ML20246E835
| ML20246E835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1989 |
| From: | Elliott C LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, INC., POSWISTILO, ELLIOT & ELLIOT |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#389-9087 OL-2, NUDOCS 8908300038 | |
| Download: ML20246E835 (41) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - _ - - - - -
' ( s, : - [,~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'89 % 25 g;o:gg Before the Commission SU.:
uvu r.
)
F In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-352, g D PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CO.
)
50-353
)
(Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
l SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF INTER 7ENOR LIMERICK ECOLOGi ACTION, INC. TO MEMORANDUM l
AND ORDER OF COMMISSION DATED JULY 26, 1989 AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF AUGUST 7, 1989 Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.
(" LEA")
further supplements its response to the July 26, 1989 and August 7, 1989 Memoranda and Orders of the Commission as follows:
I.
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY HAS ADMITTED THAT DELAY IN OPERATION OF LIMERICK UNIT 2 IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND COSTS LESS In a formal filing this past month with the Pa.
Public Utility Commission,1/ which Intervenor LEA obtained on August 23,
- 1989, Philadelphia Electric Co. ("PECO") has admitted that delay in the operation of Limerick Generating Statien, Unit 2 results e
in a net benefit to the ratepayer, and in fact costs less than if the plant had commenced commercial operation at an earlier point 1/ Philadelphia Electric Co. Proposed Supplement No. 49 to its Tariff Electric - Pa.
Public Utility Commission No.
26, supported by its Statement of Reasons and the Direct Testimony of Thomas P.
Hill, Jr.
l 8908300038 890824 ADOCK 0500 3
{DR
)SO3
in time.
See, Attachment A hereto, excerpts from Philadelphia Electric Co. Statement of Reasons and Direct Testimony of Thomas P.
Hill for Philadelphia Electric Co. dated July, 1989 (received by LEA on August 23, 1989).
These PECO admissions in shocking contrast to the PECO
~
assertions in its filing with this Commission clearly indicate that delay in licensing and commercial operation of Limerick Unit 2 does not represent a serious economic detriment as PECO asserted before this Commission.
As a corollary matter, the admissions also show that not delaying full-power operation does not represent the significant benefit that PECO asserted it l
would in its filings with this Commission. See, e.g.,
" Response By Licensee Philadelphia Electric Company To Commission's Request for Comments By Memorandum and Order Dated July 26, 1989", at l
p.5.
In addition, the PECO filing with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission also shows that sufficient PECO generating capacity will be available during any reasonable severe accident mitigation alternatives remand proceeding litigation time frame.
PECO, in the direct testimony of Mr. Hill, flatly stated:
Commercial operation of Limerick 2 is forecasted for February 1, 1990. With the addition of Limerick 2, the Company had planned to retire four oil fired units which had reached the end of their normal service lives.
These units, Schuylkill No.
1, Delaware 7 and 8, and Cromby 2 provide 623 MW of installed 2
capacity to the TECO system.
Attachment A, Direct Testimony of Hill, at p.
6.
Thus, any electrical generating capacity requirement in the time frame required for litigation of LEA's contention on severe accident mitigation alternatives can be met by available PECO generating capacity.
PECO has made -- and can make -- absolutely no showing that PECO has insufficient generating capacity to meet its demand during any relevant litigation time frame. And this oil-fired capacity imposes a much lower fuel cycle mortality impact (.18 per GW(e)-yr ) than the coal capacity which PECo claimed would comprise a
large proportion of the base load alternative to Unit 2.
Indeed, both of these points (available generating capacity and the likely economic benefit of delay in operation of 1'
l Limerick Unit 2) were raised in LEA 's " Supplemental Response of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. to Memorandum and Order of Commission Dated July 26, 1989 and to Memorandum and Order of l
August 7,
1989",
filed on August 13, 1989
(" August 13 Supplemental Response").
- See, e.o.,
August 13 Supplemental Response, at pp. 16-24.
However, not until LEA became aware of PECO's filing with the Pa.PUC and obtained a copy of it on August 23, 1989 did LEA possess specific information from PECO itself to support LEA's position.
Because these PECO admissions demonstrate that there is no economic penalty from delay in operation of Limerick Unit 2 and that sufficient generating capacity will be available in the 3
relevant litigation time frame to meet demand, it is clear that the public interest favors delay in issuing a
full-power operating license for Limerick Unit 2 until the severe accident mitigation litigation is completed, and the requirements of NEPA satisfied.
- Indeed, it would be an abuse of discretion for the Commission to make findings based on PECO's earlier -- and now discredited assertions, without fully accounting for the information contained in these recently obtained PECO admissions.
II. The Commission May Not Rely Upon the NRC Staff Conclusions In the August 16, 1989 Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement for Limerick On August 16, 1989 the NRC Staff submitted its " Supplement to NUREG-0974,
' Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2',
NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives for Limerick".2/
i LEA has had no meaningful opportunity to adequately review l
or analyze the contents of the Supplement to the FES in the three day period since its receipt.
LEA objects to any reliance upon this document by the Commission in any decision it may make to issue a full-power operating license for Limerick Unit 2.
The e
staff's analysis will be the subject of litigation in the remand F
hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. For the 2/ This document was not received by LEA until Monday, Auge t 21, 1989.
4
]
Commission.to accept or rely upon the FES S u p p l e m e n t ' i n
.'a n y manner prior to'a full opportunity for the parties to review and litigate its contents before. the ASLB would : deprive LEA of its right to hearing.
Moreover, in addition to the legal impropriety involved in any such reliance without opportunity to contest the contents of the FES Supplement, it is apparent that such reliance wor:d be a technical mistake as well.
This is because even a quick review of the FES Supplement reveals it to be (1) filled. with
-controversial and incorrect assumptions and methodologies; (2) incomplete and misleading.
By way of example only, the NRC staff uses $1,000/ person-rem as a cost / benefit screening criterion. This completely ignores a number of important societal costs resulting from severe accidents.
In
- essence, the staff is attempting to use
$1,000/ person-rem as a surrogate for all costs, when it is really
. meant as a surrogate for health costs only. This is particularly egregious as applied to the FES Supplement involved here, because the. Staff went out of its way to identify other factors on the s
" cost" side of the cost-benefit ledger (see FES Supplement at 16).
Further,"in connection with its analysis of the cost of SAMDA implementation, the staff has identified many costs which 4
would not have been incurred but for the NRC's refusal -- despite repeated LEA efforts to consider severe accident mitigation alternatives prior to this late date.
LEA first raised the issue of severe accident mitigation alternatives for Limerick in 1981-5
f '
eight years ago,,and long prior to the completion of construction of Unit 2.
.'only now, after the Third Circuit mandated it, has
~
the. staff begun -to perform-the severe accident mitigation-alternatives analysis which the National Environmental-Policy Act
("NEPA") required.
In the face of-this eight year delay by the NRC staff and applicant, 'in the face of the eight year construction period without such consideration, and on the eve of Ja full-power operating license decision by the Commission for Unit 2, the staff would ' throw into the balance the increased l-costs caused by the construction completion and power operation l
of the facility.3/
These additional costs might well have been
}
l avoided entirely, or at least significantly
- reduced, if the.
l required NEPA consideration had taken place in a timely manner:
}.
When LEA.first proposed it.
Thus, to' the extent that the NRC Staff or the Commission itself relies upon any such increased " costs" in striking the SAMDA cost / benefit balance, which costs were in' curred as a result 3/ S_e_q,e.a.,
FES Supplement - at 16- ("Relatively large costs e
are.to be anticipated whenever physical modifications are imposed on operating or existing nuclear power reactors. This is because labor productivity is severely constrained due to problems with congestion, access and security requirements....In addition, the introduction of a new system will trigger a whole series of related requirements such as incremental training, procedural changes and licensing requirements. Finally, the retrofit could
}
impose significant replacement energy cost penalties on the licensee and its customers if it results in incremental downtime or'if it postponed the date of initial full power operation for
' Unit 2. These are all legitimate costs that require consideration in a
comprehensive cost estimate.")
We reiterate, for the reasons set forth suora in Section I, that postponement of full power operation of Limerick Unit 2 would not impose significant economic penalties for PECO's customers, at least if PECO's own statements are to be believed.
6
J,V of the-NRC's own violation'of the law, it does so illegally.'Such costs must be disregarded for NEPA' purposes.
In addition,-the reliance by the NRC staff on'PECO's 1988 PRA update is improper because it has not been 'technicall'y reviewed by the NRC. Staf f, or subject to any scientific' peer-j review..
Nor has any meaningful opportunity been provided to' LEA e.
to technically review this document, and subject it to the tests of an adjudicatory hearing process. See also,
" Opposition of Intervenor Limerick Ecology Action,. Inc. to ' Motion By Licensee Philadelphia Electric Company to Set Schedule for Discovery'and Hearing'"
(filed August 22,
- 1989, and showing that time requirement for expert review of revised PRA exceeds twenty weeks).
The NRC staff further asserts that a " Decay Heat Sized Vent Without Filter" has already been implemented.
FES Supplement,'at 2.
'But the staff completely ignores the serious technical question ' about whether this vent is adequate.
Indeed, an NUS study prepared for PECo concluded that it was not adequate, and that it will not provide enough flow to keep the containment under the prescribed 70 psig venting pressure in the PECO emergency operating procedures. See, e.g.,
Incorporation of TRIP Procedures into the LGS PRA Phase 2 ATWS and Containment
. ~
Vent i nct,
NUS Corporation, NUS-5002, August
- 1987, revised 15 February 1988 ("NUS Study"). Thus, other unhardened vent pathways 7
will be. opened /, and fail into the reactor building, and disable 4
h equipment therein (and prevent operator access to the reactor building' for recovery activities).
The NRC Staff conveniently overlooks these facts in its analysis.
i The NRC. Staff excludes seismic risk from its analysis. FES Supplement, at 6.
This exclusion _ is completely unjustified. The-e; reference' to NUREG-1068, pages C-41' to C-42 provides no basis whatsoever to exclude seismic risks.
While the staff is correct in its statement that. it "cannot exclude from the range of reasonable assumptions" the absence of public risk resulting from-earthquake-induced damage, similarly the staff cannot exclude from the range of reasonable assumptions the judgment that seismic risk may be dominant. This is especially so if the new Lawrc.nce Livermore National Laboratory. seismic hazard curves are utilized in the analysis.
- S_ee, NUREG/CR-5250,
" Seismic Hazard e
Characterization of 69 Nuclear Plant Sites East of the Rocky
-Mountains", January '1989.
- Thus, it is apparent that the NRC staff proposes to dispose of a difficult problem by ignoring it away.
This is not only technically unjustified, but is also inconsistent with Staff practice of requiring design consideration for other " external events" when the estimated frequency of occurrence exceeds 10 E-6 to 10 E-7 per reactor year (e.g., aircraft crash).
~~~
'4/"If no other vent paths are opened, the pressure will continue ' to go up with the rate decreasing over time until the maximum is reached.
The TRIP procedures however direct the operators to maintain the pressure near 70 psig by opening additional vent paths". NUS Study, suora, at C-2.
8
Another~ example of ' why the staff's FES Supplement analysis cannot be relied upon by the Commission is the fact that 'its analysis of Enhanced Reactor Coolant System Depressurization (FES t.
. Supplement, p.
21)- completely misses the boat on why-- ADS i
reliability is important. The reason it is important is that if l
core ~ melt and vessel breach occur at high pressure, high' pressure-
- l. #
L
. melt ejection and direct containment heating ("HPME/DCH") leading 1
to containment breach at the time of vessel -failure is quite likely. This phenomenon is not accounted for in the staff's FES Supplement, nor in PECO's risk estimates, since both rely upon source terms developed in the SARA and SARA review by the NRC.
HPME/DCH should be accounted for since NUREG-1150 shows that it would be important to risk for Mark I plants (and thus by logical ex' tension for Mark II plants like Limerick) were it not for.the drywell shell. contact failure mode for Mark I plants. The staff's discussion is incomplete and misleading.
We further note that the staff cites PECO's recently created four-fold lower [than the staff's) core damage frequency and off-site dose numbers _5/ but fails to note that the staff is using only person-remsj within a 50 mile radius in its cost-benefit calculations, rather than the total risk, which is approximately 50% higher. Ees FES Supplement, at 32.
e These are just examples of the numerous problems with the staff's analysis which can.be ascertained on a quick overview.
The fact that such problems can be identified on such a cursory 5/FES Supplement, at 2.
9
.__________________J
examination raises serious quertions concerning the validity of the remaining analysis.
And perhaps most importantly, it demonstrates the necessity for these issues to be examined in the forum which is provided by law:
adjudicatory'.kearings, with opportunity for discovery, cross-examination, presentation of evidence, and other procedural safeguards.
The Commission has afforded LEA none of these safeguards in the mere opportunity for
" comment" in the immediate-effectiveness review.
LEA for these reasons, as well as for all the other reasons set forth in its earlier filings on the Unit 2 licensing issues before the Commission, object to.the issuance of any full-power license for Limerick Unit 2.
LEA contends that the Commission's "immediate-effectiveness" procedures, particularly as applied to the circumstances here, prior to the completion of a remand proceeding to comply with NEPA, are unlawful.
III. REQUEST FOR HOUSEKEEPING STAY FOR PURPOSES SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW BEFORE THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS The parties were notified by telephone call late afternoon yesterday, Wednesday, August 23, 1989, that a Commission vote would be taken on Friday, August 25, 1989 at 3:30 P.M.
on the
~
issuance of a full power operating license for Limerick Unit 2.
Should the Commission, despite all of LEA's arguments to the contrary, conclude that it may lawfully authorize the issuance of a full-power operating license for Limerick Unit 2 at this time, 10
4
=.
r LEA' requests that.the Commission stay its order to permit. an orderly process of judicial review :of the Commission's decision.
LEA -would request that ' the Commission stay any effectiveness 'of
'its decision for, a period of-fifteen (15) days in order for-review. papers to be filed with the Court and for the Court to act f:
u upon them in a reasonable way.
We note that such a'brief stay has been issued in other cases, is amply justified here in view-of'the significant issues which have-been raised, and would not prejudice PECO in any wsy, because low-power testing is ongoing and is not expected to be complete for at least several weeks from this date.
Therefore,.in anticipation of a Commission vote on Friday, August 25, 1989 on a full-power cperating license for Limerick, LEA requests that the effectiveness of any favorable vote on the
~
license ' issuance be stayed for a period of fifteen (15) days to permit judicial review of the decision.
POSWISTILO, ELLIOTT & ELLIOTT
?
,/Yl. il(( j.'WD' ~
By:
w-Charles W.
Elliott 1101 Northampton Street Easton, PA. 18042 (215) 258-2374 August 24, 1989 11
PECO Exhibit No. 3 F
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY STATEMENT OF REASONS ll~
l l
JULY 1989
l TABLE..OF CONTENTS i-Page.
.I.
Limerick 2 Is Essential To Meet The Power Needs Of PECO Customers And The Region............... 2-II.
Limerick 2 Has Been Constructed Extremely Well And At Reasonable Cost................................
3 III.
Deferrals Of Limerick 2 Construction Schedule Were Prudent And Unavoidable, And Did Not Increase Costs-4 To Customers..........
IV.
PECO Requires Additional Annual Net Revenue Of
$548.6 Million Based On A Test Period Ending l
March 31, 1990.......................
............... 5 1
l e.
V.
.The Company Has Undertaken Extensive Efforts, Including A Phase-In Plan, To Limit Its Request And i
1
.9 To Minimize Its Effect On Customers........
i VI.
The Proposed Rate Structure Distributes The Increase l
.11 i
Equally And Fairly Among All Customer Classes...
1 1
........ 12 VII.
Conclusion.........
i l
1
.,'W
h PECO Exhibit No. 3 j
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY STATEMENT OF REASONS Philadelphia Electric Company'("PEC0" or the " Company")
is filing herewith Supplement No. 49 to its Tariff Electric -
l L
Pa.
P.U..C.
No. 26, to become effective September 20, 1989.
The proposed rates are designed to produce a net increase in the Company's annual electric revenue of approximately $548.6 million*, or 18.1% of pro forma _ total revenue, based on budgeted. sales for'a future test year ending March 31, 1990.
The preposed increase would produce an overall return of 11.77*
on investment for the test period.
If granted in full._the rate: increase will enable the Company to maintain earnings at the level achieved in 1988, but not increase them.
The proposed increase will not be sufficient for the Company to regain an A bond rating.
As discussed below, the Company has undertaken considerable efforts to increase productivity, reduce costs and minimize the additional revenues requested.
To lessen the effect of the proposed increase on customers, the Company is proposing to recover the additional revenues awarded in this proceeding in phased annual increments of approximately 5% -
the projected rate of inflation.
In addition, based on current projections, the Company does not expect to need another electric base rate increase for at least four years.
- The $548.6 million net increase is composed of a gross increase of $691.0 million (22.8%) to reflect additional plant in service and increased operating costs and a gross decrease of $142.4 million (4.7%) to reflect reduced energy costs associated with the operation of Limerich Generating' Station Unit 2.
1
In-
-r
~
_4_
conc 1rded that-PECO acted reasonably in carrying out its responsibilities as owner and project manager of Limerich 2 and that all costs in the design and construction of Limerick 2 were reasonably incurred.
MAC concluded that PECO's management-of the Limerich 2 Project "was not.only reasonable., but ranks among the best we have assessed" (PECO St. 3, p. 5).
Changes in the economy, the financial markets and regulatory requirements caused escalations in the cost of Limerich 2 which were outside of PECO's control.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 1308(f) of the Public Utility
' Code, PECO has submitted a thorough explanation for all Limerich 2 cost increases (PECO Ex. 2).
After an extensive investigation of these cost increases, the Commission found in 1985 that completion of Limerick 2 at a cost of $3.2 billion was' economic and in the public interest.
PECO has met this goal, and bettered it.
The $2.9 billion construction cost for Limerich 2 is 5300 million below the cost cap imposed by the Commission.
III.
Def errals Of Limerich 2 Construction Schedule Were Prudent And Unavoidable, And Did Not Increase Costs To Customers.
The Commission's findings in the Comp &ny's 1985 rate
~~
- case, that the 1976 and 1978 schedule deferrals of the Limerich project were imprudent, were reversed by the Commonwealth Court and an appeal from that decision is pending before the
l Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Pending resolution of that appeal, the Company has' included evidence.in this filing demonstrating that the 1976 and 1978 delay decisions for the Limerich project were reasonable and prudent and clearly benefitted customers.
But even assuming that the delays were imprudent with respect to Limerick 1 the deferrals of Limerick 2 were clearly prudent and. reasonable.
At the time the delay decisions were made, reductions in the Company's load forecasts had substantially deferred the projected need for Limerich 2 to meet reliability requirements.
Moreover, because of changes in the economy and in the financial condition of the Company, continued financing of Limerich 2 construction could have jeopardized the Company's financial integrity.
Indeed, the Commission itself recognized the financial risk of completing Limerich 2 on schedule, when it directed the Company to cancel or suspend Limerich 2 in 1982.
Finally, the Company will show that the increases in Limerich 2 construction costs due to its later completion are outweighed by the benefits to customers from avoiding paying for the plant sooner and replacing it earlier.
IV.
PECO Requires Additional Annual Net Revenue Of
$548.6 Million Based On A Test Period Ending March 31. 199.0.
~~
The proposed rates are based on a future test year ending March 31, 1990 and a rate base calculated at the end of that test year (PECO Ex. TPH-2).
In accordance with the
(-;
.j:
~
~ PECO STATEMENT !!0. 6 '
t
' PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
.e V.
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS P. HILL, JR.
ACCOUNTING EXHIBITS, SALE OF 400 MW OF CAPACITY AND ENERGY, PHASE-IN PLAN LIMERICK 1 PRUDENCE DISALLOWANCE.
EFFECT OF DELAY DECISIONS, UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS, LIMERICK 1 DEFERRED COSTS, DAMAGED NUCLEAR FUEL z
i
' JULY 1989
?
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF' THOMAS P. EILL,.JR..
1J Q. Please state your name and address for the record.
2' A.
Thomas.P. Hill, Jr., 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia,
,3 Pennsylvania.
r
.a-
~*
5 Q.. By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
p 6
A. I am Manager of the-Rate Division and Controller. Designate of-17 '
. Philadelphia Electric. Company (PECO or the Company).
8
- 9. Q. What is your educational' background?
~ 1 CF A. I' graduated with honors from Lehigh University in 1970 with a 11 B.S.
in-Industrial Engineering.
I received my Master of 12 Business Administration from Lehigh University in 1974 In 13:
1986, I comrieted the Executive Development Program at 14 Cornell University's Johnson Graduate School of Management.
15 16 Q. Please outline your experience with the Company?
17 A. Following my graduation from college in 1970, I joined the 18 Company as an Engineer in the Rate Division.
I held this 19 position until 1978 when I was appointed. Supervisor of Tariff 20 and Special Projects. within the Rate Division.
In' March 1982 21 I was appointed-Assistant Manager, and in May 1986 I was 22 appointed to my present position of Manager of Rate 23 Division.
In April 1989, I was appointed Controller 24 Designate of the Company while concurrently holding the title 25 of Manager of Rate Division.
26 27
.Q.
Mr. Hill, would you describe your responsibilities in your
q x
c 4
he
{
]
.a.
- :1'
' various' assignments and outline your prior experience'in rate i
L 2
proceedings?
l L
l3 A. Yes.I have prepared Appendix A to my testimony which li L
4 describes my. background and qualifications.
- 5 6'
Q. What'is the. purpose of your direct testimony in'this 7_
proceeding?
8-A. My testimony provides an overview of the Company's claim for
-9 additional revenue'from customers, arising principally from 10 the expected commercial operation of Limerick 2 in early 11 1990.
I will present portions of the Company's accounting 12 presentation and Commission rate case filing requirements, 13 including:
14 PECO Exhibit No. 1 - The Company's responses to 15 re'gulations at 52 Pa. Code Sections 53.52 and 53.53.
16 PECO Exhibit No. 3 - The Company's Statement of Reasons 17 identifying the need for. additional revenues and the 18 components of our additional revenue' requirements.
19 PECO Exhibit No. 4 - The Company's response to Title 66 20 Pa.C.S. Section 1316(c) relating to advertising expenses 21 in the historic and future test years.
22 Exhibit TPH The historic test year Accounting Exhibit 23 which responds to regulations and provides a comparison to 24 our future test year claim.
25 Exhibit TPH The future test year Accounting Exhibit i
26 which details the Company's claims in this proceeding.
27 Additionally, my testimony will support the basic h
-.- i.
ir
._,,__,,m,,,___,,,,
._ 1" accounting and financial statements in the. Company's 2
' accounting exhibits, and variances between-the historic and-3L future' test years not specifically addressed by other a
witnesses.
5 My-testimony also will discuss several. specific issues, 6
including (1) the Company's decision to sell 400 MW of 7-capacity and associated energy to other utilities for an 8
intermediate term,'(2) the Company's proposal to phase-in the o
proposed increase (3), the Company's position ~and claim
.10 relative to the Commission's disallowance of approximately 11
$369 million in rate base for Limerick 1 at Docket R-850152, 12 (4) the proper method to evaluate the effect on our customers 13 of an alternative service date for Limerick 2, and (5) la certain specific accounting adjustments relativeLto'our 15 claimed level of uncollectible accounts, recovery of deferred 16 costs from the Limerick 1 rate proceeding at Docket R-850152, 17 and recovery of the cost of fuel damaged during the second 18 fuel cycle at Limerick 1.
19 20 Overview of the Rate Increase 21 Q. Please summarize the major factors which contribute to the 22
~ rate increase requested by the Company in this proceeding.
23 A. The Company's claim reflects a net increase in Pennsylvania 24 jurisdictional electric operating revenues of S548.6 million 25 or 18.1% of. total revenues.
As explained in the Statement of 26 Reasons (PECO Exhibit No. 3), this revenue increase is l
27 required (1) to permit the Company to recover the capital and i
m T
s,
1 relevant rate base and expense accounts.
Table 2 attached to
-2' my testimony derives the total $119,445.000 reduction in 3!
revenue requirements associated with the sale for the twelve 4
months ending March 31, 1990.
5
'6 Q. Please' define what you describe as an intermediate term sale.
e.
7 A.'An intermediate term sale, as.I use the phrase in this
.8 testimony,. refers to a contract term in excess of one year
~
.9 but not extending beyond a four year period.
.10
'll Q. Mr. Hill, please describe the basis for the Company's sale of 12'
.400 MW of capacity and associated energy.
13 A.
Commercial operation of Limerick 2 is forecasted for. February 14 1
1990.
With the addition of Limerich 2. the Company had 15
-planned to retire four oil fired units which had reached the 16' end of their normal service lives.
These units. Schuylkill
.17 No. 1, Delaware 7 and 8 and Cromby 2 provide 623 MW of 18 installed capacity to the PECO system.
Several PJM members, 19 who are currently short on reserve capacity, expressed an 20 interest in purchasing capacity and energy from PECO.
Based 21 on these requests the Company determined that it was 22 beneficial to our customers to negotiate the sale of a 23 portion of our system capacity and energy rather than retire 24-these units.
The terms and conditions for sale were 25-determined through " arms length" negotiations to maximire the 26 level of revenue from the sale.
The Company evaluated the 27 prospective sale price based on the average revenue
. - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ 1-
'requirementsLof our production ind transmission system, 1
including Limerick 2 and all existing capacity.
This 3:
. embedded cost methodology is generally the same cost analysis 4
that the Company would1 utilize in reviewing al.
scremental ir 5
sale to a customer or use to develop rate structures or rate
~
6 designs.
e 7
The Company's ability.to sell 400 MW of capacity and 8
energy and still meet our reliability criteria is discussed 9
more fully in the testimony of G. H. Haak.
10 11 Q. Has the Company reached 1 agreement with any PJM members on the 12 terms of sale.
13.
A.
Yes, in part.
We have signed a letter of agreement with 14 Atlantic Electric for the sale of 200 MW an'd associated 15 average system energy commencing in June 1990 and running 16 through June 1994 In addition, we have reached tentative 17 agreement with another PJM member company for the sale of 150 18 MW of energy and capacity for a two year period also 19 beginning June 1990.
The sale of the remaining 50 MW and the 20 150 MW in years 3 and 4 is still under active negotiation 21 with other companies.
22
~~
23 Q. Is the Company committing to remove the entire 400 MW of 24-capacity and associated energy for ratemaking purposes in 25L this proceeding even if the sales have_not been made by the 1
26 end of the case?
27 A.
Yes.
We will commit to reduce average system revenue I
_-_______A
_ _ _ - - _ _ _ 1 consistency of presentation.
The Company specifically requests that the Commission reconsider and reverse its prior 3
decision and allow the Company a full return on its Limerick 4
1 investment.
5 As shown on Table 3, the test year revenue requirement 6
associated with the inclusion of the 5369 million in rate 7
base is $57.6 million.
The Company recognizes that if the 8
Commission were to reverse its conclusion as respects this 9
disallowance, the Company cannot expect a revenue level in 10 this proceeding in excess of the total gross revenue 11 increaase request of $691.0 million or a net S548.6 million.
12 As such. I have prepared Tables 4 and 5 which recast the 13 Company's A-1 and A-2 sheets from Exhibit TPH-2 to include in 14 rate base the 5369 million of plant disallowed by the 15 Commission.
As Table 4 indicates, with the full revenue 16 increase requested, our return would fall from 11.77% to 17 11.44% and our return on equity would drop from 14.0% to 18 13.1%.
Alternatively, the $57.6 million revenue requirement 19 can be used to offset any Commission adjustments to the 20 Company's rate base, revenue and expense claims.
21 Limerick 2 Schedule 22 Q. In the Commission decision at Docket R-850152, it was found 23 that Limerick 1 could have been completed some 27 months 24 earlier.
Is that your understanding of the Commission 25 finding?
26 A.
Yes.
The Commission found that Limerick 1 could reach 27 commercial operation in November 1983 rather than February l
i l i 1
1986 if the Company had not delayed construction of that unit i
i in 1976 and 1978.
Given that finding the Commission then
{
3 calculated that the capital cost of Limerick 1 would have
)
1 s
been S368.9 million less with the earlier service date.
The 5
Company disagrees.
Limerick 1 could not have been completed 6
substantially before February 1986, and if it could have been 7
completed earlier, it would have been more expensive.
In 8
addition, the Commission's adjustment is fundamentally 9
miscalculated and overstated.
10 11 Q. Mr. Hill, assuming that the Commission's conclusion tnat 12 Limerick 1 could have been completed 27 months sooner were 13 correct, what effect would this conclusion have as to 14 Limerick 2?
15 A. The Commission's Order at Docket No. I-80100341 required the 16 Company to suspend construction of Limerick 2 until Limerick 17 1 achieved commercial operation.
If Limerick 1 achieved 18 commercial operation in November 1983 as opposed to February 19 1986, the Commission might have permitted the Company to 20 resume construction of Limerick 2 earlier, although this is 21 not entirely clear.
Before permitting construction to 22 restart the Commission conducted an extensive investigation l
23~
of the need for and cost of Limerick 2 and the Company's
[g 24 financial ability to complete this unit.
It is far from 25 clear that such an investigation could have been completed by 26 November 1983.
27 If the Company could have restarted Limerick 2
1
.16'-
1 constructionfin November 1983,'then Limerich 2 may have.been 2
completed sooner, although this is not a question-that can be
'3 answered without substantial analysis to review any major-differences.between restarting construction in.1983 vs. 1986.
+
m a
S
- ~
6 Q. Has theLCompany' performed such an analysis?
7 A. Yes.
In order to evaluate an alternative completion date
'8 PECO witness.R. J. Barretta'(PECO St. 9) has constructed a hypothetical construction schedule for Limerich-2 assuming 4
.10 the restart of construction commenced in November 1983 rather 11 than February 1986, or 27 months sooner,' consistent with the 12 Commission's finding in the Limerich 1. case.
13 e'
14 Q. What were the results of Mr. Barretta's analysis?
15L A. Working off the as-built cost and schedule for Limerich 2 16' which shows completed construction in February 1990 at a cost 17 of 52.889 billion, Mr. Barretta has determined ~that with an 18' earlier restart in November 1983,-Limerick 2 would have been-19 completed-in August 1988 at-the earliest at a cost'of $2.767 20 billion (PECO St. 9, p. 19).
As Mr. Barretta discusses, this very. optimistic schedule-results in a capital cost savings of 21 22 5122 million and an 18 month earlier in-service date for the
.,s 23 >
unit.
Figure 1 depicts the alternative service schedules.
-e 24 2'S
'26 27
-.17 -
Figure 1 Cost and Schedule Comparison Actual versus Early Restart Actual In Service Restart Cost 52.889 B 1
2/86 2/90 Early l
In Service l
Restart Cost S2.767 B i
l 1
1 1
1 11/83 8/88 ju-----27'mos-----l lu----18 mos---l 1
Q. Does this $122 million capital cost differential fairly a -
2 represent the cost to PECO customer of the later completion 3
of Limerick 27 4
A.
Absolutely not.
In order to quantify the cost of a change in 5
the service date of a generating unit it is necessary to 6
consider all effects on customers.
If Limerick 2 had been 7
completed and placed in service 18 months earlier, the 8
Ccmpany would have sought a substantial revenue increase at 4
that time to include its investment in Limerick 2 in base 10 rates.
Thus, customers would have begun paying for Limerick 11 2 eighteen months earlier than under the actual schedule.
we 12 Similarly, if Limerich 2 went into service 18 months sooner, 13 it presumably would be retired 18 months sooner, and it is 14 reasonable to assume that an additional base load facility, l
15 equal in capacity, would have to be placed in service to fill 16 the gap left by the earlier retirement of Limerich 2.
In
. w 1
Jaddition, in order.to' complete' Limerick 2 18 months earlier,
'2 the Company would have to raise more capital earlier.
Since-3.
the cost of capital obviously changes over time, raising j
L'
- A' additional' capital ~in different time periods can have a 5
~ substantial cost-impact which must be reflected'in any L
61 complete assessment of the costs and benefits of plant 7-completion at a particular point in' time.
8-To determine the effect on customers of an earlier 9
completion date on a complete and consistent basis one must 10 consider.all of these cost components on a present value 11 basis and not just the construction cost differential.
12 13
-Q. Have you prepared.such an analysis as part of your testimony?
e-14-A.
Yes.
I have prepared a complete anlaysis of all differential 15 costs and benefits associated with the completion of Limerick 16 2 in August 1988 vs. February 1990-.
This analysis shows that 17 the total present worth of customer revenue requirements 18 associated with a February 1990 Limerick 2 commercial 19 operation date is $4.791 billion.
The comparable total
-20 present worth of customer revenue. requirements of completion 21 in August 1988 is $5.339 billion.
The' difference between 22 these two figures, i.e.,
5547.7 million is the net present
.,e 23 worth benefit to our customers of completing Limerick 2 in
- 24 February 1990 vs. August 1988.
Spreading this benefit over 25 the entire service life of the unit (39 years) yields an
~26 annual revenue requirement savings to customers of $53.6 27 million per year.
g 'i'
' 1 Q. Mr. Hill, how can one conclude that customers benefited from 2
the later completion of Limerich 2 when this delay increased 3.
the capital cost of the plant by $122 million?
4 A. Simply stated, the $122 million capital cost savings do not 5
offset the cost to customers of paying for Limerich 2 in 6
rates sooner and replacing the unit sooner at the end of its 7
life.
8 4
Q. Can you provide an example to demonstrate why one cannot 10 simply compare the capital cost of Limerich at two points in 11 time to determine the full effect on customers?
12 A.
Yes I can.
The principal flaw in comparing nominal dollar 13 figures at different points in time is that such an analysis 14-fails to reflect the time value of money.
The benefit of 15 receiving $1,000 today is obviously not the s&me as the 16 benefit of receiving $1,000 five years from today.
One who 17 receives $1,000 today can invest the money and earn a return 18 on it during the intervening five-year period.
Similarly, it 19 is not appropriate to simply look at a hypothetical $122 20 million difference in construction cost of Limerich 2 in 1988 21 vs. 1990.
22 Another example would be a decision to purchase an 23 automobile in 1988 vs. the same model in 1990.
A simple 24 subtraction of the two costs does not provide a full 25 cost / benefit analysis of the earlier purchase.
A decision to 26 buy the earlier and presumably less expensive car would have 27 required earlier payment and earlier replacement.
Later
-.20 -
l' purchase would require payment cf a higher cost, later 2-replacement and some reflection of transportation cost in the 3
interim period (1988-1990).
My analysis of Limerick 2 a
completion in August 1988 and February 1990 simply reflects e
5 these additional factors.
My analysis shows that on a 6
present worth basis the cost savings of $122 million from 7
earlier completion are not enough to offset the additional 8
cost to our customers of paying for Limerick 2 sooner and 9
replacing'it sooner at the end of its life.
10 11 1 Q. Please describe the specifics of your analysis in more detail.
12 A.
To examine.the difference in revenue requirements associated 13 with different in-service dates of Limerick 2, I employed a la model which evaluates the net present worth of revenue 15 requirements of the two alternatives.
This method assembles 16 all Limerick 2 related costs to serve customers, including 17 capital carrying charges, operating costs and fuel over a 18 sufficient time period to eliminate the bias of time 19 differentiated expenditures.
20 This analysis is best understood by viewing it in three 21 time periods: (1) the period of August 1988 to February 1990, 22 when Limerick 2 is in service under the earlier schedule and 23
-still under construction in the as-built schedule; (2) 24-February 1990 through August 2027, when Limerick 2 is 25 operating under both schedules; (3) August 2027 to February 26 2029 when Limerick 2 is retired under the earlier schedule 27 and still in service under the as-built schedule.
.-----__-_-----.----,u--_--,--_____------_--_-wnm
s m.
K
.d
) L 1
In period 1, i.e., August 1988 through February 1990, 2
customers incur the cost of Limerick 2 under the earlier-
'3' schedule in the form of capital carrying charges (return,
.4 taxes and depreciation) and operating costs of the plant.
5 These additional revenue requirements are partially offset 6
through fuel savings generated from the Limerick 2's 7
operation.
8 In period 2, i.e.. February 1990 to' August 2027, Limerick 9
is operating in both cases and therefore the operating costs 10' and associated fuel savings are essentially the same and need 11 not be separately analyzed.
These are common costs which 12' will not impact the analysis; Capital carrying charges are e
13 different in the cases during this period since the' initial 14 plant costs are different and the pattern of cost recovery is 15 different.
These variations are reflected in my analysis.
16 In period 3, i.e. August 2027 through February 2029, 17 Limerick 2 is retired in the earlier schedule and must be 18 replaced.
For this period I have utilized a coal plant 19 replacement and added the levelized carrying charges and 20 operation'and maintenance expense.for the coal plant and fuel
^21 cost differential for the 18 month " tail end" effect.
22 The time lines shown in figure 2 depict these three 23-periods of analysis for both capital carrying charges and 24 operating and maintenance expense and fuel savings.
25 26 27 1
C 1
- 2 2. _
Figure 2 Carrying Charges and Erpense.
j for Actual and Early Completion o'
Period Period Period u---l---* e-----------2------------4 e---3---4 Cavital Carrvine Charres (vary year by year in each case)
\\\\.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Actual Limerick 2 - 39 years ($2.889 B)\\ \\
\\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\\\\\.\\\\\\'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
/ / ///
Early.
\\ Limerick.2 - 39 years ($2.767 B)
/ Coal /
\\\\ \\ \\\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\ \\\\\\
/ Plant / /
'8/88 2/90 8/27 2/29' O&M Ernense and Fuel Savings
/ / / //\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Actual Fuel (a)
\\ \\ Limerick 2 - 39 years \\ \\ \\ \\
/Savines/ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
e---------Common--------*
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
/ / / / /
Early
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ Limerick 2 - 39 years \\ \\ \\ / Coal / /
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
/ Plant / /
8/88 2/90 8/27 2/29 (a)' Fuel Savings in Early Completion Or Replacement Power in Actual Completion
_ 23
/~
'l.Q.'Are there-any other elements in four revenue requirement
-2 analysis?
-3 : A. Yes, myTanalysis also reflects the incremental costs necessary.t'o finance ~the completion.of Limerick 2.on the 4-5
' earlier schedule.
Under the actual schedule, Limerick 2 was-6 completed during the February 1986 - February 1990 time 7
frame.
Under the earlier completion schedule construction
.8 was completed during November 1983 - August 19G6.
In order 9
to complete Limerick 2 on the earlier schedule the Company 10 would have had to raise additional capital during the 1983-87 11 period, and less. capital in 1988-1990.
Since the cost of
- 12 capital was generally higher during the 1983-88 period than 13 in 1986-1990 period,.the. Company clearly would have incurred 14
. additional financing costs under the earlier schedule.
PECo o
15 witness J. F. Brennan has evaluated the two capital 16 requirement schedules, actual and early completion, and 17 provided an assessment of the net additional financing costs 18 for early completion-(PECO St. 23, pp. 45-52).
19-
. Based ~upon Mr. Barretta's alternative early restart
-20 schedules, S750 million of additional capital financings 21 would have been required during 1983 through 1987.
The cost 22 of these incremental financings for the early schedule are 23 shown on Table 6.
-n f 24 Table 6 first compares the difference in cash flow of the 25
' actual construction schedule (February 1990 commercial 26 operation date) with the early schedule (August 1988 27 commercial operation date).
The next step compares the
- _ - _ - - _ _ _. 1 average embedded cost of capital to the incremental b
financings described by Mr. Brennan and summarized on Table 2
3 7
I have reexpressed these cost differentials on a pre-tax, revenue requirement basis, and applied the difference in a
or 5
cost rates to the difference in cash flows.
This provides 6
the year by year change in total revenue requirements, or 7
cost to customers, caused by the change in financing 8
requirements.
With no further changes in financing schedules, the o
10 cumulative revenue requirement for incremental financing cost 11 would remain at that level until the issues were refinanced 12 or expired at maturity.
As a conservative assumption in my 13 analysis, I have assumed refinancing occurs immediately after a
14 the commercial operation of Limerick 2 under the actual 15 construction schedule.
This assumption acts to minimice the 16 revenue requirements in the earlier completion case.
17 18 Q. What is the next step in your analysis?
19 A. All costs in the case of early completion and actual 20 completion must be discounted to a base period in order to 21 evaluate the total revenue requirements on a fair and 22 consistent basis.
I have discounted to 1990 to coincide with r
23 the end of our future test year.
s.
24 Q. What does your analysis show?
25 A. The results of my analysis show that early completion of 26 Limerick 2 in August 1988 as compared to actual completion 27 uould have provided no net benefit to our custemers as
L L i
]1 measured in a revenue requirement analysis.for the life cycle L
2 of Limerick 2.
The total present worth benefit to customers
~
3 of actual completion-at February 1990 is $548 million.
4 Distributing this benefit over the service life of the unit 5-(39_ years) yields an annual revenue requirement savings or-6 cost' savings to customers of about $53 million per year (5547 o
i 7
million x capital recovery factor).
V L
8 Figure'3 summe.rizes the various components of my revenue 4
requirement analysis which are detailed on Table 8 appended 10 to my testimony.
L l
Figure 3 Alternate Limerick 2 Completion i 8:
Present Worth of Revenue Requirements (Million $)
l Lo Benefit /(Cost)
Actual to Actual Early Comoletion Limerick 2 Carrying Charges 54,791.7 55,210.0 5418.3 87.0 87.0 Period 1 OEM Expense l
Period 1 Fuel Savings (210.7)
(210.7) l Incremental Financing Cost 122.8 122.8 L
Sub-Total
$4,791.7 55,209.1
$417.4 Coal Plant (Period 3) l'
$94.5
$94.5 Carrying Charges 4.4 4.4 OEM Expense
=
Fuel Cost Increase 31.4 31.4 Sub-Total
$130.3
$130.3 Total 54.791.7
$5.330.4
$547.7
/
____..m..
_m.___
__._________________.-_m_.-_
! l 1
As shown, the net benefit to our ctistomers of actual f
2 completion in February 1990 over August 1988 is so overwhelming 3
that one need not even consider the impact of the additional 4
financing costs or the tail-end effects of the coal replacement.
o 5
Excluding these items, which I still believe are appropriate 6
for a complete analysis, shows that actual completion in 7
February 1990 is still advantageous to customers by $294.6 8
million expressed in present worth of revenue requirements.
9 Further, from reviewing the table above one can see that the 10 results are n21 highly sensitive to long range projections of 11 fuel savings or operating and' maintenance expense since these 12 long range estimates impact only the tail end effects which have 13 been severely discounted.
14 0
15 Q. Mr. Bill are there any other customer impacts of early 16 completion of Limerick 27 17 A, Yes.
My analysis as presented only looks at Limerick 2 18 investment.
In addition to Limerick 2, the Company is 19 requesting the inclusion of the remaining 50% of common plant in 20 rate base which was deferred by the Commission pending 21 completion of the second unit.
Our customers will begin 22 supporting the revenue requirements for this investment only 23 after commercial operation of the second unit.
With earlier 24 completion of Limerick 2, for example August 1988, customers 25 would have begun paying for essentially the same common plant 26 earlier.
Assuming no cost differences for common plant with 27 early or late completion of Unit 2, since this plant was 1
L 27 -
L g
1 completed.with the first Limeri:k unit, custoners'have received 2
the time value of money benefit for the 18 month' difference 3
between service dates (August 1988 and February 1990),
The 4-additional'present worth revenue requirement savings to 13' 5
customers' associated with the remaining 50% of common plant 77.
6 totals $236 million (See Table 9).
This is an' additional dollar saving to' customers in excess of those savings previously 7
8 discussed.
9.
10 Description of Accountine Data 11
.Q. Mr. Hill, please describe PECO Exhibit No. 1.
This exhibit provides the Company's responses to the Commission 12 A.
13 filing regulations at 52 Pa. Code Sections 53.52 and 53.53.
r
-14 Responsive answers are contained therein or direct the reader to o
15 various testimony and exhibits submitted with this filing.
I am 16 responsible for the assembly and submission of all data 17 contained in this exhibit, but many responses were prepared by 18-
'other witnesses and are so identified.
19 20 Q. Please describe PECO Exhibit No. 4 21 A. This Exhibit provides the Company's response to the statutory 22 requirements for governing the submission of information and
^'
materials on advertising expenses claimed in a base rate 23 24 proceeding.
The Exhibit includes an extensive list of the types 25 of advertising prepared, distributed and presented that are the 26 basis for these expenditures.
27
IIlIl B
ra D
+ EV*
(
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
) =
) )))))1
) ))
)
0=)
7 3807077 396477 2354650627 1 524G1 4944651 9971 40345 9
8 9 = 8 89953249307384068 76087 888501 81 895461 990407 55796 0
9=(
6 3 8,2,7 9,6 1 7,9,9,4,9,8,0,5,3,7,4,t,8,7 7,8, 0, 3, 7 1 51,6 2 9,6,3,1,8,b,5,3 2,0,9 8 0 3 8, 7
1 = V
(
t
(
= P 02521,093962971 443209877 655443322221 085 7
1 1 t I 1 1 s
1 222732443332228 38(
4 1 1 1 1 a
V=)
25
((
5
((((
f eP=9
((
(
c
= (
l n$=
ee =
y uv
=
ne = 4
) )))5)8
)))
)
nl e=-
49637437 8860907 97 d1 1 091 1 2231 0% 331 24332465446030 3
Af t = 3)62461 829548825669t 47 02692581 4703692581 47 03697 24 1
u = + 7 3 0, 5 5, 3 7 5,1 4,6 4 3,9,4,9,5 3,6,5 9,4,8,2 6,1,5,9,4,8,2,7 1,5,9,4 1,7,7 1,5,0,4,8,2 9 7 0 9
t Ol
= 2 -
(
t e
o=
6 647 7 65842224 1 0426655443321 0099877 66%544322302 4
1 H
s=1 -
( 1 8 1 282555555543333333333333322222222222222680 4
b=(5 (1 (24 9 7.(
3, 2
A = = +
( 1
(
= )
2 3
1 = B
(
(
= (
=
l
=
)
au =
496371 67000000000000000000000000000000000000000 5
n =
62464 357 4
tnt s=
3 0 5 5 3 0,e.6, 8,
ect
=)
mns=7 647.
bt eao=(
1 1 1 l I 0 2
7 2
rnl =
1 ci
=
(
nf
=
i
=
=
u
=
)
))
=
00000862 073 6
5 1
=
557 534 5. 41 t =
)
0 2 5, 5, 6, 8,
- 3..
y=
. 03 r = b 1 24 597 1. 7 4 ea=(
25 30 9. 8(
sf -
(. (
n =
e =
p
=
y s
=
MM E
=
EE
=
OO M
=
00000000 0
=
2 Ll =
n, y
o=)
6 t Oo5 c5 t
. (
i t =
rt a=
ea
=
mo
=
i C
=
t
=
l
=
)))
ya
=
0000091 3 3
l t
=
67 2 7
rn 0, 6,1 6,
y=
ae E m l = )
r = 4 884 0
e a=(
31 3 1
r sE =
( 1(
2 c
u =
(
n 6n
=
I
=
v
=
o =
s
=
1 ))
)
=
00000000 377 9
l
=
696 0
sy ee, l
=
7,5 6, 4
a=)
f u=3 01 1 1
e t =
(
8C4 3
u t =
(8(
(
t A =
1 s
=
s
=
et
=
s
=
lua
=
). ))
0B
=
00000525500357 992235666788901
% 1 2334567767 900361 7.34 e
=
68971 34567 01 0987654321 1 0987654321 0987 7 6389 6
1 5 y
hr l
= )
2 3,4,5,6,7,8 9,9,0,1 2 3,4 5 6,7,8,8 9,0,1,2,7,0,5
- 4. 04, y=
503,1,6,7 6,5,4,3 2 8,9,9,0,1, ca Se sr = 2 00024680242555666666666667777 77 7 77 77088791 4. 04 y
ea=(
242006431 987 654321 0987 b54321 0987654321 0636 0.
1 9 n-uE =
255544444333333333322222222221 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89,1 3,
- 2. (
ot r
=
n%
a =
1 5~ 5 t
t a0 h
=
(
~
(
5, C
=
cluP
=
r 9
g
=
t n n =
000000093063467 7 9645657 H091 1 1 245457 8991 2234557 0 5
CC t o=
i =
8 351 281 4 7 01 357 9l J67 0246R024680257 98 357 95 9
CC n
yl =
,,3,8,3,H,3 9,4,9,4 9 5 0,5 0,5 0, 6
7 6,2 2 0,4 9,3,7 2 5 5,0,5,0,b,1,6,1.
766554433721 7 2727 oee r a=)
2.
00998h7 0099 n
t nt s u=1
?6791 235082221 1 1 t 1
ue et = (
?531 0864200987 L5421 0987 654 321 0907 654320 9
k t 2DH C c=
5555544444433333333322222222221 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 7
c5 A =
, i h st
=
4 rl icin
=
ea so
=
oo r yo
=
t C e ni E =
99999999999999999000000000000000000000000000000 23 d567h901 234567 89 V
L el t R =
34567 8901 234567 8901 234567 69011 1 1 n
as A =
8888H8H999999999900000000001 t
l 1 1 t 1 1222222222 P
t e
Y =
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 222222222222222222222222222222
( Al li ill l
n.
y w1n-
^
.~
~
~
_~
)
=
)))
- 880521 27 52 3
)
0=OODOO6626926281 67 7 1 27 67 92342 e 97 08077 1 9 =
21 484245980f 8582853334 601 504051 844 96420829 2
9 =
54367272733709764321 0907 76655443332222262 :
1 =
9 t =
4 47 7 6655443t 21 1 t 1 t 1 I 1 1
5
=
90( -
1 '
3 V=
t P=
( 2 2
1
(
s
=
o S =
C t-
=S1SSS1S1S5SSSS5SS555S5SSES5ESS1SSSSSS5515SSSS5S S
1
- c'
=
~
n =
. -. ))
)'
y t
a e'e = O 0 0 0 0 6 1 s
26291 809481 554545544543554 355435454441 36 0
l n
e r 966676397 99999999999999999999999999528 n
384 1 o
t vt =
863401 2222891 22222222222222222222222222751 nf u=
t Ail s 867888888863555555555555555555555555555983
. n l
o=
781 1 3 Os=
la t
.(
1 e
b=
I
.P H
A =
=
- n S =
o
=
n
' =
5 w
5.$SSS5S15$SSS55$S151$1S51S555$5SS5SS$5S55555$5S n
=
o
=
C
= -
~ ~
6086407 03445566678889000t 222344 456670
=UOU0061 1
3883587653685296307 41 852074 I 85296307 4 1 80
= '
86728383832505,949483827271.61 505949483823
- s
=
i
=
s y=
8605948372852841 74073063962952841 7 407302 a
t s
78876655443332221 1 1 00099888777666$554442 r =
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B -
a=
'r %
E =
a0 s
L e5 s
=
o9 9
= -
.~
yy e
=
ut r
=SSSS1$SSS5S1SS1S1S5555$S11555S1SSSS1S15115511 t n a
= -..
ia h
s 233355557 7 7 7 989901 36 l
C
= 000000O928 7 7 1 0736 5999001 8 1 1
P
= '
354533209821 85307 41 85296307 4 1 8529638 8528 t
9
=
46951 61 6 0 5 2 8 2 7 2 7,1.61505949483827 261 64.5051.
i t n1 so2 inl =
.337271 605973063962952841 7 4 07306396295283 a=
1 4
~
1 1 000999888777 665554443 n.
yu=
7877 665543333221 2ee rt s 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 8nt r cs
- oe aA =
2DR
[
=
=
hst s
tt n
=
4 su
= $151S51S5SSSS555S1SSS1SS51SS1515511551SSS515551 r yo
=
el t R = 34567 8901 2345678901 234567 8901 234 5678901 234567 89 5
le e. ls A s 88888889999990 d9900000000001 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 2222222222 e
E 99999999999999%99000000000000000000000000000000 V
LsO Y 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 222222222222222222222222222222 P
l
~
'l f.
s' f
i J--
i l
/-
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2y q ;g,;
a sup
.I i
+
. NUCLEAR: REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
1
' Before the Nuclear Reaulatory CommisaQItoNIG 25 N0:22 L'
"In the' Matter lof.
)'
FQylu;T ; [ ( yhr h
50 S52 h;A w k
Y
-)
Docket Nos.
Philadelphia Electric Company
).
50-353 EO__
-).
Ji
-(Limerick. Generating ' Station,'.
)'
1 if
- Units 1 and'2)
,)'
']
.1 i
i
' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
4 The' undersigned counsel. certifies that a true and correct =
'l
' copyg of. "Second Supplemental Response of 'Intervenor Limerick
'j 4.i Ecclogy: Action,' Inc. to Memorandum'.and Order of Commission Dated i
m
' July 26, 1989^ and Memorandum. and ' Order of August 7,
.1989".
has O'
.been'. served.
by telecopy ' and ' Federal - Express t h e
.2 4 t h.d a y of 1
P August;where indicated by asterisk,-and otherwise will'be' served i
by.'. first' class mail, ' postage prepaid, on. August 25, 1989, on the
~!
i
. follow ng persons:-
.l j
d
- 1 i
- o t.
O' 1
n
'l 1
C lj m
u
Thomas M.
- Roberts, Commissioner Kenneth M.
Carr U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Chairman Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington,D.C. 20555 James R.
Curtiss Commissioner
- Samuel J.
Chilk U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Secretary dy Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 1
Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission g
Washington, D.C.
20555 Kenneth C.
Rogers Commissioner Morton B. Margulies, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington,D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Frederick J.
Shon Edward J.
Cullen, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Philadelphia Electric Co.
Board Panel 2301 Market Street 4
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Philadelphia, PA. 19101 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gregory Dunlep, Esq.
D Office of the General Counsel i
Dr. Jerry Harbour Commonw!alth of Pennsylvania Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O.
Bo., 11775 Board Panel Harrisburg, PA.
17108 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Angus Love, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 107 E. Main Street Norristown, PA.
19401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Ralph Hippert Washington, D.C.
20555 Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency l
- Ann Hodgdon, Esq.
B151 - Transportation Safety V,
office of the General Counsel Building U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Harrisburg, PA. 17120 Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Michael B.
Hirsch, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency i
Appeal Panel 500 C.
- Street, S.W.
l U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Room 840 4
Commission Washington, D.C.
20472
)
Washington, D.C.
20555 I
i
. Theodore G.
Otto, Esq.
Frank R. Romano l
Department of Corrections Chairman j'
Office of Chief Counsel Air and Water Pollution l
P.O.
Box 598 Patrol I
Camp Hill, PA. 17011 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, PA. 19002 Docketing and Service Section Robert J.
Sugarman, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 101 N.
Broad Street Commission 16th Floor
/
Washington,D C.
20555 Philadelphia, PA.
19107 r
- Mark J.Wetterhahn, Esq.
Robert C.
Rader, Esq.
CONNER AND WETTERHAHN, P.C.
1747 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 POSWISTILO, ELLIOTT & ELLIOTT David Stone Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.
P.O.
Box 761 Pottstown, PA.
19464 Charles W.
Elliott Robert L. Anthony 325 N.
10th Street O
Box 186 Easton, Pa.
18042 Moylan, PA. 19065 fP (215)258-2374 l
C
'O
____-___-___a