ML20114F873
| ML20114F873 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1970 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| SECY-95, SECY-R-95, NUDOCS 9210130346 | |
| Download: ML20114F873 (27) | |
Text
,- - _ -
= -.
l Wx y.:;.
. t....:. 9.', 2 :4 %..
%L :-
.c
.e 2
- ?,j M. ~' ** *
.V ). ',l;.pcf: ' * +l,:A*.
Wh* W 4
(n, v
?&..
- 'M.,.tr +.w
..,..s t:%wy...;
c.st+.p{w'v[
M,
?*'p0VEMBER 27, 1970 r T 52' '
/
/M%,
tc t SECY-R 95 p /> ] 2.1 w..
M:, D.;
..?
.D ". :.,. :4@jy.<:.'ff/ffg; e.m Ip[$[g,9l.ie.
. d, 3';*:*.,1 y
r
? $ '~...
m..7; '..%s I ;&.i. ":
. -..,,bm$h,. # C i M..-.wn*4rS$.%df.p
- N a
, N' 't.f.3
% Ma.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK-AINC.
l t
DA (INDI AN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT *WOd :2)v.5
./.
t
,. e rb s + M i ~~7 q $s' l I
~,
e
. jw..,
.w,,34
.g,..ygej e. v f DOCKET NO. 50-?47w.g Nrq
,m.,
qv-i.,e.
Wg us h'd) fh h,(,
4 %y.c.m.'f
[.b
+.-*:w,,.c:{.,3,J.
?1'" Attached'for 4th;.qt.jtwwclvNyv.s;e information of the'Com
.b4
- e f' 1f.-.
p.@ Q.? :, T ;'a.' :A ~1stterdr. WW.%(.T#$$$'%j,$.%yL' f.2 i M~c @T&/' @ gl.V!i20 $ D.
o pwi'ngi 4
$YA'.? " '
W( ';N
.tyc i,WG.
- ..,i.:Gwk sy om M/si Mary %:
Hays Weik, indicating M
y i' lititent't'o'*intdive'ne.:
4.4#4[4l MMAM';;.-N ky Anthony JM%W
.pl,7..~b. PETITION P'OR LEAVE'TO INTERVENE f 1
~
- 4 M.[i]9" c J PETITION"FOR" LEAVE TO INTERVENE' fili [Pliy Anthony '
Roisman. on,behal'f.c or $nvironmental. 'Defens e 'Pulid,..Inc. ;
fA
'RUismann*beh'alf
' d.a. +~ ' n.of the'Nvironmen..of mitize'nsTommittsejr o
t.> # " Q T f G ]Y l.' W ? N *
- W.'s j.r...
&&5 ypp,.y&..
p.~. f ~
.gs,.; 4 p, u.m+,itc f.. y,.
- .,s y.
ms
., s,.
b,,72. The,w,ce~
g y
o.
3 o..
g.w
..... m p M - ]n'o,perating li, cense wa,s is not
~ hearing..on a 1ECY'R W. W #AW DW '
- T*'y h,k p;.g,..
W % p.,a
,; p. m. p m. p.. w n. i. l...-.,i. >.
. n:A s., &.
hp a'
sF c.s w..v t
- ac
,3
~
...a v.m wt_~> w:S t; &.y.;...
m;.y o.
.ex-p aig;,,w,7 mm,.. :s,s.)g,m; : sty, g, < Mc Cool g.:. ::
- b. -. ;,,
. s,...
.e. ;
.. w
,f.
.33 7 g
-- t..-
q..y
".4 4
.,;.p. y 3 4
- m. ;. (q9.,.
1
-yj
.%T.
,.7, i t
~
'S.e. cretiary of the Commissic-
..; ?:
'e y1
.. V c
- 4
. (,n gi s
w a sA, u
~,
i ~.+ -
.o NO. OF t.2.2 NO.
4 DISTRIBUTION COPIES DISTRIBUTIONif COI
+
l 5:h eyL,.
5:C I': $ %..
E.,El.,
~
[decretary. 'deneral Managerk m W.G..... " U.i ~ M, 2 Environmental}ffairs l
J 7
Congr.. Relations,
i t Deputy Gen. Mgr.
1 Inspection".u
[
Director of Regulation 3
Materials Licensing Deputy Dir, of Regulation 1_
Operational _ Safety Asst.Dir.of Reg. for' Admin.
1 Public'Information
' Tech Adv.to the.Dir, of Reg.
1
' Rad. Prot. Standards
~~
Asst.Dir.of Reg. for Reactors
.1 Reactor Dev.'!.& Tech.
l
. Asst. Gen._Mgr.
1
^RiactBF Lihensing 3xec. Asst. to GM 1
Reactor Standards Spec. Asst, to GM 1
State & Lic. Relations asst. OM for Administration 1
New York Operations General Counsel 6
Chairman, AS&LBP compliance 6
9210130346 920520 PDR ORO NRCHIST PDR
l 4
i I
j folilillllliT ia llill lUll!it' I
lltl IIll' Md.s Mosy Hoys Wea.
l E
Bo= 148,150 Chmicpher Street 3 " ' "'"1 New York 14, New York J
GR 7 5735 Novonbor 21, 1970 Secrotary,11.S.Atorde Enorcy Conr.isuien Ro n Con::olirlated I,dinon W.uf j
AM ontion: Chior, hblic atoccodires Board Auplication fer 0;.wrr. tin" W2.in-ton, D.
C.
20M5 for Irdian Pt.trelo:r =t.t i
l D ur Sir:
4 I uish to filo a putition for loavo to intervono in the abovo l
j 1herritt on kreday, Doconbor 17, 1970 at the U.Y.Stato Arr.ory, 955 !!a:hltcton 1
Stroot, Poch2111, lbw York.
d Ky interent is that of a citizen of l' w York whoso hon'Lth and o
4 saroty, and that of ic/ family, uould be 1mrsom11y affectou by the orcrotion of the c::;. reef Indian Peint plar.t; ein:: the dist.: tor area fron c.ny rerie.*:
accident thoro to an atonic plant of such sito would includo riot only Ibetchoster a
County but Uo York City as null, and tho drithing nator. cupply of both r:;; ion:,
nould bu vu:tnor:b30 to the outfall fron any such ir.cidor.t.
1 I ogoet to bo present at the Pro-honring Conferenco at tho
_lionbik liudson liigh School in Montroro, Now York on Tuotday, Deconbor ;t,1970.
e 4
i 1
Sineoro:1yr-
,f }.
2 Ihry lbys h'oih Enclosed:
j Ori;ina:t and 20 copion
'm AO
,/ r r.
. ~
t fkr)
~
e V
,*:"nn '.';:2 f.*'?IT"'D STJ.T".1 OF A* *~' RICA
?.TO"IC E!1T:.*'.CY CC:PISSION
)
In thn ". t ' O r C.'
)
)
Cntir.0LT"'.TT I':'.Ic': CO":3?!!Y
)
Dochet !!c. 5 0.N 7 n t'
- -* ' YO ':, I::0,
)
(I :S!.S.I POI::7 1.JIT
- 0..)
)
)
t PETITIOT PO. IEAVE 70-INTF.RVESC This Petition for Leave to Intervene is filed on behalf of the Environnontal Dcfonco Fund, Inc. (borcina!$cr " CDP").
Interest of Petitioner, EDi' in a nonorofit, tad:-cxonpt norherchin cornoration cre;ani::cd under the law 0 of the Stato of Now York.
F.DP is nade un of acientists cnd other citinenn dodicated to the protection of
,..'s envirmnnent, enployine legal action where necoccary.
- Dr has, throuch litication, cought to protect the-onvironnent fron varic.uc for.;c of pollution.
Itn Scientictt Advisory Connittoo, uith nore th-. 200 nonbers, including sono of the world's forenost environncatal ncientists, accuros that ponitions tahon arc thoroughly nunportn?
by scientific cvidence.
In its activitics, EDF does not concern
- s jri g
s age.
a
I
...;c
"~n.. :;r; ine r-c.c o: a
- f
.V.
r:;.
t.
- ;tto hc crsrve.^cic.1 c" rn
- :crr.tica c -..
- l
.n hn:n:' c.
T. : rcnb.ni
. blic.
I t :. e oc.c,. ca " t,
i' o
}
c.nviron..nte.1.,ro.:: :.icn throughout M*, nation
'.u uc31-? -r.
.. ' j ;
hno he an r c.cor..i:'.ci.
.c havinr; ctannine to-ch:11cn~c the.
tu.c.- n. rm
("~virr n nntal l'o.' 7so Tund, Inc. v. Iinrelin, F.
20 (C7.
D.C.,
1977), nnf. ~'aviron rnt il ~ '.*
c
'T."'
9 0..v.
T.**.:....'.
P.
?C
..__ (CA D.C.,
1970)) to challenec sur. pine o? c, rve.: onc
.;) i;hr, o-a..n (rnvi n:- rntal cafonne runn. Tn 7 v.
- m ez,
P.
2r -
(CA D.C., 1970)) to chc11cneio the conctruction of tha 1
Cron -Florida Dargo Canal (the Environmental Defence Fun'l. Inc.
- v. Cntr-of r.nninonrn of the U.
S. Arnv -(now pending in the District 4
4 Court for the District of Columbia)).
It cicarlv is an interested party 37ith respect to environment:al conci6crationn of nuclear poucr plantu.
Interect 7.ffected-
'cho Co-niccion has acknowlcoged in its proponed rc7ul cion -
relating to the Nationa'. T.nviron=cntal Policy Act (35 Fod, n g.
- 0504, o
June 2.,
1970) that the iccuance of a construction permit or an operating licenso for a-nuclear poucr plant constitutoa major 0cdcral action which nay c.gnificantly affect the quality of the environ =cnt.
he AEC 'also acknowledgoc that these _ actions can not bo taken until the (lotnilo'3 onvironnontal statement rcquircrF by NEPA hac'bocn prc> arc-i.
+
s
..A tW >
M s
4+-9 g
y.
-.r-g m
i.r-
-n.mg.13-rw 9,a-i q.
e-rmbh m.-
y%-.u g
t 3
p.-
g t'u r.in71c-
- ' N i:: to rm.::.'n t.c
^ h.:
J'. rv. : mjm' f-kral
- ctienn uhich ".7y n 'Zoct the enviro:nont are n amonn' a Y 1 c::nloracion of the i. pact c,f the project on the environncnh ane'.
n1tornativca to it in conducted.
Only uhon the nocr inry factn
.re kno in in it Paccible to make the judgment required in concidering issucnce of an operating liconac for nuclear power plantc.
Contentions 1.
The environmental statomont prcpared by applicant and hf.
filed in thin prococding, an supplemented-by applicant, doce not I
comply with the interim guidelinos for inplementation of UEPA na
'y
..sy 2.: : % _
99 #K announced by the AEC on June 3, 1970 h"f*bb.
'Tho notico of hearing in this proccoding is prematurc
.wp;.
in that no detailed ntatement as required ~by NEPA, has been filed in nufficinnt tioc to allow this intervenor and other nombers of the public to adequately prepare for the hearing with respect to-environmental conciderations.
3.
The notice of hearing in this proccoding is defectivo in that it fails to advice the public~that conciatent with p2PA and with Executive Order 11514 (March 5, 1970) the hearingc will also include an cramination of
- 1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; 2) any adverse environmental offecto uhich cannot be avoided chould the proposal be implemented; 3) alternativcc to the proposed action; 4) the relationship betwoon local short-tera 9
G
f u-,n
, ; --.:: #-' rc:.:.nt :.n6
... r.
.cu
~.
. n' ' -
.n
~
i n r - t.,-
>rc:.uc civi c.M :nr. 9 'eny 2. Trove.r?
i.-
& 1:*rc ri evt il.10
^
c*.
. j t.. a t.: of rennurne: uhich uculJ be invCr:/ in tM a cc.c.;F action chon M iu b3 i:.'p i c a n t e ?..
.,'n con =idaring the cnviron 7.ntal irmnet er! the m.:rac.;o:$
i of th9 :'uc.:.0.r
,ower pinnt the noord :.u :t con:-idor all cT' iron" ntal Jactorn incluf. 'na
".on-r.- 'io' ogical f actorn auch c.n-- therx1 anllution.
Su Althouth th ctailca.*nvironnontal ::catenenr. has not
.. con rocciv.:d b'r thic intr.rvonor, baccr.' upon inct c::9tric.nco of tho c
A".C uith then? ctatt. cat 0 it een bo anticipat- " that the 9 tate:v.cnt vill be ina ccusto heccune of the failuro of the AP.C to conSuet,
- A' s.g.
r or
?.
'i.s.
.~' y.,
to br.va conducted, in depth studice of the environncatal factora s
~
i:ct forth in Saction 102 (C) (0) and (0) of UEPA, t_.
6.. Dnced upon the information nou availablo from the applicants environmental Otatomont and from conncnta roccived from
.?cdcral nnf. Gi:sto ngcncies the follouing f actual question will b6 in-contention:.
.5
.n
.,. ? ' <i '
.vc the r.codo for cicetricity ac now projectof n.
for the c.rca r:crved by sp7licant cuf ficient to
- t. rrant the opere. tion of thin. plant in the necr futr.ro cr at all?
Oo uhat e::tont is any olectric m.
nccd n pcahing necc uhich can bottor be mot by other typos of pow r plants or by the purchacc or exchange of power from.or with other companies?
4
. s%
1
. \\, -
. i
e v
a.
,i3
..h ':
.-1.i
'....itr of ntcinr " t.r. : a v m c.: - ~
<::v:':...
c.'.v * :::i c '. y ?
c.
of
.!: '.. n
. :.. c m'
~~
.c
.::n :-:
- .vi
'* :. C.x n:r. i.
= cl.c r
.b An?
..:: nn' :.: hi.1 :: f :.c.'.n
.". :, ::? nil-v: Gw...-
~..
pr C elec ricity /::. tan /. ; ::lioda th.n a oth...
,:i;. :n -
of th.: acar?
" no rc-ncc.ne:.1nn / f 7 i-.A"
.2 E r-mi:,:
% r "....a.:c ry und :.nvirnr:n :.cni pro.:. ct:.nn
.r. "r:o-vi..u to th
-..::inuu tcc'n.clo::ienl'.y Lc: L'.;.1.; invo).?
c.
Irc & S.n c.
.. cd c".cnt'c 2 in the onaration o? Mit
- o.
2 ;u.? P.0iont to nneure the public that ::1rnifi:. int alvorno cffectn to n eino life causcd by the ;nallcr t'ait 00. 1 vill not occur?
I; ave the nc.7 techniques for coping with theco probicms boon..dcquatoly tanted?
f.
IInvo studien been completed uhich concluaively dotarainas t:he enuno of the r.dvorco cffoctn on marino lifo in Unit no.1? -If co, auch ctudica and any oth.r related:ntudios nuat be produced sufficiently-in cdvance of the hearing to cllow intervenors to the facts and conclusionc of thoco ctudies.
an:cs:
g.
-Itava nacqunto baco linc _ ctudios bocn done on the environ".cnt which will be n?focted by the plant to forn a basic fnr-judging uhouher the plant when operating is advercoly affecting the environment?
h.
I'ac the applicant incorporated overy technologically cveilabic system for reduring the inpact to the environnent of the. plant under nornal operating conditiona?
i.
Envc nny studios been conducted to provide n basic for :
nocriuntcly pre?.icting the inpact on non-human living-or.~cnican of tho relcano of'radic:ctive and chornal u.rtec und2r normal operating conditions, under design bacin -accident conditions and-under extremo accident conditions?
4
- =
w
=
q
.,.....,....:.~..
'N:c: r. c':r. :.r t h e c. w n i c.-.*.:.
.s s
', v.
-l n::.. : of 1 '. mi
- n d a r.. n.: -:. : '.a:.n ci w
- 4...,
a.t,,.
._. o
.. a.
.=
en'. _.ro.-
- .uc1 i-yet 'thich "!.11 h cr.uced by the prog cd fiv': n::cl...: ;encscrn nt this cito?
- c it-n ; ' r' en t e.' d...t the prov.r..t!.on and stir.liccion of c.
c r :letc :.nd thoranch detailed environmental stat nont with t.upportiner v;ud!.c:.:
av :revi.'..
c.deque.to evidenco en co-.o of theco qun:: tion to chvintc inrther c::?lcr. tion at the hearing and may also indicato other creat that ac :crvo grcator e::nnination at the hearinn.
7.
An iv.iccted above the presently. proponed hearin.q. cannot..,.
3 v.21icly prococd until the applicant han complied with AEC regulationca.m
~
< c s.i;.
-.4 t
jor i:,plcncntation of !! PA tend 'until the AOC has conplied' wit.h IC?A."
g,.
' t.,.
.g e
w C'.; cec.'oro intervonor A
cre nubmitting at the prohoaring conference a '
--ntisn for nucpennion of the propocod henring until auch time as t';c requiro-e.nts of tho 7J:C'c regulation: and of ? EPA have bocn
- 2 proceed'.nce cc
- '.cnco 'vithout complianco uith NCPA tho-
- rct,
..c cttenprod i cuance of tho, operating licen,to vill bc null and, void 4
+
rn.' a court imponc^. injunction will be obtainod to prevent in::unnec of ho licenne.
"ahel v. O.ch, P. 20 (C.A. 5th, July 1G,
't
,.j 1.73 holding that 12 %. requires the U. S. Army Corps of Onginccrn y
~
t :, daily ceasiScr all cavironmental factors before granting a
(.rodge and fill permit);
Mildernce:c Sociat? v. Hichol, F. Supp.
(D.C., April 23, 1970, order of Court granting prolininary i
4 4
1 e
t i
l' 7
4..g.:..,,,,.. 7s
(.w,4..,.;.b.........c..,..
- c. 1,3,d.,.,. 40,.,,.,,., p 1y,..,a,.1.,.., ).
3, m,,,
it t.g f..
e7u....i * *, -.1 */ ",
a
.... 3
. 1,..... i.
....n
- ~ ~...
A.
w
- 4. -
...g c r f.c r c ~ 7,o'.: r.: c: ".*:. int; prolir:in:ry in*, unction against defcn$,.nt 4
o r,
- 9..,,
..r y,.. 3.,).
...i.
-'or th
..v.rar. Ot.to.2 ' nhova thr; I'nviron~'ent.11 ~ Dc.fonnn Pund '.
r:y.:~0 h that it bc uci
.tted to.it.torveno in this nro.cocai,u-,to nn i.;,,
chn11 ento tho iccuanc. of..nn operatinn licen:o to the Applic,nt.
..,. e.
. =
~
J.,
{ R :poetfully cubmitter, J
.. s
..,.e....,,.
o.
7".4/ ~; 'L*':RT.n!, ROIS".T.N ?.ND XE3SLER d.I..
.M /R41910 ;i Stract,' N. WL. l!QY SJ P AFWashington 'D; C.
20035' $ :
C w e..,,
.h;..,M ~ n :.;..>,,a..c.. :n-,p.<.s
.:. w,,. w%p:::o:w. :
.," e.,:T: ::,.;
.. u. g.... m
. > h..;,..
w.
.s.
- .. y.
- n...
a
- ._
- x
.... :.wyn. c 5,. w,r
.. a. a, :v% WB,.p.:#
em-
.s. W
.ttN. w :: <4:.M. a y
.r
,.e-m.c
.e6 ;. m.
c.A.. W.D
. 1 mt'
~,. ".u.... M. L
/:
-1
..'O.N,3.mMa,c.
e 3
p...: ;
,3i,s Q,X. 5,.c e;..,.:. n.
t. t. d.h5 ~
Anthony Z. Roia.v.<ny,*o,
mn c-
,4
, : y.-4. *,g...g 3.,4 :. '.'. +
m g;.
' W}f.,p f. ;,e. ' \\p.p,,
c g.
.. y.
., _ x.
4",
. u, - $4 y, %;
y
- 3 1
m:
w,.
w.c".,u:Counnci.for 4t D
, 9j.lj.i-32-
- ~.'. ?g.f.ITyg%l Environ-dontal D flG2.Old Town-Road,y cW.yM N.j T
... ' a
...Q.A.., East petaukot, Now York".,.11733
' '. j 7. ~
e
.,x,......
- C..,.. M,,. ';.$..
',.,.4.+
1...
.,M. N.W';pff ; e'r %,~. p%,*.,.,.
e
.v
... s......
b. '; y,n. &u...WQ f'S.,;.e.
/..u... ', ~, L.s.,M w.
., n. $ i
+....:,,... m..
$ 1.-
~.
.s
...~
20IC To befoE) c h;.,'.E'M'% g b f ',{' N ' ' ^Nh NNM;,M, A%*;;.=
i l ~
.6 A
public in and for the Dictrict'of Colu:2bia', 'this " ~' " c?.diy,..:,v......D I, *....
. : a... s:
.~
- m. s..r...,,.,.,....... ~.
- a.,...
Ecif -
h
'r
..:.;.w :.
p.
.[2.N...,,.x '
. 'm. g.v :..; '.6l4 " ~.
' Y.
"' Q.'. W.a.. g.'v.
Nov :nher, 1970.
m; g,s. :.c..
.i
. m./
n p 3
+
4i.e
.; g 4, s.. ;
,F.
.r..,.'.,
4 s.
e, 3...,w... :..,.
s.
.;..~
m, :.,.,. e..,,
. e..
- n... -
.w.
. ~..
i eG.M. :.h,,:M...-.'yC. :.,& g.,.
..;c.., E.
%Q' i2:
w' y,.,, s.. g.. <;.
m3 q-
.~
.A-Notar Public, DC 1..
c..
.a.
n..
c.
., ; g My.Comiccion Expiros:
a ] A
.i,
+
ab t.
c,.,','-.
.,j s
.a
.1,?
f-
.e s.
i.I;.
a.".
Q:;f.s ;.
. '.a, n,.
.<~
3..
4.
+1 a
=
s I
- e g
g s
Mcvembar.25~ 1970 V.
,v.
t-4 BEFORE-THE UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-247 OF NEW YORK, INC.
)
(INDIAN POINT UNIT NO. 2)
)
)
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE This Petition for Leave to Intervene is filed on behalf of the Citizens Committee for the Protgetion of.the Environment (hereinafter Petitioner).
.s
' Interest of Peti ^tioner The Petitioner is an unincorporated assoacition with. offices at one Spring Street, Ossining, New York, organized for the purpose
-f taking appropriate action lo protect.the environment against various insults produced by modern technology.
It has approximately 2,000 members, about 50 percent o'f whom reside and/or work in Westchester County and about 20 per' cent of whom residenand/or work
+
within a radius of 20 miles of'the proposed Indian-Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2.
Many of Petitioner's members use the Hudson River, in close proximity to the proposed facility, for boat'ing, l
fishing, bathing, and other recreational purposes.. The Petitioner i-
t 2
and its individual members are concerned with the preservation of marine and plant life in the civinity of the proposed' facility and in preserving the usefulness of the lludson River for recreational purposes.
The Petitioner.and its individual members are also concerned about the possibility that operation of the proposed facility will create conditions detrimental to the health and safety of the Petitioner's members, their neighbors, the communitie's in which they reside, end the economic well-being of the area.
I Interest Affected The interest of the Petitioner and its individual members may be affected by the Commission's action in this proceeding in that if the Commission licenses operation of the proposed facility and in the event of an accident during operation of the proposed facility, the health, safety, lives, and property of Petitioner's_ individual members, and of others who reside, work, or visit, or who use the vicinity for recreational 1 purposes, would-be endangered.
Contentions 1.
The plant design does not include sufficient safety features to remove the risk of a catastrophic release of deadly radiation, particularly I-131, which could cause a major disaster for the thousands of people living within close proximity to the plant.
a d
+,y.
e v..
y
,o-.
4 3
2.
Saf ety features designed for use. in case of a major welt down of the core elements (such as the sodium hydroxide spray system) have not been adequately tested to. assure the safety of the thousands of residents of nearby communities.
3.
The operation of a prossurized water reactor of this' size within close proximity to areas of population concentration and-within a river valley which will tend to concentrate radioactive releases along the length of the river is, as a practical matter, an exteri-ment and is being proposed for operation without adequate testing and study of the plant design and operation to eliminate'all safety hazards associated with design basis accidents and more major accidents.
4.
The plant does not include the best possible and technolo-gically most advanced systeras for warning the general populace which could be affected by a reactor accident of the~ existence of a danger and of the steps to be taken to reduce that danger.
5.
In general the plant is ill-equipped to deal with accidents involving radioactive releases and applicant has not provided I
sufficient information to assure the public that all critical i
aspects of the plant systems to deal with accidents have been adequately tested, i
1 B
7' 4
..w.. - _. r
.r,
,-w,-
+
s 4
6.
Discovery proceedings before the hearing should.further clarify these contentions and-may indicate-other areas of concern.
For the reasons stated above the Citizens Committee'for the Protection of the Enviornment requests that it-be permitted to intervene in this proceeding to challenge the issuance of an operating license to the Applicant.
Respectfully submitted, BERLIN,-ROISMAN AND KESSLER 1910 N_ Street, N. W.
. Washington, D..C.
20036 By
. (
"M.
' 4 t t u e-m Anthony' Z ' poisman Counsel fop [ i tee for the Citizens Comm Protection of the Environment One Spring Street Ossining, New York.
i
--t t a 8L tv a notary SWORN TO before me, public in and for the District of Columbia, this 95'X(
day of November, 1970.
Y Y
Notary Public, D.C.
My Commission Expires:
3C. 177f c tw D
/
-b n
-- m -
g o
L... u,6 b
l~
)
l (Qgi_ jr; rl( ' j -) : y if Cit y c.f.N e.
Y orl; o.
/ N 2
/ j'b ELECTRIC POWER
-pf 4
- t ;
k)
An analysis of the current supply,
,]p demand, and projected needs
,s
.n..
'\\
,~
,. -Q%
f September, 1971 4
Office of the Alayor Interdepartmental Committee on Public Utilities Milton Alusicus, Chairman Dr. Timothy W. Costello Jerome Kretchmer D. Kenneth Patton Bess. Myerson Donald H. Elliott J. Lee Ranl;in Dr. Charles W. Lawren e l
Public Utilities Specialist Alarjoric Simons A
Administrative Assistant Y.., 7 l
lyy 9 c'1
~
-____.u.:_.
-~
c: ::'t.
S m.. Yc:
C. "'r 2:e"..
n ee-fo-c m :r.:n;.
p,t.
ate e:m < m erger.m m c:4 ure:. An:n@ u of th:
air-n tia sittniion reveair that there may be serious disruptions of pvccer during the curre.cr of 1972 and there is a lach of firm p?:ua for construction of elec-tric power plor's that vcill be put into opertion past 10*lG.
The report that follows descri'acs the status of power plants expected to be completed and put into operation and recommends necessary corrective action.
Consolidated Ediron's Generatintr Canseitv A recent decisicn by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appenis for the District of Columbia directed the Atomic Energy Commission to consider all environmental factors in its licensing hearings and not rely on certifi-cations of environmental compatibility by other Federal or State agencien.
This decision is expected to delay the Atomic Energy Commission from granting Consolidated Edison a license to operate the 873,000-*
kilowatt Indian Point No. 2 generating plant. As 2 result, it may not be available to meet the demand projected for the summer of 1972.
The new Bowline Point generating plant may not be in operation n_ ext summer as scheduled because of a delay in the manufacture of its turbine. Ravensword No. 3 (" Big Allis") needs further overhaul, and Consolidated Edison is having increased difficulty in the purchase of power.
Unless the Atomic Energy Commission can take emergency steps to issue the pe,nding license promptly, the City faces a precarious situa-tion nort summer..
hg
'^
m
,.ew
=. _ -....
. ~.
.- 3 4-The only known possibilit;, is a pumped storage facilit:. to be imil; 4
by the Fevccr Authority of 'the State of New York-( PASSV ) to rueet primarily the needs of the New York metror,litan crea. - This may prov;de Con Ed 500,000 kilowatts of peak icad power sometime in 1977.
Beginning in 1977, it is expected that Con Ed's reserve capr. city i
will start to ( cline and, by 1970, the reliability of its system will probably
{
be poorer than it is today, unless firm plans are laid now for additional l
plants or firm purchases.
It is generally agreed that additional new capacity must be put into 4
operation no later than 1977. Based on the iime span it takes to plan, construct, and license a generating plant, construction licenses and permits 4
for future plants should have been granted in 1970.-
a
.i Transtr.ission Capability 1
Alongside tne problem of generating electricity is the problem of utransmitting it.
The Chairman of the Public Service Commissic reported th' L on' E
more than a dozen separate occasions in 1970, when New York City 1heked electricity, some 500,000 to 1,000,000 kilowatts of capacity in the -northern and western parts of the State and in Canada were unused and unavailable beEaute C e c xistiffs :rEnsmission ties could noti arry the power.
The obstacles to construction of transmission-lines lie in public con-
~
cern about esthetics; difficulties in obtaining rights-of-way; and, problems of working out financing and other contractual arrangements among the utim ie s.
ka n
,.. ~ -...
..-,n
-,..J.
.,-..,.-,--e
4 14--
i --
j i
Consolidated Edison wil! have insin11cd witbi:i-r year the lines needed to tronymit the b:;wer generated ni the Dowiin_e and Roseton plants.
l Therenfter, con Ed must increase the capability _ of its transmis-sion lines and use a system that can transmit high voltage direct cur:ent in order to obtain the needed electricity from distant parts of the State'an-1 l
i
-Canada.
i a
i Consequences cf Power Shortane in the Citv' 1
In order to appreciate the vast need of power vitally required:by the-City's 7. 0 million inhabitants.and 'the 3. 7 million persons who work in the
{
~ City the. : is listed below the estimated peali demand for the. summer of -
i-1971 in a few major cities:
New York 8,150,000 KW Buffalo-Niagara 2,300,000 KW.
l l
Rochester 738,000 KW_
]
Syracust 453,000 KW Albany 443,000 KW j
Binghamton 253,000 KW-.
1-
_ In-comparison, the New York City transit system is expected to use
~
475,000 = kilowatts during the summer peak hours cf 4 to 5 P.31J an amount greater than that required by three important_ citics.
Any widening of the gap between the demand and; supply of electricity I
will have a serious impact on the future of New York City.
The lack of power supply will endanger the health tnd. safety of the i
public, will impede economic growth, cause unemployment, reduce produc-l t
tivity, And prevent improvements in pollution control.
Even if electric power is disconnected because of a temporary
. t{.
s system rhortage, a-loed ieneratint problem, or a los5 Loi powcr as the result of a dis triNtit n fe!!ure in the immedihte nren the following are
(
some of the possible consequences:
l 1.
There are possibilities of hardship and risk to the health' of patients in the 147 public and private hospitals within the, City _of-New York. Although nearly all.the hospitals
{-
I]
has e emergency generating pl:.nts, most of those are -
designed for limited emergency pulposes and provide-e power only to operating rooms, corridors, elevators and-i boiler rooms.-
-3.
- There could ba a serious disruption of the transportation cystem of the City of New York. In the course of the black-i l
outs and brownouts which occurred during the past year, I
the City experienced a slowdown of the subway system, 'a L
l.
loss of heat in the subway on a-winter day, and a disruption i
of traffic due to;1oss of traffic signals. In addition f there-t was no street lighting and there was a loss of gasoline
~ ~ ' pumping ~ fac~ilitics. ' Obviously, - not only was the public in---
~
l l
conveniencea but faced serious hazards, p
l
___3.
The dbruption.of_ power to highrise buildings disrupts the.
it commercial and industria111fe of the City;and endangers the -
li,ves of the employees. The~ most serious problem is i
failure of a building elevator in that there is possibility of l
4,e
~o
,b=
g v er
-m.
, w 4s
, v>E-*,.v,
++%,-w er
-v.
p a w, -.- ev &-
r --e e - Y > v,
- -m+
rw--v-+*
e w wer-ey,-+E=e-w w-mv
.. 6..
pa.<;neng re being trapped in elevatos cabs and presc : p diffic uh3 in evacut ting the building.. In addi; ion, vct.nr pre.ct.re may fai) nnd cause a serious haravd if wat.r is required for firefighting purposes on the upper floors.
Many of the buildings are of a scaled type and are served
'by central air conditioning. The failure of.the air.
f i
conditioning equipment may leave the building withom ventilation.
For these reasons, the buildings must be closed -
and the employees dismissed for the duration of power failures. It has been ec1culated inat when this occurs, it costs employers approximately S21/2 million in wages for each hour of work time lost.
4.
A lach of power can an.o affect seriously the treatmer; and
. pumping of sewage. When the. operation' of the pumps stops, sewage bachs up and if there is no pow.cr for treatment of i
sewage, the raw sewage flows into the waterways in an un-i processed state.
Whenever voltage reduction and load shedding episodes occur, the -
]_
health, safety and welfare of the people of the City of NewTork are placed 4 -
4 in danger.
It is, therefore, imperative that there be adequnte power to allay the growing p0blic concern about power shortage and to provide for the 1
City's plans for growth.
s
)
4 H_
a 7-There..re n.m:. - mall firn:s in the Cit:. that are eng:ged in t. wide range or inen: tries 1".nt employ comen rnr1 r-im rity 'vorhers. Amon; lihe largest chs.si'ication nr'e apparel, printine, electrieni machinery cnd -
j miscellaneous manufacturing operations. al] of which are greatly dependent upon electric power for operation, i-f 11 is crucial to the City's job development program that such blue-3 4
l-collar industries remain i': New York City because they offer hundreds of-
]
thousands of jobs to unskilled worhers. Adding the. uncertainty as to the j
availability of electricity to the other problems f,ded by these industrial establishments, could force 'their exodus from the City, t
4 The City is, therefore, engaged in a concerted effort to develop ~1arge industrial parks that will contain multi-story industrial buildings and also 1-1 to help manufacturers expand their existing plan *e -t their present e:tes.
[
The City has undertaken an aggressive program of industrial renewal,-
i J.
and is in the process of acquiring over 900 acres of land at 22' locations-for i
this purpose.
h' One of these recently approved industrial parks, for example, could L
provide 12,000 jobs by 1976.
I f'
I Peah load demand for increased industrial activity is expected to -
~
reach 300,000 hilowatts by 1980.
There are also plans for a number of-large desclopments of sorely L.
needed middle-mid low-income housing.
In addition, the public v:orks construction program of the City for the-l cnext ten years is estimated to-cost about $10 billion. It includes 50 miics cf -
I
-4i
~ ~ - - - - - - ~ - " - ~ ' - - * - * ~ ~ ~ ~ " ' - - ~ - ~ " ' " " " * - - " ' " ' * * * ' ' ' ' '
' "~*
. ~. -
4 g.
I new subway lines, 000 additionti new air conditic.wd rubre.y. cart nnd 700 l-non-cir conditioried car.=, r,cwage treatment plants, schools, courts, t
[
colleges and encial eervice centers.
The City government 5 current peah load requirement for electricity i
is about 875 megawatts and, based on the above, the needs will increase to 1
1,500,000 kilowatts by 1980.
l An inadequale supply of power will retard this p" ogress, and is likely to hasten commercial and industrial exodus from the City and dis-f courage new business from locating here.
New York City's power problem, however, is a regional one.
Solving the problem for the City requires solving the problem for the State.
New York City and Con Edison cannot be expected to go it alone any more than any other community and public utility.
Upstate Generatinc Canacity i
l The power shortages faced by New York City and Westchester County i
~
are beginning to be experienced elsewhere in the State, i
In varying degrees, all public utilities in the State are facing prob-t' lemt traced to:
,n 1.
inaccurate load forecasting; 2.
.hek_of a framework for considering environmental impact and for resolving differences that ensue; 3.
manufacturing, installation and operational prob-g lems caused by the new technologies for generating of electricity; i
4 t
.~
4
. g..
1 4.
inadequ:,cy :/ transmission f acilities:. and -
5.
- shortages.pf clean fuel:(. -
The inute.11ed generating cnpaeity nnd pe@ load requirements of the v
}
six other utilities serving New York State are indicated below:
2 1
I Public Utilities _
installed Capneity Penh Lond i
Lorg Island Lighting.
2,770 31W 2,450 2,1W i
I Central Hudson G. & E.
611 575 Orbnge and neckland 6sS' 1540 N.Y. State E. & G.
-1,407 1,372 i
Nia c ara Alohnv, k-
'3,947 4,400
.Rociiester G. & E.
980 83 7-l TOTAL 10,367 h1W 10/102 h1W An analysis of these figures and other;related information indicates the following:
I 1.
All the utilities have thin margins of reserve. Consolidated i
Edison is dependent upon two of the utilitics-(Rochester and i-l N. Y. State Electric and Gas Companics Ffor firm purchases. -
With three others (Central Hudson, Niagara chlohawk, and -
Orange Rockland k Con Edison is building fossil-fuel. plants on-t
--a joint venture basis ~with an understanding that the'three util--
-itics will be entitled to a share of the power produced.
L 2., There are only two utility companies in addition to ConsolidatedL L
Edison that can consider for their own use the construction of'
. power plants of the 1. 000-megawatt' or larger size,. considered.
.L e'conomically feasible, particularly if it is to be a nuclear plant.
..ww-.-,r,~ yew
-v e.w #.,~
. 30 -
4-3.
' Con Ed'o:intin11ed generating etpach,~ of d,000 mert. watts is about eip:al to the caphrity cf iSc six utiliiics serving' the-rcrt-of the State. =1f represenic 46% of the potential for
- output of electricity for the utilitics.
~
4.
- Three of the utilities have firm purchase agreements with the Power Authority of the State of New Tork. Niagara-I 1\\1ohawh has an agrecment for purchase of 1,'385 raegawatts l-from PAST1. The' power purennsed by the other 1c."o compan'ics is 'reseld to. Con Ed on a firm purchase agreement.
The above information and analysis point uo the interdependence of
(
I This concept is being given increasing ' support because the publie utilities.
e L
l the efficiency an'd economy oi power generation is. dependent upon the i
effective use of large, low unit cost generators, sharing of reserve *capac-i-
ity, and more efficient utilization of all of the facilities in an interconnected area during both normal operating conditions and system emergencies.
l NewNori: Power Pool -
i-4 i
I The seven electric utility companics of the State,-recognizing the e
importance 6f the interconnected operation of theLpower system, entered -
4 into.the New York Power Pool agreement on July 21,1960'and established
_ --._.the_ Rower 2 cal.dhis Eoa_. operates.n.centrol.conter near Albany.which 1
. monitors and analyacs electric system operations and. advises or changes -
(
and load.
Because of the voluntary nature of this arrangement, there have been onc or movedncidents m which a public utility declined to comply with i-6 m
e-
-,we n 6,,rv+
~--er-,
- - ~.
-a w,,-,-,,,,va--
,,+se----,
-a,,v-,*a<-emw ee,w-w,vw n,,--w
- +wer.
v-m e N w w e
no-,,-*-
~. -
IE-load sheddibg orderi-icsued L:.- the dispatcher at ira Po'.*>er Fool control-
}
4 center.
i
- The PuHic Ecrvicc Commission 11mtituted proceedings to investi-4 gate the plans and procedures of elec.tric corporations for load reduction 3
E i
in times of emergency.. A number of hearings were held starting on February 4,1971. Witnesses appeared on behalf of the seven investor-i ovened cicctric corporations in the Sinte and the City of NewIork.
i-At these hearings, the issue was whether and under what circum-stances one company shotdd discomlect its electric power in order to come 4
i b
to the-aid-of another company in need of power supply. Following these i-hearings the following action v.:as taken:
I 1.
The Public Service Commission ordered that the Power Pool dispatcher is authorized to declare a major emor-l i,
gency and isruc such directions as he considers appro-i priate to meet the. emergency. His decision will be i
binding on all Power Pool membei's as to'the steps to h
be taken to avert the emergency, t
2.
The New York State Power Pool members, on their own, b
have agreed that after a power-shortLmember company.
n has gone through all its steps of voltage reduction and l-has shed load by 6%, it can apply lfor assistance to the New York State Power Pool wnich will ask the _ remaining -
.p members to shed load in_ behalf of that company.. This is the first direct commitment a member has received-j; O -
g,-
ym- #
ae
.-ewy,,y
=
,_sw.
1, e
4,-
m.,v,y,.w,
,,,.,,,,.-.wwva
.,.,,---e..r,
, w.m
.r,.,m.,,,.,..4mw.
, w p m w,, m.,
- 13 1
e-a for_ epecific Icad shedding assiktrace from the other
- L members of the Porcer P_ col.
In addition, the New York Power Pool has been eqaged in intensive-planning e:Rions because the construction of new power plants can no:
4 4
L longer be confined to the utility's franchisc area.
1 As part of the Statewide effort to assist utilities in need of power, the L.
New York State Power Amhority has tentatively chosen a Schohario County i
site as the location for a second pumped storage power project 1o help ease i
shortages of electricity during peak load demands. This:is planned -to be at 1
J l
1,000,000.-kilowatt project and the target date for completion is 1977.
i The Chairman of the-Board of the Power Authority indicated that the L
construction of this project will help ract some of the power prob 1 cms of-j I
the metropolitan New York area but "because of heavy consumer demands.
in this area, additional base load plants,- capable of producing a constant t.
F
- -flow of ciectricity as-well-as-other peaking facilities are desperatelyc ii-l-
needed. The new Power Authority facility will supplement. thdse plants-and 4
1 will not be a substitute for their construction. '
4 -
N.Y. State Procram and Lecislation The concept of unitary planning of-power plants is contained in the o
pronouncements of'special State stuty committees, Governor's messages,
~
in speeches of the Chair. an of the Public Service Commission and is con-i L
tained in State legislation.
i On thc basis of the report of the Governor's Electric Power Commit--
l tee, chaired by Richard G. Folsom, the Governor sent to the Legislature.
i a
S vy,--.,-,
,w-~,4, v
~., -,,, -
y pg-,,,,,w.
,s.k.w.,y--
,+,,,,,e
.v
,r
- 4 m-w,..
<w%e.,,Jn..
.v,--,,,,-,.,y,.,,
.]
- 13 - ~
l in IO.y,1000 a-Speci:l-Ne%:;e describing the legislati6n nnd action necessnry to provide economien), abund:;nt an6 reliable. ele'etric power for t
the Sitte.
The proposals were described by the Governor as a progrcm that would " assure the development of the cicctric power generating ccpacity necessary for the continued economic growth of the State, compatibic with the pub);c need for clean air, pur'e water and a safe, congenia) environ-i
[
ment in whicli to live and "corh. "
The icgislation included the ic11owing:
l'.
Sites and Nuclear Fuel for Public Utilitics j
The hiessage pointed out that While the long-run J
potential for economic power from nuclear generation 1-is far Wni f that of power generated from conventional fuels, the added initial investment due to the high cost of nuclear fucis, public demand for the in' corporation of special features in nuclear generating plants and the diffi-o l
culties in obicining suitable sites for-.them could represent a substantial ir' 2ase in the rate base - the investment on i
i which the cost of the electricity to the consumer.is 6'
computed - resulting in higher costs for nuclear generated power than might be possible with the new arrangements a
made possible under this program.
}
"In a third. party role, the (Space and Atomic Develop-ment ) Authority would be in a far better position than would i-the industry to reconcile the many important interests that i
.e
.~-,+n
-w.,
am, w
.,-,r ue~,
-e n.
.-,,-,.m-,-v-re.,n-n.
,e-,w,v-e
~,,,mv,,
e
.,*ve ea,-,.~,we.. - ~.
~+e,
~<-r-e em s,
e
-~
m.
.. 3.p.
must be considered in the selection of a.-site for a nuclear f acility. "
~
The 1cgislation, thereforo, broadened the powern of the Authority to," designate, acquire, prepare and make available to the Power 1.uthority or to electric utilitics sites for-l nucl, car facilities" und contract with the Authority and the i.
l utilities for fueling of nuclear facilities.
2.
Electricity for Power Authority Customers To implement the State's growing need for-electric power through a joint public-private program, the Icgislation autho-i-
i rized the State Power Authority to " build base load nuclear gencruting facilities throughout its area of service; construct hydroelectric pumped storage facilities throughout its area of I
service; and participate with the electric utilities and the ktomic and Space Development Authority in the construction-of -. experimental or advanced design nuclear p~ower generating I
facilities. "
4 1
3.
Network Facilities
[
The IVessage recognized the interdependence of the public utilities by pointing out that, "As the electric systems
. t in New York State operate as a part of a vastly larger network consisting of most of the systems in the United States and Canada, the new generating capacity will be accompanied by an extensive transmission line e::pansion program which will in 4
y w
--- y <>-
w w-
~
,,w,
,,,r..
,--ex
,w e
,w,,s,-wv-
.s.o,,w,,.w...%w,m,.m..,-,..,e,w,.w..-w,-,+n,.--n.
w ir,.w
,e
3,
-e turn it.,-thel; mrdnphen intra-st:ite and intermate:powcr-1 connectione,_11.erel>y siding to thc rdihbiliip of powe:,in t
New York St.te. "
-Upon the passage of the prorosed legislation, the Governor stated th at, "The bill represents the keystone of the Nation's first statewide i
comprehensive program to marshal the resources of the public cnd private sector in the la ge-Ocule development of nuclear power,:providing a frame-4 l
work to meet future needs of the State of New York. ' The bill will tiso:
e stimulate the State's economy by promoting industrial.
e growth and development:-
4 i
promote the provision of low cost power for both the home H
i i
f p
consumer and industry; and-1-
q provide for coordinated efforts to foster development-that i
l^
l will enhance, - rather than pollute, the natural environment j
of the State. "
More recently,.-in a speech delivered in September, _1970, Joseph -
C. _ Swidler, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, - stressed the.
f-current importance and need of a unitary power system in New York State.
l l
"The utilities of the State are. moving gradually in the direction of-4
}.
cooperation in planning for new construction. The Roseton Plant of-
-i Central Hudson, Niagara Mohawk and Consolidated Edison, the Bowline Plant of Orange & Rockland and Consolidated Edison,-the Homer City Plant i-of New York State Electric & Gas and Pennsylvania Electric Company, represent laudable' efforts to solve capacity and siting problems by joint 1.
,.m
u t_he l m ticipania to it.. :. ;ng e on -
i action in_ a more effecti', e way C,an : n; 1
its own. In oiher er.scs, joim ae:io: h w tchen the form of the rurch.de and sale of large L30chs ci pov.ier in the early years of a new unit in order l
to make it possibic to build a larger and more efficient unit than the constructing company could afford on the basis of its own loads. However, an of these trar sactions represent ad hoc agreements, confined to the circumstances of the particular_ cases, unrelated to any commitment in
.p principle, and creating no precedent for the future. Baskally each company in New York must scratch for its own power needs, making its decisions, l
it is true, in the light of fairly good information as to the circumstances of-the other members of the Pool, but with no obligation for consultation or cooperation. To my mind this situation is not satisfactory. It fails to -
insure that the decisions on adding new capacity take into account the eco-nomics available in joint planning. It.does not permit Pool-wide matching of generation and transmission capacity, and it fails to provide the flexibility in siting new units which is essential if we are to meet cur. environ-mental responsibilities as well as to realize the maximum economies in plant location. "
l
"...The problem of steam plant siting has emerged as one of the t
l most difficult and controversial of the decisions which our society mest -
i
~
i m axe.
"It seems obvious that siting decisions must be based on the widest i
possible range of site resources. -When we view the iting opportunities.
I
(..
and limitations of the companies in this State we find an enormous range of
- y,,
m i m.mg.,
', _ gg m
. _ _ -. E differencer. One company veith abem h:41f the load in the State opera:er in an area of 600 mare miles, chile o&er cc.mpanier with a rmall fraction of the load serve areas of man:. thousands of sciuare miles. Siting decisions cannot be limi,ted to a company-area basis if we are to pich the sites v;hich will pc.rmit the highest degree of environmental compatibility, let alone consider the interests of economy and reliability. If we were to visualize that a single company cerved 'he whole _ State of New Yorh, the standard it would employ would be to add incre nents to its system on the basis of the broadest State interest in the emironmental and economic 0
aspec. of the projects. It seems to me that the companies in this State should do no less. Our goal in New York must be to achieve within this State the benefits of sing 1c-company performance for generation and trans-i mission while at the same time retaining, if we can, ihe present pluralism of management, which is in itself a substantial human resource.
i
" Unity of power supply responsibility has great advantages, but it-is pu) chased at a price if it results in a single power enterprise, be it public or private, In this State I believe we can attain most if not all of the 3
benefits of single-company performance, without foregoing the benefits of i
4 separate managements attuned to the needs of their respective service areas. "
"i__.the Public Service Reorganiaation Lact _ passed at th.e.last _
session of the Legislature on the I'ecommendation of Governor Rochefeller, l
.l confers a planning responsibility upon the Public Service Commission.
'The Commission shall encourage all persons and corporations subject to its jurisdiction to.for-
-' Tnulate and carry out long-range programs, individ-i
k- '
un11:, or cooperath cly, for the perform:.nce of their public service ro:mnrfbiliuet whh eeenomy, offi-ciency, and care for the public safety. the preserva-tion of environmental valuer t.nd the conservation of nutural resources.'
"In this statute 1 believe that the Legislature has in effect mandat d e
the Commission to encourage the achievement of sin;le-company perior-mance in the State. This is the logical extension of the concept of mutual-cooperation among the companier of the State for joint benefits.
It is l
certainly the result wnich is dictated by the environmental considerations -
to which the Legislature gave such great weight. "
Significantly, on the following month,' October 24, 1970, when the Governor announced he had directed the State Power Authority to take immediate action to_ increase cicctrieni power capac ity to the New York metropolitan area, he stated that "the State's fundamental responsibilay for power is:
... to insure-that the power need is met, whether this requires expinsion of priva+.e power supplies, public power supplies, or both, and to ao so with due regard f or preservation of the environmer.t. "
The New York State Executive and Legislative branc.hes arc committed to Statewidt Mudng of power generation and have established appropriate Stato agencies to do the necessary planning.
The major drawbach in this program is that it assumes that afttr:
the planning is done, the public utilities could, eith but little ' assistance from the State, meet the antwipat ed cicctric growth requiremems.
% Power Authority is icit to serve primarily high load f actor a
30
)'
1 8
t o
l induury c ustomurr. Tht Fpnce and Atamie Denlopment Authority f
f strera er the developnat ni t.ucical powered gener:Aing plant capability in the State.
In view of the urgency of the power situation tmd the obstacles faced 2
a by the utilities, these two agencies mus>t assume increased responsibilities for assistance..
3 Federel Procenm The most comprehensive and current statement of Federal policy
. 1 i
and programs on cicetric power is contained in the President's mossage on l'-
l energy. The message recognized that "it-takes 5 to 7 years to completo a 1
i large steam power plant" and that the " development of the new technology required to minimize environmental damage can further delay the provision i
of additional energy," Iic, therefore, concluded that "our efforts to 6
expand the suppiy of clean energy in America must immediatc3 y be stepped j
up."
^
l The President p"oposed the following:
i
[
1.
More than twice as much Federal support for pilot
[
~ projects to remove sulphur from burning coal and i
I oil before it is emitted to the air (SIS million in f
._ ___adrUtional funds ).
2.
An additional sum of:$27 million for engineering work to lay the groundwork for commercial demonstration plants using liquid metal fast breeder
-reactop as a means of extending the natural uranium-l J.
i
..,w...
,..........,,,,.m..w..y.,#,-.,
.-,y-,,.m,,.y._..._3
,,-,,vr.y,.w.,ee,e-gy-,,,
y,,,-,,-,
,,n,m.,,
, g, ww g w.
~ _.. _.. _ _ -
-n.
}
e 2
1 l
i i
fue) Fupp'jy. }ll order lhD1 thy deliTnS11%ilon f
i nwy im l
comp eted by 1900, the President S
j promised $50 uillion for conrtruction of the i
i plant.
I 3.
Support of an unspecifi. d nmount for other
,research projects in the fields of fusion power,
[
m.*gnetohydrodynamic power cyc]cs, under-l i
i j
ground ele :irie transmission, nuclear reactor l
I
}
safety, -advanced reactor concepts, solar j
energy.
L
+
4 4.
Increased pace in the enrichment of urantuic 1
1 i
l supplie s.
l S.
Conservation of energy.
The President's message did not deal with the immediate problems 4
4 j
of siting power plants, financing these costly projects and extending trans-j miss' ion lines.
ii
[
The President emphasized research and development with most significant emphasis on fast breeder reactors and stack gas ricaning sys-4 tems. Since the message was delivered, funds for the gas cleaning
_ projects were cut and a pilot project in which Con Ed was to participate cannot be financed.
1i
. It is commonly agreed that research in the energy field has been i-
. - t a
i greatly neglected but the projects sin 2 ed out by the P_ resident for specir) 1 j
attention are too few,' will be inadequately financed, and offer solutions i
1 i
.,..-,,,.+,,,n,-_,,v-,.-.
-, - - - ~,,... +.
.-p i.
il.
i a
i too f ar i: f o the f ere.
i The majo:. nraedia'.e proble:nr are the reconciliation of require-l ments for pm/cr end healthM cavironmonu climination of duplicate review.4 9
and of delays in ap. roving power plantr.: the financing of the many new I
T power plants and transmission facilitier that will be needed; and, the j
]
]
development of plcas for mutual assistence on a regional and nationa] bas:is in case of power rhortages.
4 4
i These subjects were ciiher not covered or treated v:.;ue)y. The i
j need for vrgency c:: pressed in the messa;;e is not conveyed in the thread-L 4
bare sclutions.
j i
4 i
On the whole, the President's message disregards the projections A
i j
of power needs in the coming ten to fifteen years. In the time interval that i
i
[
will clapse for the proposed research program to have a significant impact 3
1 l
on the production of electricity, there will have to be built in this nation as l
1 j
much bulh gt'nerating capacity as there is now in operation.
Conrervation of E1cetricity
{
A significant amount of the increased demand for power can be p
reduced through conservation measures. It is possibic to reduce the con-2 4
.{
sumption of electricity by insisting that it be used more efficiently.
i For exampic, an analysis of air conditioners mamtfactured by F-thirteen companies whose products are win 1y sold in New York City showed 1
l n great variation in their efficiency. Using the same amount of electricity.
t the Icast efficient models provide only 006 as much cooling 'as the most efficient.
L
.. _ - _. _., _ _.. _ = _
_ _ _., _ _.... ~. _ _. _ _.
hi.;.0: r!., f. ci:
","r
<, i n t h. e w ': ""
t rir!!"
cenrumed by n varidy of ed.er chetric ( golpmeir, ram tr* from t.lec1ric
[
j A rent Mal of e;ectried u.t ry can nito bulbc to major inst Mh tiom.
t be lost through poor insul.. tion of bujidingr air condi;iened or heated by s
elec*.ricity.
i f
increased citention must, therefore. be given to the climinntion of inefficient use of power. AppropriMe controis mum be inctituted to mandate the mnnu.*ncture and in*tn]!htien of cicctrichi c qdipment that is-the most cificient porcible 6. c., " state of the urt") in terms of mini-mizing the demand for electricity.-
Recommendations i
in effect, there is no electric energy program for the nation and-none has been proposed by either the Precident or Congress. This ennnot t
be done by the City to apply solely to its densely-populated area of 000 square miles. The Cit; must, therefore,. depend upon the State's ' announced program and efforts. The positions taken b'y.the Governor and the Chairman of tl$e'Public Service Commission must now be imhJemented by policy direction and Icgislation.
The program necessary to make Consolidated Edison's electrical
-.i system fully reliable within the nc>:t ten years involves the retirement and i
repincement of all obsoletc plants and gas turbine generttors by base load-generating pl:mts and construction of additional phmts capable of meeting peah load demands and provide 25"i reserve power. This will require:
i i
1.
New plants, in addition to these now'in const >uction, I
capable of generatin;; 0,000,000 kilowatic..
e l-
,,..-.-,,m,
.,,w..v.
,w.-y,...-.-,.7,#
.w--,,.,_.,._,,,,......,-
.,,--,.--%,.,,n.
.v.m.
,,.,,,,,mm,,m,,,,,..,,e%,,,,,,..,.,,,.e
i To t
i' f
o d
t l
2.
Location o! these phnt; at upproved riter d i
4 j
considerahk distance from the New Sorh i
l l
metre,politan alca to prevent nir and thermal t
j pollution of t,his densely-populated area.
j 3.
Installation of an advanced sysicm of trensmission t
i i
of high voltage, preferably, Jirect current.
i I
j 4.
An e :penditure for the above, estimated nt nbout i.
$5 billion.
l 4
1 Unless such a prograrn is started at once, New York City may face 3
1
]
in 1977 and thereafter a power shortage of crisis proportions. It is,-- thero-I
{
fore, recommended that 11.e following action be instituted on an emergency i
a basis:
i 1.
The Public Service Commission, the Space and Atomic 5
Development Authority, the Sta+c Department of Environ-i mental Conservation and the Federal Environmental I
i I
Protection Agency should conduct statbwin site surveys
[
on an accelerated basis to locate the sitc
- that may be i
suitabic for power plants and can meet environmental f
standards.
1:
i.
There must be intensive research effort to remove j'
2.
particulate and gaseous wastes from the fossil-fuel plant.
l i
L stacks;-reduce thermal pollution by putting the exhaust l-i hhat to useful purposes; and, climinate any possible l
_ danger of radiation from nuclear plants.
~
{
I 4..-,,1-,,,v.,., -,
- .c.v.,,--y w...
-m--,---
-,v+,,
-,-ww, h-w y
.-.-ym-,.#
,n m.,'.-...,w.
v..-r*~n--'4-e w'- er s
- 's
-******-r-'qy'nvr**vew*=*-cw-a
- ;>.) -
O 3.
Nev. York City govermnt r.t ::hould en' cr into a co itrac t with the Poccer Authorit: of 1he Fur of Nev York f or purchase of 1,000,000 hilmvattr of lov -cost c)ectricity to meet gove,rnmemal needs; to attract industry that can cmploy and train low-skilled employees; and to serve pub!.ic houcing. This power thoula be transmitted under contracinal arrangementr with Consolidated Tsdiron.
4.
The Power Authority of the State of New York should be authorized to construct base load power plants and trans-mission lines for the sale of electricity to the New York Power Pool. This authorization should not preclude a utility from building a plant for its own use or as a joint venture with other utiliti;e.
The Power Authority should be a supplemental source of power and transmission capability, especially where there may be di?ficulties for utilities to work out financial and other contractual arrangements.
5.
The Federal Government should develop a "one stop" J
system of approving power plants, preferably at the State icycl, to eliminate current delays and duplication of effort.
In addition, the existing laws aid regulations should bc revised and codified.
6.
There should be developed and implemented a national 4
e clean fuci ( ner;". pelic:,1.01 rc eogni.w.' the priority 0
needs of urbr.n centers.
7.
There must be inrtituted building code provisiens and cenrumtr legislation to mnndate the manuf acture, and install:. tion of more efficient elcetric equipment and app 1!ances, and improved inrulntion of buildings.
8.
The Federal Government should insthute regional and, eventually, national planr.ing and interco:meeticn of cicetric power sorrces.
9.
Government and the public utility industry should step up rescarch efforts in developing improved methods of generating and conserving electricity.
Electricity is of such vital importance to tbc health, vielfare, and safety of the public that Government must now join veith public utilitics in 1
7 anning, financing. and research activities. Because of aroused public interest and concrrn and past miscalculations, such coordinated effort is imperative and must be applied on a schedule that recognizes the critien1 urgency of the situation.
For the short range, the choice of options for meeting the power is limited, The lead t4...e for phtming, construction and governmental approvals is so long that the most prudent course is to get started at once along the lines indicated above, s
0
'.': P" ! C
s
//) 4 g 3 /:y,
v'?
dr>juuk}.,lGk.
~i i-SovUcm Cali.*mni: Ec'i3On Coinpany l.
J,-
Q,,
/
- fgf, st e en ta,
'i t e a.. t..,.; t :.n,~,2,.t w t
..,s
.s e c e. a ettrtra:
ICL L t '*, AD, C r Let or en A i #770 i t. 6 L smc.N L
,e. v,. m,
-,7t-S e p t e r.io e r 2 4, 1971 07;c;u g,.;
,,,.. ~ -@
1ir. Peter M. Plcnigen Assirtant to the. President The '..'.ai r e Hous e Unshin3 ton, D. C.
20500
Dear Pete:
Confirming our recc at telephone conversation, I am enclosing n "uhite paper" prepr. red by Commonwealth Edisen s ';
in connectic1 uith the urgent need to go foruard eith the liccasing on four of the very 1crge nucicar plants that cre recdy to go on the line.
. The plants in question are Palisades 1 owned by Censumers Pou r, Qund Cities 1 orned by Co/.wnuealth Edison, Point llecch 1 owned by Wisconcin-Michigan Pouer Company and Indian Point 2 ouned by Consolidated Edison of New York.
.Also enclosed is a copy of a legcl opinion prepared by the Commonwenith Edison 3cuyers, which states the case for it.1cdiate action by the AEC.
i liest regards.
Cordially, c
t M
.]Kil:hha p
e Enclosures 2 d a./ib/'
Q.
il J. i4 tu.co i m e. :q, c-,-
a a rn.,m. u
/ N' ' W-&o 0+w U, Qk y
-- ~ _... _ _ - _
h6"C y
'g9b.3 S
.S' lbj bM IM' bA 3 p t 5 h.
=-
Cm C d 'E/ 2'
,,r m i m i.m..,m m, m m..
I-L wn..muac u. r;.c. w.n m r,usv nrr te so, 4
+
C1 FECCR0 Copy N... lgjg llenoral.le Glenn T. Seaborg i
Chairran U. S. A t o ni c Ene rgy C o:m:1 s i on Unshington, D. C. 20545 J
{
Dear Dr. Seaborg:
j i
This is in reply to Mr. Price's letter of August 17, 1970, i
requesting conrnents of the Federal Power Cor.:nission on the en-l vironmental impact of the Indian Point No. 2 Nuclear Unit of the Consolidated Edison Company of Neu York, Inc.
Although the rederal Pouer Co:miission does not penerally have licensing jurisdiction over thertul po7er plants constructed by elcetric utilitics, the Conrnission does have a real and con-tinuir.3 interest in the titnely cons truetion of generating and transmission facilities to meet grouing electric loads and the r
impact of the facilitics upon the cuviron nont in rotters relating to air pollution, vater quality, and,other factors.
Our co:nents on pertinent factors related to the proposed environcental statetent on the Indian Foint Noelcar No. 2 Unit I
are enclosed.
Sincerely, fn
~/
JV6 *U
,/ John N. Krissikas Cha iruan Enclosure Co:nments on the AEC Environ:nentri Statement
.. s t Y
f
~,.
q,,
~
s
" Meeting Today's Challenges
" Providing for Tomorrow's Goals *'
7/, 677TG9Y6~
~'g 1970 h
1920 t.
- w. ovwx
- ~.
. ~
i.
2 Coar. ente Esintiu tn na Enviremmntal. :ctorant of
,. u........
Consolincted Edicen Cor.pany cf New Ycrh Inc.
The comments horculth crc directed to the relatioaship of the electrical ccptcity of this unit to the prospective power supply and denand situation of the syttcu and region involved;. te the fuel supply
- situation related to the type of plcnt and its cuvironmental effects; and to enmment on citernative neans of macting the power cupply need for i
uu!ch thic unit is proposed.
It is understood that other cgencies vill review and comment on specific acpects rslating to effcets of the unit on cir and water quality and other environmental icctors.
1
_The Need for pouer i
The 873-megawatt Indian Point nuclear No. 2 Unit is scheduled for service during the summer of 1971.
The 1970 summer peak load on the i
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.'s system was expected to reach 7,725 magawattu.
The actual 1970 rutamer peak loa,d,,however, was only 7,041 nagawatts and occurred on Augu'st 28.
7his peak load prob' ably
.i would have been exceeded on other summer days if the Company had not oper-ated its fccilitics et reduced voltage and requested voluntary load cur-4 tailments.
At the time of the 1970 peak load, the Company had a total power supply of 7,415 megawatts, including 1253 megawatts of capacity availabic through firm power purchases.
Most of the purchased capacity was availcbic through chort-term arrangements. At the time of the peak loa 4 a considerable amount of capecity was unavailable because of unsched-uled outages of generating equipment.
The reserve margin eat only 374 megawatts eqdivalent to 5.3 percent of the penh load.
The peak load in the summer of 1971 is expected to _rcach '.i 125 mega-Neu capacity scheduled to be in service by July 1971 totals 2,963 watts.
megawatts.
Of this new capacity, the Indian Point Eucicar No. 2 Unit will
. account for 873 megavetts 'ohtle the remaining new additions will consist of numerous small gas turbine units.
The Company's net dependabic capacity for the summer of 1971 penh period will be 11,131 megawatts, indicating a reserve margin of 3,006 megcuatts or 36.9 percent of the peak load.
Withou t the capacity of the Indian point Nucicar No. 2 Unit, the Company's net de-pendabic capacity will oe 10,258 megawatts, which is 2,133 megawatts in excess of the expected 1971 peak load, equal to a reserve cargin of 26.3 percoat.
These reserve margins appear to be appreciabic, but when consideration is given to the age of many of the Company's generating units and the dis-proportionato ' amount of gas turbine peaking capacity on the Company's syatem, the reserve margins do not appear to be excessive.
Of Consolidater' Edison's steam units, 30 ucre picced in-service during 1925 or earlier.
The large I
amount of overa;ge ccpacity and the disproportionate cmount of gas turbine 4
4 4
ry.
- .y<
_ _. - -. - - +
n
l capacity on the Cce;.any'r sys, tem is a result of the diffic"1 ties the Co.mpeny has been ca:perin.ncing in recent years in obtair.ing cuthority to build modern nuclear or focsil feal plants or pumped storage peaking plants.
i As a member of the New York Stato Interconnected System: pool, the Company is required to maintain a reserve margin of at least 18 percent.
The New York State pool is estincted to havo a reserve nergin during the 1971 summer peaking secson of 5,t.06 megawatts or 28.7 parcent of a peak i
i load of 10,850 mcawatts.
Withcut the capacity of Indien toint Nucicar No. 2 ' nit, the pool's reserve would be 4,533 megawatts, equal to 24 per-1 cent of the 1971 su:mer paak load.
i ITnile it may appect -that the reserve margin of the New York State pool is slighcly high, consideration must be given to the fact that there are a larg: number of overcge uaits, many of chich are undermaintained j
and prone to forced outaBes and doratings.
As one of the consequences of the difficulties experienced by the members of the pool.in finding 4
sites for its-large baseload units, the pool has acquired a dispropor-tionate amount of gas turbine peaking capacity, which contributes to.the j
pool's reserve margin, but does not provide for supplying firm base loads.
Thus, while the reserve margins of the pool, with or without the Indian
]
Point Nuclear No. 2 Unit, may suggest the possibility of delaying con-struction of some units, under present conditions such a policy does not appear to be appropriate.
i 4
The Fuels Situation 1
In accordance with the practice of electric utility systems in the Northeast Region, major fossil-fuel generating capacity operated by the Consolidated Edison Compcny was designed to burn coal..oll, and gas. -
4 Because of the critical air quality situation in the re*; York metropolitan area, the company has been phasing out its coal-burning operations and shif ting most of the generation to oil and gas.
Of the Company's ten major facilities formerly burning coal, only two,.the Arthur Kill and the Astoria Plants generated an appreciabic amount of energy from coal during the month of July 1970.
If account is taken only of those plants which -
4 burned some coal in July, the Company's generating f acilitics can be classified as 98 percent' equipped.to burn oil, 85 percent gas, 47 percent coal, and 2 percent nuclear.
of the 2,853 millica kilowatt-hours of energy generated last month, 58 percent was from oil, 27 percent from gas, and 15 percent from coal.- The Company's nucicar Indian Point No.1 Unit was not in service.
Developing shortagiu of domestic coal and foreign fuel oil, as well as public pressure on the Company to contribute its-share to ait quality.
in the Lev York Me.:ropolitan area, have created a difficult fuel supply problem.
This has been aggravated by the imposition on October 1,1969, d
1
.m
. _, ~ _,,
[....,y y.,
i
]
3-of sulfur oxidc control regulations which limit sulfur cantent of fuels burned by utilitics in the New York City area to 1.0 pu wnt t>y neight.
The shift frca coal to gas as c manc of r. voiding a diffic ilt utility I
coal narket is not possible beer.uso of the unavailability of cdditional natural gas for power generation. Also, no relief appears to be forth-coain;; from the foreign fuel oil n.crhet because of the present vorld political sito.ation.
The Company has been investigating the economics of inporting liquefied natural gas as a solution to the public controversy s
over the cupansion of its Astoria Plant.
This alternative to domestic natural gcs, however, sppears to be econort.ically prohibitive at this time.
I Under the prevailing fuels supply situatzon and the public temper in the City of New York, it is avident that any, plan which involved a fossil-fueled plant in lieu of the Indian Point No. 2 Unit would have become enmcohed in public controversy and would have failed to create _the gen-j erating capacity which is needed on the Compzny's system for the 1971 sumer peaking season.
Any fossil-fuel plant as an alternative to the Indian ?oint No. 2 -
Unit would necessarily add to the particulate and gaseous pollutants -
entering the atmosphere of the Company's service area.
The planning 4
of the Indian Point No. 2 Nuclear Unit, therefore, offers important environmental advantages with respect to air mlity in the State of New York.
Power imports The impor't of additional firm powe,r from utilities in Canada, New England, the PJM Interconnection, or other members of the New York Pool does not appear feasible.
This conclusion is based.on a review of the load-supply situation in areas to the south, west, and north of the Com-pany's service area and on the situation as it is expected to develop in
' these areas.
i^
As a general rule, we feel that a minimum reserve margin for a karge opera 7;ing pool having predominately thermal capacity should be about 20 i
percent.
During the past sucmer, the New England area, the New York State L
Pool, and the P.E Pool all were required to reduce voltages a number of j
times because of the large amount of capacity which was inoperable because of forced outages.
The reserve margins are expected to improve during 1971, but not to become high enough to permit export of firm powcr. Evec if firm power were availabic for export from those areas, the lack of transmission line capacity north, sou.h, and west from Consolidated Edison's service area would prevent the constrr: nation of such support.
Frcn the star.dpoint of reliability and coordination in the planning and operation of syctem facilities, it is highly desirable to have a strong transmission network interconnecting utility systems in the Northeast.
These purposes would not be enhanced, however, by additional interconnections and out-of-the-area h
I 4-gene: ction to provide foEt'$ e): port of 1 rge biochs of firm power, furthermero, the construction of such facilities vould not lossen the overall impact of pow 2r f acilities on the environment.
. e a
11vdro Pci 9r Alternatives A hydroelectric installation as a substitute for the Indian Point
!!uclcar flo. 2 Unit nust be ruled out as a practical considerat. ion.
The New Ycrh cnd !!cw England area abounds in good pumped storce,e sitet, many within economical transmission distr.nce of the-Company's service crea, but these sites are suitable for peaking capacity only and, as such, do not offer an alternative to the Indian Point !!ucleaY Unit, which is intended -
to servf e as-a baseload generating facility.
There are no conventional hydro sites uithin reasonable transmission distance largo enough to serve -
as a substituto for the Indian Point Unit.
gg 4
I e
g
________..__-_____.__..m.
F 0/[.9[tj Q.fz/ [d C
'e RC b J-I ADVISUrW COMMITTEE ON REACTOR Sne'CGUARDS Q
4e llNITrf).GTATCC ATOMir Ft,'rRGY r.nM M t4910tJ
% ASHINGTCH. D.C. M 58 fi September 23, 1970 1% C p1 p,Lt0RD C01'l C,, h lionorable Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545
Subject:
REPORT ON INDIAll PolNT 1:UClIta GEKERATING UNIT NO. 2
Dear Dr. Seaborg:
At its 125th meeting, September 17-19, 1970, the Advicory Committee on Reactor Safeguards completed its revicu of the application by Consoli-dated Edison Company of New York, Inc., for authorization to operste i
the Indian Point Nuclear Genera::ing Unit No. 2 This project had pre-viously been considered at the Committee's 95th, 98th, 122nd, and 124th meetings, and at Subcomittee meetings on August 23, 1969, March 13, 1970, April 25,1970, May 28,1970, July 28 29,1970, and September 15, 1970. Subconnittees also met at the site on December 28, 1967 and May 11, 1970.
The Committee last reported on this project to you on August 16, 1966.
During the revicu,the Committee had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the Consolidated Edison Company and their contractors and consultants, and with representatives of the AEC Regulatory Staff.
The Committec also had the be.ncfit of the documents listed.
Tbc Indian Point site is located in Westchester County, New York, approx-imately 24 miles north of the New York City limits.
The minimum radius
- of the exclusion area for Unit No. 2 is 520 meters and Peekskill, the s
n'earest population center, is approximately one-half mile from the unit.
Also at this site are Indian Point Unit 1, which is licensed for opera-tion at 615 m t, and Unit 3, which is under construction.
The applicant has re-evaluated flooding that could occur at the site in the event of the probable maximum hurricane and flood, in the light of more recent information, and has concluded that adequate protection exists for vital components and services.
Additional scismic rainforcement being provided for the Indian Poltat Unit No. 1 superheater building and removal of the top 80 ft of the superheater stack vill enable tbc stack to withstand winds in the range of 300-360 mph corresponding to current tornado design criteria. Since L
W (c
2Vr
~
b
~
-t ;n /
! i w
____g
l, i
)*
t i
1 1
i Honorable Glann T.
noahnru
?
cam a.k.,
91 tuvn the reinforcement of the superheacer buildinC, which supports the stack, enables the stack to resist wind loads of a mt;nitudo most likely to be f
experienced from a tornado, the Committee believes that removal of the top 80 f t. of the stack, to enable it to resist the maximum effects from j
a tornado, may be deferred until a convenient tino during the next few-i-
years, but prior to the commencement of operation of Indian Point Unit No. 3.
The applicant has stated that truncation of the stack will have no significant adverse effect on the environment.
The Indian Point Unit No. ' is the first_ of the large, four-loop Westing-bouse pressurized water reactors to go into operation, and the proposed j
power level of 2758 MWt will be the largest of any power reactor licensed 4
to date.
The nuclear design of Indian Point Unit No. 2 is similar to that of H. B. pobinson with the exception that the initial fuel rods to
?
be used in Indian. Point Unit No. 2 will not be propressurized. Part-length control rods will be used to shape the axini power distribution 4
and to suppress axial xenon oscillations.
The reactor is designed to-have a zero or negative moderator coefficient of reactivity, and the applicant plans to perform testo to verify that divergent azimuthal xenon i
oscillations cannot occur in this reactor.
The Committee recommends that j
the Regulatory Staff follow the measuremente and analyses related to these j
tests.
i l.
Unit 2 has a reinforced concrete containment with an internal steel liner which is providpd with facilities for continuous pressurization of weld j
and penetration areas for leak detection, and a scal-water system to back i
up piping isolation valves.
In the un,likely event of an accident, cooling i
of the containment is provided by both a containment spray system-and an air-recirculction system with fan coolers.- Sodium hydroxide additive is used in the containment spray system to remove elemental iodine from the j
post-accident containment atmciphere. An impregnated charcoal filter is provided to remove organic iodine.
1 Major changes have been'made in the design of che-emergency core cooling i
system as originally proposed at the time of the construction permit re-i view. Four accumulators are provided to accomplish. rapid reflooding of i
the core in the unlikely event of a large pipe break, and redundant pumps are included to maintain long-term core cooling. - The applicant has analyzed the efficacy of the emergency core cooling system and concludes that the s,rstem will keep the core intact'and the peak clad tempe'ature 4
vell below the poiat where zircaloy-water reaction might have an adverse effect.on n. lad ductility and, hence, on the continued structural integrity of the Iuel elements. The Committee believes that there is reasonable 3
assurance that the Indian Point Unit No. 2 emergency core cooling system will perform adequately at the proposed power level.
I 4
4 4
4
(
t
, - r
+ - - +... - -.. -,,
<-..--r-..
~
ms
,-,,+,-w%n.
r v e-w w.m
a A
1 Honorahla Clonn T.
Maahnro 1
Caata*hae
?'
1470 l
1 The Consittee concurs with the applicant that tbc reactor pit crucibic, proposed at the time of the construction permit review, is not essen-tial as a safety feature for Indian Point Unit No. 2 and need not be in-cluded.
To control the concentration of hydrogen which could build up in the containment following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident, the appli-4 i
cant has provided redundant flatne recombiner units within the contain-i ment, built to engineered safety feature standards. Provisions are alsd included for adoquate mixing of the atmorphere and for sampling purposes.
The capability exists also t attach additional equipment so as to permit ontrolled purging of the containment atmosphere with iodine filtration.
I Thc Committee believes that such equipment should be designed and provided i
in a manner satisf actory to-the Regu,latory Staff during the first two l
years of operation at power.
The applicant plans to install a charcoal filter system in the refueling i
i building to reduce tbc potential release of radioactivity in the event of damage to an irradiated fuel assembly during fuci handling. This in-i sta11ation will be completed by the end of the first year of full power operation.
i The reactor instrumentation includes out-of-core detectors, fuel assembly exit thermocouples, and movable in-core flux monitors. Power distribution measurements wi11 also ordinarily be available from fixed in-core detec-tors.
1 The applicant has proposed that a limited number of manual resets of trip points, made deliberately in accordance with explicit procedures, by approved personnel, independently monitored, and with settings to be cali-i brated and tested, should provide an acceptabic basis for the occasional l
operation of Indian Point Unit No. 2 with only three of the four reactor i
loops in servica.
The Committee concurs in this position.
3 1
She applicant stated that neutron noise measurements will be made period-ically and analyzed to provide developmental information concerning the possible usefulness of this technique in ascertaining changes in core-vibration or other displacements.
On a similar basis,._ accelerometers will 4
be-installed on the pressure vessel and steam generaters to ascertain the practicality of their use to detect the nresence of loose parts.
l.
The reactor includes a delayed neutron monitor in-one hot leg of the re-actor coolant system to detect fuel element failure. Suitabic operability requirements will be maintained on the several sensitive means of primary system icak detection.
4 4
e
-.m.
_#.~m..,m.
y_.
,..,,._y..y
.r,-
y ms.,,,.3
,...,,w
._.,e,y.
.ww.#.w_,.
=-.-
e 8
nunornoic 01cnn '1.
scadorg September 23, 1970 A conservative method of defining pressure vessel f racture toughness should be employed that is satisfactory to the Regulatory Staff.
The applicant stated that existing experimental results and analyses provide considerabic assurance that high burnup fuel of the design employed will be able to undergo anticipated transients and pouer per-
$9tbations without a loss of cled integrity.
He also described addi-tional experiments and analyses to be performed in the reasonably near+
future whit should provide further assurance in this regard.
.The Committee has, in recent reports on other reactors, discussed the 4
need for studies on further means of preventing common failure modes f rom negating scram action, and of possible design features to make tolerable the consequences of failure to scram during anticipated tran-sients.
The applic at.t has provi.ded the results of analyses uhich he be-lieves indicate that the consequences of such transients are tolerable with the existing Indian Pvint Unit No. 2 design at the proposed power icvel. Although further study is required of this general question, the Committee believen it acceptable for the Indian Point Unit No. 2 l
reactor to operate at the proposed power level while final resolution of this matter is made on a reasonable tbac scale in a manner sat /sfac-tory en the Regulatory Staff. The Committee wishes to be kept advised.
Other matters relating to large water reactors which have been identi" fled by the Rt'gulatory Staff cnd the ACRS and cited in previous ACRS letters should, as in the case of other recctors recently reviewed, be dealt with appropriately by tbc Staf f and the applic nt in the Indian Point Unit No. 2 as suitable approaches are developed.
'The ACRS believes that, if du n regard is given to the items recommended abova, and subject to i ntisfactory completion of construction and preop-crational testing of Indian ?oint Unit No. 2, there is reasonable assur-ance that this reactor can r e operate? at power icvcis up to 2758 FMt uitbeut undue ris' to the naalth cnd safety of the public.
Sincerely yours Joseph M. Hendrie Chairrun References attached.
i G
v w~
-n..
-s w.
e e
i 1
l
. I Ilonarable Glent. T. %M. e September 23, 1970 i
)
- i t
i
[
P.eferencer Indian Point Nucicar Generatinn Unit No. 2 J
1.
Amendment No. 9 to Application of Consolidated Edison Company of New York for Indian Point 1:ucicar Generating Unit No. 2, consisting l
of Volumes 1 - IV, Final Safety Analysis Report, received October 16, 1968 4
3 2.
Amendments 10 - 20 to the Licence Application 3.
Amendments 22 - 24 to t.he License Application 4
1 l
4 2
4 1
(
f 4
s I
h l
4 4
4 i
's 1
l i
.k
' **, (
'\\'
pm.
')
i-e A
m. m w*er
.p y9-.,,y,,-=-w,,,
,y, wig-+w,,
-.y,, m.. m.#,g y wy n.w e.c v w w g m,.,
,,w,,=w.,-7-,-wyypge~r--'-4r-pr.v,,, g w vw.w 9 n ' w w yy, -r v
-3w-
__._.r__
IW o
9
,h ' (
[
o f t I
/89,( flI?
l FDS 5 h
/nfj/h.3n' t.)
J!
u 7 7D, b
'f ~
- g..
3 1
4 g p1 COP.D CCPI October 5, 1970 Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman 1
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Wachington, D.
C.
20545 Re:
indian Point nuclear Station Unit No. 2 l
Docket No. 50-247 Dear Mr. Chairman i
We were pleased to receive a copy of the September 23 report from the Advisory Committee on' Reactor Safeguards 4
to the Commission with respect to con Edison's applica-tion for an operating license for Unit No. 2 of our Indian Point nuclear station.
We presume the AEC steff will complete its written safety evaluttion of this unit in tho'near future.
Detailed public. hearings already have been held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in connection with our application for a construction permit _for *.his Unit
'No.
2.
Although there is no requirement that a second Safety and Licensing Board hearing be held in connection with our application for en operating 31conse, we believe it would, at this time, be in the best interest of all concerned to have such a hearing.
We at con Edison have great faith.in nucicar~ energy ^,
a sourco of cican e crgy for the futurc and are plano ng to follow Unit No. 2 with additional nuclear plants.
Altnough ve~ do not think it will be neccesary on following occasions to hold a hearing at the operating licence.-
stage, it wou,1d seem to us beneficial to hold another hearing in this proceeding in view of the understandably
]p great interest among the citizens of our franchise erea V
cy
{/
?yfh, +p#^~~~
a
r 1
4 5
f 4
2-i i
I i
j in being assured of adequate electrieni service and in--
[
]
the means to bc used in providing the servicu.
t j
Accordingly, I acN that you treat _th'Is letter as'a
{
request for a hearing in this fr"6ceeding before on l
Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board to cover Luch. matters
.(
as are properly within the jurirdiction~ of the htamic' Energy Commission.
I would expect.t hr.t-in connection with_such n. hearing recognition wou'.d-be given-to the
)
ract that +^1e design of the unit and the suitability I
}
of.the site for the particular-type-and_ size of nuclear facility-have already been approved as a ' result of the prior hearing.
i Respectfully-youra i;
j l
M 1
m i
1 Lcuis.H. P,oddis
~Jr.
e s,
1
/
e 4
3 f
I i
4 R
k y
I s
+
4 i
4 L
4 4
t 9
,-7.-v
--,-).
y,nn m
t Wa" 6*-
NW'
- fI"Y WTC
/sc A 1
3h b1
-.h/C'f.T-/
0 - Qy'b A AN%
p z
hk,3f;$'(g }qf.P 'agf
- 4
- h 2-
~
UNITED STATE 3 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
/
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. t0240 i
,*f*,MDkN OCT 101970 Deac Mr. Chaittant Pursuant to Section 5 of Public Law 89-605 as amended and other authori::ations, we arc presenting the views of the Depar tment of the Interior in the natter of the application by the Consolidated Edison Company for an operating license for Indian Poin'. !;uclear l
Generatin; Unit lio. 2, Buchancn, !!cw York AEC Docket Nc. 50-247
( Amendment !?o. 9). The f ollowing comments incorporate those i
submitted by the f ederal Gater Quality Administration, the Fish and R$1/Aife Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
The unit under review is the second of three units completed or being constructed at the Indian Point site. We note that applications 4'
f or construction permits for two more units to be located approximately one clic south of the India". Point sire were made in June 1969.
The Department of the Interior does not object to the issuance of the operating license to the Consolidated Edison Company for Unit tio. 2 of the Indian Point !;ucicar Power Plant.
Our position is based upon the firm corrltment by the Company as expressed in its responses to the Atomic Energy Comission that it will beet the water quality standards applicable to. the receiving waters and that it will take whatever steps are necessary to mitigate any harmful effects that j
operation of the plant may have on the fisher / resources of the Hudson-River and tributary waters.
The Company should be. commended f or the cooperation it _hns extended to representatives of this Department during the course of our review.
Tha studies which the Consolidated Edisen Company is presently engaged in it.dicate the Company's concern for the putential damages to the environment that could result f rom operation of this unit and the
.others planneed at - and in the vicinity of Indian Point.
W are pleased to note that the Coapany has made provisions to open part of its land holdings for compatible public recreation use.
We express the hope that the Company's public use plans will be finalized and fully implemented at the earliest possible time.
D Le i
\\
t 1,
. _=_ -. -..
I i
3 i
Consolidated Edison has initiated. or participated in a number of
]
studies to determine the effects of both radiological and theresi discharges from the Indian Point reactors upon both the temperature distribution and the aquctic life of the ' Hudson River through its I
consultants, Quirk, Lawler and Matusky Engineers, and the Alden-j Research Laboratories of Worchester Polytechnic Institute. The Company hat conducted mathematical studie'. of the probable tempera-
[
ture in the River and has checked these estimates-with hydraulic 1
4 model studios and actual field studies.
In addition, Consolidated Edison has _ supported several independent but coordinated studies.
of the micro-organisms and aquatic life in the ' Hudson Riv(c and the j-probable effects of temperature and salinity changes upon them -in j
the vicinity of the Indian Point _ Plant.
1 These studies are-continuing and.have been: and will be helpful-in 4
j assessing the' effects of the Indian Point Unit No. 2 and of the other
?
thernal plants which are proposed _f or constructior on the shores of the~-
t i
Hudson River in the vicinity ~ of Indian Point.
I We have been provided information on plans. for onvironmental mor.itoring of radiological and thernal releases proposed as a part of the operating license application. We understand that the plans for. vater quality L
monit(-ing, including radiological concentrations in the environment in microscopic and macroscopic aquatic life are acceptabic to' the State i
of New York.
They appear reasonable and arc considered generally acceptable to the Department of the Interior.
Through the monitoring programs the Company should have the necessary information to control its activities in a manner that vill.not violate l
applicable New York State as well as Federal water-quality standards, I
recommendations ' of any enforcement conference or hearing board approved -
by the Secretary or order of any court under Section -10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and/or othel. State and Federal water i
i polluticn control regulations.
l l
In view of. the extensive and valuabic fish. and wildlifef resources in I
the 97 icct area, it is imperative that every possible effort be made to sm guard these resources. - Therefore, it is recom: ended that the Consolidated Edison Company be required ta:
s-U 1,
Continue to work closely with the Department of the Interior, New York-State. Department of Health, and
}_
other interected State and Federal agencies-in i
developing plans f or radiological surveys.
l l
t
,-~,..--,,,,,-n-
.,,,,w-,c..---
,,-,,,-n,.
. +..
-,.,,. - ~
-.-.a.-,-
a 4
a 2.
Conduct pre-operational radiological surveys as planned. These surveys should include but not be lietited to the following l
a.
Gamma radioactivity analysis of water and sediment samples collected within 500 feet of the reactor effluent outf all.
b.
Beta and Camma radioactivity analysis of selected plants and animals (including mollushs and s
crustaceans) collected as near the reactor effluent outfall as possible.
3-Prepare a report of the pre-operational radiological surveys -
and provide five copies to the Secretary of the Interior' prior to project operation.
4 4
Conduct post-operational radiological, surveys similar-to that specified in' recommendation (2) above, analyze j
the data, and prepare and submit reports every six months j
during reactor operatton or until it has been conclusively demonstrated that no significant adverse conditions e::ist.
i
{
Submit ilue copies of these reports. to the Secretary of the Interior for distribution to appropriate State and Federal agencies for evaluation.
In addition to the above, the Atcmic Energy Commission should urge the l
Consolidated Edison Company to:
1.
. Meet with the Department of the Interior, New York State 4
Department of Environmental Conservation,' New York State Department of 11ealth, and other intere=ted Federal and j.
State agencies at frequent intervals to discuss new-
~
plans and evaluate results of the Company's ecological j
and engineering-studxes; l
2.
Conduct post-operational ocological surveys planned in cooperation with the above named agencies, analyce the data, prepare reports, and provide five copies of these reports to the Secretoqr cf the -Interior every. six months or until the re,ults indicate that no significant adverse conditions ex$st; i
T T
3 m
-,,e y
+
- a vigg
.4+- - -
-en >, e e w g4=y t--
W---v-
-e--r
,-wn-,
vr y
e em-
,-..,e_
4
?
3.
Construct, operate, and maintain fish protection f acilitics at the cooling water intake structure as needed to prevent significant losses of fish and other 7
aquatic orgmtisms; and J
4.
Modify project ottuctures and operations including the addition of'Iacilities for cooling discharge = caters and reducing concentrations of harmful chemicals and other substances as may be determined necessary.
l We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.
Sincerely yours,.
o
/
~/
- / Ml *,/ l J
Secrc6,ry',of the Interior Honorable Glenn T. Seaborg Chairman, United States Atomic Energy Conn.19sion Washington, D. C.
20545 i
I i
s I
k f
a 4
~-
$fiC fi 13,1 hNE 4
4 UNITED STATES y 3--
s t,
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
/3, gy[d a.*" >) ~
- d. V, I.
ATW.O SAF EM AND UCENrtNG DOARD wAsmNcToN. o.c. mo p.
'isin t' November 6, 1970
. j,. ; ori MEMOR ANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN SEABORG COMMISSIONER RAMEY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON COMMISSIONER THOMPSON COMMISSIONER LARSON
SUBJECT:
BOARD MEMBERS FOR INDI AN POINT 2 HEARING I understand the Commission may approve a pnblic hearing i
on an operating license in the matter of Consoliaated i
Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station Unit No. 2 - Docket No. 50-247).
I would propose the establishment of a Board to hear this case consisting 3
of the following Panel members:
Mr. Samuel W. Jensch, Chairman Dr. John C. Oeyer Mr. R. B. Briggs Mr. J. D. Bond, Alternato Chairman Dr. Richa,rd L. Donn, Alternate At the hearing for the= construction permit in this case, f.'r. Jensch and Dr. Geyer served on the Board.
Dr. David B. Hall, the third member at the construction stage is unable to serve on the Board for the operating license because of other commitments.
If the Commission has no objection to these appo'intments, arrangements will be made to establish this Board when appropriate.
The Commission customarily considers at this ' point whether it wishes to assign a given case to the Appeal-Board.
I-recommend the selection of Dr. Quarles as the third member of the Appeal Board in this casez 90
.' Wells, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel h'
cc:
Director of Regulation (3) i General' Counsel (3)
?'
Secretary (2)
N.
~
~
m,},f,n,1 f l hE.
t> -
/
v-
/tR
- g.U;nc 3. j"
./s.t. evLr Q L a a-VF?
s UNITED STATES N K p,% %)
[f, 1
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 7 '/(i (,
- AsstNcTon.o c nso M'
ctti i
4 NOV 131970 Chairman Seabe ;
i Commissience Ramey Comissioner Johnson Commissioner Thompson Comissioner Larron 2
8 Nuf1CE OF 11 EARING FOR CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY S INDIAN POINT 2 4
PLANT On October 5,1970, the President of the consolidated Edicon Company of. New York, Inc., in a letter addressed to the Chairman requested that a public hearing be scheduled on the company's application for an uperating licante for ita Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2.
4 In accordance with that request, we have prepared for the Comission's consideration a not. ice of hearing scheduling a public hearing on the application in the New York State Armory, 9551 Washington Street, Peekski'1, New York, on December 17, 1970.
The prehearing conference is scheduled for December 1,1970, at the Hendrik Hudson High School in Montrose New York.
This schedule has been approved by the Office of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
The notice of hearing prepared for the Comission's consideration sets forth the standard issues for an operating license proceeding and provides an opportunity for members.of the public to petition to intervene in the proceeding and to make limited appearances.
The notice also permits the atomic safet.y and licensing board to consider and act upon a request by the applicant for a licence authorizing fuel loading and low power testing at not more than one percent of full power (27.5 Mwt).
,ff n.
-4 r
IU;JK.,
2 i
I would like to discuss this matter at an early Information 1
- Meeting, i
4
)
liarold L. Price Director of Regulation 3
cc Cencral Manager (2)
Cencral Counsel (2)
Secretary of the commission (2)/
i 7
Chairman, ASLBP (2) 4 4
+
Y d
1 4
- 'I
...,. 3. 3 4 -
~.r-,
-s--
---..,----g n
.w e
t'~-r m
---a..,----,,-
n,
.