ML20064N843

Revised,Amended & Addl Contentions Based on W Eddleman Contention 15 & Environ Rept Amend 5.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20064N843
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/11/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8302160351
Download: ML20064N843 (22)

Text

.

00CKETED umi?:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Februarf811 M N 3 M9 q'

.i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman In the Matter of

) Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. it al. ) 50-401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power I . ant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-468-01 0.L.

)

~ Wells Eddleman's Revi, sed', Amended and Additional

' Contentions Based on Eddleman 15 and E9'Amdt. 5 Pursuant to Item II.B of the Board's Order served January 12, 1983,WellsbddlemanherebyfilesthaensuingrevisionsofFddleman 15, which may be seen as amendments to Fddleman 15 While Anolicants continue to state a 70% capacity factor for both Harris units in i

l their ER Amendment 5, and thus Eddleman 15 annears to me still valid to that extent, it annears fron the Board's Order at' p.3 that I must either stand on the original contention or submit revisions and amendments to it. If that is the case, the ensuing are the contentions I wish considered and ruled on under that 0$ er. If not, I would reauest that original Fddleman 15 be considered again om as well as the ensuing revisions and amendments.

CO2 go 'I think it is obvious wny these revisbns or anendments or both no .

8 could not be out forward until ER Amendment (AMDT) $ was filed.

Until then, Anulicants had not asserted eithe" a 96thod for, or

,ma

• g< -

a value of fuel savings for Harris plant operation, nor a method -

om g@o of connuting costs and benefits under the Commissionis new need p

for power rule.

While I might have been able to guess that Applicants would do this in various defective ways, it would not be reasonable to expect me to have predicted these errors and inconsistencies sufficiently specifically that they would have applied to an amendment Applicants constructed after receiving my original contentions some 6 months earlier. The Board has evidently recognized as much in deferring contentions and in-quoting my statement on the difficulties of such an anuroach in itr Sentember Order admitting contentions. Eighly snecific clairvoyance as to errors ADplicants night make in a future document, which is then served to Anplicants as a contention, af ter which they still make the sane errors foreseen, is just too much to ask of an intervenor. To the extent these contentions allege errors in the EP AMDT 5 analysis and data, they are thus unable Inasmuch as any of the following contentions may be viewed 1 }p69 as late-filed since it is now more than 30 days since Applicants b.I served excerpts of FR Amendment 5 on intervenors, I Elso show [ fide the following: My reading of the Board 6s January 11 Order is that such contentions may be filed now; further, I have been under unusual workloads in matters not related to this docket, both in consulting and in teaching and energy work under the auspices of Friends School,-

l during this period, and it is now only about 45 days since I actually received Aeolicants ' excerptson 12-26-82. These contentions belo" l

do not broaden the issues, for both caeacity factor and cost-benefit analysis of Harris are already at issue. Taking them up now will not tend to delay this proceeding, since this is the same time that those issues as they relate to EP Amendnent 5 are being considered.

There are no other means to nrotect my interest in this matter, unless l CHANGE weie to file the same contentions. T have no knowledge of l

whether or even if CHAT:GE/kLP is going to file anything on these

matters, and have not discussed this question with CHANGE /tLP.

Staff and Applicants have shown no interest in advancing the view that Auplicants' capacity factor and operating cost-benefit estimates are in doubt, or wrong, and the matter cannot be litigated w ithout a contention. I doubt the Board would be allowed to take un this 1

matter ex parte under the decisions NRC has been handing down, e.g.

l 1

in V. C . S unne r . Thus there are no other means to nrotect my 1

interests concerning these issues. And the existing narties have not, excent for CHANGE /kLP, taken un this issue at all.

CHANGE /ELP's formulation was deferred, whereas cart of mine has been admitted, so I believe that the extent CHANGE /ELP may be able to represent my interests in this questfon-area ave linited and possibly nil if their deferred formulation or a revision of it is not subsequently admitted. Of course, there can be no assurance now that a CHANGE /ELP contention in these matters would be admitted.

Finally, as a narty pro se, to NC Utilities Conmi ssion Docket No. E-100 sub hl hearings on avoided costs (essentially a fuel savings deternination conbined with other determinations under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act) in December 1982, I have demonstrated ability to assist in developing a sound recned on the issues of capacity factor and possible fuel savings. The '

Examiner therein 1.oted (Transcrint Yol. II, o.107) that I had asked relevant, clear questions" and later commended the attorneys and me "for taking about an hour and a half to get through a very complex witness, and it shows it can be done if everybody tries to get to the noint (Yo1 IY, p.13h). I also have the ability andI testified as an exnert on the E-100 sub h1 case in Decenber.

to analyze and question cost-benefit analysesg These facts demonstrate that the admission of these contentions would assist in developing a sound record in this docket before the N9C )

~4- - .

OON TE~dTrop S 15 X CP&L hasn't properly included working capital costs associated with fuel inventories for both coal and nuclear plants in its analysis of Harris nrojected fuel " savings". Suecifically, the carrying cost and working canital associated with nuclear fuel rogress have been higher for CP&L2s 3 auclear plants (2245 MWe)

(8 to 14 TWH ammual generation) than the carrying cost and working capital required for all CP&L coal units ( mea17 5000 MWe,17 to 22 TWH ammual geaeration) in recent years. Harris nuclear fuel is expected to cost more than fuel for CP&L's existhig nuclear niant has cost due to the ending of low-cost uranium sunnly contracts.

(Improper estimation of fuel escalation rates is the subject of Contention 22. but provides additional basis for this contention, as the cost of fuels -- and of nuclear fuel fabrication, enrich-ment etc -- relates to the cost of fuel inventory and working canital therefor, and indeed determines it om a long-term basis.)

ADDITIONAL BASIS: Testimony by CP&L witness G. Wayne King (Tr Vol. II, pp 100-103 especially at 102) in NCUC Docket No. F-100 sub 41 shows that CP&L considers the cost of fuel inventory saved to be part of the cost avoided by not running a plant. See also profiled testimony of King, at p.4, and Exhibit 1, sane Docket.

The analogy with nuclear fuel carrying costs is clear considering the nearly $100 million in nuclear fuel-in-progress requested by CP&L in rate bane in its last NCUC general rate cases, e.g. Docket E-2 sub 444 and E-2 sub h16 (CP&L may have filed a new case in '83).

The increased enrichnent cost from the new centrifuge 1

env5 chment facility at Portsmouth Ohio will also act to raise the cost of nuclear-fuel-in-progress, and lower-than-estimated nuclea" canacity factors tend to pile un nuclear fuel material in the milling / conversion /onvichment/ fabrication pipeline, further raisingbefore longer nuclear it fuel working cupyital costs since the fuel is held is used.

l

b-15 Y CP&L has improperly comnared gross " benefits" (fuel savings) to the CP&L system with the environmental effects of Harris operation, neglecting the costs associated with that operation. The uroner comparison would be the net (benefits less cost) of Harris ooeration, as compared with the environmental effects of the olant's onevation.

BASIS: CP&L states (ER Amdt 5, p. 8.1.1, next-to-last naragranh) that it has sonsidered fuel savings on their syster as the only comparison to environmental costs. CP&LL further admits (last paragraph, same page) that sona arison with nroduction cost savings is proper. However, CP&L's ER AMDT 5 " analysis" omits, for exanole, the Harris operating payroll, which is a cost incurred to receive any " fuel savings". It omite variable Oc:M equipment, materials and suoplies costs (in addition to labor), and contractor O&M and renair such as centract labor, and materials & sunnlies & engineering fory

costs, which will have to be naid to keen Harris in operation. repairs It omits the cost of environmental monitoring, emergency ulanning, and personnel on and off the Harris site to nerform these acts for CP&L and for other resnonsible parties, e.g. State of Novth Carolina, and counties and municipalities which include areas within 10 miles of Harris. CP&L omits any consideration of the (Drobabilistically weighted or other) costs of serious accidents at Harris, which is an effect " unintentional or unplanned" under NEPA. CP&L omits the G6dihsd cost of gsnocort personnel at its headquarters and other niaces, who i.e pawtB wi?1 be required e:ue to hav$ng (wor,(e4 nuclear plants. These costs of non-plant sunrort personnel are included in rate cases by the company, and should not be excluded here. CP&L further omits the avoidable costs of certain transmission, transformer and other facilities which would not be required if Harris 2 is not built.

Such avoidable costs are recognized under the Public Utility Legulatory Policies Act. All of these costs which CP&L has omitted will only occur if the Harris plant ouerates.

a a b

15A Thehaff6 capacity factor (70%) and contribution to capacity A 3Mt3 (

(1800 MW) of ER Amendment 5, section 8.1.1-1, are coe high.n Since the NC Utilities Commission has found a 20% reserve margin aym*en-inte for CP&L, only 1500 MW of firm capacity would be reflected in the two Harris units were they built. Moreover, cameellation of Harris 2 somtinues to apnear likely and Harris 2 was em NRC's list of plants that might be cancelled which was delivered to Congrees. This would reduce the capacity increment to 750 MW on a firm basis. That does met account for higher-than-expected forced and scheduled outage rates such as CP&L muclear units have experienced in 1981 mad 1982, nor for D-4 steam generator nrebloms. Further, CP&L has a weather-mermal reserve of 40% including Mayo unit 1 being brought on-line in Suring 1933, and a growth rate of 2.9% per year er less, so that Harris l*s capacity would add little if anything to needed reserve margins before 1990, nor would Harris 2 until about 1995. The NCUC's Public Staff has recommended, 2-4-83, canning H2 and delaying H1 to 1990+.

(2) the 70% canasity factor is greater than any Westinghouse PWR of 700 MWe or larger design electrical rating has even achieved on a lifetime DER basis. Further, the sensitivity cases CP&L elaims to have analyzed in ER Amendment 5 take no account of the below-50% ,

capacity factors achieved by onerating Westinghouse PWRs such as McGuire #1 (under 40%), Beavor Yalley #1 (30.1% DER), Salem 1 (46.9%

DER) and others as shown in NUREG-0020 Yol. 6 #5 of August 1982.

These sensitivity analyses do not take sufficient account of the inf!1uence of steam generator repairs and deratings on capacity factor, nor do they match the higher-than-expected forced and scheduled outage rates CP&L muclear plants have been aghieving. CP&L gave a 30.6:6 equivalentforced-outagerateforHerris1and2inits6-30-82[MgAyA 15B CP&L's cost-benefit analysis of operation failstobalanceJ MGm s both the economic and environmental costs and bomefits orj plant btdJ operation. BASIS: No environmental benefits are alleged in the

- . . - - - ~ - - - . . . - . _ . - - - -

analysis, nor does CP&L contemplate balancing the actual operating costs against the value of the alleged fuel savings.

150 CP&L's sensitivity analysis and comnuten runs for fuel

" savings" computation in ER Amendment 5 underestimate the variable O&M-costs associated with operating a nuclear unit such as Harris 1 or 2. BASIS: Testimony of CP&L witness G. Wayne King in NC Utilities Commission Docket No. E-100 sub 41, December 1982, where h,. states that CP&L's comouter programs used for a similar analysis in that docket (to ER Amendment 5 " analysis") does not include most of the variable O&M costs. See Transcript, Vol II at p.112, for exsmnle.

ity 15D GP&L's seastitivy analysis and comouter runs or other comoutation of fuel " savings" resulting from Harris niant oneration do not include the costs of modifications and repairs, which CD&L has consistently underestimated for its Robinson 2 and Brunswick vlants Repair costs are necessary to keep Harris running & should be included, CP&L actual expenditures for since 1975 on thereabouts.j(BASIS:

repairs and modifications at Brunswick generally, and at 9obinson in commection with steam generator tube repair and steam generaton replacement which is proving necessary, and at Robinson t o comoky with other NRC requirements, e.g. reactor vessel integatty we embrittlement and overcooling, have consistently exceede d CP&L's estinates made of what such expenditures and costs would be, esoecially estimates made 5 or more years in advance of the occurrences, and including occurrences CP&L has not anticipated that far in advance, but which have necessitated repairs or modifications costing more than CP&L had estimated repairs and modifications of said niants would cost.

15 E CP&L 6kM f underestirw tes the cost of maclear fuel

for the Harris plant, using a levelized figure of 6.7 mills /kWH for 1986-95 and other figures.

BASIS: CP&L does not include any figure for aarrying costs of nuclear fuel inventory in its costs; nucidar fuel costs are estimated considerably higher than this, e.g. by the Public Staff of the NC Utilities Commission f.2to

. E.g. Table II.B.10 cf PS 4

1979 renort gives 10-yr levelized cost of 8.1 mills /kWH fon H1 and 10.3 mills for Enrris 2. Current estinates (df!L doljerS) by the NCUC Public Staff are 11.7 mills /KWH for total nuclear fuel and testimony of and O&M costs. (Feb h '83 recort, Apnendix Thomas Lam, using a discount rate of around 9%). Inflating this forward to 1986 dollars at that rate gives a value about 40% higher, or about 16.4 mills in 1986 dollars. If we subtract from this the 3 92asmills (1990) or 3 57 mills (1986) Harris 2 and 1 (resoectively) filed by CP&L under FEFC Order No. h8, 6-30-82 re PUFPA, O&M costs for those dates, we end up with fuel in 1986 dollars at A

about 12 4 to 13 mills, or nearly double CP&L's levelized cost.

It defies connon sense and exnerience to think that the long-tern levelized cost of nuclear fuel at a reasonable discount rate woild be half the initial cost in 1986, but since CP&L has (carefully?)

not provided a discount rate in any of its ER Amendment 5 calculations, one has to rely on connon sense here. There is no assurance uranium ore or yellowaake prices will fall af ter 1986; n'ning costs will rise; enrichment costs have riesn very ranidly as DOE tries to recover its costs; fuel conversion and fabrication costs have also risen and the causes of these increases may not abate. Indeed with large budget deficits, higher inflation in mining, milling, enrichment, conversion and fabrication costs due to salary increases. wage increases, and inflation in costs of materials and sucolies and canital, are reasonable to assume.

~

15 F CP&L's ER Amendment 5 provides no estimate of, or justification for, any costs of coa], coal inventory carrying charges, escalation rates for coal fuel, cost of oil or natural gas as fuels, inventory costs for oil fuel, escalation rates for the urices of oil and natu"al Marris plants and gas as delivered, variable O&M costs for its4. elants fueled by oil, coal, natural gas or s ome combination or switching among these fuels, stamtupraosts,for nih . gas,;coc.1-firing or for nuclear units at Harvis (startup af ter shutdown, e.6. due to trins, scheduled or forced outares) costs of nurchtsed power (and rationale for an escalation rate for same) and other costs of system oneration which are necessary to determine the accuracy, if any, of the systen fuel " savings" Fan ~ Hawes op rakoa alleged to result /in FR AMENDMENT 5 BASIS; These data a*e not discussed in the anendmant, re-mentioned in a way that gives any useful information about the costs.

SEE ER 5, sections 8.0, 8.1 and 8.2. These cost data, as well as forced outage rates, scheduled outage rates, assumed canacity factors and rationale therefor, anpropriate discount rates, and other costs d4ta (e.g. renair costs, offsite support etc as discussed in other ER 5 contentions herein) are necessary to estimate accu *ately, and i assess the basia of, a fuel savings calculatf on such as CP&L claims I to have done for ER amendment 5. CP&L witness King , NCUC Docket F-100 sub 41 (December '82) (TR. Volume II p. 111) etates that CP&L used PROMOD, a comnuter program which requires virtually all of the data noted above (or its results, e.g. yearly coal, oil and nuclear fuel costs, te estinate avoided costs due to operation of, e.g. a cogener-ator on the CP&L system. This is almost surely the sane tyne of comnuter analysis as that described to me by Annlicants' attorney

fD-O'Neill and noted in ny November 9, 1982 letter to the Board concerning the completion of these computer runs. In NCUC Docket K -100 sub 41 (Dec. 1982) other witnesses, e.g. exnert economist and avoided costs analyst William Marcus (Tr Vol IV,

p. 90) testified that by controlling inouts such as these, "you could pretty much get out of the PROMOD model any result you want to get out of it, within fatrly broad limits." and that such data are necessary and relevant to getting results from such a nodel (e.g. Duke Power witness Freund, Tr. Vol YI e.g. 78-81 and 84-89) (Marcus, Tr. IV).

Unless CM:L makes all their innuts and the reasons thewefor part of the ER, there is sinnly no adeounte way to assess the reasonableness of these fuel cost estimates o" diec wences e

in fuel ooerating costs between nuclear at Harris and other fuels at other CP&L nlants or for nunchases of oower from other systems' plants (e.g. when CP&L's own resources would cost more than power available for nurchase).

l 15 G CP&L's ER Amendment 5 sensitivity analysis of fuel I cavings from Harris plant operation amolete since it fails l

l to assess imnortant sensitivity ca.> '

might well occur. ,

Among these are: operation of either of both Harris units at less than 50% capacity factor; cancellation of Harris 2,as recommended II-4-83 by the NCUC Fublic Staff, tegother with Harris 1 operation at less than 70% canacity; Cancellation of Harris 2 and further delay of Harris 1, also recommended by NCUC's consumer-advocate (by statute) *ublic 9tsff; merat!on of Harris 1 alone at a capacity factor under 50% or unde- 60%

without significant system load growth (i.e. CP&L's no-growth with Harris 1 alone there, at n 'less than pro jected C.F. )

--l{ _-

BASIS: CP&L's PERC Order 48 filing of 6-30-82, sec 292 302(b) items 1-24, p.2, gives outputs of Harris 1 and 2 corresnonding to less than or about 60% Capacity Factor (line 22: 4600 GWH for Unit 1 and h700 for Unit 2, per year) ; NUREG-0020, Vol 6, No. 8 (latest I have) identifies numserous largo PWRS in the 50% C.F. range and at least 2 Westinghouse ones under 50%, one of which is about 30% (Beaver Yalley 1). The Y.C. Summer plant, nearly identical to Harris units, is now limited to 50% power due to steam generator nroblems. It has steam the same Westinghouse D-k/ generators incorporated into Harris. McGuire

1. 1, with similar problems in a D-2, has been at no more than ltlf capacity (34.5% in NURFG-0020 Yo1 6 #8) dues to suct problems, in spite of several periods of operation et 75% capacity.

The Public Staff's official renort of its recommendations for the 1982-83 North Carolina Locd Forecast (the hearing is required by NC law, General Statue 110.1 I beldve) has Harris 2 cancelled and Hkrris 1 delayed into the 1990s. The Public Staff'e forecast of load growth this time is about half what it was in the 1980-81 Load forecast hearing for CP&L's sales and peaks; if this continues a trend in load forecasts that has occurred since the mid-70s, it may well be that before Harris 1 operates the growth wate will be

)

zero or negativo, or the official State estimate adopted by the NC Utilities Commission may be. The cetual load affects the fuel savings available from Harris (as ER Amdt. 5 shows, p 8.1.1-1).

Tha occurrences of lower-than-projected cape. city factor, cancellation of nuclear units, and lover-than-projected system loads have occurred Other references to this FEDC filing above are to the same section on nages 1 or 2. l l

l l

. - . . ~ . ~ .

- l ]?

together in the past both for CP&L and for other utilities. See, e.g., CP&L R8-h3 filings of forecasts with NCUC: testimony of Duke Power witness Freund, NCUC Docket E-100 sub 41 (12-82) Tr. Yo1 YI, 85-86 and 95-96). CP&L cancelled 2 South River nukes in 1978 and 2 of the Harris units in 1981. Thus, it makes sense that all of these circumstances could again occur in the f utuve, or that Twtor more of them could simultaneously during Harris oneration.

15 H CP&L fails to provide an escalation factor or discount rate whereby its levelized values throughout E9 AMDT 5 section 8, (and as reproduced in Section 11 thereof) were calculated.

Without knowledge of this discount rate, it is innossible to realistically assess the reasonableness of the savings estimated therein, or to connare them with othew fuel cost, fuel savinFs s O&M cost, O&M avoided cost, er other relevant data..

BASIS: Self-evident from ER Amdt 5 omission; common sense.

15 I CP&L evidently used an erreneous discount rate in connuting Harris levelized fuel savings in the one case laid out in FD Andt 6 i (Table 8.1.1-2). As best I can connute, this rate is around 10%.

BASIS: CP&L used an 11.7% discount factor in, e.g., King 2 and Exhibit,5 /,

in NCUC Docket No E-100 sub kl as reflecting CP&L's af ter-tax cost of debt, which King asserted was appropriate to use to calculate current values of avoided fuel costs paid to small producers. The dkte King used this 11.7% discount rate i

on in Exhibit 2 is analbgous to the yearly fuel savings of ER i

Amendment 5, i. e. both are avoided costs calculated by com uter l

i (PROMOD or other model) program reflecting different available power resources on CP&L's system.

I __ _ _ ____ __ __ _

- f [] -

15 J CP&L should have used a range of discount factors or rates in icvelizing the cost data in ER Amendment 5. This range should span at least 4 to 6 nercent.

BASIS: No one can know the future costs of debt or the future inflation rate with precision. It is the ouinion of economists, e.g. Prof. E. Roy Weintraub of Duke University, that analyses using discount rates should therefore use a range of diccount rates (example: 6,8,10 and 12% if the best estinate is 8 to 10% per year) to assess the reasonableness of constant-dollared comnutations and their sensitivity to discount rates.

CP&L and most economists and forecasters have erred in forecasting future discount rates in the past, esoecially for a term extending 13 or so year into the future (ER 5 fuel cases) or 31 years (ER amdt 5 operating cost estimates).

15 K CP&L uses an estimate of nuclear fuel disnosal costs which does not reflect either their current rates or the true costs which will have to be naid, eventually.

BASIS: The 1 mill /kwh which CP&L refers to on nage 8.2.1-1 of ER Amdt 5 is less than the anuroximately 1.5 mills /kwh in 1982 NC rates (see fuel adjustment cleuse croceedings). This cost may be set as to what CP&L will be charged directly, but the taxcayers will have to make un any costs above this for Federal government waste disuosal activities. Prof. Bernard Cohen estimated in his Scientific American article sone years ago that such costs could be as high as $250 million ner reactor ner year. Dividing that by even CP&L's unrealistically high 5.5 billion kWh ner Harris unit per year, that's 40 cents /KWh or so. Other government estimates (e.g. DOEs) have been over 1 mill, and have been criticized as unrealistically low (e.g. Komanoff, Nuclear Power Plant De=formance, CEP, New York,1979, where he uses about 1.8 mills ) .

-, q - - -

7 NOTE,senarate from 15 K, on why 15 K could not have been filed M '

earlier: The senate Bill referenced by CP&L (ref 8.2.1-1; F9 8.2.1) had not even been passed until December 1982. Even once it was f passed, I could not know CP&L would use the number until I got this amendment 5 to the ER.

W ER Amdt 5 15 L CP&L's fael cost savings estimates do not take full account of the tendency of CP&L nuclear units to be out of service du"idg periods and seasons of high demand, nor the likelihood of this recurring, in the case of the Harris unit or units.

BASIS: CP&L's ER Amendment 5 does not address this nroblen.

But it does say the fuel savings data cone fron a connuter sinu-lation. These simulations (e.g. PROMOD) may generate a probabilistic schedule of unit outages and deratings which does not match the pattern set by CP&L's Robinson and Brunswick units over the last 2 to 3 years of having numbers of outages begin in or extend through much or all of the summer neek load season er the winter neak load season. I infer that such is the case w!th these numbers by comnaring CP&L's 1986 nroduction cost savings for Harris 1 ($100 million, ER Arndt 5 Table 8.1.1-2 or. nage 8.1.1-3) u dth the e c'C' million ow so CP&L stated would be the cost of doing without Harris 1 during l 198h (NCUC Docket No. E-100 sub 35,1979). The latter estimate

, ves made befove this pattern of outages of CP&L nucleLr units

{

became clear, and thus must not take it into account. CP&L's witnesses in E-100 sub 35 certainly didn't say it did take such l a possibility into account. Even allowing 12 or lh% discounting l (high rates connared to CP&L's evident 10% in Table 8.1.1-2) of the 1986 Harris 1 number to 1984 dollars, the 1986 savings alleged by ER Amendnent 5 are higher in constant dollars than j the 1979 Harris 1 fuel savings estinate.

L(

s- l J~

Thus, it is reasonable to condlude that a pattern of summer and winter outages for the Harris units is not included in Table 8.1.1-2 of ER Amdt 5, especially dnce the Harris 1 (and late",

Harris 2) annual nominal fuel savings rise ranidly into the 1990s before levling off. Thus, they stay at levels that, in constant dollars, are at or above the 1979 estimate levels which did not reflect the sumner and winter outage nattern CP&L nukes have developed.

The extensive outages of CP&L nuclear units in neak seasons are the subject of numerous CP&L base load nower plant nerformance recorts to the NC Utilities Comnission (under Rule R8-h6) for 1979 through the end of 1982 (renorts filed monthly), and also of hearings under the old NC fuel clause law, e.g. Docket E-P sub h25, E-2 sub h3h, E-2 sub h46, E-2 sub h52. They are well documented. Here I an not citing CP&L's excuses for them, only the fact that they have occurred and that it makes sense to analyze as a sensitivity case a natte"n which in fact has hanpened with considerable regularity.

CP&L has nrovided no analysis of the likelihood of such problems recurring, e.g. because of nushing the refueling schedules of Harris units into a winter neak or sunner neak time neriod due to other unexnected outages or due to more extensive renairs.

Note, for exannle, the outages of Duke Power's McGuire #1 in su$mer 1982 to check steam generators and in winter 1983 (now) to attennt repair of s ame. Horris also has Westinghouse model D steam generators.

15 M CP&L under estimatas the unconnensated cost of NRC regulation of Harris, and fslie to include the cost of licensing and fees for insnections during ouerationj didb [*IIM bd#'

BASIS: ER Andt 5 at 8.P.2-3 says that insnection fees are

-({<

omitted from the calculat. ion. Yet these fees are a cost to run Harris, and should be subtracted from any benefits alleged.

Further, NFC's budget (which CP&L says it is unable to nredict) has risen sharply in recent years, and NRC is one of the few .

government agencies adding employees under " resident Reagan.

Thus it is reasonable to assume that N90 regulatony costs will rise in the future. This is carticularly annlicable to C"&L which has had high safety risks at its other onerating nients (NRC subjective risk rat'ngs of 8, 9 and 13 for 1081, wheve the natienal nuclear plant average is about 1), and thus can be exnected to take un more of N90's resotrees, either to nrevent an accident, or to den 1 with the consequences of one (or mere) that CP&L might have due to its high risk oneration.

CP&L has a re@gpd of reneated and large NDC fines.

15 N CP&L fails to subtract the administrative and general costs, O&M costs, and nuclear liability insurance costs identified in Table 8.2.1-1 of ER Amendment 5, or other rer;onable estimates of such costs of Harris oueration, from the fuel savings estimates of Table 81.1-2 and other sensitivity cases analyzed. If these per-kwh figures (8.2.1-1 Table) were based on 70% capacity factor, as seems likely, they even nore greatly understate the real costs of ouerating Harris units.

3ASTS: That CD&L didn't kncck these costs off is nretty clear from their not mentioning them at all in E9 8.1.1 section.

Yet, the Harris estimated savings in any of the sentitivity canes of that section cannot be incurred without also incurr*.nF the exnenses cited above, at an absolute minimum. (They don't include, e.g., repair materials and so on.) The administrative and general staff expansion to take care of Ecrris is significant, and would not be incurred if Harris did not onerate at all.

.. . ~ . ..

Since CP&L tynically asaunes a 70% capacity factor, and says it did in Table 8.2.1-1, ac tual costs ner KWH would obviously be higher at lower canacity factors.

But we can also see how aignificant these costs are in constant dollars by multinlying the total A&G, O&M and Nuclear Liability Insurance costs of Table 8.2.1-2 (19.6 mills /kkh or about 2 cents /kWh) by the 5.52 billion kWh assuned at 70%

capacity factor. This gives nearly $110 n1111on per unit ner year, in constant dollars. I#, *or exannle, vou knnek tha t off of CP&L's constant dollar fuel savings for the 2 units (total 16 years oneration), you take out about 80% of the naojected savings.

For Harris 1 alone, you subtract 1.1 billion from the 1.136 billion alleged savings (n 8,1.1-1) and end un with a levelized 36 nillion.

Moreover, the insurance, administrative, and considerable O&M costs (olus nore repairs) will occur at lower canacity factors, and if (as seems reasonable) the total cost of running Harris is not much less in its non-fuel total at 50% canacity factor than at 70%,

then the two Harris lower capg fty factor cases result in snall or zero costs, and no benefits, when the non-fuel one. ration coots are subtracted. The Brunswick ulant costs none to run at its lower capacity factor than it had at higher ones, and the same annears to be true for Robinson 2 (both on a non-fuel total uroduct'en cost basis).

It nay be objected that CP&L hasn't exultined how the two levelizations (10 year fuel " savings" and 28 year costs to onerate) relate in terms of discount rate, etc. but that does not affect the noint that these non-fuel O&M costs have to be incurred to run the olant, and that they are a significant pert of the amount of fuel " savings". Taking then into account lowers net savings, therefore.

But without incurring the costs of running He.rris, there are no savings.

-(f-15 "O" CP&L's ER Amendment 5 section 3.1.2.1 estimate of taxes has not been subtracted from Harris fuel " savings" as a cost of operation. They should be.

BASIS: If Harris never operated, it would be scranped and not incur oronerty taxes based on the morey sunk into it. The cost of property tax on Harris unit 1 and unit 2, associated land and improvements, is a cost of operating them just as the taxes on a factory are a cost of ouerating it. If the facto y is closed and its machinery removed, it has much less value. Likewise, were the Harris niant abandoned, or never licensed, its value would be much less, it would be taxed less, and, indeed, CD&L could sell it and thus avoid any tax liability for the site or plant. (If abandoned after an accident, its value would dron, but I'd think it wo cid then be harder to sell, as would nearby Innd. )

15 P CPat's onerating cost-benefit analysis for Harris, vn Amendment 5, section 8, fails to take into account the costs of major accidents figured at either their erobability, or the acceptability of such an accident to the local environment and neonle (the " avoided cost" of an accident, or the cost

, people would pay to be sure of avoiding such an accident). It l

l should. No final NEPA analysis should issuex without such.

BASIS: NEPA recuires that unintended snd adverse effects be taken into account, ei ther ?n nunbers or otherwise , in cost-l benefit analysis. 130 now recuires consideratiun of serious accidents. CP&L's analysis is thorefore incomnlete.

15 Q A proper cost-benefit analysis of Harris operation would not confirm the "exoorience that the oueration of a nuclear l

facility . . . validates the cost-benefit balance struck at the

f Construction Pernit proceeding." (ER Amendment 5, n. 8.1.1-1)

BASIS : The actual operation of CP&L's last nuclear facility, the Brunswick plant, has resulted in far less benefite, and far higher costs, than considered at its CP nroceeding. For examnle, in the years 1981-83, over $150 million of renair costs will be incurred for Brunswick. Including O&M, Brunswick's cost of power production has eoualed or exceeded that for coal niants built near its time frama (e.g. Roxboro 3 and h; Duke Power's Belews Creek units 1 and 2, operating in 1973, 1980, 1975 and 1976 initially, as comoared to 1975 and 1977 for the Brunswick units).

Moreover, Brunswick's fuel savings to. the CP&L system have been less than the additional cost of the plant, its nersonnel, its repairs, and its maintenance, insurance, taxes and decreciation which it incurred connared to an alternative niant like Rcxboro 3 Since the CP balance nroved wrong there, it can with Harris.

One has only to note the considerable changes in Harris plant narameters (cost, O&M cost, fuel cost, CP&L estinate of future load growth, NCUC estimate of future load growth, additional safety equipment, additional CD&L on and off-site sunnort nersonnel and so on) to see that the cost-benefit analysis of the CP stage grows shakier all the time.

Similarly, the estimates of fuel savings in oneration, and other costs and benefits of operation, nut forward by CP&L in ER Amendment 5, may be exnected to change in the future, probably in the same nattern as set for Brunswick. More accurcte. data can be produced for many of these narameters, and relevant data have not been uroduced for many narameters affecting relative system onerating costs with or without Harris 1 and/or Harris 2, as shown in the basis of contentions above (incornovated by reference here for facts shown).

e-- [b' 15 R CP&L should hmxmagmirm . analyze fuel cost " savings" from Harris unit operation under the load forecasts of other parties, e.g. that of the NC Utilities Commission Dublic Staff.

BASIS: ER Amendment 5 section 8.1 shows that CP&L's estimates of fuel savings are sensitive to load growth; new estimates of load growth are being made all the tine, even by CP&L, which may or do differ from CP&L's 1981 load forecast (E9 5 sec 8.1.1) used in all of CP&L's sensitivity cases excent the no-growth one.

The NCUC Public Staff has filed a new forecast (NCUC Docket No. E-100 sub 46, Feb.1983) considerably below CP&L's, by about 1% per vear in growth rate. The NC Utilities Conniss!cn has often adopt- afficial forecast ranging fron the com,any's estimates to the Public Staff's, or thereabouts.

The loads input into a connuter analysis of systen fuel savings clearly affect the reasonableness of the costs and " savings" l

l derived therefrom. See e.g. testinony in NCUC Docket No. E-100 sub h1 by Duke Power witress Freund, Tr. Yo1 TI, p, 87 (Dec 1982) where he states he is sure that the loads do affect the costs derived from the PROMOD fuel cost nodel.

15 S CP&L should analyze fuel cost savings from Harris unit operations under the following assumption: 1 or both Harris units available, with loads less than 1981 levels.

BASIS: The loads do affect the cost savings shown, and systen growth rates and estimates thereof have been declining regularly for CP&L since 1973 " Unthinkable" things like electricity sales declines due to price increases have occurred, and given the nreset.t trends in electricity sales and peak loads, future loads could well become less than they are today. It certainly is a valid sensitivity case to analyze the future result of such a current 1

.~ .

- }{ ( "

trend, especially one that has continued from 1973 to the nresent and shows no sign of stonning. This is particularly true when we consider that Harris unit oneration will lead to cuite substantid.

rate increases, which can be exnected to affect (and reduce) consumption of electricity on the CP&L system. CPe:L rate hikes have been producing reductions in sales ner custoner concistent with a short-term nrice elasticity of demand of about .2 (i.e.

a 10% increase in rates nroduces a 2% lower sales per custoner).

See Bddlencn testimony, NCUC Docket E-2 sub L16. Harris #1 would raise system rates about 15% uuon oneration, even with current levels of CWIP lef t in rater before it comes on-line (if it does). Thus, about a 3% short-run reduction in sales growth would occur. But even CP&L's 1981 forecast is below 3% ner year neak growth. If the Public Staff's 1983 forecast nroves nnre accurate, ne6ative growth would occur, and future i loads i n the 1986-95 period could well be less than in 1981.

Because of the tendency of past CP&L load growth estimates l

to be regularly too high (see, e.g. , testimony of Levon B. Page l in NCUC Dockets E-100 sub 35 and E-100 sub 40 where he notes past CP&L overestimates) especially on a weather-normal basis (see, e.g. Eddleman testimony, and my Renort in Docket No. E-100 l

l sub 40), and the clear cost of Harris in rate base once it 1

were to be licensed to ouerate, a " negative growth" case is necessary to consider for an accurate cost-benefit analysis, l 1.e. one that will not be honelessly outdated and wrong within to 5 a few years, as most of CP&L's nast load forecasts have been.

l I

UNITED STATES OF AME9ICA NUCIJAR REGULATOFY C0!C4ISSION In the matter of CAROLINA PO';iER k LIGHT Co. Et al. ) Dockets 50-h00 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 ) and 50S01 0.L.

CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached Tddleman 15 contentio n revisions and amendments, including 15A thru 15 S,15 X and 15 Y HAVE been served this lith day of February 198,_3_, by deposit in the US Mail, first-class postnge prepaid, upon all parties whose names are listed below, except those whose names a e arked with an asterisk, for whom service was acconplished by Judges James Kelley, Glenn B"iE ht and James Caynter (1 cony each)

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 GeorEe F. Trowbridge (attorney for Anplicants)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge l 1800 M St. NW Washington, DC 20036 Office of the Executive Legal Director Phyllis Lotchin, Ph.D.

Attn Docke ts 50-400/401 $?L. 108 Bridle Run USNRC Chanel Hill

' NC 2751h Washir.gton DC 20555 Dan 9ead Docketing and Service Section CEAUGT/ELP Attn Docke ts 50-h00/h01 0.L. Box 52h Office of the Secretary Chapel Hill NC 2751h '

USNRC Washington DC x 20555 Pat & Slater Newnan CANP John Runkle 2309 Weynouth Court CCNC Raleigh NC 27612 307 Granville Rd .

I Chapel Hill Ne 2751h Travias Payne Edelstein & Payne Box 126E3 Raleigh NC 27605 Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by w 729 Hunter St.

l Apex NC 27502

. - - - . _- _ _ - _ _- __- _ - _ _ _ _ ____ _ _______