ML19308B283
| ML19308B283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0023, NUREG-0023-S01, NUREG-23, NUREG-23-S1, NUDOCS 7912200751 | |
| Download: ML19308B283 (56) | |
Text
-
Safety
""0": 'i e
YlI llII l$IIl DlI$II Regulatory Comm s on rGIGted 10 Construction Of Office of Muclear Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear
"**""'$"3l:"l*
Projects No. 3 and No. 5 June 1976 Washington Public Power
' Supply System, et al.
i Supplement NO.1 4#
m
i Available from l
Natiusal Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price: Printed Copy $4.50 ; Microfiche $2.25 J
u
NUREG-0023 Supplement No. 1 June 1976 4
SUPPLEMENT N0. 1 TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF WASHINGT0fl PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECTS N0. 3 AND NO. 5 DOCKET NOS. STN 50-508 AND STN 50-509
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I
i l
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND GENERAL DISCUSSION.........................................
1-1 1.1 Introdue. tion..........................................................
1-1 1.9 Outstanding Issues.....................................................
1-1 2.0 S I T E C HA RAC TE t I ST I C S........................................................
2-1 l
2.1 Geo g ra p h, r a n d De mo g ra p hy...............................................
2-1 2.1.2 E cc l u s i o n A rea Con tro1..........................................
2-1 3.0 DESIGN CRITT RI A FOR STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMP 0NENTS......................
3-1 3.6 Protection Against Dynamic Effects Associated with the Postulated Rupture of Pip 1ng......................................................
3-1 3.6.2 Protection Against Dynamic Effects Associated with the Postulated Rupture of High Energy Piping Outside Containment....
3-1
{
3.9 Mechanical Systems and Components......................................
3-1 3.9.2 ASME Code Cl a s s 2 and 3 Components..............................
3-1 6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES................................................
6-1 1
E.2 Containment Systems...................................................
6-1 6.2.8 Containment Air Purif ' cation and Cleanup Systems................
6-1 9.0 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS...........................................................
9-1 9.5 O t he r Au x i l i a ry Sys t ems................................................
9-1 9.5.1 Fire Protection System..........................................
9-1 11.0 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT................................................
11-1 11.6 Evaluation Findings...................................................
11-1 15.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSES...........................................................
15-1 15.5 Postulated Accidents..................................................
15-1 15.5.6 Radiogical Consequences of Accidents..........................
15-1 18.0 REV I EW 8Y THE ADV ISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS......................
18-1 20.0 FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS....................................................
20-1 20.1 Introduction...........................................................
20-1
- 20. 2 Con s t ruc ti on Co s t E s ti ma te s............................................
20-1 20.3 Participants and Financing Plans......................................
20-2 20.3.1 Washington Public Power Supply System..........................
20-2 20.3.2 Pacific Power & Light Company..................................
20-3 20.3.3 Portland General Ele ctric Company..............................
20-4 20.3.4 Puget Sound Power & Light Company..............................
20-9 20.3.5 The Washington Water Power Company.............................
20-9 20.4 Conclusions............................................................
20-13 21. 0 C ON C L U S I ON S.................................................................
21-1 1
4 1
i APPENDICES i
f391 j
APPENDIX A CONTINUATION OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY REVIEW OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY
]
SYSTEM PROJECTS NO. 3 AND NO. 5..............................
14-1 APPENDIX B REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEC ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS.
DATED APRIL 16, 1976.........................................
B-1 APPENDIX C ERRATA TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECTS NO. 3 AND NO. 5. DATED FEBRUARY. 1976...............................................
C-1 l
APPENDIX D LETTER FROM THE STAFF TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR l
SAFEGUARDS STAFF REGARDING WPPSS 3 (WNP-3) AND 5 (WNP-5)
SEI SMOLOGY AND G EOLOGY REVI EW.................................
D-1
)
6 i
i e
e i
l 11 l
l LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 11.1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-3 AND WNP-5...............................
11-3 TABLE 11.2 CALCULATED PELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-3 AND WNP-5................................
11-4 TABLE 11.3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASE0US EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-3 AND WNP-5................................
11-5 TABLE 11.4 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES FROM WNP-3 AND WNP-5 OPERATION WITH SECTIONS II.A. II.B. AND II.C OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PAR' 50......................................................
11-7 TABLE 11.5
'.ALCULATED POPULATION DOSES FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OF APPENDIX ! TO 10 CFR PART 50.........................
11-8 TABLE 11.6 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS........
11-10 TABLE 15.1 RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS..........
15-2 TABLE 20.1 APPLICANT PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY NUCLEAR PLANT WNP-3 AND WNP-5. SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEM-WIDE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDI-TURES DURING PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS..................................................
20-F TABLE 20.2 PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOURCES OF FUNDS STATEMENTS FOR WNP-3 AND WNP-5.........................
20-6 2
TABLE 20.3 APPLICANT PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR PLANT WNP-3, SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEM-WIDE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDI-TURES DURING PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT...................................................
20-7 TABLE 20.4 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOURCES OF FUNDS STATEMENTS FOR WNP-3.........................
20-8 TABLE 20.5 APPLICANT PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY NUCLEAR PLANT WNP-3, SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEM-WIDE CONSTRUCTION EXPEhDITURES DURING PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT...........................................
2n.10 TABLE 20.6 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOURCES OF FUNDS STATEMENTS FOR WNP-3.........................
20 11 TABLE 20.7 APPLICANT THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY NUCLEAR PLANT WNP-3, SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEM-WIDE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES DURING PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT...........................................
20-14 TABLE 20.8 THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOURCES OF FUNDS STATEMENTS FOR WNP-3.........................
20-15 iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND GENERAL DISCUSSION 1.1 Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (Comission) Safety Evaluation Report in the matter of the application by the Washington Public Power Supply System, Pacific Power & Light Company, Portland General Electric Company, Puget Sound Power & Light Company and The Washington Water Power Company (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) for Project No. 3 (WNP-3) and the Washington Public Power Supply System and Pacific Power & Light Company for Project No. 5 (WNP-5) to construct and operate the proposed facilities was issued on February 13, 1976.
The purpose of this supplement is to update the Safety Evaluation Report by providing (1) our evaluation of additional information submitted by tb applicants since the Safety Evaluation Report was issued, (2) our evaluation of the matters where we had not completed our review of information submitted by the applicants when the Safety Evalua-tion Report was issued and (3) our responses to the comments made by the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards in its report dated April 16, 1976.
Except for the appendices, each of the following sections of this supplement is numbered the same as the sections of the Safety Evaluation Report that is being updated, and the discussions are supplementary to and not in lieu of the discussion in the Safety Evalua-tion Report.
Appendix A to this supplement is a continuation of the chronology of the staff's principal i
actions related to processing of the WNP-3 and WNP-5 application. Appendix B is the Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on WNP-3 and WNP-5. Appendix C is a listing of errata to the Safety Evaluation Report.
1.9 Outstanding Issues
)
In Section 1.9 of the Safety Evaluation Report, we listed a number of outstanding issues. All of the outstanding issues have been resolved.
1 -1 2
l 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS l
i 2.1 Geography and Demography 1
2.1.2 Exclusion Area Control I
j The exclusion area is approximately circular in shape with a minimum boundary distance of 4.300 feet (1,310 meters) measured from approximately the center of either reactor building. The applicants have completed negotiations for either ownership or control through easements of all properties within the exclusion area with the exception of two parcel s.
In a letter dated June I,1976, the applicants have indicated that negotiations are continuing with the property owners in question for easements similar to those executed by other property owners within the exclusion area. In the event the current j
negotiations fail to produce agreements which provide the applicants with requisite au-thority to control these portions of the exclusion area, the applicants have stated their j
intention to either purchase outright or institute condemnation proceedings pursuant to authority granted by Washington state law.
4 f
With this commitment from the applicants, we conclude that there is reasonable assurance j
that the applicants will have the authority to determine all activities within the exclusion area as required by 10 CFR Part 100, i
l 9
i 1
I I
t l
i 2-1
)
3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS 3.6 Protection Against Dynamic Effects Associated with the Postulsted Rupture nf Piping 3.6.2 Protection Against Dynamic Effects Associated with the Postulated Rupture of High Energy Piping Outside Containment In the Safety Evaluation Report, we stated that we had reviewed the applicants' comitments regarding the design of the high and moderate energy piping systems and associated components and structures. We found them to be in accordance with the guidance set forth in the Commission's letter of July 12, 1974, " Protection Against Postulated Events and Accidents Outside Containment."
We further stated that the applicants had submitted a Topical Report. ETR-1002 " Design Considerations for the Protection from the Effects of Pipe Rupture," to define in more detail criteria which will be used in providing protection from these postulated events. The Topical Report also summarizes the analytical methods to be employed to assess the consequences of the postulated failure. We stated that we would require that the criteria described in this topical report be consistent with the staff technical positions.
In Amendment 33 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR), the applicants deleted reference to the Topical Report. As stated in the Safety Evaluation Report, we continue to find that the applicants' comitments, as stated in the PSAR regarding the design of the high and moderate energy piping systems and associated components and structures, are in accordance with our design criteria and are acceptable, We consider this item resolved.
3.9 Mechanical Systems and Components 3.9.2 ASME Code Class 2 and 3 Components 3.9.2.1 Design and Installation Criteria, Pressure Relieving Devices We reported in the Safety Evaluation Report that the applicants had referenced two recently developed computer codes, LOADFACT and PIPESTRESS 2010, for use in analyzing the effects of dynamic loadings associated with the sudden operation of pressure relieving devices. We stated that we would require the applicants to establish the I
validity of these codes for this type of analysis in accordance with our technical positions.
1 In Amendment 30 to the PSAR, the applicants submitted program validation infonnation for PIPESTRESS 2010. Also in Amemdment 30, the applicants stated that applicable l
l l
validation information for LOADFACT could be obtained from reviewing the elastic 1
solution validation results for a code entitled Plast 2267, as contained in ropical Report ETR-1002.
I 3-1
We have reviewed this information and find 2 hat the validations, as submitted, comply with our technical positions as described in Standard Review Plan 3.9.1.
Therefore, we consider this issue to be resolved.
I 3-2
i 1
i i
i 6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES I
'1 4
6.2 Containment Systems i
6.2.8 Containment Air Purification and Cleanup Systems i
In the Safety Evaluation r.eport, we described the applicants' proposed spray additive system and stated that becane of the unproven design of this system, we would re-
)
quire integral pre-operational testing of the spray and spray additive system to demonstrate adequate performance of the design. These pre-operational tests must be of sufficient detail to permit the evaluation of the capability of the system to inject sodium hydroxide into the containment spray flow at an adequate rate to produce 1
an hydrogen ion concentration (pH) value of 8.5 in the containment sump at the end of injection, while maintaining the spray solution within the pH values of 9.0 and 11.0.
The performance of the system within these limits must be demonstrated with a single active failure in the spray or spray additive system or any support system. In Amendment 30 to the PSAR, the applicants described a series of pre-operational tests which include integrated testing of the spray and spray additive system with a single 4
active failure either in the spray or spray additive system. The spray additive tank will be filled with water in lieu of sodium hydroxide. The results of these integrated 4
tests will be correlated with separate sodium hydroxide flow measurements. We find f
this pre-operational testing commitment acceptable et the construction permit stage of review, and we consider this issue to be resolved.
1 l
I 1
d I
I 6-1 i
a
,...-a_
- ~ ~. -
a
9.0 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS 9.5 Other Auxiliary Systems 9.5.1 Fire Protection System in Amendments 30 and 31 to the PSAR, the applicants documented the following informa-tion to resolve our concerns regarding the fire protection system:
(1) Portable Halon 1301 fire extinguishers will be used as the fire extinguishing agent in the control room cabinets and computer room cabinet.
(2) The fire extinguishing systen in the dry cooling tower electrical rooms will use ionization fire detectors, alams, and automatic Halon 1301 flooding.
(3) The Halon 1301 inventory of each Halon 1301 fire extinguisher will be checked quarterly by weighing the Halon container.
(4) Pre-action sprinklers with heat and ionization detectors and alann plus manual fire hoses will be provided in the electrical penetration areas.
(5) An automatic hydrogen analyzer and alann will be provided in the battery rooms to monitor hydrogen gas buildup from operation of the batteries. Portable Halon 1301 extinguishers will be located directly outside the battery rooms.
Hose stations and portable Halon 1301 extinguishers will be provided in the vicinity of the emergency switchgear rooms.
(6) The diesel fuel oil storage tanks have been moved from the previous location directly under the electrical rooms between the dry cooling towers to the opposite ends of the dry cooling towers. The electrical rooms for the dry cooling towers remain in the original area between the two dry cooling towers.
The electrical rooms and each diesel fuel oil storage tank will be enclosed in barriers with a minimum fire rating of three hours. The diesel fuel oil storage tank areas will be provided with automatic foam system with alarms.
(7) In Section 9.3.3 of the PSAR. the applicants stated that the safety related equipment rooms with automatic sprinkler systems such as the cable vault areas will be provided with floor drains.
Based on our review of the above fire protection system modifications, we conclude that the design criteria and bases meet the requirements of Criterion 3 of the General 9-1 l
l l
Design Criteria regarding d3 sign of structures and systems and provision of fire detection and fighting systems of appropriate capacity and capability to minimize the probability and effect of fires and are acceptable. We, therefore, consider this issue resolved. However, as a result of investigations presently being con-ducted by the staff on fire protection systems, additional requirements may be imposed before plant operation to further improve the capability of the fire protection system to prevent unacceptable demage that may result from a fire.
1 i
l l
l 9-2
l t
1 11.0 RADIDACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 11.6 Evaluation Findings i
On April 30, 1975, the Commission adopted Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 " Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the i
Criterion 'As Low As Reasonably Achievable for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents'." To effectively implement the requirements of Appendix 1, we have reassessed the parameters and mathematical models used in calcu-lating releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents in order to comply with the Comission's guidance. This guidance directed that current operating data, applicable to proposed radwaste treatment and effluent control systems for a facility, be considered in the assessment of the input parameters. The input para-meters, models and their bases are given in Regulatory Guide 1.BB, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)." September 9, 1975.
By letter from Daniel R. Muller to J. J. Stein, dated September 12, 1975, we requested the applicants to submit additional information concerning the means proposed to be employed to keep levels of radioactive materials in effluents from WNP-3 and WNP-5 to unrestricted areas "as low as reasonably achievable" in accordance with Appendix I guidelines. In a letter dated October 17, 1975, the applicants chose to perform the cost-benefit analysis required by Section 11.0 of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50.
We have performed an independent evaluation of the applicants' proposed methods to meet the requirements of Appendix I as documented in Supplement 6 to the Environmental Report. Our evaluation consisted of: (1) a review of the information provided by the applicants in response to the letter of September 12,1975;(2) a review of the applicants' proposed radwaste treatment and effluent control systems as described in the PSAR as amended through Amendment 27 and in the Environmental Report as amended through Amendment 5; (3) the calculation of new source terms based on models and parametars as given in Regulatory Guide 1.BB; and (4) the calculation of the cost-benefit of potential radwaste treatment augments, using doses based on the source tenns calculated in (3) above and guidance as given in Regulatory Guide 1.110. " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors" (March 1976).
The individual and population doses were calculated using the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Average Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50.
Appendix I" (March 1976). Meteorologic and hydrologic factors in the dose calcu-lations were determined using the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.111. " Methods for l
11-1
Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Disptrsion of Gaseous Efflu1nts from Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors" (March 1976), and in Regulatory Guide 1.EE, " Analytical Models for Estimating Radioisotope Concentration in Different Water Bodies" (September 1975).
We have determined the quantities of radioactive materials that will be released in the liquid and gaseous effluent streams during normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The principal radionuclides expected to be released in liquid and gaseous effluents are given in Tables 11.1 and 11.2 to this supplement. In making these determinations, we have considered waste flows, radionuclide activities, and equipment decontamination factors, which are consistent with those expe r M over the 40 year operating life of the plant, considering normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. A list of the parameters used in these determina-tions is given in Table 11.3.
In our evaluation, we have determined that for each reactor on the WNP-3 and WNP-5 site that (1) the release of all radioactive materials above background in liquid ef fluents will not result in an annual dose or dose commitment to any individual in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure in excess of 3 milliroentgens equiv-alent man (millirems) to the total body and 10 millirems to any organ, (2) the release of all radioactive materials above background in gaseous effluents will not result in an estimated annual air dose at any location near ground level which could be occupied by individuals in unrestricted areas in excess of 10 milliradiation absorbed doses (millirads) for gamma radiation or 20 millirads for beta radiation, and (3) the release of all radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate form above background will not result in an annual dose or dose conunitment to any individual in an unre-stricted area from all pathways of exposure in excess of 15 millirems to any organ.
For the cost-benefit analyses, we considered the potential effectivene;s of augmenting the proposed liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems using items of reasonably demonstrated technology. We further considered whether additional augmentation would
~
effectively reduce the cumulative population dose reasonably expected within a 50 mile l
radius of the reactors.
l I
We evaluated the potential radwaste system augments based on a study of the design of the applicants' systems, on the dose infonnation provided in Tables 11.4 and 11.5 of this supplement, on the basis of an interim value of $1,000 per man-roentgens equivalent man (man-rem) to the total body and $1,000 per man-rem to the thyroid for reductions in dose by the application of augments, and on the cost of potentini radwaste system augments as presented in Regulatory Guide 1.110.
The doses fr xn gaseous releases to the population within a 50 mile radius of each reactor, when multiplied by $1,000 per man-tem to the total body or $1,000 3 *r man-rem to the thyroid, resulted in a cost-assessment value of $7,000 for the man-rem ocse to the total body and $8,000 for the man-rem dose to the thyroid. Similarly, the doses from liquid releases resulted in cost-assessment values of $610 for the man-rem doses to the total body and $1,100 for the man-rem doses to the thyroid.
11-2
1 TABLE 11.1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIDACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-3 and WNP-5 (Curies per year per unit)
Waste Gas Condenser Processing Reactor Auxiliary Turbine Air Nuclide System Bldo Bldo Bldg Removal Vent Total Krypton-83m a
a a
a a
a Krypton-85m a
1 2
a 1
4 Krypton-85 260 1
a a
a 260 Krypton-87 a
a 1
a a
1 Krypton-88 a
2 4
a 2
8 Krypton-89 a
a a
a a
a Xenon-131m a
3 a
a a
3 Xenon-13)n a
7 a
a a
7 Xenon-133 a
570 33 a
21 620 Xenon-135m a
a a
a a
a Xenon-135 a
6 4
a 3
13 Xenon-137 a
a a
a a
a Xenon-138 a
a 1
a a
1 Iodine-131 a
2.1(-3) 4.3(-3) 2.4(-4) 2.7(-3) 9.3(-3)
Iodine-133 a
8.3(-4) 6.2(-3) 3.4(-4) 3.9(-3) 1.l(-2)
Cobalt-60 7(-5)D 4.7(-5) 2.7(-4) a a
3.9(-4)
Cobalt-58 1.5(-4) 1(-4) 6(-4) a a
8.5(-4)
Iron-59 1.5. 5) 1(-5) 6(-5) a a
8.5(-5)
Manganese-54 4.5(-5) 3(-5) 1.8(-4 )
a a
2.5(-4)
Cesium-137 7.5(-5) 5.3(-5) 3(-4) a a
4.3(-4)
Cesium-134 4.5(-5) 3(-5) 1.8(-4) a a
2.5(-4)
Strontium-90 6(-7) 4.2(-7) 2.4(-6) a a
3.4(-6)
Strontium-89 3.3(-6) 2.4(-6) 1.3(-5) a a
1.9(-5)
Carbon-14 7.2 8(-1) a a
a 8
Hydrogen-3 a
380 380 a
a 760 Argon-41 a
25 a
a a
25 anegligible compared to overall source tenn, e.g., less than 1.0 curies per year noble gases, less than 1 (-4) curies per year iodine, exponential notation: 7(-5) = 7 x 10-5, b
11-3 I
i
_~.
l TABLE 11.2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-3 AND WNP-5 Curies per year Curies per year Nuclide per unit Nuclide per unit Chromium-51 8(-5)*
Tellurium-131m 4(-5)
Manganese-54 1(-3)
Tellurium-131 2(-5)
Iron-55 1(-4)
Iodine-131 5.9(-2)
Iron-59 5(-5)
. Tellurium-132 4.4(-4)
Cobalt-58 4.9(-3)
Iodine-132 2.5(-3)
Cobalt-60 8.8(-3)
Iodine-133 3.7(-3)
Bromine-83 8(-5)
Iodine-134 3(-5)
Rubidium-86 2(-5)
Cesium-134 2.7(-2)
Strontium-89 2(-5)
Iodine-135 1.1(-2)
Molybdenum-99 1.6(-3)
Cesium-136 2.8(-3)
Technetium-99m 1.6(-3)
Cesium-137 3.4(-2)
Tellurium-127m 1(-5)
Barium-137 9.7(-3)
Tellurium-127 2(-5)
Neptunium-239 2(-5)
Te11urium-129m 6(-5)
All Others Except Hydrogen-3 6(-5)
Tellurium-129 4(-4)
Total 2.1(-1) l Iodine-130 1.7(-4)
Hydrogen-3 7.6(+2) g exponential notation: 8,(-5) = 8 x 10-5 a
i
.i 4
i l
1 I
i 11 - _ -
TABLE 11.3 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM WNP-3 AND WNP-5 Peactor Power Level 3800 thermal megawatts Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Failed Fuel 0.12 percent (a)
Primary System 5
Mass of Coolant 5.4 x 10 pounds Letdown Rate 84 gallons per minute Shim Bleed Rate 1.1 gallons per minute Leakage to Secondary System 100 pounds per day Leakage to Containment Buildino (b)
Leakage to Auxiliary Buildings 160 pounds per day Frequency of Degassing for Cold Shutdowns 2 per year Secondary System Steam Flow Rate 1.7 x 10 pounds per hour 4
Mass of Steam / Steam Generator 1.6 x 10 pounds 5
Mass of Liquid / Steam Generator 1.6 x 10 pounds 6
Secondary Coolant Mass 2.8 x 10 pounds 3
Rate of Steam Leakage to Turbine Building 1.7 x 10 pounds per hour Fraction of Feedwater Processed Through Condensate Demineralizers 0.6 5
Steam Generator Blowdown Rate 1.7 x 10 pounds per hour 6
Containment Building Volume 3.4 x 10 cubic feet l
Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (shutdown) 4 Annual Frequency of Containment Purges (at power) 20 lodinePartitionFactors(gas / liquid)
Leakage to Auxiliary Butiding 0.0075 Steam Generator 0.01 Leakage to Turbine Building 1.0 Main Condenser / Air Ejector (volatile species) 0.15 aThis value is constant and corresponds to 0.12 percent of the operating power fission product source term as given in Regulatory Guide 1.B8. September 9,1975.
b0ne percent per day of the primary coolant noble gas inventory and 0.001 percent per day of the primary coolant iodine inventory.
1 11-5 l
l u
TABLE 11.3 (Continued) i Decontamination Factors (DF) for liquid wastes Floor Drain Wastes Laundry and Boron Recovery Inorganic Chemical Wastes.
Hot Shower System (BRS)
Regenerant Solutions Drains 4
4 lodine 1 x 10 1 x 10 1
4 5
Cesium Rubidium 2 x 10 1 x 10 j
5 5
Others 1 x 10 1 x 10 j
All Nuclides Except Iodine lodine 10l 10f Radwaste Evaporator DF 10 BRS Evaporator DF 10 Cesium and Antons Rubidium Other Nuclides Boron Recycle Feed Demineralizer DF 10 2
10 Primary Coolant Letdown Demineralizer DF 10 2
10 Evaporator Condensate Polishing Demineralizer, DF 10 10 10 Mixed Bed Condensate Demineralizer.DF 10 2
10 Turbine Air Removal System and Containment Building Internal Recirculation System Charcoal Filter,DF (Iodine Removal) 10 i
Fuel Handling Building and Auxiliary Building Ventilation System Charcoal Filter.DF (IodineRemoval) 10 l
l 11-6
TABLE 11.4 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSES FROM WNP-3 AND WNP-5 OPERATION i
WITH SECTIONS II.A. II.B AND II.C OF APPENDIX 1 TO 10 CFR PART 50 (Doses to Maximum Individual per Reactor Unit)
Appendix ! Dose Calculated Criterion Design Ob.iective Doses Liquid Effluents a
Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mrem /yr 2.1 mrem /yr Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr 2.6 mrem /yr Noble Gas Effluents b
Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 2.6 mrad /yr Eeta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 4.7 mrad /yr Dose to total body of an individual 5 mrem /yr 0.9 mrem /yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 2.1 mrem /yr C
Radiciodines and Particulates Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr 3.0 mrem /yr amillf rems per year bmillirads per year CCarbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.
e l
t in i
TABLE 11.5 CALCilLATED POPULATION DOSES FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, SECTION II.D OF APPENDIX ! TO 10 CFR PART 50*
Total Body Thyroid 4
Pathway man-roentgen equivalent man man-roentgen equivalent man Liquid 0.'61 1.1 Gaseous 6.8 8.0
- Based on the population reasonably expr H to be within a 50 mile radius of the reactor.
11-8
Potential radwaste system augments were salected from th2 list givin in Regulat:ry Guide 1.110. We considered 10 augments to the gaseous radwaste system and 10 augments to the liquid radwaste system. The total annual cost (TAC) for the gaseous radwaste system augments ranged from $8,000 to $660,000 per year. The TAC for the liquid radwaste system augments ranged from $11,000 to $200,000 per year. The principal
{
parameters used in determining the TAC are given in Table 11.6.
For the 20 augments evaluated, we found that the TAC for each augment exceeded the
$1,000 per man-rem to the total body or $1,000 per man-rem to the thyroid cost-benefit ratio. We concluded, therefore, that there were no cost-effective augments to reduce the cumulative population dose at a favorable cost-benefit ratic.
Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems as described in the PSAR without augments are capable of reducing releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents to "as low as reasonably achievable" levels in conformance with 10 CFR Part 50.34a and meet the requirements of Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 and are acceptable. We, therefore, consider the issue to be resolved, 11-9 I
L
)
TABLE 11.6 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS f
a Labor Cost Correction Factor, Federal Power Commission Region 7 1.3 Indirect Cost Factor" 1.62 D
Cost of Money 7 percent a
Capital Recovery Factor 0.0806 afrom Regulatory Guide 1.110.
From Applicants' Environmental Report Supplement 6.
1 11-10
15.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSES 15.5 Postulated Accidents 15.5.6 Radiological Consequences of Accidents The whole body dose model used by us to calculate the radiological consequences o~ the design basis accident has been revised since we reported the whole body doses in the Safety Evaluation Report. The revised whole body dose model considers explicit dose conversion factors for each isotope of interest, and this model was used to calculate the doses reported in Table 15.1 to this supplement. In addition, the thyroid dose from containment purging to control hydrogen accumulation following a design basis loss-of-coolant accident has been reduced to reflect the additional dose reduction credit obtained by use of the containment spray additive system. The revised doses in this supplement do not affect our conclusion stated in the Safety Evaluation Report that the doses calculated for the design basis accidents are well within the applica-ble guideline exposures of Regulatory Guide 1.4, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiologcial Consequences of a Loss-of-Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors " and thus a small fraction of the 10 CFR Part 100 guideline values.
15-1 l
4 T
l t
i I
TABLE 15.1 RADIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF I
I DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENTS ExclusionArea/ -
LowPopulationZone5/
a 2-Hour Dose 30-Day Dose, I
roentgen equivalent man roentgen equivalent man Accident Thyroid Whole Body Thyroid Whole Body I
i l
Loss-of-Coolant 74 15 25 4
l Hydrogen Purge 2
<1 Fuel Handling
.3 1
I.
I 1
i a/ xclusion area boundary distance = 1.310 meters E
5/ ow population zone distance = 4,830 meters (3 miles)
L I
i i
i i
f i
i i
l 15-2
18.0 REVIEW BY THE ADVISORY COPNITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS i
The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (the Committee) completed its review of the application for construction pemits for the Washington Public Power Supply System Units No. 3 and No. 5 at its 192nd meeting held April 8-10, 1976. The application was also considered during the 191st meeting of the Comittee held March 4-6, 1976. A copy of the Committee's report, dated April 16, 1976, which contains comments and recomendations, is attached as Appendix B to this supplement. The actions we have taken or plan to take in response to these comments and recommendations are described in the following paragraphs.
(1) The Comittee stated that if studies, conducted with the best available tech-niques, establish that significant further emergency core cooling system improve-ments can be achieved, consideration should be given to incorporating such improvements into WNP-3 and WNP-5.
Studies are being conducted by several reactor vendors and the staff to better define the current safety margins associated with emergency core cooling systems.
More specifically, we are holding generic discussions with Combustion Engineering regarding the concept of combined hot and cold siae emergency core cooling system injection. Current efforts by the staff are aimed at detemining if hot leg (upper head) injection would bring about significant improvement in the reflood period after a loss-of-coolant accident. Experiments to detemine the effective-ness of alternate emergency core cooling injection modes such as these are planned to be perfomed at the semiscale test facility in.-laho.
In addition, we are developing advanced ccmputer models for emergency core cooling systems performance evaluation. We will consider the results of these studies in evaluating any future modifications to the WNP-3 and WNP-5 emergency core cooling system.
(2) The Committee stated that a generic question has arisen concerning loads on the vessel support structure for certain postulated loss-of-coolant accidents in pressurized water reactors, and that this matter should be resolved for WNP-3 and WNP-5 in a manner satisfactory to the staff.
In a letter dated November 26, 1975, we requested the applicants to verify that the final design procedures would account for transient asymetric pressure loads on the reactor vessel supports. In a letter from N. O. Strand to B. C. Rusche, dated December 31, 1975, the applicants stated that it is their intent that the final design of the reactor vessel support system will take into account these asymmetric loads in combination with the appropriate loss-of-coolant accident and seismic loads. The applicants further stated that the results of these analyses and the final design parameters for the supports will be incorporated in i
18-1
the Final Safety Analysis Report. We consider this to be an acceptable commitment, and, that accordingly, the design of the reactor vessel supports is acceptable for the construction pennit stage of review.
(3) The Committee expressed the view that the applicants and the staff should continue g
to review the WNP-3 and WNP-5 design for features that could reduce the possibility and consequences of sabotage.
As we stated in the Safety Evaluation Report, we have concluded that the appli-cants' arrangements for protection of the plant against acts of industrial sabotage are acceptable for the construction pemit stage of review. We have undertaken a study, on a generic basis, of design features of nuclear power plants to reduce the possibility and consequences of sabotage. We will apply the results of this study, as appropriate, to the WNP-3 and WNP-5 design.
(4) The Comittee wishes to be informed of the specific application of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant fire special review group's recomendations as they apply to WNP-3 and WNP-5. These recomendations describe the development of additional infonnation for fire prevention, fire fighting, quality assurance, and improvement of Comission policies, procedures and criteria.
We are proceeding with a program to conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of nuclear power plants based on the staff's newly developed guidelines for fire protection system. The guidelines considered experience gained from the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant fire, recomendations from the special review group, Nuclear Energy Liability-Property Insurance Association, and other qualified fire protection consulting agencies. The fire protection systems for WNP-3 and WNP-5 will be upgraded if the results of our evaluation so dictate. We will inform the Comittee of the results of our review.
(5) The Committee expressed its continuing concern regarding generic problems related to large water reactors, recommending that such problems be dealt with appropri-ately by the applicants and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff.
These generic problems are discussed in a report by the Committee dated April 16, 1976. These problems are being worked on by the various reactor vendors, other industrial organizations and the staff, and will be the subject of our continuing attention.
(6) The following additional coment was appended to tte letter:
"The recurrence interval of an earthquake of the order of the safe shut-down earthquake (SSE) may be about 1,000 years for this site. For such a recurrence interval the probability of not achieving safe shutdown, given the SSE, must be very small if the staff goal of less than 10~7 per 18-2
}
l i
year, of a serious accident from any single cause, is to be achieved.
Since seismic design adequacy is not subject to direct experimental confir-mation, we believe that other measures, including independent design review, low-amplitude shaking measurements of the completed structure, as-built construction validstion, and detection of possible inservice degrada-tion, should be evaluated and the necessary steps taken to provide the high degree of detailed specific assurance required with regard to seismic capability of all safety-related features."
We have in the past identified as a desirable safety objective for a large pop-ulation of reactors that the probability of an accident with consequences that would significantly exceed the 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines from one accident source should be 10-7 per reactor-year or less. This objective was primarily set for application in postulated accidents where we have been able to quantify or bound the probabilities (e.g., in the anticipated transients without scram case and in considering aircraft crashes), but was not intended for use in seismic design.
In the case of seismic design, we believe that a quantitive definition of various probabilistic parameters is still beyond the reach of the current state-of-the-art. Therefore, the use of a deterministic and conservative ap-proach to ensure seismic design adequacy of safety related structures and systems is more appropriate.
The seismic design criteria of WNP-3 and WNP-5 were reviewed and accepted on the basis of deterministic considerations. We concluded that the WNP-3 and WNP-5 seismic design will comply with applicable staff positions as set forth in Section 3.7 of the Standard Review Plan.
With regard to seismic capability of equipment, all essential mechanical and electrical equipment, including supports, in the WNP-3 and WNP-5 facilites will be seismically qualified by experiment and/or analysis as indicated in the Safety Evaluation Report. This seismic qualification is in accordance with the requirements of Appendix C in the Safety Evaluation Report, and is consistent with our positions set forth in Sections 3.9.2, 3.9.3 and 3.10 of the Standard Review Plan and IEEE Standard 344-1975, "IEEE Reconunended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations." In addition, we are conducting a seismic audit program to assess the implementation of approved qualification methods and procedures for all essential mechanical and electrical equipment. This audit is being accomplished through visits to architect engineering companies, reactor vendors, and to typical plant sites to evaluate the test or analytical method employed for each item of equipment taking into account the actual configuration and mounting location of the item.
18-3
The measures noted are, nevertheless, considered significant and should be imple-mented if we are to further improve the reliability arJ conservatism of seismic design for safety related structures and systems. Ve are currently studying the advisability of implementing the above recommended,easures, specifically, the implementation of an independent design review of plants.
We believe that the acceleration for seismic design which was accepted for the WNP-3 and WNP-5 site is near an upper bound value based on the geology and seismicity of the Puget Sound Region. Though the probability of this event being exceeded has not been detennined, we believe that it is extremely low.
With respect to the comment on the probability of not achieving safe shutdown given an SSE of about 1000 years recurrence period, the design criteria used in the seismic design of the plant are such that the probability of not achieving safe shutdown is indeed very small but cannot be realistically quantified at this time.
We are of the opinion that there is not further need to implement other measures such as independent design review, low amplitude shaking of completed structures and detection of possible inservice degradation, insofar as licensing of WNP-3 and WNP-5 is concerned.
7.
The following additional comment was appended to the letter:
"With increasing frequency, questions have arisen concerning the appropriate degree of conservatism to be included in the seismic design criteria for nuclear power plants. The needs of public safety would be best served if the design practices currently in vogue were altered to permit inelastic response so as to enhance the energy absorption characteristics of nuclear structures under severe seismic loadings. For the more severe seismic con-ditions inelastic design principles should be applied to foundations, con-crete containments, floors, and support structures in order to assure a high degree of damping and thus minimize the forces transmitted to critical safety features and to the primary coolant circuitry. This would eliminate the need for many of the complex supplemental structural features of questionable reliability which are now used to meet extreme seismic design conditions. This design approach would allow nuclear structures to satisfy even the most pessimistic loading requirements of the most extreme seismic prophet. If it is not used there is doubtful value, and possibly some loss in public safety margin, from the use of ultraconservative seismic design requirements because the reliability of the structural restraints cannot be assessed from relevant structrual experience or post-construction vibra-tional testing."
l 18-4
i We considered the concerns expressed in the above statement on the appropriate degree of conservatism to be included in the seismic design criteria for nuclear power plants, and how best would the needs of public safety be served if in-elastic design prirciples instead of the elastic design approaches currently used were applied in the design and analysis of structures for the severe seismic conditions. We recognize some of the anomalies of elastic design. However, the current elastic design approach to seismic design has been established after extensive research and development. Research efforts in recent years have demonstrated that earthquake effects, including lack of damage as well as damage, 3
usually cannot be totally reconciled with elastic unit stresses and current design procedures. Various inelastic design methods have been proposed by several investigators, and certain empirical relationships and approximations are employed in order to reduce the complex problem of inelasticity and energy to more general application. However, there is a lack of more rigorous approach and the absence of complete scientific justification for the inelastic methodology.
For instance, if the response spectrum approach which is rigorously applicable to structures only in the elastic range is used, inelastic response spectra have to be established. Since nonlinear systems have no true vibrational modes, such inelastic response spectra are generally obtained by modifying the elastic respor.se spectra, which is, at best, an approximation and requires experience and judgment.
There are other questions such as the damping values and ductility ratios to be used. Basically, the state-of-the-art of the non-linear design approach has not yet reached the point for more general and imediate application.
Realizing the limitations of the elastic approach, we have allowed the use of ultimate strength design for concrete structures and plastic design for steel structures in the design of member sections. We are presently considering the use of the inelastic approach for reevaluation of already built nuclear plants.
In addition, the inelastic approach is being considered for non-Category I structures, systems and components. Furthermore, we are considering the en-gagement of experienced consultants to investigate and establish nonlinear design approaches.
(8) The following additional coment was appended to the letter:
"The site for WPPSS Nuclear Projects No. 3 and No. 5 Ifes in a seismically active region that has been subject to large earthquakes in historic time and includes active major faults. While we do not disagree with the proposed seismic design basis, we believe it would be desirable to have the geologic and seismic aspects of such sites, and perhaps most sites, also reviewed by the U. S. Geological Survey to provide the benefit of an additional independent evaluation."
The comment does not question the adequacy of the seismic design basis selected for the site. Rather it relates to the policy presently followed by the staff in detemining the need for obtaining the advice of the U. S. Geological Survey in the review cf nuclear plant sites. As indicated in our Standard Review Plan, 18-5 I
i Section 2.5.1, a decision is made during the acceptance review as to the extent consultants such as the U. S. Geological Survey should be involved in the review.
This decision is based on considerations which include the complexity of the geology of the site and surrounding region, the proximity of the site to previously reviewed sites, and familiarity of the staff with the region. The bases for our l
decision to not involve the U. S. Geological Survey in the review of the WNP-3 and WNP-5 site are addressed in a memorandum from Edson G. Case to Raymond R. Fraley dated March 30, 1976, which is included in this report as Appendix D.
We are reviewing our policy regarding the involvement of the U. S. Geological Survey in case reviews.
i I
4 1
4 4
0 4
i j
i 4
?
I i
i l
l 18-6
20.0 FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS 20.1 Introduction In the Safety Evaluation Report, we stated that we would report the results of our evaluation of the applicants' financial qualifications in a supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report. The applicants have provided additional financial infomation in Amendment 32 to the PSAR and a letter from D. L. Renberger to B. C. Rusche, dated April 20, 1976, indicating ownership of WNP-5. Our evaluation is presented below.
The Commission's regulations related to the financial data and infomation required to establish financial qualifications for applicants for facility construction permits appear in Paragraph 50.33(f) and Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 50.
In accordance with these regulations, the applicants Washington Public Power Supply System Pacific Power & Light Company, Portland General Electric Company, Puget Sound Power & Light Company and The Washington Water Power Company, submitted financial information with their application, as well as providing additional financial information in response to a request by us. Washington Public Power Supply System and the four investor-owned utilities are the applicants for WNP-3. Washington Public Power Supply System and Pacific Power & Light Company are the applicants for WNP-5. Their respective percentages of undivided ownership interest in each unit are listed below.
Ownership Interest (In percent)
WNP 3 WNP 5 Washington Public Power Supply System 70 90 Pacific Power & Light Company 10 10 Portland General Electric Company 10 Puget Sound Power & Light Company 5
The Washington Water Power Company 5
100 100 The following 6.31ysis summarizes our review of the application and the additional information and addresses the qualifications of each applicant to finance its un-divided interest in the costs of designing and constructing the unit (s) in which it is a participant.
20.2 Construction Cost Est mates The applicants have submitted construction cost estimates for the facility as follows:
(
(
20-1
i 1
WNP-3 and WNP-5 (dollars in millions)
Nuclear production plant costs........................
$2.380.1 Transmission, distribution and general plant costs....
35.7 Nuclear fuel inventory cost for first core............
134.8 Total
$2,550.6 The applicants' estimated cost for the nuclear production plant has been compared with costs estimated by the CONCEPT computer costing model. The Oak Ridge National l
Laboratory (ORNL) which does the CONCEPT computer work for the staff states that
" estimates produced by the CONCEPT code are not intended as substitutesfor detailed engineering cost estimates, but were prepared as a rougo check on the applicants' estimate." The CONCEPT costing model projected the cost of the nuclear production plant to be $1.942.0 million. Discussions with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the applicants indicate that extraordinary structural requirements for the units I
(which are not assumed by the CONCEPT mo 91) a count for a significant portion of the difference between the two estimates. In addition, the units will have a smaller proportion of common use facilites than is assumed by the CONCEPT model. We have
]
concluded that it is reasonable to use the applicants' estimate for purposes of this j
analysis because it represents the more detailed engineering cost study for this i
specific project.
1 20.3 Participants and Financing Plans 20.3.1 Washington Public Power Supply System L
Washington Public Power Supply System is a municipal corporation and a joint opera-ting agency of the State of Washington. It is composed of eighteen operating public utility districts of the State of Washington and the cities of Richland, Seattle and I
Tacoma, Washington. Washington Public Power Supply 3ystem has statutory authority to acquire, construct and operate plants and facilities for the generation and transmis-sion of electric power. It has completed two electric generating projects: the 27.5 megawatt Packwood Hydroelectric Project and the 860 megawatt Hanford Steam Electric Project. In addition to WNP-3 and WNP-5, Washington Public Power Supply System has i
under construction or in advance planning, three additional nuclear units, namely WNP-1, WNP-2, and WNP-4. Washington Public Power Supply System does not engage in the distribution of power to retail customers, but is reimbursed for the cost of each I
project, including debt service, by the participants therein. Also, it is not under the jurisdiction of any regulatory agency having control over its' rates and services of the existing and proposed projects.
i The respective financial obligations between Washington Public Power Supply System i
and the above-named investor-owned companies are covered in the Ownership Agreement.
Such agreement provides that each party shall be responsible for providing its own-I ership share of the costs of construction and operation, and will be entitled to its ownership share of the units' electrical capability. Under the Ownership Agreement, the investor-owned utilities have designated Washington Public Power Supply System to act as their agent to construct, operate and maintain the project.
20-2
l Washington Public Power Supply System will finance its 70 percent ownership in WNP-3 l
f and its 90 percent ownership in WNP-5 through the issuance of its revenue notes and its long-term revenue bands. These securities are issued from time to time as con-struction funds are required. Washington Public Power Supply System engages in
" project financing" and thus each of its security issues is related to a specific construction project. Its recent revenue bond offerings have been rated Aaa, the highest rating by Moody's and by Standard and Poor's. Washington Public Power Supply System issued $150 million of revenue bonds in December 1975 to finance construction of WNP-3 and an additional $100 million in April 1976. It issued $100 million of revenue bonds in July 1975 in partial support of preliminary work on WNP-5. An additional revenue bond issuance is planned during 1976 in support of WNP-5.
As noted above Washington Public Power Supply System is not a retail distributor of electric power. Its 70 percent share in the capacity of WNP-3 and its 90 percent share in the capacity of WNP-5 will be sold to approximately 100 consumer-owned util-ities in the Pacific Northwest. The Net Billing Agreements provide the contractual arrangements whereby the participants are obligated to make payments to Washington Public Power Supply System for their pro-rata shares of project costs whether or not the project is completed, operable or operating, and notwithstanding interruption or curtailment of output. Thus, the satisfaction of project costs is not solely depen-dent on actual project revenues, but is insured on a broad base through other revenue-producing assets of the participants. Each participant has covenanted that it will establish, maintain and collect rates or charges for power, energy and other services furnished through its electric utility properties which shall be adequate to provide revenues sufficient to make the required payments to Washington Public Power Supply System. The aforementioned contractual arrangements and the underlying revenue-pro-ducing capability provide the security for the servicing of Washington Public Power Supply System revenue bonds and notes.
20.3.2 Pacific Power & Light Company Pacific Power & Light Company is an investor-owned electric utility operating in six states in the West and the Pacific Northwest. It serves approximately 540,000 resi-dential, commercial, and industrial customers as well as selling power at wholesale to consumer-owned utilities. Pacific Power & Light Company's operating revenues in-creased from $254.2 million for the 12 months ended February 28, 1975, to $309.4 million for the 12 months ended February 29, 1976, and net income increased from
$56.1 million to $72.7 million over the same period. Invested capital on December 31, 1975 amounted to $1, 542.6 million and consisted of 53.5 percent long-tenn debt, 10.2 percent preferred stock and 36.3 percent comon equity. The company's first mortgage bonds are rated "Baa" by Moody's and "A " by Standard and Poor's.
Pacific Power & Light company plans to finance its ten percent portion of the WNP-3 and WNP-5 design and construction costs as part of its overall construction program.
The funds will be provided from a combination of internally-generated sources (in-cluding retained earnings, depreciation and deferred taxes) and from the issuance of 20-3
sicuriti;s including long-tzm dibt, prsfirred stack and common stock. Int:Erim fund-ing requirements will be met with short-term borrowing. In response to our request, j
the company has submitted a source of funds statement (or financing plan) with under-lying assumptions for its system-wide construction expenditures for the period 1976 through 1982, the estimated earliest year for completion of WNP-5.
The financing plan and assumptions are shown in Tables 20.1 and 20.2, respectively.
l Pacific Power & Light Company is subject to regulatory jurisdiction by state comissions in Oregon. Idaho, Washington, California, Montana and Wyoming. Since December 31, 1974 Pacific Power & Light Company has been granted seven rate increases in five of the jurisdictions totalling $55.9 million on an annua 11 zed basis. The allowed rates of return on comon equity ranged from 11.25 percent to 13.5 percent. The company has four rate increases pending which request an average 15.0 percent return on comon equity and a total annual revenue increase of $35.0 million.
20.3.3 Portland General Electric Company Portland General Electric Company ir 2n investor-owned electric utility operating in northwest Oregon. It serves approximately 390,000 residential and industrial customers as well as selling power at wholesale to other utilities. Portland General Electric Company's operating revenues increased from $146.8 million for the 12 months ended January 31,1975, to $184.8 million for the 12 months ended January 31, 1976, and net income increased from $30.3 million to $51.2 million over the same period. Invested capital on December 31, 1975 amounted to $837.4 million and con-sisted of 53.1 percent long-tenn debt,13.0 percent preferred stock and 33.9 percent common equity. The company's first mortgage bonds are rated "Baa" by Moody's and "BBB" by Standard and Poor's.
Portland General Electric Company plans to finance its ten percent portion of the WNP-3 design and construction costs as part of its overall construction program.
The funds will be provided from a combination of internally-generated sources (in-cluding retained earnings, depreciation and deferred taxes) and from the issuance of securities including long-term debt, preferred stock and comon stock. Interim
)
funding requirements will be met with short-term borrowing. In response to our request, the company has submitted a sources of funds statement (or financing plan) with underlying assumptions for its system-wide construction expenditures for the period 1976 through 1981, the estimated earliest year for completion of WNP-3. The financing plan and assumptions are shown in Tables 20.3 and 20.4, respectively.
Portland General Electric Company is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission of Oregon. The company's most recent retail rate action, effective September 26, 1975, was a 24.7 percent increase amounting to $39.6 million on an annual basis. A 13.3 percent rate of return on common equity was allowed in l
the case. Portland General Electric Company has requested a further 20 percent in-crease amounting to $42.2 million on an annual basis. A 13.3 percent rate of return on comor equity has been requested.
20-4
TABLE 20.1 APPLICANT PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY NUCLEAR PLANT WNP-3 AND WNP-5 SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEM-WIDE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES DURING PERIOD i
0F CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS (millions af dollars)
Construction Years of Subject Nuclear Power Plants Security issues and other funds 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Coninon Stock
$ 120
$ 140
$ 80
$ 70
$ 100
$ 140 50 40 20 30 40 Preferred stock 40 Long-term debt 95 140 200 180 160 155 207 (18)
Notes payable (17) 17 (7)
Contributions from parent-net Other funds 119 8
Total W
285 383 300 2ff 285 F
Internal funds Net income 82 97 123 145 162 174' 188 Less:
Preferred dividends 13 16 19 23 26 29 32 Common dividends 51 57 68 80 89 95 110 Retained earnings 18 24 36 42 47 50 52 Deferred taxes 3
2 2
2 3
3 3
Invest. tax cred.
(deferred) 2 9
1 3
10 12 15 Depreciation & amort.
40 46 48 52 62 70 85 Less: AFDC 23 22 43 55 53 65 80 Total 40 59 44 44 69 70 75 TOTAL FUNDS
$W
$ 344
$ 427
$ 344
$ 301 5 355 5 462 Construction Expenditures
- Nuclear power plants 5 54
$ 166
$ 171
$ 178
$ 185
$ 175
$ 190 Other 223 156 265 188 126 183 293 Total const. Exp's.
$ UT
$ Ef
$M
$W
$ llT
$N
$ 481 Subject nuclear plant
$ 11 18 31
$ 26
$ 18
$ 12 3
- Exclusive of AFDC (allowance for funds used during construction) l 20-5
_ _- ~
TABLE 20.2 PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPA*E 3
j INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOURCES OF f
FUNDS STATEMENTS FOR WNP-3 AND WNP !
(1) Capitalization goals of 52 percent Debt,10 percent Preferred Stock and 38 percent Conynon Equity; (2) Rates of 9-1/2 percent on long-tenn debt and preferred stock; (3) Short-tenn interest rates at 8-1/2 percent.
?
I (4) Over-all rate of return up to 9.83 percent; (5) Price / earnings ratio of 10; I
l (6) Dividend payout ratio of approximately 65 percent, and i
(7) Coverages sufficient to maintain current bond ratings.
f (8) Preferred Stock Coverage requirement and its method of calculation as contained j
in the " Restated Articles of Incorporation " Article III (17) (c) (Attached).
For the period 1976-1983, the coverage of total interest and preferred dividends combined would be:
l 1976 1.85X 1980 1.90X 1977 1.86X 1981 1.94X 1978 1.93X-1982 1.93X 1979 1.91X 1983 1.87X k
o I
ou.s. oovanesment Fantisso orFics:1976 621.ts7/tzes 3.s 20 TABLE 20.3 APPLICANT PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY NUCLEAR PLANT WNP-3 SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEM-WIDE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES DURING PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (millions of dollars)
Construction Year of Sub.iect Nuclear Power Plant Security issues and other funds 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Common stock
$ 54
$ 79
$ 104
$ 60
$ 60 Preferred stock 25 38 38 (2)
(2)
(2)
Long-term debt 106 86 124 187 146 200 Notes payable (40)
(4) 1 48 27 (38)
Contributions from parent-net Other funds 9
5 14 16 25 Total 154
'T64 281 309 T8T internal funds Net Income 53 54 89 101 115 127 Less:
Preferred dividends 11 13 17 20 20 20 Comon dividends 27 33 41 47 52 57 Retained earnings 15 8
31 34 43 50 Deferred taxes 6
9 13 18 19 17 Invest. tax cred.
(deferred) 3 8
19 3
21 6
Depreciation & amort.
26 37 40 42 46 59 Less:
AFDC (15)
(22)
(36)
(57)
(56)
(51)
Total 35 40 -
67 40 73 81 TOTAL FUNDS
$ 189 I'T44 5 348
$ 349
$ 289 TF6T Construction Expenditures
- Nuclear power plants
$ 44
$ 60
$ 112
$ 172
$ 155
$177 Other 145 184 236 177 134 89 Total Const. Exp's.
$ 189 T NT 5 348 3 349 5 289 IT6if Subject nuclear plant
$ 10
$ 17
$ 28
$ 21
$ 12
$ 3
- Exclusive of AFDC (allowance for funds used during construction) 4 l
20-7
TABLE 20.4 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOURCES OF FUNDS STAT MENT FOR WNP-3 Item Numerical Value Rate of return on average comon stock equity 13.5 percent Preferred stock dividend rate (a) 10.0 percent Growth rates (b) a.
kilowatt hour sales 7.44 percent b.
revenues 16.48 percent c.
expenses 13.03 percent d.
interest charges 19.38 percent e.
net income 14.54 percent Market / book ratio with respect to project 1.00/1.00on2/29/76(d) comon stock offerings 1.21/1.00 on 12/31/85 Common stock dividend payout ratio 6.27 percent (1976) to 44.1 percent (1985)(e)
Target capital structure 55 percent debt 10 percent preferred stock 35 percent comon stock Resultant Security Exchange Comission and indenture 1976-2.330 1981-2.352 II coverages over the period of construction 1977-2.250 1982-2.356 1978-2.677 1983-2.247 1979-2.467 1984-2.337 1980-2.399 1985-2.199 Long-term debt interest rate 10 percent Short-term debt interest rate 8 percent (general) 8.5 percent (nuclear fuel)
(a)Appliestonewissues.
(b)Each element of revenue and expense is individually analyzed and forecasted so that no single growth rate is used in their development. The values given sumarize the results of all of the detailed analyses for the period December 31, 1975 to December 31, 1985 on an annually compounded rate of growth basis.
(c) Includes forecasted rate of increase in average sales pr!ce of 9.60 percent. Remaining
[
growth rate is caused by increased unit sales, j
(d)The market / book ratio is not an independent input; it is the product of other forecasts
~
I-and therefore varies over the range shown.
I') Varies over the range shown due to assumed 6 cents per year annual dividend' increment.
SI) December 31 covering earnings divided by December 31 annualized fixed charges, i
20-8
(
20.3.4 Puget Sound power & Light Company Puget Sound Power & Light Company is an investor-owned electric utility operating in northern and central Washington State. It serves approximately 410,000 residen-tial, comercial and industrial customers. Puget Sound Power & Light Company's op-erating revenues increased from $149.7 million for the 12 months ended March 31, 1975, to $169.6 million for the 12 months ended March 31, 1976, and net income increased from $19.6 million to $24.7 million over the same period. Invested capital on December 31, 1975 amounted to $622.9 million and consisted of 57.8 percent long-term debt 10.7 percent preferred stock and 31.5 percent comon equity. The company's first mortgage bonds are rated "Baa" by Moody's and "BBB" by Standard and Poor's.
Puget Sound Power & Light Company plans to finance its five percent portion of the WNP-3 design and construction costs as part of its overall construction progra.n. The funds will be provided from a combination of internally-generated sources (including retained earnings, depreciation and deferred taxes) and from the issuance of securi-ties including long-tenn, preferred stock and common stock. Interim funding re-quirements will be met with short-term borrowing. In response to our request, the company has submitted a sources of funds statement (or financing plan) with underlying assumptions for its system-wide construction expenditures for the period 1976 through 1981, the estimated earliest year for completion of WNP-3. The financing plan and assumptions are shown in Tables 20.5 and 20.6, respectively.
Puget Sound Power & Light Company is subject to regulatory jurisdiction by the Wash-ington Utilities and Transportation Comission. Its most recent rate increase amount-ed to $22.9 million or 19.9 percent on an annual basis and was effective November 1, 1974. The company has filed an additional $36.5 million rate increase request which would allow a 13.0 percent rate of return on comon equity.
20.3.5 The Washington Water Power Company The Washington Water Power Company is an investor-owned electric and gas utility operating in the states of Washington and Idaho. It serves approximately 190,000 residential, comercial, and industrial customers as well as selling power at whole-sate to consumer-owned utilities. The Washington Water Power Canpany's operating revenues increased from $117.4 million for the 12 months ended March 31, 1975 to
$142.5 million for the 12 months ended March 31,1976, and net income increased from
$14.6 million to $19.1 million over the same period. Invested capital on December 31, 1975 amounted to $409.7 million and consisted of 63.2 percent long-tenn debt and 36.8 percent comor equity. The company's first mortgage bonds are rated "A" by Moody's and Standard and Poor's.
The Washington Water Power Company plans to finance its five percent portion of the WNP-3 design and construction costs as part of its overall construction program. The funds will be provided from a combination of internally-generated sources (including 1
20-9
i l
TABLE 20.5 APPLICANT PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY NUCLEAR PLANT WNP-3 SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEM-WIDE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES DURING PERIOD 4
OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (Millions of dollars)
Construction Years of Subject Nuclear Power Plant Security issues and other funds 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Common stock
$ 24.7
$ 28.7
$ 25.9
$ 47.9
$ 71.4
$ 87.2 Preferred stock 22.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 40.0 0.0 Long-term debt 40.0 40.0 105.0 155.0 115.0 140.0 Notes Payable (short term)
(10.9) 12.0 18.5 15.4 12.7 12.1 Contribution from parent-net.
i Other funds (pollution control) 2.3 Total 78.1 105.7 184.4 263.3 239.1 239.3 Internal funds Netincome(adjusted) 30.0 46.8 52.4 76.2 99.1 112.2 Less:
Common dividends (15.3)
(18.0)
(23.6)
(29.8)
(37.7).
(19.3)
Preferred dividends (6.8)
(8.8)
(10.6)
(13.9)
(17.8)
(44.6)
Retained earnings 7.9 20.0 18.2 32.5 43.6 48.3 Deferred taxes 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.0 2.0 3.8 Investment tax credit (deferred) 7.3 6.0 6.4 10.3 8.5 8.3 Depreciation and amortization 19.0 21.1 22.6 24.6 28.7 35.2 Less: AFDC (6.5)
(12.3)
(24.5)
(44.4)
(59.0)
(68.6)
Total 29.4 36.6 24.1 24.0 23.8 27.0 TOTAL FUNDS
$107.6 $ 142.3
$2n8.5
$287.3
$262.9'
$266.3 Construction expenditures *
~
.$156.2
$150.5
$170.0 Nuclear power plants
$ 34.3
$ 67.5
$ 87.6 Other 73.2 74.8 120.9 131.1 112.4 93.3 Total Const. Expenditures
$107.5
$ 142.3
$208.5
$287.3
.$262.9
$266.3 Subject nuclear plant 5.8 8.3 13.7 10.4 7.3 3.1
- Exclusive of AFDC (allowance for funds used during construction)
This scurce of funds statement is based upon and qualified by the assumptions described on the attached pages and has been prepared and furnished at the request of the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission. It is not to be used in connection with the sale or purchase of the Company's securities.
l l
20-10
l TABLE 20.6 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY INPUT AS50MPT10NS FOR SOURCES OF FUNDS STATEMENTS FOR WNP-3 (1) Generally maintain a minimum of either a 13 percent return on average common equity or first mortgage bond indenture coverage of 2.2 times interest.
(2) Preferred dividend rate on new issue of 10 percent.
(3) Growth rate in kilowatt hour sales to consumers 6 percent.
(4) Inflation factor of 7~ percent compounded each year through 1982 for construction expen-ditures and certain operating and maintenance expense. 5 percent inflation factor com-i pounded each year to forecast operation and maintenance of major generation plant.
(5) Interest rates used in forecast:
Notes payable (short term):
Bank loans 10 percent Commercial paper 6 percent Long term debt 10.25 percent (6) Target capital structure:
1976-1980 1981-1982 Notespayable(shortterm) 5 percent 5 percent Long term debt 50 percent 50 percent Preferred stock 13 percent 10 percent Common stock 32 percent 35 percent (7) Common stock price / earnings ratio of 7 times earnings.
(8) Common dividend payout ratio averages 52 percent.
(9) Maximum dilution of common stock does not exceed 15 percent in any given year.
(10) In line with the 1975 Tax Reduction Act (Sec. 402 of F.L. na-12) the following investment tax credit assumptions are incorporated in the projections.
a.
Invest tax credit rate - 1976 at 10 percent; 1977 to.1982 at 4 percent, b.
Investment tax credit taken on progress payments on Colstrip 3 and 4. Skagit Units 1 and 2. and Pebble Springs Units 1 and 2.
Applicable transition percentages for phasing in qualified progress payment are 1976. 40 percent; 1977. 60 percent.
1978. 80 percent and 100 percent after 1978.
c.
Limitation on use of investment tax credit as a percent of tax liability is 100 per-cent for 1976 and is scaled down 10 percent each year until it reaches the 50 percent level in 1981.
(11) AFDC rate adjusted periodically to reflect composite cost of capital. AFDC accruing from construction of major production plant is normalized in 1977 and subsequent years.
20-11 r
I
TABLE 20.6 (Continued)
(12) Schedule of Major Plant Construction Puget Power Project Plant Ownership Share Completion Date Colstrip #2 - coal 50 percent August 1976 Colstrip #3 - coal 25 percent July 1980 Colstrip #4 - coal 25 percent July 1981 WNP #3 - nuclear 5 percent March 1982 Skagit #1 - nuclear 40 percent July 1983 Pebble Springs #1 - nuclear 20 percent July 1985 Skagit #2 - nuclear 40 percent July 1986 Pebbic Springs #2 - nuclear 20 percent July 1988 (13) Power Supply:
(a) System resources are based on an average of the 30 water years included in the 1975 west group forecast.
(b) Purchased hydro power costs debt service requirements are as precribed in the project owners official statement.
(c) Secondary (non-finn) sales are made either within or outside the Northwest Power Pool, i
and are based on relative levels of surplus. Revenues derived from sales are primarily based on established Bonneville (BPA)* rates or other agreements as applicable.
(d) Wheeling charges are based on:
(1) Required capacity to move purchased power to Puget's system.
(11)BPAestablishedrates (14) Other Infonnation (a) Security Exchange Comission Fixed charge cover.1e:
1976 = 1.95,1977 = 2.68,1978 = 2.30,1979 = 2.39,1980 = 2.36,1981 = 2.37,1982 = 2.39.
(b) Growth rate of revenue from sales of electricity 17 percent, expenses 15 percent, interest cost 21 percent, and net income 26 percent.
- Bonneville Power Administration 20-12
l retained earnings and depreciation) af.d from the issuance of securities including long-term debt, preferred stock and comon stock. Interim funding requirements will be met with short-term borrowing. In response to our request, the company has submitted a sources of funds statement (or financing plan) with underlying assumptions for its system-wide construction expenditures for the period 1976 through 1981, the estimated earliest year for completion of WNP-3..The financing plan and assumptions are shown in Tables 20.7 and 20.8 respectively.
The Washington Water Power Company is subject to regulatory jurisdiction by the Washir.gton Utilities and Transportation Commission and the Idaho Public Utilities Cemission. In August 1975. the Washington Commission authortted electric and gas increases totalling $3.6 million on an annual basis and allowed a 12.75 percent return on common equity. Also in August 1975. the Idaho Commision authorized electric and gas increases totalling $1.2 million on an annual basis and allowed a 12.75 percent return on common equtiy. The company had no rate requests pending as indicated in Amendment 32 to the PSAR.
20.4 Conclusions Based on the preceding analysis including our evaluation of the reasonableness of the financing plans and underlying assumptions, we have concluded that Washington Public Power Supply System, Pacific Power & Light Company. Portland General Electric Company, j
Puget Sound Power & Light, Company, and The Washington Water Power Company are finan-cially qualified to design and construct WNP-3 and WNP-5 in proportion to their re-spective undivided ownership interests as indicated in Section 20.1 of this supplement.
Our conclusion is based on the determination that the applicants have reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to complete the design and construction activities including related fuel cycle costs. It is also based on the basic assump-tions of rational regulatory environment and viable capital markets due to the lengthy future period involved and the expected Mavy dependence on external financing, i
1 20-13 f
TABLF 20.7 APPLICANT THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY NUCLEAR PLANT WNP-3 SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR SYSTEM-WIDE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES DURING PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (Millions of dollars)
Construction Year of Subject Nuclear Power Plant (I)
Security issues and other funds 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Coninon stock
$ 12.0
$ $ 23.0
$ 24.0
$ 15.0
$ 15.0 Preferred stock 15.0 15.0 20.0 Long-term debt 30.0 30.0 62.1 40.0 60.0 30.0 Notes payable (7.0) 9.0 (9.0) 29.0 (29.0) Contribution from parent-net Other funds (4.4) 4.6 (4.8) 2.8 3.9
(.8)
Total 30.6
~5T.6 86.3 95.8 6).9 44 2 Internal funds Net income 18.0 20.4 24.0 26.7 34.0 38.1 Less:
Preferred dividends 1.4 2.7 2.7 4.5 Common dividends 11.4 13.2 15.6 17.6 22.3 24.7 Retained earnings 6.6 7.2 7.0 6.4 9.0 8.9 Deferred taxes Invest tax red. (deferred) 1.9 1.4 2.4 3.4 1.9 1.6 Oepreciation 8 amort.
9.6 10.5 11.3 12.2 14.3 17.2 Less: AFDC 1.8
.6
.3
.4 4
.5 Total 16.3 TN T 20.4 21.6 24.8 27.2 TOTAL FUN 05 5 46.9
$ 78.3
$106.7
$117.4 5 94.7 5 71.4 ConstructionExpenditures(2)
Nuclear power plants
$ 9.8
$20.5
$ 34.1
$ 37.2
$ 35.7
$ 31.6 Other 37.1 57.8 72.6 80.2 59.0 39.8 Total const. Exp's.
$3EF
$T8 3
$ M ir 7
$1TTT
$ DET
$ 7E4 Subject nuclear plant
$ 5.7
$ 8.2
$ 13.6
$ 10.3
$ 7.2
$ 1.8 Interest coverage 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.4 II)Firstfiveyears(1976-1980) based on five year financial model data. Last two years pro-jected manually on a consistent basis.
I' IExclusive of AFDC (allowance for funds used during construction) 20-14
l TABLE 20.8 THE WASHINGTON WATER POWER COMPANY INPUT ASSUMPTIONS FOR SOURCES OF FUNDS STATEMENT FOR WNP-3 (1) Rate of return on Average Comon Equity - 14.5-15.0 percent.
(2) Preferred Stock Oividend Rate - 9 percent.
(3) 6rowth Rates: Sales of general business kilowatt hours are estimated to increase about 5 i
percent per year during the forecast period. As you know, kilowatt hour sales to other utilities are subject to resource availability and market conditions and therefore are not trendable.
Electric and gas revenues included within the forecast are a result of the general business kilowatt hour /them sale trends and includ? elements of rate relief which were programmed through-out the forecast as needed. The Jasis of rate relief was the debt / equity ratios and composite debt cost prevailing at that point in time and the return on comon equity as previously mentioned.
Operating expenses subject to inflation were escalated at 10 percent in 1976, decreasing to 7 percent in 1977 and finally to 6 percent for the balance of the forecast. Items such as power and gas purchased are generally regulated by contract and are not subject to escalation.
(4) Common stock price / earnings ratio or market / book ratio with respect to the projected comon stock of ferings: This forecast assumes that market and book values of comon stock are approximately equal, but on an increasing annual rate of about 5 percent. Ne price /
j earnings ratio was used for projected comon offerings.
(5) Common stock dividend payout ratio: a target of 65 percent was assumed.
(f) Target capital structure: a target goal of 60 percent debt, 30 percent common equity and 10 percent preferred has been assumed.
(7) Interest coverage requirements: Our most restrictive indenture requirement states that annual interest requirements must be at least twice any 12 consec;tive months pre-tax gross earnings. Considering the rate relief programed in the forecast, our results have I
allowed us to exceed the two times interest cove-age test under the indenture. We have not made a Security Exchango Commission coverage test.
(8) An interest rate of 9 percent was assumed on all projected a rtgage bond issues. For short term bank loans, a rate of 7-1/2 percent was utilized.
I
{
20-15
21.0 CONCLUSION
S In Section 21.0 of the Safety Evaluation Report, we stated we would be able to make certain conclusions upon favorable resolution of the outstanding matters set forth in Section 1.9 of the Safety Evaluation Report. We have discussed these matters in this supplement and indicated a favorable resolution of each matter. We are able to make the conclusions listed in Section 21.0 of the Safety Evaluation Report.
Furthermore there are no other issues outstanding.
Accordingly, we affinn the conclusions listed in Section 21.0 of the Safety Evaluation Report.
21-1
t APPENDIX A CONTINUATION OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY REV!EW 0F WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECTS NO. 3 AND NO. 5 February 13. 1976 Issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report.
February 24. 1976 Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards meeting.
February 27. 1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 31.
March 1.1976 Notice of availability of the Safety Evaluation Report published in Federal Register.
1 March 2. 1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 32 a
March 4. 1976 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards full committee meeting.
April 1. 1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 33.
April 16. 1976 Letter from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards April 20. 1976 Letter from applicants providing infonnation regarding ownership of WNP-5.
April 29. 1976 Submittal of Washington Public Power Supply System Deeds and Agreements.
I f
June 1.1976 Letter from applicants providing information on status of control of exclusion area.
A-1
r APPENDIX B l
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS DATED APRIL 16, 1976 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N W ASHINGToN. o. C. auses April 16, 1976 fionorable Marcus A. Ibwden Acting Q) airman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 03suaission mshim ton, DC 20555 SUETECT: REPORP (N WASHINGIQi RELIC IOfER SUPPLY SYS'ITM NOCIBR PR17BC15 NO. 3 AIO NO. 5
Dear Mr. Ibuden:
During its 192nd meeting, April 8-10, 1976, the Advisory n =mittee on Beactor Safeguards conpleted a review of the application of the mahington Public fewer Sugply Systen (WPPSS) for permission to construct the WPP68 Itaclear Project Ib. 3 and WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 5 (MiP-3 and WNP-5). S e site was visited on August 4,1975, and mihrmaittee meetings were held that sane day in Elma, mahington, and on February 24, 1976, in Richland, mah-ington. Se project was also considered during the 191st meeting of the 0]mnittee in Washington, D.
C., March 4-6, 1976. During its review, the Comnittee had the benefit of discussions with representatives of WPPSS and its cxmsultants, (bmbustion Ihgineerim, Inc., h Services, Inc., and the Nuclear Regulatory Causaission (NRC) Staff. Se 0]sunittee also had the benefit of the doctanents listed.
Se WNP-3 and WNP-5 site is located in Grays Harbor 0)unty, leishington, approximately thirteen miles east of Aberh41W11s, tensh-imton, the nearest population anter (1970 population 28,549). Se mininnan exclusion distance is 1310 seters and the low population zone (IPE) raditas is three miles. %e total 1970 resident population within the IPE was 260.
%e WNP-3 and WNP-5 application is stinaitted in accordance with the Oze-miraion's standardization policy as described in Appendix 0 to art 50,
" Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," and Section 2.110 of Part 2, " Rules of Practice," of Title 10 of the Code of Pederal hgula-tions. Pbr this application the reference systen is the Combustion I!hgineer-ing Standardized Nuclear Staan Supply Systen known as its Standard Reference Systan-80. Bis design has been reviewed by the ACRS and discussed in its report of Septanber 17,1975, "n=8= tion !!hgineering Standard Safety Analysis Repott - CESSAR-80."
B-1
Ibnorable Marcus A. Ituden April 16, 1976
%e ultimate heat sink for each reactor will ansist of a syste of dry moling towers and rr=tvwients that reject excess heat to the atmosi iere.
t Because of its design the u' timate heat sink does not require a makeup water styply.
Se Applicant described his investigations of the geologic and seianic characteristics of the site and the surromding region. Bile the geology of the surroundirvj area is cosplex, and there le definite tectonic activity, there are no known geologic or seismic problers that cannot be solved by design. 2e proposed safe shutdoun earthquake is 0.32; horizontal accel-eration at the fomdations. Se operating basis earthquake is 0.169 Each WNP reactor will arploy a containment systen incitding a free standing steel vessel surrounded by a reinforced concrete shield building. Be inner steel vessel is designed for an internal pressure of 44 psig. We annulus, between the two structures, is maintained at subatmosqfieric pres-sure to permit the collection of leakage from the steel vessel, in the unlikely event of a IlX'A, and permit its processing before release to the environment.
%e causaittee rea==anded in its report of Seph=har 10, 1973, on accept-ance criteria for ECCS, that significantly improved EOCS capability should be provided for reactors for which anstruction permit requests were filed after January 7,1972. Se WP-3 and WNP-5 design is in this category.
%ese projects will use the 16 X 16 fuel assenblies similar to those to be used in Arkansas Nuclear Che thit 2 and St. Incie Plant thit 2.
Although calculated peak clad tesperatures, in the event of a postulated IDCA, may be less for 16 X 16 than for the 14 X 14 array, the Cosmittee believes that the Applicant should antinue sttdies that are responsive to the Ocun-mittee's Septenber 10, 1973, report. If st1 dies, conducted with the best available techniques, establish that significant further ECI:S improvements can be achieved, consideration should be given to incorporating then into WNP-3 and WNP-5.
A generic question has arisen concerning loads on the vessel styport structure for certain postulated loss-of-coolant accidents in pressurized water reactors. mis matter should be resolved for WP-3 and WNP-5 in a manner satisfactory to the NIC Staff.
%e Ow=ittee believes that the Applicant and the NIC Staff should continue to review the WNP-3 and WNP-5 design for features that could reduce the possi-bility and consequences of sabotage, l
I 1
l B-2
i lbncrable Marcus A. huden April 16, 1976 fb11owing the Browns Ferry fire the NIC Executive Director for Operations set to a special review group to determine what could be learned from this incident. 1his group has made ren==andations that apply to future reactors, to reactors that are already operating, and to the NIC regulatory prr-a.
The review group points out that its rarv-andations are not specific to any single plant and that its rarv - andations are bened on knowledge at the time of this investigation. She ACES wishes to be kept informed of the specific application of the review grote's rarv==andations, as they apply to WNP-3 and WIP-5, for the develosament of additional Information on fire prevention, fire fighting, quality assurance, and the improve-ment of NIC policies, Irocedures, and criteria.
Other generic problems relating to large water reactors are discussed in the (bmeittee's report dated April 16, 1976. 1hese problems should be dealt with appropriately by the NIC Staff and the Applicant.
1he Advisory nr-ittee on Reactor Safeguards believes that the items men-tiened above can be resolved during w-kmtion and that, if due consider-ation is given to the foregoing arw! to itans mentioned in its CI!SSAR-80 report of September 17, 1975, the Washington Public Ibwer Supply Systen mclear Projects No. 3 and 2. 5 can be constructed with reasonable assur-ance that they can be operated without trv3ue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Additional tv-artts by Members Max W. Carbon, David Ckrent, Milton S. Plesset, Steshen Iawroski, and Myer Bender are presented below.
Sincerely yours, Das.V9dA Dade W. meller Chairman Additional Copenents by Members Max W. Carbon, David Okrent, Milton S. Plesset, and Stephen Iawroski The site for WPPSS mclear Projects No. 3 and 2. 5 lies in a seimnically active region that has been stbject to large earthquakes in historic time and includes active major faults. mile we do not disagree with the progueed I
seismic design basis, we believe it would be desirable to have the geologic and siemaic aspects of such sites, and perhaps most sites, also reviewed by the U. S. Geological Survey to provide the benefit of an additional independent evaluation.
l B-3
Honorable Marcus A. Howden April 16, 1976 Additional Consents by Members David Okrent and Milton S. Plesset
% e recurrence interval of an earthquake of the order of the safe shut-down earthquake may be about 1,000 years for this site. For such a recurrence interval the probability of not adiieving safe shutdown, given the SSE, must be very small if the NIC Staff goal of less than 10-7 per year, of a serious accident from any single cause, is to be achieved. Since seimnic design adequacy is not asject to direct experimental confirmation, we believe that other measures, including independent design review, low-anplitiale shaking measurements of the completed structure, as-built construction validation, and detection of possible inservice degradation, should be evaluated and the neces-sary steps taken to provide the high degree of detailed specific assurance required with regard to seianic capability of all safety-related features.
Additional (benents by Member Myer Bender With increasing frequency, questions have arisen concerning the appro-priate degree of conservatime to be included in the seismic design criteria for nuclear power plants. Se needs of pslic safety would be best served if the design practices currently in vogue were altered to permit inelastic response so as to enhance the energy absorption characteristics of nuclear structures taider severe seimnic loadings.
For the more severe seianic conditions inelastic design principles should be applied to foundations, concrete containments, floors, and stpport structures in order to assure a high degree of damping and thus minimire the forces transmitted to critical safety features and to the primary coolant circuitry. 21s would eliminate the need for many of the czuplex stgplanental structural features of questionable reliability which are now used to meet extreme seimnic design con-ditions. Bis design approach would allow nuclear strtetures to satisfy even the most pessimistic loading requirements of the most extreme seismic proget. If it is not used there is doubtful value, and possibly some loss in p211c safety margin, from the use of ultraconservative seianic design requirements because the relia-bility of the structural restraints cannot be assessed from relevant structural experience or post-construction vibrational testing.
References:
1.
mshington Public Power Sipply Systens (WPPSS) Nuclear Projects m. 3 and No. 5 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSA30 vbltanes 1-18 2.
Jnendments 1-30 to the PSAR B-4
APPENDIX C ERRATA TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECTS NO. 3 AND NO. 5 DATED FEBRUARY. 1976_
Page Line 1-1 1
In the Safety Evaluation Report we inadvertently did not mention all owners of these projects. (See paragraph 1.1 of this supplement.)
1-1 35 Add..... " report."
l-7 31 Change "50.37!fl" to "50.33(f)"
2-8 35 Change " reverse" to " severe" 3-3 9
Change "trnasfor" to " transform" 3-3 32 Change " tornado" to " Tornado" 3-11 14 Change "provides" to " provide" 3-11 26 Change "((ACI)" to "(ACI)"
7-7 5
Change "384" to "383" 13-1 23 Change "American National Institute" to "American National Standards Institute" 13-1 24 Change "N18.1971" to "N18.7-1971" 14-1 11 Change "for Nuclear Power Plants" to "for Water-Cooled Power Reactors" CESSAR 15-11 Table 15-4 Add:
"(9) 1.2 peaking factor"
"(10) 0.45 percent of the fuel reaches at least incipient melting after rod ejection accident."
"(11) 100 percent of noble gases and 50 percent of iodine in fuel reaching incipient centerline melting temperature are released to the primary coolant."
C-1
I APPENDIX D l
LETTER FROM THE STAFF TO THE ADVISORY C0f9tITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS STAFF REGARDING WPPSS 3 (WNP-3) AND 5 (WNP-5) SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY REVIEW e#" "**8*
Uselito STATES j
S NUCLEAN REGULATORY C004A4188 TON j
j wASMassGTose. D. C. 20066
%***.*/
MAR 3 ' 1976 Docket Nos: STN 50-503 STN 50-509 Mr. Raymond R. Fraley Executive Secretary Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Fraley:
In response to your recent request, there are transmitted herewith for the use of the Comittee 18 copies of a memorandum dated March 26, 1976, from the Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis to the Deputy Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concerning the WPPSS 3 and 5 seismology and geology review carried out by the NRR staff.
If you need any further information on this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely.
Original sagend 4 L E Case /
Edson G. Case, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated j
D-1
[
g ute:TED STAYts
- g. *.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(,
WAsHINoTON, D. c. 20a66
- s. A.....
Edson C. Case, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation WPPSS 3 AND 5 SEISMOLOGY AND GEOLOGY REVIEW Carl Stepp and David Budge of the NRC staff conducted the seismology and geology review of the WPPSS 3 and 5 plant site.
Dr. Budge has a Ph.D. in geolc3y from the University of California and has been with the NRC since the summer of 1973. He has been deeply involved in the review of a number of complex sites and has demonstrated a high degree of competence in deterinining the geologic hazards affecting plant sites.
Carl Stepp has been with the NRC since the spring of 1973 and is Chief of the Geology and Seismology Branch. Prior to joining the NRC, Dr. Stepp spent 11 years with the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey as a research seismologist.
The USGS was not asked to review this site because Carl Stepp already had extensive knowledge of the regional geology and seismology and David Budge had had 6 strong working knowledge of west coast stratigraphy.
During the acceptance review, David Budge contacted Howard Cover of the USGS who is heading an environmental geologic mapping program in the Puget Sound area.
Dr. Gower recomended Weldon Rau of the Washington State Geological Survey as being the geologist most knowledgeable about structure and stratigraphy in the WPPSS 3 and 5 region.
Dr. Rau has done considerable geologic mapping in the region of the WPPSS 3 and 5 site and north of it.
He is the person most familiar with the stratigraphic units needed to assess the age of faulting in the area. Since we were primarily concerned in our geology review with identifying and dating the movements on faults near the plant site region, Dr. Rau was able to provide us with the information on this issue that we needed for our review. He accompanied David Budge on visits to the site on three occasions. He reviewed the PSAR and provided some informal questions or requests for additional information which we transmitted to the appli-cant. We balieve that with his input we were able to satisfactorily determine the geological relationships in the site area and feel confident in our review.
D-2
l l
l Edson C. Case i
I The seismological review was conducted independently by Carl Stepp.
Dr. Stepp, prior to joining the NRC, spent two years working on seismic risk mappius in the Puget Sound region.
He, therefore, was already familiar with the literature of the region and was aware of the known relationships between earthquakes and geologic structure in the region of the site.
I j
The WPPSS 3 and 5 site is located on the southwest extent of the Puget Sound lowlands. Although the utility proposed a division of tectonic provinces which would have placed the site within the Wallapa Hills tectonic subprovince, in our review we considered the site to be re-lated to the larger Puget Sound region. The maximum historic earthquake in the Puget Sound region produced an intensity VIII. This earthquake, if assumed at the site, would result in an 0.25g acceleration. However, the maximum historic earthquake was not controlling in determining the 1
acceleration for seismic design for WPPSS 3 and 5 because of the presence of " capable" faults near the proposed site. The applicant did an ex-tensive and thorough analysis of the relationship between earthquakes l
and geologic structures in the region. Most of the major earthquake producing structures are not apparent at the surface. They do produce very 3,rge gravity anomalies, however, permiting their extent to be easilf mapped. The safe shutdown earthquake at the site was based on an resessment of the maximum earthquake that can reasonably be expected te occur on the nearest capable fault to the site - 21 miles away.
i The assessment of the maximum earthquake on that structure was based on a conservative estimate of the percentage of the total structure that could break in a single earthquake and a conservative interpreta-tion of the empirical relationship between length of fault rupture and earthquake magnitude. Finally, the acceleration at the site was computed on the basis of curves that envelop the world-wide data set, and this value was incorporated into the design as the high frequency anchor (33Hz) for Regulatory Guide 1.60 response spectra to be applied at the foundation level of structures. We accepted the applicant's proposed i
acceleration for seismic design of.32g because we found his analysis to be conservative.
During the ACRS meeting on March 4, Dr. Stepp was asked for an estimate of the probability that the acceleration for seismic design (0.32g) for the WPPSS 3 and 5 plant would be exceeded. He replied that no computation of that probability had been attempted. However, he added that computa-tions indicate the probability of an intensity VIII being exceeded at Aberdeen, about 12 elles from the WPPSS 3 and 5 site, is of the order of 10-3 per year. Dr. Stepp finally stated that it is his view that the
.32g is near an upper bound value of acceleration for seismic design for the WPPSS 3 and 5 site.
1 D-3
0 1
Edson G. Case I
While the probability of this acceleration at the WPPSS site being exceeded has not been computed, Dr. Stepp would expect it to be orders of magnitude lower than the probability of an intensity 8 at Aberdeen being exceedad. It is Dr. Stepp's judgment that the probability that the.32g acceleration will be exceeded at the WPPSS site is extremely low (i.e. less than 10-5 per year). This difference in probability is primarily attributable to the facts that the WPPSS 3 and 5 facilities are founded on bedrock with the 0.32g seismic input applied at the foundation level, whereas Aberdeen is sited on valley alluvium which is observed to result in higher intensities for a given magnitude 1
I Harold R. Denton, Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis a
I I
D 4 1
-