ML19246A488
| ML19246A488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1979 |
| From: | Mark Flynn State of NY, Dept of Public Service |
| To: | Cohen E State of NY, Public Service Commission |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907030203 | |
| Download: ML19246A488 (4) | |
Text
E STATE CF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THE GOVERNCR NELSON A. ROCKEFELLER Ef.'PIRE STATE PLAZA ALBANY 12223 pusLic SERvict co.suissioN CHARLES A. 2 ELtNSdl
.s,jN% sg k[G PETE R H. SCHIFF Cha eman Generai Counsel Jacy- [k'pf',
o --
EDWA RD P. LA R KIN CARMCL CAR RINGTON MARR SAMUEL R. MADISON HA R OLD A. ;E R T1Y, J H.
% "( Q '.,..,
Secretary
}-
g e
,t A N N C F. '.' C A D KAREN 5. SUR STEIN RICHARD S. DOWER
'~ 'l g g.
...........'-f*
N
//
f"ay 2, 1979
^b ofb* [
-3 Cl2
\\o 1
Ihn. Edvard Cohen, Presiding Eyrciner h
- 4. jay %
gI V
Puh2'.c Scrvice C r i.ssion Dgire Stau_ I'laza g
,,N " Q ly Albanf IN 12223 y
\\r y
Fe: C76F C0006 - PAS'N - Greene County Decc Fxaminer Cohen:
Staff of the Depert:mnt of Public Service noved Cn 7pril ;,
1979 to di miss the Greene County Article VIII application.
The Pc.eer 7.athority of the State of ::c'. Ycik filed papers on I.pril 16th cppcsing our notion and presenting a cross-mtion to hold this proceeding in alcyanca for six nrnths. 'Ihis letter responds to PIS.N's cross-notien.
PI6:N prcposes to report on the status )f the application by Octcher 16, 1979 because it believes our dimissal nutien is (1) prerature cod '2) my cause the less of environnrntal data cathered for the Greene Ctunty prcceeding. The second clain is easily refuted:
the 7rticle VIII Pules of Prccedure provide that an applicant my use data gathcred by another parson as lcng as the data a e reliable end veuld otherwise cc: gly with apolicable regulaticns.* So if PIS:2 found c substitute anplicant or if this application were dimissed and PIS N retiled, the Grecne County data would not be "lcet."
I6 1:fCPR 71.10:
"Use of Jvailable Data. 'Ihe 7.pplicant ray utilize reliable available infor ation gathered by another perscn if such inferration veuld other.eise comly with the rcqttrc~.T.ts of this Sutchapter."
257
/
q%
7907030203
W Hcn. nicard 02cn Pay 2, 1979 PISN's first argu cnt, that it is nrc ature to decide cur noticn, runs counter to the statutcry ti c lirit for deciding pending Article VIII cascs.
This point was rade in the Ipril 18, 1979 response by Citizens to Preserve tha Hudsen, et al.
Case 80006 must Ec decided by Echruary 4,1980, or less than four months after PTS:N proposes to Terely report on the status of the case.*
In passing the ne-e A~icle VIII statute, the I.ngislature intended to exMtiously conclude casas filed under the old law.
PPS'"I's proposal of a si : mnth hiatus guarantees that the statutcry deadline will not he met. !Tnile the Siting Board ray waive the devM ine to build a record on specific issues, it may not suspend the procecding for the reasons PASMY has asserted. PIE Z's cross-rction, therefore, rust be denied.
P;X E clairs at page 3 that its cross-rotion is censistent w m precedent in another Article VIII case. Eut the situations are not co parable.
In its Arthur Kill prcceeding (Case 80004), P;EN was allmzed tire to search for another site for use hy the sama rode of generation (i.e., coal), tut its e:<isting prire and alternate sites remined in the proced.ing.
Or, to use the euphe~ ism now in vocue, PIS'.T! did not prcpcse to " sell the. assets" cf the Arthur Kill plant and terminate its involvcent. Ca the ot"er ha.d, PPS'N has abandoned the Cc:nenten a.d Athens sites for the only rode of ge.eraticn its acplication propcscs. With no plans to build a nuclear statica at either Cc:enton or Athens, there is nothing left to consider in the Grecne County proccoding.
If there is any precedent to guide the present situntion, it is Cases C0001 and 80003.
POchester Cas & Electric first filed an applicaticn to build a coal plant at Sterling cr Ginna (Case 80001).
When it decided to ch=nge the rode of generation frcn coal to nuclear, PG&E did not revise or a~ond its criginal applicnica, but filed an entirely rew cpplication (Case 80005).
It is true that Case 80001 was not dismissed when Case S0005 was pursued.
FC&E, hcwever, never tried to " sell the assets" of its coal facilin, but rather used the coal plant as an alternate to its nuclear g plication.
PSL S 149-a(3) (ii) as added by L. 1978, c.7C8:
"[Alny board decision with respect to an applica:icn filed pursuant to the provisiens of article eight as added by said chapter three bu-la d eighty-five [i.e.,
the 'old' A~.icle VIII] shall he reached wi@.in eighteen nrnths of the effective date of t".is act, prcvided hc'..ever that the heard nny waive the deadline in ord = to give consideratica to specific issues necessary to develcp an adecuate record."
273 258
(.-
Ucn. Edward Cohen Pay 2, 1979 P7EN hints at page 2 that it ray revise the Greene County application to include a coal plant at Athens. At the outset, it should be reac~bered that P7EE's failure during the early stages of this pro-ceeding to present a fally developM coal alternate was a decisicn made at its ovn risk (see correspondence between Chairran Kahn and Chair:"an Fit:Patrich, dated Oct. 22, 1976 and Nov. 16, 1976).
Since the present aoplication seeks cnly a nuclear plant and since PTSSY's Trustees have resolved fomally to construct only a nuclear facility in Greene County (see respcnse to CPS Interrogatory 72-29), a coal plant at Athens vruld not te a technical revision to the existing applicatica -- it kould be a ccrplete change of plans. As in PG&E's cases, a change in the very substance of the plans calls for a new application, since the envircn-nrntalirpacts of a coal plant are significantly differen:. than those of a nuclear facility.
In addition to the obvious differences in air irpact, a coal plant vould require the transoortation, storage, and disposal of large a cunts of coal and, probably, lir.e or lirnstone for a desulfurization systm.
Toise, solid waste, licuid vaste, and terrestrial ecolcgy innacts would change greatly. A higher stack for the coal plant would alter - and take v.crse -- the aesthetics irpact ncw predicted for the nuclear facility. The necessity to develcp a Section 402 discharge per:'it for Athens and to apply to tre U.S. Traf Corps of r gincars for a dredge and fill parrit (thus triggering a federal I" IPA revicu) illustrate both the differences bethecn the present and a so-called " revised" Greene County applicatica and the ir. possibility of reaching a decision en a " revised" application within the statutory deadline.
?nother problem with a " revised" appli ation for a coal plant at Athens i;culd be the lack of an alternate site.* Ccrnnten is too c all in size to acccaulate 12C0 negawatts of coal capacity, and particulate standards are ncw being violated in the inmediate vicinity. To incorporate by reference cne of tha sites in the Arthur Kill proceeding is not proper, t.e tolieve, unless the opportunity for hearings is afforded all parties.
The cm rcence of anofb2r applicant-proposed alternste site kould illustrate the charcfe of calling a coal application for athens mrely a " revision" to the nuclear applicaticn at Cem nton. Ind, again, adcqaate consideration could not te given to a new alternate site within the statutory tire lirit.
16 INCFR 7E20(c) :
"The failure of an applicant to suh-it a cc olete case with respect to at least t'.;c locations suitable for the prcycsed facility ray provido a grcund for dimissing its acplicaticn as not peritting a reasonable basis upcn Utich the tcard ray deterr.ine that the proposed f rility reprocents the rinimum adve se envircrrental inpact within the reaning of section 146 of
- D+1ic Service Lau, unless the applicant cically desenstrates t'at its prcposed site is the cnly reasonable location for the facility or any alcernate facility."
273 259
Hon. Edward Cohen Fay 2, 1979 A "reviced" application v.culd si. ply be an attegt by P7 sci to preserve its need exemptica (cf S 146 (2) (f) of de "old" Article VIII to the cere ceden of the Lr.cs of 2 978, chapter 705).*
lbr shculd the Cccone County proceeding it held in abeyance on the ground that PI-S:Ci needs ti.me to find a substitute applicant. In applicant villing to continua - and to conclude in a timly nunr.er -
a proceeding to cercify a nuclear facility at Cementen is not likely t.o be found. Tnis is particularly true for two reaccns:
the envircrrantal inpacto predicted for Cc anten cnd the deter-inaticn by PIE 71's 'Irustees that the plant is uncconcntic.
P7FAl'c cross--nction cannot he gr nted because of the statutory deadline for deciding this case. A " revised" applicatien n a substitute applicant are fictions t.ich shculd not he tolerated. With the vote by P7E!Y's Trustees not to continue its purcuit of a nuclear facility at Comanten or Athens, the tire cc:'e to end the Creene County prceecding.
DPS ctaff urges that a.ts notion for dimissal of Cace 80006 he granted.
Very truly yours, h$l.fc W l ?f" MICHAEL FLY:':
Staff Counrel cc: Hon. Donald Carcon, Associate Dc'riner All parties T S 146(2) (f) of Se "cid" Trticle VIII:
"[T] hat the facility will carve e public interest, convenience, a-d necessity, provided, however, that a deter &.ation of necessity for a facility r.ade by the pe"ar au&crity of the state of ::c.; Ycrh purevant to section ten hundred five of de cublic authorities law shall be conclusive on the heard."
5 146 (2) (f) as added by L. 1973, c.703:
"[T] hat the facility will serve the public interest, convenicnce and necessity, provided, hcvever, that a detemination of necessity for a facility cada by the pc.nr auecrity of the state of tiew York pursuant to section ten hundred five of the pu'elic authorities law for dich an "mlication for a cenificate has teen file? crior to Julv first, nineteen hun &cd nventv-cicht shall be conclusive en the board " (e".pnasis accod).
273 260