ML20126D505
| ML20126D505 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1980 |
| From: | Van Ness S NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126D493 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005020146 | |
| Download: ML20126D505 (8) | |
Text
8005020h
.O-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT
)
Docket No. 50-363 CCMPANY, FORKED RIVER NUCLEAR
)
GENERATING STATION, LACEY TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR HEARING INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACXGROUND By letter dated August 31, 1978, Jersey Central Power and Light Company sought to have the latest completion date for the Forked River Nuclear Generat-ing Station extended from October 4,1978 to December 1983. This nuclear power plant, under construction sporadically since the fall of 1973,soon after having received a construction permit from the now defunct Atomic Energy Ccmmission, was somewhat less than five percent completed when the A.E.C. CP expired.
The utility sought to justify its August 1978 extension application by reference to the financial setbacks suffered by it and to certain regulatory actions taken by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection pertain-ing to a belated assertion of jurisdiction over the project.
Neither of these assertions are meritorious.
First,the D.E.P.'s jurisdictional clahn was rejected in its entirety by the Cepartment itself after an internal hearing. At no time during this agency review process was J.C.P.& L. Co. subjected to any legal constraint or-impediment :n ihe c:nstruction of this Forked River facility as a result of the D.E.?. claim, which was wholly stayed pending the aforementioned administrative adjudienien.
Secondly, Jersey Central Power and Light Company asserts that the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and the omission of a regular quarterly dividend on its common stock by the Consolidated Edison Ccmpany of New York, Inc. produced rapid increases in interest rates which precluded it from obtaining sufficient capital to pursue the construction of the Forked River plant. Of course, the i
credit worthiness and a utility's financial resources are inherently matters i
I within the control of a utility, particularly one subject to rate making powers -
l of a Public Utility Commission. Jersey Central Power and Light Company in fact, received repeated rate relief.from the New Jersey Public Utilities Commission over the period of the construction permit's life span.
These delay factors cited by Jersey Central contrast markedly from the type of " acts beyond the control of the permit holder" listed in 10 C.F.R.
[;
150.55(b) required to establish entitlement to a renewal:
" developmental problems i attributable to the experimental nature of the facility or fire, flood, explosion strike, sabotage, domestic violence, enemy action...."
This apparent failure to comply with the Code provision for an extension of the construction permit for the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station was i
recognized by the NRC staff which mec with the applicant on June 20, 1979 todiscusj E
this matter. The meeting memorandum prepared by Robert Benedict, Light Water
[:
Reactors Branch No. 2, Division of Project Management, indicated the staff's preliminary finding to this effect and concluded with a notation that Jersey Central Power and Light Company would " provide detailed information ' supporting a showing of good cause for construction permit extension," along with a further request that no action be taken on its August 31, 1978 application (Benedict Memorandum attached hereto as Exhibit A).
fi Jersey Central responded to this staff directive by letter dated 1
July 30, 1979 from Ivan R. Finfrock, Vice President, setting forth the Utility's f
request that no further action be taken on its extension application, but 2
l 1
~
prov: ding no further details on the reasons for its failura to comply with the October 1978 deadline for completion of this plant construction.
(Finfrock letter attached hereto as Exhibit B).
To date, the NRC staff has taken no additional action in regard to this now temporarily withdrawn extension application that has become part of the public record.
In point of fact, the fonnal request by Jersey Central power f
and Light Company that the NRC withhold all action on its extension request l<
constitutes an express waiver of the rights conferred by 10 C.F.R. 52.109.
Inasmuch as the Commission is.no longer actively pursuing a final detennination on this renewal application at the specific request of the Utility, it should be j
deemed withdrawn and outside the parameters of this savings clause staying the expiration of permits pending renewal.
The anomalous nature of not mandating Jersey Central to file an application for a new construction pemit for the Forked River Nuclear Generat-
~
ing Station is amply demonstrated by the recent advertisement placed by the f
Utility in the Wall Street Journal seeking bids on the proposed sale. of the i
following materials frem the plant site:
(1) 4600 tons of nuclear grade reinforcing steel;
[l (2) American Crowler Crane Model 11310; (3) Kroll Tower Crane Model K10000.
(Copy of Advertisement attached hereto as Exhibit C).
Accordingly, it is readily apparent that the coribund Forked River project can-not be successfully maintained in a state of administrative limbo. To do soi.culd bl wholly inconsistent with the realities that dictate it be fully examined and reviewed by the Commission, not as a routine deadline extension, bu't rather as
[
f.
the extraordinary if not unique application which it clearly constitutes. The I
f routine processing of the within application would be singularly inappropriate in light of these facts, demonstrating that the Forked River porject is being dismantled,rath'er than approaching completion in a diligent manner, f
i i
.e V
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY MATTERS The public health, safety and welfare interests implicated by the within extension application are most succinctly recited by Mr. Robert
- 7.
Benedict in his July 24, 1979 memorandum previously discussed hereinabove:
The construction permit application was filed in 1970 and the construction permit was issued in 1973.
Plant construction.has proceeded slowly and is now only about 3% complete.
However, approximately 350 million dollars has been expended in design and equipment procurement. Assuming construction does not begin again for two or three years, the plant design.would be about 15 years old when the NRC begins the operating license review. The design would
[
probably deviate considerably from the then-current Standard Review Plan's acceptance criteria, making E
the staff's review more difficult and more time-consuming.
For example, the ASME Code to which the p
reactor vessel was purchased was the 1971 edition.
i The containment vessel was designed in accordance with i
Section VIII of the ASME code rather than Section III, I
as would be the case for plants of more recent design.
The seismic design criteria are old, but the applicant
- ~-
believes that a re-analysis would show that the plant would meet current criteria.
The NRC environmental review was completed in 1973.
Since then, additional generic environmental concerns E:
have arisen that will have to be addressed.
[c.
F Furthermore, in amplification of these NRC staff concerns, Gregory ii Minor of M.H.B. Associates has set forth in his affidavit attached hereto the following salient points concerning the potentially antiquated design of the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station:
A.
Standard Review Plan The Appheant for ne Forked River Plant applied for a construction permit in 1970 and was issued a C.P. in July, 1973. Thus, the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR). was not prepared with the benefit of the Standard Format and Content document first issued by the AEC in 1972.
This makes it a more time-consuming process to evaluate the design in terms of current regulations.
As time goes on and more regulations are revised and added,the gap between the Standard Review Plan and Forked River PSAR will widen, making it more difficult to assess the adequacy of the slant design.
4
In the case of Forked River, the Midland action, plus the River Bend decision, would indicate that the design should be reviewed against such safety issues as the following:
1.
The 1977 ACRS list of 28 unresolved issues.
l Table 11-1 shows a recent listing, some dating back as far as 1972 (e.g., ATWS).
2.
The 27 safety issues identified by the NRC Staff.
The NRC in 1974 tabulated the unresolved safety issues into an internal Technical i
Safety Activities Report (TSAR). When re-leased in 1975, the TSAR listed 223 items of concern to the NRC of which 173 were categorized as having an important in.cact on the licensing review process.
The NRC apparently discontinued the TSAR but in the fall of 1976, in response to a memorandus by Rusche of the NRC, one or more members of the NRC Staff identified 27 technical issues as problems whose priority, progress, or resolution was, in their opinion unsatisfactory. These are shown in Table III-2.
3.
Safety issues described in NUREG-0410.
In April, 1977 the NRC implemented a program for planning the timely resolution of generic technical issues.
Initially each of the f,our NRC divisions reporting to the Office of-Nuclear Reactor Regulation described and proposed those generic items it considered to warrant the highest priority.
Proposals were re-ceived for 355 tasks of which, following consolidation and elimination,133 tasks we' er eventually selected for review.
A set of uniform criteria was applied to the generic technical activities to establish their priority for resolution.
The 41 tasks shown in Table III-3 were classifed as Category A, warranting priority attention.
The remaining issues were divided into 72 Category B tasks,17 Category C tasks, and 3 Category D tasks as shown in Table III-4.
4.
Safety issues resulting from the TMI-2 Accident.
Several reports on the TMI-2 accident nave made substantive recommendations for improvement of reactor safety; some of which would be pertinent to a construction permit review.
The earlf est repcrt was NUREG-0560 on feedwater transients.
l
j s
The recommendations are shown in Table III-5.
The Lessons Learned Task Force also generated a list of 23 recommended areas of improvement described in table III-6.
In additiota the Kemeny Cormiission made more than 30 findings and 44 recommendations in the subjects shown in Table III-7.
Several of their findings and recommendations pertaining to the NRC licensing process and to technical issues have relevance to Forked River.
Perhaps the most directly applicable recomendation is as follows:
" Licensing procedures should foster early and meaningful resolution of safety issues before major financial commitments in construction can occur."
(emphasis added) c E
Mr. Minor then concludes his affidavit with this pertinent summary of
[:
the Forked River plant's construction status:
The design of the Forked River Nuclear Plant, being at least 10 years old at this time, and facing several s
E years of delay plus many additional years of construction, is being outdistanced by a rapidly changing technical and licensing environment. Therefore, it is important that the design be re-reviewed in such areas as the t
ability to meet current regulatory guides, the pressure i
vessel code criteria, the accident analysas in the PSAR,
[
the resolution of safety issues applicable to the plant t
and implementation of the numerous recommendations result-
)
ing from TMI.
The result should be a revised SER and a
" documentation of deviations." In keeping with the i
River Bend decision and because of the extensive delays experienced and forecasted in the Forked River construction, i
this re-review should be completed prior to recommencing construction.
NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSED MAJOR FED'RAL E
ACTICN SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTING THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT, 42 U.S.C. 54321,
' et seo. ; 83 Stat. 852, Pub. L.91-190 (1970).
g The decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission to in essence reissue f
the construction permit for the Ferked River Nuclear Generating Station un-i questionably constitutes a major federal action significantly affecting the i
human environment, thereby triggering the impact statement requirements cf I
NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 14321, g sec.
The NRC staff has itself recognized the f
outdated nature of its previous F.E.I.S. pertaining to this proposed nuclear j
plant:
?
.o.
. l
[
The NRC environmental review was contpleted in 1973.
Since then, additional generic environmental concerns have arisen that will have to be addressed.
(Benedict Memorandum, 7/24/79, Exhibit A).
It should be quite apparent that the earlier such environmental concerns are addressed, the more likely it will be that their resolution can be affected without substantial retrofitting or other costly alternations to plant equip-ment or operating features.
The opportunity to address these concerns in a timely fashion is particularly great in the instant case since the construction at Forked River is less than 5f. complete and has been unilaterally suspended by the Utility for at least the next two years. As a result of this construction
@I curtailment on a facility which has only a very minor portion of its eventual
[f hardware actually installed, no practical imepdiments exist to incorporating the lessons learned from doing a proper E.I.S. now rather than awaiting the operating license stage at which time the recomendations generated by the Statement will encounter the major impediment to adoption which 1.5 billion
[
i-dollars of prior invested capital expenditures constitutes.
[
E Moreover, the preparation cf an E.I.S. on this propcsed action new will P
E also provide a realistic opportunity to analyze the present siting of the
- ~
Forked River Nuclear Generating Station in the context of the most recent Comission regulations pertaining to this crucial public safety issue.
Since 1973, Ocean County, New Jersey, where the Forked River Station is now situated,
.has experienced a tremendous growth in resident population which raises a r:
E
' substantial issue as to its compliance with the current and rapidly evolving requirements applicable to plant siting.
See, e.o.,
UNREG-0625, Report of the Sit E policy Task Force (August 1979) and the Report of the President Commission on the l
Accident at Three Mile Island.
i 7
l
~
..(
i Additionally, numerous circumstances have changed since the A.E.C.
first completed its Final Environmental Impact Statement and the cost-benefit analysis for this nuclear plant.
The cost estimates alone have increased over 150%, while the need for additional peak demand electrical power in the P.J.M.
grid has been reduced substantially.
The other major electrical utility in
[
I New Jersey has abandoned its plans to construct four off-shore " floating" nuclear power plants due to the downward revision in the peak demand on its generating system.
Thus, with PSE&G havinti two nuclear power plants completed--
Salem Units One and Two--and two more nuclear stations under active construction--
Hope Creek Units One and Two--the State of New Jersey has more than sufficient
[
generating capacity to serve the needs of its residents, without the power to be j
generated by the proposed Forked River Station.
It is submitted that the above-identified factors must be fully analyzed by the NRC in an Environmental Impact Statement or supplemental to the prior f
r 1
outda'ted E.I.S. to determine that such a cost-benefit analyses justifies continued j i
construction of the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station,in light of updated i
F nee'ds analysis and plant siti.ig criteria.
~
Respectfully submitted.
STANLEY C. VAN NESS, PUBLIC ADVOCATE DEPARTMEU OF THE PUBLIC ADVOCATE
. A r\\
A-
'. r
. k hs
..n.'.
t O.... '
BY:
KEITH A. ONSDORFF
<g/
Assistant Deputy Public Advocate /
Division of Public Interest Advocacy DATED: January 4, 1980 l
I f
.g.
i
.