ML19260C846

Requests,Submitted on Behalf of Georgians Against Nuclear Energy,That NRC Suspend CPs Due to Recent Evidence That Plants Are Unnecessary.Hearings Should Be Conducted Re Need for Facilities & Compliance W/Regulations

ML19260C846
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	01/30/1980
From:	Flack G FLACK, G.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8002060242
Download: ML19260C846 (2)

Text

t--# '

JOHN R. MYER 5ets us* Ley evitoiwo THOMAS A. BOWMAN RCGERT H. STROUP AT N A GEC O A 303C3 GARY FUCK 4o4/saa.ies4

^ " " * " " ' ' ' " January 30, 1980 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Georgia Power Company Docket Nos. 50-424 &~50-425

Dear Mr. Denton:

Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE) requested the oppor-tunity to comment on the new information alluded to in the Commission's October 31 Order in this matter. On January 11, 1980, I was advised that the only new information was the November 27 letter from W. E. Ehrensperger on behalf of Geor-gia Power Company to you. The comments herein reflect the reactions of GANE to the most recent data submitted by Georgia Power.

The November 27 letter purported to inform you about two develop-ments which relate to the GANE communications. However, it omitted a third relevant development. On October 27, in a separate legal proceeding, attorneys for Georgia Power Company represented that the Company was negotiating the sale of large portions of the Scherer Plants to sister companies, Gulf Power and Mississippi Power. The attorneys suggested the sale would result in a permanent loss of power to Georgians of approximate-ly 1200 MW of capacity. This result exceeds the earlier company report to you by 400 MW.

The November 27 letter itself supports the earlier comments of GANE. The Company has now recognized that GANE is correct and the previous Company projections of the growth rate were too large. The Company's current projection of 4.03% in system demand growth for the period 1979 to 1980 is virtually impossible to achieve since the 1979 actual, as opposed to projected, growth in demand was less than 1%. Demand from the depressed economy of 1980 would have to generate a miraculous load growth of approximately 7% to achieve the Company's current projection.

This projection is no more correct than earlier growth projec-tions that the Company had already provided to the Commission.

O

\

1933 221 8002060$)YES-

Mr. Harold R. Denton Page Two January 30, 1980 The Company's current projections of 4.03% growth is substan-tially less than the 4.6% growth rate adopted by the Com-mission in April, 1979. We do not believe the Company altered its methodology in preparing this projection; thus, the criticisms of Dr. Choi which GANE submitted to you, are still valid. We believe the actual growth in demand in the Georgia Power service area will be much slower than Georgia Power's new projections of growth. While this may be harmless enough on paper, it is or will be disastrous fiscally. Three major Georgia Power units were out of service during the 1979 system peak, including the two nuclear units at Plant Hatch. Yet, the system experienced no reliability problems. In fact, it sold power outside the service area throughout the summer.

Assuming that the Company makes all the sales of plants it now seeks to make, i.e., 30% of Vogtle or 660 MN to Florida Power and Light, and 1200 MW of Plant Scherer to companies outside the State of Georgia, then the Georgia service area will be surren-dering 1860 MN of power to ,ystems outside of the Georgia Power service area. It will not necessitate substantial conser-vation, slower growth, solar energy, load management or national energy policies to m_ke up the rentaining 340 MW of capacity which Vogtle will theoretically supply.

For these reasons, we thi' i that Georgia Power's most recent evidence documents that tae Vogtle plants are unnecessary to supply Georgians with eJactricity. We urge the Commission to suspend the constructio?. permit and conduct hearings on whether both units of this plant is necessary and whether all the requirements of law have been met.

Very truly yours, k omf Gary Flack GF/1 cc: W. E. Ehrensperger Stephen G. Burns G. F. Trowbridge 1933 222