ML20069A318
| ML20069A318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1983 |
| From: | Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303150597 | |
| Download: ML20069A318 (28) | |
Text
.=
March 11, 1983 "<
Typ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 83 MM 14 P1 :09 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
'aa SER',2-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 'O h2 In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) 50-401 OL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO INTERVENOR WELLS EDDLEMAN'S REVISED, AMENDED AND ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS BASED ON EDDLEMAN 15 AND ER AMENDMENT 5 1
Pursuant to the schedule established at the Prehearing Conference (Tr. 586-87), Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Municipal Power Agency hereby respond to " Wells Eddleman's Revised, Amended and Additional Contentions Based on Eddleman 15 and ER Amdt. 5" dated February 11, 1983. For the reasons set forth in detail below, Applicants oppose admission of new proposed Contentions 15X, 15Y, and 15A through ISS. Furthermore, Applicants request that the Board dismiss original Contention 15 as moot.
OOohdoo PDR h0b
BACKGROUND In its Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference), dated September 22, 1982
(" September 22 Order"), the Board admitted two aspects of Eddleman Contention 15: (1) the economic cost of nuclear waste disposal is underestimated, and (2) Applicants' estimated capacity factor of 70% for the Harris Plant is too high.
September 22 Order at 41-42. The Board stated: "When Applicants amend their ER, this subpart of Eddleman 15 may be mooted, although new contentions may be submitted based on the new information." Id.
On December 15, 1982, Applicants filed with the Director, Officer of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Amendment No. 5 to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Report ("ER").
Chapter 8 of the ER, as amended, provides an analysis of the system production cost savings resulting from operation of the Harris Plant for the ten year period from 1986 (when Harris Unit 1 is scheduled to commence commercial operations) through 1995. Chapter 11 compares benefits of operation of the Harris Plant with environmental and economic costs.
ER Amendment 5 was prompted by amendments to 10 C.F.R. Part 51, effective April 26, 1982, which provide that "need for power" and " alternative energy sources" need not be considered in ongoing and future operating license proceedings for nuclear power plants, absent a showing of "special circumstances" pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.758. See 47 Fed. Reg. 12940 (March 26, 1982). In promulgating this rule, the Commission established a presumption of continuimg validity at the Operating License stage of the favorable cost-benefit balance already struck in the Construction Permit proceeding. Thus, in the Commission's Statement of Background of the Rule, published
~
with'the fina.l rule, the Commission explained:
~
In accordance with the Commission's NEPA responsibilities, the need for power and alternative energy sources are resolved in the construction permit proceeding. The Commission stated its tentative conclusion that while there is no diminution of the importance of these issues at the construc-tion permit' stage, the situation is such that at the time of the operating license proceedimg the plant would be needed to either meet increased energy needs or replace older less economical generating capacity and that no viable alternatives to the completed nuclear plant are likely to exist which could tip the NEPA cost-benefit balance against issuance of the operating license. Past experience has shown this to be the case. In addition, this conclusion is unlikely to change even if an alterna-tive is shown to be marginally envi-ronmentally superior in comparison to operation of a nuclear facility because of the economic advantage which operation of nuclear power plants has over available
- fossil generating plants. 47 Fed. Reg. at l at 12940.
l Applicants' ER was prepared prior to the adoption of the l
new rule by the Commission. ER Amendment 5 deleted the sections in the ER related to demand forecasts and comparisons with alternative energy sources. Consistent with draft
" Supplemental Guidance for the Preparation of Environmental Reports in Support of an Operating License Application" l
l
! -34 t
(undated), prepared by the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Applicants prepared a system production cost analysis that shows the savings in system production costs associated with the availability.of the Harris Plant as compared with its unavailability. Th'is a'nalysis reveal's that the total system production cost savings for the first ten years of operations alone (1986-1995) will be approximately $2.021 billion (1986 dollars). This analysis simply confirms the Commission's experience that the operation of a nuclear facility provides a substantial cost savings to the overall system cost in generat-ing electricity and validates the cost-benefit balance struck at the Construction Permit proceeding.
The Commission made it abundantly clear that " presiding officers shall not admit contentions proffered by any party concerning need for power or alternative energy sources for the proposed plant in operating license hearings." 10 C.F.R.
S 51.53(c). Exceptions to this rule can be sought upon a demonstration of special circumstances pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758. The Commission explained that "(s]uch special circumstances could exist if, for example, it could be shown that nuclear plant operations would entail unexpected and significant adverse environmental impacts or that an envi-ronmentally and economically superior alternative existed."
Proposed Rule, 46 Fed. Reg. 39440 at 39441. Thus the Commission made it clear that special circumstances must be
shown, whether they relate to the cost or to the benefit side of the cost-benefit analysis, in order to reopen questions of need for power or alternative energy sources. This reinforces the conclusion that the Board should itself set a high thresh-old before concluding that new allegations of environmental
~
cost or'of superior economic alternative's justify certifying to the Commission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 any exception or waiver from the new rule which would permit reconsideration of need for power or alternative energy sources.
A logical extension of the amendments to Part 51 would be to require any party seeking to reopen any aspect of the cost-benefit balance similarly to make a showing of special circum-stances just as required for contentions concerming need for power and alternative energy sources. The amendments them-selves, however, do not appear to go so far. The Board should, however, take into account the findings already made by the Commission in promulgating its new rule which recognize the cost-benefit determination already made in the construction permit proceeding and the factors which at the operating license stage improve or support the cost-benefit balance in favor of plant operation. The Board should insist that a petitioner meet a heavy burden in showing that his allegations regarding the inadequacies of Applicants' showing of a benefit from operating the Harris Plant are of a magnitude which would justify, in effect, conducting a de novo review of the
l cost-benefit balance.1/ To do otherwise would be to render ineffective the Commission's new rule proscribing need for power and alternative energy source contentions.2/
ARGUMENT Mr. Eddleman proposes twenty new contentions that attack ,
the analysis of system production cost savings presented by Applicants in ER Amendment 5. He quarrels with Applicants' ,
methodology, assumptions, sensitivity analyses, cost estimates (included or not included), and results. In most cases his offer of basis with required specificity is no more than a bald assertion. His references to information in rate proceedings before the North Carolina Utilities Commission ("NCUC") is either misplaced or mischaracterized or both, and he fails to provide copies of the relevant documents to the Board or the Staff. However, the issue before the Board is not the precise accuracy of Applicants' system production cost savings. The issue is whether there is a benefit to the Applicants and their customers from operation of_the Harris Plant. The Commission has established a presumption in favor of the cost-benefit 1/ Arguably, any contention regarding the " benefit" side of the cost-benefit balance " concerns" need for power or alterna-tive energy sources and is thus proscribed, absent a showing of special circumstances, by 10 C.F.R. & 51.53(c). However, the Commission's new rule did not unambiguously go that far and we do not rely on such an interpretation here.
2/ See Applicants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by Wells Eddleman, at 19-30 (June 15, 1982) for a more detailed discussion of the Commission's new rule.
__ .. . = --
' balance struck at the Construction Permit proceeding. 'The analysis performed by the Applicants confirms that the benefit-from operation of the Harris Plant from system production cost savings alone (ignoring for these purposes the need for the plant which was established at the Construction Permit pro-ceeding)'is'enor'mous - ' measured in b'illions of dollars over
~
the' life of the Harris Plant. Applicants' analysis does no.
j more than project the system production cost savings for the i first ten years (1986-1995). The precision of each assumption
- therein need not be defended; the sensitivity analyses demon-strate that huge errors in assumptions will not change the result -- there is a significant benefit associated with operation of the Harris Plant.
Mr. Eddleman has simply failed to address this key issue.
He has articulated no contention, supported with basis and
[ required specificity, that would suggest a need to litigate the benefit side of the cost benefit equation. Mr. Eddleman's contentions tend to pick out the leaves on the trees but never f
l address the forest. For example, it makes no sense to litigate i
the appropriate discount rate for analysis of the system production cost savings if using any alternative discount rate suggested by Mr. Eddleman would result in production cost
! savings of over a billion dollars in the first ten years and would still confirm the benefit of operating the Harris Plant.
While it is certainly true that the capacity factor achieved by the Harris Plant will define the magnitude of the actual 4
i 1
, . , ..-~_,-._,-,.--,~.--,--_,.---_._-,-_---,-..,......,,.-mm.,_...,,-,--..--,._,,--m.---
S electrical power generated, there is no reason to litigate Applicants' assumption of a 70% capacity factor if sensitivity analyses demonstrate the system production cost savings are over a billion dollars in the first ten years even with
~
- capacity factors for two units'at 50%. Indeed, there is no justification for liti'ga$ing any of Mr. Eddleman's contentions absent a showing with basis and required specificity that there might well be a-reversal of the favorable cost-benefit balance struck for'the Harris Plant at the Construction Permit pro-ceeding and found, in the Commission's experience, for other nuclear power plants that it~has licensed.
Mr. Eddleman has been very candid about his intentions.
j He' desires discovery of Applicants regarding Contention 15 in
- order to obtain information to support a-petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.758 challenging the application of the Commission's new rule in this proceeding. Tr. 614. The same logic that proscribes the use of discovery as an aid to frame contentions would equally apply to the use of discovery to support a petition under 6 2.758.
Applicants below address each new proposed contention and the two subparts of original Contention 15. In general, Mr.
Eddleman does not establish sufficient basia with required I
specificity to support a litigable issue regarding each new
, contention. However, the fundamental and fatal flaw in each of Mr. Eddleman's new contentions is that he has failed to relate his allegations regarding each separate issue, either 1
,. ,~- .,.,____,,.,,.,m-,. . _ . . , . . _ _ , , , . . , . - , , .
individually or collectively, to the favorable cost-benefit balance struck at the Construction Permit proceeding and to the overall magnitude of the system production cost savings which will result from operation of the Harris Plant. For this- !
reason alone, each new' proposed contention must be rejected.
~
~
In light of ER Amendment 5 and'the passage of the Nuclear' Waste Policy Act of 1982, original Contention 15 is now moot.
RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL PROPOSED CONTENTIONS Proposed Contention 15A and the second part of original Contention 15 allege that the assumed Harris Plant capacity factor of 70% is too high. Contention 15A also claims that the
" contribution to capacity (1800 MWe)" is too high.
Applicants' estimated capacity factor is not, in and of itself, a litigable issue. Applicants have assumed for purposes of the system production cost analysis that, on the average, the annual capacity factor for Harris Units 1 and 2 will be approximately 70%. However, for purposes of confirming the significant system production cost savings from operating with the Harris units, sensitivity analyses were performed assuming annual average capacity factors of 60% and 50%. Even when it is assumed that the average annual capacity factor for both units will be only 50%, system production cost savings for the first ten years alone are estimated to be in excess of one billion dollars. ER, 5 8.1.1. Thus, Applicants need not demonstrate that the Harris Plant will operate at a capacity factor of 70%.
_9_
Mr. Eddleman misuses information and statistics in arguing that Applicants should take into consideration operating with a capacity factor of less than 50%. He states that Carolina Power & Light' Company ("CP&L") assumed a 30.64% forced outage rate for Harris Units 1 and 2 in a June 30, 1982 filing with the Federal'Ener'y'R'egulatory Commission ("FERC").
~
~ '
g What he fails to mention is that the forced outage figure that he cites was only for the first year of operation of each unit, during which period " shakedown" problems are assumed. This is almost twice the forced outage rate for a mature nuclear unit.
Mr. Eddleman cites to certain plants that have abnormally low lifetime capacity factors. Mr. Eddleman does not mention other Westinghouse PWR plants with lifetime capacity factors in the 80% range, does not cite to the overall average capacity factor for all Westinghouse PWR's (in the mid 60% range), or refer to CP&L's operating PWR, Robinson Unit 2, which has a lifetime capacity factor of over 66%. CP&L's experience in operating nuclear units would not justify considering a lifetime capacity factor of less than 50% as a credible assumption. Mr. Eddleman has not provided any basis for a contention that Applicants must consider a capacity factor of less than 50% in an analysis of estimated system production cost savings.
Mr. Eddleman argues that a 20% reserve margin means that only 1500 MWe out of the total 1800 MWe installed capacity is
" firm". Mr. Eddleman misconstrues the meaning of reserve
margin. Two 900 MWe units will contribute 1800 MWe of installed capacity. The 20% reserve margin applies to the percent of capacity in excess of estimated peak load that should be available on the Applicants' total system. Reserve margin is a component of the need for power issue, which is not cognizable before this' Board. Mr. Eddleman's somewhat disjoin-ted arguments regarding the estimated growth rate of system demand and recommendations of the Public Staff of the NCUC to meet that demand are also arguments regarding the need for power and are not cognizable before this Board. See also Applicants' response to Contention 15G, Contention 15R and Contention ISS infra.
Contention 15A should be rejected and part 2 of Contention 15 should be dismissed as moot.
Contention 15X alleges that Applicants have not " properly included working capital costs associated with fuel inventories for both coal and nuclear plants in its analysis of projected fuel cost ' savings'." As his proposed basis, Mr. Eddleman makes a number of bald, unsupported, inaccurate statements and mischaracterizes testimony of a CP&L witness in a FERC rate case.
Certain carrying costs for nuclear fuel have been included in the estimated fuel cycle costs for Harris.3/ See ER,
"/
3 As best we can determine, Mr. Eddleman's reference to nearly $100 million in nuclear fuel-in-progress requested by CP&L in rate base in its last NCUC general rate cases" must refer to Docket E-2, Sub. 416 (1981) of $81.4 million and (Continued Next Page)
$ 8.2.1 and Table 8.2.1-1. Carrying costs for both uranium inventory (including the unamortized balance of the fuel in core) and coal inventory were not included in the system production cost analysis. However, the carrying costs of coal inventory approximate those carrying costs of uranium inventory. Thus, there would be no significant change to the system production cost analysis if uranium and coal inventories were included.
Mr. Eddleman provides no basis for his assertion that nuclear fuel will cost more due to the "ending of low-cost uranium supply contracts." The basis of Applicants estimated fuel cycle costs are discussed at ER S 8.2.1. Mr. Eddleman's assertion of increased enrichment costs due to the new centri-fuge enrichment facility at Portsmouth, Ohio again has no basis in fact. The Department of Energy recently announced that enrichment services prices would not be raised during the next year and the centrifuge enrichment process has the potential to reduce, not increase, enrichment costs significantly.4/
(Continued)
Docket E-2, Sub. 444 (1982) of $69.4 million. This particular account includes " materials, stock", plus " assemblies in reactor" plus " spent fuel" less " accumulated provision for amortization." Mr. Eddleman has exaggerated the figures, fai-led to explain them, failed to indicate why he alleges that Applicants have not taken them into account, and fails to include copies of relevant pages of referenced documents to which the Board has no easy access. Applicants do not intend to burden the Board with North Carolina rate case filings and to relitigate those issues here. Suffice it here to counter Mr. Eddleman's allegations with a denial and explanation, where his offer of basis is fabricated out of whole cloth.
4/ See, e.g., U.S. Department of Energy, 1982 Uranium Enrichment Annual Report (March 1983) and Nuclear Fuel, Vol. 8, No. 5 (February 28, 1983) at 1.
Contention 15X must be rejected.
Contention 15Y, Contention ISB, Contention 15D and Contention 15N all allege that Applicants have improperly compared, " gross benefits", instead of " net benefits", with environmental costs. In Contention 15Y, Mr. Eddleman alleges that in establishing ~the' system production cost savings, Applicants fail to consider operating payroll, variable O&M, equipment, materials and supplies, contractor O&M, repair, environmental monitoring, emergency planning, costs of serious accidents, and costs of transmission, transformer and other facilities built for Harris. Contention ISD and Contention 15N allege that the computation of fuel savings does not include the cost of modifications and repairs including capital costs.
Later in Contention 15N, he alleges that Applicants did not
" knock-off" administrative and general costs, O&M costs and nuclear liability insurance costs.
These contentions demonstrate that Mr. Eddleman is blindly shooting in the dark in making his allegations. He has no basis whatsoever for his assertions. In fact, his allegations are inconsistent with later contentions which assert that some of the same costs are underestimated rather than ignored all together. As we understand Mr. Eddleman's use of the term " net benefits", Applicant's comparison of system production costs, with and without the Harris Plant, expresses a " net benefit."
As set forth in ER $ 8.2.1, O&M costs are based on a 1982 estimate of company and contract payroll, materials, and
services. required for operation and maintenance of the Harris Plant. O&M costs include both fixed and variable O&M --
materials, suppplies, repairs, environmental monitoring, emergency planning, and labor costs (including general office support). As indicated in ER $ 8.2.1, Applicants expect to spend approximately $615,000,000 of the total O&M cost in salaries. These salaries are based on Applicants' estimate of all personnel, both onsite and offsite, required by the project and any contract labor required. Applicants did not, however, include an estimate of nuclear liability insurance costs in the system production cost savings analysis. Nuclear liability insurance costs -- estimated at $600,000 for the first year --
as such costs might be incurred annually over the life of the Plant, are insignificant compared with the billions of dollars of cost savings. See ER Table 8.2.1-1. Applicants also did not take into consideration the capital costs of transmission, transformer and other facilities built for Harris. These capital costs were included in construction cost estimates and, therefore, are not at issue in the operating license pro-ceeding. In any event, transmission, transformer and other facilities would be required for alternative energy sources even if Harris were not built.
Contention ISD, in part, also appears to allege that certain capital costs are inadequately treated. Capital costs for major modifications to both nuclear and coal plants were not included in the system production cost savings analysis.
The difference in capital costs for repairs or modifications of a coal plant as compared to a nuclear plant of comparable size would not be substantial enough to affect the magnitude of the system production cost savings as set forth in ER Chapter 8.
Mr. Eddleman's allegations in Contention 15Y, Contention 15B, Contention 15D and Contention 15N are all inaccurate.
These contentions must be rejected.
Contention 15C asserts that Applicants have underestimated the variable O&M costs associated with operating a nuclear unit. Mr. Eddleman cites to the testimony of a CP&L witness in a NCUC proceeding as basis for this contention.
Contention 15C, which states that Applicants have under-estimated variable O&M costs, is inconsistent with Contention 15Y, which alleges that Applicants have omitted variable O&M costs. The response to the alleged basis for Contention 15C is straightforward. NCUC Docket No. E-100, Sub. 41 was a pro-ceeding for determining the appropriate rates for purchase and sale of electricity between electric utilities and qualifying co-generators or small power producers. The type of analysis in that proceeding is somewhat different than the analysis of system production cost savings set forth in ER Chapter 8.
Applicants developed detailed calculations of all' cost informa-tion in performing the system production cost analysis for ER Amendment 5, including both variable and fixed O&M. Thus, Contention 15C must be dismissed as having no basis in fact.
l l
1 Contention 15E asserts that Applicants have underestimated
'the cost of nuclear fuel for the Harris Plant by "using a levelized figure of 6.7 mills /KWh for 1986-95." Mr. Eddleman i 1
performs a detailed analysis which results in a levelized fuel cost in 1986 dollars of 12.4 to 13 mills /KWh.
~
The simple resonsc to Contention 15E is that the figure of 6.7 mills /KWh in 1986 dollars is an average (as stated in ER Table 8.1.1-2) rather than levelized fuel cost. A levelized number for the same 1986 - 1995 period, discounted to 1986 dollars using Applicants' figures, would be 11.3 mills /KWh or fairly close to Mr. Eddleman's estimate. Applicants do not intend to critique Mr. Eddleman's calculations. Even assuming his methodology and his assumptions are valid (which Applicants do not concede), he has not established the basis for a contention that Applicants' nuclear fuel costs are inaccurate.
Indeed, he tends to confirm Applicants' estimates. Contention 15E must be rejected.
Contention 15F is not a contention, but rather a complaint that Applicants have not provided "all of their inputs and the reasons therefore" that go into the system production cost analysis submitted with ER Amendment 5. Providing all of the data that Mr. Eddleman would like to review is simply un-necessary and not required.
This prcceeding is not a rate case. Applicants have provided in the ER updated information on system production costs with or without Harris to confirm the presumption established by the Commission in its need for power rule that significant benefits will accrue to the custcmers of a licensee operating a nuclear power plant. The system production cost savings are enormous; a detailed analysis of all of the assumptions is not called for. Even if Applicants' analysis
~
was'off by hundreds of millions in dollars, it would not change the fact of a significant benefit.
Mr. Eddleman displays a fundamental misconception of the role of an intervenor in the licensing process. Mr. Eddleman would establish himself as an official reviewer of all informa-tion submitted to the Commission. He demands all of the raw data, inputs, assumptions and details of methodology that go into any analysis which is presented in the ER and FSAR. He asks for such information, not because he has a preexisting, particularized concern, with basis and specificity to back-up that concern, but rather because he seeks to find fault with Applicants' analysis as an adversary to Applicants' objective.
Mr. Eddleman must first set forth a litigable contention with l
l adequate basis and specificity. Contention 15F instead asks l
for discovery and must be rejected.
Contention 15G states that the sensitivity analyses
, performed in conjunction with the system production cost l savings analysis in ER Amendment 5 is incomplete since it does not perform an analysis of several alternative cases proposed by Mr. Eddleman.
I
The number of permutations and combinations of assumptions which could be performed as sensitivity analyses is almost limitless. Applicants concede that one could perform a sensitivity annlysis, making all of the worst possible assump-tions, that would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the system production cost's'avings.
Applicants have performed the analysis suggested by the NRC Staff in its draft regulatory guidance and have included sensitivity analyses relating to major input parameters. Applicants need not perform additional analyses for Mr. Eddleman. We have previously dealt with the issue of assuming a capacity factor less than 50%, which Mr. Eddleman raises here again in Contention 15G. See Applicants' Response to Contention 15A supra. The zero load growth sensitivity analysis performed by Applicants is consid-erably less than the forecast suggested by the NCUC Public Staff, which is cited by Mr. Eddleman as basis for Content $on 15G. While Applicants certainly do not agree with the Public Staff's forecast, it is higher than the zero load growth estimate used as a basis of a sensitivity study. One of the sensitivity studies did include an assumption that only Harris Unit 1 would operate through 1995. Applicants believe that the sensitivity analyses performed for ER Amendment 5 over-l l whelmingly confirm the validity of the system production cost analysis. Applicants contend that the additional analyses suggested by Mr. Eddleman are not necessary or required for j purposes of this proceeding, and that Contention 15G must be rejected.
l l l
Contention 15h, Contention 15I and Contention 15J all deal i
with the discount rate used by Applicants in calculating the system production cost savings information set forth in Amendment 5 to the ER. Contention 15H states that Applicants have failed to provide the discount rate whereby its levelized v'alues are' cal'culated.
~
Contention l'5I asserts th't a Applicants
" evidently used an erroneous discount rate in computing Harris levelized fuel savings." Contention 15J proposes a range of discount rates that should have been s sed.
Applicants used an embedded discount rate of 10.883 percent in performing its calculations of levelized costs.
Mr. Eddleman computes that the rate used "is around 10 per-cent." While this rate is certainly close to the rate actually used by Applicants, he claims that this discount rate was used "in computing Harris levelized fuel savings in the one case laid out in the ER Amendment 5-(Table 8.1 1-2)." It is
, unclear how Mr. Eddleman made such a calculation since there f
are no levelized costs set forth in Table 8.1.1-2. The rate of 10.883 percent was selected based on CP&L's embedded discount rate. While it is true that CP&L used an 11.7 percent discount rate in NCUC Docket No. E-100, Sub. 41, that rate simply i
reflected the best information available to CP&L in the Spring of 1982. Since then, the factors that would be included in the appropriate discount rate have declined.
Mr. Eddleman suggests using a range of discount rates between 6 and 12 percent. In fact, if the production cost
, . . . - - . . . . ~ _. . - _ . ~ . - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ . . . . _ _ _
i' savings in current dollars for each year set forth in Table 8.1.1-2'are discounted to 1986 dollars using discount rates of 6, 8 or 10 percent, the total system production cost savings in 1986 dollars is greater than the $2.021 billion estimated by Applicants. Using a discount rate of 12-percent would result in a somewhat l'ower total system production cost savings in 1986 dollars. What Mr. Eddleman has failed to demonstrate is how such an analysis would impact on the conclusion that the
'ratepayers in Applicants' service areas will be significantly benefited by operation of the Harris Plant. Contention 15H, i Contention 15I and Contention 15J must be rejected as failing to state an issue litigable in this proceeding.
Contention 15K and the first part of original Contentien 15 claim that the estimate of nuclear fuel disposal costs is inaccurate.
Spent fuel storage and disposal costs were determined in ER Amendment 5 using the one-mill /KWh value that was estab-lished in S. 1662 as the fee to be paid by utilities for nuclear generated electricity to finance the federal waste I disposal program. Since ER Amendment 5 was filed, Congress has passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (P.L.97-425). The new law mandates that the cost to utilities of disposal of nuclear spent fuel, including transportation and, if necessary, interim storage in a monitored, retrievable storage facility, will be a one-mill /KWh. Reference 8.2.1-1 in the ER (Congressional Budget Office, " Financing Radioactive Waste l
- , - - , . - , - ~ - - , - , , - - - - - _ - . -
Disposal," (September, 1982)) supports the reasonability of the one-mill /KWh fee as adequate to finance the Government's waste disposal program. Thus, one-mill /KWh is, in fact, the fee that Applicants will pay to DOE, as it may be escalated over time.
Applicants have factored escalation into the spent fuel storage
~
and disposal costs. The taxpayers will not "have to make up any costs above this for federal government waste disposal activities", since by statute the fee collected from the generators of spent fuel must cover all costs of radioactive waste disposal. Mr. Eddleman does not and cannot provide any basis for a contention that Applicants will pay other than the fee mandated by law. Contention 15K and part one of original Contention 15 must be rejected.
Contention 15L asserts that Applicants have failed to take into account "the tendency of CP&L nuclear units to be out of service during periods and seasons of high demand, nor the likelihood of this reoccurring in the case of the Harris Unit or Units."
In fact, the system production cost analysis assumes a forced outage rate that includec random outages across all seasons. Mr. Eddleman attempts to support this Contention by comparing a "$55 million or so" cost impact of operating without Harris Unit 1 during 1984, as allegedly set forth in NCUC Docket No. E-100, Sub. 35 (1979), with the 1986 production cost savings of $100,000,000 found on ER-Table 8.1.1-2.
Applicants have not been able to identify the $55 million i
reference in the 1979 NCUC proceeding. We do not understand how it is being used to support Mr. Eddleman's argument, in any event.
Finally, again Mr. Eddleman offers no basis for a conten-tion that the system production cost savings would be signifi- .
cantly affected'by a'dIfferent seasonal pattern in assumed forced outages. This issue is-addressed in the sensitivity analysis with an assumed capacity factor of 50%, in which case the Harris Plant is assumed to operate only 50% of the year.
Contention 15L must be rejected.
Contention 15M states that Applicants underestimate "the uncompensated cost of NRC regulation of Harris, and fail to include the cost of licensing and fees for inspection during operations and possible NRC fines."
t In response to CHANGE Contention 79A, Applicants included in ER Amendment 5 an estimate of the regulatory cost to the federal and state governments. This cost did not include the amount of fees to be paid by Applicants to the NRC. The total amount of fees paid to the NRC for all of CP&L's operating nuclear plants during 1982 was less than $375,000. These fees are included in O&M costs. Such fees or any possible fines are not significant enough in magnitude to have any effect whatso-ever on the analysis of system production cost savings.
Contention 15M should be dismissed as frivolous.
Contention 15"O" asserts that the estimate of taxes have i not been subtracted from Harris fuel savings as a cost of operations. Mr. Eddleman alleges that they should be.
Applicants analysis of system production cost savings do not include taxes as an operating cost either for the Harris Plant or for other plants on Applicants' system. Mr. Eddleman has failed to show, and cannot provide any basis for, an allegation that including taxes for all of Applicant's opera-ting plants wou'ld in any way change the cone'lusions reached in
~
the system production cost analysis. Contention 15"o" must be dismissed.
Contention 15P states that Applicants have failed to take into account the " cost of major accidents figured at either their probability, or the acceptability of such accident to the local environment and people (the ' avoided cost' of an acci-dent, or the cost people would pay to be sure of avoiding such an accident)."
Pursuant to the Commission's statement of interim policy, 45 Fed. Reg. 4010 (1980), the NRC Staff will be assessing the impacts of accidents beyond the design basis of the Harris Plant in its environmental impact statement. Applicants were not required to provide a comparable discussion in the ER of serious accidents. The Board deferred ruling on various contentions which alleged that impacts of accidents beyond the design basis of the facility should be considered in the environmental impact statement. See, e.g., September 22 Order at 15.
However, Contention 15P is not based on information provided for the first time in ER Amendment 5. Contention ISP
is similar to contentions previously raised by Mr. Eddleman and i 1
deferred by the Board. Mr. Eddleman has failed to set forth the new information upon which Contention ISP is inspired. For that reason alone Contention 15P must be rejected rather than deferred.
Contention 150'is not a Contention, it is simply a legal argument. It must be rejected as such.
Contention 15R and Contention 15S propose additional analyses should be performed with different assumptions regarding load growth. Contention 15R asserts that Applicants should analyze system production cost savings using a load forecast suggested by the NCUC Public Staff. Contention 15S argues that the analysis should include a case with a negative load growth.
One of the sensitivity analyses pe.rformed by Applicants assumed zero load growth fixed at the 1981 demand level. Thus, for the period 1986 through 1995 Applicants assumed that total system demand would remain at the level of 1981. Even fixing the demand at such an unrealistically low level, system production cost savings to Applicants is more than one billion dollars. This sensitivity study assumes a demand less than that forecasted by the NCUC Public Staff. See Applicants Response to Contention 15G supra.
Mr. Eddleman next argues that a negative load growth should be assumed. As the basis for this suggestion he cites to his own testimony in a NCUC proceeding. He also refers to
the testimony of a Mr. Lavon B. Page. Both Mr. Eddleman's and
! Mr. Page's forecasts have been rejected by the NCUC in each instance. Mr. Page did not testify to the proposition that load growth would be negative in any event. That leaves Mr. Eddleman's own testimony, a copy of which is not provided, as the sole basis of his unfounded assertion. Contention 15R and Contention 15S must be rejected. ,
CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, proposed Contentions 15X, 15Y, and 15A through ISS must be rejected. Original Contention 15 must be dismissed as moot.
Respectful y s bmitted, Jn Ge4rge F. Trowbridghg P.C.
Thc mas A. Baxter, P. C.
Jo n H. O'Neill, Jr.()
W, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 j (202) 822-1090 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dated: March 11, 1983 d
l l
.. ~ , _ . - . _ _ - _ _. - , , , . _ - - _ _ _ _ , . . - . , ._ .__ _ _ _ _ _ - _ .
March 11, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Reply 1
to Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Revised, Amended and Additional Contentions based on Eddleman 15 and ER Amendment 5" dated March 11, 1983, were served this lith day of March, 1983, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage i prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List. l 1
[ pm Chb John H. O'Neill, Jr. (
V Dated: March 11, 1983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) .
' CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH _ CAROLINA EASTERN -
) '* '
50-401 OL
~
MUNICIPAL' POWER AGENCY )'
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
SERVICE LIST Janes L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atmic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of North Carolina U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission 307 Granville Road Washington, D.C. 20555 chapal Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atmic Safety and Licersing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission P.O. Box 12643 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atmic Safety and Li nsing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Wells Eddlenan Charles A. Barth, Esquire 718-A Iredell Street Myron Kaman, Esquire Durhan, North Carolina 27705 Office of Executive Iegal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory cenniasion Ms. Patricia T. Newnan Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Slater E. Newnan Citizens Against Nuclear Power Docketing and Service Section 2309 Weymouth Court Office of the Secretary Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard E. Jones, Esquire Vice Pr*=4 dant & Senior Counsel Mr. Daniel F. Read, President Carolina Power & Light C m pany W l Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort P.O. Box 1551 P.O. Box 524 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Dr. Phyllis Ictchin 108 Bridle Run Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Deborah Greenblatt, Esquire 1634 Crest Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Bradley W. Jmes, 5Larni4re U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cr=ninaion Region II 101 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esquire At m ic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cemnimsicn WELshington, D.C. 20555 l
l l
l i
- - - - - , . , .. . - - . - . . - - - . , , , . , - _ . , - - - , . . . , . - , , - , _ , , . - . . .