs, and the rise in prices, so that the economic harm 7 alleged is a particular interest sufficient to give HCP S standing as of right.
9 These allegations of petitioners are of particular 10 injuries that will probably result from the action involved.
,(_ o) 11 They fall within the zone of interests to be protected and 12 regulated both by the National Environmental Policv Act 13 (NEPA) and by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).
14 Purpose of NEPA, as per 42 U.S.C. 4 3 31 (b) , is to:
15 (1) fulfil the responsibilities of each generation as P.rustee of the environment for 16 succeeding generations; 17 (2) assure for all Americans safe, he alth ful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally 18 pleasing surroundings;
,s
( ) 19 (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses
'/ of the environment without degradation, rish 20 to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consecuences; . .
- I 21 c$ Purpoco of the AEA, as per 42 U.S.C. 2011, includes !
o g g , 22 33 yw assuring that aa$$
e ". (a) the develcoment, use, and control of atoric EN j f 24
~
energy shall be directed se as to make the 2 0 g cl maximum ccntribution to the general welfare. .
E:" 25 l
28 Therefore, these petitioners have made the l
27 recuisite allegations of particular injuries, within protected 28 one of interests, and should he granted standing as a matter 7 - memo in support of amended petition to intervene
l 1 of right.
1 2 B. Standing as a matter of discretion.
3 In the alternative, petitioners should be granted 4 standing as a matter of discretion. The primary factor to 5 be considered in deciding whether to grant discretionary l 6 intervention is the ability of the petitioner to make 7 a_ valuable contributi os to the development of a sound record 8 on a safety or environmental issue. Portland General 9 Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Muclear Plant, Units 1 & 2),
10 4 UP.c 610 (1976).
[:
s_.
11 The amended petition alleges specialized 12 education and pertinent experience of the petitioners, and 13 their ability to bring in expert witnesses. clearly they 14 are capable of making a valuable contribution. Public 15 service co. of oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 & 2),
16 ALAB-397, 5 NRC 1143, 1149 (1977). .
17 The Pebble Snrinas opinion indicates five other 18 considerations to be made in granting discretionary
-p)
( 19 intervention (at 616). The petition on its face adequately 20 addresses all of these. Petitioners' property, financial, e M mRg~s 21 and other interests are numerous and significant. The possible \
nG m effects on petitioners of granting an operatino license
(($$55 s', 22 EG y g 23 are numerous and significant. As alleged, they have no
%Wgc 24 2 24 other means to protect their interests, and there are no 1
25 other intervenors or other parties available to protect 26 petitioners ' interests. The contentions of the petition 27 indicate that petitioners intend to raise new evidence on 28 issues considered at the 1973 construction permit proceedings 8 - memo in support of amended petition to intervene
1
. .- i 1
in their efforts to protect their health, safety, and 2
financial interests, which is appropriate in the present 3
proceedings and will not inappropriately broaden or delay 4
them.
5 Accordingly, petitioners ask that they 8
be granted intervenor status as a matter of right, with full opportunity to participate in all issues in contention; 8
or, in the alternative, intervenor status as a matter 9
of discretion, with full opportunity to present proof and 10 A participate in full hearing on all contentions raised by 11 them. Pebble Sprinas, supra, 4 NRC 610 (1976).
12 Respectfully submitted, 13 14 U ! '
- l. d.< -bo
15 of 'pe titioners 16 17 18 Prepared by:
.a.
,) [, k g' A 20 of counsel 3R MEPOM & ROSE
$ 5" A 21 Attornevs at Law
- 555 1935 S.I. Washincton Y O[$ 22 Milwaukie, OR. 97222 M eg (503) 654-0137 d ;4 3 8 23 242 24 25 28 27 28 9 - memo in support of amended petition to intervene
iTIT STCES OF A'??.I"A Y
?:UCLER RE3'.J.TCHY CO'"'ISIIC?* th
//
BEFORE TH:: ATC"IC SAFETT ANT LICE" SING EC;.hD egg $
In tne Patter of ; 0[ 9 lg go).%4 Y TASHI?U10U PU2LIC F07R j Docket No. 50-397 OL -
" p# '
SUPPLY SYS*EM ) b t
('le?PSS Nuclear Project ro. 2) y N
INSERT TO PETITICER's Al'E!ME PETITICN FCD. LEAVE TO 1rTERVETE The attached are eages to insert into the Petition for Leave to Intervene Grended) filed this date under secarate cover. Also attached are Affidavits of HCP me-bers Long of Richland, Faller of Takima, Beadle of Yakima, and Snow of Takira. Copies of these doeurents have been served on tne following by l deposit in the United States mail this loth day of Noverber,1978:
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Richani Q. Quigley, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington Public Power Supply
' A' Board Panel System ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Post office Box 968 '
Commission - Richlana, Washington 99352 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Ernest E. Hill Mr. Chase R. Stephens Lawrence Livermore Laboratory ,
Docketing & Service Section University of California U.S. Nucles.7 Regulatory P.O. Box 808, L-123 Commission Livermore, California 94550 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Sarety and Licensing Board Panel Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear hegulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Commission ~~
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairgan ff.
'l Dr. Richard F. Cole Energy Facility Site Evaluation Atomic Safety and Licensing
~
Council Board Panel 820 East Fifth Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory olympia, Washington 98504 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William D. Paton, Esq.
office of the Executive Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. Legal Director Debevoise & Lieberman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 806 15th Street, Suite 700 Commission Washington, D.C. 20005 Washington, D.C. 20555 A ~
Susan F. Garrett, tro se and en behalf of the Hanfoni Conversi7nfrf ject
mu en a---- ---
. l
- l CC?TM"TICF III: CCST-BE"EF1T A!'ALYSIS Feitner tne Aptlicant nor tne PRC has prerared a rigorous, ur-to-date, or )
objective cost-benefit analysis of "7-2. Inis iradequate and deficient analysis violates tne rational Environ ental Policy Act and the Corrission's regulations, and (2) fails to adequately de onstrate financial qualification of tne acplicant to engage in tne activities to be autnorized by tne Operating License. Ynese l deficiencies result in ncncorpliance with criteria for issuance of an Cperating License as cutlined in 10 CFR 50.57.
?ASTS l
f, Any alleged cost-benefit analyses tor, as tne Applicant likes to mil tnem, i
C
" benefit-cost" analyses) prepared to date glj overstate the benefits of ~;ry-2, l (2 / understate or corpletely ig-ore the costs of cperating "EP-2, g3 / understate or ignore tne benefits of any alternatives to operating F-2, and thJ overstate tne costs of alternatives. The result is a gross inadequacy; the oblization under FEPA to balance construction and operation of "FP-2 against alternatives, inclu-cing deferral or ncn-operation of tne croject, are totall" ignored. SR Ch. 11.
"7P-2 has had a long nistory from incettion to tue present, and has been considerably delayed in construction. Application for Construction Ferrit was a
} first filee in August,1971, and fuel was originally anticipated to be loaded in Acril, 1977 tER 2.2.1-5; ?!.3.: this tyce of page notation incicates reference to tne original 75. filed by Apelicant); as of tnis tine, tne :lant is not excec-i l
ted to be ec--ercially crerational until "ay,19cl U9211.2-1). Curing tnis long eried, considerable enanges have occurred: new infor-ation concer'.ing tne potential of conservation as a " generation" source and alternative generating sources nave been developed; tne crice of electricity nas drastically incr'ased, and mc's d gns of increasing furtner; and ce-and fcr electricity nas drastically reducec in ter-s of grcwth rate. Infor-ation and developments nave been genera-ted rnien -ould certainly nave influenced prior decisions nad tne infer-ation been available at tnat ti e.
w.
= , , .
I'oreover, tne cocts vnien vill be incurred snculd 9'r-2 be termitted to eterate preraturely are costs tnat till be borne by tne entire region: "3?-2 is a genuinely regional facility. Since all its generation dll go to 3FA, all
??A rate:ayers anc customers will bear "any costs or losses" croduced by TF-2.
IR 1.0-h. An' inadequate assessrent of tne costs will be a regionally-borne burden. "oreover, '?-2 is unusual and distinct from rany plants in otner parts of tne country: it is located on one of the largest rivers in tne J.S., vnich services tarcugh irrigation an extensive agricultural area, wnica serves as tne border for no less tnan tnree separate states, anc wnich flows cast one of tn e largest poculation centers in the region. It is not as isolated as utility clan-ners rould like to taink, and it is not cerceived as suen by Portnrest residents.
4.
(. As was discussed extensively infra, recent evidence has develored to irdi-cate tnat W.w-l will not be needed, certainly not as soon as it is planned to begin. '!here tne power to be generatec is not genuinely needed, it cannot be construed as a " benefit." It enould be noted tnat power generation is listed as tne major " benefit" in the " updated" ER Table 11.h-1, rnien supposedly sur-rarizes costs and benefits. ' Tith the excertien of taxes, use of byproduct neat for sore -iner agricultural experiments,some ove'r inflated e-cloynent clai-s, and a visitor's irfor-ation center or questionable objectivi .v, power is tne only benefit clai-ed.
(,'
Tne clair. tnat tax benefL ts are generated is spurious: as neted above, tne costs of tne facility will be borne by tne entire regicn, and one of taese costs are taxes rnien -ay be paid by ~ ?SS. Taking mney frcr one nart of tne regien and placing it in anctner cart, and tnen clairinz tnat tne region nas berefitted, is questionable logic at best.
In terms of jobs trovided, TP-2 will e r.loy only about 50 local verkers, and tne vast rajority of taose will be e plcyed in non-salaried, hovrly-rage jcbs. The nroject dll 1 cert Sh ~orkers free. cutside tne region to add e tne area's suprort burden; nearly all of tnese teriens vill be hirnly salaried.
- R Table ; E.9.
. This ec crises a total work feree of abcut 10L cersons, or
.lh" of tne Tri-Cities tetulation of 72,000. ER Table ; 5.2-L. Altacugn
- . .* , Insert, .3 tno ER clai-s tnat 9,L00 jobs (prinary and secondaryi are created by tne croject, taere is absolutely no substantiation. IR 3.1.1-h. Even if one were to assure tne 9, LOO firure correct, tne capital cost of tne troject ter jcb is ever 5100,00'o per jcb. IR 11.L-1. Tne 53 itself ad-its tnat Ranford crojects are subject to, and vulnerable to, political cressures and uncertainties. The total capital t
cost of tne project, fl.077 billion, is an arcunt that was not in" coted in enterprises less vulnerable to political pressure.
Tne " benefits" claired for tne visitor's infor-ation center are iters vnich rignt actually be considered costs by many. The center will allegedly educate tne public as to the need for (nuclear) power and the safety inherent in nuclear generation. If it is at all like otners of its ilk, it acculd not be suctorted jg by ratecayer's roney, let alone clai-ed as a benefit in an analysis. "'he C (5
snculd not ccuntenance pro-nuclear procaranca in its evaluations of costs and benefits.
Costs initially assured for the facility in the early 1970's c. ave escalated rassively, and must now be factored into an upcated analysis to satisfy tne rec 51re-ents of PEPA; tnis has not yet cecurred. For exa cle, tne original TR esti-ited taa cost of ~~?-2 co"er as 6.2 -ills /'<rn (ER 2.5.2-6) . Tnis esti ate asr; ed, a cunt etner tninzs, capital costs of .267 .illien (1971 astir te, A ER 1.1.2-1) and a capacity factor of 85% (1971 esti, ate, IR 2.5.2-12). "ce, ,
,~.
a calfwczen years later, tne ecst of ~'?-2 comer is estirated at 20 mills /Wn (EP. ,8.7, 1c~7 1. Tais is a trirling of estiratec costs. Tne incre-en: is bread uron ner estirates of capital ces; cf 'l.0~7 billien (ER 11.L-1, a near-quair rling cf esticited coats 1 anc revised caracit" fcetor esti-ates of abcut 60" (T: '. ;.? 1.
"creev=r, tae ER notes tnat tnese caracity facter e :1-ates are :nbject te devia-tiers of as ruen as 15 to 20 reints. (SR ;. S.7) Furtnerrore, ne- infer-ati:n genar ted fro an analysis of tne actual perfer-arce cf reacto-s tne sice of s
""F-2 incic> tee an averare caracity factor cf only Lde, basec en 22 uni:_y.ars of ex =riance. ?crancff, T1ble 3.1 of testi-cny before tae rew Jersey Peard cf Public Utilities, Oceket Yo. 762-19L, Cet. 9, 1978.
, . - .. .. e u ~. e To-ancff's esti ates of total fuel cycle costs are i creasives if ono censiders tri:e of -ining, conversion, enrien-ent, fabricatien, spent fuel sto-are, srent fuel snipring, and spent fuel dispceal, tne total coat of fuel alene is estirstep as 13.76 . ills /lcrn. Kc-anoff, supra, at p.119. i'creover, tne ER nc ne-a dia-cus ees tne i pact of tne cresident's no-retrocessing decision on fuel availa-bility or cost; in fact, the ER assumes availability of recycled clutoniur as l a fuel supplerent. ER 2.5.2-11. The Ap:licant new esticates annual operating costs alone as 22.5 mills /lcrt. ER 11.h-1, asturing 63' capacity factor. The trerendcus rise in cost of nuclear fuel since tne early 1070's is no'nere dis-cusred in the ER. The erice of uranium fuel has increased fror '6-8 ter round in 1973 to over PhD per round in 1976. By ray of centrast, ccal costs for lonr-
, term contr2 cts nave increased by only about 6< per year. "Fuelaar Forer Oosts,"
(C sucra at 32. These incraases must be factored into a cost-benefit analysis.
These are net tne only costs inherent in operation of d'?-2 vinich nave bean underesticated or totally ignored. The Applicant asserts tnat it nas set aside
?35 million for decem-issioning costs, and nas estimated 88' of construction costs i
for the cost of ciscantling tne plant. The figures co not jive: ?35 rillien is only 3.2T of 31.077 billion. Foreover, a Congressional subcorrittee repcrt has estimated tnat cecorrissioning ray cost from 25 to 100 percent of tne original cost of a nuclear riant, depenoing on tne T.etned enosen. "ruelear Perer Costs" i at 22. The Applicant does not nave any specific plans develored as to nien etnod vill be usec. ER Q. 8.11.
"creover, tne ER dces not consider any of the economic i pacts of tne 1977 no-recycle decision, suen as the cost of ever-exranding onsite stcr'.ge (tne "W/, doas recuire consideration of onsite i cacts of scent fuel eterue; see infra), or tne possible non-availability of any per anent raete storage site, er tne nign prices tnat -ay nave to be raid if storage proves to be a :re-iu~.
iten. ER 2.5.2-10,11 assures that fuel reerccesaing vill occur. Tne negative I
costs of acding to the already -aisive scent fuel burden tne nation faces tnreuen unnecesaary operation of an unneeded plant is not considered; ??-2 rill pr: duce abcut LO tons of scent fuel riste eacn year.
.o ,v .muvnrg ec,y,
.* . , .e ruelaar clants tne sizo of 77-2 aro vcw largag taoir cizo centributss to a nign unreliability. Tais eans that a suptly syster ust carry a large pro-nortien of reserve capacity on standby to replace tne nuclear plants men tney cannot operate. A more sensible apercach is to build smaller units; according to one expert in utility economics,1,500 megaratts installed in three coal units is as reliable as 2,300 megawatts in two nuclear units. 'Tuelear Power Costs,"
at 29. Tnis alternative to conctruction and oceration of VP-2 was never con-sidered in any cost-benefit balancing.
NEPA requires tnat rescurce co:--it .ents be evaluated. Inexplicably, the investnent of 31.077 billion was never evaluated at any tire as a " resource co :-itrent." Passive amounts of capital invested in nuclear clanto cannet he irveeted elsernere in tne econo v.
(
"oreover, new studies of tne effects of exposure to low level radioactivity arotng nuclear rorkers by Fancuso and others at tne Hanford Reservation nave disclosed tne cossibility of higher risk at presently "acce table" exposure levels. There is nationwide centroversy over this issue brewing, and by the tire tnat C-7-2 is actually operating, core restrictive standards may be in effect. See noranoff, infra. Possible increased negative i racts of ic- level exposure are a cost unien snould be factored into any cost-benefit analysis.
The costa enumerated above are, in met ecses, substantial. Tney have been
.% eitner ignored or softpedalled in tne Ap licant's cost-benefit a .a'. ses. If
\
taey rere properly factored into co-carisons tnat were objective of TP-2 costs and tne costs of various alternatives, tne balance rould certairly ec-e cut in favor of tne alternatives. A nuclear clant recuires, for exa ple, an overall cacital recuire-ent 1316 greater than does a corearable coal unit. norancff, C., "Fou-ing "oney I'orn tne Fuclear Ratnole," Eain "agazine , Cec. ,1977.
'"ne esti-ated levelized generatine cost for a -id-1950's nuclear plant is 0: ter i Wn; tnat fcr coal is ed. Ko-anoff, surra, Table 1.1. Tne excess cost cf nuclea r j co er relative to coal ecwer for tnese plants for tne Pacific Eortn est states is L9' cer hn. Ko-anoff, intra. Clearly, nere 77-2 capital ecsts have nearly quadrupled, vnere fuel costs nave increased by a factor of 5, nere tne esti-ated cost of T'P-2 porer per krn nas tripled in about six years, the original cost-
l.., , , Insert, r. 6 l
l .
benefit balanco dona relative to coal and otner alternatives siculd ba re-exarined.
l inis nere irfonr.ction rculd alm.ost certainly nave led to different cenclusiens nad it been available in tne early 1970's.
9y far tne most gliring or.ission in any M:F-2 copt-benefit analysis is tnat i
of the alternative of conservation, tne potential of rnich ras discussed exten-sively supra. Fone of tais information r<as available in tne early 1970's, and rould certainly have led to different decicions if it nad been. 5y?-2 was allegedly planned to . meet new load growth. The rossibility, and indeed, 'Jae l strong likelihood tnat a great deal of this grortn r.ay'just not raterialize rould certainly have borne neavily on tne results of any cost-benefit analysis.
So, too, would inforration vnich indicates (SC" stucy, sucra; that electricity
,- can be "procuced" by using it rore efficiently for about one-sixtn the cost
(-* . , of new nuclear generation without loss of jobs or lifestyle changes. A net !
annual cost of 'L8 rillion created by operation of TFP-2 rould be avoided.
ER Table 3.1.2.3-1. "ention of conservation in tne ER is limited to extre-ely sucerficial enumeration of varic,us conservation incentives offered by '~:PSS e-ber utilities, ritn no analysis or evaluation of her such activities could or rignt impact on the issue of ""?-2 genaration. Indeed, tne ER assu-es tnat massive increase in electricity use is unavoidable, descite increases in cost.
ER 3.1-1. It snould be noted that ER discussions of need for cover fccus neavily--
0 and quote extensively- from material prepared by the ??A hydro-Tner-al ?c*ar S.7) -
Program; BFA's federal enarter specifically r= quires it to encourtre tne ridest possible use of electricity. GAC study, surra, at 7 5. An indication of he-great voluntary conservaticn irracts can be is crovided in :ne ER itself tal-tnougn, of course, ?dtnout corrent or evaluation), in a table of actual load growtn from 1972 tnrougn 1076:
1972-3 5. 5'-
1973-h 1.1 19?h-5 6.2 1975-6 3.1 Tne extre ely lor grorta rate in lo73-h ras the result of voluntary curtail ent of electricity use by tne region d : ring a cericd of unusually lor rainfall.
ER 0 1.1.
- .'** nsert, c. 7
, +
It nay be recalled that a large prorortien of tac Yortnwest's electricity is used for de .estic space neating and hot ater neat, enich are extre ely vulnerable to use of currently on-snelf solar tecnnelogy, if used in cecentralize d fascion. The regicn's sun be$t east of tne Cascades receives sun raciant enerry ec parable ritn tant of large cortiens of tne rid-est, anc about 8C" as -uch as ceserts in tne Soutnrest. Solar energy can still be colledted at raduced levels under roderately clouds conditions. In :ty,1977, tne Ccordin?. tor of catte11e Laboratories' solar research crogram in tne Fortnrest esti-ated tnat tne region -culd meet 25 to 15 percent of its energy reeds with solar energy r using on-tne-snelf tecnnology. It could rarlace, ne said, a large eart of electrical neating in nouses and commercial buildings, neat -ater, and sup ly lcw-grade indu9 trial trocess neat. (All infor-aticn in :ne raragrath fre?
tne GAO recort, suora, it pp. h.9, L.10. ) Solar energy rae nevertneless dis-i riseed in 9 lines in tne TR's " updated" analysis of alternctives.
The GAO report also suggested the viability of tne fellering alternatives, none of vnien rere evaluated in tne ER analysis: (1) 63.5 percent of the region's nydro cacacity is as yat unceveloted, according to tne Federal Fo~er Oc--isrion tp. L.5); (2) rind enerry could ultirately ganerate be-teen 500 and 2,000 "? -itnin tce recion, acccrding to *,a t'5+c atucv cited aurr2: Crapen State University nas esti-ated tnat ??LO '"' coul: ba installed ir Crecon alone
) (CSU, "*ind Power," Jan. 1978, by Hewsen et al., trataret for ?Pa): 13) the racion cas "sigrificant" geotncr ml Octeatial: Sectnerral enargy nas been used for 2 =veral years for arace n=itire in 'cise, anc yla-ath ?q11s, Cr= gen tp. L.10).
Y ct tne ER "urdate" on alternitis a tctale- cnly 12 lires. Te 0.1.
1
. . . . . . . l
, ,. Insert, r. S l
i CCNTICICN VII: SPENT FGL STOR2 Teitr.er tne .stelicant nor One ??C nas preterec a rigcreus, ur-tc-dite, or cbjective ev,luation of taa en-site effects of spant. fuel stcrare 4 tue
TF-2 site (a) in expancing and uncertain quantities beyone tncse originally planned at the tire tne Construction Per-it was issued, and (b; for an indefinite and uncertain reriod of ti-e. Yoreover, tnere exists no such analysis and evaluation of the on-site imracts of tne probable use of tne Hanford Reservation as a spent fuel storage recository for tne entire nation.
Tnese deficient analyses violate the rational Environrental Policy Act and tne Ccemission's regualtions, and faily to adequately de-enstrate financial qualific ation of tne Apelicant to engage in the activities to be autnorized by tne Operating License. These ceficiencies remalt in noncentliarce ritn criteriaK for issuance of an Cperating License as cutlinec in 10 CFM 50.57.
SASIS Decision of tne Cornission require tnat the on-site irracts of expanded spent fuel storage are arpropriate for consideration by an Atcric Safety and Li-censing uoard. Tne Peard in :ne ver-ent Tankee case held :
...tnis Board ir foreclosed free crnsidering tacse lorr tern ulti-ate waste ciscesal -atters....
This deter-ination, nowever, coes not prevant One examinaticn into all of the effacts on-site of tne troposee enlarge ent of tne stent fuel pool, including, for exa cle, tne errected total radioactivity to be
~\
! develore6 frc, the storage pool, tne extent of releases of rn.dioactivity in casa of a rutture of tne stora pool to retain its integrity.../A/re11ecol, suentne caracity and of tneanc similar cause spent fuel effect environ ental anc safety censider' . ions are validly ritnin tne secte. cf tne Intervenor's cententiens."
In tne "atter of Ver-ent Yankee ruclear Forer Cerroratien (7er ent Yankee),
iocket To. 50-271, CL Fo. DPP.-28, "ay 26,1C77, e enasis added, c. 3. It is tnus clear tnat " ultimate" matters of ~aste storage are specifically dis-tinguienec f ron stecific on-site i= tacts of suen storage ct an individual site.
This noloing ras not certracieted by tne Co--ission's ruling in tne Prairie Island Case cited by tne Apelicant in :nis ratter at p.13 cf its resrcnse to our initial retition; Prairie Island also cerfined itself to discussion of "ulti-ate" (i.e., off-site anc lorgtern) easte -atters. ALA3-Lf5, 1/27/76
W ;
at p. 18. Tnis opinien nas been videly cisread by utilities erokescersons and by tne 170 itself on occasion; we are not cencerned, in tue above cen-tention, vita tne ultinate disecsal of accu.- ulating 'TP-2 scent fuel. re at tne site are concerned ritn that will narren to it during tne clant's operating A
lifeti e. Suen contentions were ruled ad.m issible in the recent ??.C preceeding involving exrarded spent fuel storage at tne Trojan Fuclear Plant pocket Fo. 50-3hhj, b
.- q
~l
'. $$t t 1%
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ff co
- o' uW 3 Of BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN3ING BOARO-- g \.6 g g y Q 6 -jn In the Matter of 1 y
)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC PCWER )
SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-397 OL
-)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No.2) )
AFFIDAVIT OP u,,n ,,
I, ktt M b /C1<-e, hereby certify the following:
- 1. I am a member of the Hanfori conversion Project.
- 2. I reside at N'[f L* /a t/ N FJ [I4_4v/,d1-t
- 3. My place of residence is located approxiacarftly /A miles from the site of WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2
- 4. My interests in the above-captioned. proceeding are as discussed in the accompanying Amended Petition to Intervene.
- 5. I have the following specif1,c personal, financial and pro erty interests in this proceedings m , ,c 's9 e( 4 c.e w ,% ;Q c/ 9 6, I authorize Susan M. Garrett, Helen Vozenilek, Terry
(,/ SoRelle, or any other person designated by the Hanford Conversion Project Coordinating Committee to represent myself and my interests in the above-captioned proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, N,c/A 0/, -
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1978 Notary Public My Commission expires
_ , ' , . ._ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o iW, S
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAPETY AND LICEN3ING BOA c, P
Q./ ,/' r5 D 2 In the Matter of WASHINGTON PUBLIC PCWER 1
)
)
<j ,
$3 o
N~'.~__. #
,j/
SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-397'~0LC_._ k','s'
)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No.2 ) )
APPIDAVIT OP NANCY FALLER I, Nsney Faller , hereby certify the following:
- 1. I am a member of the Hanford Conversion Project.
2 I reside at 2207 sarge street, Yakima,PA 98902 9
k /,' 3. My place of residence is located approxima'htly 55 ,11,3 from the site of WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2.
- 4. My interests in the above-captioned proceeding are as discussed in the accompanying Amended Petition to Intervene.
- 5. I have the following specific personal, financial and property interests in this proceeding:
Ownership of real property (house at 2207 Barge St.) One child at home; three children and one grandchild who visit often; Husband's (and thus my) err.ployment and means of support; re-luctance to share transportation routes with WPPSS.
6, I authorize Susan M. Garrett, Helen Vozenilek, Terry SoRelle, or any other person designated by the Hanford Conversion Project Coordinating Committee to represent
$..I myself and my interests in the above-captioned proceeding.
naspectfully sutt2itted, sana nLL-n Subscribed and sworn to before me this '
day of NOV. , 1978 Notary Public in and for the :pate of washington residing at Yakima. ,
My Commission expires
.,)) N d[.5 5 R5d idTokI Coi5INSION f g,$ 7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN3ING BO A ,
h a !
In the Matter of 1 iMu !
) '
WASHINGTON PUBLIC PCWER ) i SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-397 OL '
) :
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No.2) )
AFFIDAVIT OF DEBORAH D. BEADLE I, DEBORAH D. BEADLE , hereby certify the following:
- 1. I am a member of the Hanford Conversion Project.
- 2. I reside at Rt. 2 Box 440B Yakima, WA 98908 kj 3. My place of lesidence is located approximarftly 60 311,3 from the site of WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2. r
- 4. My interests in the above-captioned proceeding are as '
discussed in the accompanying Amended Petition to Intervene. ,
- 5. I have the rollowing spectric personal, financial and property interests in this proceeding: Having spent much time and i energy caring for my health and my life, I care enough to intervene in ,
preventing this monstrosity of death dealing energy.
6, I authorize Susan M. Garrett, Helen Vozenilek, Terry SoRelle, or any other person designated by the Hanford Conversion Project Coordinating Committee to represent
, rg myself and my interests in the above-captioned proceeding. ,
\./
Respectfully submitted, ,
MYv 0 W L ..
DEBORAH D. BEADLE Subscribed and sworn to before me this 0 day of Nov. . 1978 Aw2&L Notary Public in and
~
for the Stateof washinton residing at vakima. J ,
My Commission expires /A e /9r.2 e
'.74'p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N p d' f BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR A ff ~~!.,
y G In the Matter of g WASHINGTCN PUBLIC PCWER )
SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-397 OL !
)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No.2) ) '
AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT SNOW I, ALBERT SNOW , hereby certify the following
- 1. I am a member of the Hanford Conversion Project.
- 2. I reside at 308 N. 6th Street, Yakima, 7A 98901 M
kI 3. My place of residence is located approximwftly from the site of WPPSS Nuclear Pro,1ect No. 2.
58 miles
- 4. My interests in the above-captioned proceeding are as discussed in the accompanying Amended Petition to Intervene.
- 5. I aave the following specific personal, financial and property interests in this proceeding: Interest in real property, recreational pursuits and concers for the economic and health status of myself, family and companions in the area.
6, '. authorize Susan M. Garrett, Helen Vozenilek, Terry SoRelle, or any other person designated by the Hanford Conversion Project coordinating Committee to represent ei myself and my inter: Jts in the above-captioned proceeding.
k
~
Respectfully submitted,
____ A_ (S A13ERT SN'Y Subscribed and sworn to before me this $ day of Nov. , 1978 fee &J 4 Notary Public in and for the State of washington residinginYakima./
My Commission expires Jo-.0 /#h V
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _