ML18192A831
| ML18192A831 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1975 |
| From: | Norton B Arizona Public Service Co, Snell & Wilmer, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| Download: ML18192A831 (14) | |
Text
e qp~~POM<~iCE UNXTED STATES OF MlHRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COi~21ISSION BEFORE TILE ATOMXC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.In the Matter of
')'
ARIZONA PUBLIC SHRVXCH COMPANY/
)
et al.
)
)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
Docket Nos.
STN 50-52 50-529 50-530 0(
APPLICANTS'NSI'lERS TO INTERVENOR ACEC'S THIRD SHT OF INTERROGATORIES AUQ 15 jap= ~
~~~<"o 4 Qrvi;e
~4CflCQ S'NHLL 6 HILLER DATED at Phoenix, Arizona this 12th:day of August, 1975 Bruce Norton 3100'alley Center
- Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorney for Applicant
1 XNTERROGATORY State fully and in detail what are the economic and environmental effects of the April 1975 statement by the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) that no permanent storage methods have been found for high level nuclear waste products.
ANSLTER:
The April(
1 9 75 ( 'tatement by ERDA has no environmen-tal impact on the ANPP since no permanent disposal of high level wastes are contemplated at the site.
Xt'as no economic impact since the fuel cycle cost estimates for the P&i. GS already include allowances for permanent waste disposal and these have not been changed by the statement.
2 INTERROGATORY State fully and in detail if by the time PVNGS is oper-ational there is no permanent storage method, state fully and in detail what specific alternatives are proposed?
P/hat will be the economic, land-use, and environmental costs?
Where. will the temporary storage be?
ANSI'?ER:
The initial unit of PVNGS is currently scheduled to be-gin commercial operation during the second quarter of 1982.
There-fore, the earliest that spent fuel recovery services, with the attendant generation of high level radioactive wastes, would be
- required, or could take p'lace, is in 1984.
Current Federal Govern-ment regulations specify that these wastes can be maintained in liquid form at the spent fuel recovery facility site for a period of up to five years, by which time they. must be converted to an
.approved solid form for transfer to a Federal Repository, such
.transfer of the solidified waste to be accomplished within ten years from the time they were initially generated.
ln the case of PVHGS, this would be 1994.at the earliest; thus there is almost 20 years to select and demonstrate an acceptable disposal
- method, which seems quite ample especially since the currently preferred approach will have gone into pilot operation more than 10 years earlier (1982-1983),
and 'other pilot operations are planned in this period.
As a separate but related matter, ANPP is preparing for the contingency that shipment. of spent fuel assemblies from PVNGS to a spent fuel. recovery facility might be delayed.
- Thus, as a
matter of prudence, MPP is examining methods by which capability to store such spent fuel can be extended.
I'.ighest priority is being given to methods of rearranging the existing on-site storage pool to store a greater number of spent fuel assemblies than ori-"
ginally contemplated; several approaches are currently under en-gineering study which could more than double such capability with-
'out expanding the physical dimensions of the present pool.
Nith this approach, there would therefore be no significant change to-the environment costs or any additional land-use; in fact, spent fuel shipping from the site would not be reauired over the period of storage.
Another alternative which is being considered is the shipping of the fuel off-site to some central temporary storage facility, which would most logically be at a planned reprocessing site.
If this option is implemented, there would also be no en-vironmental or land-use impact on the PVNGS.
~
~
~
.~
The costs of modified storage racks to accommodate closer spacing in the existing pools and the required expanded cooling and related services is estimated to be on the order of
$2-4 million per unit.
Xf off-site storage is selected, the annual cost of such service is expected to add about 1% to the biannual fuel cost, and this would be partly offset by the deferral of payment for reprocessing.
3 XNTERROGATORY State fully and in detail if the Price-Anderson Act provisions for federal.insurance assistance are not renewed by
- Congress, state fully and in detail what will be the impact on this project?
Can the participating agencies in this project afford the necessary insurance?
How will that coverage be fin-anced and what impact will that have on. the economics of the project?
'ANSWER:
Xf the indemnity provisions of the Price-Anderson Act are not renewed by Congress there should be no impact on this project.
The cost of insurance, including insurance required under the Price-Anderson Act, has been included in the economic evaluations of 'the project.
~ ">
r C
~
I
~
4 INTERROGATORY
~
State fully and in detai,l. the -large work force
'neces-'ary during construction will have effects both when they move into the Uasco Area and when they leave.
State fully and in detail what impact will that large group's leaving have on the Nintersburg Area?
'ANSNER:
Applicants would hope, and firmly believe, that there will be no "large work force" moving into and leaving the "Nasco Area."
As there will be no large work force moving into the "Nasco Area'," there should be no impact on Nintersburg when "that large group" leaves.
5 XNTERROGATORY
\\
State fully and in detail how the growth in demand for electricity declined in 1974 from what it. was in previous years.
Zf the increases in demand projected in the DES do not material-ize, state fully and in detail what is the economic impact on this project?
ANS'PER:
'I Applicants are unable to state fully and in detail "how the growth in demand for electricity declined in 1974 from what it was in previous years" because the growth in demand did not. so decline.
The second portion of this interrogatory is impossible
,to answer as phrased.
The question. lacks reasonable specificity.
6 INTERROGATORY State fully and,3,n detail what is the basis for pro-jected fuel costs?
Are 'all the costs associated with the repro-cessing and permanent storage of waste products included in the fuel costs during the years of operation.
.If not, the DES should be revised to include a'll costs.
ANSNER:
Development of fuel cost. estimates for the PVNGS units involves projections of a variety of factors over a term extending through the 1990's.
Such long-,term projections are keyed to a series of assumptions.
These assumptions fall into four major categories, as summarized below.
'1'.'
The Fuel Design The fuel design is defined by the suppliers, initially Pnme
~ 4>>>> TP>>~>>
T IPTPW>>P
>1 1'Taws C>>m'4>>e ~ r n 'P1>>m4>>4 re
%IVJL1A/4' AVID JJllg J JJI 4sJ kl'JJ /
All@ ~
Q'Vkl/
4kll4
~ kk'4 4
~ ~ \\ V ~ All)klV>>eJC AJAR %r>>k>>v Corporation (N), in the contracts for fabrication services, as the
, reference design.
The reference design incorporates all current standards for quality of manufacture and for safety and flexibility in operation, as well as reflecting optimum economic pe=.formance.
The amount. of enriched uranium to be loaded into the fuel
- core, and relatedly, the number of fuel bundles to be replaced at each refueling outage, are determined by the rated power levels and other design and safety constraints, and by assumptions as to the capacity factor at which the plant will operate, and allowable periods when the electric systems of the applicants can permit the refueling outage to take place.
2.
The Market. Factors a.
Nhere PVNGS has a contract for any commodity or service; e;g.,
the uranium supply from Anaconda; the ERDA enrichment contract;
,the CE and N fabrication services contracts,. etc.;
such contracts would be the basis for the projection over the period they apply.
Escalation is computed in accordance wj.th the indices stipulated in
'the contract.
b.
Beyond the point in time where such commitments exist, or in those areas wherein there are no commitments, market models.
are developed which assume a pattern of growth of the nuclear fuel supply industry, which mandates that new production facilities for fuel cycle commodities and services must.be brought into operation on a timely schedule.
The cost of these new facilities, in current (es-calated) dollars at the time they would be. built are 'estimated;
"j.
~
t
~
~
the progression of plants takes into account the impact of scale and of learning in each successive facility.
The models therefore contemplate that at any given time the U.S. nuclear fuel needs will be met from a combination of facilities of different ages,
- designs, and sizes, and the cost projections are based upon the average production cost resulting from such a mix, plus reasonable al'lowances for capital recovery plus a rate, of return to'he Owner.
.The cost of spent fuel recovery, including allowances for shipping of the spent fuel from the PVNGS plant to a reprocess-ing facility, reprocessing to recover uranium and plutonium for
- recycle, and the permanent high-level waste disposal, are accounted for.
3.
The Financial Factors a.
The calculations use data reflective of Participant circumstances with respect to:
(i) the carrying charge to be assigned to fuel commodities and services prior to use in the reac-tor; (ii) working capital charges on the nuclear fuel inventory; and (iii) discount factors t'o be used in computing levelized cost using present worthing techniques.
b.
Zscaiation effects axe computed separately on eac commodity or service which is part of the total fuel cycle, assign-
.ing annual rates of escalation for these cost. components.
~ From this matrix of technical and commercial assumptions, actual or levelized nuclear fuel cycle costs over the desired per-iod are computed with the aid of elaborate comput: er codes.
7 gNTE~OGATORX State fully and in detail what have been the increases 3,n fuel costs in the last, two years for uranium, natural gas, oil, and coal?
Nhat are the known reserves of these fuels?
State fully and in detail what effects will the cost trends and deple-tion of these fuels have on, this project?
'MSWER:
The first two portions of this interrogatory are not answerable as phrased.
The two questions lack reasonable speci-ficity.
The upward cost trends and. depletions of natural gas, oil and coal will have a positive effect on this project.
Upward cost trends'nd depletions of uranium will have negative effects.
See
,answer to interrogatory number 8.
8 INTERROGATORY State 'fully and in detail what is the projected cost of power from PVNGS in 1975 dollars for the years
- 1982, 1985I 1990 and 1995?
(include calculations)
(a)
What percent (0) of these are fuel costs?
(b)
What will the costs be if projected price in-creases of the Nuclear Exchange Corp.
(See Forbes, Jan.
15, 75, Pg.
19-21) of fuel takes place but the base rate is; (i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
$10/lb.
$15/lb.
$20/lb.
$25/lb.
(c)
Do these. cost estimates include; (i) sch'eduled downtime for refueling (ii) cost of replacement power (d)
Does the cost include b'ackup power generation capa-city? If so,'hat percent '(0) is it of the total cost?
'ANS'iKR:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Power Cost Power Cost Hills/kwh If U308 If U308
'ear Power Cost Were
$ 10/5 'ere
$25/I 1982 22.6 22.8 24.1 (E)
(8) of (B) Which
'Represent Fuel Cost 12 1985 1990
- 17. 4
- 17. 9 17.0
- 16. 9 18.4
- 18. 2 16 19 1995 (i)-
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v) 17.7 16.9
'18.1 18 All costs in constant 1975 dollars.
Computed for Unit 51 of PVNGS.
'Costs include scheduled 'refueling downtime.
Costs do not include the cost of replacement power.
Costs do not include backup power generation capacity.
9 XNTERROGATORY
/
State fully and in detail how often, for what period of time, and for what'purpose each unit of PVNGS will have scheduled shutdowns, include shutdown for refueling.
AN'SiE'R:
Each PVNGS unit will be scheduled for one refueling and maintenance outage each year.
Only one unit will be scheduled out of service at a time.
The refueling and maintenance window is from October 1 through May 31 of each year.
The outage period for each unit 'is as follows:
(a)
. Six weeks during the years 1,
5 and 9.
(b)
Four weeks during the years" 2.';":"3., 4, 6, 7 and 8.
I
'Vs ~Q J
~ e+alp~
Atev v w 4 'ha ry~a v 1 A g C) ua yea \\
Yvcvswv wus saag vs+ jvus su ~
The turbine generator inspection and overhaul is expected
'o be the Critical Path for the six-weeks outage.
Reactor refuel-ing and inservice inspection is expected to be the Critical Patn for the four weeks outage.
Reactor Internals Xnspection will be the Critical Path during the tenth year of operation for each unit.
The refueling and maintenance outages for each unit for a period of time will continue throughout the life of each unit as indicated in (a),
(b) and (c).
The purposes for each scheduled outage will be to:
1.
Refuel the reactor..
2.
Maintenance and inspecti'on of plant equipment.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Xt is hereby certified that true.and correct copies of the foregoing Applicants'nswers to Xntervenor ACEC's Third
'et. of Interrogatories have been placed in the United States mails, postage prepaid, this 'ay of August, 1975, to the following:
Daniel M. Head, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.'arvin M. Mann Technical Advisor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20S55 Dr. Quentin J. Stober Research Assoc.
Professor Fisheries Research Institute University of Nashington
- Seattle, Washington 98195 Thomas M. Bruen, Esq.
Michael N. Grainey, Esq.
Regulatory Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Barbara E. Fisher, Esq.
Arizona Public Law Advocates 201 North Store Avenue Tucson, Arizona 8S701 Andrew N. Bettwy Assistant Attorney General 159 State Capitol 1700 Nest Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007
51r. Carmine F.
Cardamone', Jr.
14l5 North Third Avenue
- Tucson, Arizona 85705 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.'.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1lashington, D. C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington, D.C.
20555 SNELL 8 NXLl1ER Bruce Norton