ML19224B868
| ML19224B868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | New Haven |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1979 |
| From: | Daly H, Weber S ECOLOGY ACTION OF OSWEGO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906270111 | |
| Download: ML19224B868 (9) | |
Text
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC PUBLIC DOCUMEM M In the matter of )
) Docket No. S~N 50-596 and 597 New York State Electric and Gas Co. ) h D and Long Ialand Lighting Co. ) @ \
New F.aven 1 and 2 ) e g opG c
Y-9 SUPPLEMENT YO PETITION TO INTERVENE
% f CONTENTIONS 3Y ECOLOGY ACTION OF CS'JEGO #h b 9 Contention 1 6 Applicant (and NRC Staff analysidhas failed to de=onstrate that the two co o,,,.acants (NYSEG and LILCO) and/or the N.Y.S. Power Pool need the power to meet growth in total energy use and/or peak de=and. Applicant's projections are erroneous because:
(1) Applicant's total energy use and peak de=and predictions fail to adequately consider:
- a. i= pact of =andatory and voluntary electricity conservation efforts in the residential, co==ercial, and industrial sectors (e.g., redesign of refrigeration syste=s, improved building design, = ore efficient industrial processes, etc.);
- b. i= pact of substitution of alternate fuels by the residential, co==ercial, and industrial sector (e.g., wood stoves, s=all scale solar panels, small-scale wind mills, co-generation, etc.);
- c. i= pact of changes in rate structure under consideration in N.Y.S.;
(2) Applicant's forecast =ethodologies cae inadequate: they have proved unreliable in the past, producing forecasts wnich have been consistently too high; (3) Applicant's projections are based on an ince=plete and/or inaccurate data base. Examples include: current appliance and =achine efficiency and potential for i= prove =ent in e clicant efficiencies, saturation of alternate energy forms for individual custe=er use and poteatial for increase (e.g., wood stoves, solar panels, etc.), contribution to peak load by different customer classes, electricity conservation potential by different custc=er classes, quantification of past and present conservation efforts, and populatica changes (e.g., i==igration and emigratica rates, birth rates, etc.
(4) NYSEG's projections are far above those for other N.Y.S. utilities: they have failed to provide sufficient evidence that this discrepancy is based on real economic /de=ographic differences, rather than on poor forecasting methodology.
Cententien 2 Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has inadequately considered alternatives to the proposed nuclear and ccal plants, and statements concerning alternatives feasible in the early 1990's 1a the ER centradict the infor=ation released on April 1, 1979, in the N.Y. Power Pool's filing under Art. III, Section 5-112 (see in particular volume 3, ch. 2). (Co-applicants are =e=bers of this Pcwer Pool.) The Applicant has incorrectly dis =issed the following alternatives:
(1) large scale wind =achines en Lake Ontario for supply of pcwer of NYSEG, and on the Atlantic Ocean for supply of pcwer to LILC0; (2) "Tornedo" buildin; concept for large and small scale wind machines; (3) burning of garbag i in conjunction with coal in either small scale plants or large scale plants; (4) hydroelectric pcwer; (5) s=all scale wind sills and small scale solar panels; 419 (6) fluidiced bed cc=bustion; 020 (7) fuel cells (8) coal liquefaction; (9) thermal gradients between " waste" heat discharge frc= existing pcuer plants and existing heat sink; ,
(10) wave pcuer; 7906270/[f p
2 ,
(11) conservation of energy techniques, ranging from voluntary to mandatory measu 2s, and from small scale to large scale efforts. (Tor examples of feasible conservation techniques refer to existing literature in tl.e area.) Applicants should prepare a detailed study of conservation potential in their service territory.
(12) supplying power, if needed, by purchase of power from other utilties within the United States and Canada.
Contention 3 The Applicant has failed to provide the NRC with an adequate assessment, discussion, and decisions regarding alternative fuel sources because the Applicant is biased toward large scale generation. Nu=erous technologies are rejected (e.g. , fuel cells, hydro-electric, wind, biomass, etc.) on the basis that they could not provide the total 2500 MW capacity in the year of need. In fact, load growth does not grow in 2500 MW units, and it is incorrect to dismiss small-scale generation alternatives for that reason Contention 4 The Applicant's site selection process (and NRC Staff analysis) is inadequate and the discussion in Section 9 cf the ER is not sufficiently cocplete for proper development of appropriate alternatives as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Applicant's site selection process:
(1) was biased in f avor of large-scale generation and f ailed to search for numerous small sites near load centers (e.g., eight sites with potential for one 300 MW plant, sixteen sites with potential f or one 150 MW plant, etc.), (see section 9.2.2.1, part 2);
(2) gave undue consideration in its identification of reco= mended sites to low population density by atributing too =uch benetit to low population considerations (see Figure 9.2-10 for exa=ple);
(3) the consideration of population in identification of sites constitutes impermissible discrimination against persons living in low population areas by restrictin siting of nuclear power plants to such areas. Such discrimination results because of the additional risk i= posed on residents of low population areas to the hazardous consequences of exposure to accidental release of radioactive fission products; (4) was biased ; ward finding new virgin sites rather than utilizing existing spoiled unfilled sites (see N.Y. Power Pool l'ong range planning reports for description of numerous unfilled sites with existing power plants).
Contention 3 The Applicant's site screening process (and NRC staff analysis) to identify candidate sites was not adequate enough to uncover existence of sensitive features on and near the proposed site prior to spending large sums of money to study the site.
These sensitive features include such things as: the existence of the New Haven Elementary School (1. 2 =iles west, downwind, of the site), the Mexico Elementary School, the Fravor Road School, 3oces, and the Mexico Junior-Senior High School all within a miles of the site, and a total of 35 sencols within 15 =iles of the site; special wildlife use areas (e.g., fancus Derby Hill), flyvay for huge nu=bers of birds (including endangered species), Butterfly and Catfish Creek; Nestle's Chocola:e factory which uses locally produced milk; etc. These and other sensitive f eatures must clearly lead to the rejection of the proposed site.
419 .
02i Contentien 6 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has not adequately considered the adverse impacts on existing health f acili:ies and services (e.g., hospitals, =edical personnel and equip ent) within 50 miles of the proposed primary site (e.g., New Haven, Mexico and other :cwns, Oswego and other cities) during construction and operation of the plants
, 3 n
(Contention 6 cont.)
The Applicant has:
(1) underassessed the adverse i= pact on existing facill:1es and services of the increased work force and their fa=ilies during normal construction activii .es; i (2) failed to adequately consider che impacts on the facilities an' arvices if an accident no involving radiation exposure should occur (e.g. , scaf f. _ag of cooling tower collapses, resulting in numerous injuries);
(3) failed to adequately consider impacts on the facilities and services of an accident (excluding class 9) involving radiation to plant workers during operation of the plant; (4) failed to adequately cons ?.er the i= pact on the f acilities and services of an accident (excluding class 9) invo ving radiacion releases beyond the site boundary.
Contention 7 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to provide adequate assurcece that it can finance construction and operation of the propc'3d plants as required by Part 50, Appendix C. In fact, there is evidence that one co-applicant is not a serious co-applicant, one reason being its inability tu finance the proj^ct (see Er. ology Action, Case 80008, Motion for Dismissal, March 20, 1979, and Interlocut cy Appeal to Coc=ission on Denial of Motion for Dismissal, April 26, 1979).
Contention 8 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has inadequately assessed the adverse effects of the extensive high voltage (765 KV) transmission required from the New Haven site to load centers on:
(1) the biological health and stress of hu=ans, animals, and plants (wildlife and agriculture), living, working, crossing, and/or playing in its vicinity, due to its electric and =agt etic fields and ozone production; (2) the psychological health of humans living, working, or playing in its vicinity (caused for example by noise, TV and radio disruption, etc.);
(3) the greater nu=ber of co== unities and individuals impacted by its construction and operation in co=parison to the smaller nu=ber impacted it the power source were located adjacent to load centers; (4) ratepayers who will bear increased econc=ic costs due to loss of electricity frc= the long distance transmission required because =cre than enough pcwer is already generated in the area for the existing nearby load centers.
Centention 9 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has underesti=ated the decrease in reliability of trans=ission because of:
(1) the long distance of the primary site to lead centers; (2) the huge trans=1ssion requirements already needed for existing plants and those under construction (NMll, NMJ2, Fitepatrick dl, Oswego d 1-6), and the pessibility of " bot: led-up" power and system instability due to large a= cunts of power generated in ene area; (3) the increased potential for large blackouts in 'I.Y.3. if hu=an error, :errorism, or " acts of god" disrupt sections of the transmissice grid, due to the huge percentage of pcwer for N.Y.S. generated in this area. A1 r 9i/ 02<9 Contentien 10 The Applicant's decision process (and NRC Staff analysis) concerning si:e and fuel
= ode was incorrectly biased by Applicant's desire to =ake =cney for itself and its s:cck holders rather :han :o meet and/or reduce de=and in the cheapest, safest, and =cs:
enviren=entally cc=patible fashicn.
4 Contention 11 The Applicant's decision (and NRC Staff analysis) concerning pri=ary fuel mode was pre =aturely made, and biased subsequent analyses considering alternative fuel codes.
Contentien 12
. The Applicant (and NRC Staf f analysis) has inaccurately assessed the adverse impact of the proposed plants on recreation within a 20 mile area of the site. The Applicant ha (1) inaccurately assessed the level of prasent recreation and projected increases are too low; (2) failed to analy:e the acserse i= pact on the surrounding co=sunities from the inancial impact on the recreation industry should an accident (less than Class 9) occur; (3) failed to analyze the adverse psychological impact en potential users of recreation areas of past and future "3rowns Ferry" incidents and "3 Mile Island" accidents, and the resultant adverse financial i= pact on the recreation industry when people avoid recreation areas near nuclear plants (e.g., the numerous people who have still not returned to the 3 Mile Island area, and the even more numerous people who will now avoid the area);
(4) failed to analy:e the magnitude of the adverse aesthetic i= pact of the proposed facilities on recreational sports such as: birding (e.g., at the renowned Derby Hill), watching sunsets over Lake Ontario, particularly from the eastern shores of Lake Ontario, e.g., Selkirk Shores State Park (their beauty is similar co those of Acapulco), hiking, horsebackriding, swi= ming, boating, camping, picnicking, cross country skiing, fishing, snow =cbiling, motorcycling, etc.
Contention 13 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has underestimated the impact of the combined continuous thermal aqueous discharge from the Oswego units #1-6, NM#1, NM#2, and Fitzpatrick #1 on fish, benthic, and algae population and its impact on reliable cooling water (e.g., recent algae bloom screen clogging incident at Nine Mile Point). In addition, Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has underesti=ated the i= pact of interaction between the operation of the _ intake and discharge structions (ER section 5).
Contention 14 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has underestimated the adverse impact of the proposed cooling towers on:
(1) aesthetic i= pact on local residents and people using the area for recreation purposes; (2) hazards of chemicals released into the atmosphere and lake on terrestrial and aquatic ecciagy and agriculture; (3) hazards of the intermixing of the Oswego #1-6 cil fired (over 2000 MW) unit's atmospheric plu=e and the atmospheric plu=e of the proposed cooling tower (e.g., acid rain on agriculture, homes, Tughill and Adirondacks region),
(4) increased icing and snow fall in the surrounding snowbelt areas.
Contention 15 Ihe Applicant (and NRC Staf f analysis) has failed to provide reasonable and economic uses for " waste" heat frec the propcsed nuclear :r coal plants (e.g.,
aqua-culture, growth of forests for wond production, co-generation, etc.).
419 .
023
5 Contention 16 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to propose an adequate radiation monitoring program during plant operation because:
(1) there ara an insufficient number of =onitors at various distances from the proposed site; (2) the radiation monitoring system does not ensure that releases from =ansade
~
sources of radiaticn such as releases from the NM#1 and Fitzpatrick #1 plants will not inflate background radiation estimates, thus resulting in an underestimation of the pcoposed New Haven releases; (3) the radiation monitoring system will not adequately sort out the source (Nine Mile Point site vs. New Haven site) associated with the releases.
Contention 17 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to estimate the radiation doses received by residents along the truck routes for shipments offsite of low, medium, and high level waste,and has thus failed to assess the magnitude of the resulting health effects.
Contention 18 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has underestimated the adverse health effects (including genetic effects) of the proposed nuclear plants on the surrounding human population due to normal operatict. of the plant, and will net be able to adequately determine the health effects giver Le proposed monitoring system.
Contention 19 The Applicant (cnd NRC Staff analysis) has underestimated the adverse health effects (including genetic effects) of the proposed nuclecr plants on the surrounding human population due to releases durint accidents (less than claes 9), and will not be able to adequately determine the health effects given the proposed monitoring syst.
Contention 20 The Applicant's (and NRC Staff analysis) monitoring program for deter =ining health effects and bicaccumulationg factors used in deter =ining concentration of radioactive isotopes in wild aai=als (land and water), domestic animals, dairy and beef cattle (agriculture), and humans (including =cther's = ilk) has failed to be of sufficient magnitude to assess the magnitude of the impact of the proposed nuclear plants.
Centention 21 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to accurately assess the increment health risk to the surrounding population (within 30 =iles) due to the addition of the fourth and fifth nuclear plant due to nor=al radiation releases and those resulting frc=
an incident or accident (less than class 9).
Cententien 22 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has underassesred the potential risk of a sericus accident (less than class 9) at the proposed nuclear plants, and has thus underestimated the resulting health effects of the propcsad plante.
4i9 024
__ __ _: .;_ . . . _ - _ _ . . _ . . 2.__2_.
6 Contention 23 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to essess the economic, social, and environmental and health consequences of a class 9 accident.
Contention 24 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to esti= ate the probability
~
of a class 9 accident due to:
(1) human error; (2) design error; (3) construction error; (4) quality assurance error; (5) sabotage (6) interaction among the above mentioned factors, and has thus underesti=ated the economic, social, environmental and health effects of the proposed nuclear plants.
Contention 25 The Applicant (and NRC Staf f analysis) has failed to estimate the probability of a less than class 9 accident due to:
(1) hu=an error; (2) design error; (3) construction error; (4) quality assurance error; (5) sabotage (6) interaction a=ong the above =entioned factors, and has thus undereetisated the economic, social, env! ontental effects of the proposed nuclear plants.
Contention 26 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis), by f ailing to assess the probability and consequences of a class 9 accident has underestimated the impacts centioned in Contentions 6, 12, 19, 21, 22, and 25.
Centention '7 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to:
(1) determine the feasibility of developing an adequate emergency plan and evacuation plan in both the rural, urban, and recreation areas within 30 =iles of the site; (2) determine the feasibility of developing an adequate emergency plan and evacuation plan for the institutional population within 15 miles of the proposed site (29,996 , see Table 2.1-32), including the 9,3c3 (see same Table) people concentrated at the State Universi:y of New York College at Oswego; (3) determine the cost of developing an adequate e=ergency plan and evacuation plan for the utility, state, and local govern = ental agencies.
Contentien ,3 419 025 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed :o:
(IT determine the cost of a core celtdown (partial or co=plete) which shuts dcwn the proposed nuclear plants after a few conth or years of operation (e.g., 3 =cn:hs as in 3 Mile Island; (2) develop a financial plan to deal with a pre =ature shutdown of the proposed nuclear plants due to legal, safety, or accident related events at the New Haven plants, the Nine Mi? Point site, or at any nuclear plant in the world.
7 Contention 29 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to outline procedures to bc employed to avoLd computer program errors in design of the nuclear plants (e.g.,
see cause of shutdown of five nuclear reactors including Fitzpatrick #1).
Contention 30 The Applicant has failed to determine the ecs of all changes in design, construction practices, employee training practices, operating procedures, etc.,
it will be required to make as a consequence of the 3 Mile Island accident.
Contention 31 The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that it can find qualified people to optrate the p1;nt, especially considering it has no current nuclear plant with trained personn. to draw upta.
Contention 32 The Applicant has failed to assess the increased risk and increased radiation exposure from a low and medium level nuclear waste incinerator constructed on or near the site to handle wastes from the proposed New Havm nuclear plants. (This contention will be withdrawn if the Applicant submits legal documents issuring it will never construct such a facility.) To avcid increcental decision making, the Applicant's intention must be determined now.
Contention 33 The Applicant has failed to accurately assess the increa'ed s risk to the surrounding population of storing spent fuel on the site. This =ust be done for sev1ral realistic scenarios including a tsu=ptions for shipments offsite every 5, 20, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 years.
Contention 34 The Applicant has failed to assess the econcaic impact of corrosion, cracking, and denting problems experience at other plants on the design and operation of its proposed ruelear plants.
Contention 35 The Applicant's cost / benefit analysis (and NRC Staff analysis) is in error because it has substantially underestimated the cost of electricity produced by the proposed nuclear plants. Applicant's cost calculations are erroneous because it is based on inaccurate assessments of.
(1) the cost of deco =missioning (:co low);
(2) fuel and operating costs for the life:L=e of the r.cclear plaat oo low);
(3) the life expectancy of the plan: (:co high);
(4) 1:s assumed capacity f actor (69") (too high);
(5) the cost of replace =en: power when plants are not cperating (has not been included in the total cost);
(6) the capi:al costs (:co low);
(7) the escalation fac:cr for capital costs (too low);
(3) the cos: of borrowing money to build nuclear plante (:co law),
(9) the cost of ::ans=1::ing elec:ricity (:co low);
(10) the insurance rates (:co lev);
(11) the cost of guarding the plants against sabotage (:co Icw:
- 12) the cost of the on-si:e emergency plan (too icw); 419 026 (13) the costs of onsite spen: fuel storage ( co law);
(14) the cost of disposal of nuclear waste ( co Icw).
S Contention 36 The Appiicant has failed to analyze or has underestimated the following costs which =ust be included in the final cost / benefit deter =ination. These costs are:
(1) the health care costs to the surrounding population of the adverse effects on health due to routine and accidental radiation release fro = the plants; (2) the social, psychological, and econo =1c cost to the surrounding population of significantly upgrading due to the addition of two nuclear plants of the offsite e=ergency plan and evacuation plan as regards required facilities (e.g., Coast guard, hospitals , schools, etc. ) and services (e.g., local and state police, fire, civil defense and preparedness, ambulance, etc.);
(3) the decreased land values around the site (especially since 3 Mile Island);
(4) the pessibility of decreased expansion of industrial growth in the county due tc existence of five nuclear plants, thus diminishing job oppdrcunities and the tax base; (5) the department or f ailure to expand of existing industry to escape risks of nuclear power (e.g., Nestle's Chocolate, Miller Brewery, Schlit: brewery, Alcan, etc.)
thus diminishing the tax base and job opportunities; (6) the increased cost of electricity which will be paid by co-applicant's rate payers as t consequence of *he plant being built; (7) the economic, soc. , and ecological costs on the Oswego County area of two deco ==issioned nuclear plants (e.g., loss of tax base, land loss, existence of huge guarded fence, etc.);
(8) the total number of i==ediate and latent human dea and illnesses caused by all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle for the entire life the radioactive substances produced; (9) the unavailability of nuclear fuel after 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 or 35 years of operation; (10) the incremental econo =1c. social, environmental, and health impact due to the incre= ental threat to the area in wartime, because of the increase fro =
three to five nuclear plants in the arca.
Contention 37 The Applicant has failed to accurately assess ns=erous costs of the proposed nuclear plants (see Contentions 35 and 36), and thus its oil substitution argument is false.
Contention 38 The Applicant's (and NRC Staff analysis) seismic analysis underestimates the potential for a large earthquake in the New Haven area during the lifetime of the proposed nuclear plants.
Contention 39 The Applican: (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to co=pletely analy:e the effects of a loss of coolant accident, particularly with respect :o the impact of hydrogen generation.
Con:ention 40 The Applicant (and NRC Staff analysis) has failed to assess and include in the cost analysis, the increased cost of selecting the nuclear reac:or :ype and =anufa :urer more than la years (probably cicser to 20-25 years if ever), prior :: cperation of the nuclear plants (e.g., due to design changes, penal:1es fro = supplier due to delnys, cancellation of the order, =caification in the order, changes in the supplier, e::.).
419 .
027
9 Note: At the advice of the NRC Staff's attorneys, we have included in the above contentions that the NRC staff's analysis in eithe. inaccurate, incoc:ple te ,
etc., even though there has been no NRC Staff analysis issued to date. We understand that inclusion of this statenent will nat jeopardize or influence the contentions in any way.
Subctitted by, q
J.L % w ?.L. 1, 4 4L2 r i
Su:ance Weber, President, Icciogy Action West Lake Road, RD3, Oswego, N.Y.
i i
..o .
N.t.,
Helen Dal';, Icclogy Action Intervention Coordinator u.ay 11, 1979 9e rvic- address: Icology Action,c/o Helen Daly
'i. River Rd., RO #5 Oswego, 13126
'..Y.
l} } }} All parties _ _}}