ML20058E201
| ML20058E201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1982 |
| From: | Nash D NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058E196 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207280094 | |
| Download: ML20058E201 (12) | |
Text
'
{.-
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DARREL A. NASH REGARDING ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN V0TERS PETITION FOR WAIVER OR EXCEPTION TO 10 CFR 55 51.23(e) and 51.53(c)
I, Darrel A. Nash, being duly sworn state as follows.
1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission as a Section Leader in the Office of State programs.
A copy of my professional qualifications is attached.
4 2.
I have been directly responsible for drafting papers for the NRC Commissioners dealing with the subject of treatment of need for power and alternative energy source issues in licensing proceedings since 1980.
I drafted the proposed rule (46 FR 39441), and all accompanying material which resulted in its revision, and final rule (47 FR 12940) eliminating need for power and alternative energy sources issues in operating license proceedings.
3.
The purpose of this affidavit is to address pertinent information provided in support of the Rockford League of Women Voters (League or Petitioners) July 6,1982 petition for waiver of, or exception to, 10 CFR 55 51.23(e) and 51.53(c).
l l
4.
I have reviewed the material referred to in the League petition consisting of materials identified as Exhibits A, B, and C, and FQ l
Ex. E, FQ Ex.H, and FQ Ex. J.
8207280094 820726 PDR ADOCK 05000454 C
- 5.
Paragraph 3 of the petition sets out as the basis for the petition the notion that "... first there is no need for the power to be generated by the proposed Byron station and second, there exist alternative energy sources which are environmentally and economically superior to operation of Byron." My review of the referenced Exhibits fails to substantiate this proposition.
Exhibit A deals exclusively with the first item, that is, the need for the facility, while the remaining exhibits are apparently intended to deal with the latter issue of environmentally and economically superior alternative energy sources.
6.
Nothing in Exhibit A provides a basis for an exception to 10 CFR 51.23(e)or51.53(c). Exhibit A was filed before the Illinois Commerce Commission whose duties and regulations are, of course, different than those of the NRC. The Exhibit deals at great length with the forecast of growth in demand on the Comonwealth Edison Company (CE) system.
7.
Thus, Exhibit A, which deals only with an estimated lower growth l
in demand than CE's estimate, does not provide any information which shows that an exception to the rule should be made in this case.
The rule makes clear that the benefits of operation of a nuclear facility may be other than to purely satisfy an increase in demand.
(47 FR 12940, 12941). The staff has found that, consistent with the Comission's findings in the rule, even assuming l
no load growth on the CE system, there is an economic advantage to operation of the Byron facility.
(See FES pp. 2-1 to 2-4).
. 8.
The Executive Summary and " Seniors Exhibit 12.0" which accompany Exhibit A provide the conclusions for Exhibit A; the other accompanying exhibits, 2.0 through 11.0, are background. The Executive Summary reports the sponsor's finding that average annual growth in demand on the CE system is estimated to be.37% to 1.1%,
compared to CE's estimate of 1.9% to 2.367%. Here, and in exhibit 12.0, the conclusion is made that, pending further study, it should be assumed that the CE system load will grow at.5% per year. This is less conservative than the Commission assumed in passageofthe10CFR51.23(e)and51.53(c)(whichassumed virtually no need) and, therefore, provides no special circumstances warranting an exception under 10 CFR 2.758 based on an asserted change in demand.
9.
As indicated, the remaining attachments to Exhibit A are input into l
the conclusion reached there. Exhibit 2.0 reviews and independently develops forecasts of the two economic indicators, Gross State Product and per capita income, used by CE in their forecasts of demand growth. Exhibit 3.0 documents and explains the derivation of " Seniors" historic and projected series of air conditioning saturation.
Exhibit 4.0 discusses the explanatory variable " price of natural gas" which is a data input into one of CE's forecasting models. Exhibit 5.0 shows a price of electricity forecast for CE for the period 1982 to 1990. Exhibit 6.0 presents certain possibilities for congeneration on the CE system which could be adopted under certain hypothetical conditions in the CE service territory. Exhibit 7.0 evaluates future peak power require-
_4 ments of increased residential appliance efficiency.
It is largely a discussion of future possibilities for improved applicance efficiency and does not relate to current load on the system. Exhibit 8.0 reviews CE's residential Time-of-Day rate experiment, its objectives and conclusions. The rate experiment would have to be brought to some sort of conclusion, followed by implementation of Time-of-Day, rates on the system. This means that any impact of Time-of-Day rates will be sometime in the indefinite future. Exhibit 9.0 reviews the impact of all substitutions for electricity for other fuels in cases where traditionally other fuels have been used, and vice versa. This paper examines possible impacts on growth rates in electricity demand of these substitutions.
Exhibit 10.0 reviews estimates of peak load reduction that load management technologies would provide in the 1990's time frame. Exhibit 11.0 evaluates the potential contribution of industrial air conditioning to CE's peak load..As indicated above, all the Exhibits 2.0 through 11.0 are input into the conclusion that a.5% annual growth rate should be assumed for the CE system.
10.
Petition Exhibits B, C. FQ Ex. E, FQ Ex. H, and FQ Ex. J are apparently submitted to show the environmental and economic superiority of alternatives to Byron. None of these focus on the conditions set forth in the " Supplementary Information" to the proposed rule which lead to the adoption of 10 CFR 51.23(e) and 51.23(c); namely, first, that there must be some showing of environmental superiority of the alternative to operation of a nuclear plant, and, second, assuming tnis is present, that there must be a showing of economic superiority (i.e.,
. future costs of the alternative must be shown to be less than those ofnuclearplantoperation). No direct or indirect environmental or economic comparisons are given.
- 11. Exhibit B to the League petition explains the methodology used to quantify the various financial and rate implications of the case studies analyzed by Dr. Richard Rosen as they relate to the capital expansion program for the Philadelphia Electric Company.
It is not clear what forum the exhibit was prepared for.
It also presents conclusions concerning the perceived financial liability of continuing construction of Limerick Units I and II. This study is not relevant for consideration of an exception to 10 CFR 51.23(e) and 51.53(c) for Byron. The relevant cost comparisons, as stated in the statement of considerations for these rules, is the cost of operation compared to other alternatives. Capital costs which are treated extensively in the exhibit are not, according to 10 CFR 51.23(e) and 51.53(c), a matter for consideration in an operating license proceeding.
l 12.
Furthermore, the study appeared to be done for the consideration of whether the Limerick construction program should proceed, contrasted to the present case, which is an operating license i
l proceeding.
Finally, the analysis presented is for a different utility.
Even if it were shown that in the case of Philadelphia Electric that there was a more economical alternative than operation of a nuclear facility, this would indeed be the
" rare case" postulated by the League and would not imply anything about the situation for the Byron proceeding.
. 12. Exhibit C to the League petition is dated November 1981. Again it is not clear what forum the exhibit was prepared.
It is a study of a supposed new alternative to completing Nine Mile Island Point 2 Nuclear Station in upstate New York. The petition refers to this Exhibit as a primary source to show the environmental and economic superiority of essentially conservation and cogeneration. Since it is done for upstate New York, it of course does not show that there are cogeneration facilities available as an alternative to operation of Byron. Also, the discussion relates to potential developments, not alternatives currently available. As stated in Exhibit C p. II-4..."
The alternatives are technically proven and could be developed by the utilities..." (underlines added). Not only are there no existing cogeneration facilities identified in this Exhibit, or in any other Exhibits submitted with the petition, but with the generally slower economic grcwth forecasted for the region, (e.g. League Exhibit A, exhibit 2.0 pp. 5 and 6), there will be a reluctance by industry and commerce in the region to participate in new construction. Thus, there is a substantial uncertainty as to when any cogeneration facilities may be available to serve electrical load in the CE service a rea. The petitioners have failed to show that cogeneration is likely to significantly affect the CE electrical load, or to serve as a alternative to Byron. Again, whatever may be shown from the analysis done for a plant in New York has little applicability to consideration of an exception to 10 CFR 51.23(e) and 51.53(c) in the case of Byron.
- 13. Three exhibits submitted along with an unrelated petition for waiver of financial qualifications rules by the League are referenced in this petition and identified as FQ Ex. E, FQ Ex. H.
and FQ Ex. J.
FQ Ex. E is a study completed in June 1982 and presented to the Illinois Connerce Commission. The fact that it was completed in June 1982, subsequent to passage of the subject NRC rules, is of no consequence. The study presents no information that was not anticipated in passing the rule. The study is intended to estimate the impacts of completing six nuclear units on the CE system. Since it is directed to this broader issue, it is essentially impossible to derive from it what conclusions are urged by the petitioners to apply to the Byron case. The report agrees with the Commission's stated expectations that new nuclear units will replace fossil-fueled plants due to lower operating costs of the nuclear plants. The study expresses considerable uncertainty as to the course of action which would be economically superior.
14.
FQ Ex. H is apparently testimony before the Illinois Commerce Commission completed in June 1982. This gives the author's estimates of costs to complete Byron and the other nuclear plants of the CE system. S'ince the Byron proceeding is for an operating license not for a review of the construction permit, the paper is not only irrelevant to any possible exception to 10 CFR 51.23(e) and 51.53(c), but would have been equally irrelevant prior to the enactment of these rule changes.
15.
FQ Ex. J is apparently further testimony before the ICC with an unknown date.
It appears to be a discussion of potential increased l
. costs of repairs and retrofit for early shutdowns of nuclear power plants in general. Potential costs are presented, but little is shown on how these costs are derived, nor the estimated likelihood that the identified repair and retrofit requirements will actually occur. Most importantly, even assuming the cost increases, there was nothing presented which showed that these would result in operating and retrofit costs combined which would exceed these same costs of other available plants on the CE system. None of these three FQ exhibits, either taken separately or combined, provide sufficient infonnation to conclude that there are environmentally or economically superior alternatives to operation of the Byron station.
- 16. There is uniformly no basis in the League petition for justifying an exception to the requirements of 10 CFR 51.23(e) or 51.53(c) in this proceeding.
The foregoing and accompanying statement of professional l
qualifications are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
u ah7 /ta
~ Darrel A. Mas ~h
(
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Elis day of July, 1982.
NN O h
)
d Notary' Public J
g My commission expires: 7 i/&
4
4 J
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS OF DARREL A. NASH I am employed as a Section Leader Licensee Relations. Office of State Programs, located in Bethe-da, Maryland. My educational and professional qualifications are set forth below.
Education Colorado State University 1958 B.S. Agricultural Economics Montana State University 1960 M.S. Agricultural Economics Ph.D. Agricultural Economics - University of Illinois 1964 In addition, I have taken advanced courses in econometrics.
My formal educational program has encompassed, and emphasized, studies in micro-economics, mathematics, and statistics as they relate to land and water resources and agricultural production.
Experience I joined the R.egulatory Staff of the Atomic Energy Commission in August 1973, being assigned to the Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch. As a Senior Analyst, I was responsible for reviewing and analyzing environmental reports and preparing cost-benefit portions of environmental statements.
I was responsible for developin'g criteria for analysis of alternative sites, alternative fuels and alternative cooling systems to be used in environmental statements.
In addition.
I conducted generic economic research on topics related to environmental impacts of nuclear power plants.
l l
I have been a Section Leader since 1975, responsible for supervising and conducting the activities above.
In April ;1980, as a result of reorganization, I was given additional areas of management and supervision. These are need for power and system reliability, financial qualifications of applicants and indem-nification under provisions of the Price-Anderson Act.
In March 1981, as a result of minor changes in organization, I was transferred to my present position with responsibilities similar to those previously held.
l From April 1965 to August 1973, I was with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S. Department of Commerce and its predecessor agencies.
During the course of this employment I was responsible for (1) research and research supervision in fishery marketing, including consumer and marketing studies culminated in a study making long-range projections of the demand and supply of fishery products on a worldwide basis, and (2) fishery management wherein social, economic, and biological studies were conducted to determine needed institutional changes to better allocate the utilization of fishery resources.
Also, under loan to the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID), I trayeled to eight countries to evaluate potential for producing and distribu. ting fish protein concentrate within these countries.
D.uring 1964 and 1965, I was employed as a resource economist by the Bureau of Land Management in the U.S. Department of Interior and developed models for
~
2-determining optimum multiple use of public lands for such activities as grazing, watershed management, recreation, and forestry.
My duties there emphasized development and analysis of the economic consequences of different land uses.
From 1969 to 1973, I had an appointment as Visiting Assistant Professor in the Agricultural and Resource Economics Departnent at the University of Maryland and have taught graduate courses in Industrial Organization and Economics of Marketing in that Department.
I have authored or coauthored about 20 publications -- more important areas being cost analysis of energy alternatives and fishery demand and resource utilization.
Numerous unpublished papers have also been written on these and related areas such as cost-benefit analysis of public land use and analyses of financial assistance programs for marine fishing vessels.
O l
1
V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS PETITION FOR WAIVER OF OR EXCEPTION TO 10 CFR SECTIONS 51.23(e)
AND 51.53(c)" and "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN V0TERS PETITION FOR WAIVER OF OR EXCEPTION TO FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS REGULATIONS" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 26th day of July, 1982:
- Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Region III Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of Inspection & Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Wasnington, DC 20555 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Administrative Judge 1907 Stratford Lane Union Carbide Corporation Rockford, IL 61107 P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Ms. Diane Chavez
'608 Rome Avenue
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Rockford, IL 61107 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Bruce von Zellen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c/o DAARE Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 261 DeKalb, IL 60015 Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
(
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Doug Cassel, Esq.
Three First National Plaza Jane Whicher, Esq.
Chicago, IL 60602 109 N. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60602 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Cherry & Flynn
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 3700 Panel Three First National Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Chicago, IL 60602 Washington, DC 20555 l
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
- Docketing and Service Section
~~
Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 840 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 wY] Mw&
~
\\Mitti A. Y6t11g
/
Counsel for NRC Staff i
l l
l