ML20065J786

Objection to & Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 820913 Order & Motion to Certify Objections to Aslab.Contention Suppl 4 Should Be Admitted

ML20065J786
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/30/1982
From:	Backus R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20065J756	List: ML20065J752 ML20065J786 ML20065J824
References
82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210060206
Download: ML20065J786 (7)

Text

/e e

i, I'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKET,ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY OOWISSION USHb ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR

'82 Om -5 M_ 49 Before Administrative Judges:

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairman hhh Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke F'"'

Dr. Jerry Harbour In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 OL 50-444 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (ASLBP No. 32-471-02 OL)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE'S OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 AND MOTION TO CERTIFY OBJECTIONS TO THE APPEAL BOARD NOW G)MES the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL"),

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 02.730, and requests that the Atomic Safety .

and Licensing Board ("ASLB") reconsider portions of its September 13, 1982 Memorandum and Order (" Order").

1. Introduction On September 13, 1982, the ASLB issued an Order in which it ruled on the contentions submitted by the intervenors in the I

proceeding. SAPL finds the Board's rejection of SAPL contention 1

l

'~

IS210060206 820930

, I POR ADOCK 05000443

.O. PDR

,- Supp. IVI to be in error and asks for reconsideration of the contention as submitted. SAPL asserts that a hearing on this contention is  !

both appropriate and essential to this proceeding due to special circumstances. These circumstances are set forth in this motion j pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 92.758(b).

l II. Basis for the Board's Denial of SAPL Supp. IV (Memorandum and Order, pg. 98)

The sole basis for the Board's denial of SAPL Supp. IV consisted of a reference to recent amendments in the Commission's regulations.

47 Fed. Reg. 12940*(March 26, 1982).

SAPL understands that the amending rule prohibits consideration of need for power and alternative energy soQrce issues in operating license proceedings. However, the rules expressly provides that an exception will be made upon a prima facie showing of special cire'umstances pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 62.758.

Special circumstances is defined as a showing that application of the rule would not serve the purposes for which the rule was adopted. It is therefore imperative that the Board ca'refully examine the underlying basis for the rule.

1. SAPL Supplement 4: There is no need for the electricity hoped to be produced by the proposed plant and consequently this Board should find that the costs, including the risk of station operation, outweigh the benefits.

~

III. Purposes of the Final Rule (47 Fed. Reg. 12940) (March 26, 1982)

As stated in both the proposed and final rules, the purpose of the amendment is to avoid unnecessary consideration of issues which are "unlikely" to tip the cost / benefit balance. This purpose is premised upon the Commission's observation that "there has never been a finding in a Commission operating license proceeding that a viable, environmentally superior alternative to operation of (a) facility exists." 46 Fed. Reg. 29441 (August 3, 1981).

~

This observa' tion is drawn from a.two step analysis as set forth in the proposed rule. The Commission states that in consideration of alternatives under NEPA the first step Ys determine whether an environmentally superior alternative exists. If the alternat.tve is established, then a cost / benefit analysis is performed to weigh relevant economic considerations.

In finding that application of this two step procedure 1 no longer necessary at the operating license proceeding, the Comanission states that the economic costs of nuclear plant construction and operat ion have been below operat ing costs of other available methods of fossil baseload generation. 46 Fed. Reg. 3 9441 ( Augu s t * ,19 81) .

l Consequently it reasons that "even an alternative shown to be marginally environmentally superior is unlikely to tip the NEPA cost / benefit balance against issuance of the operating license. 47 Fed. Reg. 12940 (March 26, 1982).

! The Commission further supports this observation by noting that completed plants have always been used to their maximum availability and that "real" alternatives only " exist" at the l

~

i

-- --*-__w

~

construction permi' stage. (See proposed rule. 46 Fed. Reg. 39440, August 3, 1981.)

IV. Application of the Rule to Deny SAPL Contention Supp. IV Would Not Serve the Purpose for which the Rule was Adopted in the final rule the Commission of f ers an example of a special circumstance which would allow consideration of SA,PL co..*ention Supp.

IV in this proceeding. The example includes a showing that an environmentally and economically superior alternative exists. In this case, SAPL asserts that such an alternative does exist in the form of imported electrical power from Hy'dro-Quebec.

With respect to the first part of the analysis....Jt is clear that importation of Canadian power is environmentally superior. The impact of hydro generation facilities situated in Canada upon the American environment would be non-existent. Any environmental impacts would be associated solely with transmission lines. When weighed against the highly significant impacts associated with Seabrook and its contribution to the nuclear fuel cycle, the Canadian option establishes itself as a prima facia superior alternative.

Moving to the second part of the analysis, it is also clear that the economic benefits of Canadian hydro are superior as well.

This is illustrated by several factors. First, both the NEPOOL and Hydro-Quebec systems possess load characteristics which are

~

economically f avorable to purchases and sales of power. Both systems have opposing peaking demands, allowing for more efficient economic

dispatch.2- Second, the 'intertie is no longer only a concept. Two members of NEPOOL have now applied for permits (in Vermont and New Hampshire) to construct the necessary facilities. This project is being designed to result in a potential capacity transfer of 2,000 MW. (See accompanying af fidavi t). A third and very important f actor is that lead time to interconnection is relatively short and not economically prohibitive.

SAPL asserts that the characteristics of its proposed alternative constitute a prima facia showing of an option likely to tilt the cost / benefit analysis.

V. The Need for Power and Alternative Issues Are_ Ripe, For Re-examination in this Proceeding.

Although SAPL's proposed alternative was briefly addressed in the Applicant's 1974 Environmental Impact Statement, that analysis is no longer valid. The foremost reason is that the Applicant's need for power has reduced significantly, thereby increasing the viability of the import / purchase option. The mutual benefits of grid interconnection have also become more apparent and economically significant since 1974. Moreover, the tremendous cost increases associated with the project effectively invalidates any impbrt cost / benefit analysis performed eight years ago.

2. In its most recent annual' report, Hydro-Quebec states that "This diversity of demand between power systems, together with the availabililty of surpluses, are at the origin of the Utilty's interconnections. They offer excellent financial benefits and advantages in terms o .' system reliability and mutual assistance."

SAPL contends that a hearing on this alternative is essential given its unique and timely advantages. The Commission's observation 4

that " completed power plants are used to their maximum availability" is not applicable in this' instance. Seabrook is not complete and an overreliance upon the past history of OL proceedings begs the

'setual determination which SAPL seeks to resolve through its contention.

IV. Joinder with New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and State of New Hampshire.

The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League joins with and adopts as its own the Motions for Reconsideration filed by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Po1lution and the State of New Hampshire per taining to the Board's Memorandum and Order issued September 13, 1982. -

Wherefore, t,he Seacoast Anti-Pollution League respectfully requests that the Licensing Board reconsider it's order of September 13, 1982: and ,

1. Admit contention Supp. VI or, in the alternative, to certify this Motion for Reconsideration to the Appeal Board for appropriate review;

2. For such other and further relief as may be just and ,

equitable.

(cont.)

Hydro-Quebec Annual Report, May 5, 1982, p. 25.

r-- --

_7 Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By its attorney:

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. BACKUS By: .

/

Rog(. Eliic4Rfs-P'. O. BOX 516 Manchester, N.H. 03105 Tel: (603) 668-7272 Dated: September 30, 1982 .

e 9

\

k O

- -