ML20108E167
| ML20108E167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/12/1984 |
| From: | Rolfe R HARMON & WEISS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20108E166 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8412140286 | |
| Download: ML20108E167 (12) | |
Text
m
?~
Q Ls A
LILCO,.Decembekff,f)01984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- 2-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c g
i Before the Commission In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4
)
(Low Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit-1)
)
LILCO'S' OBJECTIONS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT On December 5, 1984, Suffolk County and the State of New York filed an unauthorized pleading entitled "New York State and Suffolk County Supplementary Affidavit in Support of Comments Filed November 29 and Request for Oral Argument Filed November 29" (Supplementary Affidavit).
For the reasons stated beloti, the Commission should not accept this pleading.
l-1.
The parties have already been given an opportunity to comment on the Licensing Board's decision on a Phase III and Phase IV low power license for Shoreham.
Commission Order-dated November 19, 1984.
Comments were filed by all parties on November 29.
Now, without so much as asking leave to do so, the County and State have filed additional comments.
Unless the Commission rejects the unauthorized pleading, it will i
8412140286 841212 i
PDR ADOCK 05000322 s
Q PDR
7:
k signal that the NRC's licensing process can be endlessly pro-longed by unauthorized filings.
2.
The Supplementary Affidavit addresses issues that were not properly the subject of the November 29 comments.
As noted in LILCO's Response to Suffolk County and State of New York Motion to Exceed Page Limit (December 5, 1984), the joint County / State comments went well beyond the Commission's in-structions to address "the correctness of the Board's applica-tion of criteria in our Order of May 16 to Phases III and IV of low power operation."
The Supplementary Affidavit does not ad-dress this subject.
Rather, it deals with the issue of the need for Shoreham.
Thus, for the reasons given in LILCO's December 5 filing, the Supplementary Affidavit should be re--
jected.
l 3.
The need for power issue is not an appropriate. con-sideration at the operating license stage.
Section 51.53(c) of the Commission's regulations explicitly bars litigation con-l cerning the need for power in an operating license hearing.
Thus, to the extent the County and State are attempting to in-ject this issue, their efforts should be rebuffed.
l 4.
Even if the need for power were relevant, the 11-licit Supplementary Affidavit offers no reason why neither the purported evidence nor the affiant were proffered before the l
Licensing Board during the nine days of evidentiary hearings.
I i
1 i
i l
l l
l t
- p. -
7 c %.
+
9.y; To consider such a filing not subject to the scrutiny of dis-y S
.covery or cross-examiNaElon would,be! procedurally improper and, as set forth in paragraph 5 below, would mislead the Commission byiE[Anaccurateinformation.
,5.
Importantly, the information ptovided'by the Sup-plementary Affidavit is dangerously misleading.
The County and State claim that the " quantity of electricit3y represented by
~
Shereham will not be needed for 13 years" id, based on numerous assumptions, some of which have already been proven wrong and others of which are of dubious validity.
As~the enclosed affi-M davit of Adam Madsen, LILCO's Vice President of Corporate Plan-nIng, demonstrates, there is a very real need for Shoreham in
~
_the sliort term.
Unless licensing of the plant proceeds apace, there will be nothing available to fill this need.
Thus, not
~
only is the Supplementary Affidavit an improper and unauthorized pleading', it ig incorrect and misleading.
Accord-ingly',theCommission~shoulqreject it and proceed with its Phases III and IV deliberations.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
'Jf'
'W.
Taylor Reveleyh III(
Robert M.
Rolfe
(-
Anthony F.
Earley, Jr.
HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East Main Street -
Richmond, VA 32319
~
DATED:
December 12, 1984 w.
LILCO, Decemb ih,1984l UNITED STATES'OF AMERICA Ohl2 PS:02 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h TfMG lh Before~the Commission E
BRANCH In the Matter of
)'
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4
~
)
(Low Power).
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ADAM M.
MADSEN Adam M. Madsen, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
- 1. _ I am Adam M. Madsen.
I have prepared this affida-vit for use in Docket _#50-322-OL-4 concerning the' licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (Unit 1) (Shoreham) which is
- pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2.
I am Vice President of Corporate Planning for Long Island Lighting Company.
As such, I am responsible for all ac-tivities of LILCO's Departments of Facilities Planning, Finan-cial Planning and Analysis, Economic Research and_ Strategic Planning.
Additional details concerning my professional quali--
-fications are included in Attachment A to this Affidavit enti-tied " Professional Qualifications of Adam M. Madsen."
r
.3.
This Affidarit is submitted in response'to the Af-fidavit of Eugene Gleason which erroneously asserts that
,a.
'O Shoreham is not needed until 1997.
Shoreham'is required imme-diately to provide a reliable supply of electricity to Long Is-land,'not 13 years from now.
-In summary, many of the bases for the Gleason Affidavit's-conclusions are incorrect.
The fore-
~
. cast used for his conclusions has already been proven grossly incorrect in that;it significantly underestimated consumption of'electr'icity on Long Island:
for 1983, by 470,000
. megawatt-hours, and for 1984 by 655,000 megawatt-hours.
He used electric rates that are patently incorrect.
He ignored both the $20 million worth of oil which will be saved each month once Shoreham is in operation and the $1.-9 million.capac-ity penalty charges which will be saved in 1985.
He utilizes a statewide energy forecast that has already been proven incor-rect by 4,000 GHW for 1983 and 7,000 GHW for 1984.
Finally, he ignores the obvious reliability danger posed by Long Island's
~
nearly complete reliance on foreign oil, a reliance which could turn into disaster at the next disruption of oil supply.
b 4.
According to LILCO's current load forecast, without i
Shoreham in service, generation deficiences will exist'on Long-1 Island as-follows:-
D
/
-n
,. __. - - ~
-r.,._
-. ~
pl' 1985.-- 202 MW 1986 -- 273 MW-
. 1987 -- 344 MW 19881-.368 MW 1989 -- 397 MW If LILCOLcontinues to own an 18% share of Nine Mile. Point #2,-
. about-one-half of the 1988 and 1989' deficiency'will be elimi-;
nated; b'ut-for-1985, 1986-and 1987,1there:is very little pros-pect,fother than operating Shoreham, for relieving the defi-
. ciency.- Some small par tial relief may come from a small-
~
- purchases from.the PASNY Fitzpatrick unit.- 'In addition, some nominal relief may come from refuse fired power plants.-
Nei-ther of these will substantially reduce-the deficiency, howev-er..
p 5.
Loss-of-load probability. analyses indicate that1 these generation-deficiencies could cause 6 to 12 brownouts per
- year on ong Island -- an unsatisfactory level.
Even though r
there-may be. excess generating capacity.off Long^ Island, it'
~
- will-not effectively improve reliability of-service to Long Is-
~
land because of the limited transmission capacity-to~ southeast:
New York as well as the limited interconnection transmission
. capacity to Long Island.
The earliest in-service date for a.
. new transmission interconnection to Long Island is between 1991
- and 1993.
6.
The State Energy Office's (SEO) ccnclusion that Shoreham is not needed for.13 years is based on a forecast for 4
m,-,
.,,-__.c,..,%
,m,
.,---..m,
..,,,__.,,.,,,m._.,,
,.-.,m.4
-,.w-
' ~.-
. Long-Island that has already been proven wrong.
.That forecast compares with the actual experience of the last two years-as follows:
Year SEO Forecast Experienced 4
1983 12,679 GWH 13,149 GWH 1984-12,909 GWH 13,574 GHW-Thus, the load experienced in 1984 is already more than 5% higher than-the SEO forecast.
t 7.
The SEO incorrectly forecast that sales of elec-tricity on Long Island would decline-for years.
By 1988, the-
- SEO forecast predicted sales on Long Island almost 10% lower than the 1984 sales actually experienced.
In fact, the level' 1
of sales actually experienced ~1984 was not forecast by the SEO to occur until 1994..
8.
.Another fallacy in the SEO forecast results from price elasticity.
The SEO'used the wrong rate increases. 'The SEO forecast that the actual price of electricity would rise as follows:
1985 -- 18.6%
1986 -- 19.3%
1987 -- 15.9%
1988 -- 11.2%
n
. LILCO has publicly stated that it will not request any new rate f
-..... -...... ~..., _... _....... -.... _ _. - -, _ _... -.. -... _. - -,.. _... _ - - -,, _,..
increases to.be effective in 1985 and the maximum rate in-
~
creases'in the future are expected to be 9% per year or lower.
Thus, if demand will increase with lower rates, SEO's analysis predicts an understated demand.
The combination of SEO's rate increase assumptions and erroneous load levels in 1984 led to SEO's erroneous concusion.concerning the need for Shoreham.
9.
LILCO will incur significant additional costs for even-a month's slip in Shoreham's service date.
Each month of delay results in the burning of approximately $20 million worth of oil.
In addition, if Shoreham moves ahead promptly and achieves an October 1985 in-service date, it will save $1.9 3
million in generation capacity deficiency penalty costs from the New York Power Pool (NYPP) in 1985.
A slip.to November 1 or later eliminates this saving.
10.
Another concern is reliability of fuel supply on Long Island, which is nearly 100% dependent on foreign oil.
Shoreham presents the only opportunity to make a significant l
dent in this reliability problem.
I 11.
Based purely on capacity needs,ott may be true that l~
for the State as a whole there apparently is enough generating l
capacity on line or under construction so the State may not need Shoreham's capacity unde,r the mid-1990s.
This remote ca-pacity, however, will do nothing to solve LILCO's local reliability problems.
It will do nothing for the oil t
l
o dependency problem-on Long Island or the brownout problem on Long Island because of the inadequate interconnection capacity to Long Island.
12.
Additionally, the'SEO forecast for New York State may be too low.
The SEO. forecasted 118,000 GHW for New York State in 1983; the actual was 122,000 GWH, or 3.3% higher.
The SEO forecasted-119,000 GWH for 1984; the actual is 126,000 GWH, or 5.9% higher.
In fact, the SEO forecast for 1989 equals the load actually experienced in New York State in 1984.
Further-more, the SEO analyses of installed generation by 1999' includes
.over 3500 MW of generating capacity that is neither under con-struction or licensed.
13.
The statements in the Affidavit of Eugene J.
Gleason regarding LILCO's study entitled Shoreham Operation /Versus Abandonment (An Economic Analysis) in June
')
1983 mischaracterize that study.
The study was prepared under my direction and did not assert that LILCO did not need Shoreham until 1994 and 1996.
These were the earliest dates LILCO could complete the licensing and construction of two 400 MW coal units to replace Shoreham if it were to be abandoned.
Figure 2 on page 8 of that report, as well as the tables on pages 9 and 10, show clearly that even with the lower load forecast,at that time, LILCO was deficient in installed generating capacity starting in 1985.
i
-. - - -. ~
_y_.
Adam M. Madsen Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~
? day (of December,-1984
- Notary Public
- My. Commission Expires:
f I
I t
I i'
l t
i vv <
<N..+
w.ew-r-
.-w.
+
w.
y,
r 8 -
ATTACHMENT A PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF ADAM M.
MADSEN I was elected Vice President of Corporate Planning in March 1984.
I'am responsible for the activities of four de-partments:
Facilities Planning, Financial ~ Planning and Analy-sis, Economic Reseach and Strategic Planning.- From 1978 through March 1984 I was Manager of Engineering, responsible for the activities of four departments:
Planning, Electrical Engineering, System-Engineering and Engineering Design.
Previ-ously_I was Manager of the Planning Department where I was re-sponsible for planning all of LILCO's electric and gas facili-ties.
In 1978 I was appointed LILCO's member of.the New York Power Pool Planning Committee, having served as its Chairman.
I am a member of Northeast Coordinating Council's Joint Coordinating. Committee'and I am presently an alternate to the Northeast Coordinating Council's Executive Committee.
I have a Bachelor's degree in Electric Engineering from Manhattan College and a Master of Science degree in Nuclear En-gineering from Long Island University.
I am also a registered Professional Engineer in the State of New York.
I have testified with respect to LILCO's activities concerning electric system planning, economics and operations
r=
-9_
in a number of proceedings before the Public Service Commis-sion, the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
In particular, I testified in the Jamesport
-Article VII transmission proceeding, in the Jamesport construc-tion-permit licensing hearings before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
I also testified in PSC proceeding (1) analyzing the economics of completing Shoreham versus various conservation alternatives; (2) determining the accounting and ratemaking treatment applicable to the extraordinary-property loss resulting from the Siting Board's rejecton of the New Haven project; (3) concerning measures to facilitiate coal con-versations in New York; (4) regarding LILCO's. electric and gas rate increase requests; (5) the proceeding concerning ratemaking principles applicable to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station; and (6) most recently the Jamesport prudency case.
l i
l L
?
.