ML18192A833
| ML18192A833 | |
| 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: ML18192A833 (28) | |
Text
UNXTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSXON BEFORE THH 'ATOMXC SAFETY AND LICENSXNG BOARD Xn the Matter of ')
)
ARIZONA PUBLXC SERVICE COMPANY, ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528 et al. ) 50-529
) 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating )
Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) )
APPLICANTS'NSWERS TO XNTERVHNOR ACEC'S TiiXRD SET OF XNTERROGATORIES SNHLL 6 WILMER Bruce Norton 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorney for Applicant DATED at Phoenix, Arizona this 12th<day of August, 1975
1 I
1 INTERROGATORY 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'NSWER:
The April, 1975, statement by ERDA has no environmen-tal impact on the ANPP since no permanent, disposal of high level wastes are contemplated at the site. It has no economic impact since the fuel cycle cost estimates for the PVNGS already include allowances for permanent waste disposal and these have not been changed by the statement.
I 1 I l
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? What will be the economic, land-use, and environmental costs? Where will the temporary storage be?
ANSWER:
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 place, 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 solidi. fied waste to be accomplished wi,thin ten years from the time they were initially generated. In the 'case of PVNGS, 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. V As a separate but related matter, ANPP is preparing for the contingen'cy that shipment of spent fuel assemblies from PVNGS to a spent fuel recovery facility might be delayed. Thus, as a matter of prudence, ANPP is examining methods by which capability to store such spent fuel can be extended. Highest. 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. With 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 required 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 'reprqcessing
~
site. If this option is implemented, there would also be no en-vironmental or land-use impact on the PVNGS.
l' j
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. If off-site storage is selected, the annual cost. of such service is expected to add about 1% to the annual fuel cost, and this would be partly offset by the deferral of payment. for reprocessing.
-3 (a)-
I 3 INTERROGATORY State fully and in detail if the Price-Anderson Act provisions for federal insux'ance 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?
'ANSNER:
If the indemnity provisions of the Price-Anderson Act are not renewed by Congress there should be no impact on this pxoject. The cost of insurance, including insurance required under the Price-Anderson Act, has been included in the economic evaluations of the project.
l I'
f f
4 INTERROGATORY State fully and in detail the laxge work force 'neces"-
sary during constructs,on will have 'effects both when they move into the Wasco Area and when they leave. State fully and in detail what impact will that large group's leaving have on the Wintersburg Area?
'ANSWER:
Applicants would hope, and firmly believe, that there will be no "large work force" moving into and leaving the "Wasco Area." As there will be no large work force moving into the "Wasco Area," there should be no impact on Wintersburg when "that large group" leaves.
5 INTERROGATORY State fully and in detail'how the gro'wth in demand for electricity declined in 1974 from what it was in previous years.
If 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?
ANSWER:
Applicants are unable to state fully and in detail "how the growth in demand for electricity declined in l974 from what was in previous years" because the growth in demand did not so it decline. The second portion of this interrogatory is -impossible to answer as phrased. The question lacks reasonable specificity.
tl > i'r, ' Jli, IL 6 INTERROGATORY State fully and i,n detai,l what is the basis for pro-jected fuel costs? Area'll the 'costs associated with the repro-cessi,ng and permanent storage of waste products included in the fuel costs during the years of operation. If not, the DES should be revised to includea'll costs.
ANSWER:
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 seri.es of assumptions. These assumptions fall into four major categories, as summarized below.
'1'.' The Fuel'esi: n The fuel design is defined by the suppliers, initially
%rVaaQJ44 4Z ae Peahen<<44 VaJ klJJ <<
'P 'mr ~'<<T><<
J4 ikVQLaJkg ( Jl V ~
IPSE g4h1/ 4kJQ 4 ha l TT~
~vaA 4aA ~ ~ fUal l J'4ai 4 ~ <<TPl JAJkkV'4444 <<<<4 <<v kJLVV I Corporation (W), 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 performance.
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 Ma'rket Factors
- a. Where PVNGS has a contract for any commodity or service; e.g., the uranium supply from Anaconda; the ERDA enrichment contract; the CE and W fabrication services contracts, etc.; such contracts would be the basis for the projection over the period they apply.
Escalation is computed in accordance with 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;
p (i ~ a I
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 allowances for capital recovery plus a rate of return to the Owner.
The cost of spent fuel recovery, including allowances for, shipping of the spent fuel from the PUNGS 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 to be used in computing levelized cost using present worthing techniques.
- b. Escalation effects are computed separaLely on each 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 computer codes.
-7 (a)-
l 7 INTERROGATORY State fully and in detail ghat have been the increases 4n fuel costs in the last two yea'rs .for. uranium, natural gas, and coal? What are the known reserves of these fuels? State oil/
fully and in detail what effects will the cost trends and deple-tion of these fuels have 'on this project?
'ANSNER:
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 and depletions of uranium will have negative effects. See answer to interrogatory number 8.
8 INTERROGATORY State 'fully and in det'ail what is the projected cost, of power'rom PVNGS in 1975 dollars for the years 1982, 1985i 1990 and 1995? (include calculations)
(a) What percent (8) 'of these are fuel costs?
(b) What will the costs be if projected price in-cre'ases of the Nuclear Exchange Corp. (See Forbes, Jan. 15, 75, Pg. 19-21) of fuel takes place but the base rate is; (i) $ 10/lb.
(ii) $ 15/lb.
(iii) $ 20/lb.
(iv) 825/lb.
(c) Do these cost. estimates include; (i) scheduled downtime for refueling
'(ii) cost of replacement power (d) Does the cost include backup power generation capa-city?
cost?
If so, what percent (0) is it of the total
'ANSWER:
(A) (S) (C) (D) (E)
Power Cost Power Cost
'ear Mills/kwh Power Cost If U308 Were 'gl'0/I "
If U308 Were 'f25/I (8) of
Represent (B) Which Fuel'ost 1982 22.6 22.8 24.1 12 1985 17.4 17.0 18.4 16 1990 , 17.9 16. 9 18. 2 19 1995 17.7 16.9 18.1 18 (i) All costs in constant 1975 dollars.
(ii)
(iii)
Computed for Unit Il of PVNGS.
Costs include scheduled refueling downtime.
(iv) Costs do not include the cost of replacement power.
(v) Costs do not include backup power generation capacity.
J j
9 INTERROGATORY 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.
'ANSWER:
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 a's follows:
(a) Six weeks during the years 1, 5.and 9.
(b) Four weeks during the years 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.
Col,'P4 gV( 'QJ <<hL gill evselte
- stilts't dlAJJ Jl) 4l 4w Aeiv van irwin JJ4 g 1 A 44m JV ~
The turbine generator inspection and overhaul is expected to be the Critical Path for the six-weeks outage. Reactor refuel-ing and inservice inspection is expected to be the Critical Path for the four weeks outage. Reactor, Internals Inspection 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 inspection of p'lant equipment.
I j
. CERTXFXCATE OF SERVXCE
'I Xt is hereby certified tha't true and correct copies of the foregoing Applicants'nswers to Xnterven'or ACEC's Third Set of'nterrogatories have been placed in the United States mails, postage prepaid, this day of August, 1975, to the following:
Daniel M. Head, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'ashington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Marvin M. Mann Technical Advisor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Quentin J. Stober Research Assoc. Professor Fisheries Research Institute University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Thomas M. Bruen, Esq.
Michael W. Grainey, Esp.
Regulatory Staff Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Barbara E. Fisher, Esp.
Arizona Public Law Advocates 201 North Stone Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 Andrew W. Bettwy Assistant Attorney General 159 State Capitol 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Mr. Carmine P. Cardamone, Jr.
1415 North Third Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85705 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nashington,'.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plashington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 SNELL 6 NXLMER Bruce Norton