ML20115B253
| ML20115B253 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1966 |
| From: | Mccool W US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML093631134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210150365 | |
| Download: ML20115B253 (1) | |
Text
_.
0 L gg(,
- ^4p
- ) ()../. 5.b Q 'r y 3
d is d a7 fpt S $9 Q
Q [
' /* b
(,.6/3,/
October 11.19M
.s MEMORANDUM FOR THE COMumnNERS
$UBJECT: PRErwrMART-REVIEW OF DtITIAL DECTSION GRANTING A PRotMNAL CONSTRUCTION l'
PERMIT. IN THE MATTER OF CONSO!JDATED EISSON COMPANY O F NEW YORK. INC.-
(1=dia= Potat No.1). Docket No. $6-447,
/
/
/-
Attached for eddaraden by the'Comadssion en W:t]:1i, Osteber 12, is the Solicitor's seennerenesen of October'18 with Me recoasmaeadations em the dispeettiam of this anatter.
s-
%ns....
l
- w. s. u,w l
I W. B. McCool
!j I
u
- kl5, i
'i es:1 General Counsel
- Solicitor
' (
~
s
.7 i
e D' CI M W WCC Dt WE W{MELM i
n i m H!ttv.t W, O M 1800 001 11 W E 18 9210150365 920520
..s
~
\\~
O!2h m as
_e omct >
\\
i, I
I SURNAME >
\\
5 DATE>
g Form N818 (Rev. >48)
- t *=ensass' '**** m'88 1N-4
+- ---
's bhhdN I.),*.h...g I * [ 4 -# f 7/>
- h, d
rf $
i ISb $ b,.'y E
m n
,s
[(
- f '
)y
[hb Iynoo:c:.mr. LucIc;n 6: nousrv (7 0 Q K f,T F4 C E T. N. W.
],h 7
7,) ;-
V/A 5. 3NOT ON, D. C. 20000 e.seavo~es.
s uiT m w. m a sc u A*T
.noonutca
/ 7, /.,,.. e r.. c u r -
.oc~sm.. ocasty
.......a F M W h R AT C 4 L i 8. A N M A LV C 4 Pe s & m C F FII L o. s N -
i.,J
'" m,.L, un-,y t;m sgj:a i n v,. c -. c ~. ~
n.t October 13, 1966
~ < C?.--
I,i.
)) p5 oc u
/C$-
Atonic Energy Con n..ssion Atomic Safety and Licensing Board yr.. E.i,3 -w& $,'.:,.._
~?
n.t..
.....ns Washington, D. C.
20545 Attention :
Mr. S amuel W. Jens ch, Chairman Re:
Application of Consolidated Edison Company, Indian Point Nuclear Generatinn,-,U. nit No.
2>
c D'ocket No. 50-247.
Gentlemen:
In the Initial Decision by the Atomic Sciety cnd Licens-ing Board, dated October 4,1966, the Board acted upon Con-solidated Edison Company's Motion to Expedite under Section 2.764(a) of the Connission's Rules of Practice, finding thc.:
" Con-Ed has presented evidenco respecting the
[N
,g cccccity of its enisting genert:1ng plants cnd i t's endecvors to provide additionc1 ccpccity,
-- Y::5 l
including the pro;racted Storn King Mountain
,Oi C3 punned water storage project.
A rcilu.re to the public inter-1d gg *r.; g suphlv the dancnd would cffect N $
est' thct buyers hcVe in their concern thct d
"J U:,* a electricity be delive"ed when they nche a call Yu:.'"'
for it."
D N
'N,' I l"l d<Y
/.
The fundanantc1 question crises as to the authority of the.<.onic Sciety cnd Licensing Dccrd to consider econc.ic fceto s under Ic.c terns of reference of their hecrin; cssign-nont, which is ncred in the Initici Decision, ct pcge 13, cs:
"The review by the Atonic Safety cnd Licensing Soard s
is limited to c censidercticn of those criteric and g
technical desi;n fectures which hcvc been nresented i
and uhich in the Bocrd's opinion cre adecu'cre to urovide recs oncbic cssurt.nce thct the crocosed Y
' ccility can be constructed cnd opercted hi hout e,
~
c undue risk to the he c~ ;a cnd ~ s efe tv. cf the public."
/.
I
_k e
M J-
f
- * ~ *
,511 ART. UECR ER 6. DORSEY Atonic Energy Cornis..on October 15, 1966 Page Tuo The findings nevertheless tche up c fundenental question of the needs of the cpplicant and reach a decision without having taken evidence on the notion.
The uriter wishes to point out to the Board cnd the Connission the fcilure of the applictnt to present evidence of nt erici fccts respecting its endeavors to prcvide cdditional capacity.
Such evidence is pectinent to the finding of the Atonic Scfety cad Licensing Board "that substantial economic in-jury will occur if this initial decision is not nade effective in cccordance uith the Rules" (pp. 16-17) cnd the order expedit-ing the effective date for issuing a provisional construction permit.
It hca been ve ified by the writer thct on or about July 1, 1965, the Applicant, Consolidated Edison Conpany, received a con-crete offer fron 3dddle Atlantic Power Company, a company j ointly owned by Tenneco (formerly Tennessee Gcs Transnission Compcny) and Internationc1 Utilities Conpany, to sell 2,000,000 k.u.
capacity of electrical energy for c period of 40 years c,t,t-a cean average cost of 4.94/ nill.k.v.
Delivery of the powe would be nede to Appliccat's Farragut Stction, Brooklyn, New York.
This proposal is understood to be currently pendino.and a
has not been acted upon by Applicant's Bocrd of Directors.
The importance of this recsonable alternative in the Applicant's showing need not be enphcsized, since a proposal of such nagnitude ncde by a company acting for experienced and financicily stren2 sources bears directly upon the public inter-est, cnd any decision by the Connission bcsed on possible sub-stcntici economic injury which purportedly would result from not expeciting the Incian Point No. 2 Proj ect.
The Eocrd and Connission's attcntien are invited to the findin; of the United States Court of Appecis, Second Circuit, in Scenic Hudson Preser crion Conference v. Federal Pouer Con-
~
nissien, cacicec Dacember 29, 1955 554 F. 2 d 60 8, vr.e rein the 3
cour decreed that in parnitting licanse of hydrcelectric facilities :t mus: sea tict its reccri is complete.
It is respactfully racuasted thct approprit:e cction be cken to tract with this nat:ar.
Very truly ycurs,
B Rv,0.., n.,.uu,
,,.,7R y D,vaS y e
o c u z-c.
a
..N f
/*
,/h l
3y,gy.,. %,
o....
, J. '
Snith 3rookhar Ccunsci for Natienci Parks Asscciatica cc:
Arvin E. Upton, Esc..- hand dal:vered
_-