crucial is the role of New York City and Westchester County in the economy of the nation that the effects will be felt from coast to coast and in international trade as well. 7. Moreover, if the operation of Unit 2 is delayed, additional amounts of pollutants will be added to the New York City atmosphere, as set forth in the supporting affidavit annexed hereto, because of the resulting need to continue the operation of older, less efficient fossil-fueled plants. Thus, the early operation of Unit 2 will produce a significant affirmative environmental benefit. 8. In addition to the adverse effects on the health, safety and economic well-being of the public which would be caused by a delay in the operation of Unit 2, the financial cost to the Applicant, and to its customers, will be substantial. The elements comprising these unnecessary costs are set forth in the supporting affidavit annexed hereto. The inevitable reflection of these costs in increased consumer rates for electric service would be contrary to the national effort to combat inflation. 9. In view of the foregoing facts and the fact that Applicant had fully complied with the requirements of NEPA as construed by the AEC prior to the Court's decision, Applicant and the public that it serves should not be penalized by being forced to await completion of the full procedural requirements of NEPA if operation of the plant is otherwise permissible. 10. Any license issued to Applicant would, of course, be conditioned on compliance with Federal and State standards and requirements for the protection of the environment in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50, Appendix D. This condition, together with an expedited schedule for completion of NEPA procedures, as provided for in the proposed order submitted herewith, and the requirement that any operating license issued would be subject to continuance, suspension, modification or revocation based upon the results of these procedures, provides the necessary assurance that operation of the plant will not be permitted to continue in disregard of NEPA requirements. Respectfully submitted. LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE, Dated: August 17, 1971. Partner. United States of America, Atomic Energy Commission Commissioners: (Docket No. 50-247) IN THE MATTER OF CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. (INDIAN POINT STATION, No. 2 UNIT) ORDER It is hereby ordered by the Atomic Energy Commission that the following procedures shall be followed by the parties to this proceeding and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") in compliance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954: 1. The Applicant shall file a supplement to its environmental report by September 9, 1971. 2. The Director of Regulation shall prepare and make available to Federal, State and local officials and interested persons a draft Detailed Statement supplementing the Detailed Statement dated November 20, 1970 within thirty days after receipt of the supplement to Applicant's environmental report. 3. Any comments on the Applicant's supplemental environmental report and on the supplemental draft Detailed Statement must be received within twenty days in the case of Federal agencies and within thirty days in the case of State and local officials and interested persons. 4. The Director of Regulation shall prepare and make public a supplemental final Detailed Statement within twenty days after receipt of the comments. 5. A hearing on environmental issues with respect to an operating license for Unit No. 2, pursuant to NEPA, shall commence not later than twenty days after publication of the Detailed Statement and shall be concluded within thirty days thereafter, such hearing to be conducted before a presiding officer or board to be hereafter appointed by the Atomic Energy Commission. An appropriate Notice of Hearing will be issued prior to such hearing. 6. Upon conclusion of the hearing an Initial Decision shall be issued within fifteen days providing for imposition of such requirements with respect to an operating license for Unit 2 as may be called for under NEPA. 7. Pending the completion of the procedures set forth above, the Board shall proceed promptly with the hearing now in progress and shall limit its consideration to those issues set forth in the Notice of Hearing dated November 17, 1970. An Initial Decision shall be rendered at the conclusion of the hearing not later than forty-five days after the Board's receipt of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the parties. If the Board grants a motion pursuant to 10 CFR § 50.57 (c) or gives an Initial Decision authorizing the issuance of an operating license for the facility, such license may be issued without regard to the pendency of NEPA proceedings required by this Order and the Commission's regulations. Any license so issued shall be subject to continuance, suspension, modification or revocation based upon the outcome of such ÑEPA proceedings. By the Commission. Dated: W. B. McCOOL, Secretary. Before the United States Atomic Energy Commission Docket No. 50-247 IN THE MATTER OF CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. (INDIAN POINT STATION, UNIT No. 2) AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES F. LUCE Charles F. Luce, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: 1. I am the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. ("Con Edison"). 2. This information is presented in support of the "Motion of Applicant for an Order Establishing Further Procedural Requirements to Implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" to which this affidavit is attached and is intended to demonstrate the urgent need for Con Edison to utilize the capacity of Indian Point Unit 2 in order to satisfy the crucial requirements of its customers and also to bring to the attention of the Commission other relevant considerations in support of the relief requested in the Motion. 3. Con Edison provides electric service in the five boroughs of New York City and in most of Westchester County. The population of this service area is about 8,650,000. An adequate and reliable supply of electric power is essential to the life of this key metropolitan area. A lack of such a supply will jeopardize a vast array of critical services and facilities vital to the preservation of public health and safety such as water supply, fire protection, sewage and garbage disposal, hospitals, nursing homes, railway and subway transportation, law enforcement, traffic control. drawbridge operation, and all forms of local and interstate communications. 4. Since 1969 Con Edison has been faced with a crisis in supplying electric energy to the communities which it serves. Despite all of its efforts to meet the increasing demands upon its system as the consumption of electricity in its service area continues to grow, the Company has had to curtail service through voltage reductions with unacceptable frequency,1 and, on one occasion, to discontinue service to some of its customers. 5. The grave difficulties encountered from 1969 to 1971 foreshadow the even more difficult problems which the Company will face during the winter of 1971-1972 and the summer of 1972. 6. Prior to 1969 the Company's planned reserve capacity, including purchases from others, was 1,532 megawatts or 21% of its anticipated peak load. In 1969, however, delays in the addition of new capacity by other utilities limited the amount of the purchased power actually available in that year to 260 megawatts, a minor portion of the 710 megawatts for which we had contracted. In addition, there were several equipment outages and deratings 2 experienced during the summer period, which is the period of peak demand on the Company's system. 1 A tabulation of the frequency of load curtailment measures used from 1969 to 1971 is attached to this affidavit. 2 "Deratings" result from equipment problems which, while they do not require that a generating unit be completely removed from service, restrict its operation to less than its full capacity. As a consequence, the Company had to request large customers to reduce load voluntarily, to appeal to the general public to conserve electricity and to institute voltage reductions on eight different days on which the loss of capacity ranged from 800 to over 2,000 megawatts. On two occasions the voltage reduction reached the maximum allowable level of 8%, after which the only load control device available is to totally discontinue electric service to some of our customers. 7. Again in 1970 the Company experienced power shortages even though we had increased our planned capacity resources from 8,882 megawatts to 9,839 megawatts. This represented a reserve of 27% of our anticipated peak load, and was to be principally achieved by the addition of almost 1,200 megawatts of gas turbine capacity to our system. Construction and start-up delays, as well as a strike which affected one of our suppliers, caused slippage in the schedule for adding the gas turbines. This, together with equipment deratings and forced outages, made it necessary for us to make appeals again for the conservation of electricity by the public and to institute voltage reductions on fifteen days. On one occasion we had to resort to discontinuance of service to approximately 1% of our customers. Discontinuance of service to any customers is a drastic measure, and every effort must be made to avoid its recurrence. 8. As far as 1971 is concerned, we have added 624 megawatts of additional gas turbine capacity and, after re-rating some of our older units, we have a reserve installed on our own system equal to only 9% of the estimated peak load. We have also contracted for 920 megawatts of firm capacity purchases, thus raising the reserve to 21%. 9. This reserve is of the same order of magnitude as those with which we faced the summers of 1969 and 1970, and again we have had to resort to the frequent use of voltage reduction. So far this year we have reduced voltages on our system on thirteen occasions. 10. Our peak load forecast for 1971 was 8,150 megawatts and to date we have experienced a peak of 7,719 megawatts. This occurred on July 1st when a 3% voltage reduction was in effect on a major part of our system. 11. We are making vigorous efforts to promote the conservation of electricity and have both ceased our sales promotion activities and instituted a "Save-a-Watt" program to further that goal. We are urging our customers to conserve electric energy at all times, but particularly during periods of peak demands. In this connection we have communicated individually with our major customers many of whom have already taken measures to operate regularly with partial lighting which also reduces the demand for power for air conditioning purposes. Nevertheless, this power shortage continues despite these efforts. 12. We hope to be able to serve our customers during the rest of the summer of 1971 with the aid of voltage reductions on a few days. If, however, a substantial portion of our capacity becomes unavailable during the rest of the summer and if we encounter a period of unusually hot weather we will be forced to resort to more frequent voltage reductions and to other load curtailment measures perhaps including the discontinuance of service to some of our customers. * Voltage reductions in excess of 8% would cause damage to customers' equipment. 13. Looking ahead to the summer of 1972, we foresee a substantially worsened situation. Our estimated peak load is 8,550 megawatts and our installed capacity, assuming that Indian Point Unit No. 2 is online, is expected to be 9,996 megawatts. We have, in addition, contracted for 395 megawatts of purchased capacity. This would provide a reserve of 21.5%, which is substantially less than is desirable. It is at this level of anticipated reserve, and greater, that we have experienced severe difficulties for the past three years. If the 873 megawatts of capacity from Indian Point Unit No. 2 were not to be available, our reserve margin for 1972 would be cut almost in half, i.e., to 11%. This margin would be intolerable. It would represent a serious potential threat to the health, safety and economic well-being of the persons living and working in the New York Metropolitan Area. 14. Some of the Company's generating stations, such as Sherman Creek and Kent Avenue, contain less reliable, older units which we had hoped to retire before this. Most of the equipment at those locations is over forty years old and has become increasingly difficult to maintain. These plants are no longer dependable and will deteriorate further each additional year they remain in service, despite continuing maintenance efforts. In these circumstances, should Indian Point Unit No. 2 not be in operation in 1972, the Company's reserve margin will be considerably less than it should be, and service difficulties, possibly much more severe than any experienced to date, will certainly occur again in the summer of that year. 15. In my opinion there is no way by which Con Edison's reserve margin for 1972 can be substantially improved. The Company will, of course, continue to explore every possible means of improving this situation. However, additional firm purchases are not now available and, while we are hopeful of acquiring an additional amount of about 200 megawatts before next summer, this will not provide substantial help and is the limit of the assistance I can foresee from this source for the summer of 1972. We have already exhausted all of the additional gas turbine supply which would be available to use in time to meet the 1972 peak load. Thus, the only possible source of additional capacity would be a further postponement of the retirement of our Hell Gate Station. This would be grossly insufficient, since the capacity of that station is only 315 megawatts and is, moreover, no longer dependable. 16. Con Edison was able to make emergency purchases of energy from outside our system while we were encountering the service difficulties heretofore discussed. Those purchases prevented a much more serious situation from occurring. While some emergency purchases will undoubtedly be available to us again, the power supply situation for the coming summer is so serious that in my judgment whatever emergency purchases we are able to make cannot prevent the shortages to which I have referred. 17. In view of the difficult prospects we face for the summer of 1972, even with Indian Point Unit No. 2 available, and particularly in light of the fact that about 875 megawatts of the capacity on which This includes 400 megawatts from Con Edison's share of Bowline Point Unit No. 2, scheduled to go on-line in July 1972, and 348 megawatts from barge-mounted gas turbines, also scheduled for July 1972. Of this, 125 megawatts are from Orange & Rockland's share of the Bowline Point Unit No. 2. |