ML19319C606

Amend 13 to Application for OL Per DOJ 710628 Telcon W/Util

ML19319C606
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	07/07/1971
From:	Sampson G TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19319C603	List: ML19319C602 ML19319C606
References
3102, NUDOCS 8002191048
Download: ML19319C606 (13)

Text

~"

. 3.Q ' - --  : Cy.

f~'l

.r. July 7, 1971 V g. ,d r , L.: N: 4 - _ .

APPLICATION FOR LICENSES ,[

FOR t-

8. ..

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION *

\ :, - <

hl Docket No. 50-346  % ,

Amendment No. 13 Applicants hereby amend their Application for Licenses by the submission of supplements to Appendices C and D to the application. The informa-tion requested by William Jaeger, Esq. (Antitrust Division, Department of Justice), in a telephone call from him to Mr. L. E. Roe (Chief Mechanical Engineer) of The Toledo Edison Company on Monday, June 28, 1971, is presented as a supplement to Appendix C for The Toledo Edison Company. Part of the information requested by Mr. Jaeger in a phone call from him to Donald Hauser, Esq., of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company on Monday, June 28, 1971, is presented as a supplement to Appendix D for The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. The balance of such information was supplied orally or by letter.

THE TOLEDO E'JISON COMPANY By .

d Md%!

Clenn J. %mpMon Vice President. Power Siorn to and subscribed before me, this 7th day of July, 2?71.

A .LEAkE bmW c .

\

A '

Notary Public. Lucas Ccunty. Chio Notary Public My Ccmmisden h; ires Sept. 2.1974 01a

• "L o

8 0 0 2191W 04

Supplement To APPE'IDIX C RESPONSES OF THE TOLEDO EDISON CCMPA'iY ,

TO VEREAL REQUEST OF ANTITRUST DIVISION DEPARTME'IT OF JUSTICE l

l Amendment No. 13 l l

l l

Question No. 20 Why didn't applicant in its answer to Question No. 11 give cost data on bulk power supply at site of generation?

Answer No. 20 Question 15 identified such costs as the selling price of power and the applicant does not sell any wholesale power at any of its gener-ating facilities.

C-36 Amendment No. 13

-. , l

Question No. 21 What are the applicanes most recent average costs of generation at each of its generating facilities?

Answer No. 21 Such costs cannot be accurately determined without a detailed study, which applicant has had no occasion to make. Estimates of applicant's 1970 average cost of generation at its generating facilities are listed in Table 21-1. These figures are based on the original cost of each station, the actual generation for 1970, and the actual production expenses for 1970. These items are as reported in our Annual Report to the Federal Power Commission.

l l

1 l

1 C-37 Amendment No. 13

l l

TABLE 21-1 4

Fixed Mills Charge Dollars Mills Per KWH Rate Per KW Per KWH For Demand Per Year For EnerRY And Energy Per Year 16.4% $27.78 3.9 8.4 Bay Shore I

Acme 16.3 18.44 9.8 18.3 Peakers 16.4 15.29 14.4 43 9 Total Applicant - 23.86 4.9 10.3 J

j i

I i

i C-38 Amendment No. 13

(-

Question No. 22 Give a brief description of the number and size of generating units on applicant's system?

Answer No. 22 A brief description of the applicant's present net dependable gener-ation is shown on Table 22-1.

4 1

)

l l C-39 Amendment No. 13 l

- , , ,.,.,.-rwr ,- --e w --*'Pe+-- ---N y "IT

TABLE 22-1 Bay Shore #1 132

1. 2 134

1. 3 140

1. 4 217 Total Bay Shore 623 Acme #2 80

1. 5 60

1. 6 108 Topper & Exhaust to Low Pressure Turbines (1) 21 Low Pressure Turbines (1) (cross bleed) 3 Low Pressure Turbines (1) (package boilers) 50 Total Acme 322 Peakers Defiance 1, 2, 3 36 Bay Shore 15 Stryker E Total Peaking 68 (1) The net dependable capacity of Acme Low Pressure Turbines (#1,

1. 3, and #4) is limited by the steam available from the Topper Exhaust, the cross bleed from high pressure boilers and the low pressure package boilers.

C-40 Amendment No. 13

Question-No. 23 Why is there a difference in the fixed charges for Davis-Besse and Mansfield #2 as given in the Toledo Edison answer to Question No. 12 and the difference in total costs of Davis-Besse and Eastlake 5? Also, what is the cost of fuel, operation, and maintenance for this unit?

Answer No. 23 The fixed charge figures for Mansfield 12 as given in our Answer No. 12 were based on a preliminary estimate of the initial cost of this unit provided by Pennsylvania Power Company, which is responsible for its construction. It is believed that this figure does not include certain escalation, cost of sulphur removal equipment, lowering of net output due to sulphur hquipment and other factors. The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company have made more detailed estimates of the Mansfield #2 initial cost and have also prepared an estimate of fuel, operation, and naintenance expenses for this unit.

These revised Mansfield #2 costs figures plus the comparable figures for Davis-Besse from Table 12-1 are shown on Table 23-1. These figures are I based on a fixed charge rate of 18% and an approximate 80% capacity use factor.

As to Eastlake 5, Cleveland Electric Illuminating has revised the estimate for that station as shown in the supplement to Appendix D herein.

Addi'tionally, it may be noted that Davis-Besse involved development of a new site while Eastlake 5 is being installed at a developed site. Also, the cost of fossil fuel is expected to escalate more rapidly than nuclear fuel.

C-41 Amendment No. 13

TABLE 23-1 TOLEDO EDISON GENERATION INVESTMENT UNDER CAPCO POOL ARRANCEMENT Unit Davis-Besse Mansfield #2

$/KW/ Year - Fixed Charge 55.30 45.95 Mills /KWH - Fixed Charge 8.04 6.56 Mills /KWH - Fuel, 0 &M (1) 2.15 4.24 Mills /KWH - Total 10.19 10.80 (1) Cost during first 12 months of operation.

i C-42 Amendment No. 13

m _.

Question No. 24 Are any rate increases anticipated for the adjacent systems identi-fied in the applicant's answer to Question No. 15?

Answer No. 24 At the present time, The Toledo Edison Company and the City of Napoleon Municipal System are negotiating a new contract. The present contract (Toledo Edison FPC Rate Schedule No. 15) will expire August 14, 1971. The Toledo Edison Company has requested a rate in-crease during these negotiations in part because the demand under this contract has been other than anticipated when the contract was entered into. Since these negotiations have not been completed, the effect of the new contract on the average cost of power purchased by them cannot be determined.

The other contracts with the adjacent systems identified in our answer to Question No. 15 will expire between June 1, 1974, and May 1, 1977, and re-opener dates are in four of these contracts from July 1, 1971, to July 1, 1975. No negotiations on rate in-creases have been started for any of these contracts.

C-43 Amendment No. 13 m --+Fr

- - + - - - '

Supplement To APPENDIX D RESPCNSES OF THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CCFEANY TO VEREAL REQUEST OF ANTITRUST DIVISION DEPAR3!ENT OF JUSTICE Amendment No. 13

- * - . s Question No. 20 State as to all power generated by applicant the most recent estimated average cost of bulk power supply experienced by applicant at the site of generating facilities in terms of dollars per KW per year, in mills per KWH and in both the KW costs and KW hour costs divided by the KW hours.

Answer No. 20 Capital costs are based on the average of the beginning and end of year original cost investment for the . rear 1970 and the corresponding installed capacity.

The expenses upon which the coste are based are the production, oper-ation and maintenance expenses actually experienced in the ca'.endar year 1970. The fuel cost, however, has been adjusted to the cost level anticipated in 1971. 1970 cost data do include a partial year's operation of the Avon No. 9 Unit.

Generat.on i is actual net plant output for calendar year 1970.

The responses to Question 20 on tie basis described above are:

(1) (2) (3)

Dollars Annual

• Annual Cost of Total per KW Fixed Charges Fuel and Operation Annual Cost per Year Mills /KWH And Maintenance Mills /KWH Mills /KWH 21.45 4.83 5.43 10.26

• Based on 18% Annual Fixed Charge Rate i

\

D-29  !

I a

l l

Answer No. 21 This answer is by way of supplement to the original answer to Question A12 to account for increases in estimates for the East Lake No. 5 Unit, particularly fuel costs, experienced since our original reply was filed.

The following figures should be substituted for those originally re-ported:

(a) (b) (c) Total Annual Annual Annual Cost of Annual Fixed Charges Fixed Charges Fuel, Operation and Cost Unit Name S/KW yr Mills /KWH Maintenance Mille /KWH Mills /KW East Lake #5 29.1 4.15 4.37 8.52 Notes: (a) based on annual fixed charge rate of 18%

(b) based on annual fixed charge rate of 18% and approximately 80% capacity use factor (c) based on first 12 months of unit operation at approximately 80% capacity use factor, including 1973 fuel costs.

Further, the above costs do not contemplate any costs for environmental control equipment. It is estimated that the addition of S0 2 #*'***1 facilities would increase the total annual cost by approximately 30%.

These costs for East L s '.e N o . 5 are the incremental costs of adding that unit to the existing East Lake Power Plant and they do not in-clude an allocated sale of the common facilities at the station.

l D-30