ML20031A787

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Answers to Interrogatories from Various Intervenors in Util Pending Rate Case,Cause 27068.Related Correspondence
ML20031A787
Person / Time
Site: Black Fox
Issue date: 09/18/1981
From: Gallo J
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF OKLAHOMA
To: Purdom P, Shon F, Wolfe S
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8109250431
Download: ML20031A787 (100)
v • d • e


Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

E ll4 nu u n m rgx FJH23'N k

.g 1

Se A

ISHAM, LINCOLN & DEALE I %, p 8,j [gG

  • 1-COUNMLORS AT LAW
  1. 'Q%,/

6; nao cou~ccricur Aveuve, ~...

.A s uiu!E'u", '*E. a oos.

' 3//7,,gg,;,,,

ratepuouc no.. 32..no oNC FIRSr NAfloNAL PLAZA September 18, 1981 J,,","g,'c,7A75,,

itLEPa*oNC J12 512-FSoo 7c,.ac e.S Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge Administrative Judge-Atomic Safety and Licensing Atcmic Safet*,' and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Washington, D. C.

20555 f

N Dr. Paul W.

Purdom

,f.>

Administrative Judge t

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory DOCYSED Id Commission USNPO g ggg

  • 4 c/o Environmental Studies 7

Group g_

Drexel University CTctof N S W ;6)

~

32nd and Chestnut Streets M2M #

6 g

Philadelphia, PA 19104 g

(b a

RE:

In the Matter of Black Fox Station, Units 1 Docket Nos. STN 50-556 and STN 50-557 Gentlemen:

Consistent with full disclosure policies of Public Service Company of Oklahoma ("PSO"), I am enclosing copies of answers to certain interrogatories propounded by various intervenors, including the Oklahoma Attorney General, in PSO's pending rate case.

This casc is being heard by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission under Cause No. 27068.

The snswers provide financial information pertinent to PSO's Black Fox Station.

Objections were filed with respect to interroga-tories numbered 91 through 96.

I am i nformed that in ruling on these objections, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission entered an order which provided that in lieu of answering the interrogatories as posed, Applicant (PSO] may provide Intervenors all cost impact 3ih

~

8109250431 810918,3 PDR ADOCK 0500055e o

PDR.

i

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Zsquire Mr. Frederick J. Shon Dr. Paul W. Purdom September 18, 1981 Page Two information which it has relating to safety modifi-cations which will be required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a result of its investiga-tion into the Three Mile i

Island incident.

I am also informed that PSO, in response to this Order, provided the following information in lieu of an-swering interrogatories 91 through 96:

Based on current industry and regulatory information, the cost to pending con-struction permit applica-tions of Three Mile Island l

related changes is believed to be in the range of 100-140 million dollars (1981) or roughly 215 to 300 mil-lion in the 1991 time frame.

These are not precise cal-culations but engineering judgments intended to estab-lish the order of magnitude l

as well as lower and upper bounds.

Sincerely, l

Jose, Gallo Counsel for Public Service Company of Oklahoma JG/pm

Enclosures:

As Shown on Page Three cc:

Service List l

C Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Frederick J. Shon f

Dr. Paul W. Purdom September 18, 1981 Page Three

Enclosures:

A.

Interrogatories 1 through 8, Suba.ttted by Attorney General B.

Interrogatories 22 and 82 through 102 of First Set of Interrogatories Sub-mitted by the Intervenors.

C.

Interrogatories 7 and 9 of the Second Set of Interrogatories Submitted by the Intervenors.

D.

Requests 1 and 2 of the Request for Production of Documents Submitted by the Intervenors.

REu.nm COBRasPONDW pncD. O. U'UL FT.C..%..$ $h,

r C ~ ~1

. 71 = l

... ann i

i

[

l/

DOcgy, 5 U.,

~

Q --SEP2T198f,

f GEc:ci n l

OCh,Cll~,, ' ??)?y gq,

  • ve c

'e A.

Interrogatories 1 through

,I l

8 Submitted by Attorney ceneral j

W 4

'f I

4 e-4 4

4 e

i l

9 l

i r

(-

i m

i s.

.e+m.

=...

f i

r e

1

, _,., _,, -, _.. ~, -,.., _.... _,,, -.. -.-..

INTERROGATORY NO.1: State the total amount expended on procuring the various

" Limited Work Authorization" permits to date, and show separately the amounts relating to the test ysar.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.1: The procuring of a " Limited Work Authorization" and the various amendments thereto is a part of the overall effort to receive a construction perii;it, which is covered in Interrogetory No. 2. All activities pursued by the Company, including various regulatory submittals and participation in the environ:nental and site suitability proceedings were identical to those requird for the pursuit of a construction permit in the event that a Limited Work Authorization had not bean requested. Thus, the only added cost was the preparation of notice to the Agency that the l

Company intenced to utilize the " Limited Work Authorization" under the authority of 10 CFR 50.10(e)(1) and preparation of the specifle listing of activities requested under the original Limited Work Authorization and each amendment. These costs, none of which occurred in the test year, s.re g minimus and are not separately accounted for.

l i

1 l

1 l

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: State the total amount expended thus far in pursuit of a construction permit for Black Fox. Included in this figure should be items expended for

" Owners Group" reports ined to comply with NUREG-0718, amounts expended for submitting plans for a control room simulator, etc.

Furthermore, amound exoended should include labor and materials costs.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2,: PSO has maintained no separate allocation of costs expended for the specific task of obtaining a construction permit. Based on analysis of all expenditures,it appears that the total amount spent to October 31, 1980, including labor and material, to pursue a construction permit,it on the order of $10 million.

O

INTERROUATORY NO. 3: Amounts expended in the current litigation styled:

CITIZENS ACTION FOR SAFE

)

ENERGY, ET AL.,

)

)

Petitioners,

)

)

v.

)

D.C. Circuit

)

No. 80-1566 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR

)

REGULATORY COMMISSION,

)

)

Respondents.

)

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: The amount spent to October 31,1980, in the subject action is on the order of $30,000.

.3 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Give the proj6cted " Construction Permit" attainment date as projected by Applicant ano any supporting documentation for aaid projection.

ANSWEIt TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: The Company has no current projection with re-spect to the date of receipt of the constructSn permit. Any date selected would be

!stgely conjecture. Until the NRC finalizes its proposed rules (as noticed in the Federal Register, March 23,1981) and these rule changes b3come effective, there is little to base sucn projections on. Unknowns such as the time required to respond to such new rules, NRC review of applicants' responses, issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report Supple-ment, definition of issues, dismvery, callings of hearings, decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself are all unknowns that frustrate any ability to project a construction permit attainment date.

n w-

~~,

~

w

-r

,a INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Amounts spent for legal fees generated by the Applicant Company appearing as an intervenor or' amicus. curiae in matters before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and/or before the Court of Appeals for the District o Columbia r

Circuit. The amount should cover thelast 24-month period of time.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: None other than as described in response to Interrogatory No. 3.

l l

l l

l

INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Stata the projected " Operating License" attainment date as i

projected by Applicant and any supporting documentation for said pecjecticn.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: The Company is unable to project such attain-ment date until various uncertainties are resolved, especially an accurate projection of construction permit rec 31pt, as discussed in the Answer to Interrogatory No. 5.

At present, industry experience Indicates nominal construction durations of 72 months from fist safety related concrete pour to fuelload (i.e4 receipt of an operatingIIcense).

G no--

.e,-

-e-a,-+

-vy,, - -,

-,-o

,w e-e--.

v,emy-m,

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: State the Company's projected completion date for the Black Fox units to oecome operatienal assuming the construction permit and operating license are granted. Provide any supper.ing documents for this projection.

ANSWER T'O INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As is set forth in the Answers to Interrogatories No.

5 and 6, PSO has been unable to project with any certainty the licensing and completion milestones of the Black 'rox facility. On January 23, 1981, PSO announced that it wed placing the Black Fox Station at the end of its ten-year planning calendar.

(See attached press release.) The action was not the delineation of a new schedule nor was it predicated on any new development but upon the uncertainty of the situation. At that time, the announcement "... noted that prolonged delays experienced in receiving a construction permit from the Nuclect Regulatory Commission (NRC) means it is unlikely the first unit of the Rogers County site near Inola will be operational prior to 1991. Black Fox Unit 2 continues to be planned for three years after Unit 1."

Industry experience indicates that commercita operation will commence approximately 12 months after receipt of an operatinglicense.

--am

-A -ew m

eor-eee y.--

,--n.r-.--<--%,

-s

--w

8.0. SCX 201, iULSA, CKLAHCMA 74102~

AC 918 583 3611 Immediate FOR RA ASE:

FOR FURTHER INFCRMATION Jim Dembows CCNTACT: 599-28AC REGULATORY DELAYS RESULT IN SFS REVISI'ONS Citing continuing uncertainties ir federal licensing procedures, Public Service Company of Oklahoma off-lcials announced a revised anticipated operational date for the Black Fox Station nuclear-fueled generating plant.

PS0 officials noted that prolonged delays experienced in receiving a construction permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (NRC) means it is unlikely the first unit at the Rogers County site near Inola vill be operatioral prior to 1991.

The 1991 date is not predicated on any new development, officials stressed, but the uncertainty of the situation dictates moving the unit to the end of the company's 10-year planning calendar.

This is the fif th time the Black. Fox Station operation date has been changed since the initial estimate of 1982 was announced in December 1973.

Prior to the March 28, 1979, Three Mile Island accident, the estimate for unit one was based on -he utility's expectation it would receive a construction permit in July 1979.

Following Three Mile Island, the NRC declared a moritorium on issuing new construction permits and none have.been issued to this date.

(more) f--

9 CENTRAL ANo sCUTH WEST SYSTEM -

h gtraigo_werg Ugnt gc Sgee, Company of Chiancma sgnwyerng.nc Power g e gs Ut*oes

~_. _

t Final NRC approval of post-TMI requirements for issuance of construction permits--the first step in lif ting the moratorium--

is still uncertain.

By combining this with the time necessary to update engineering design work, along with NRC reviews and hearings, it could be early 1983 before a construction permit for Black. Fox is issued, PSO officials pointed. out.

They added that a remobili:ation of the company and design consulting staffs, plus renegotiating contracts, will be necessary before any actual construction activity can begin following the receipt of a construction permit.

Black Fox unit two continues to be planned for three years a f ter unit one.

l PS0 officials said no updated estimate of the cost of the p,roject is possible until the new licensing and design requirements are katwn and factored in, and a construction permit date is determined.

Black Fox Station is a joint project of PS0; Associated Electric Cooperative, Springfield, Missouri; and Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Anadarko.

PSO serves as pro.iect manager for the l

participants.

I pso 012381 m

m

INTERROGATORY NO. 8: State the Company's projected accumulated cost for the Black rox units to b(ume operational. Provide any supporting documents used as a basis for this ccat projection.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: The Company is unable to dete-mine a suitable methodology to update the $2.388 billion estimate made in April,1979 (see notification to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated April 30, 1979, attached), which was predicated on 1985/1988 on-line dates. As explained in the answers to Interrogatories No.

5,6 and 7, uncertainties loom large !n determining a schedule and thus the cost.

Until the Company can better predict the commencement of public hearings, issuance of construction permits, a point of beginning safety related construction, construction duration and receipt of an operating license to load fuel, it would be misleading and irresponsible to calculate a specific facility cost for Black Fox Station. It is, however, reasonable to assume s significant increase due to inflation, increased intere,t rates and new requirements stemming from TMI. Many generic cost projections have been made by industry experts, and we are confident Black Fox Station will fall within the normal range of these estimates,if not on the low side.

-.: '. L~

l% ~.

^ (.[-

'-+

~

.;i.I.

~..

5 ~~

G

(l ' ' ISHAf4, LINCOLN & BEALE 5 o cou,.sm.cas c uw .,y> J t 3084 17tP STAC CT. M. w. SCvCNTM FLOCR w.=4to=,s.c.aOOs0 4fg( S.Qigd TELEPMONC 202* s33*9730 i Cp*Caec O,rN"E ---_m.g,m ,Om??*SCCOsse FLCO%

      • eacc 14LIrtEMS 84 '803 April 30, 1979 T CbCP**O**& ***

erw-S40 eeten a. 80_..J Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Membar Atomic Safety and Licensing Atcric Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Pr.nel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Co= mission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Paul W. Purdom, Director Environmental Studies droup Drexel University 32nd and Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Re: 2n the Matter of the Application of ) l Public Service Company of Oklahoma, ) i Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.) Docket No. STN 50-556 and ) STN 50-557 Western Farmers Electric Cooperative ) ) (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Gentlemen: Cn March 14, 1979, we advised of a schedule and cost analysis for the Black Fox Station being conducted by Applicants. That assessment is now ccmplete and it is hereby furnished for the infor=ation of the ticensing Scard and Parties. In the interest of prompt notification, the data has been tabulated in attachments to the April 23, 1979, letter of Mr. Vaughn L. Conr.l, Manager, Licensing and Ccmpliance, Public Ser /ica Company of Oklahoma. In his letter, Mr. Conrad correlatec the revised finan-ci C data

  • with that set forth in the Application for the Black Fox Station.

Based on the revised schedule described in Exhibit I to Mr. Conrad's letter, the earliest completion dates included in Section 7. of the. Application would now be January 1, 1985, for In Evhmit II, the total for the column entetled " April, 1979" should read "2,338,725" instead of "2,338,725". w- ,-,.-e,--,w.-.., ,...,-,,.-.e-

c. :.' -. :'.

f.U.*; * ;: z.. *..,. ..a '. n

  • g

~-

-,~

i Unit 1 and January 1, 1988, for Unit 2. All of the foregoing information wi2.1 he emoodied in a future amend:nent to the Applica-l tica. Ap;Meants filed their " Reply to Proposed Findings of Facts and C,nclusions od Law of the NRC Stafd and the Intervenors" en April 25, 1979. We are enclosing an errata sheet and table of contents for the assistance of the Licensing Board and the parties. sincerely, ym/ J l Jose Gallo One of the Attorneys for the Applicants i JG:ds Enclosures ces: Service List 1 e e M= _. -.. ~.. _ _. _ - _.. - -, _...____,-,,..,,.__.._..e , - - _. _,..,.,.,, ~.. _ -,. - _ -. _

4.'- d .,_ -[.E. e y - x,, r

.y
,

.n ~ :; ;c-: , s,. - 1. w s. PUBUC SERVIG COMPANY OF OKIAHOMA W Q.M M b--. $ N A CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST COMPAN',' a W t = s P Q. SCX 201/ TULSA. CKLAHOMA 74102 / (9181583 3611 Public Service Compan of Oklahoma April 23, 1979 .~ 31ack Fox Station Revisad Schedule and Cost,Isti=ata s n u x. Mur,hy, zs,. .Isham, Lincoln and Baala One.?irst Nation i Pla=a i.Aicago, III 6C603 Daar Paul. In our latter to the licensing boards dated March 17, 1979, va adviul them that a raanalysis of the cost esti=aca and construction schedule for the Black Icx Station.was in progress and would be completed by April 30, 1979. Th{fthdy has been complaced, and I an now directing that you provide the following information to the boards and parties. . The ravised construction schedula is detailed in the attached Exhibit I. %=W operation of 37S Unit 1 is now slated for July 1,.1985, cecuercial operation of Ucit 2 on July 1, 1988. These construction schedules taka into con =4 A= ation an previously.e=parianced licensing delays and are based on present day experiences at s4-4hr projecto. Industry precedent has been to sat up, a *dmenia allowing chly two years between units, b"t actual construction - cimas are more closely follating our revised. schedule. We h3ve carefully opti=i=ed the Project's construction sequenca based on an expected Cons'.ruction Per=it receipt by July 1, 1979. The new cost estimata for tha Project is detailed in Exhibit II. Ihis inim:.atier. is *4=41* to that provided in the Application for Liensas, pages III.I-2 and III.X-3, but dona not conform to than FEEC (IPC) derive'd format. In the incarast of prompt notification, I have also included in this exhibit a compardson between the June,1977. asedmta of 1.75 billion and the revised estimate of 2.39 billion, rachar than vait for the actual revision of these pages which v111 involve a con-siderabia effort. Exhibit II has provided the same net information and elde4mted the need to util1=a the above cited pages for comparative puyoses. Exhibit III corresponds directly to Application, page %II.A-3, which describes the PSO source of funds for system-wide. construction expeudituras during the 373 con-struction pe: Cod. TAhrise, E-hibits IV and V provida project cash flow infor=ation for Associated Electric Cooperative. Inc. and Western Farmars' Electric Cooperative. () Ihase correspond to pages' III.L-2 and III.M-2, respectively, of the Application. h

  1. 61 m

' 'l '~ f 20g3 2. Isham, Lincois and E '.- s= = y .t e r Our Traasurer, Mr. Glancy, infor=s sa that the i= pacts of the increased cost for the ? oject have baan ---Wrated f== a financing point of view by the lengthened schedule. ~A compard.sen of Exhibit III with Apr Lication, page III.A-2, will show a dae:aasa in =" usi funds required, for tha Project for some years, although the total is greatar. Finally, as a mattar of infor=a3?.on, I have attached as Ixhibit VI current. projected de=and and anargy :.quiranents for each of the joint owners through 1990 with corrasoonding system capacity. The ecmpound growth rata for PSG p cjections (VIa) is 5.5%; ACI (VIb), 7.7:; W7.C (VIc)., 9.6%. Very truly yours. &~ e V. L. Conrad. Manager. p ensir; and Cc=plianca ..u VLC:dn' .Act n e% = a ts cc: M. E. Fate, Jr. T. N. Ev ng J. Gallo l ... ~ 9 .e-l i l l l ,--.-,--,--.-l- .n, - - < ,---m-,

, ;.'! 'i,. M.,.' e-- 'ExNDIT T .7.. :... .c ~ v ~ 3 LACK 70% STATION Schedule EVENT DATE MONTHS FROM CP Construction Ps:.it July 1, 1979 0 , Unit 1 FLal Load January 1, 1985 66 Unit 1 Full Power - July 1, 1985 72 .(Commercial) ..Un:1 E 2 Tual Load January 1, 1988 102 Unit 2 Full Power July 1, 1988 108 ( M arcial) s g \\ 1 e I 1 l l

-/] - ,.p;. P".: !-i,".._. f gxgz3I; 77 W ~. ..w :. J.* i COMPARISON OF 3FS ESTD'.ATES (Dollars % 1000) June 77 Anril 79 Land, Materfds and Equipment 632,705 613,572 Construe:1on 241,291 385,297 Subcatal T73396 998,869 , Engr & Const: Manage =ent 184,209 249,378 Salas Tax (inc1) 3,839 Undistributed (inc1) 29,694 Escalation 279,374 329,275 Contingency 96,229 227,900 Interest 316,192 549,77d i Total 1,750,000 2,3M,725 Cost /r4 761 1,038 CHANGE COMPARISON (Dollars X l'000) , Change (I Total) blance To:.a1 I= crease 638,000 Interest (Delay & Sched E=:) 233,578 (37%) 404,422 Escalacion (Delay) 49,900 ( 8%) 354d22 Equipment & Construction 124,873 (20%) 229,649 Urh. ova 29,694 ( 5%) 199,955 Contingency 131,671 (212) 68,234 Engr /Coust: Management 65,169 (10%) 3,115 -w--

,.,.-.,,ses

--.r-w- --e i---- ew--e---,-u--&w-- v-,-i-----w w.,w- .---,--w .--ww--i

,--w--

Exl.ib1L III ATTACHHENT FOR ITEM NO. 3.'s. [ Applicant Public Service Company of Oklahoma ~ Nuclear Planta Black Fox i Sources of Funds for System-Ulda Construction Expenditures Durinh Period of Construction of Subject Huclear Power Plant ' p,b ', ( (Hillions of Dollars) j Construction Years of Subject Nuclear Power Plant j Jecurity issues and a 1 other funds 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984-1985 1986 :._{987 ", 1988 j Comenon Stock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 'gy 0 ~ 4 Freferred Stock 25 0 35 25 25 40 0 -30 0 Lon8-Term Debt 125 105 100 100 95 115 60 ~ 75, ' 75 100 l Notes Payable 14 6 14 4 38 15 13 -( 30) ( 22) ( 41 Contributions from j Parent-Net 45 40 70 82 80 50 25 20 0 0 ( 2) ( 2) ( 17) __ ( 22 j Other Ibnds ( 27)_ ( 27) ( 27)_ 12), ( 7)_ ( 14)_ 96 93 36 37 Total 182 124 192 209 231 206 I j Internal Funds j Het Income 53 62 82 101 122 133 _ 145 159 177 18f Less: j Cosunon Dividends ( 31)~ _ ( 7). ( 9)_ ,J 12) ( 14) ( 17) ( 19)- ( 20) ( 21) ( 21 Preferred Dividends ( 5) ( 36)_ ~( 75) ( 83)~ _ ( 89)~ ( 95) (10f l Uorking Capital ( 17) ( 1) ~ ( 45) ( 55) ( 65)~ 4 1 ,[( In ( 6) ( ( 1) 1 7 l Deferred Taxes 15 17 19 22 26 41 51

  • 1 80

?! ~ g h 2! l Invest. Tax Cred.-Defer. 23 17 19 23 20 25 16 25 18 I 211 Depreciation & Amort. 41 8 49 54 57 60 84 132 140 158 Less: AFDC ( 24) ( 19) ( 31). ~ ( 50) ( 68)_ ( 76) ( 56) ( 71) ( 69) ( 31 32f i Totai 55 82 88 87 88 119 187 201 242 total FUNDS $ 237, [ 206 $ 280 $ 296 $ 319 $ 325 $ 28.s $ 294 $ 278 $ 36! l Construction Expenditurese , $ 119 68 67 $ 11" Nuclear Power Plants 6 65 97 $ 175 $ 199 $ 212, $ 193 t Other 172J 10L 105 97 107 132 164 226 211 2 51 Total Const.Exp's. $ 237_ $ 204_ $ 280 $ 296 $ 319 $ 325 $ 283 $ 294 $ 278 $ 36! Subject Huclear Plant $ 65 $ 97 $ 174 $ 196 6 209 $ 185 _$ 104 ^ $ 36 4 1 j ] I f AJmluoive of AFDC (allowance fcc funds' used durina construction)

/""HIBIT IV* A3i= 9-w e ASSOCIATID QUESTION 4C + , Yearly Total *)

  • Associated 1973 - 1978 80.2 17.4 1979 106.5 23.1..

~ 1980 159.1 34.5 1981' 285.3 61.9 1933' 322.2 69.9 1983 343.4 74.5 1984 302.8 65.'7 1985 170.9 37.1 ~ l 1986 58.2 12.6 l 1987 6.8 1.5 l 1988 '3.5 .76 a) Does not includa incarase duri.sg construction. l l l e e

  • . gp

....;.4,. u ' L w . ' t,' edd. b .e - n. o

j - 30:137 y .w. s-e WE317.IN QUESTION 4C Yearly Total ") Western 1973 - 1978 80.2 14.0 1979 105.5 18.5 1980 159.1 27.7 -" ~ 1*81 285.3 49.6 1982 322.2 56.1 I 1983 343.4 59.8 1984 302.8 52.7 1985 170.9' 29.7 1986 38.2 10.1 ~ 1987 6.8 1.2 1988 3.5 .6 t I a) Does' not include. interest during construction. l 1 1 . -:: :,2.... 4 .: ir */j'd - S.;..*.c, . " M..., M

~ .s U .EINI3rr VI, HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED PSO NET. SYSTZh PEAK LOL2 DEMANDS AND INERGY RIQUT E NTS Nec System . Syscam Demand Year Capacity

  • MW MWH Historical 1965 975 100G 4,240,417 1966 975.

1138 4,623,664 1967 1293 1166 4,638,809 \\ l 1968 1268 1289 5,329,509 1969 1268 1453 5,926,225 i 1970 1718 1550 ti,481,587 1971 1738 1610 6,854,698 1972 1726 1828 7,803,012 1973 1696 1843 8,198,314 1974 2252 2070 8,645,907 l 1975 2422 2071 9,171,251 1976 2880 2193 9,577,867 1977 2912 2'05 10,627,527 11,219,850 1978 2877 2527 Projected 1979 3304 2660 11,777c700 1980 3754 2808 12,335,200 1981 3754 2967 13,029,700 1982 ,3754 3110 13,687,900. 1983 3754 3292 14,417,300 1984 3754 3482 15,279,400 1985 4452 3680 16,185,500 1986 4452 3887 17,140,300 1987 4498 4101 18,190,400 1988 5045 4326 19,325,000 ^ 1989

  • 3095 4564 20,390,100 21,511,500 1990
  • 5257 4815

.? - e .I. a--

  • ----s--.-----

r-----.,-----,-v v

EXHIBIT VTb 7 9 a l EISTORICAL AND PROJECTED ASSOCIATE M WTRIC NET SYSTD1 PEAK LOAD DEMANDS AND ENERCT REQUIRDENTS Syscam Demand Nat Syscam Year Capaci g ist Historical. l 1965 143 352 1,860,818 1966 323 427 2,060,033 1967 323 473 2,256,949 i 1968 323 501 2,617,993 1969 G26 585 , 2,928,110 l 1570 626 650 3,272,'486 l 1971 626 824 4,248,130 l 1972 1226 972 5,294,207 1973 1226 1035 5,612,544 1974 1226 1163 5,896,688 1975 1226 1222 6,318,713 1976 1226 1507 7,362,730 1977 1828 1598 8,467,243 1978 1828, 1679 8,466,324 Projected 1979 1828 1960 9,745,000 1980 '1828 2104 10,439,000 1981 1828 2259 11,197,000 1982 2458 2409 11,842,000 1983 2458 2571 12,533,000 1984 2458 2745 13,273,000 ~ 1985 2708 2932 14,077,000 1986 2708 3133 14,917,000 i 1987 2958 3350 15,861,000 1988 2958 3584 16,876,000 1989 2958 3835 17,965,000 ,1990 2958 4105 19,136,000 e-e

r IXHIBIT VIC HISTORICAI. AND PROJECTED WESTER 21 NET SYSTEM PEAK LCAD DIMANDS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Syscam Dem and Net Syscam Year Capacity - MW y patori d 1965 137 125 620,675 1966 137 140 709,287 1967 137 150 789,137 1968 280 165 860,204 1969 280 196 955,507 1970 280 209 1,054,027 19/1 280 237 1,162,482 1972 280 255 1,331,914 ~ 1973 280 286 1,431,717 l 1974 280 488 2,308,320 1975 424 496 2,527,941 1976 424 566 2,755,379 1977 724 595 3,021,428 1978 724 638 3,276,830 Kroj ecte.d 1979 724 781 3,628,000 1980 724 846 3,949,000 1981 724 921 4,301,000 t 1982 1100 999 4,653,000 1983 1100 1085 5,034,000 1984 1100 1176 5,443,000 1 1985 1300 1276 5,886,000 1385 6,369,000 1986 1300 1987 1500 1502 6,887,000 l*' 1988 1500 1628 7,447,000 l l 1989 1500 M68 8,057,000 l 1990 1500 1916 8,713,000 1 l A ^

f ANTED LOjutEsiyyggg 00c: I'D 0 U fiL bh., k h /6 ~ ~ t DOCYZFCO LCtmo f - '- I ~$EP 2 i 198f

  • d

~ \\ Ci?c tt :% secretary la.k:',; ?, smice 8 \\y_ t.wa 4 B. -p 4 i Interrogatories Numbered 22 tnd 83 through 102 of the first set of inter-rogatories submitted 1r - ) the Intervenors i e e 1 't l 'y + -) \\ I i 9 s ( I 1 I

INTERROGATORY NCt 22: Has the Company cor. ducted iny cost-benefit analy-sit of the stream of required revenues asociated wth the planned construction program as compared with any generation planning alternative? Please provide list studies that have been performed dealing with Black Fox, Northeast 3, and Northeast 4. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Yes. PSO has recently completed a comprehensive Power Supply Analysis Study comparing Black Fox to coal alternatives. This study will be filed as an exhibit to the prefiled testimony of David J. Davis of PSO. I i

INTERFOGATORY NO. J3: Please provide the expenditures to date on Black Fox for each of the following categories: I a. NSSS Vendor o. Architect Eng!nect c. Subcontrators d. In-house (PSO) ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 83: As of October 31,1980 expenditures in the above listed categories are on the order of: a. NSSS Vendor $65 miPion b. Architect Engineer $61 million c. Subcontractors On-site wTk $29 niiElon Other contracts $27 million d. In-house (PSO) including s11 consultants augmenting staff $33 million NOTE: The totals above are for the entire BFS Project and do not includo AFUDC. PSO's share is 60.8"% of each of the above amour ts. 1 4

  1. 4 kh m..

INTERROGATORY NO. 84: Please provide the most recent estimate of schedule dates for the following stages of overall completion of the Black Fox Plant: 0%,25%,50%,75%,90% and 100% ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 84: The detailed progress measuring system has not been completed, so we cannot provide dates for the 3tages requested. The Answer to Interrogstory No. 90 provides elapsed time after receipt of construction permit to major milestones. t l I l l l l l l l l l

INTERROGATORY NO. 85: Please provide the most recent ectimate of schedule for fuelloading at Black Fox and commercial operation of Black Fox. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 85: PSO is unable to project such a schedule for the Black Fox Station until varicus uncertainties are resolved, especially an accurate projection of constru; tion permit receipt. Accordingly, on January 23,1981, PSO announced it was placing the Project at the end of the Company's ten year planning calendar, or 1991 for the first unit. BFS-2 continues to be planned three years after Unit 1. This was not a revised construction schedule for the Project, but a "no sooner than" date predicated on the continuing uncertainties of the federal licensing procedures. At present, industry experience indicates nominal construction duration of 72 months from - first safety related concrete pour to fuel load (i.e., receipt of an operating license). Similarly, present industry experience reflects commercial operation nominally 12 months af ter receipt of an operating license. ) h

INTERROGATORY NO. 86: Please provide date of the esti nated totid and actual-to-date capital e;sts in each of the following categories (note: If these categories are not the same as those used by PSO, please provide a description of the costs Meluded in the PSO categoriesn Land and Land Rights Structures & Improvements Reactor Plan Equipment Turoine Plant Equipment Electric Plant Equipment Miscellaneous Plant Equipment Main Condenser Heat Rejection System Construction Services Home Of fice Enginea:Ing & Services Field Office Engineering & Services Owner's Costs Contingency Escalation During Construction Interest DuMg construction Total Plant CapitalInvestment ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 86: The tabulation below lists the re-quested costs in the manner in which they are carried in the Black Fox Station Cost Control System. The estimated totalis from the April,1979 cost estimate; actual costs are through October 31,1980. Most of these costs sae included in the Answer to Interrogatory No. 83. The categories listed are self-explanatory except: Distributables: Construction support materaisi such as security support medical and first aid material, field health and sanitation material, safety material, fire protection material, small tools, consumable and expendable items, electrical parts, comportents and wire, lumber, hardware, fasteners, insulation, etc. Escalation: Escalation is included in each category and is not calculated separately. Based on a 1979 estimate, escalation on the base coat less contingency and interest, is estimated to be $;29.3 million. Interest: Interest ik calculated using W9b for the estimats. Actualinterest is for PSO's portion only, as we do not know or calculate the comwners' actual interest. e ---.,.,n..

. = _ PSO's share is 60.87% of each of the amounts below unless noted. Baseline Actual Estimate To July,1979 Oct.31,19,3 Land 4,171,000 4,176,854 Materials & Equipment 311. Structural 121,903,288 8,951,169 312. Mechanical 489,946,627 77,113,843

  • 1) Turbine Generator 135,357,881 3,689,355
  • 2) NSSS 173,516,376 64,943,112 313. C'temical 9,246,679 444,087 314. Control 5,767,180 262,142 315. Electrical 51,990,204 553,011
  • 3) 317. Kare Parts 16,628,412 0

318. Distributables 8,965,055 3.606,550 l Construction Contracts 321. Gen. Const. 181,545,986 13,721,822 322. Mech. Const. 205,091,437 1,500,418 324. Control Const. 14,565,350 8,135 325. Elect. Const. 89,599,178 63402 328. Const. Services 85,725,939 14,936,814

  • 4) 340. Design Eng. (B&V) 129,536,650 60,316,546 360. PSO 196,372,214 30,313,533 Labor for
  • 5) Home Office 100,064,900 17,3u,613

'6) Fleid Office 43,373,600 2,913,897 370. Interest 549,770,000 19,578,351 380. Reserve 227,900,000 Sgion Total 2,388,725,2tio, 235,54* 777 l go]!aly,1979 Other Project Accounts Flint Creek Study 118,163 Substation Design 23,699,000 405,329 Nuclear Fuel 10,115,420 Nuclear Fue.1 ' Int. 449.014 A. Andersen Audit 62,670 Other Expenditures 1,977,827 AFUDC for tnese 1,128,281 1 Accounts 23,699,000 14,3?4,704 1 e e

Adjustments to CCS Error in Charges 198,337 Oct. AFUDC not *.. OCS Report 1,260,491 Error in AFUDC 133,795 PROJECT TOTAL 2,412,424,200 251,464,104 NOTE: (*1) (* 2) These two items broken out separately are part of the mechanical totals (* 2) NSSS actual dollar amount was reduced by $88,910 due to credit from sale of material (*3) Charges are shown charged against appropriate account (*4) These totals do not include substation (*S) (* 6) These two items broken out separate are part of the PSO totals NOTE: (1) AFUDC is 100% PSO. Partners handle their own AFUDC. (2) Environmental costs not calculated by %. Share is actual cost per company. (3) Partners share of substation is 32.6%. (4) Partnes share is 39.13%.

INTERROGATORY NO. 87: Of the total capital cost to date, what portion is in I the rate base? ANSWER TO INTERROGATO".Y NO. 87: Zero.

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 88: Describe the items covered by the " contingency" and provide the process for determining the value of the contingency estimate. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 886 Contingency is a reserve fund used to cover the uncertainties in ruterial and construction costs. It was established to cover three categories of uncertainties: (1) unawarded contracts; (2) changes to j awarded contracts; and (3) regulatory changes. In the April,1979, detailed cost estimate for the Project (provided in response to document production request, item 2), the first two categories t l provided a contingency of 5% for equipment contracts and 10% on construction contracu. Regulatory uncertainties were included as a lump sum estimate for still unresolved issues. These direct costs were then escalated and interest added to come up with the contingency figure contained within that estimate. t I t i 1

INTERROGATORY NO. 89: Ba ed on the NSSS contract, and as revised by the most recent estimatts, please provide the milestone dates for equipment design, fabrication and delivery of each of the following systems or componet of the Black Fox Nuclear Units 1 and 2: Reactor Vessel l Control Room Panels Rocinulation System Control Rod Drives l Hydraulle Control Units Fuel i l Generator Generator Rotor Turbine Shells Turbine Rotors Turbine Controls & Valves Feedwater Components ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 89: De present status of each comptyat or system is discussed below. No design or fabric *lon milestones are available since almost all major items have been Luspended. Delivery milestones are shown on the schedula submitted in the Answer to Interrogatory No. 90. Remeter Vessel-Design is complete; Unit 1 is fabricated with Unit 2 suspended. Deli try will be scheduled to fit into the new Project schedule when it can be determined. Control Room Panels - The design is complete, most are not fabricated, procurement has been suspended. Recirculation System - The design is complete, mostly fabricated, procure-ment suspended. Control Rod Drives and Hydraulic Control Units - The design is complete, partially fabricated, procurement has been suspended. Fuelis designed, not fabricated, fabrication has been suspended. Turbine Generator - De entire contract has been stopped with minimal fabrication complete. complete, partial fabrication has Peedwater Components - The des @ it been performed, procuremeni ha. '... stopped. e e

INTERROGATORY NO. 90: Please provide latest copics of the construction schedule and summary showing major milestones leading to fuel load ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 90: Due to the licensing uncertainties, we are unable to project a deto of construction permit receipt. Therefore, we have developed a schedule using a CP as a starting point (but without a date) and measuring everything from that point. A copy of that schedule is attached.

l ~ % MONTHS FROM CR

  • I 1 12T3 T4 Ts TF TT sT9 T1ol1ThG13114 115 116 T1H16_D 12 o 121 i

i CONSTRUCTICN FactLiTiE S l 6Af*GE 6la"RJ T V { I h ) onvests HE ACTCR Og.t DINGS [C'" "' O "'" N O MAT. PEDESTAL. Baossar J omven t s wt%f mahWantt t ea r CP

  • t t L.
  • EI
  • AL L l

tver p o, a,.,,, Mo,,,,m,.,, ' tun nuietsa fo srae%Gtr=t a ( Oo SHIE L D bmit t sNS M AC TC7 dADt%$ P4 IN G b wE ;NA%t: AL E L E C T RIC AL HvAC 1*,5 '6evME rdTA fis N as pOot LahE A BAL ANCE C A*fGC"' I 1 8 CINUb ~ ,m., sei&e.c fo ca art Si f SE T l o = .,i.g.o". m ppr"r o wt c-AsiC AL p E LE C T RiC AL l p ... A C i .w v~wAw. m2 l _,_. a o, n ,_a,_ .L alLIARf bust 01".4 w ,,c,. t anc.e e.e c. P

  • NG ser se,

sat l omo. om. Osito= MtCHANIA 67% 582 eie l E s f C 'Wl:A. e n.AC

  1. '5

'O' soetpien to onaos evit0+=0 to #M8 em.,,c, n' 'y' 24740L UvlL Cl% C areim tamGE 'i'i'ai pip 6 *e G l se Y **v AC [ Q estoa vt CM A%BC A, tee E t u.mC A. H v a.. INS'hLMENTi.904 {l t ee '4 B d Nt ** AT C P bstL;i'eG l t i-l'4C Vt ;*. ANi( AL 6 H VA ' EL E L T-iC AL s e.S* R.v t NT %I esoAss -l esc:% PSOESTAL & coasrtfTt NE 2 g NCN - C ATE G JR f 1 OLiLCINGt pps poumoAfee M i'" FOUNDATOs,,g,n,g PNK essiN'.N f. +. Mre t Jf (s ATO~ F utLDIN. l O " " O e, =,e.- - n..< m. ME C,t A'ed AL, CCNi i fd f l' T/6 l 9 f ttC t i At n vaC iest-avFNTA't N I C . mea, c= iENEMALSl84t:t$ *vt Ateu ViFi%, M t L M A '41.

  • E LE C
  • ktC AL l

l ..C l a5

  • wv v r *4 Y A ' LO N

,,,'ff,'* '**U" OTHE st build.NGS cc te ve msto% m a~, C-w AT E R T **E A? vi r.T evt ;i'.", l Wi ki % ', YEC H AteC l.6, H v !.C ELE C T sic AL s iNsthuvfNr YAf*D *THvCTUAES l wes mi l C YA 3 pi iNG g ,. c.,,, -s e. s. e ss.,me uus,ssws , 'etnoo I "K'y' C' ms a. . a. ~,1.a. ais, v SCt t L ANE OuS Y'.4D (- n A,.1 nECPS \\ l I ~ +l112l3l4I5I6 7 I & I 93111111113114 I15lf@l# 19T2M h--

l s i h212312f 125126127 !28129130 L31 ;321331% 135I3413LI38[3_2110141142 .63 !44II.5 I63I07 ~ 8 49 .w .-. e.-anp am- __ gye*a~O C"~"' O g'.- oo -2oo-. g g....,<...s -M ..., ~. " " g ,..<...m. p -m.. c.. .m.. O. O........-..a-. *'.', O.M r.,,%, - - 1 ;," e.g.fi.sG vt trit.t.oes..a. Co.eDaT eoasioso _a-...,,.c 9 .... m -- o s..... --, MY t ,M.w<t^..%* IIfLUWh i.e., .= t O<.. 2.. 7 = r O .. ~ ' ~ -.. +..... -., t / r...e, .. : f e. IN C .5',4 gas..Peam; + %g,.6 6. (vt,. ODut t S \\ ..te. -..,.c..............- ..GT.U.spes T. TuO4 s.sST.t t. .v.<- -C-O"=' "'"~a g", ar':,. a...-..., x-tu, p. .u.ta,- ro.oo. 9 ,,, o s . m.....,c m... -, o,n w ,v..s. o...... g m ru...,. n ... u .s c. O ..m.. s.., ....,s r...,,,,,,,,, 'j w h N..L t xtt*t .w t o s aa, ' .-a. c...., _. 2 -- s .,.o...< M g. D': '- 's.2 O '.'.', O.' ..((W.W vt m [ Y l BW.( N .'l .*-%,&**N. % 'gft....s hp, o g,.._,,.._,.._ c _....... m.,., _,,,_. p ..m.. .. w.- ,,,..s,..m, , 44 f C.8 i L i( f W _ w* L ' t -..Wd2. %st C9. t t iCT p % >9.$.< N e u n." ' a,i, ?',..,'. % C

  • t.t t 4 h

' 'T S ^ F LOOft & C9s*9 u' s t s U L r _ s m. m.. ..a giv= sysviu tvs. t I22 [23124125 !26127 ' 28 !29 '33~31 ! 32 !33j3j4 35136I37 I35]3Q0141 [427I4T[6 I46!47_J4B [42]S0

I EHs 2153151551561573 e 159160 I6E62163I64 '6s Ig6 67_I6a 16917 o T71 i72 :73 '76 7s :76 !77 '78 CONSTRUCTK)N ndtE STONE SCMEDvtt

97. ". ";.f t -

cms 791126 .' sx -- n . ::a 6MN O ~ l l ,c<,o...... y... -~ -O i i r\\ O I O~e"<t = l l O l C 1 -w-O - ~,~,,~ l u l O I g CO sPL E,3 J.GE SMatL PnPeas0 ,1 O il O !l 2 Jr "d',',( f,*,M * "g. l r,eeom w.simaam, e..<....v...<_.,.... --O h O m.,, ......,,.~s..m..s 3 q O~A'#2" I l coe.Pt,E Y t, t PLAm vin CDs.Pt i,6 prW 4C ....,....e,,,..,,,, O l a=n:: - O I O l c l l l O / l =: i m,..,. g_,...., c,- . a., wi,. u. c t ....,, i c;. e co..o ope....o= l l bil52J53154 sil56 [s7 ;5 bis 9 ' 60MI6216313476sl66 J 6716e I69 !70171_I_72173J7Ai75 '76 '77 :7s l' m

INTERROGATORY NO. 91: Cost to Resolve Generie and TMI-2 Issues - (a) Attachment A contains a list of the high priority issues frnm NUREG-0660 which are applicable to BWR's.1I For each item please provide the PSO estimate of cost and schedule for resolution. For each item where PSO does not plan to imple-ment a resolution on Black Fox, please identify the reasons justifying PSO's position. (b) Attachment B contains the generic safety issues from NUREG-0410 which are applicable to BWR's. 2,/ For each generic issue, please provide the estimated cost and schedule i i for resolution of the issues on Black Fox. For any item where PSO does not plar to implement a resolution, please provide the reasons for PSO's position. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 91: PSO obfacts to the form and nature of this Interrogatory in that it is beyond the scope of inquiry as set forth by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's Order No. 187342 in this Cause. Therein, the Commission stated: 'To the extent the App!! cation and Comp 161nt (ofthe State Attorney General in Cause 26582] seek information regarding safety standards, requirements, etc., the same will not be considered by this Commis-sion, inasmuch as this Commission has been preempted in that field by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)." 1# NUREG-0660, NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident, Volume 1, May 1980, Table B.2. Includes only items from Decision Groups A, B, and C.

  • /

2 NUREG-0410, NRC Program for the Resolution of Generic I.ssues Related to Nuclear Power Plants, January,1978. Only Category A and B items are included in the list.

INTERROGATORY NO. 92: Please provide a detailed breakdown of the resolu-tion proposed for Black Fox to resolve the Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) issue. Ir terms of resolutions described in NUREG-0460, Vol. 4, $/ which resolution most closely matches the Black Fox resolution 2 A,3 A, or 4A? What is the estimated cost of '.his resolution? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 92: PSO objects to the form and nature of this Interrogatory in that it is beyond the scope of inquiry as set forth by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's Order No. 187342 in this Cause. Therein, the Commission stated: 'To the extent the Application and Complaint (of the State Attorney General in Cause 26582] seek information regarding safety. standards, requirements, etc., the same will hot be considered by this Commis-sion, inasu.uch as this Commission has been preempted in that field by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)." l 3_/ NUREG-0460, Anticipated Transient without Scram for Light ifater Reac-tors, Vol. 4, March,1980, Section 2. l i

INTERROGATORY NO. 93: What modificatford, if any, have been incorporated within the Black Fox design to detect and mitigate a degraded core condition? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 93: PSO object? to the form and nature of this Interrogatory in that it is beyond the scope of inquiry as set forth by the Oklahoma Corporation Commissica's Order No. 187342 in this Cause. Therein, the Commission stated: 'To the extent the Application and Complaint (of the State Attorney General in Cause 26582] seek information regarding safety standards, requirements, etc., the same will not be considered by this Commis-sion, inasmuch as this Commission has been preempted in that field by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)." l l

INTERROGATORY NO. 04: Has there been any consideration of Class 9 accidents SI in the design of the Black Fox plant? Has there been consideration of Class 9 accidents in the emergency plans associated with Black Fox? Have Class 9 accidents beca included in an EnvironmentalImpact Statement for Black Fox? If the answer to any of these three questions has been negative, please identify the justification for PSO's position regarding Class 9 accidents. Provide details for above questions. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 94: PS9 objects to the form and nature cf this Interrogatory in that it is beyond the scope of inquiry as set forth by the Oklahoma Cuporation Commission's Order No. 187342 in this Cause. Therein, the Commission stated: 'To the extent the Application and Complaint (of the State Attorney General in Cause 265821 seek irformation regarding safety standards, requirements, etc., the same will not be considered by this Commis-sion, inasmuch as this Commission has been preempted in that field by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)." Any large accidents which may result in a substantial release of radioac-tive material to the environment.

INTERROGATORY NO. 95: Has PSO evaluated the potential impact on cost of Black Fox resulting from the four new unresolved,4fety issues (USI's) described in NUREG-0705? S/ Please define PSO's proposed resolutions for each of the four new USI's (i.e., Shat Down Decay Heat removal requirement (A-45), Seismic Qualification of Equipment (A-46) Safety Implintions of Control Systems (A-47) ( and Hydrogen Burns Control Measures and Effects of Hydrogen (A-48). ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 95: PSO objects to the form and nature of l this Interrogatory in that it is beyond the scope of inquiry as set forth by the Oklahoma Coccation Commission's Order No. 187342 in this Cause. Therein, the Commission stated: 'To the extent the Application and Complaint (of the State Attorney General in Cause 26582] seek information regarding safety standards, cequirements, etc., the same will not be considered by this Commis-sion, inasmuch as this Commission has been preempted in that field by the i Nuclear Reguiatory Commission (NRC)." SI NUREG-0705, Identification of New Unresolved Safety Issues Relating to Nuclear Power Plants, Special Report to Congress, USNRD, March,1981. 1 l l

INTERROGATORY NO. 96: Please provide copies of correspondence between NRC-PSO and PSO-NhC for the following areas: I & E Reports on Black Fox Project Construction Schedules Commitments for Resolution of TSIIIssues Commitments for Resolution of Generic Safety Issues ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 96: PSO objects to the form and nature of i this Interrogatory in that it is beyond the scope of inquiry as set forth by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's Order No. 187342 in this Cause. Therein, t? Commission stated: 'To the extent the Application and Complaint (of the State Attorney General in Cause 26582] seek information regarding safety standards, requirements, etc., the same will not be considered by this Commis-sion, inasmuch as this Commission has been preempted in that field by the i Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)." l t 1

INTERRL iATORY NO. 97: Please provide estimated operating and mainte- ~ nance costs for the Black Fox plant (in equivalent 1981 dollars). Provide a detailed breakdown of the estimated cost incitdng the costs of fuel. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 97: The last detailed calculation done for Black Fox Station (attached) was contemporary with the cost estimate com-pleted in April,1979 on the expectation of construction permit receipt by July, )' '9 with commercial dates of July 85/88.

TOTAL FUED AND OPERATING COSTS FOR PSO PORTION OF BLACK FOX STATION (30 YEAR LEVELI;ED COSTS AT 67 PERCEh7 CAPACITY FACTOR OPERATION - MILLS /kwh)* Present Worth @ Inservice Date Unit 1--85 Unit 2--88 743 We Gr. 743 MWe Cr. 700 MWe Nt. 700 MWe Nt. Fixed Charges 0 16.96 peecent per year 30.89 29.13 Fuel Costs 16.04 18.80 heat rate (BTU /KWh) 10,600 10,600 Operation and Maintenance Cost 10.49 13.11 Insurance Property Insurance 0.84 1.02 Liability Insurance 0.19 0.23 License Fees ** Ad Valorem Taxes @ 2.5 percent *** 4.77 4.39 Incremental Transmission and Distribution Costs 1.49 0.62 Anticipated Research and Development Costs it 22 Plar.c Decommissioning Costs ,1.14 1.42 Total Operating Costs 65.85 68.72

  • Based on net capaciefes.
    • Contained in [II Indirect Costs (3) Other Costs.
      • Land included with Unit 1.

2 Capital Charges for T&D lines and substations plus O&M costs. 22 Anticipated to be minimal.

INTERROGATORY NO. 98: Please provide the anticipated capacity factor for the Black Fov "n.3" for the following periods of operation: First year, second year, years 3-5, years 5-30, years 30-40. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 98: PSO assumes a levelized capacity factor of 67% over a 30-year economic lifetime model; specifically, the anticipated napacity factors are as follows: 69.85% years 1-5, 73.69% years 6-10,70% years 11-15,66.06% years 16-20, and 59.15% years 21-30. l -.. - ~. --y

INTERROGATORY NO. 99: What are the projected costs (in 1981 dollars) to conduct decontamination activities on the main reactor components of the Black Fox plant? ANSWER TO INTERROOATORY NO. 99: The Interrogatory presupposes prob-lems not contemplated at the Black Fox Station. No such estimates have been made.

INTE_RROGATORY NO.100: What are the projected costs (in 1981 dollars) for the spent fuel generated over the lifetime of the Black Fox plant? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.100: The estimated 50-year levelized cost for disposal of spent fuel from Black Fox Station is 1.14 mills /KWh in January, 1981 dollars. This cost includes the cost of shipping from the reactor to the disposal site and packaging for final dispmal, but does not include capital costs. l l l l l l l l -.y,

INTERROGATORY NO.101: What are the projected costs (in 1981 collars) for disposing of the Icw level wastes createAss a by-product of operating the Black Fox units? l ANSWER TO INTERFCGATORY NO.101: The current status of low level waste repositories is so uncertain as to make any previous or current estimates of such costs for Black Fox Station meaningless, although transportation is usually the l largest singie cost itern based on previously defined facilities. i l l l l l

INTERROGATORY NO.102,: What is the propoced method of dece.missioning the Black Fox plants (e.g., entombment or disraaatlement)? What is the projected cost (in 1981 dollars) of completing decommissionirg? ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 102: There ca no requirements for decommissioning until a licensee rutamits an application for termination of license under 10 CFR 50.82, thirty to forty years af ter operation commences. ( The only earlier requirement is associated with the Environmental Report, CondW2ction Permit State and operating license financial vapability findings. l (10 CFR 50.33(f)). Her.ce, no method has been selected for BFS and there is no projected cost of complete decommissioning, other thars as contained in the l Answer to Interrogatory No. 97, in which an operating charge of 1.14 mills /KWh l for Unit I and 1.42 mills /KWh for Unit 2 was anticipated for plant decommis-I l sioniez costs. l l l l l l i l l l l l l t

YY Wim coeuumNnuncw PR yg pac $'D,$$(,, $ g ~ .u......m, cA _ __ _. _ _ // cocKrito ~ m.,nn. ~ 3 SEP2 11981 ' b Trn r! N Seri ) ggiqq & Scoef t C. b Banth Q'

j Interrogatoties numbered 7 and 9 of the second set of r

interrogatories submitted by intervenors i e e i l t n,

h INTERROCATORY NO. 7 Have any units under construction been delayed? Why? What changes in capital costs of units can he attributed to delays?

RESPONSE

The Black Fox Station project has ba.en delayed, while awaiting receipt of full construction termits from the NRC. As explained in our response to l Interrogatones propounded by the Attorney General on May 1,1981 l (specifically nos., 5,6,7, 5 8), Ps0 has no way of determining the full extent I of delay. Hence, no cost estimates have been performed since April 1979 and the costs of delay to date or in total are indeterminable and unknown ct this time. I l [ l I 1

=..: . a :- -^ r INTERROCATORY NO. 9 Does the Company anti:1pate any delays in plant construction schedules? For which unittl What are the reasons for any anticipated delays?

RESPONSE

PSO does not plan any delays in plant construction schedules but recognizes that schedules for Black Fox 1 and i depend on timely action at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. l l f e 0 I l L

NTED COlulESPONDENCB 3 DOCi: 7 '* r =, PROD. & U ribAC.h....~.6..N, A [ y 4 <Q ffY cocKrFED T t:Grr* 1 9 a ,, aFC 31_1 c y m I he c! B3 St ttt&7 f Mating & Emice E:anrh \\\\

  • /

D. k Sequests numbered 1 and 2 l of the request for pro-duction of documents sub-mitted by intervenors. A ,i. a I &m

e i l 1. The first cost estimate for the construction and completion of the Black' Fox Nuclear Station. Explanatorv Note: The first detailed engineering ccat estimate was that contained in the initial submittal of the Environmental Report, Construction Permit Stage for the Blacy. Fox Station Units 1& 2 submitted to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ctz..aission in August, 1975. A copy of the appropriate portion is attached. i .m..

(' [ I = l :' e w= '== p RES '.s 1J' I 1 0 4 IIIIffh..f I I !!! I I =. l .::: a.: a.: ~ ~ ..a. ~ ~ .s* .s If III III'I f I !!! II

i..-

s~:.~..i. : .a. s:.: ..._ a : ~.. ~. -- ~.~ .a..: ::: : e: ~ l l 3 l g I III !!! f I I ffa II ~. -s: : e,. a o,. ~. e,., . ~ ~ 1~ 2 ::: <*

: J J. *

.S. a. ~ + g 3 4 w w l 4 H J O 8 ik k$f flk k I I $$$ u '.t' z.

8..:.

~ ~ C ~. ., ~ ~ ~ %MM 1.1 'l. J ~.;..;. J J. 2 ~ e M.e o. d H 'i! w 3 - ~ I e m l N

  • d O 4 :z:

CO U w ~j 4 :i i I III f fiI I I Ill !I w .: ::: ea ~.; :, .....a a <.e< ~ E #. cs y ~3 < w e. .,. ~. ~ -~l~ r m c., 6 :, - e .. ~ - ~ a <.~.y. v<ES w .3 e .5 II $$I k$k k $ $ $fk II E . 1 -l

  • a l

f. ~ m . e. .d : e;.. ~J J..:. : ~~i .3 ~. m u ~... ~ e.. . ~ --. ~ w 8~ AJ d d. : Ja d : 2 2 :. J. i 6 j ~ .e W 3 O T 4 e s o f i 3 4 : n g

g = [..... [ w = lWS e i / r B ~ i M N y m N N G8 Ra. J ~/h ~ a n. m

  • w e

. 9 8 e e t 3,9

  • N 39y e

a o a . %g/.$. .8 3 H 5. l 4 So j; o -n m = ~ ~ SS J = M M,

s. -

o .= e- ~e x = a a < l 9 C UE O E e ce e a ao me N. N. ~o

e. m.

o.=. .s .e M. M. e, e. cw e e H og o o g ';s-O ag mw 2 A <L 3 WQ N = =, e e e n

  • 8

.4 e ~ ~. .y og = e e e e ~

  • a

~ o g, q_ C% n A mH H >8 ce Mu ,h I 'C A 3 en no m-gm m s a m ee m. . o. o. e. n. m. o % U%

  • E 2

2o 41 a

  • G v

oc e - o 4 m v = e cy fo, e,* ~ g n 6 e

s W >= f J H t.

o = 5 m $w -l 3 .= 4: fO v 3 b w QC j, 8-c., w e. r + m o e m o C

  • 8 a

s% m.= e CA "E* o o e e e C 9 e -m O& Coh h E* dd d n' b f h. = a 4 e ~ r 3 .3 C4 3 g e C M s e >8 t=* C 34 M 4 C g es

== dV a I p< c e a

  • ~

~ Cw 2=e* >N ogeEC *

s. :.=C w

wa >w pE c2 .C 1 g o C w -.= w. ew o e E e a an .e e e e a C w w a gJ ac o e was g g e e e e ev -e* w .c C w== a O w

n. a. =

m 3= E 1 W =* -=

  • f. M J

w

    • C

.I $s .e c w w C o C. m C C o b< = o o u eoum. a

  • y 2

e 4

  • wW 3

.C .e O

.

e wC -C e C w w C.e s g 3 Q S w a C u b 3 e a C 4 m4- "e" d *

  • 9 C -*

*= A

  • C *C g

en g - es C W C 6

==

  • >=
  • =

== 9 a e as 3u e ( e.t. M O' e u-w O

      • -**9

.e, %s# a es w e 4m o=C . w e =. 9 * =

  • e ge.e

= u i=== t-C=

  • O w

Gm 4 w C C4 4 #

  • st w >

0 .o an aw C ew e 0 eo em = o o wd-<d .=e

== e is is + + $ as = = e 4 Q. A e

== W = e. =w :p woe C e o .o a w 9 w w 0 3 e,,==a u og .=, a 4, w C = w ps = C '"e C e a en ey 3 e C

== 'S C C

== 0 o =4 <== <-.== b .----m-

4 2. The most recent cost estimate for the construction and completic' of the Black Fox Nuclear Station Explanatorv Ncta: The most recent detailed cost estimate of the Black Fox Station is as contained in correspondence dated April 30, 1979 to tne Ator:ic Safety and Licensing Board. A copy of that correspondence is attached. l l

. w!w w" ; : -- v.'. ' &~ 1 w:.. :g'3' ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE gym 1;gy . ;t .;w. ~ ' * {,y"Mafir;. - a-l SCvf MTM FLOOm I SOSO IF"P STatCT,. 88.W. -. O 0~.

e.,0<.,s.

4;,g( 5.1g;ga ~ TELEPoecost 203+.12.e730 .,m ~. _. m. . n.can ~ ~ .m. ....a ._"TJMC April 30, 1979 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esquire Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Atoric Safety and Licensing. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Paul W. Purdom, Director Environmental Studies Group Drexel University 32nd and Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Re: In the Matter of the Application of ) Public Service Company of Oklahoma, ) Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.) Docket No. STN 50-556 and ) STN 50-557 Western Farmers Electric Cooperative ) ) (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Gentlemen: on March l4, 1979, we advised of a schedule and cost l analysis for the Black Fox Statier: heing conducted by Applicants. l That assessment is now complete and it is hereby furnished for the information of the Licensing Board and Parties. In the interest l of prompt notification, the data has been tabulated in attachments to the April 23, 1979, letter of Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad, Manager, Licensing and Compliance, Public Service Company of Oklahoma. In his letter, Mr. Conrad correlates the revised finan-cial data' with that set forth in the Application for the Black Fox Station. Based on the revised schedule described in Exhibit I to Mr. Conrad's letter, the earliest completion dates included in Section 7. of the. Application would now be January 1, 1985, for In M 4 bit II, the total for the column entitled " April,1979" should read "2,388,725" instead of "2,338,725". .,-,,.-.,..,...-..m

^* n u m.. ... c . n.e.. e

t..*.. y,r.*;*f**'.'.','*;*.;*r'.. s;;.
  • .%. *KE ' ?,"..-.,. w.,

^. p . y. .::M,.. '.%~.C. 4: *s. .- ~..,. ". ..';.~. = ~ ..y.:.,.:... ,. 5,.. _g_

w...

Unit 1 and January 1, 1988, for Unit 2, All of the foregoing information will be embodied in a future amendment to the Applica-tion. Applicants filca their " Reply to Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of the NRC Staff and the Intervenors" on April 26, 1979. We are enclosing an errata sheet and table of contents for the arnistance of the Licensing Board and the parties. I Sincerely, a / ye~j Jose n Gallo One of the Attorneys for the Applicants JG:ds Enclcsures ces: Service List l 1* M l l l.--_._.

' N.'[ ) 65 N.S*~~' ?? $ ' & f i 1.".. m.-- a w-Y a* ,o-W i.$, ' ":,.....<* , s.. :.i - .y g Q* ~ - Q PUBUC SBMG COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA + *. .d a A CENTRAL ANO SOUTH WEST CCMPANY g; .s P.O. 3 OX 201/ TULSA. OKLAHOMA 74102 / (918) 583 3611 U ~. c Public Servica Company of OM % = April 23, 1979 31ack Fox Station Revised Schedula and Cost,Is:1mata laul M. Murphy, Eq. .Isham, Lincoln and Baals One.First Naed==7 P'a.=a Chicago, ILL 60603 Daar Paul. In our lattar to the licensing boards dated March 17, 1979, va advised than that a reanalysis of the cost ascimata and construction schedule for the Black Fox Station was in progresa and would be completed by April 30, 1979. The Mtidy has baan complaced, and I se now directing that you provida the following information to tha boards and parties. . Iha ravised cocstruction schedula is detailed in the attached Exhibit I. C-ecial operation of BFS Unit 1 is now slated for July 1,.1985; commercial operation of Ucit 2 on July 1, 1988. These construction s'chedules take into consideration all p;cviously. experienced licensing delays and are based on prasant day experiences at si=11ar project.. Industry precadant bas been to l set up,a cimatable s11 cuing ohly two years betwaan unir, but actual cocstruction ~ cimas are more closely following our revised. schedule. We have caratuuy optinired the Project's construction sequence based on an expected Construction ?arnit receipt by July 1, 1979. The new cost estimate for the Project is detailed in Exhibit II. Ihis information is =4=41=" to tht.c provided in the Applicarica for Licenses, pages III.I-2 and ~ III.I,-3, but does not conform to their 7EIC (FPC) derivad format. In the incarest of prompt notif'. cation, I have also included in this exhibit a comparison between the June,1977. attimate of 1.75 billion and the revised estimata of 2.39 billica, rather than vait for the actual revision of these pages which will involve. a con-siderable affort. Exhibit II has providad the swa net information and alin:.=ated ' the need to ue4'4-e the above cited pages for cesparative purposes. ~ Exh n it III corresponds diracC.y to Application, page III.1-3, which describes tha 750 source of funds for systear-wide construcede expenditures during the 375 con-struction period. Likewise, Exhibits IV and V provida project cash flow informacioc for Associated Electric Cooperativa. Inc. and Wstern Farmers' Electric Cooperativac These correspond to pagasi III.le.2 and III.M-2, respectively, of the Application.

d Isham, Lincoln and.Ma r.. Y Z s.. Paga 2. '5 .r. ... W.h.::.H. '. .,. + .. ;.5;.i r.. v.,....,

~

Our Treasurar, Mr. Giancy, informs me si at the inpacts of the increased cost for the Project have baan -14arated iram a financing point of viav by the langchamad schedule. A compario n of Exhibit III with Application, paga III.A-2, will show a decrease in =a- =1 funds renuired, for the Project for some years, al-h-eh the total is greater. Finally, as a mattar of infornation, I have attached as Exhibit VI current. projected demand and anaray requirements for each of the joint owners through 1990 with corrasponding systes capacity. The ccapound growth rata for P50 projections (VIa) 1:: 5.5I; ACI (VIb), 7.7I; Wr2C (VIc)., 9.6%. Very truly you W ~y:., V. L. Conrad Managar, Licensing and Coup 11ance ~ l s l VLC:da' .AttW-a ts cc: M. E. Fata, Jr. . T. N. Ed ng J. Gallo .OO. .e e e e --~-e, ~,,, e-- .,,-.-,-,-,-,---e-- r S----------.-av-e,w

1 m ...o. .,...,.: ;/. ;',. *. '. ) %.$. .,'1y.. f.

  • EXHI3IT I C

l 4l*. ....s:= j).. : '. *.. ~:.. Q s... ::. - w :.. zV -- ILACK ICI, STATION Schedule IVINT DATE hohW TRCM CP Constructi m Ta==1s July 1, 1979 0 January 1, 1985 66 , Unit 1 Tual Load Unit 1 Full Power - July 1, 1985 72 .(Commarcial) January 1, 1988 102 .. Unit 2 7uel Load ' ~hnit 2 Full Power July 1, 1988 108 (Commercial) G \\ _M____.______.

i .....'...v.. .k /' MIT 17. '

    • hb *. ',5 "yf;((Mc,w[..: k.

- r.... - y., :.., W. .'*..-~ .. : : - ~'. u. ., y. " COMPARISON OF 3FS ESTIMAF_S = (Dollars % 1000) l June 77 Avril 79 Iend, Materials and Equipnant 632,705 613,572 Conscr..ccice. 241,291 385,297 ~ 998,869 Subcatal .873g996 Engr & Const: Manasc.ent 184,209 249,378 Salas Tax (inc1) 3,839 Undistributed (inc1) 29,694 Es--1= tion 279,374 . 329,275 l Contingency 96,229 227,900 i Incarsse 316,192 549,770 Total 1,750,000 2,388,725 Cost /m 7,61 1,038 CHANGE COMPARIS 1 0 (Dollars % 1000') Chante (% Total) Balance Total Increase 638,000 Incarast (Dalay & Schad Ext) 233,578 (37%) 404,422 Escalation (Delay) 49,900 ( 8%) 354,522 Equipmane & Construction 124,873 (20%) 229,649 Unknown 29,694 ( SI) 199,955 t. Contingency 131,671 (21%) .68,284 l Engr /Const: Management 65,169 (10%) 3,115

.----_-__----------,------>-n-,-----n--

--w

,ATTACHHENT FOR ITEH HO. 3.'s. Applicant Public Service Combany of Oklahoma Huclear Plants' Black Fox 4 Sources of Funds for Systein-Wide Construction Expenditures During Period I of Construction of Subject Huclear Power Plant . <. p,.' '. Q (Hillions of Dollars) i Construction Years of Subject Huclear Power Plant . Security issues and ,,j, 1987,;, y, cther funds 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984~ 1985_ 1986 Comon Stock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Preferred Stock 25 0 35 25 25 40 0 30 0 I.ong-Term Debt 125 105 100 100 95 115 60 75 75 _14 Hotes Payable 14 6 14 4 38 15 13 -( 30) ( 22) 'Q .n Contributions frors 80 50 25 20 0 Parent-Het 45 40 70 82 Other Funds ( 27) ( 27) ( 27) __ ( 2) _ ( 7) ( 14) ( 2)_ ( 2) ( 17) 1 Total _ 182 124 192 209 231 206 96 93 36 Internal Funds Het Income 53 62 82 101 122 13 1 145 159 177 1; Less: Working Capital ( 17) ~_ ( 36)_ ~ ( 45) __( 55) ~ ( 65)~ ( 75)_ __ ( 191 pn ( 211 _1 Preferred Dividends ( 5)_ ( 7)_ ( 91 ( 12) ( 14) ( 17) ( 83) ( 891 ( 95) Comon Dividends ( 31) ~ 4 1 __( 141 ( 6)_ ( i ( 1) ( 1) 1 7 Def erred Taxes 15 17 19 22 26 41 51 71 80 {N!ht Invest. Tax Cred.-Defer. 23 17 .19 23 20 25 16 25 18 Depreciation & Amort. 41 8 49 54 57 60 84 132 140 158 2 i Less: AFDC ('24[: ( 19) ( 31). ( 50) (68[ ( 76)l _ ( 56) ~ ( 71) ( 69) ( Total 55 82 88 87 88 119 187 201 242 3 TUTAL FUNDS 1237. j_20,6_ $ 280 $ 296 $ 319 $ 325 $ 283 j_294 $ 278 Q Construction Expenditures

  • Huclear Power Planta

$ 65 97 $ 175 $ 199 $ 212 $ 193 $ 119, 68 67 '$ 1 l Other 172 1 109 105 97 107 132 164 226 211 2 Total Const.Exp's. $ 237 J 106 $ 280__ $ 296_ $ 319 $ 325 $2{ $ 294 $ 278 $3 Subject Nuclear Plant $ 65 97 $ 174 $ 196 $ 209 $ 185 $ 104 36 4 b AExclusReca @f CFDC (allowance for fundo" used during construction)

.T:3tIBr2 IV. . y. ' A ~ .y...,. i.-.. <,. w - - ~ M SOCIATID-QUESTION 4C Yearly Total *) ' Associated 1973 - 1978 80.2 17.4 1979 106.5 23.1.. 1980 159.1 34.5 '1981 285.3 61.9 i 322.2 69.9 l 1982' 1983 343.4 74,5 1984 302.8 65.'7 1 1985 170.9 37.1 1986 58.2 12.6 [ 1987 6.8 1.5 1988 '3.5 .76 a) Does not include incarest during construction. l d .-\\',; .3..*.*. ':.. .:.t.

. '; ;.'A..:. 4 A p o..%....., i: '.

.; y- ...%QN M.. '..... 4..%..' :.,... .:.,. -...S;- D::=.~.:_..4 V ':,.:, " :.M=+W '.

j... my y w w' WES E RN QJESTION 4C Yearly Total *) Western 1973 - 1978 80.2 14.0 1979 106.5 18.5 - 1980 ' ' 159ol

27. 7 -"

1981 285.3 49.6 1982 322.2 56.1 ~ 1983 343.4 59 '3 1984 302.8 52.7 1985 170.9' 29.7 1986 58.2 10.1 1987 6.6 1.' 2, 1 1988 3.5 .6 l a) Does' not 9e1Ma intarase during construction.

3...el.i..'f.::i

._ v.. .r -

e.W&.214.. a - W ;.w.

-a..'-3 % G-h Y & M1l2 M '.'.... z:..: '

O-Gm y .s Y s-EZHIBIT VIa RISTORICAL IND PROJECTED P50 NET SYSTEM PEAK LOAD DEMANDS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Nec Systaa . Syscan Demand Year Canacity* MW MWH Historical 1965 975 1000 4,240,417 1966 975. 1138 4,623,664 1967 1293 1166 4,834,809 1968 1268 1289 5,329,509 1969 1268 1453 5,926,225 1970 1718 1550 6,481,587 1971

  • 1738 1610 6,854',698 1972 1726 1828 7,803,012

~ 1973 1696 1843 8,198,314 1974 . 2252 2070 8,645,907 1975 2422 2071 9,171,251 ~ 1976 2880 2193 9,577,867 1977 2912 2405 10,427,527 11,219,850 1978 2877 2527 i l t l Projected 1979 3304 2660 11,777,700 1980 3754 2808 12,335,200 1981 3754 2967 13,029,700 1982 ,3754 3110 13,687,900 1983 3754 3292 14,417,300 1984 3754 3482 15,279,400 1985 4452 3680 16,185,500 1986 4452 3887 17,140,300 1987 4498 4101 18,190,400 1988 5045 4326 19,325,000 l 1989

  • 5095 4564 20,390,100 21,511,500 1990

' 5257 4815 .e-e o.

H HIBI' VIb 7 ~

vr.

W HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC Nrr SYSTDi PEAK LOAD DEMANDS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Systaa Demand y g gyn,, Year Capacity MW Historical 1965 143 352 1,860,818 1966 323 427 2,06C,033 1967 323 473 2,256,949 i 1968 323 501 2,617,993 1969 626 585 2,928,110 1970 626 650 3,272,'486 1971 626 824 4,248,130 1972 1226 972 5,294,207 1973 1226 1615 5,612,544 1974 1226 1163 5,896,688 l 1975 1226 1222 6,518,713 7,362,730 1976 1226 1507 ~ 1977 1828 1598 8,467,243 197h 1828, 1679 8,466,324 Proj ected 1979 1828 1960 9,745,000 1980 ~1828 2104 10,439,000 l 1981 1828 2259 11,197,000 l 1982 2458 2409 11,842,000 1983 2458 2571 12,533,000 1984 2458 2745 12,273,000 l 1985 2708 2932 14,077,000 1986 2708 3133 14,917,000 1987 295G 3350 15,861,000 1988 2958 3584 16,876,000 l 1989 2958 3835 17,965,000 l ,1990 2958 4105 19,136,000 9 ?.- - - -.--. n.

L= T ZXHIBIT vie HISTORIC.U. AND PROJECTED WESTERN NET SYSTEM ~ PEAK LOAD DEMANDS AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS Syscam Demand Nec Syst a _ Year Capacity - MW _ gyg I l 1965 137 125 620,675 ~ 1966 137 140 709,287 1967 137 150 789,137 860,204 1968 280 165 1969 280 '96 955,507 l 1970 280 209 1,054,d27 1971 280 237 1,162,482 l l 1972 280 255 1,331,914 1973 280 286 1,431,717 2,308,820 1974 280 488 1975 424 496 2,527,941 1976 424 566 2,755,379 1977 724 595 3,021,473 1978 724 638 3,276,830 gjected 1979 724 781 3,628,000 1980 724 846 3,949,000 l 1981 724 921 4,301,000 l 1982 1100 999 4,653,000 l l 1983. 1100 1085 5.0 %,000 6 1984 1100 1176 5,443,000 ~ 1985 1300 1276 5,886,000 1986 1300 1385 6,369,000 1987 1500 1502 ,6,887,0C3 1988 1500 1628 7,447,000 l 1 1989 1500 1768 8,057,000 1990 1500 1916 8,713,000 9 -- -_,_s t .._.--y-. - - _. _, - _ - _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20031A787&oldid=4601925"