ML20023B308
| ML20023B308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1982 |
| From: | Thomsen F PERKINS, COIE (FORMERLY PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN, PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212270225 | |
| Download: ML20023B308 (16) | |
Text
l e
l
' og$f
.g pf,23
? -
l l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) Docket Nos. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al. ) STN 50-523
)
(Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project, ) December 20, 1982 Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NWF/OEC DISCOVERY REQUESTS On December 1, 1982, the National Wildlife Federation / Oregon Environmental Council (NWF/OEC) served seventeen discovery requests upon the Applicants.2 These included both interroga-tories and requests for production of documents. Applicants hereby file their response to these requests.
Several of NWF/OEC's discovery requests have such a tenuous relatic nship to the contentions admitted in this proceeding that they fall beyond the permissible scope of discovery.
8 Intervenors National Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environmental Council's Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories (December 1, 1982).
'. ~~
P212270225 021220 PDR ADOCK 05000522
.0- PDR
__ ]
Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation, Applicants have decided to provide substantive responses to some of these requests. The fact that Applicants have so responded should not be construed as an admission of the relevance of the sub-ject matter of these requests to this proceeding or to conten-tions in this proceeding, nor should it be construed as a waiver of the right to object in the future to the lack of relevance of the subject matter of these requests.
Applicants' substantive response to NWF/OEC's discovery requests is attached hereto. Applicants' objections to several of the discovery requests are provided below.
Objections to Certain Discovery Requests bv_NWF/OEC Section 2.740(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice explicitly limits the scope of discovery in construction permit proceedings to subjects which " relate only to those matters in controversy which have been identified by the Commission or the presiding officer in the prehearing order. . . . ." Thus, to the extent that a discovery request is not relevant to conten-tions that have been admitted by a licensing board, the request exceeds the scope of discovery permitted under the Commission's rtile s . Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiv-ing and Storage Station), LbP-77-13, 5 NRC 489, 492 (1977).
The Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of July 6, 1982,
- p. 8, is fully in accord with this principle, since it only i
O
{
authorizes discovery "as to the issues raised by the conten-tions which have been accepted by the Board." Consequently, under the Commission's Rules of Practice and the Licensing t
Board's order, NWF/OEC is permitted to request discovery only on admitted contentions.
In this case, discovery by NWF/OEC is restricted to Conten-tions 2 and 7, which are the contentions admitted by the Licensing Board for which NWF/OEC has been designated as lead party." Contention 7 pertains to alleged environmental impacts from using hydroelectric facilities to provide peaking power. Contention 2 alleges that "[t]he Applicants have used an inaccurately low estimate of the financial cost of the Project in its Cost / Benefit Ratio." Furthermore, Contention 2 wa: accepted by the Licensing Board only with respect to the bases identified as A through D in the Second Supplement to Fetition to Intervene of National Wildlife Federation and Oregon Environmental Council (May 21, 1982), pp. 2-3.' Thus, l
l 2
See Memorandum and Order of Novceber 2, 1982.
See Memorandum and Order of July 6, 1982, p. 2. In general, the four basco allege that (A) the Applicants' assumed capacity factor is unduly high; (b) the Applicants have not accounted for decommissioning costs; (C) the Applicants' assumed cost of money in Table 8.2-2 of the ASC/ER is ,
unrealistically lcw; and (D) the Applicants' total cost figure is low compared to other plants owned by the Applicants.
it is these bases which form the " matters in controversy" with !
respect to Contention 2, and the scope of permissible discovery is correspondingly limited to requests that are relevant to
' ~
these four bases.
To the extent that NWF/OEC may be attempting to elicit information regarding construction and operating costs of S/HNP that do not relate to these four bases, its discovery requests are objectionable. A petitioner is required to identify its contentions and bases prior to discovery, and he will not be heard to complain that it is not possible to formulate specific bases without the benefit of discovery. Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188, 192, aff'd, CLI-73-12, 6 AEC 241 (1973).
Thus, NWF/tdC may not propound discovery requests, which are not relevant to the four bases of Contention 2, for the purpose of framing a new basis that could possibly be interpreted as falling under the very general rubric of Contention 2.
It appears that several of the NWF/OEC discovery requests suffer from this infirmity, and the Applicants accordingly object to them. Each of these requests is discussed below.
! Discovery Requests 1 and 2 These requests seek information regarding capacity factors and the operating history of Trojan Nuclear Project. The Trojan plant is not the subject of this proceeding; therefore ,
I it is not a proper subject of discovery. j To the extent that NWF/OEC may be attempting to use information regarding the capacity factors for Trojan as basis for supporting its allegation that the capacity factors for S/HNP are unduly high (i.e.', Basis A of Contention 2), such information is not probative of this allegation. Trojan is only one plant and its operating history may or may r.ot be indicative of the industry as a whole. Moreover, Trojan is a ,
pressurized water reactor which was built in the early 1970s, and thus it is dissimilar to S/HNP, which is a boiling water reactor which is scheduled to be constructed during the latter half of the 1980s. Consequently, the history of Trojan and hence these requests are not relevant to Contention 2.
Discovery Requests 5 (in part) and 6 Discovery requests 5 (in part) and 6 seek documents, information ar.d explanations regarding every item found on Table 8.2-2 of the ASC/ER. This table contains financial information for a wide spectrum of different types of costs of S/HNP, some of which have no relevance to Bases A, B and C of Contention 2 (i.e., capacity factors, decommissioning costs, and the cost of money). Furthermore, an explanation of the difference between S/HNP and WNP Unit 3 for each type of cost in Table 8.2-2 is not relevant to the explanation of the difference between S/HN1' and WNP Unit 3 for the total ccat, which is a subject of Basis D of Contention 2. Consequently,
Lo the extent that these requests seek information which is not relevant to the four bases of Contention 2, the requests are objectionable. Responses will be 7rovided to these requests to the extent that they do relhte to the four bases of Contention 2.
Discovery Request 7 This request seeks information and documents regarding a comparison of the cost of S/HNP with the cost of completing WNP Units 4 and 5. However, the cost of completion of WNP Units 4 and 5 (as differentiated from the total cost of these units) is not relevant to Basis D of Contention 2, and it has no j discernable relevance to the other three bases of Contention 2.
Discovery Request 9 This request seeks information and documents regarding any quantification of environmental costs of S/HNP. This request is not relevant to Contention 2, which pertains to economic costs. In fact, the Licensing Board expressly reworded this l contention to exclude environmental costs. See Memorandum and Order of October 29, 1982, p. 2, n. 2.
Discovery Request 11 This request seeks documents regarding the Applicants assumed interest rate during construction of 9% as set out in Table 8.2-2 of the ASC/ER or any other potential interest rate. However, Table 8.2-2 does not refer to an interest rate of 9% or to any other interest rate. Presumably, NWF/OEC was
\
l o
intending to refer to the 9% annual interest rate during !
construction which appears in Table 8.2-1. In any case, the requested information is not relevant to Bases A through D of Contention 2, which pertain'to capacity factors, decommission-ing costs, cost of money used in Table 8.2-2, and comparisons of the total costs of S/HNP and other facilities owned by the Applicants.
Discovery Requests 13-16 These requests seek information and documents regarding costs of transmission facilities and transmission line losses.
These requests are not relevant to Bases A through D of Conten-tion 2, which pertain to capacity factors, decommissioning costs, cost of money, and comparisons of the total cost of S/HNP and other facilities owned by the Applicants.
For the reasons discussed above, Applicants object to providing responses to the identified discovery requests.
Responses to the remaining interrogatories are attached, and Applicants will provide the documents sought in the remaining production requests. As requested, these documents will be made available for inspection by NWF/OEC at 9:00 a.m. on January 5, 1983 at the corporate headquarters of Portland General Electric Company in Portland, Oregon. Specific arrangements for such inspection should be made with Warren G.
Hastings, Esq., Associate Corporate Counsel, Portland General Electric Company, 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Por?. land, OR 97204 (Phone (503) 220-3000. Upon request by NWF/OE'J, Applicants will provide at cost copies'of any of these documents to NWF/OEC.
i i
DATED: December 20, 1982.
Respectfully submitted, PERKINS, COIE, STONE, OLSEN & WILL S By F. Theodore Thomsen Attorneys for Applicant 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone (206) 682-8770 Of Counsel:
David G. Powell Steven P. Frantz Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, M,W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 862-8400
Attachment:
Applicants' Substantive Responses to NWF/OEC's Interrogatories
.c.
00(.KETED triH:C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM, S
@23 N0:38 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- L. m C_ 7_ L
.. ) .
In the Matter of )
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ) DOCKET NOS.
et al. )
) STN 50-522 (Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Proj ect, ) STN 50-523 Units 1 and 2) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
I hereby certify that the following:
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NWF/OEC DISCOVERY REQUESTS i
i in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the persons shown on the attached list by depositing copies thereof in the l United States mail on December 20, 1982 with proper postage affixed for first class mail.
DATED: December 20, 1982.
F.
a em~
Theodore Thomsen Attorney for Puget Sound Power &
Light Company 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101
__ -- l
SKAGIT/NANrORD NUCLEAR PRarECT DATE December 20, 1982 M T Service List Docket Nos. S11e 50-522 and STN 50-523 COP 9t!SSION NRC STAFF APPLICANTS (cont . ) ,
Secretary of the comunission lee Scott Dewey, Esq.
Docketing and Servlee Branch Warren G. Mastings, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC Staff Associate Corporate Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccessission Washington, D.C. 20555 Of fice of the Executive Legal Portland General Electri'* Company Director 121 S.W. Salmon Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comunission Portland, OR 97204 LICENSING BOARD Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard D. Bach, Esq.
John F. Wolf, Esq., Chairman INTERESTED STATES AND COUNTIES S MP1, Rives, Boley, Fraser & Wyse Adiministrative Judge 2300 Georgia Pacific Bldg.
Atoinic Safety and Licensing Board Washingtco Energy Facility 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue ldO9 Shepherd Street Site Evaluation Council Portland, OR 97204 Cl'evy Chase, MD 20015 Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Mail Stop PY-11 ONER Dr. Frank F. Hooper Olympia, WA 98504 Adelnistrative Judge Mina Bell, Staf f Intervenor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Kevin M. Ryan, Esq. Coalition for Safe Power School of Natural Resources Washington Assistant Attorney Suite 527, Governor Bldg.
University of Michigan General 408 S.W. Second Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48190 Temple of Justice Portland, OR 97204 Olympia, WA 98504 -
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Ralph Cavanagh, Esq.
Administrative Judge Atcele Safety and Licensing Roard Frank W. Ostrander, Jr., Esq. Natural Resources Defense Council Oregon Assistant Attorney General 25 Kearny Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory h ission 500 Pacific Butiding San Francisco, CA 94108 Washington, D.C. 20555 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, OR 97204 Terence L. Hatcher, Esq.
APPEAL BOARD I#fF and OEC Bill Sebero, Chairman 708 Dekwe Bidg.
Stephen F. Ellperin, Esq., Chairman Benton County Comunissioner 519 S.W. Third Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing P.O. Box 470 Portland, OR 97204 Appeal Board Prosser, WA 99350 U.S. Nuclear Requietory Cdeusission Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert C. lethrop, Esq.
APPLICANTS Attorney for Colisibia River Christine M. Kohl Inter-Tribal Fish Commission F. %eodore Thomsen, Esq. Suite 320 Atomic Safety and Licensing Perkins, Cole, Stone, 8383 N.E. Sandy Blvd.
Appeal Board Olsen & Williams Portland, OR 97220 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccounission 1900 Waishington Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Seattle, WA 98101 Jeans B. Movis, Esq.
Yakiina Indian Nation Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy David G. Powell, Esq. c/o Hovis, Cockrill & Roy Atomic Safety and Licensing Imrenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 316 North M ird Street Appeal Board 1025 Connecticut Avenue N.W. P.O. Box 487 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036 Yakima, WA 98907 .
Washington, D.C. 20555 James W. Durham, Esq. Canadian Consulate General Senior Vice President Donald Martens, Consul General Counsel and Secretary 412 Plaza 600 Portland General Electric company 6th and Stewart Street 121 S.W. Salmon Street Seattle, WA 98101 Portland, OR 97204 MpJVL-FN '
02LIC35 December 20, 1982 l
{
Applicants' Substantive Responses to NWF/OEC Interrogatories Discovery Requests 1 and 2 l
- 1. For each year since its commercial operation, provide the yearly " plant capacity factor" for the Trojan Nuclear Project. For purposes of this question, plant capacity factor means the net kilowatt hours generated by the Plant (total generation less amounts needed at the plant itself) divided by the product of I - the number of hours in the year times the rated capacity of the plant. For each year, indicated the " rated capacity" used in the calculation and explain how it was derived.
- 2. For each year for which figures are provided in Response to Interrogatory 1,
( indicate what fraction of total potential plant output (rated capacity times the number of hours in each year), was lost due to each of the following factors:
(1) routine maintenance; (2) refueling; (3) plant malfunction or safety related shutdowns or reductions; (4) the displacement of Trojan power production by other power sources for economic or system-wide operational reasons. In each case, the answer should be based on equivalent hours of full load operation.
Response
The documents to be produced on January 5,1983 will include the Operation Data Reports for the Trojan plant, from which most of the requested information can be ascertained.
Discovery Request 3 Explain in detail the basis for the assumption displayed in the Application for Site Certification / Environmental Report (ASC/ER) that the Skagit/Hanford Project (S/HNP) will operate during its life at a 70% capacity factor.
Response
The Applicants base the assumption that S/HNP will operate at a 70% capacity factor in part upon historical data and in part upon engineering judgment.
The historical data indicate that the cumulative capacity factor for all light water power reactors is approximately 60%. However, extrapolation of past performance does
02LIC35 December 20, 1982 not necessarily yield reliable predictions of future performance. Future performance of nuclear plants, particularly those such as S/HNP which are in the design or construction phase, will be affected by measures which have been and will be taken to improve plant performance. In this regard, changes have been made in the industry following the TMI accident which should increase the safety and reliability of nuclear power reactors.
A comprehensive study on the projected costs of nuclear plants was issued by the Department of Energy in August of 1982. This study assumed that a capacity factor of 65% is achievable for nuclear plants. The Nuclear Energy Cost Data Base issued by DOE in October,1982 also determined that 65% is an attainable capacity factor for both nuclear and coal plants. It noted further that, for a base loaded facility (such as S/HNP), the capacity factor is expected to approach the equivalent availability.
Historical data for nuclear plants from 1971-1980 as reported by NERC indicate an equivalent availability of 67.8%.
The trend of BWR performance in 1978 and 1979 also demonstrate that it is reasonable to assume a 70% capacity factor for S/HNP. In 1979, the combined capacity factor for the twenty-one BWR's rated at more than 400 MWe was 66.9%, and in fac. ten of twenty-one plants had a capacity factor greater than 70%. Although, capacity factors have generally declined since 1979, this decline is in part attributable to plant shutdowns to impliment modifications recommended in the TMI studies and other backfits to improve designs. Consequently, it may be expected that this decline will be temporary and that capacity factors will again approach and exceed the 1978 - 79 levels as soon as these modifications and backfits are completed. Therefore, the Applicants believe that a 70% capacity factor is a reasonable and achievable average over the design life of S/HNP.
. 02LIC35 December 20, 1982
(
Discovery Request 5 Applicant Pacific Power and Light has estimated that its share of the Washington Public Power Supply System's Project No. 3 (WNP No. 3) will produce power at a cost of 191.4 mills per kilowatt hour in 1987 dollars. (Letter from James F. Plenovi to Mr.
Kramer, Oregon PuLlic Utility Commission, December 22, 1981.) Explain in detail how and why S/HNP is expected to cost less per kilowatt hour than WNP No. 3. At a minimum, itemize the explanation pursuant to the cost break-down found in Table 8.2-2 of the ASC/ER and explain fully the difference in cost between the two plants for each item.
Response
The Applicants have not performed an evaluation to determine whether S/HNP will cost more or less than WNP-3. Consequently, the Applicants cannot explain how or why S/HNP may be expected to cost less than WNP-3, if in fact that is the case. In any event, the Applicants maintain that the total bus bar cost estimate for S/HNP in Table 8.2-2 of the ASC/ER is a reasonable estimate for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act even if it should be demonstrated that WNP-3 is expected to cost more than S/HNP.
Discovery Request 8 What is the estimated levelized mills per kilowatt hour cost of decommissioning S/HNP?
Response
The Applicants have not determined a specific cost for decommissioning S/HNP.
However, the Applicants believe that it is reasonable to estimate the cost of decommissioning S/HNP by using the generic cost estimates for decommissioning which are contained in NUREG-0586, " Draft Generic Environmental Impset Statement on Decommissioning on Nuclear Facilities," U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (January 1981).
02LIC35 Deesmber 20, 1982 As NUREG-0586 discusses, decommissioning costs vary depending upon the method of decommissioning. Table 5.3-1 in NUREG-0586 presents cost estimates (in 1978 $) for various methods of decommissioning a reference BWR. That table is reproduced below:
TABLE 5.3-1. Summary of Estimated Costs for Decommissioning the Reference BWR in
$ Millions ta,b) l ENTOMB with Decommissioning SAFSTOR After Internals Internals Element DECON 10 Years 30 Years 100 Years included Removed DECON 43.6 NA NA NA NA NA Entombment NA NA NA NA 35.0 40.6 Safe Storage Preparation NA 21.3 21.3 21.3 NA NA Continued Care NA 0.6 2.1 7.4 $40 k/yr $40 k/yr Deferred Decon-tamination 1;A 35.5 35.5 2C.4 NA NA TOTAL T33 57.4 58.9 55.0 35.0+$40 k/yr 40.6+$40 k/yr (a) All entries are from Reference 1. NA means not app!(cable.
(b) Values exclude cost of disposal of last core, exclude cost of demolition of non-radioactive structures and include cost of deep geological disposal of dismantled, highly activated components.
As is discussed in Sectior. 5.8 of the ASC/ER, the Applicants have not selected a method for decommissionng of S/HNP. However, if it is assumed that DECON is utilized, the cost of decommissioning of both units of S/HNP would be $275.6 million (1992 $), which if capitalized, would yield a cost of 2.4 mills /kwh.
Discovery Request 9 Have the applicants calculated or attempted to calculate the quantifiable environmental costs (as that term is used in the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, P.L.96-501, Para. 3(3)(B)) of construction and operation of S/HNP?
If so, what are the calculated quantifiable environmental costs of construction and operation of S/HNP in levelized mills / kilowatt hour?,
02LIC35 December 20, 1982
Response
I To the extent that the Applicants have quantified potential environmental impacts resciting from construction and operatien of S/HNP, that quantification appears to the ASC/ER. In general, the Applicants.have not attempted to translate environmental impacts into economic costs. Such a conversion is not required by the National Environmentel Policy Act, and the Applicants do not believe that such a conversion is l
appropriate in this case.
Discovery kequest 17 How do the applicants desire or anticipate that S/HNP will be operated in conjunction with the regional power system operated by and tnrough the Bonneville Power Admini-stration, the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement, and/or the Northwest Power Pool's " Coordinated Operation Principles and Procedures."
Response
As is stated in Section 1.0.4 of the ASC/ER, the applicants anticipate that S/HNP will be operated as a baseload facility.
1
. .. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J
e 02LIC35 December 20, 1982 AFFIRMATION The undersigned affirms that he is one of the attorneys for Applicants in this proceeding, that the foregoing substantive responses were prepared under his supervision, and that these responses are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
DATED: December 20, 1982 M
F. Theodore Thomsen Attorney for Applicants i 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 i
_ - _ _ .