ML19261D771

Requests by Save Solanco Environ Conservation Fund That NRC Order Util to Show Cause Why Application Should Not Be Terminated

ML19261D771
Person / Time
Site:	05000463, 05000464
Issue date:	05/14/1979
From:	Sager L SAGER & SAGER ASSOCIATES
To:
Shared Package
ML19261D772	List: ML19261D771 ML19261D775 ML19261D779 ML19261D780 ML19261D781 ML19261D783 ML19261D785 ML19261D786
References
NUDOCS 7906260351
Download: ML19261D771 (7)

Text

.<

NRC PICC n ' _ ~ T.C T !

BEFORE THE /,

ll; UUITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C01EISSION gy -

.-y .

In the 14atter of ) hg d' ' '

)

Docket Nos. 50-463 #eY " ' .- -

50-464 'd. '

PHILADELPHIA' ELECTRIC COIIPANY) W/'N@

1 PETITION TO TERMINATE DOCKET..

AND TO O.UASH PREAPPLICATION AND EARLY REVIEN OF SITE SUITABILITV

'TO THE HONORABLE , HEARING BOARD OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY

.CO?P4ISSION:

Petitioner, Save Solanco Environment Conservation Fund,- by its attorney, RESPECTFULLY REPRESENTS AS FOLLOMS: ,

1. PStitioner ic intervening party in the above y captioned dochet.

2. The application for a construction permit by Philadel-phia Electric was originally filed with the Atomic Energy Commission on July 3. 1973. In about September, 1975, the aonlicant' suspended activity concerning the proposed construc-tion permit.

3. The application.of July 3, 1973 by Philadelphia Electric included an environmental report. In.that report, it was asserted' that additional nuclear generating capacity was J

necessary for the base load of the Philadelphia Electric sys en early in the 19'30 '.s , thus describing and justifying the need for the Fulton Generating Station.

2311 127 7906260551,

4. A final envircnmental statement relating to the proposed Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, was filed by the staff in April, 1975. The regulatory staff concurred in the need for additional electric gen,erating services as ,

suggested by the annlicant.

5 Time has clearly established that the forecast of both the anglicant and'the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been grossly in error ~~as to the need for additional generating canacity"inTthe early 1930's by the pronosed Ful'tonEGenerating Station.

6. The applicant' originally planned to construct twin 1,100 megawatt high temperature gas reactors manufactured by General Atomic Company. That company announced on September 17, r .y j 1975 that it would not manufacture the proposed units.

7. To date, to the best of the intervenor's knowledge,. ,

no substitute or alternace facility for the proposed site has been proposed formally to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

There has not been a safety evaluation concerning any proposed

< .r

- , , .c nuclear reactors for the site in question, f

S. On or about December 29, 1978, Philadelphia Electric Company submitted to Harold V. Denton, Director of the Office ,

of Nuclear Regulatory Regulation, its annlication for Early Site Suitability. Review. ,

9. The application relies on the 1973 submittal to the Atomic Energy Commission with respect to various issues nronosed for early site review. For exannle. the environmental effects of accidents, Chapter 7, relates to radiological consequences as set forth in the 1973 analysis.

2311 128

10. The application is defective in that it does not relate to a specific nuclear reactor that is pronosed to be sited at Fulton. Accordingly, an analysis of radiological consequances and environmental ef.fects of accidents is purely ,

speculative, conjec_tural, and unrelated'to anf facts.as proposed.

11. .Furthermore it is clear that the environmental effects of accidents have no significant relationship to the facts since that chapter does not ac' count for recent_ studies by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning accidents, nor the environmental effects of accidents as established by the Three Mile Island accident.

12. The. applicant now asserts that the need for additional generating capacity is necessary for the period from 1994 to 1999 (as opposed to ten to fifteen years earlier as indicated in its application cf 1973).

13. It is . submitted that any discussion in 1979 as to alternatives for energy sources fifteen to twenty. years later is inaporopriate contrary to the mandates.of the National Environmental Policy Act and would not be in the public interest since the degree of. likelihood that any early findings on these issues as well as others would retain their validity in later reviews as the faccs already well demonstrate.

14. Since the criainal filing, the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission has published the Reactor Safety Study and Review by the Levis panel. The Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission accepted-the findings of the special revieu group headed by 23il lj9

f.

Dr. Harold Lewis of.the University of California at. Santa Barbara. That group indicated that the prior reports and studies of the Commission, notably the Reactor: Safety Study, UASH-1400, had2not adequaEe'ly indicated the full extent of

~

the consequetices of reactor accidents and didinot sufficiently 3 emphasize"the uncertainties c involved in the calculation of their probability..

~

u .,

'- e:,

15. Theacceptance'of.the_cwisreifortwas,.in1979, L approxitiditely 5% years-after the initial application of f Philadelphia Electric, Milch of _the accident analysis 3.n therfs,,. ,

a:5 , ,_

_ _

original application 7

of ' Philadelphia of , . _

Electric wa_s based y.. uponf, o the premises and probability studies of'the now disclaimed ,

'r WASH-1400 Report. On or about March 2'J,1979, an accidsnt-

~

occurrdd at Three MiiE' Island.of significant safety concern ; .

~

t affecting the. underlying,; bases and foundations of the~Ntrclear .

~

Regulatory Commission 'concerning its policy with respect tor

.c sity ng ? safety <inspecti'ons., safety

' ' regulations, and the general

... 5.r,. . ,

review and.operatiori of nuclear power facilities. ,

av .

Without updatinaj.ps appliedti~en, Philadelphia

16. .

Electric now seek to 'have a site approved fo,r a possible

~

^

nuclear ~ reactor in Lancaster__ County, Pennsylvania. ,

Various governmental and sta'te agene.ies have objected to an early.

review of.the site issues-in accordance with 10 CFR, Appendix C, Part 50, Section 2.605, as not being in the public interest.

Attached hereto and made a part hereof:are copies of said objections. 23)l:)30

..' . . _ _ . . . . . . ..n_ _ . .

17. The early site revien process as set forth in Appendix 0, part 50, is contrary to the National Fnvironmental Policy Act ir, that it would allou a' utility to establish a situs for a nuclear never station without utilizing a systematic, interdisciplinary anproach which'will insure the integrated us2 of the natural.and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in~ decision making which may have an impact on man's environnent as required by the National Environmental. Policy Act,

18. "ithout knowing exactly what Philadelphia Electric proposes with. respect to a nuclear facility on the Fulton site, this Commission could not meet the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act since it could not make the review as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act while the actions of the Commission may significantly affect the quality of human environment.. Yet, the Commission would not be able .

to make a detailed statement of the environmental innact of the prooosed action since the nature of the proposed action is not fully _. established. The'Commis'sion would not be able to assess any adverse environmental effects which could be avoided since the nature of the pronosed action is not fully established. The Comcission would not be able to review and deal with alternatives to the crocosed action, esnecially concerning safety issuos~that nay affect man's environment, _

the disposal of radioactive waste, and the effects of low-12 vel radiation since the proposed facility has not been .

d2tarmined. For could the Connission detail the relationship

between local short-torn uses of man's environment in the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity and irratrievable and irreversible commitments of resources since the exact nature of the facility proposed has not been estab-lished. All of the aforesaid would create a reviev for the early site applicatioA'nithout meeting the mandates of the Natione.1 Environnental Policy Act and thus would be contrary

" -c ..

to the same.

19. hhcpre-apolicatIdNearlyreviewofsitesuitability-issues by Philadelphia Electric issues as. proposed by the' utility are, at best, abstract conclusions without foundation

,- ] 4 sit ja- .r. .g y _

and fact. The Early Site Suitability Review environmental-

'eck: /n 5 . , . . . . ,

renort is general, couched in conclusions without" foundation,-

m - ,r. . .

and not comprehensive to allon'for a full' Nation'l'a Environmental

e. ..

Policy Act, particularly wi'th~ reference to waste disposal ^,m "

, a -

environmental effects of acci'd'ents, effects of'lowilevol: me-

+-

4 rc , .

radiation, and the economics of nuclear power generation-that

~ .. ,_

'~~

presently exist.

The consequence ofPhiladelbhia Electrfc's application 20.

for an early site suitabf1fty revie*7 is to foist upon the public a pronosed site for a future nuclear facility without r.

a full cost-benefit analysis, a full environmental revicu as canatedbythe?.iationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct,-andwithout any bases in fcet for th2 coccitment o# billions of dollars of human r sources for a futu're' nuclear facilityof unknown

~

tyne, vnd without any degree of' likelihood that any findings in 1979 would have any relevence'lo the validity of later

.1: ,

2311 132

reviews ten to fifteen yenrs hence.

'7HEREFORE, petitioner prnys the Hearing Board to Order the utility to shou cause why its acclien. tion should not be tarninated, including the apnlication for Pre-Application Early Revieu of Site Suitability issues in accordance with Appendix 0 of Part 50 of the Sucionr Pegulatory Cocmission Regulations, and, if necessary, to certify such issues as this Board nay decn necessary to the full Comnission for review.

Respectfully subcitted, www - %g

. cr Lawrence Sager, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner SAGER & SAGER ASSOCIATES 45 High Street Pottstown, PA 19464 (215) 323-1328.

23l1 l33