ML20073D724
| ML20073D724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/1983 |
| From: | Mavretich J, Schlissel D NEW YORK, NY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8304140160 | |
| Download: ML20073D724 (54) | |
Text
1 RI'T.ATED CODEESPONnExcg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 T['
NUCLEAR REGULATURY COMMISSION
.i
' " ] M' '
r1
->j"o i
ATOMIC SAFETY hND LICENSING BOARD
~
3efore Administrative Judges James P.
Gleason, Chair ~
Frederick J.
shon Dr. ' Oscar II. Paris
_________________________________________x In the Matter of:
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPA.Y OF NEW YORK Docket Nos.
V~
INC.
(Indian Point, Unit No. 2),
50-247 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE BTATE OF NEW YORK :
. 50-286 SP (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
April 8, 1983
x s
Testimony Submitted on Behalf of "New York City Council" Intervenors By Mr. David Schlissel and Mr. John Mavretich This Document Has Been Filed By:
NATIONAL EMERGENCY CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMITTEE 175 Fifth Avenue Suite 712 New York, New York 10010 (212) 67';-2040 CRAIG KAPLAN, SPECIAL COUNSEL e
es 8304140160 830408 PDR ADDCK 05000247
].bQ T
SCHLISSEL/MA1!RETICH 1
Q.
Pleape state your names and business addresses.
2
.A.
My name is David A.
Schlissel.
My business address is 119 South 3
Lake Avenue, Albany, New York 12208.
4 5
My name is John J. Mavretich.
My business address is Box 36, 6
Burroughs Drive, West Park, N,ew York 12493.
7
~
l 8
Q.
Mr. Schlissel, please summarize your "ducational backround and e
9 work experience.-
10 A.
I graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 11 1968 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Astronautical 12 Engineering.. In June 1969, following a yea.r in which I attended 13 Stanford University School of Engineering on a fellowship award 14 from the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, I received a Master of 15 Science Degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics, with a 16 speciality in trajectory analysis.
In 1973, I received a Juris 17 Doctor degree from the Stanford University School of Law.
18 19 Following graduation from Law School, in June of 1973, I moved 20 to Atlanta, Georgia to become staff attorney for a private 21 ratemaking intervention organization.
In December of l'975, 22 I moved again, to Albany, New York, to begin employment as a 23 Utility'Intervenor Attorney with the New York State Consumer 24 Protection Board.
Three and one-half years later, in July, 25 1979, I left the full-time employ of the Consumer Protection
SCl!LISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
Board to become a private consultant to other state agencies and 2
to, community and consumer organizations. -'
3 4
Q.
Yes.
Since December, 1975, I have represented the Consumer 5
Protection Board and/or other intervenors in over 25 proceedings 6
before the Public Service Commission.
The proceedings most 7
relevant to this proceeding were Cases 27123 and 27869, involving 8
the prudence of Consolidatdd Edison management actions which 9
caused or extended outages of the Indian Point #2 ' Nuclear Plant; 10 Cases 27113 and 27120, in which the economics of sales of shares 11 of the Roseton and Nine, Mile Point 2 generating stations were 12 examined; Cases 27353 and 27744, electr,ic rate increase 13 proceedings for Consolidated Edison; Case 28059, an investiagtion 14 of the comparative economics of completion of the Nine Mile 15 Point #2 nuclear unit versus other available alternatives.
In 16 addition, I have recently testified in Public Service Commission 17 Case 28166, an investigation of the causes and.resulting costs of 18 the January 25, 1982 accident at the R.E.
Ginna'Nu' clear Plant, 19 near Rochester, New York.
20 Q.
Mr. Mavretich, please summarize your educational backround and 21 business experience.
A.
I graduated from Fordham University in 1970 with a B.S. degree in 22 Psychology.
In 1974, I enrolled at the State University College 23 at New Paltz, and ha[ve completed the course requirements for an' 24 M.A.ude'gr,ee in Psychology..-.I have completed various courses.in 25
. t
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
testing, experimental design and statistical analysis on both the
~
2 undergraduate and graduate level.
I have been actively involved 3
in New York State utility issues,since 19'75 and have testified on 4
behalf of,-and represented the i'nterests'of, a variety of public 5
interest organizations, private businesses and government 6
officials.
7
~.
8 I have testified before the New York State Public Service 9
Commission in the following* cases:
Case 27013 (Niagara Mohawk 10 et al - Transfer of Interests in NMP #2), Case 27032 (Central 11 Hudson G&E - Electric Rates), Case 27319 (NYPP - 1978 Long-Range 12 Electric Plan), Case 27461 (Central Hudson G&E - Electric Rates),
13 Case 27708 (Central Hudson G&E - Complaint of Beacon' Terminal 14 Corporation), Case 27794 (SNUPPS - Ratemaking Treatment of 15 Extraordinary-Property Loss), Case 27636 (Central Hudson -G&E -
16 Rate Design), Case 27882 (New York State E&G - Electric Rates) 17 Case 27780 (Central Hudson G&E - Danskammer Outages), Case 28059 -
~
18 (Nine Mile Point #2 - Financial and Economic Implications),
19 Case 27826 (Central Hudson G&E - Electric Rates), Case 28105 20 (Central Hudson G&E - Electric Rates), Case.28211 (Con Edison -
21 Electric Rates), Case 28288 (Hurley Water Company - Water Rates),
Case 28264 (N.Y. Telephone Company - Rate Design) and Case 28166 22 23 (Rochester Gas and Electric - Ginna Outages).
24 Q.
What is the purpose of this testimony?
25
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
Our bestimony presents the conclusions of a study of the likely
~
2
~
rate consequences of a permanent shutdown of the Indian Point #2 3
and #3 nuclear facilities.
4 5
Q.
Before discussing this study in detail, please address the 6
system reliability implications of the closing of the Indian 7
Point units.
8 A.
The decommissioning of Indian Point units #2 and #3 would remove 9
some 1829 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity f' rom the NYPP 10 system.
Such a loss would not threaten the adequacy of NYPP 11 reserves through 1999,.and probably.through the balance of the 12 units' service lives, 2006 for Indian Point #2 and 2009 for 13 Indian Point #3.
14 15 To illustrate the effect on system reliability of permanently 16 shutting down the Indian Point units, we have compared the total 17 available capacity and the required capacity (peak load plus 18 reserve requirement) prcjections through year 19'99', the terminal:
19 year covered in the rece'nt NYPP submission pursuant to Section 20 5-112 of the Energy Law.
21 22 o
23 24 25
- 4_
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
1 Exhibit S/M-1
(,
) is taken from the 1983 Report of the New 2
York State Power Pool.
It presents the P wer Pool's forecasts 3
of statewide peak loads and available generating capacity for 4
each of the winter,and summer capability periods through 1999.
5 6
From Exhibit S/M-1 (
) it can be seen that the Power Pool 7
Projects that the systemwide peak load in 1999. will be 26340 8
W.
To properly evaluate whether sufficient generating capacity 9
will be available to supply this peak load plu's the required 10 18 percent reserve margin if the Indian Point unit,s are not 11 available, it is necessary to adjust the-Pool's estimate of
~
12 available capacity as follows:
^
13 Reduce the available capacity figure by 1829 MW to 4
14 reflect the early retirement of Indian. Point #2 and I#
~
15 16 Reduce the available capacity figure by 1700 MW to reflect existing uncertainty over the ~ future ofithe g
P wer Authority's proposed Prattsville inElArthur 18 Kill Projects; 19 In rease the available capacity figure by 1189 MW 20 to reflect the higher levels of small hydro, cogeneration, solid waste and wind capacity additions projected in the 1982 New York State Energy Master Plan, adopted by the State of New York Energy Planning Board on March 25, 1982. -
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICM 1
Withithese adjustments, the total capacity available in the 2
summer of 1999 would be 31642 MW, suffici5nt to supply both 3
the projected peak load and the required 18 percent reserve.
4 5
It should be noted that the 1983 Power Pool peak load projections 6
for the year 1997 represent ael560 MW reduction from the Pool's 7
1982 forecast for the same year.
Similarly, the Pool's 1983 8
. energy sales forecast for 1997 is lower than its 1982 forecast 9
by approximately 8,600,0'00 MWHrs.
Given the hisEory of annual 10 reductions by the Power Pool of its own earlier estimates 11 it is not unreasonable to expect that future projections will 12 be lower than~those of 1983.
13 14 We would also note that the implementation of a vigorous program 15 f conservation and the use of renewable energy technologies 16 in New York State would lower future statewide peak loads 17 and energy sales and would further delay the need for any 18 additional centralized generating facilities on thh Power Pool 19 system.
20 0;
Please describe your economic study'.
21 A.
To identify the likely cost consequences of the permanent 22 23 shutdowh of the Indian Point #2 and #3 units as of the start of 1984, we have compared the production costs associated with the 24 ntinued. operation of those facilities with the_ __
25
SCHLISSEL/MAVPITICH s
1 production costs that woul'd redult from the generation of 9
2 replacement power at oil-fired stations each year until 2009, the 3
assumed completion of Indian Point #3's service life.
These 4
alternative production, costs have been epmputed in both 5
mixed current and'present worth 1983 dollars.
6 7
We have also calculated the impact closing the Indian Point 8
units would have; on the monthly bills of typical Consolidated 9
Edison customers in 1984, the first year that the_ plants would 10 be retired.
11 12
~
~
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l
25 es ;
t
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
Q.
Please explain the key assumptions employed in your economic 2
study.
3 4
A.
We made assumption.s tegarding th'e following key economic 5
variables:
6 7
- Nuclear Capacity Factors e_
I 8
- Nuclear Fuel Costs
-9
- Nuclear Non-fuel *O&M Costs l
l 10 Nuclear Service Lives
! 11
- Sources of. Replacement Powen-
! 12 Fossil Fuel Prices I
?
[
13
- Capital Additions a
-~
14 Recovery of Sunk Costs l
15 Decommissioning Costs 16 Gross Revenue and Sales Taxes 17 Discount Rate l 18 19 We will now discuss thes'e various inputs.
20 NUCLEAR CAPACITY FACTORS 21 22 The, annual capacity factors used in our economic analysis 23 were 53.77 percent for Indian Point #2 and 48.08 percent for 24 Indian Point #3.
These capacity factors were derived by comparing 25 the actuah historical generation at each of the facilities with
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
the haximum potential generation that would have been produced if each facility had operated at its reporthd maximum dependable 2
3 capacity 100 percent of the time.
The ca'lculations underlying 4
the derivation of these capacity factors are presented in 5
Exhibit (S/M-2
).
g 7
Although we have chosen to use the actual historical capacity e_
8 factors for Indian Point #2 and #3 in our analysis, it should be 9
noted that these capacity fhetors may overstate the output that 10 these facilities can reasonably be expected to achieve through the 11 remainder of their assumed useful lives-For example:
12 13 1)
Both the Power Authority,and Con E'ison d
14 have admitted that tube degradation.might 15 force the replacement of steam generators 16 in one or both units.
Although the 17 utilities are uncertain as to.when this. ___..
18 replacement might occur, they have estimated 19 that it could require up to a year to complete 20 for each unit; 21 2)
Indian Point #3 has been identified by the 22 23 staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 24 Commission as one of the operating nuclear P ants with potentially serious pressurized l
25 -
1 SCHLISSEL/MKVRETICH l
i 4
1 thermal shock problems (embrittlement).
i f
2 If the NRC decides that hardware or 3
operating procedure modifi. cations are j
4 warranted in order to mitigate reactor 5
vessel embrittlement, the facility's l
6 output might be affected.
Furthenvore,
{
7 if the Commisaion ultimately decided that 8
Isdian Point #3's reactor vessel must 9
undergo In-Situ Annealing, or be. replaced, I
l 10 a substantial maintenance outage would be 11 required to complete the necessary work.
}
l 12
)
l 13 3)
As more operating nuclear plants " age",
~
14 new and currently unanticipated problems 15 can be expected to develop.
SuEh 16 evolving new problems can be expected to i
l 17 continue to require hardware modifications 18 or changes in operating procedures, either i
19 of which could reduce the net generation of 20 the Indian Point units.
21 22 NUCLEAR FUEL COSTS' 23 i
24 Estimates for; nuclear fuel costs for Indian Point #2 and 25
- 3 were,taken directly from Consolidated Edison and Power
! l i
.~
n
-..-,.n
_n,
s4 SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH I
Authority forecasts provided in response to interrogatories of 1
2 the Greater New York Council on Energy.
The actual fuel cost t
l 3
estimates are shown in Exhibit (S/M-3
).
4 l
5 NUCLEAR NON-FUEL O&M COSTS
}
l 6
~
~~
7 Nuclear non-fuel.O&M. cost projegt. ions for Indian' Point #2 8
are based on that f.acility's actual historical levels of such 9
costs, as those levels were presented in Exhibit 1, Schedule 7, 10 page 2 of Con Edison's prefiled testimony in. Case #28211 11 before the N.Y.S. Public Service Commission.
12 13 We used this historical data to determine a base 1964 non-la fuel O&M cost as follows:
The actual costs from 1978, 1979, and f
15 1980 (total O&M less fuel cost) were escalated fr'om then current 16 dollars through 1981, by using the actual Gross National Product 17 deflators for those years.
The resulting fig'ures were then 18 averaged with the 1981 non-fuel O&M cost, the result being I
19 1.073d/ KWHR.
This amount was escalated to 1982 using the actual 20 GNP deflator for 1981 and to 1983 and 1984 using seven percent 21 Per annum inflation rates.
The resulting non-fuel O&M cost in 4
22
- 1984, J.31d/ KWHR, was escalated at a seven percent per annum rate throughout the anticipated service life of Indian Point #2.
23 24 Non-fuel O&M costs for Indian Point #3 were based on Exhibit 25 III on page A-24 of the Prospectus, dated November 17, 1981, 1.
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
issued in connection with'the sale of $250,000,000 of General 2
Purpose Bonds, Series M, by PASNY.
That. exhibit, which presents 3
projected generation sources and operating expenses for the 4
Authority, shows that,for 1982,'
the budgeted non-fuel O&M cost 5
for Indian Point #3 would be $68,843,000., with an expected 6
generation of 4,453,000 MWHrs.
Dividing the cost by the 7
expected generation computes to a 1.554/ KWHR non-fuel O&M cost 8
for 1982.
This : figure ~ was then escalated at a seven percent per 9
annum rate through the. year 2009.
The actual est-imates so 10 developed are shown in Exhibit (S/M-3
).
11 12 NUCLEAR SERVICE LIVES
~
13 14 We have accepted the utilities' c'.laim that the opefating 15 lives for Indian Point #2 and #3 will extend t'hrough 2006 and 16 2009, respectively.
We do so despite the fact that no operating 17 nuclear plant has achieved such a life span and despite evidence 18 to the contrary offered by Niagara Mohawk Power C.orporation in its 19 request to the Public Service Commission to fully depreciate its 20 investment in the Nine Mile Point #1 nuclear plant five years 21 before the termination of its operating license.
As company 22 witness John S.
Ferguson noted, uncertainties surrounding nuclear 23 energy' justify the use of the shorter period:
i 24 25
~ -
SCHLISSEL/MRVRETICH 4
1 The recommended life of Nine Mile Point Unit No. 1 is based on the remaining life 2
of the operating license.
Recognizing the 3
regulatory pressures from the-Nuclear 4
Regulatory.Commissio,n, relicensing should not If it should happen that it is be assumed.
5 possible to relicense the plant, the capital
)
6 expenditures required would be of such a 7
magnitude that the unit, for depreciation j
Purposes, should be considered as:being new at 8
that time.
Therefore, the unit should be 9
fully depreciated, at the latest,.by t'he end 10 of the term of the operating licesnse.
j However, the uncertainties surrounding the development of nuclear energy are well known 12 and justify use of a remain,ing life less than 13 that defined by the license.
Use of a 1
remaining life less than defined by'ths operating 14 license is also justified by the fact that the 15 average service life applies to the do,llars of j
16 depreciable investment, not to the life span of the generating unit.
This is because property 17 l
retired before the end of the life' span of the 18 unit will have had a shorter life span' than the 19 unit itself.and property that is added remains useful only as long as the unit itself survives.
0 i
A remaining life five years less than the 21 termination date of the license was selected for I
re gnition of uncertainty and the flow of 22 depreciable plant dollars through the plant 23 accounting records. (Prepared Testimony of 24 John S.[Ferguson, Case #28225, P.
27) 25 1
-n-,
SCHLISSEL/MRVRETICH 1
REPLACEMENT POWER 3
Based upon our estimates of,the future capacity factors for 4
the Indian Point, units, premature retirement of the plants 5
would create a need to replace 8,135,000 MWHrs of generation 6
Per year during the period.1984-2006, at which juncture Indian 7
Point #2 can be expected to be' retired, and 4,065,000 MWHrs per
~.
8 year during the period 2007-2009, at which juncture Indian Point 9
- 3 can be expected to 'be retired.
~
10 11 We have evaluated the potential cost of replacement power 12 under two scenarios concerning the source of the make-up energy:
13 14 1)
In the first scenario, it is assumed 15 that the energy is made up from oil-16 fired units with an average heat rate f 10,000 BTU / KWHR.
Fifty pergent of the 17 total generation is fired by oil'with a 18 sulfur c'ontent of 0.3%, and the balance 19 is fired by oil with a sulfur content of 20 2.8.
21 22 23 2)
In the second scenario, it is assumed that 11 of the energy is made up from units with 24 l
an average he.at rate of 10,500 BTU /KWH, and 25
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH i
l which burn oil with a sulfur content of 2
0.3%.
3 4
In the first scenario, we are assuming that Con Edison 5
will be able to replace a significant portion of the lost Indian 6
Point generation by purchas,i.ng energy from NYPP, thus obviating l
7 the need to replace the entire increment with generation fired 8
by 0.3% sulfur o~il.
We [6lieve that this scenario is the more
~
9 likely of the two.
We'also priced out a scenario which assumed 10 that all of the lost generation was made up at in-city units 11 burning 0.3%
- oil, to test the effect that re11ance on more 12 costly replacement fuel had on our projected outcome.
13 14 FOSSIL FUEL PRICES 15 16 The actual prices paid for oil by utilities in New York 17 State during the first two months of 1982 were used as a base 18 in projecting fossil fuel prices.
To adequatefy' reflect a 19 reasonable range of potential residual oil prices, in light of 20 recent events on the world oil markets, we developed two oil 21 Price cases:
22 23 Case A - Assumes that the 15% decrease in l
24 Ithe stated price of crude oil announced by OPEC would mere'ly 25
. )
SCHLISSEL/MAVPITICH 1
eliminate the differential between 2
OPEC's earlier posted price.and the 3
price paid for 0.3% and 2.8% sulfur 4
, oil.
In other words, the prices paid 5
for oil in 1983 would be the same as 6
the average price paid in 1982.
7 8
Case B
' Assumes that the average prices for 9
.various sulfur content residual oil 10 would decrease by 15% between 1982 and 11 1983, to reflect the price decrease 12 announced by OPEC in February, 1983..
13 14 For each oil price case, we have also assumed that after 1983,
~
~
all il prices were escalated at seven percent per annum, the 15 verall rate of inflation.
16 17 18 Many observers argue that the price of crude oil may drop to as little as $20 per barrel.
Any such drop would dramatically 19 affect the cost consequences of the early retirement of the l
20 Indian Point units.
In fact, a la.rge enough drop in th'e price 3
of. oil could make the cost of replacement power less than the g
st o,f* continued operation of the facilities.
23 24 25 W
- 16 n
g
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
Q.
What about the possibility that the long-term price of oil will 2
increase at a rate above the general rate of inflation?
3 A.
While the situation,in the international oil market is 4
5 extremely complicated, an analysis offered by Mr. Bruce Netschert, 6
a vice-president of Nationa,1,. Economic Research Associates, appears 7
to us to provide a credible framework within which to assess the 8
Possibility that the real price of oil will increase by the end
~
9 of this century.
In a' speech reported in the Monday, March 14, 10 1983 issue of The Energy Daily, Mr. Netschert evaluates the 11 excess production capacity in the world oil industry and concludes 12 that the price of oil will do no more.than-keep pace with 13 inflation for the remainder of this century.
14 15 Q.
What specific 1982 average oil prices did you use. in your 16 various cases?
17 18 A.
For the low sulfur oil scenario, we used an averdge 1982 price 19 of $32.93 per barrel. 'This figure was computed by averaging the 20 Prices paid for low sulfur oil by utilities in New York State for 21 January - October, 1982, as reported in the monthly Cost and 22 Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants, published by the 23 Department of Energy.
For the mixed sulfur scenario, we used an 24 average of the mean 1982 price for 0.3% sulfur oil and 2.8%
sulfur oil, from the same source.
25
SCHLISSEL/MAVPITICH 1
The annual oil prices in S/ BTU'are shown in the computations 2
Presented on Schedule 6 of Exhibit (S/M _4
).
3 4
CAPITAL ADDITIONS 5
6 Both PASNY and Con Edison have projected that substantial capitalimprovements,oradkitions,willbenecessaryatIndian 7
8 Point #2 and #3 through the remainder of this decade.
In its 9
Prospectus dated November 17, 1981, the Power Authority states 10 that a number of major improvements may be required at both 11 Indian Point #3 and the Fitzpatrick unit.
Improvements totalling 12
$300 million for both plants are listed, with an additional 13
$200 million earmarked for steam generator replacement (P. A ~
~~
14 A-17) at Indian Point 43.
15 4
16 In its response to interrogatory number 2, submitted by the 17 Greater New York Council on Energy, the Power Authority lists 18 another $112 million of capital expenditures for Indian Point 19
- 3, but does not indicate whether those expenditures will be 20 required prior to or after January 1, 1984.
21 s
22 Con Edison, in its response to interrogatories #2 and #11, 23 submitt'ed by the Greater New York Council on Energy, presents its 24 estimate that the following capital investments may be required at Indian Point #2 in future years:
25
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH YEAR PROJECTED EXPENDITURES ($000,000) 1 2
1984 46.05-'
~
3 1985 23.37-28.75-4 1986 5
6 In addition to the expenditures noted above, the company 7
acknowledges that it may be necessary to spend an additional $40 8
million (incurrentdollahs) for retubing of the condenser and
~
9 steam generator and an'addi.tional $130 millio.n to replace the 10 steam generators.
ll 12 To illustrate the potential cost impact of these expenditures, 13 we have assumed that the investments on Indian Point #2 and #3 14 would be completed by 1989 and would be recovered through a 15 fixed charge rate of 20 percent for Con Edison an,d a capital 16 recovery rate of 11.75 percent for PASNY.
With such assumptions, 17 the present worth in 1983 dollars associated with these capital 18 improvements.and additions is approximately $500 million.
i 19 20 It must be further emphasized that the need to make further investments to maintain the plants in reasonable operating 21 condition will grow more urgent as the plants age.
Evidence 22 23 in support of this conclusion was given by Alan Larson, a witness for the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation in a 24 re ent gate proceeding before the New York State Public Service 25
1 SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH i
j 1
1 Coqmission:
2 3
4 As this plant (R.E. Ginna).gets older, it seems reasonable to assume that maintenance costs will increase, 6
plant availability will decrease
~
7 and major capital replacements could greatly increase future depre'ciation 8
expenses. (P. 10 of prefiled test @ mony
'9 in Case #28313) 10 11 RECOVERY OF SUNK COSTS 12 13 se have assumed that the annual revenue requirement effects 14 of the recovery of the dollars invested in the Indian Point #2 15 and #3 units at the end of 1983 (our assumed date, of retirement) 16 would be essentially equivalent to the annual revenue 17 requirement effects of the fixed charges associated with continued 18 Operation.
.To the extent that the annual fixed charges would 19 exceed the annual revenue effects of recovery of the sunk costs, 20 an additonal element of conservatism has been introduced into 21 our analysis.
22 23 DECOM$ISSIONING COSTS 24 Ne.have assumed that the Indian Point #2 and #3 units are 25
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH 1
decommissioned according to current schedules and that the charges 2
for decommissioning costs in Con Edison..and PASNY. rates 3
continue in effect despite the early retirement of the facilities 4
in January, 1984.
5 6
To the extent that additional costs must be incurred to 7
maintain the plants until decommissioning after 2006 and 2009, 8
our failure to c'onsider sDch costs in our comparative analysis 9
is more than offset ~ by.the, absence of any assumed-impact from 10 capital additions or improvements.
11
~
12 GROSS REVENUE AND SALES TAX 13
~
~
14 In a report entitled " Study of Electric Production Cost
~
15 Impacts of A Shutdown of the Indian Point Nuclear Units". in 16 March of 1982, Con Edison's Generation Planning Department, stated 17 with regard to gross revenues and sales taxes:
18 19 Gross revenue and sales taxes paid on electric bills by Con Edison's customers 20 are a function of the magnitude of their l
21 electric bills.
The revenue and sales taxes are n minally 6.1 percent and 8.25 percent in 22 New York City, however, some of Con Edison's 23 customers are located in Westchester County or 24 may be exempt from some of these taxes.
PASNY's customers are not subject to either tax.
A 1
~
t l
SCHLISSEL/MAVPITICH 1
composite tax for the Service Area of 6 percent was assumed.
2 3
4 We have made the.same assumption in our economic analysis.
5 6
DISCOUNT RATE 7
~
8 We assumed a'n 11 percent discount rate t6 determine the 9
present worth, in 1983.do11,ars, of each of the-scenarios examined.
i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M -
SCHLISSEL/MAVRETICH
+
1 Q.
Plea,se state your conclusions.
2
.A.
The results of our study are presented on. Schedule A of Exhibit i
3 S/M-4 (
).
This schedule demonstrates that a permanent
- 2and,53asof. January 1,1984,will 4
shutdown of Indian Point 5
result in between S2.918 and $4.729 billion of direct production 6
cost increases, depending on the replacement power and oil j
7 price scenarios examined.
~
i 8
-9 In order to translat'e these, figures into a more meaningful form, i
we have computed the impact closing the plants would have on the 10 11 monthly bill of a Consolidated Edison customer using 250 KWHrs 12 Per month during the first year of the faci.lities', retirement, 13 1984.
i 14 i
15 Under the more likely mixed sulfur oil scenario, 16 the customer's bill would increase by between S1.30 and $1.75 per month, a 3 to 4 percent 17 ine s re, depending on the response of. residual 18
'ces to recent OPEC crude oil price cuts.'
'- I 19 20 Under the low sulfur oil scenario, the custo'mer's 21 bill would increase by between $1.38 and $1.80 a 22 m nth, or 3.8 to 5.0 barcent, also depending on 23 short term reactions of residual oil prices.
24 25
SCHLISSEL/MAVPITICH 1
In olosing, we would emphasize that our study has assumed that 2
the sole source of replacement power thr6'gh the ye'ar 2009 would u
3 be oil-fired generation.
If a significant potential for 4
conservation and the. use of renewable ensrgy technologies exists 5
in New York State, including the service territories of 6
Consolidated Edison and the. customers of the Power Authority, aswebelieveitdoes,investmentsin[.hesecost-effective 7
8
~
alternatives can reduce future system peak loads and energy sales 9
and minimize the econom'ic burden imposed by the early retirement
~
10 of Indian Point #2 and #3.
11 12 Q.
Does this conclude your testimony?
13 A.
Yes.
14 2
15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 23 24 25
7 7
i i
Ex,hibit S/M -1 1
i 8
9 s
s.
t b
ou,naason,raan-a a a a a.
a a, a.,
s,en.,aa===>as 3 e a a se e
m-3 n a ~
4
~a-.as m>
eao->a e a a a.
o-a a - a n
.a on-n a-a 0
- a n en
- o n aru nu
>~ < aus r
n, 1
.a.
1., a n B MNM939POON O a e O e.,
h L~ e,o D'O o o 3 D O a
3 a N O N-A.,, u.a.s o > > a., =.
no a a - a n.
a.
~
aso->,
a
.a - 3 ~28 a
3
.o.er - a -a.
a-=
=
~,
,a u
a~
.. u a n
n g
n
, u A a ~. n.,, a 3,a
.a.. 3 a,
3 a
3,a.a.a.as,aa a a ~ a
.. ~.
az,,a a
>< >> s a
a,,.
n, a
~
u o.,,
- - > a
,p,.ua-.
, a a -n. - o...o 3.o a
~>
n z
g g >, -.
-~ n
=
- p. 3 ~
3
-k.N.R%,93 3*J 3 a
.O. N.
t
, N b
- a s 4,3 O a
-a - ~.
3 O a a O ah
- a..:,,a>>a t
a,
>. a a
a
~ o
.>sa->
e 1
a-a
.2
.-2 oa.
- 2a w, -~
e,u a
, a >,
. -, - ~
a,
,o
,s n
'A. *e 4 9 e ! $ 4 3 a,.
1 a.> ~.. ~,. 9. 3 # > 3 3 '3, a3a.
,3
,r 4
g, 3 4 ?
S r3
-o a ~
o.
4 as
,e o,.a.
.a u, a-n
.a-,
a-a n
- - ~
.r.
- ~
o, 1
- n..,a e
I
-~
a
. o.s
)
.,,, - s o. >. a a o a.a.
s = a.
n a.~,,s,..
l u.,... a. a > >, 3.
2 a, s..
=
u
,>< n o o,
a,
- a.,a.
n a =
A,.~_,.->,.,
.,, a, i
a-a a-2 a
a s -a
-~
o~
o
-a s
. n.u
,a n.,
i% M.~
n >..
1.d,>334 3
e,
.a o a
a t.
n.,. a > a.a,4 3, J J.
, - 4.18.. u J -
3 >.
,.e i.
i
- 4..
.a>==
~
n i
a,ua-a a r --,.,,., a
.a u. ~,
m u.
a.-.-~
a.. 3, a
2 so si 2, L4
~ m 4 4. :.,3 3 3 e o g
,a.3 a 1 e,4 s m a,e r3 u a.
a.
- 1..- - ~,.-.t s a.t-.a ' s.3.i.
a
.22 a
a.
a.
o s.., a,a,-
v,. aa.,, a-a
- > > aa
~..,
,a
~
ag -
o.-
a o,
... o n
2,-.~~,=..,>,2, d, :. >a s a,a -, J a,
- v. > u.
a a a >
~
a... 3 a s o,,
.a, a, a >
4.
,a.
o > -as a a.n a.,.
.I n, u,.. o..
- >. -=,
,1n,a,, s,,.
o.
1.,.,. 3
~
o 2
,n >.
,4,,%33a J.
.3 4 ~~
3 4 3. d 3'
.,,,A.* *d 1,# e 4 J 3 J g u
e t.
.a
-a
> a -
.a
.:,,a--a, a - >. a,.
> a t kn na-a, a-,
a-a n
-~
a....
n, gg
-~
s a..
a,
,o - na gg 3. - e, ~ s a,.
en <~.,
. a.
, n s,..,
,:3,~
a, a
- v. #
,=
-,a
->.a
> ~.
2
>3=
o a ~ o 4
- - 2
+
- p>-T a=a J a -
- d
,J lq tg 44 1 3*3
,3 f,
. 1 3 >>
(
H
-J n
a#-
,4 at s
-a
- Jfg
.. J g
ig
.4 1 3 '!)332732-33 a 22.,t i,W 22;;33:3'd 2 i 1 1. !.~
. s
~a
- asa a a - -
a.
s.
, e-a r
3 I
M
-0
, ot*
9, De 88-1
-3 F
Jt-n, 4J g'
-3.4,.,$...
,6
. n =r ~..,,. J,i a. > >.
.M.
1 o.,
3 a,.
>...u, ea s >
a, a
a>
a
[
m A23 e J -
,F
=,
.~ J l Ist * ~4 1 eJJ At-
- a Jr s 59
-4
,a 3
.13 e
1 -a 6
4 1. -
8 8 at-3 4J 1
=
9, >8. 9 % 9, 3 3 0 4
,3 J
1*
2 3 I
P J 3 J 3
.33 e n$ s =u. 3 #. a J 3 3,
~
.a,3a-,a a
a a a o >.
>>a-aa a e a,
E l,
- s. A n
naa ~ a -
.3 3 -
8 P1
.3 39
.4 A 7.3
,~
,3,
i m
, :2
- a k
re-3 4 e,,
a g
3 4 to "a
.O N' ' a'* a' a -, 3*****'g
', 3 a > 4.'. 'e 3 ' J'
,. J 2
3 J
.4 I s.A J 3 3 3.
y N
, e A33. 4 -
'.s 3
6u 9.,
.6 3 J ~
=
.1
~
A 1 FF-9
- Jr e s=1 14 #
et-i J
'44
(
0
.1 4 -
1 "4
!si C
0,*,> S 1 4, 3 3 3 e a, - J --
~-sss oeJa, J
.s a a 3a 984-*3
- 3 ~ 3
- 8*
uJ e' 82 9,31*'A3J
'3
- S3
- - 8 d'
n9% e AJJ 3 a - J, du in 1 1
- G
- ~. J a
2 M 99 9 F#*
n l,B4 St 93 $
FF.
4 4
g,.
Q a g, ~,3,4>3J3e 3,. 3
,~
ib a"I d
.9eJ?-337
~.,4,i-a
-a
- 7
.s
- - 3
-4 se u a.o..g 3 a = ~
.4 i
- a. a su t J -.- #f s. 4.
J
)
,4
- 3J a
JM e,
3 - of DJM it #
-J
(
J GJ d
Y Q.
=
a - a
.1 A
A 6.9 J
o bj.3 k5.i< a$.9 b,
1, ]
- f. A., $ A NS Q.
2 2
i.
o e <
o.
b 1 1
- 2.= 1A2J*uJ A 3 3 I
N 82 *I r-IAxw1aJ A 3 3 8
z 3 J d - -l. a 3 o 2
w Ja
-25
-Jal 3J 22 2
4l s 23Jg==T 1a 2 4
J ZZ Ju 4 a3:
e J S 2.* a.J s,f. a h
JE JJ BJ a a E s J d JJ J-6-
6 JJ s
s J J d JJ al eA*
J4LeeJ33 - 2 J J 4 EA at 0.M 2== 2 J J
( As 43 l4 4-7>>20 3 4 J J 44 4-l1 0 4J 4-3>>E-*
Z3 3 4 J M (4 Mo E
3J3J3ZZZ-M & a 4 % II
~B OJ3J3ZZ 4 A 4 & 11 5
31
l E'xhibit S/M-2 '
IUCLEAR CAPACITY FACTORS Indian Point 2 Maximum Capacity Year' Potential Production Actual Production Factors (Mwhrs)
(tiwhrs)
(%)
7,568,64,0 -
3,324,048 43.92 1974 2
1975 7,568,640 4,885,079 64.54 1976 7,568,640 2,267,654 29.96 1977 7,568,640 5,210,299 68.84 1978 7,568,640 4,369,315 57.73 1979 7,568,640 4,805,928
~
63.48 1980 7,568,640 4,266,232 56.37
~
1981 7,568,640 3,055,332 40.37 1982 7,568,640 4,447,000 58.76 Lifetime 68,117,760 36,629,887 53.77 Indian Point 3 Maximum Potential Capacity Year Production (MDC x 8760)
Actual Production Factors (Mwhrs)
(Mwhrs)
(%)
1976 2,598,048 1,845,945 -
71.05 1977 7,647,480 5,518',432 72.16 1978 8,453,400 5,547,431 65.62 1979 8,453,400 4,794,627 56.72 1980 8,453,400 3,070,723 36.33 1981 8,453,400 3,033,247 35.88 1982 8,453'400 1,436,036 16.99 Lifetime 52,512,528 25,246,441 48.08
.~
INDIAN POINT 2 A
A N
OSTS
~
FUEL NON-FUEL O&M PRODUCTIO9 COST Generation Fuel Cost Total Generation O&M Cost Total TOTAL
-3 6
-2 (1000 MWHrs)
(10 S/ KWHR)
($x10 )
(1000 MWHrs)
(10
$/KHWr) ($x10 )
($xid )
1984 4070 7.5 31 4070 1.11 53 84 1985 4070 7.5 31 4070 1.90 57 88 1986 4070 8.1 33 4070 1.49 61 94 1987 4070 8.4 34 4070 1.60 65 99 1988 4070 9.0 37 4070 1.71 70 107 1989 4070 9.7 39 4070 1.83 74 113 1990 4070 10.3 42 4070 1.96 80 122 1991 4070 11.1 45 4070 2.10 85 130 1992 4070 11.8 48 4070 2.24 91 139 1993 4070 12.:7 52
'4070 2.40 98 150 1994 4070 13.6 55 4070 2.57 105 160 1995 4070 14.5 59 4070 J'
2.75 112 171 1996 4070 15.5 63 4070 2.84 120 183 1997 4070 16.6 68 4070 3.15 128 196 1998 4070 17.8 72 4070 3.37 137
- 209 1999 4070 19.0 77 4070 3.60 147 224 2000 4070 20.3 83 4070 3.85 157 240 2001 4070 21.8 89 4070 4.12 168 257 2002 4070 23.3 95 4070 4.41 179 274 2003 4070 24.9 101 4070 4'.72 192 293 2004 4070 26.7 109 4070 5.05
'206 i
315 2005 4070 28.5 116 4070 5.40 220 336 2006 4070 30.5 124 4070 5.78 235 359 2007 2008 2009 e
i
&m
~ ~.
o
"?m
t
~
INDIAN POINT 3 ANNUAL PRODUCTION COSTS FUEL NON-FUEL O&M PRODUCTION COST Generd(ion Fuel Cost Total Generation O&M Total TOT'AL 6 (1000 MWHrs)
(10~ $/ KWHR)
($x10 )
(1000 MWHrs)
(10" $ / KWHR) ($x10 ),
($x10 )
1984 4065 7.45 30 4065 1.77 72 102 1985 4065 8.05
??
4065 1.89 77 110 1986 4065 8.65 35 4065 2.03 83 118 1987 4065 9.30 38 4065 2.17 88 126 1988 4065 10?000 41 4065 2.32 94 135 1989 4065 10.75 44 4065 2.48 101 145 1990 4065 11.55 47 4065 2.66 108 155 1991 4065 12.36.
50 4065 2.84
- 115 165 1992 4065 13.23 54 4065 3.04 124 178 1993 4065 14.15 58 4065 3.25 132 190 1994 4065 15.15 62 4065 3.48 141 203 1995 4065 16.13 66 4065 3.73 152 218 1996 4065 17.18 70 4065 3.99 162 232 1997 4065 18.29 74 4065 4.27 1-74 248 1998 4065 19.48 79 4065 4.56 185 264 1999 4065 20.75 84 4065 4.88 198 282 2000 4065 22.10 90 4065 5.23 213 303 2001 4065 23.54 96 4065 5'.59 227 323 2002 4065 25.07 102 4065 5.98
'243 345 2003 4065 26.70 109 4065 6.40 260 369 2004 4065 28.43 116 4065 6.85 278 394 2005 4065 30.28 123 4065 7.33 298 421 2006 4065 32.25 131 4065 7.84 319 450 2007 4065 34.34 140.
4065 8.39 341 481 2008 4065 36.58 149 4065 8.98 365 514 2009 4065 38.95 158 4065 9.61 391 549 yg i
~::
m ms
PRODUCTION COST INCREASES
~
IN PRESENT WORTH, g983 DOLLARS Mixed Sulfur Oil
( $ x 10
)
Low Sulfur Oil CASE A CASE B CASE A CASE B 1984 239 176 286 21'7 l?85 231 171 277 210 1986 223 165 267 203 198%
216 159 258 196 1988 208 154 249 189 1989 200 149 240 182 1990 193 143 231 175 1991 187 138 223 170 1992 179 133 215 163 1993 173 129 207
~
157 151 1994 167 123 200 1995 160 118 192 146 1996 155 115 186 141 136 1997 149 110 179 1998 144 107 173 131 127 1999 139 103 167 2000 134 99 160 122 2001 129 96 155 118 2002 125 92 149 114 2003 121 89 144 110 2004 117 87 140 106 134 102 2005 112 83 2006 108 80 129 98 2007 48 34 58 43 2008 46 33 56 42 2009 45 32 54 40
~
TOTAL
$3948 Million
$2918 Million
$4729 Million
$3589 Million Source:
Sour'ce:
Source:
Source:
Exhibit S/M-4 Exhibit S/M-4 Exhibit S/M-4 Exhibit S/M-4 mM Schedule B Schedule B Schedule B Schedule B E Er Page 1 of 4 Page 2 of 4 Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4 8, @
b$'
- m 1
.=
i PRODUCTION COST DIFFERENTIALS MIXED SULFUR OIL CASE A Replacement Economy Total Indian Point Production Gross Revenue Power Sales Replacement Production Cost and Production Costs Mark Up Power Costs Costs Differential Sales Taxes TOTAL s
1984 409 27 436 186 250 15 265 1985 438 29 467 198 269 16 285 1986 469 31 500 212 288 17 305 1987 501 33 534 225 309 19 328 1988 536 36 572 242 330 20 350 1989-574 38 612 258 354
- 21 375 t
1990 614.
41 655 277 378
, 23 401 1991 657 44 701 295 406 24 430 1992 703 47 750 317 433 26 459 l
1993 752 50 802 340 462 28 490 1994 805 54 859 363 496 30 526 1995 861 57 918 389 529 32 561 1996 922 61' 983 415 568 34 602 1997 986 66 1052 444 608
,36 644 1998 1055 70.
1125 473 652 39 691 1999' 1129 75 1204 506 698 42 740 2000 1208 80 1288 543 745 45 790 2001 1293 86 1379 580 799 48 847 2002 1383 92 1475
'619e 856 51 907 2003 1480 99 1579 662 917
'5 5 -
972 2004 1583 105 1688 702 986 59 1045 2005 1695 113 1808 757 105.1 63 1114 2006.
1812 121 1933 809 1124 67 1191 1033 481 552 33 585 2007 969 64 2008 1037 69 1106 514 i
592 36 628 2009 1110 74 1184 549 635 38 673 Source:
Source:
E$N
- Exhibit S/M-4 Exhibit S/M-3 j (( '
j Schedule C
,gg Page 1 of 4
- H rt S*m
."s
PRODUCTION COST DIFFERENTIALS
~
MIXED SULFUR OIL CASE B Replacement Economy Total Indian Point Production Gross Revenue Power Sales Replacement Production Cost and Production Costs Mark Up Power Cost Costs Differential Sales Taxes TOTAL 1984
, 347 23 370 186 184 11 195 1985 372 25 397 198 199 12 211 1986 398 27 425 212 213 13 226 1987 425 28 453 225 228 14 242 1988 456 30 486 242 244 15 259 1989 487 33 520 258 262 16 278 1990 521 35 556 277 279
- 17 296 1991 558-37 595 295
. 300
. 18 318 1992 597 40 637 317 320 19 339 1993 642 43 685 340' 345
'21
' 366 1994 683 46 729 363 366 22 388 1995 731 49 780 389 381 23 414
~
25 445 783 52 835 415 420 1996
- 1997 837 56 893 444 449 27 476 1998 896 60 956 473 483-
.29 512 1999 959 64-1023 506 517 31 548 2000 1026 68 1094 543 551 33 584 2001 1097 73 1170 580 5,90 35 625 2002
~1171 78 1249 619 6.30 38 668 2003 1257 84 1341 662' 679
,41 720 2004 1345 90 1435 702 733 44
- 777 2005 1439 96 1535 757 778 47 825 2006 1540 103 1643 809 834 50 884 481 397 24 421 2007 823 55 878 2008 881 59 940 514 426 26 452 4
2009 943 63 1006 549 8
457 27 484 Source:
Source:
E$E Exhibit S/M-4 Exhibit S/M-3 j i f.
a&
Schedule C Page 2 of 4 "6$
S*m
".s 1
i PRODUCTION COST DIFFERENTIALS LOW SULFUR OIL CASE A Gross Revenue Replacement Indian Point Productic. Cost and Power Costs Production Costs Different el Sales Taxes TOTAL 1984 486 186 300 18 318 1985
,520 198 322 19 341 1986 556 212 344 21 365 1987 595 225 370 22 392 1988 637 242 395 24 419 1989 682 258 424 25 449 1990
-729 277 452 27 479 1991 780 295 485 29 514 1992 835'-
317 518 31 549 1993 894 340
- 554, 33 1994 956 363 593 36 587 629 1995 1023 389 634 38 672 1996 1095 415 680 41 721 1997 1171 444.
727
!44 771 1998 1253 473 780 47 827 1999 1341 506 835 50 88$
2000 1435 543-892 54 946 2001 1535 580 955 57 1012 2002 1643 619 1024 61 1085 2003 1758 662 1096
. 66 1162 2004 1881 702 1179 '
71
, 1250 2005 2012 757 1255 75 1330 2006 2153 809 1344 81 1425 2007 1152 481 671 40 711 2008 1232 514 718 43 761 2009 1318 549 769 46 815 E$E
~
ggg Source:
Source:
a, c.
Exhibit S/M-4 Exhibit'S/M-3 w$p-Schedule C oo
]m Page 3 of 4 i
G
A.
n_
-L-4
~
PRODUCTION COST DIFFERENTIALS LOW SULFUR OIL CASE B Gross Revenue Replacement Indian Point Production Cost and Sales Power Costs Production Costs Differential Taxes TOTAL
~
1984 413 186 227 14 241 1985 442 198 244 15 259 1986 473 212 261 16 277 1987 506 225 281 17 298 1988 542 242 300 18 318 1989 580 258 322 19 341 1990 620 277 343 21 364 1991 654 295 369 22 391 1992 710 317 393 24
- 417, 1993 760
'340 420
~
25 445 1994 813 363 450 27 477 1995 870 389 481 29 510 1996 931 415 516 31 547 1997 996 444 552 33 585 1998 1066 473 593 36 629
- 1999, 1141 506 635 38 673 2000 1220 543 677 41 718 2001 1306 580 726 44 770 2002 1397 619 77Q 47 825 i
2003 1495 662 833 50 883 2004 1600 702 898 54 952 2005 1712 757
'955 57 1012 2006 1832 809 1023 61 1084 l
2007 979 481.
498 30 528 2008 1048 514 534 32 566 2009 1121 549' 572 34 606 Source:
Source:
$$E Exhibit S/M-4 Exhibit S/M-3
- glf Schedule C
< a tr Page 4 of 4 of.$
mm b C0
l REPLACEMENT POWER PRODUCTION COST MIXED SULFUR OIL CASE A
^
Generation Fuel Cost Heat Rate TOTAL 6 t
.(1000 MWHrs)
($/MMBTU)
(BTU / KWHR)
($x10 ),
8 i
1*984 e
8135 5.03 10000 409 1985 8135 5.38 10000 438 1986 8135 5.76 10000 469 1987 8135 6.16 10000 501 1988 8135 6.59 10000 536 1989 8135 7.05 10000 57,4 1990 8135 7.55 10000 614 1991 8135 8.08 10000 657 1992 8135 8.64
.10000 703 1993 8135 9.25 10000 752 808,
l 1994 8135 9.89 10000 e
l 1995 8135 10.59 10000 861 l
1996 8135 11.33 10000 922 1997 8135 12.12 10000 986 1998 8135 12.97 10000 1055-1999 8135 13.88 10000 1129 2000 8135 14.85 10000 1208 2001 8135 15.89 10000 1293 1383
,10000 2002 8135 17.00 2003 8135 18.19 10000 1480 2004 8135 19.46 10000 1583 2005 8135 20.83 10000 1695 2006 8135 22.28 10000 1812 2007 4065 23.84 10000 969 2008 4065 25.51..
10000 1037 1b000 1110 y @ El 2009 4065 27.30
'8 !? ?
ka o
me
?
s REPLACEMENT POWER PRODUCTION COST MIXED SULFUR OIL CASE D s
. Generation Fuel Cost Heat Rate TOTAL
($/MMBTU)
(BTU / KWHR)
($x106)
(1000 MWHrs) 1984 8135 4.27 10000 347 1985 8135 4.57 10000 372 1986 8135 4.89 10000 398 1987 8135 5.23 10000 425 1988 8135 5.60 10000 456 1989 8135 5.99 100000 -
487 1990 8135 6.40 10000 521 1991 8135 6.86 10000 558' 1992 8135 7.34 10000 597 1993 8135 7.85 10000 642 1994 8135 8.40 10000~
683 1995 8135 8.99 10000 731 1996 8135 9.62 10000 783 1997 8135 10.29 10000 837 1998-8135 11.02 10000 896 1999 8135 11.79 10000 959 2000 8135 12.61 10000 1026 2001 8135 13.49
' 10000
- 1097, 2002 8135 14.39 10000 1171 2003 8135 15.45 10000 1257 2004 8135 16.53 10000.
1345 2005 8135'
'17.69 10000 1439 2006 8135 18.93 10000 1540 2007 4065 20.25 10000 823 2008 4065 21.67 10000 881 yRE 2009 4065 23.19 10000 943 j (([,
g @ f.
O
"'n!0
t REPLACEMENT POWER PRODUCTION COST 1
LOW SULFUR OIL CASE A Generation Fuel Cost Heat Rate TOTAL s
($x100)
(1000 MWHrs)
(S/MMBTU)
(BTU / KWHR) 1984 8-135 5.69 10500 486 1985 8135 6.09 10500 520 1986 8135 6.52 10500 556 1987 8135 6.97 10500 595 1988 8135 7.46 10500 637 1989 8135 7.98 10500 682 1990 8135 8.54 10500 729 1991 8135 9.14 10500 780 1992 8135 9.78 10500 835 1993 8135 10.46
- 10500 894' 1994 8135 11.20 10500 956 1995 8135 11.98 10500 J'
1023 1996 8135 12.82 10500-1095 1997 8135 13.72 10500 1171 1998 8135 14.68 10500 1253.
1999 8135 15.71 10500 1341 2000 8135 16.80 10500 1435 2001 8135 17.98 10500 1535 2002 8135 19.24 10500 1643 2003 8135 20.59 i10500 1758 2004 8135 22.03 30500 1881' 2005 8135 23.57 10500 20122 2006 8135 25.22 10500 2153 2007 4065
'26.98 10500 1152 2008 4065 2o.87 10500 1232 2009 4065 30.89 10500 1318 i
E$E tlE
[h5 e
-e m
- ?.
i 4
REPLACEMENT POWER PRODUCTION COST LOW SULFUR OIL CASE B Generation Fuel Cost IIeat Rate TOTAL
,(1000 MWIIrs)
($/MMBTU)
(BTU /KWilr)
($x106) 1984 8135 4.84 10500 413 1985 8135 5.18 10500 442 1986 8135 5.54 10500 473 1987 8135 5.93 10500 506 1988 8135 6.34 10500 542 1989 8135 6.79 10500 580 1990 8135 7.26 10500 620 1991 8135 7.77
'0500 664 1992 8135 8.31 10500 710 1993 8135 8.90 10500 760 1994 8135 9.52 10500 J'
813 1995 8135 10.18 10500-870 1996 8135 10.90 10500 931 1997 8135 11.66 10500 996 1998 8135 12.48 10500 1066 1999 8135 13.35 10500 1141 2000 8135 14.28 10500 1220 2001 8135 15.28 10500 1306 2002 8135 16.35 i 10500 1397 2003 8135 17.50 10500 1495' 2004 8135 18.72 10500 1600 2005 8135 20.03 10500 1712 2005 8135'
.21.44 10500' 1832 200~
4065 22.94 10500 979 2008 4065 24.54 10500 1048 i
mmm 2009 4065 26.26 10500 1121 j@y
- 8.9
- ?W R*m
".si b
"l DAVID ALAN SCHLISSEL 119 South Lake Avenue Albany, New York 12208 Telephone - (518) 434-3790 EDUCATION
~
i STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW (1969-70, 71-73), Palo Alto, California Juris Doctor STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EN,GINEERING (1968-69)
Master of Science in Aeronautical ~ Engineering MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (1964-68), Cambridge, Massachusetts Bachelor of Science ~in Aerona,utical Engineering EMPLOYllENT HISTOR'Y September, 1979 - Prbsent Energy Consultant
~
119 South Lake Avenue Albany, New York 12208 Projects have included:
Represented the New York State Consumer Protection Board and a coalition of elected ~ officials, public interest groups, labor unions, and other~ organizations, in a proceeding before the Public Service Commission to investigate the comparative economics of the completion of the Nine Mile Point 2 nuclear plant.
Prepared a paper.on " Energy Policy and Jobs for the Unemployed" for the American
. Jewish Committee; Drafted briefs for the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged in a recently completed Con Edison rate increase proceeding before the New York State Public Service Commission; Prepared a critique for the New York State Consumer Protection Board of the National Reliability Study conducted by the U.S.
Department of Energy Pursuant to PURPA;
C Prepared and presented a two-day regulatory law and economics training program for the staff of the Office of Consumer Services of the Maine Attorney General and for invited representatives of
~
consumer and environmental i
groups; l
Undertook a five-day speaking tour through the State of Oregon in October, 1980, on behalf of the Oregon-Campaign for Public
~
Power; Represented the Commission for Racial Justice of the United
- . Church of Christ and New York City P.O.W.E.R.
(People Outraged With En,ergy Rates) in a New York l
State Public Service Commission J
proceeding investigating the causes of the Octob5r, 1980 accident at the Indian Point 2 Nuclear Power Plant and i
determining who should pay, stockholders or' consumers.
December, 1975 -
New York State Consu,mer June, 1979 Protection Board 99 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12210 Utility Intervenor Represented the Gonsumer Attorney Protection Board in proceedings before the Public Sdrvice Commission.
Analyzed utility filings, prepared and conducted cross-examination, prepared and presented direct witnesses and wrote briefs.
Also -designed a community outreach and education
~
project and administered a program of subgrant awards to consumer groups to fund their participation ~in regulatory proceedings.-
l Cases:
I j
Case 27353 Proceeding on Consolidated Edison j
of New York's request for a $228
~
million electric rate increase.
(1978-79)
Case 27137 Proceeding to investigate the operation and legality of
~
l L.
S' l
automatic fuel adjustment clauses.
Co-author of petition to'the Public Service. Commission which initiated the proceeding.
)
(1976-79)
Case 80005
~
Proceeding on the siting of a Nuclear Power Station at l
Sterling, near Oswego, New York.
(1978-79) --
Case 27123 Proceeding to investigate the causes of the prolonged 1976 refueling outage of Consolidated l
Edison ~'s Indian Point No. 2
~
Nuclear Station.
(1977-78)
Case 26974 Assisted the drafting of a petition to the Public Service l
Commission which initiated a proceeding to investigate the l
comparative economics of nuclear and coa,1 generation of electricity.
(1976)
' Case 26798, Proceeding on electric utilities' i
proposal to establish Empire t
State Power Resources, Inc.,
ESPRI, a corporation to build, own and operate all_new generation facilities in New York State.
(1975-79)
Case 27154 1977 Proceeding on electric utilities long range plans.
Case 27029 Proceeding on the, implementation of marginal cost based rates for Consolidated Edison's industrial, commercial and residential customers. (1977-78)
Case 27013/
Proceeding to determine the 27120 propriety of Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp.'s participation in.the Nine liile l
Point No. 2 Nuclear Station and its sale of a percentage ownership in the Roseton Oil-fired Station.
(1977)
Case 27065 Proceeding on petition of gas utilities in New York Distributor Exploration Group to establish a surcharge on revenues to raise capital for investment in natural gas exploration ventures.
(1976-77)
Case 27032 Proceeding on Central !!udson Gas and Electric Corp.'s request for 1
a $14 million electric and gas
~
rate increase. (1976) l Case 27461 Proceeding on Central Iludson Gas and Electric Corp.'s request for 6
m
a S23 million electric rate
. increase.
(1979)
Case 27108 Proceeding on Rochester Gas and Electric Corp.'s request for an
$10 million rate increase. (1977)
Special Projects:
Testified before the U.S.
Federal Power Commission regarding the inclusion of Construction Works in Progress-in utility rate bases.
(1976)
Drafted a Petition on Consumers Rights for presentation to the Public Service Commission. (1976)
Designed and participated in a
' series of consumer training
seminars entitled:
How Consumers Can Participate in the Regulatory Process.,, (1978-79) 1 Author: Questions snd Answers on Public Power, published by the Peoples Power Coalition' of New York State.
(1977)
April, 1975 -
Human Affairs Program 1
July, 1975 Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14850 Consultant:
Developed
- materials Ior and participated in a series of community. training seminars-on utility and energy related subjects.
Decembe,r, 1973 -
Georgia Power Project April, 1975 P.O.
Box 1856, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Staff Attorney:
Represented the Georgia Power Project in state and federal
- administrative proceedings and court litigation.
Also administered community outreach and education programs.
Cases and Special Projects:
Georgia Public Service Commission proceeding on. Georgia Power Company's request for a $304 million electric rate increase.
e m
e m
O
t An appeal to the Fulton County Superior Court challenging the legality of a number of Public Service Commission decisions authorizing higher rates for the Gporgia Power Company.
An appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court on the standing.of residential consumers to challenge the legality of elgetric rate increases granted by the Public Service Commission.
A suit in Federal District Court to establish consumers' rights to adequate notice and a fair
> hearing prior to the termination of. utilit~y services, r_
A suit in Federal District Court-to challenge the Public Service Commission's granting of an emergency $35 million electric rate ~ increase to the Georgia Power Company.
A Federal -Power Commission proceeding on,a pumped-storage hydro project in Northwestern Georgia.
~
A Securities and Exchange ~
Commission procee. ding on the propriety of the Georgia Power Company's issuance of $250 million of short-term debt.
The Georgia Power Project was the first consumer group in 33 years to request such a proceeding under the Public Utilities
. Holding Company Act of 1935.
Testified before the Federal Energy Administration regarding the proposed Project Independence Energy Plan.
July, 1973 -
Private Practice in Atlanta November, 1973 Georgia.
Legal A'ssistant and Attorney:
Labor, criminal and domestic relations cases.
w e
m O
O
u
~
TEPCHING EXPERIENCE December, 1973 - Present Guest lecturer on Utility Economics at classes at Northeastern University,
~
Chlifornia State University at San Jose and DeKalb County (Georgia) Junior College.
Spring 1970 Freshman Seminar at Stanford University 6n Contemporary Ecdnomics Issues.
Summer 1968 High School level algebra and trigonometry classes at the College of the Virgin Isles, St.
sThomas, V.I.
e BAR ADMISSIONS r,
State of New York State of Georgia Federal Court Admissions:
United States District Cour.t for the Northern District of Georgia.
~
United States Court of Appeals for the D.istrict of Columbia Circuit.
O e
M e
G O
9 e
t 0
=
w G
e e
w e
m o
e e
JOH,N JOSEPH MAVRETICH Box 36, Burroughs Drive West Park, New' York 12493 (914) 384-6760 EDUCATION Fordham University, Bronx, New York 9/66 - 6/70 - B.S. Psychology S.U.N.Y., New Paltz, New York 24 Credits Toward M.A. Psychology I
. EMPLOYMENT Honorable Maurice D. Hinchey, Chairman.
Committee On Environmenta1 Conservation N.Y. State Assembly, Albany, New York March,1981 - Present
~
~
Research Assistant responsible for drafting anr1 reviewing all energy-related legislation and representing Mr. Hinchey in energy-related proceedings before State regulatory bodies.
On behalf of M r.
Hinchey, I have prepared cross-examination, interrogatories, testimony, briefs and other. leg.al documents in the regulatory proceedings before the N.Y. State Public Service Commi'ssion listed in Attachment A.
i Independent Consulting Services January,1980 - Present Since January,1980, I have provided independent corysulting services on energy-related matters to private, governmental and non-profit, organizations.
These services have included the appearances before State regulatory bodies listed in Attachment B.
Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opoonents, Inc.
New Paltz, New York August,1975 - January,1980 MHNO, Inc. was a 2,500 member, non-profit, educational corporation, formed in 1975, to, bxplore, and advocate for, alternatives to the proliferation of major
, electric generating complexes in the Hudson Valley. In July of 1977, I assumed the position of Executive Director.
S k
es em W
e a
v
-s-
4
~
i As Executive Director of MIINO,. Inc., J was responsible for executing and/or coordinating multi-faceted regulatory, legal, legislative and educational programs, and adntinistering a budget of approximately $25,000, per year.
On behalf of MHNO, Inc. I prepared cross-exa$nination, interrogatories, testimony, briefs and other legal documents in the regujatory proceedings before the N.Y. State Public Service Commission list,ed in Attachment C.
i On behalf of MHNO,. Inc.,'I was responsible for identifying, retaining and supervising various consulting firms and attorneys who represented the i.
organization's interests in the power plant licensing proceedings, litigation and administrative actions listed in Attachment D.
School Of Continuing Education S.U.N.Y., ITew Paltz, New ' York 1976 - 1977 1
j Taught two semesters of undergraduate Social Psychol 6gy. One semester i
at a correctional facility for males in Wallkill,. New York; one semester at a correctional facility for females in Bedford Hills, New York.
l Mr. Derek St. John Kingston, New York October,1974 - June,1977 l
Restoration carpentry in an 18th century frame house. The. house was completely gutted, restored to its original state, and is now a registered national historic landmark. Personally responsible for approximately 75% of the interior carpentry and painting.
4 1
St. Cabrini Home West Park, New York March,1973 - July,1974 Child-care worker in a unit for severely disturbed adolescent males.
United States Army July,1970 - July,1972 Drafted in July,1972. Trained as a field medic. Assigned to the Mental Hygiene Coosultation Service, 3rd Armored Division, Frankfurt, FRG. Served as Social Work / Clinical Psychology Specialist, responsible for the 10,000
- servicemen and dependents stationed in the Town of Friedberg. Duties included psychiatric intake psycholpgical testing, counselling and ' crisis intervention.
In addition, I taught two semesters of undergraduate Introductory Psychology to military per,sonnel and dependents.
W l
9 e
-.e,...-
.--e.y a
~~..,w. *.
,.-..,.m.
,-a-
OTHER PERTINENT ACTIVITIES
' M epiber, State Review Panel, U.S.
Department of Energy Appropriate Technology Small Grants Program.
- 5iember, Advisory Committee to the Electric Utility Training School, New York State Consumer Protection Board.
' Selected as a participar3t in workshops. sponsored-by the N.Y. State Public Service Commission, and ' conducted by the Economic and Environmental Studies Center of The Institute On Man And Science, Rensselaerville, N.Y., for the purpose of reviewing the " Statewide Site Selection Guide" developed by the New York Power Pool.
4 a
~
- Eield Work Supervisor, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York. Supervised l
students pursuing independent course. work on energy,and utility issues.
'Liember, Planning Committee; "Toward An Informed Energy Policy For The Slid-Hudson Region": a year-long series of community, seminars sponsored by Bard College, Annandale, N.Y. and funded by a grant from the National Science l
Foundation.
9 4
1 1
4 e
-e e
5 k
=
ATTACFDST A APPEARMCES ON BEHMF OF ASSE?iBL4WI MAURICE D. HINCHEY 4
3 j
PPOrrFnJ2:G ISSUES ADDRESSED PSC Case #27794 - Rochester Gas
- Prudence of management decisions 1
and Electric et al. DeteImination of Central Hudson Gas and Electric of the accounh treat: ment and rate-Corporation.
making principles applicable to the extraordinary property loss arising frtn regulatory rejection 'of Sterling Nuclav Unit No.1.
Electric sales for resale.
PSC Case #27626 - Central Hudson Gas, and Electric Corporation - Electric"
- Cbnstruction prWrom.
Rates.
- Mvertising egense.
Production traintenance expense.
_ Land-held for future use.
PSC ram #27882 - Few Yoric State
- Construction pr@imu.
Electric and Gas Cu_f.u.ation -
- Advertising e p..
Electric Rates.
~
PSC Case 427780 - re-* ml Hudson Gas
- Prudence of managenent actions and Elactric Cc:icrad.cn - Inquiry during events leading to forced into forced outages of units #3 and #4 outaces.
of the Danskacter generating station.
'PSC Case #28059 - LW into the
- Cost effectiveness of continuing fanar-ini and ecar. -ic cost construction.
impilcations of constructing Nine Mile Point Unit #2 Ner-lav Station.
PSC Chse #28026 - Inquiry into the
- Cost effectiveness of conHmwl nhility of the Central Hudson Gas and participation in NMP 52.
EleMc Cw.r.u.ation to continue as a 1
parHe-imn'- in Nine Mile Point #2.
2 PSC Case '928105 - Central Hudson Gas
- Electric sales for ramala.
.ind Electric Corporation - Electric
- Mvertising expense.
Rates.
- Iand held for future use.
j PSC Case #28211 - Consolidated Edison
- Land held for future use.
Carpany of New York, Inc. - Electric rates.
l PSC Case #248288 - Hurley Water Company-
- Pate of return.
Water ratds.
- Cperating ccrapany expense.
PSC Case #28264 - New Yoric Telephone
- Rate design: Iocality Mileage Ctxupany
. Pates.
Charges.
es i
m 9
ATTACHMENT B
.APPEMENCES PUPSUINT 'IO INDEPEh' DENT CDNSULTING AGPME;TS PPMG ISSUES ADDRESSED PSC Case #27708,- In the matter of the
- Di,scriminatory practices against ccr:plautt of Beacon Terminal a self-generating comercial Corporation against the Central Hudson customer.
Gas and Electric Corporation.
Just and reasonable rates for PSC Case #27636 - Central Hudson Gas and ElMc Corporatica - Electric custmers insh11ing " qualifying facilities" pursuant to the rate design.
~Public Utilities Policy Act of.
1978.
PSC Case #27574 - Consolii!ated Edison Crrre~f of New York, Inc. '- Rates for-service provided to custarers with *on-site generatica.
Adequacy of-Quality Assurance PSC Case #28266 - Ibchester Gas and EleRic Cung2ctica - Inquiry into and Quality Cbntrol ptvgtaum.
the causes of tube w Lure in the "B" steam generatcr of the Pcbert E.
Ginna r"cl e plc.d..
. Unit heat rates.
In the ratter of the application of Orange and Pcckinni Utilities for the conversion of the IcVett Steam Electric Generating Units 4 and 5 frcm oil-Fired to (bal-Fired Generation.
(Before the N.Y.S. Depoti.umit of EnvitummiLal Cbnservation)
C7 FEER Contract negotiations between the City
- Street lighting contract.
of Poughkeepsie, N.Y. and the Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation.
e k
ATTACHMENT C
'APPEAPANCES ON BEHAIF OP IED-HUDSON NUCTIEAR OPPONENTS, INC.
PICFF7nING ISSUTS ADDPISSED i
^
PSC Case #27032 - Central Hudson
- Electric lead prowth projections.
Gas and Electric Corporation -
- Ratmaking treatrent of excess Electric rates.
gerierating capacity.
- Construction progtau.
PSC Case #27013 - Niagara hIchawk
- Electric load growth projections.
Poer Corporation et al. -
- Generation expansion plans.
Tr " % v of interests"2.n the Nine Mile Point #2 Nue]. ear unit.
.e PSC Case 427319 - New York Power Pool
- Electric load growth projections.
Ier.s-ra=ge electric plan.
.._1
. ~ _ T._
PSC Case #25784 - Proceeding on notion
- Land held for future use.
of the r e i m ica as to the accounting
- Site selection.
and rate treat =ent for land acquired. in anticipation of construction.
PSC Case #27461 - c
- l Hudson Gas and
- Electric load growth projections.
Electric Cua,w&c.Lica - Electric rates.
- Ratsaking treatrent of eymma
. generating capacity.
- Mvertising expense.
- Land held for, future use.
- Tlectric sales for resale.
- Operation of.Hczne Insulation program.
- Heat pmp pronational practices.
t W
e O
e g
ATTACEFET D ACTIOt;S SUPER /ISED ON BEHAIE OF MID HCDSON NUCLEAR OPPOMNTS, INC.
1)
PSC Case #80006; PGC Docket #50-549 - Power Authority of the State of New York - Greene County Nuclear Plant (see Testirony of Dr. Stephen Bernow, Energy Systems Research Group, Inc., dated 3/2/79).
Mid-Hudson Nuclear Opponents, Inc.,, et d. v.' Consolidated Mimn 2)
Company of New York, Inc.
State Supreme Courts of Dutchess and Columbia Counties;,Index #1977/4753'.
- 3) Mid-Rudson Nuclear Opponents, Inc.,
Congressman Hamilton Fish, Jr.,
AssenblyItan Maurice D. Hinchey, Assemblyran C.D. Iane, 'Ibwn of Clermont,
'Dtw:n of Livingston, 'Ibwn of Gallatin, Town of Gemantown, et_ al_. v.
Consolidated Edison Ccr@any of New York, Inc. State Suprerne Courts of Datchess and Coltrbia Counties; Index #1978/2826.
- 4) Consolidated Edison Ctrpany of New York, Inc. v. Town of Red Book et_ al_.,
' State Suprz:e Court of Dutchess County; Index #1978/2670.
- 5) PSC Case 927507 - Cerrplaint of Mid-Hudson Nuclear Oppoents, Inc. et al.
against the Consolidated Mimn Cmpany of New York, Inc.
6) 1979 New York State Energy Master Plan:dng and Iong-Range Electric And l
Gas Syste:1 Planning Proceeding (see Testinony of Energy Systems Research Group, Inc. cn behalf of Sierra Club et al., dated 9/4/79).
O sg e
e O
i e
E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATO,RY COMMISSION
- "~~
BEFORE T!!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'83 'IE 13 M1 :30 In the Matter of
)
~
)
CONSOLICATED EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos'. 50-247-SP OF NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 2) )
50-286-SP
)
POWER AUTi!ORITY OF T!!E STATE OF
)
NEW YORK (Indian Point, Unit 3.)-
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Testimony S'ubmitted on Behalf of 'New York City Council' Intervenors' of David Schlissel and John Mavretich in the~ above captioned pro-ceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, this 6th day of April 1983.
Paul F. Colarull'i, Esq.-
James P. Gleason Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq.
Administrative Judge Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.
513 Gilmour Drive Charles Morgan. Jr., Esq.
Silver Springs, Maryland 20901 Morgan Associat'es, Chartered 1899 L Street, N.W.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Washington, D.C.
20036 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Charles M.' Pratt. Eso.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Stephen L. Baum, Esq.
Power Authority of the State Washington. D.C.
20555 of New York Mr. Frederick J. Shon 10 Columbus Circle Administrative Judge New York, N.Y.
10019 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ellyn R. Wei+s, Esq.
William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555
';.*. :<....,m 1.Hamon & yeiss Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq..;gh,4-l 1725 1 Street, N.W., Suite 506 AssistantGeneralCounsel.S' sM ngton..~D.C. 20006 g'athanD.Feinberg Consolidated Edison Co. of,
tgge
~
New York, Inc.
., _.9 '
Don 4 Irving Place
. # New York State Public Service New York, N.Y.
10003
- l....;
- 'I Commission sThree Empire State Plaza Mayor George V. Begany Albany, New York 12223 Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, N.Y.
10511 e en e.
. esammee, e se e e.ese w - w ees>
e en e.,
e -.
2-7 Melvin Goldberg, Staff Attorney Stanley B. Klimberg Joan Holt, Project Director General Counsel New York Pihlic Interest Research New York. State Energy Office
[ f]
" Street 2 Rockefeller State Plaza New York, N.Y.
10007 Albany, N.Y.
12223 Marc L'. Parris, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Blum, Esq.
Eric.Thorsen, Esq.
New York University Law. School County Attorney, County of Rockland 423 Vanderbilt Hall 11 New Hempstead Road 40 Washington Square South New City, N.Y.
10956 New York, N.Y.
10012 t
ion $
5*
n a
o nt Coordinator on The Port Authority of New York City Audubon Society New York and New Jersef 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828
-l One World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10010 New York, N.Y.
10048 Greater New York Council on Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Energy Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
c/o Dean R. Corren, Director Environmental Protection Bureau New -York University New York State Attorney 26 Stuyvesant Street General's Office New York', N.Y.
10003 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10047 Honorable Richard L. Brodsky Member of the County Legislature Alfred B. Del Bello Westchester County Executive fg'S ce ding White Plains, N.Y.
10601 We e
r ounty ht s
York 10601 e
Conce ne o
Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.
Indian Point New York State Assembly P.O. Box 125.
Albany, N.Y.
12248 Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 Ruthanne G. Miller, Esq.
Charles A. Scheiner, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Co-Chairperson Panel Westchester People's Agtion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Coalition, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- P.O. Box.488 White Plains, N.Y.
10602 Honorable Ru'th Messinger Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.
- Member of the Council of the Lorna Salzman City of New York Friends of the Earth. Inc.
District #4 208 West 13th Street City Hall New York, N.Y.
10011 New York, N.Y!
10007 e
. ' ' ~ -
Donald Davidoff Alan Latman, Esq.
Director Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group l
44 Sunset Drive Empire State Plaza Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 Tower Building, Rm. 1750 Albany, New York 12237 2.ipporah S. Fleisher West Branch Conservation Renee Schwartz, Esq.
Association Paul Chessin, Esq.
l 443 Euena Vista Road Laurens R.' Schwartz, Esq.
New Ci ty, N.Y..
10956 Margaret Oppel, Esq.
~
Botein, Hays Sklar & Hertzberg Judith Kessler, Coordinator.
200 Park Avenue Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy New York, NY 10166 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y.
10956 Spence W. Perry office of General Counsel David H. Pikus, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Richard F. Czaja, Esq.
500 C. Street Southwest 330 Madison Avenue Washington, D.C.~
20472 New York, N.Y.
10017 1
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission David B. Duboff Washington, D.C.
20555
- Westchester Peoples' Action Coalition At'omic Safety and Licensing Appeal t
ai NY 10601 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 *
~
~~
Mr. Samuel J.
Chilk Secretary of the. Commission Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear " Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C..
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Leonard Bickwit, Esq.
General Counsel U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Geoffrey Cobb Ryan Washington, D..C..
20555
' Conservation Commission, Chair, Director Ms Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
NYC Audubon Society Johnston & George, Attys. at Law 71 W.
23 St. Suite 1828 528 Iowa Avenue New York, New York 10010 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Ruthanne G.
Miller, Esq.
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Esq. Chair.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear, Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 d
Washington, D.C.
20555 Janice Moore, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass Counsel for Nuclear Regula-Regional Counsel tory Commission Staff Roca 1349 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Federal Emergency Management Agency Commission' 26 Pederal Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, N.Y.
10278 e,-
t
]
. ]tevpq,C Shally 1
a:nion cf Ccncarn d scicnticta i
'346 Cannecticut Ave. N.W.
cchington, D.C.
20036 t
t e..
G bh4kaem
~
Nancy El Anderson m
O en e
an o
5 O
O O
e e
4 e
9
(
4 o
e e
e 5
4
=
8 4