ML19321A175

Motion & Memorandum Seeking Admission of Addl Contentions. Questions Applicant Financial Capablities & Alleges Errors in FES,NUREG-0625.Process Used for Cost/Benefit Analysis Is Contrary to Nepa.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19321A175
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	07/16/1980
From:	Woliver J FRANKHAUSER, D.D., WOLIVER, J.D.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007220565
Download: ML19321A175 (6)

Text

j

-i

. e- N

,O 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g se * -

In the Matter of $

O O ,

THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC Docket No. 50-358

e _a COMPANY, et al.  :

(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power  :

Station)  : l l

INTERVENOR FANKHAUSER'S MOTION TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS Comes now Intervenor David Fankhauser, by counsel, and petitions this Board to admit the following proposed contentions in the above-styled proceed-ing. In support of said motion is Dr. Fankhauser's Memorandum attached and fully incorporated herein.

PROPOSED CONTENTIONS

1. The economic costs of the Zimer Power Station (hereinaf ter Zimmer) do not justify the granting of an operating license to Applicants because:

(a) the construction, operation, maintenance and decommis-sioning costs of Zimmer are too high and are beyond the financial capability of the Applicants; (b) as a result of the excessive construction, operation, and decommissioning costs of Zimmer, a substantial percent-  !

age of the residential customers in the Applicants' service areas will be financially unable to afford to purchase necessary electric service from the Applicants as a result' of the costs of Zimmer being passed to the Applicants' customers :hrough Applicants rate bases; and (c) the need does not exist for the potential energy from Zimmer as originally projected through anticipated growth in the Applicants' peak demand in their respecti<e service ~

areas; ' -

$3 R$

'\o~ ~

. 8007220 555. g -- - -

2. The data used in the benefit-cost analysis of the Final Environmental Statement (NUREG - 0265, 1977) related to the operation of Zimmer is sig-

' nificantly incorrect and in need of revision which therefore undermines the entire benefit-cost analysis of Zimmer. Some of the incorrect data used in ,

NUREG - 0265 include: the estimated capital costs of Zimmer $470 million in l

1977 (now estimated by the Applicants to be approximately one billion dollars);

the 1977 expected plant capacity of 60%; the estimated $430 million fuel costs and the $130 million operation and maintenance costs; the decommissioning costs of $85 million at 1979 cost levels; the estimated 79 person operating force; and the analysis that no significant economic or social costs are expected from operation of Zimmer (the occurrence and analysis of the event at the power station at Three Mile Island suggest that both economic and social costs can be expected from operation of Zimmer). This Board should not issue an operating license until such time that a benefit-cost analysis is performed and reviewed using accurate data that is presently or will be available.

MEMORANDLH Although contentions relating to the costs of Zimmer and the need for Zimmer have been raised at an early stage in this proceeding, it is Dr.

Fankhauser's contention that recent changes in circumstances make these proposed contentions timely.

l As recent as May, 1980, the Applicants submitted a revised higher estimate Tf the costs of Zimmer (one billion dc11a.c). In ligt.t of the frequesey of past cost increases, it is very poasible these will be soditicnal ccat cetimates

\

. )

+

well-beyond one billion dollars. The potential operating costs of Zimmer .

will, in all likelihood, be escalating due to several factors - one notable factor being a more comprehensive emergency preparedness system being mandated.

Not allowing Dr. Fankhauser to raise these additional contentions at this point would put the Board in the anomalous position of denying a party the .

opportunity to raise these economic issues now when the original cost estimates provided by the Applicants and relied upon by all parties were incorrect by several hundred million dollars. While no implication is made that earlier cost estimates of Zimmer were intentionally misstated, Dr. Fankhauser believes that

' his proposed contentions herein now have merit in light of the Applicants' most recent (May '6t , 1980) revised cost estimate. The same analysis is applicable to issue of the need for Zimmer.

Clearly there is no other means whereby Dr. Fankhauser's interest in these contentions would be protected in this proceeding. Mindful of Intervenor Miami Power Project's (MVPP) contentions 11 and 13, it is not only questionable whether MVPP will vigorously litigate these contentions but the scope of Dr.

Fankhauser's proposed contentions raises issues not contained in the admitted 1 contentions of MVPP (e.g. the ability of residential consumers to afford electric service as a result of Zimmer's costs). Intervenor Fankhauser contends that his participation on these proposed contentions will help develop a sound record. Dr. Fankhauser's long involvement with this hearing and his foresight in raising important monitoring and evacuation issues as early as 1975 are a matter of record. Finally, it is unlikely that the inclusion of these proposed-contentions will significantly broaden or delay the proceeding. In light of the l many delays this proceeding has undergoae and the iecent admission of several I l

new intervenors, any delay caused by thesa sdded contesticus wou'd be minuscule.

o Proposed Contention #2 addresses the benefit-cost analysis in the Final ,

. Environmental Statement issued June, 1977. The conclusions reached in that study by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were based upon data provided to it at that time. That data utilized is substantially incorrect. One notable example cited previously herein is the 1977 estimated $470 million capital cost ,

of Zimmer, which now, according to the Applicants, has more than doubled.

Without a revision of the benefit-cost analysis, the process by which the benefit-cost analysis is developed would be meaningless and would be in deroga-tion of the requirements under the Natonal Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Respectfully Submitted,

.jM i P John Woliver Attorney for Dr. Fankhauser Clermont County Legal Aid Society si P.O. Box 47

% Batavia, Ohio 4510?

1. / '- -

.(513) 732-2422

% suu 3 USNRo~ -

O~h -

JUL 181980 >

N$D Os g ,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE N O I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing document were serve upon the following by deposit in the United State's' mail this /(I day of July,1980.

~

/ //

J.Ld.'16.

ohn Weli. .v.r

'J'

r. -

! l f l l

I

. l l

Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Michael C. Farrar, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Resources Commission University of Michigan Washington, D.C. 20555 i Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 -

I Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Member Chariman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Panel l I

Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Commision Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

. Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Counsel for the NRC Staff Chairman, Atomic Safety and Of fice of the Executive Legal Licensing Appeal Board Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washingten. D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Lawrence h. Quarles William J. Moran, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Ceneral Counsel Appeal Board Cincinnati Cas & Electric U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Company Commission Post Office Box 960 Washington, D.C. 20555 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Mr. Chase R. Stephens Leah S. Kosik, Esq.

Docketing and Service Branch Attorney at Law Of fice of the Secretary - 3454 Cornell Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

1 i

_3 i

-,c.-.- ,

i. . .

William Peter Heile, Esq. David K. Martin, Esq.

Assistant City Solicitor Assistant Attorney General City of Cincinnati Acting Director Box 214 Division of Environmental Law Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Office of Attorney General 209 St. Clair Street ~

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 ' l Mrs. Mary Reder Robert A. Jones l Box 270 Prosecuting Attorney of l Route 2 Clermont County, Ohio l California, Kentucky 41007 15,4 Main Street '

Batavia, Ohio 45103 Andrew B. Dennison, Esq.

Attorney at Law 200 Main Street ,

45103 Batavia, Ohio Troy B. Conner, Esq.

Conner, Moore and Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 l

l 6-

.