ML19340A281
| ML19340A281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/19/1972 |
| From: | Garfinkel J, Luebke E, Lyman J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003050680 | |
| Download: ML19340A281 (45) | |
Text
a
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the matter of
)
)
Tile TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, ET AL
)
DOCKET NO. 50-346
)
.'(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
+
INITIAL DECISION A.
Preliminary Statement 1.
Procedural Action Taken Prior to Her.. ring 1.
By memorandum and order and notice of hearing, dated-April 12, 1972, the Atomic Energy Commission (Commission) directed that a hearing be held before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) on the question of whether the activities under the construction permit No. CPPR-80 for the Davis-Besse facility should be suspended pending completion of the final National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review.
The Commission specifically limited the issues to those set-forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D, Section E-2, together with the considerations specified in the remand of the United States f Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power, et al v. United States Atomic Energy Commission,-No. 71-1396, slip opinion dated April 7, 1972.
!^.i _.j i
800305of[0- h
, The: Commission specified that the instant Board preside over the. hearing and that the latter render _its 1
Initial Decision on or before May 19,1972. /
.The Commission also ruled in its memorandum and notice of hearing that the parties to this proceeding shall be.the licensees, the Regulatory Staff, the Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power, and Living In A Finer Environment.
2.
On April 20, 1372, an informal meeting of counsel was held in the law offices of Jerome S. Kalur, Esq., counsel for the intervenors, Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power, and Living in a Finer Environment.
Also present in this meeting were counsel for the licensees, counsel for the Regulatory Staff, and the Chairman of I
the instant Board.
Discussion centered on the adoption of'the most appropriate procedure for this unusually short hearing as commanded by the Commission.
At this 4
informal meeting, it was agreed that the NEPA review 1
period will encompass June 1, 1972, through December 31,
-1972.
1/. See'37 FR 7644.
l
_f i'.__u_a
(
. =.
4 I' 3.
On April 21, 1972, this Board directed that the hearing 1 for the taking of evidence in the above-captioned proceeding commence on May 2, 1972, at ~ 10: 00 a.m., local 2/
Lime, in Toledo, Ohio.-
l 4
On April 21, 1972, the licensees filed a motion to amend the Commission's memorandum and order and notice I
of hearing (April 12, 1972), to require the intervonors to provide, among other things, facts that they are in existence and they have suffered an injury as a result of the licensees actions in connection with their j
construction of the Davis-Besse Nuclear facility.
With respect to the injury question, the motion of licensees f
relies on the very recent Supreme Court case of Sierra Club v. Morton, No. 70-34, Slip Opinion dated April 19, 1972.
By memorandum and order dated May 2, 1972, the Commission ruled that the Court of Appeals in the Coalition for. Safe Nuclear Power case, supra, authorized the participation of the intervenors in the instant i
hearing._ Accordingly, the licensees motion was denied.
2/
See Notice and Order for Evid entiary Hearing, dated April 21, 1972.
l t
1:
g
4-i
_4_
The hearing commenced on May 2, 1972, in Toledo, Ohio, and was terminated on May 4, 1972.
2.
Legal Issues In This procc ding 5.
The Commission, in its April 12, 1972, memorandum aad order, directed that we consider the question of suspension of construction in relation to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 50, Section E-2, together with the considerations outlined in the remand in the Coalition for Safe Nuclear Power case.
Section E-2 provides:
"2.
In making the determination called for in paragraph 1, the Commission will consider and balance the following factors:
"(a)
Whether it is likely that continued construction or operation during the prospective review period will give rise to a significant adverse impact on the environment; the nature and extent of such impact, if any; and whether redress of any.such adverse environmental impact can reasonably be effected should modification, suspension or termination of the permit or license result from the ongoing
-NEPA environmental review, f
_=
- f. "(b)
Whether continued construction or operation during the prospective review period would foreclose subsequent adoption of alternatives in facility design or operation of the type that could result from the ongoing' NEPA environmental review.
"(c)
The effect of delay in facility construction Of or operation upon the public interest.
primary importance under this criterion are the' power needs to be served by the facility; the~ availability of alternative sources, if any,'to meet those needs on a timely basis; and delay costs to the licensee and to consumers."
Added to the Section <v2 criteria is the Court's remand-instruction that:
the Commission should consider in detail whether this additional irretrievable commitment of substantial resources might affect the eventual decision reached on the NEPA review.
The degree to which this expenditure might affect the outcome of the final NEPA process should be a paramount consideration in the decision on suspension reached after the hearings on remand."
(Emphasis I
added.)
l-h V
~ i
,(,
.E-
/
7 6.
In this proceeding, we_are concerned with the ef fects of continued construction during the NEPA review peelod, which by agreement of -the parties encompasses the interval from June 1, 1972, through December 31, 1972, at which ' time we were assured by counsel for-the Regulatory Staff that the final NEPA 3/
review will have been completed.
Tr. 19, 24.-
As the Board views Section E-2 of Appendix D to 10 CFR this proceeding Part 50, and the subsequent Court mandate, is not concerned with the environmental ef fects of but on operation of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant, whether continued construction, and its concommitant-the irretrievable commitment of additional element, namely, construction resources during the NEPA review, would:
(a) cause environmental harm during the period of construction; (b) foreclose alternatives should the
.I final NEPA decision require same; (c) affect the power f
needs to~ be served by the facility; and (d) affect
- The " final decision", to whie costs to the consumers.
we have reference, is not findings of environmentjt d
effects,Jbut, rather, determinations regardingg he
'3f Tr. - Transcript LPT = Licensees' Prepared Testimony
/
During.this period, since the plant is still in the it'will not operate as a nuclear-i
.~
construction' stage, Ps wer plant. lThus, no thermal or radiological
~
--emib ions-will' occur.
L o
' ' ~
~_.
.n.
J '
7~-
Davis-Besse nuclear plant itself-determinations involving abandonment, modification of u sign, or any 41 her disposition that may be made with re.spect to said plant as a result of the final NEPA~ review.
7.
Environmental considerations are reasons for alternatives to the presently conceived Davis-Besse plant.
By restricting the issues to a determination of what the reasonable alternatives are and the effects of continued construct 2on and additional resources on these alternatives, thir Dr_ a r d, by implication, assumes every conceivable environmental finding, those favorable and unfavorable to plant operation.
Consequently, dAscussion of eravironmental ef fects of operation of the completed plant is irrelevant.
We are not unmindful of the necessity of determining i
whether the additional investment resources during the NEPA review is merely a guise to build up investment at'the expense of environmental harm.
Nevertheless, such a review on our part must take into consideration the actual environmental harm during construction, and whether the additional investment cost is.substantially i
disproportionate to the amount of resour ces already expended, and to the amount of the anticipated cost of i
F s,
7:
g.
' the plant.should it' be comple ted.
In addition, this ndded investment must be considered in relation to the cost - fm abandoning.' the Davis-Desse project -- should that' be ' the ultimate ' result of the NLi'\\ review
- and to those additional costs that may be incurred in providing Also.
other means for obtaining electrical energy.
be given as to whether these
- consideration' will ha ve to.
~
additional investment costs will foreclose alternatives.
If we were to adopt the various contentionslof 8.
the parties concerning environmental consideration, we would be~" rehashing" much of the arguments previously for presented in the construction permit hearing; example, many of the safety: systems contained in design for discussion herein specifications would be relevant since any failure of a safety system.could affect _the The interim criteria for the emergency environment.
in this core cooling system would " raise its head" proceeding.
Furthermore, adoption of these contentions.would require this Board to'make the many environmen+al-findings that will inevitably be made in the Commission's final
.This will result in costly and environmental statement.
The argument that this time-consuming: duplication.
presiding board should permit a " limited" environmental
- j..
i
-- M i
c O
N b"'"
h%".
W ab $
m p.,-
~ '
w k
,7 9
-9_
review " begs" ine _ question.
As a consequence of t.4e right to cross-examination, we perceive great' difficulty in attempting t.o "shu tof f" questioning when the magic or minimum environmental review has been reached.
This is evidenced by the failure of the parties in the actual hearing or in proposed findings to define for this Board " limited environmental considerations".
9.
More importantly, however, consideration by this Board of various environmental issues during plant operation, as requested by che parties, may put it on a collision course with the final NEPA. review without the Board having the-benefits of all the sources of information available to the Commission.
The
' Administrative. Procedure Act places serious restraints on rev.ew of information failing to meet evidentiary standards'under the substantial evidence rule of that Act.
The Commission is under no such restrictions in the absence of an adjudicatory hearing.
Moreover, environmental' review will place this Board in the repugnant position of having to prejudge or "second-guess" the Commission's findings.
At best, our
' findings would be speculative. No matter how many arguments i
'}s l
- ~ ~
1
.n.
9
.. =. :
. <>ne makes for a particular result, there will always be another argument calling for a different result.
There is no way of absolutely determining in advance the Commission's decisions regarding environmental considerations.
10.
For the forego ing reasons, we conclude that the only rational approach -- without requiring a prejudgment of the final NEPA review, without rehearing previously decided matters, and without deciding matters that may be raised at subsequent hearings following publication of the final NEPA str.tement -- is to follow the procedures outlined by this Board in paragraph 7 of this Initial Decision.
3.
Proposed Findings Of The Parties 11.
All proposed findings submitted by the parties which are not incorporated directly or inferentially in this Initial Decision are herewith rejected as being insupportable in law or fact, or as being unnecessary to the rendering of this Initial Decisinn, i'I d
i
- j l
i although given an opportunity,.II 12.
Intervenors, This have chosen not to file proposed findings.
declination was communicated in a document served on the Secretary of the Commission, Om Board and all other parties on May 9, 1972.
Instead, on that same date, they filed a " Motion To Reopen Suspension Hearings".
By separate order, dated the same as the instant Initial Decision, the Board denied the motion.
13.
Counsel for the intervenors herein in a voluntary and forthright statement during the opening session advised this Board that he had attempted to ascertain the status of Living In A Finer Environment (LIFE) in this proceeding and has been unable to obtain from said intervenor affirmative proof of its viability.
Consequently, counsel informed us that he no longer 5/
considers himself representing that particular intervenor.-
We must, therefore, assume that LIFE is no longer a party to this proceeding.
_4/ Tr. 502-503.
5,/ Tr. S-9.
. _.. L}
- 4
i I' 'B.
Environmental Effects of Continued Construction 1
Site and Description of Present Structures 14 The Davis-Besse site consists of 954 acres, the shore of Lake Eric in Carroll Township, on Ottawa County, Ohio, 1
with a lake. frontage of 7,250 feet.
l The site includes 524 acres called _the Navarre Marsh, which
'was acquired from the U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife under an exchange agreement that provided for continuation of 447 acres of marshland in the tract i
as a wildlife refuge.
In addition, the Bureau will manage another 33 acres of marshland within the site The main station area consists of almost 56 acres located'almost entirely on an original upland portion of the' site.
LPT pp. 3-4 The already completed l
dike-system' isolates the marsh from the constructio t
n area.
Wildlife at the present time is abundant in the marsh.
The refuge area is virtually silent of 0
construction noise and receives none of the airborne dust which might be generated on the construction site.
Tr. 454-456; 459.
l-I
+t -
I
, 15.
The station structures, except for the cooling tower, are locnted on 56 acres at the center of the si te and about 3,000 feet from the shoreline.
LPT pp 2-3.
At the present time, the tallest structures are the 200-foot high shield building (at full height since May, 1971), on top of which is a 280-foot high crane.
There is also a 300-foot tall meteorology tower which has been on the site sir.ee 1968.
LPT p.
6; Tr. 143.
The turbine and office building base substructure work is is complete and 75 percent of the structural steel erected.
The auxiliary building below grade is complete and certain areas above grade are in place.
LPT pp. 6-7.
t 2.
Construction During Review Period l
l l
a.
Buildings l
16.
During the NEPA review period, the following significant construction activities will be conducted i
erection in or~near the Davis-Besse main station area:
of the hemispherical top of the steel containment vessel; completion ofithe turbine building and office building-structural steel; continuation of work on the cooling tower,;and water intake structure, and water treatment i
-. zi
,iy,
., building; and~ installation of some demineralizers and evaporators associated with the radwaste system.
LPT
- p. 6-7; Tr. 171, 246, 458-459.
Most of the work in this area will take place ~inside structures which are already erected.
Construction noise levels will decrease as the structures are enclosed during the NEPA review period.
Tr. 171.
No additional land on the site will be cleared.
Tr. 168.
Continued construction will not involve any significant discharges to the air or to the water of Lake Erie, the Toussaint River or the marsh.
Tr. 168.
b.-
Marsh 17.
During the NEPA review period, licensees will not undertake any activity in the marsh which is related to the construction and operation of the Davis-Besse facility.
LPT pp 2-4.
c.
Dewatering 18.
Dewatering operations in the excavated area will continue for part of the NEPA review period.. The flow-has remained very constant at about 350 gallons per. minute (500,000 gallons per day) since the area was initially. excavated and will remain at the same level until certain onsite structures are completed.
This p_j -
15 -
completion is scheduled to occur during the NEPA time, the dewatering operation review period.
At that wiiI ceast.
Tr. 179-180.
Although the zone of influence table does extend offsite of dewat ering on the water dewatering has not in any manner for a short distance, The effect on local affected surface water conditions.
When dewatering operations wells has been minimal.
the affected aquifer will return to its are completed, This aquifer water has 5' ppm
-normal level.
LPT p. 6.
(2,500-3,500 ppm) of free hydrogen sulfide and has a high including sulfates, chlorides, concentration of solids, is pumped to an aeration and calcium.
Tr. 180-181.
It where almost all the hydrogen sulfide is removed.
- pond, Tr. 180.
the high concentration of solids remains
- However, It then flows into a about the same in the water.
7,000-foot drainage ditch which forms the southern the water
.From the drainage ditch,
-site boundary.
River near its mouth into flows into the Toussaint A check valve allows flow into the river Lake Eric.
Tr. 181.
but not from the river into the discharge ditch.
'I
+ + -
.i
. Run-off from the construction areas is also routed to the drainage ditch and thence into the river..Tr. 183.
Licensees, since the early stages of the dewatering operation,liave monitored the chemical and -physical quality of the flow.
Tr. 182-183.
Carp are abundant in the drainage ditch.
Tr. 186.
d.
Borrow pits i
19.
Operations in two of three borrow pits located onsite along with rock crushing operations will continue during the NEPA review period.
LPT pp. 4-5; Tr. 458.
One borrow pit is being used as a dump site for construction solid waste materials.
Tr. first 458 On completion of dewatering, the three borrow pit areas will fill with water.
The surrounding land will be landscaped.
LPT p.5.
c.
Cooling tower 20.
The hyperbolic cooling tower is located northwest of the main station area and outside of the marsh areas.
The tower is described in Sec. 4.6.4 of the Supplement to Environmental Report.
Construction of the reinforced concrete shell will be completed by l
l December, 1972 LPT p.7.
This construction involves l
l
-MM, 1
. substantial increase in height of the tower from its elevation of about 70 feet to its contemplated present Tr. 498.
No additional Iinai lo iv,ht of 493 feet..
land will be cleared in conjunction with cooling tower construction.
Tr. 168.
f.
Temporary canal 21.
Beginning in August, 1972, licensees are scheduled to dredge a 650-foot long channel from deep water in the Lake to the beachfront and to temporarily open the beachfront to connect with the intake canal.
(The intake canal itself was open constructed in late 1970.)
This channel will permit Following barge delivery of the reactor vessel.
both the channel and the beachfront will be
- delivery, Restoration will restored to their original condition.
The take place in late September and October, 1972.
dredging will be shallow and involve only two acres of
~ Lake bed.
LP;. p. 8; Tr. 360.
The volume of material involved is 2,445 cubic yards of sand and 815 cubic The material Herdendorf testimony, p. 5.
yards of clay.
be stockpiled and replaced to restore the original wiL Lake contour.
Tr. 368.
The dredging depth will average 1.8 feet below datum into the Lake bottom, with a maximum depth of 3.G feet.
Tr. 356.
Turbidity will be minimal j
..l-
.4,ew e
- -i
t 18 -
because of the nature of the dredged material.
9 Herdendorf testimony,-p.
Introduction of dissolved pollutants into the water in view of the low level of pollutants will be minimal 9;
Herdendorf testimony, p.
in the dredged material.
The dredging will be carried out at a time Tr. 363-365.
Tr. 366.
when. fish are not spawning.
Transmission line g.
Away from the site, along a transmission 22.
line.right-of-way, 24 acres of woodland, representing 1.3 miles in length, will be a distance of about Tr. 189.
cleared during the NEPA review period.
Transmission-line towers h.
Towers for transmission lines will be erected 23.
at the site.
Tr. 256.
Environmental Effects of Construction 3.
During Review Period Buildings _
a.
from Since the carsh receives none of the dust 24.
l the construction site, we conclude that the environmenta effect of dust is negligible.
k'
)~
I-
~
i~
L_ _
l
, Construction noise at the site has had no discernible offeet on the environment.
Tr. 456.
Intervenor's con t en t. ion that there is active removal o f dead birds at the *.ite by predator ani.nals is tacit acknowledgment that ihr construction noise has not affected wildlife populations at this trophic level.
Tr. 479.
The environmental impact of noise will be insignificant.
There are no liquid or gaseous effluents involved in construction.
Tr. 168.
b.
Marsh 25.
Construction activities do not appear to have any offsite environmental effects, or effects on the marsh areas.
LPT pp. 4-7; Tr. 168, 171.
c.
Dewatering 26.
The present system of passing the polluted ground. water throt;h an aeration pond removes the potentially harmful effects of hydrogen sulfide, as evidenced by the abundance of fish life (carp) which has been observed in the drainage ditch.
Tr. 186,454,458.
The environmental impact of continued operation is thus insignificant.
mwg
i
- - 2 0 --
d.
Borrow pits 27.
The proposed landscaping of the borrow pits should produce ponds compatible with the wildlife nature of the marsh areas.
We can discern no unfavorable interim effects on the environment.
e.
Cooling-tower 28.
We conclude that as many as 400 migratory
- birds may be killed each year under adverse weather conditions from impact in flight with the cooling tower.
This-estimate is based on the product of 100 birds killed in a single event and three or four events a year.
.Tr. 478, 482.
i f.
Temporary canal 29.
Canal construction is scheduled for a time of year that does not interfere with fish spawning, in a zone relatively impoverished in. benthos, and in sediments of low biological oxygen demand.
Tr. 366, 367-368, 363.
The overall effect. on the benthos of'the Lake in this. region will be comparable to the effect each winter of the piling up of ice along the shore.
Tr. 370.
We~thus conclude that the environmental impact of dredging.will.be insignificant.
C:_
-We=
4m %= w en...
.,e-
.. -. -.~.,.
n.
.~.
. l g.
Transmission lines 30.
Although no' testimony was offered on this.
point, we consider it self-evident that the conversion of 24 acres of' woodland to brush or grassland will have adverse environmental impact on the species of plants and' animals that depend on this woodland for-their1 survival.
h.
Transmission line towers 31.
Construction of transmission towers at the site during the review period will have insignificant additional impact.
This conclusion is based on testimony concerning effects of transmission line s on birds and the fact that the towers-will not be as l
tall as the cooling tower (140 feet).
Tr. 500-501,257.
4.
Extent of Adverse Impact During Construction Period t
32.
In. summary, then, the Board finds that continued construction will result in the loss of 24 acres'of woodland habitat and the'possible deaths of i
as many as.400 migratory birus each. year.
4
-e*
4-
..m-.,
+
M
22.-
Many thousands of acres of Ohio woodland 33.
have in the past been converted from woodland to or have been farmland, residential sites, or freeways, logged for production of lumber.
We, therefore, conclude tnat the adver.se impact of the clearing of 24 acres to pern.it construction of the transmission line is of a nature and extent not serious enough when balanced against the public need for power (see-subsequent findings) to justify suspension of construction.
The death of 400 songbirds a year, while 34.
must be regrettable from an aesthetic point of view, considered in light of the dynamics of bird populations.
and Expert testimony presented by both Intervenor Licensees (Tr. 481, 484-486, 496, 497) showed that the birds in question are not endangered species, that they naturally have short life spans, and that j
they raise each year many more young birds than are necessary to maintain their population.
We, therefore, I
onstruction conclude'that the adverse. impact of continuing on the bird species in question is likewise of a nature and extent not serious enough when balanced against the public' need for power to justify suspension cf a
construction.
1.
_- -_ ) -
-N e d
.f.
5 Redress of Adverse Environmental Impact 35 Shoul d the construction license be terminated, the killing of birds by impact with the cooling _ tower and.other tall structures can be redressed by demolition of these structures.
Since the woodland is described as "second-growth" (Tr. ~ 189) we j udge that, left to her own devices, Nature in time will restore the 24 acres.
No testimony was offered as to the rate at which this process proceeds in Northern Ohio.
C.
Foreclosure of Alternatives By Continued Construction Evidence was presente'd regarding numerous possible alternatives in the facility that could result from the ongoing NEPA review.
Subdivisions of the facility for which alternatives were considered include (1) the radioactive waste treatment systems; (2) the cooling water system; (3) systems for the prevention f
8 I
l or reduction of accidents; and (4) transmission lines, i
i F
1.
Radioactive Waste Treatment i.
.(Radwaste) Systems l
36.
'The radwaste systems collect, i'
process, and control releases of radioactive effluents from the e
i w
4 4
vom,.
c.
A e Q%.
A m
24 -
the' facility.
They may be divided into three categories to treat the liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes.
37.
Possible additions to the present liquid radwaste system design include more evaporators and demineralizers.
LPT p. 15; Tr. 152, 164, 300.
include ultra-Alternative. liquid radwaste systems sonic treatment in demineralizers, flocculatica and the use of additional chemicals to precipitation, remove more ions in solution, conversion of some Tr. 301-302.
filters to Powdex units, and boron control.
A "zero-release" liquid radwaste system is impossible.
Tr. 304.
Alternatives to the present gaseous radwaste 38.
system design include installation of cryogenic charcoal the systems, additional hold-up of radioactive gases,
-addition of charcoal absorbers and high-efficiency the addition of cryogenic distillation systems,
- filters, absorption by solvents, r.embrane separation and foam encapsulation, and the replacement of nitrogen cover gas with hydrogen.
LPT
- p. 15; Tr. 152, 300, 301.
39.
There presently exists no reasonable alternative to the normal solid radwaste system that is used~in most nuclear facilities, including the Davis-Besse plant.. Tr. 302.
Continued construction-
~
.+
. activities during the NEPA review period will not foreclose adoption of any of these alternatives to Tr. 166, 303, the radwaste systems.
2.
The Cooling Water System natural design uses a closed cycle, 40.
The present evaporative-type cooling tower to discharge the
- draft, waste heat from the condenser into the atmosphere (instead of into the lake).
In this arrangement, the is only discharge into the lake of any significance, that of the cooling tower blowdown.
Possible alternatives to the use of the 41.
cooling tower now under construction include use of (1) a once-through, lake water cooling system, (2) cooling ponds, with or without spray modules.
or No dry cooling towers are available Tr. 151-159.
for a plant of the size and type of Davis-Besse.
Tr. 159-160.
possible supplements to the wet cooling tower 42.
as now envisioned include (1) the use of a mechanical forced-draft cooling tower during periods when the cooling tower blowdown temperature may become excessive, (2) using cooling ponds (with or without spray modules) or for handling cooling tower blowdown.
LPT pp. 19,24; Tr. 151, 158, 160.
/
, 43.
Continued construction activities during the NEpA review period will not foreclose the adopt ion of any of t hese supplements or alternatives to the cooling water system.
Tr. 157-160.
3.
Systems for the Prevention or Reduction of Accidents 44.
Numerous alternatives were identified which would further mitigate the consequences of nuclear accidents.
Tr. 274-288.
Thes,e ' include:
increasing the purification rate in the primary system; the use of additional filters (including charcoal filters);
collection equipment on rotating and sliding seals; diking of outside tanks; the use of a closed sampling system to detect radioactive waste; additional tritium detectors; the use of a higher stack; the reduction of radioactive gas inventory in given tanks; the addition of xenon and krypton absorber systems; increasing turbine by-pass capacity; use of the turbine within a load following mode; installing an N-16 monitor on the steam line operating with a smaller percent l
l of defective fuel; use of a quench tank for steam relief; modifying containment ventilation for recirculation mode operation; reducing the number of spent fuel elements transported in each fuel cask; reduction in containment leak rate; and addition of chemical additives to containment sprays.
Tr. 274-288.
I
1
. Continued construction during the NEPA review period would 'not foreclose subsequent adoption of any of these alternatives for the prevention or reduction of accidents.
Tr. 288.
4.
Transmission Lines 45.
Three transmission lines will serve the The Davis-Besse to Bay Shore line is already facility.
essentially complete.
Tr. 170.
The route of the Davis-Besse to Lemoyne line is already well defined by the 75 percent of the right-of-way already cleared.
No offsite construction will be undertaken on the third line, Davis-Besse to Beaver, during the NEPA review period.
Completing the construction of the Lemoyne line during the NEPA review period would not foreclose adoption of an alternate route.
An alternate to the Beaver line would not be foreclosed during this same review period.
Tr. 170-171.
46.
In summary, tnere is ample evidence to show that continued construction during the review period will not foreclose subsequent adoption of alternatives in f acility design 'of the type that could result ~ f rom the ongoing NEPA review, l
i
,eame Amau g
-w rw a&
M
D.
Effect of Delay on the Public Interest 47.
Evidence was presented regarding the delay in startup of the Davis-Besse nuclear power station due to temporary suspension of construction and the resulting cost effects, as well as the effects on electric power supply reliability.
If a suspension of construction activity under the construction permit were to be ordered, and the completed NEPA review were to conclude that the facility could be completed as currently designed, the seven-months' suspension would result in delaying the commercial startup of Davis-Besse by ten months.
The additional three months would be needed to restart construction and reassemble a trained construction force.
LPT p.
41.
48 This delay in the startup of the Davis-Besse facility would result in additional costs.
Each month that the facility is delayed would cost $1.9 million in interest on funds already invested, escalation on items delayed and additional maintenance and security costs.
The additional one-time cost of stopping construc-tion and restarting it at a later date would be $2.2 million.
Thus,.a ten-months' delay would add an estimated
.1 l
.g E
- =.4a-*-%=+
. $21.2 million to the station's initial cost.
LPT pp. 45-46.
Detailed justification of each of these costs, their component elements, and the method for their computation was provided during cross-examination.
Tr. 216-231, 49.
In addition to this added capital cost, licensees and other members of CAPCO (Central Area Power Coordination Group, the operating and generating pool of which licensees are a part) would incur added costs to supply the power to replace Davis-Besse capacity.
Without the Davis-Besse facility available for the peaks of December, 1974, and June, 1975, the load forecasts made by licensees and CAPCO indicate that they would not have reserves adequate to provide reliable service to their consumers.
The reliability of such forecasts is borne out by the accuracy of previous load forecasts by licensees and CApCO.
LPT pp. 27-40.
Licensees also showed that possible excess capacity from ECAR (East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement, composed of CAPCO and ten other operating pools) would not.necessarily be available for purchase.
LPT pp. 41-44.
50.
Mr. A. L. Toalston of the Federal Power Commission testified on behalf of the AEC negulatory staff regarding the impact of a delay of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Plant
~
on the reliability of power supply.
Tr. 375-414.
This Ll'
, testimony indicates that projected generation reserves l-of about 20 percent are required for a pool such as the.
Central Area Power Coordination Group (CAPCO) of which licensees, Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland the Electric Illuminating Company form L part.
Tr. 388.
This 20 percent generation reserve is required to provide for contingencies that are almost certain to occur, such as forced unscheduled outages, scheduled maintenance outages, generator deratings due to both seasonal factors and equipment limitations, slippage of scheduled generator additions, and output restrictions due to possible fuel shortages or pollution limitations.
Tr. 386-387.
l l
l 51.
A broad picture of the overall reserve situation within the Eastern half of the United States for this period was presented, considering first the electric groups surrounding the East Central-Area Reliability
. Coordination Group (ECAR).
The focus was then narrowed to ECAR, to CAPCO and finally to Toledo Edison and Cleveland Electric.
It was stated that the areas having l
the higher projected reserve margins are those which l
are distant from the licensees' system.
Tr. 391-398.
b..,..-
7M e
l ~
31 -
52.
Based on a detailed analysis of the peak period in the summer of 1975, the FPC witness testified that a delay in operation of the Davis-Besse plant would reduce reserves for the Toledo Edison Company from 7.7 percent to minus 24.7 percent,'the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company from 21.3 percent to 9.4 percent,-
and CAPCO from 17 percent to 9.6 percent.
Tr. 395-396.
The projected reserve margins for CAPCO and the licensees' systems for this period of time are. summarized as follows.
Tr. 394-396.:
Projected June, 1975, Generation Reserves Davis-Besse Company or Pool In Commercial Operation Yes No-Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
21.3%
9.4%
Toledo Edison Co.
7.7%
-24.7%
CAPCO Group 17.0%
9.6%
53.
The minus 24.7 percent reserve figure for Toledo Edison indicates that its projected load would be greater than its projected generation even before contingencies, and that some form of additional power would have to be obtained or load would have to be curtailed.
Tr. 396.
e b
sul.
7-i
~
, a delay in the commercial operation of the
- Thus, Davis-Besse plant bayond June, 1975, would result in subpar reserves for the CAPCO pool in general and specifically for the licensees' systems, with a resulting decrease in power supply reliability for the area.
Tr. 382.
Although the staff witness had not conducted a similar detailed analysis for power supply in the Winter of 1974, he agreed that licensees' figures for that period were reasonable, particularly if scheduled Tr.
410-412.
maintenance was to be considered.
The critical period in terms of effects of 54.
any suspension of work on reliability of power supply LPT would appear to be the summer (June) 1975 peak.
There is a' seasonable probability T. hat the
- p. 49.
Davis-Besse plant will be ready for commercial operation about December, 1974, in the absence'of a suspension.
Construction could not be accelerated following a suspension of the plant, or any of its major systems, 7
i to make up' lost time.
In critical schedule areas, A three-
~1icensees are already on a two-shift basis.
shift basis would be unlikely to further accelerate construction because of loss of productivity and lack Tr. 195-206.
- However, of1 additional qualified manpower.
-l 1
-s r--
. this expected completion date is based upon no delays in delivery of major components or delays resulting from contract negotiations.
Tr. 701-702.
There has already.been some delay in meeting construction schedules for the project, and delays in construction Tr. 198-201.
There-projects such as this are common.
there is some reason to question the estimated
- fore, commercial operation date of December, 1974.
55.
The consequences of CAPCO's failure to provide a 20 percent reserve could result in load-interruption or load-shedding unless sufficient emergency power were available from surrounding areas.
Tr. 389.
Those utilities, pools, and regional reliability councils which are closest to CApCO were also projected as
'having low reserves.
Tr. 391-394.
Because of this reserve situation, licensees' ability to purchase power to replace delayed Davis-Besse capacity could not be assured.
The reasonable availability of in purchased. power is also threatened by slippage the' construction of new fossil and nuclear generating plants.
LPT pp. 41-42; Tr. 399.
~
,,s
=J%
V-p 9
e m-e
, Licensees provided additional justification for their load projections by showing that neither a change to a so-called regressive rate structure nor a
- change in licensecs' advertising program would lead to lower peak loads.
Reed S. Reynolds, Toledo Edison's Corporate. Planning Economist, testified that the impact of having an increasing (rather than a decreasing) rate per kilowatt hour would be very slight.
Tr. 437-438.
Mr. Reynolds also testified that, based upon multiple regression analyses considering intercompany differences he had in promotional expenditures per customer, found no correlation between advertising and electrical demand.
Tr. 347.
Licensees also testified that the purpose of their advertising was to increase load factor and off-peak usage and not to increase the peak load demand.
For that reason, air conditioning is not encouraged by advertising.
Tr. 417-421.
Because power from other sources could not be relied upon to replace delayed Davis-Besse capacity, the only other alternative would be to install combustion-gas turbine generating units.
Tr. 403.
These turbines would have to be fueled with fuel oil since natural gas is not available in most areas.
Tr. 210.
Licensees
[
L-4 y
35 -
and the FPC witness agree that. substitute installation of a fossil plant would be impossible within the time period. LPT p. 44; Tr. 403.
56.
If Davis-Besse were to be delayed, the c
installation of combustion gas turbines three years l
ahead of scheduled CAPCO requirements would result in
~
additional fixed charge costs of $16.6 million.
The total excess cost for substituting turbines for delayed Davis-Besse capacity, including savings from not operating Davis-Besse during this period, would total
$33.8 million.
LPT pp. 46-47.
This delay cost would mean cost increases to the customers of Toledo Edison alone as follows:
(a) to residential consumers of 5 percent; (b) to commercial consumers of 5 percent; (c) to industrial consumers of 9 percent; and (d) to other customers (schools, Government buildings) of 6 percent in the first year of delay.
Tr. 234-236.
Delay in Davis-Besse would also require increased generation from CAPCO's older coal and oil-fired units, with the resulting release of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, and particulates into the atmosphere.
LPT p. 44.
n
_._j E
m
~
. l There is no assurance that gas turbines could 57.
be installed in time.
Tr. 400.
Gas Turbines are far less reliable than nuclear plants (Tr. 400-401), have higher outage rates (Tr. 401),and are much more Tr. 401-403.
expensive to operate than nuclear plants.
58.
The consequences of licensees subpar power reserves could be major.
If emergency puwer could not a load curtailment be obtained from surrounding areas, Tr. 389.
While this program may have to be initiated.
may only inconvenience some, others who depend on clectricity for their well being may be seriously or i
l critically affected.
Tr. 390.
It is not possible to curtail electricity only to those who will be merely inconvenienced.
Tr. 390-391.
In addition, when the l
excess reserves are remote, and an emergency occurs, power rushes in from all the interconnected companies.
If load curtailment is not rapid enough, there will be a shortage of reserves throughout, and a widespread interruption, such as the one experienced during the l
1965 northeast blackout, could occur.
Tr. 400.
59.
Another cost to the.public which would be caused by a suspension could be the job loss for the duration of the suspension for people now working at the Davis-Besse site.
As of June 1, 1972, approximately 1
l
1
-, 750 construction workers will be employed on the site.
I During the suspension period, only 75 persons would be l
I required onsite.
Tr. 231-232.
60.
Summarizing, this Board finds that a suspension the of construction at this time will adversely affect l
reliability of the supply of electricity into the thereby imposing areas serviced by the licensees, inevitably financial hardship on said licensees which In wil'1 be reflected in charges to the consumers.
addition, we find that there is a substantial probability that suspension will result in~ either a " blackout" in the served areas during the peak or-a " brownout" power demand of 1975.
Irretrievable Commitment of Resources E.
During Review Period Evidence was presented regarding the cost of 61.
abandoning the Davis-Besse facility at the end of the The costs were calculated in two NEPA review period.
assuming-suspension of activities during
- s teps : -
(1) the review period, and (2) assuming continuation of LPT pp. 26a-27 /
6
,the project along its present schedule.
(1) the The cost of abandonment has three' components:
l i
testimony regarding investment during NEPA 6/ Licensees' review and. cost'of abandonment may be found in their27,1972 (P prepared testimony submitted on April and incorporated in-their prepared testimony which is a d'"""j-part of the record herein.
t
. ~
L&be M. &
- '*-Y**NMest w egm 4
g m
unrecoverable' costs of abandoning Davis-Desse; (2) the additional generating costs; and (3) the fixed charges on storage costs of salvageable material.
LPT p. 26c.
62.
With regard to component (1), the record contains the unrecoverable cost of abandoning the i
Davis-Besse plant at the end of the NEPA review period assuming a' suspension of construction on i
June 1, 1972, and assuming no suspension, as follows:
5 1
i i
I r
awes W
-2
. Np
D w.--.
4 '
. Costs Assuming Suspension Assuming Construction-of Construction Continues to o
on June 1,1972 Description December 31, 1972
$ 97,249,000 (1)
Total Investment-and Interest
$ 97,249,000
( 1) -
i During Construction through 5/31/72 6,240,000 2
Less Interest During Construction 6,240,000 2
5 91,009,000 4
Total Investment
$ 91,009,000 4
Added Investment Costs Containment 8,187,000 Auxiliary Building 9,024,000 Turbine Building 5,528,000 g
Cooling System 2,369,000 Switchyard 545,000 Miscellaneous Structures 3,561,000 Temporary Barge Canal 25,000 2,582,000 (3)(8)
Station Eng. & Const. Mgmt.
2,582,000 Transmission 1,187,000 770,000 (3)(9)
Administrative Costs 770,000 Sub-Total 33,776,000 12,963,000 (10)
Equipment Payments (6/1/72 to 12/31/72) 12,963,000 (10)
$-16,658,,000 (4)
Sub-Total 315 000 Construction 11,393,000 (10) 10, (4)
Interest During/72 4
through 12/31 j
Equipment Delivered after 12/31/72 32,409,000 32,409,000 14,327,000 ()
5)
Construction Contractors Cancellation 11,805,000
$164,710,000 Total Investment & Int. as of
$193,357,000 12/31/72 Less Salvageable Material 75,146,000 (6) 75,146,000 (4)()6)
I
$ 09,572,000 (4
Total Abandonment Costs
$110,211,000 (12)
Added Cost of Abandonment due to Const. 6/1/72 to 12/31/72
$ 28,639,000 (7)(12)
. Notes:
(1)
Total shown in Table IV-2, LPT p. 25.
(2)
Interest during construction shown in Table IV-2, LPT p. 25.
(3)
Total of monthly costs shown in Table IV-1, LPT p. 26.
(4)
Amounts shown in note to Table IV-3, LPT p. 26c.
(5)
Cost shown in text, LPT p. 26a.
(6)
Amount shown in text, LPT p. 26b; Tr. 337-338.
(7)
Difference in total abandonment costs shown in text, LPT p. 26c ; Tr. 2 42.
(8)
Total of " Engineering and Construction Management" shown on Licensees' worksheet
" Cost of Construction with Delay,"
Intervenor's Exhibit 7.
(9)
Total of " Administrative Costs" shown on Licensees' worksheet " Cost of Construction with Delay," Intervenor's Exhibit 7.
(10)
Tr. 239.
l (11)
Tr. 240.
f (12)
Tr. 241 1
The added unrecoverable cost of abandonment if construction is permitted to proceed until the end of the NEPA review period would be $28,639,000 (equivalent to a January 1, 1975, present work of $34,182,000).
lr
..:j
(
w y
. 63.
With regard to cost component (2), additional generating costs were determined as follows:
if Davis-Besse were abandoned, its generating capacity would have to be replaced since abandonment would not reduce the demand for power.
Tr. 152.
As stated earlier, combustion gas turbines would be the only method of replacing Davis-Besse capacity by December, J
1974.
Older fossil plants would be used mere are built.
extensively until new base load plants l
Sites for these plants might include the Davis-Besse site for a new fossil plant.
Tr. 152-155.
The additional generating costs to CAPCO, if Davis-Besse j
were to be abandoned, were determined by a complete
(
economic analysis comparing the present CAPCO capacity
^
}
addition plan through 1990 with an citernative plan substituting. combustion gas turbines for Davis-Besse I
in 1974, and utilizing the salvageable material from the Davis-Besse plant as early as possible in a nuclear I
unit at another site.
The alternative plan is 4
$30,900,000 more expensive (January 1, 1975, present 1
worth).
Tr. _243-244.
64.
Component (3) of the cost of abandonment is the fixed charges on storing salvageable material from the Davis-Besse plant.
Use of the salvageable h M r_-
}
O4+--d#%wwm
1
,1 Davis-Besse, the January 1, 1975, present worth of the cost of abandoning the Davis-Besse plant on December 31, 1972, would be $162,406,000, if
- 1972, construction were to be suspended on June 1, and $196,588,000 if construction were to continue until December 31, 1972, for a January 1, 1975 present worth differeIce of $34,182,000.
LPT p. _oc. This s approximately 21 percent of the above $162,406,000 i
12 percent of the estimated total figure and about power plant cost of $269,000,000 plus $10,000,000 for transmission lines.
Tr. 135, 445.
In addition,
- 1972, the actual expenditures incurred through May 31, are more than double the amount contemplated to be expended during the review period.
LPT pp 25-26, 26c; Tr. 134-135.
These small fractions in the total cost picture, 66.
the ratio of actual expenditures to date to the irretrievable commitment of resources during the NEPA review period, and in view of the rather small convince environmental effects during construction, this Board that a reasonable or prudent man would conclude that.these irretrievable costs would not affect in any significant manner the eventual decisions reached in the NEPA review.
I p.f.
'M
&d9-a ma
... F.
Conclusions _
Continued construction during the prospective 1.
review period will have a rather small adverse impact and redress of such adverse environ-on the environment, mental impact can reasonably be effected should it modification, suspension, or termination of the perm from the ongoing NEPA review.
result Continued construction during the NEPA review 2.
foreclose subsequent adoption of alterna-period will not lt tives in facility design of the type that could resu from the ongoing NEPA review.
Delay in the construction of the Davis-Besse 3.
Nuclear Power Station will seriously hamper the ability l
of the licensees to provide urgently needed electrica power to consumers during the projected peak power dem in substantial added costs to of 1975.
It will result the licensees which will be reflected in higher charges there is a substantial probability
- Moreover, to consumers.
that construction delay me.y cause a " blackout" or a
" brownout". during the peak power demand of 1975.
The irretrievable commitment of resources during
'4.
f the review period can reasonably be expected to have a negligible affect on the outcome of the NEPA review.
^
~
i-.. Accordingly, this Board finds that construction of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station should not be suspended pending completion of the NEPA review.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD w&l ce K
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member Dr.hJohn R. Lyman,hEmber l}Tk1nA Mr JeromeGarfinkelOChairman Issued: May 19, 1972 Washington, D.
C.
i r
1 I
==
1 a
_