ML19210C081
| ML19210C081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1979 |
| From: | Brooks W, Brown L, Sherwood M BROOKS, W., JONES, BROWN & CLIFFORD, SHERWOOD, M.R. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210C082 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911130233 | |
| Download: ML19210C081 (16) | |
Text
.
LINDA J.
B ROWN, ESQ.
Jones, Brown, & Clifford 100 Van Ness Avenue, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone:
(415) 431-5310 MICHAEL R.
SHERWOOD, ESQ.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
311 California Street, Suite 311 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone:
(415) 399-1411 Attorneys for Intervenors WOODY BROOKS, Law Clerk Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-133
)
(Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3)
)
License No. DPR-7
)
INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO LICENSEE'S MOTION TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE Intervenors--1/have filed an Answer in Opposition to Licensee's Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance, dated October 9, 1979.
This Memorandum sets forth in detail the grounds for their opposition.
_1/ This memorandum is filed on behalf of Intervenors Thomas K.
Collins, Dr. Elmont Honea, Frederick P. Cranston, Wesley Chesbro, Demetrios L. Mitsanas, Six Rivers Branch of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club.
1320 000 7911130
1 I
BACKGROUND OF THE MOTION The present proceedings were initiated by the May 20, 1977 filing by PG&E of an application for amendment of the above-numbered license, which, if granted, vould allow PG&E to return the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3
("The Humboldt Bay Plant") to service.
Intervenors'
?titions to intervene were granted on May 16, 1978.
On March 24, 1979, PG&E filed its first Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance, seeking a nine-month delay on the grounds that additional geologic investigation was needed to demonstrate the Humboldt Bay Plant's seismic safety.
The NRC Staff supported this motion, and Intervenors did not op-pose it.
Both Staff's and Intervenors' positions were con-ditioned, however, on the requirement that PG&E be required to report periodically to the Board and Intervenors the on-going results of the additional study.
On May 16, 1978, the Board denied PG&E's motion without prejudice on the ground that the current Board was only authorized to rule on the then-ponding petitions to intervene.
The practical effect of the Board's action, however, was to grant PG&E the additional time it had re-quested, but without any requirement to submit progress reports.
On January ll, 1979, this Board reconvened with authority to determine the merits of this case, and noted that the nine months ' delay that had been requested by PG&E's first Motion had elapsed.
On January 26, 1979, PG&E filed 1320 002
9 its second Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance, seeking a second delay of nine months, to October '
1979, on the grounds, again, that additional geological studies were necessary..This motion, opposed by Intervenors but supported by the Staff, was granted by the Board in its Order of May 7, 1979.
The Order directed PG&E to furnish to the Board and parties, at 60-day intervals, reports, in reasonable detail, of the current status of its ongoing geologic investigation.
PG&E's firrt status report, submitted on May 21, 1979, failed to include the required detail, prompting the Board to reiterate this request in its Order of June 19, 1979.
Since that time, PG&E has submitted two reports on the current status of the geologic investigations, one on July 5 and the other on September 17, 1979.
These reports, however, are essentially devoid of information about the results, preliminary or other-wise, of PG&E's on-going study, and instead simply catalogue the performance of various tasks.
On September 27, 1979, PG&E filed its third Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance, requesting yet another delay, this time for a full year to October 1, 1980.
The grounds for this motion are, once again, that PG&E simply has not yet completed its geological investigations.
Intervenors submit, for the reasons discussed below, that PG&E's motion should be denied, and that this matter should now be allowed to proceed expeditiously to a hearing on the merits.
PG&E has had ample time in which to demonstrate that the Humboldt Bay Plant is seismically safe.
The fact that 1320 003
4 they have not been able to do so after more than three years of investigation strongly suggests that such a demonstration simply is not possible, and that the real motive behind their present motion is simply to delay for as long as possible the inevitable permanent closure of the plant.
II PG&E HAS MADE AN INSUFFICIENT SHOWING THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE HELD IN ABEYANCE.
As the moving party, PG&E has the burden of proving the propriety of holding these proceedings in abeyance.
(50 C.F.R.
2.732.)
The requested delay may be granted only for good cause.
(50 C. F. R. {2. 711 (a). )
Yet PG&E offers no reason for delay other than its latest failure to complete geologic studies according to its own schedule.
On the other hand, as will be discussed below, there are compelling reasons t
proceed er:peditiously with this case.
As in each of the prior Motions to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance, PG&E states that it
... believes that holding these proceedings in abeyance for this additional period of time is warranted since it would allou for more compre-hensive knowledge of the geologic and seismic issues involved.
PG&E Motion, p.3.
~
Intervenors cannot quarrel with the notion that the total amount of scientific information about the Humboldt Bay re-gion's geology will be somewhat greater in one year than it is today.
It will undoubtedly be still greater after five, or fifty, years.
But the present Motion does not suggest 1320 004
that the resolution of the merits of this case is likely to be affected by any new information PGaE reasonably expects to accrue.
Moreover, PG&E's track record of broken promises in this proceeding to date does not give cause for optimism that PG&E intends ever to complete its geological studies and
_.2_/
allow this case to proceed to a hearing on the merits.
It is instructive to re,-iew the history of PG&E's statements regarding the completion of these investigations.
1.
Letter of May 11, 1976,. rom Philip A.
- Crane, Jr.,
PG&E Associate General Counsel, to Karl R. Goller, Assist-ant Director for Operating Reactors, Division of Operating Reactors, NRC:
...It is our intent to complete the program of additional caologic and seismic investi-gations in the vicinity of our mboldt Bay Power Plant prior to the return m Unit No. 3 to service following the Summer-Fall 1976 outage with the exception of one item noted in the report.
This item...will be completed by the end of 1976.
[ Emphasis added.]
Attachment I to this letter, Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Additional Geologic & Seismolocic Investigations (May 6, 1976), detailed the " additional work" to be done.
The Board's Order of May 21, 1976 adopted the list of items to be investigated and timetable for completion from this letter and Attachment, and incorporated them into the license as new subparagraphs E.2 and E.3.
_2/ Intervenors can only speculate as to PG&E's apparent re-luctance in this regard, but it may well be due to fear on their part (completely justified, in Intervenors' view) that a hear-ing on the merits will force PG&E to concede that their own studies confirm the position of the staff that the Humboldt Bay Plant is not seismically safe.
1320 003 2.
Letter of September 24, 1976, from Robert W.
Reid, Chief, N rating Reactors Branch #4, Division of Operat-ing Reactors, NRC, to PG&E
...During the early part of this outage you indicated that the submittal of information concerning the geologic / seismic investigations...
being performed, as required by the Order for Modification of License issued May 21, 1976, would be essentially complete by early September 1976....
[ Emphasis added.]
3.
Order for Modification of License, December 30, 1976:
By letter dated December 29, 1976, the staff was informed that the licensee will be unable to submit the information required by item E.2.d by the end of 1976 due to the increased scope of field investigations required for those items which must be completed prior to restart.
4.
PG&E Application for authorization to return to power operation, May 20, 1977:
Section 2 of paragraph E cf the Order requires the satisfactory completion of an extensive program of geologic and seismic investigations....[T]he scope of [this program]
has substantially increased since the time of the Order....
It is anticipated that all geologic and seismic investigations will be complete by July 1, 1977.
[ Emphasis added.]
The information submitted by PG&E during the Sum-mer of 1977 failed to convince the NRC '3taff that the site was safe for the facility as designed.
(Letter of August 5, 1977, from Edson G.
Case, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, to PG&E.)
PG&E's geologic investi-gations therefore continued.
5.
PG&E Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance until December 24, 1978, dated March 24, 1978:
1320 006 a.
At this time PGandE anticipates that this addi-tional Igeologic and otherl work including analysis of the result s will take approximately nine (9) months.
At the conclusion of that period, PGandE will be in a position to proceed in this matter.
[ Emphasis added.]
6.
PG&E Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance until October 1, 1979 dated January 26, 1979:
...[T]he earl'.er estimate of the time required to complete and analyze the data compiled as a result of this further geologic investigation and analysis has proved overly optimistic....
At this time, PGandE estimates an additional nine months (to October 1, 1979) will be necessary to complete the remaining work.
PGandE anti-cipates that at the conclusion of that perio*
it will be in a position to proceed in this matter.
[ Emphasis added.]
7.
Letter from Richard F.
Locke, PG&E Attorney, to Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Pastel, May 21, 1979:
Since PGandE made its request in January 1979 for additional time, the then-projected date for completing the ongoing geologic and seismo-logic investigations has been further delayed.
...The remaining work is going to be more com-plicated and time-consuming than previously anticipated.
As matters now stand, PGandE believes that October 1, 1979 is no longer a date by which it can be prepared te proceed further in this matter.
PGandE now ettimates that the earliest practicable date it will be ready to proceed is June 30, 1980
[ Emphasis added.]
8.
PG&E Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance until October 1, 1980, dated September 27, 1979:
...At [the time of its January 26, 1979 Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance until October 1, 1979), PGandE contemplated that the additional time sought would be sufficient :o complete these tasks.... 1320 007
4
...However, the work has not progressed on the originally contecaplated schedule.
- Indeed, during the investigations, it has become apparent
. hat additional work is necessary in order to tasolve the issues identified by the NRC Staff.
...[T]he additional investigations will take at least 12 months (assuming a September 15, 1979, starting date).
[ Emphasis added.]
This astonishingly consistent pattern of failure on PG&E's part to complete geologic investigations accord-ing to the schedules it set for itself suggests,as noted above, an intention to de7ay for as long as possible the in-evitable conclusion of these proceedings in the permanent closure of the Humboldt Bay Plant.
Indeed, PG&E does not now even purport to represent to the Board that the investigations will be completed in the requested additional 12 months.
Rather, unlike the first Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance, in which PG&E stated that it " anticipated" that its studies would be complete at the end of 1978 and unequivocally asserted that it would be in a position to proceed at that time, or the second Motion, in which it " estimated" that the work would be complete by October 1, 1979, and " anticipated" that it would be in a posi-tion to proceed at this time, the present motion states only that the stu(ies will take "at least" an additional year.
It is not suggested that the investigations will be complete at that time, or that PG&E even hopes then tc be able to proceed.
Thus the foundation for the fourth Motion to Hold
///
///
1320 008
4
_3_/
Proceedings in Abeyance has already clearly been laid.
III FURTHE DELAY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL
_PREJUD.CE INTERVENORS AND THE PUBLIC A.
Continuing Delay Exposes Intervonors And The Rate-Paying Public To Substantial Risk Of Serious Economic Detriment.
The members of the Six Rivers Branch of Friends of the Earth, about
,,000 members of the Sierra Club, and the individual intervenors, with the exception of Thomas K.
Collins (who resides in Washington), are ratepayers in California.
Intervenors and PG&E are currently parties to proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California ("PUC") which will determine, inter alia, whether certain capital and other expendit res made by PG&E with regard to the Humboldt Bay Plant should remain or be included in PG&E's rate base (PUC Proceedings rc! Applications
_4_/
Nos. 56545 and 58546).
The PUC proceedings have demonstrated that delay of the present proceedings would expose Intervenors and the 3/ In fact, the possibility of a further delay of one or
_two years has been admitted by James O.
Schuyler, PG&E Nuclear Projects Engineer, in sworn testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission.
(Tr. 3464-3465, June 12, 1979.)
(See affidavit of Michael R. Sherwood, attached hereto. )
4/ Portions of the record of the PUC proceeding which are referred to in this Memorandum are attached to the Affidavit of Michael R. Sherwood, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
~'-
1320 009
ratepaying public to serious economic detriment, or the risk of such detriment, in at least five respects.
1.
As of the end of 1978, $16 million remained-as the not investment in the Humboldt Bay Plant to be de-preciated.
(T stimony of Roy Davis, Assistant Manager of Economics and Statistics Department, PG&E, PUC Hearing Transcript ("Tr. ") p. 3294: lines 22-24, 3296:11-14 (June 7, 1979).)
PG&E has conceded that it may be unreasonable to retain this capital in service in the rate base, and thus to charge the ratepayers a portion of this amount annually, if the plant is not to be returned to service.
CBl., at 3297:8-30.)
Proceeding from the premise that the plhnt may be expected to 2 copen in the near future, however, PG&E is asking the PUC to retain this net investment in the rate base and charge the ratepayers approximately $1.6 million towards its depreciation in 1980.
(;Bl., at 3295:14-27.)
Delay of another year
'1 what Intervenors believe will be the Board's inevitable revocation of PG&E's license for the Humboldt Bay Plant, therefore, will result in the rat payers
--./
5 having to pay an unnecessary $1.5 million.
2 If the ultimate decision in this case is to
_5/ Moreover, PG&E is asking the PUC to make a present com-mitment to the eventual repayment of the entire net invest-ment in the Humboldt Bay Plant, in the absence of a decision by this Board as to whether or not the Humboldt Bay Plant will ever be allowed to reopen.
QBl., 3286-3287.)
Intervenors believe that delay of the Board's decision substantially in-creases the risk that the ratepayers will be required to pay the entire remaining capital cost of the plant. 1320 010
be that the Humboldt Bay Plant should be permanently closed, that decision should be expedited to reduce, to the extent possible, the length of time during which money must be spent to maintain the plant in a closed but restartable condition.
For 1979 the operation and maintenance expense for the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Plant has been $182,300 per month.
For 1980 this amount will increase to an estimated $195,500 per month.
(Prepared Rebuttal Testimony of James O.
- Schuyler, PG&E Nuclear Projects Engineer, PUC Exhibit No. 77 admitted June 7, 1979, at 5:10-22.)
This expense is charged to the ratepayers.
(PG&E Electric Department, Comparison Exhibit, dated June 1, 1979, admitted as Exhibit No. 89, at 13-14. )
Thus, a delay of one additional year in these proceedings will result in a cost of almost $2.4 million to ratepayers, in-cluding Intervenors, to support a plant which is not, and may never be, generating power.
3.
PG&E has maintained that the net cost of re-placing the energy which would have been generated by the Humboldt Bay Plant had it been operational has been as fol-lows:
1976 - $3,906,000; 1977 - $7,890,000; 1978 - $8,694,000.
(Tj3., at 6:6 to 7:4.)
Intervenors have no basis at present on wl'ch to refute this contention.
Assuming their accuracy, these fAgures are based on the cost of fossil fuel and may therefore well rise in the future.
Thus, even if one accepts PG&E's contenticn that the plant should be allowed to reopen, one would be forced to conclude that delay of this decision will result in an unnecessary cost of approximately $9 million 1320 011
to the ratepayers, including Intervenors, because it will force PG&E to rely on more expensive sources for the generation.f fV needed electricity.
4.
As of June, 1979, PG&E had spent approximately
$5 million on geologic and seismologic studies of the Hu1-boldt "7y plant site and vicinity.
At that time, it was ex-pected that additional expenses of between $3 million and
$10 million would be ine-tred to complete the present program of investigations.
(Testimony of James O.
Schuyler, Tr. 3487-3489, June 12, 1979.)
As discussed below, Intervenors believe there is a substantial probability that these expenses will ultimately be paid by the ratepayers, including Intervenors.
PG&E has not, however, shown that these additional studies, and thr. expenditure of $3 to $10 million for them, is warranted.
Moreover, the progress reports submitted by PG&E cn its continuing geologic investigations have not suggested that any new data has been developed irdicating that the Staff's geologic conclusions are incorrect.
Because Intervenors are thus unaware of the results and preliminary conclusions of the studies undertaken to date, they cannot know whether or not the cost to California ratepayers of additional studies is warranted.
Intervenors therefore submit that it is imperative that these p oceedings be allowed to progress to the point
_6/ It must be emphasized that Intervenors do not believe that the Humboldt Bay Plant should or will be allowed to reopen; we sirply point out that PG&E's contrary belief also compels an early resolution of this matter.
1320 012 where the issues are identified and Intervenors are enabled, through use of discovery devices in accordance with 50 C.F.R.
62.740 et seq., to discover the preliminary findings r f PG&E's geologic and seismic investigations and take an informed posi-tion on whether or not further geologic investigations by PG&E and its consultants are advisable.
5.
PG&E has proposed to the PUC that the costs of the geologic studies and of the seismic modifications that PG&E has made be retained in an account which will tecrue an-nual interest until the time that the plant reopens, and then be put into the rate base for payment by the ratepayers.
(Pre-pared Rebuttal Testimony of Roy Davis, PUC le :ibit No. 79, 1:8-11, 2:15 to 3:20; Davis testimony, supra, at 3295:1-13.)
As of March, 1979, between $21 and $22 million had been spent on plant modifications, (Testimony of J.
O.
Schuyler, Tr. 3487-3488) and some additional amount "probably less than a million dollars" then remained to be spent. (Davis testimony, supra, at 3295:1-13.)
Approximately $5 million had at that time been spent on geologic and seismic studies.
(Schuyler testi-mony, supra, at 3487:7-23.)
As noted above, between $3 and
$10 million remained to be spent on these studies.
Thus, the total amount which PG&E seeks to have treated in the manner described is somewhere between $30 and $38 million.
If PG&E's belief that the plant will be allowed to go back on line is correct, and PG&E is successful in obtain-ing this treatment of these costs, a delay of one ear in these proceedings will result in the accrual of an amount 1320 013
which Intervenors believe to be approximately $3 million in 1l additional interest charges to be paid by the ratepayers.
Thus, the granting of PG&E's Motion to Hold Pro-ceedings in Abeyance for an additional year will result in the exposure of Intervenors and the ratepayers of California to the risk of being required to pay many millions of dollars in Humboldt Bay Plant-related costs which might otherwise be avoided.
B.
Further Delay Of These Proceedings Will Result In Continued Unnecessary Exposure Of Utility Employees To Radiation.
Delay of these proceedings for an additional year can be expected to have serious health implications for 0/
utility employees whose interests are not represented.
The Occupational Radiation Exposure at Light Water Cooled Power Reactors Annual Report for 1977, NUREG-0482, released in May, 1979, indicates that in 1977, the most recent year for which date have been published by the NRC, the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, despite producing no power in that year,
_7/ Based on informal inquiries which are not a part of the PUC record, Intervenors believe that the interest rate will be approximately 8 or 9 percent per fear.
Assuming this to be correct, the interest for one year 'n $30 million would be between $2.4 and $2.7 million; on $38 million, between
$3.0 and $3.4 million.
_8/ Intervenors do not purport to represent the interests of Humboldt Bay Plant employees in these proceedings.
We be-lieve, however, that the unnecessary exposure of workers to radiological hazards should be among the factors considered by the Board in ruling on PG&E's Motion.
had the highest average annual exposure per person of,rur light water cooled power reactor in the United States.
(Ijl., Table 6, p. 12.)
In that year a total of 1063 persons were exposed to an average doce of 1.79 rem of radiation, a significantly higher number of persons exposed to a higher average dosage than in 1976, when the plant operated for half of the year.
Ibid.
It seems certain, therefore, that each year of addi-tional f.elay in the permanent closure of this plant will re-sult in a large number of additional unnecessary worker ex-posures to radiation.
Like the economic burden being sustained by the ratepayers, the radiation hazard to these workers re-quires that these proceedings move forward to a final determin-ation, and not indefinitely be held in abeyance.
IV CONCLUSION PG&E has shown no good cause for further delay in these proceedings.
Such delay would, on the other hand, result in substantial economic prejudice to Intervenors and the ratepaying puolic of California, and in needless addi-tional health risk to plant employees.
Intervenors therefore
///
///
///
///
m 1320 015 oppose the present motion to hold proceedings in abeyance.
Dated:
October 16, 1979.
Respectfully submitted, LINDt', J.
B ROWN, ESQ.
Jones, Brown & Clifford 100 Van Ness Avenue, 19th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone:
(415) 431-5310 WOODY BROOKS MICHAEL R.
S HERWOOD, ESQ.
Law Clerk Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
Sierra Club Legal 311 California Street, suite 311 Defense Fund, Inc.
Sa'. Francisco, CA 94104 311 California Street "elephone:
(415) 398-1411 Suite 311 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone:
(415) 398-1411 By MICilAEL R.
SHERWOOD Attorneys for Intervenors 1320 016
.