ML20034H825
| ML20034H825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1993 |
| From: | Culver N SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#193-13733 92-669-03-OLA-2, 92-669-3-OLA-2, OLA, OLA-2, NUDOCS 9303220117 | |
| Download: ML20034H825 (23) | |
Text
+,;..$73?
t r m.E t0-U5ub f
'93 MM 16 P4 :04-SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS lFOR PEACE-before the.
crrehr3ggdda.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOW1.m. avir:i;-
eh s HDi -
In the matter of' Pacific Gos and Electric Co.
Docket No. 50-275-OLA. 2; ~
Diablo Congon Nuclear Power Plant
.SO-323-OLA' Unit Nos. 1 and 2 ASLBP.'No. 92-6BS-03-OLA-2 March.12, 1993 i
Son Luis Obispo Mothers ~for Peace Late-filed Contention
)
In accordonce with 10 CFR 2.714Co][i3, this document;supplementszthe i
' Son Luis Obispo Mothers for= Peace Supplement to. Petition to Intervene.
On January 21, 1993, the Mothers for Peace was granted o'heoring ondipetitiont 1
for leave to intervene in the proceeding involving the proposed omendment'
~i of the operating licenses for the Diablo Congon Nuclear Power. Plant,Tunits
~
1 and 2.
This amendment would extend the life of those. licenses-by.more' i
than 13 years for Unit 1_ond almost.15 years.for Unit 2.
- For.the-reasons!
i set forth below, the Mothers for Peace is' submitting the following to; f
/
supplement its original-Supplement to Petition to Intervene.
1
. II XI. The San Luis'Obispo Mothers for Peace challenges.the:Environmentol' I
. Assessment and Finding of No Significant' Impact-[ TAC?NOS. M84006 and.
MB40073. issued February 3, 1993.
The NRC should.be required to;preporsuon
't i
Environmental Impact Statement.
'I Basis: :The Environmental Assessment and Finding lofLNo
'I
-l
-Significant Impact issued February 3, 1993 C"EA"] concludesithoti"the extension of Diablo Congon'sTDperating License... will. net create ony new' q
or.unreviewed environmental impacts.
This change.does not involve any_
~~
l physirs1: modifications. 'and there are no new or unreviewed' environmental
~
M@@
- 9303220117 930312-i PDR 'A90CKL05000275-
.A i
'O PDR..
' impacts that were not considered as port of the Final Environmental j
l Statement C"FES"] dated-May 1S73..." Cpg. 23.
The Son Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace C"SLOMFF"] challenges this conclusion and contends that extension of the operating license term for Diablo Congon Nuclear Power Plant C"UCNPP"3 will, in fact, significantly increase the risk of adverse impacts to the human environment, in ways that were not considered in the FES twenty years ago.
Because the proposed operating license extension-could i
significantly and adversely offect the quality of the human environment, the National Environmental Policy Act requires that the NRC prepore-on j
Environmental Impact Statement C"EIS"] to evoluote the increased' risks to:
the surrounding population and environment, to weigh the costs ond-benefits-i of the proposed operating license extension, and to consider-alternatives to the proposed oction.
The proposed. operating-license extensions pose o significont',
previously unconsidered risk to the human environment-in the following.
-[
L respects:
l 13 Aging The proposed operating license extension will greatly extend the' life
[
of the DCNPP beyond its origin ~.1 term of 40 years ofter commencement of' t
construction, to os much as 55 years.
This-is because'the period that is
'I i
being " recaptured,"
i.e., the time between issuonce of the construction.
i t
permit and operating license, was extremely long:
Unit 1 did not receive -
on operating license until over'13 years ofter construction begon,. andUnit'q 2 did not receive its operating license until almost 15 years ofter construction begon.
f 2
q
y.
o As stated by the NRC in NUREG-1144, Rev. 1 Nuclear Plant Aging Research [NPAR3 Program Plon:
Components, Systems, and Structures CNRC:
19873, " Aging is a complex' process that begins os soon as o component or.
structure is produced and. continues throughout its service life."'id ;ot 2-2.
The list of oging effects summarized in NUREG-1144 includes.
deterioration which occurs not just during operation but during-storage os well:
-- Material degradation mechonisms are active during storage and operation.
Typical causes of degradotion include:. neutron embrittlement, fatigue, erosion, corrosion, oxidotion, thermal embrittlement, and chemical reactions.
-- Stressors con be introduced by improper storage,. operating.
environment, or external environment.
Irrodiction, primary and secondary coolont chemistry, and introduced'by the operating environment.
Freezing and thowing, brackish water, and humidity. ore typical examples of stressors introduced by external environment..
Synergistic influence of electrical and mechanical stressors in combination with other internal and external environment.also contribute to degradation-processes.
-- Service wear:
occumulation of fatigue domoge due to plant operational cycling, service weor of rotating equipment', ond'weor of the drive rod assembly in a control rod drive mechonism are typical examples.
-- Excessive testing:
frequent testing of emergency diesel. generators is a typical example.
-- Improper installotion, application, or-maintenance:
investigation '
by NRC CRef. 43 1 hos indicated that 30% of.the nuclear plant obnormoi-occurrences con be ottributed to faulty and improper maintenance.
Ida at 2-2.
As stated in.NUREG-1144, Rev.
1, "No nuclear plant, including.those-still under construction or being mothbolled, should be considered immune" from the effects of aging.
Idi Thus, from the time construction begon, 1
G. Cwalino et al.,
" Status of Mointenance in the U.S. Nuclear. Power Industry 1985:
Findings and Conclusions,: NUREG-1212, Vol.
1, June 1986.
3
^
DCNPP was subject to aging effects for ming years, including the l
porticularly corrosive effects of exposure to salt cir. -Indeed. there are i
numerous recorded instances of corroded and degraded systems, structures,'
and components at DCNPP.
The Fuel Handling. Building ventilation system was;-;
.t declared inoperable due to the degradotion of the FHB seals, LER 89-019-01 CSeptember 19, 19913; leakoge occurred from the chemical and volume control-system due to thermally induced premature degradotion nf the diaphrogm volve, LER 1-92-009-00 CJuly 27, 19923; corrosion was discovered on piping associated with diesel fus1 cil and two fire suppression system corbon dioxide lines, LER 1-92-006-00, Unit 1 CAugust 6,'
19923.; cuxiliary'solt water pumps show evidence of aggressive salt water corrosion,;NRC IR 92-22.
l L
l CAugust 25, 19923; weld defects were identified in the steam generator feedwater nozzles of Unit 1, NRC IR ENovember 5,:19923;.feedwater flow control bypass line snubber failed due to stress-corrosion cracking., LER 1-92-023-00 CNovember 30, 19923.
Moreover, as demonstroted in 9LOMFP's
]
~
Contention I, which was admitted for litigation by the Licensing' Board,1NRC i
I and PG8E records demonstrate defects in PGSE's maintenance and surveillance I
program. 2 Foulty and improper maintenance;may not only foil.to correct-j oging effects, but may'nctually contribute to the aging process.
NUREG-1144, Rev.
1, at 2-2.
As discussed in NUREG-1149, Rev. 1 the potential-impacts of oging1cn occident risk are-significant.
Aging cffects "essenticily all types of-safety-related systems." Id ot' 2-3.
Aging-effects!" con' contribute'tol f
-t
'f both:
Ec3 the probability of initiation of transients'and' occidents, and' 2
Rother than repeat the entire basis of! Contention I,'SLOMFP1 j
incorporates:it into the basis of this contention.
4
.i r
Cb3 the probability of failure of the mitigating equipment during operation." id.
If oging effects are not found and corrected, this con i
" result in on undetected reduction in the defense-in-depth concept." id.
Age degrodotion " con also cause a loss of operational readiness in engineered safety systems, which are required to mitigate the consequences.
of a failure of a vital component, such as on assumed break in the primary system boundary." Id.
?
Of "patentioily the greatest concern" is the fact that oging con lead v
to "o higher probability of common mode failures in nuclear power plants."
t
.ld. Aging " con lead to wide-scale degrodotion of a physical barrier cr?to simultaneous degradotion of redundant components." ld.
It is also clear, for o number of reasons, that the increased risksL cssociated with oging connot be dismissed by relying on maintenance and surveillance programs.
First, too little is known about the oging process to state confidently that it con be controlled by current methods AsTthe NRC hos conceded, " mony age-related uncertainties exist because.neither ENRCJ nor the industry completely understond the nature and effects ol' i
aging on the plants."
GAD /RCED-89-90, License Renewol-Questions for.
J Nuclear Plants Need to Be Resolved CGAO:
April-19893 at 15-17.
ThefNRC's l
_ program of age-related research covers only about 25 percent of the major j
equipment important to plant safety.
Furthermore, the' report is not expected to be complete until 1997.
GAD /RCED-91-207,'"Research Efforts' 1
Under Way to Support Nuclear Power Plant License Renewol" CSeptemberl19913 5
at B.
Second,.in some cases the technology for detecting oging effects simply does not exist.
For example, researchers at Dok. Ridge National i
-l
t t
i Laboratories have concluded that current requirements for detecting check volve deterioration are "inodequate for timely detection" because "neither the flutter nor the resulting weor con be detected prior to volve foilure "
NUkEG-1377, Rev. 2, NRC Research Program on Plant Aging:
Listing ond Summaries of Reports Issued Through June 1991 CNRC:
July 19913 ot.15, citing NUREG/CR-4302, M.D. Hoynes, " Aging and Service Weor of Check Univesi Used in Engineered Sofety Feature Systems of Nuclear Power Plants: -Aging i
Assessments and Monitoring Method Evoluotions,: Vol. 2,-ORNL-6193/U2 EApril' 19913.
Similarly, NUREG-1144, Rev.
1, reported the existence of "some j
doubt" that artificial aging of safety equipment'for environmental
.i qualification testing "reolistically represent [s] the effects of-inservice. j i
degradotion," because notural oging may hove more severe effects on the f
~
equipment than artificial aging.
The report notes'that:
i r
Because of the evidence that artificial or accelerated aging j
techniques may be inadequate, it is difficult.to.ossess the. increased degree of vulnerobility of safety equipment _ot:this time.-
This' equipment, degraded by age-related' service and wear, mayLbe.vulnerobleL to common mode failure during occidents and transients'thot involve obnormal stresses and demands on the equipment.
j
'idt at 2-3.
Thus, not only are some oging' effects difficult to' detect, but (i the failure to detect'them moy greatly increase the risk of on occident,
,l t
from o single mode to o common mode failure.
Third, os discussed above, operating and maintenance ~ practices moy:be-l l
important contributors to aging problems, not necessarily solutions.
As7 stated in GAD /RCED-89-90, "the operating and. maintenance practices'of-each-r utility exocerbote Ethe3 uncertainties" related to aging.Lld, SLOMFPlhos P
c1 ready identified numerous problems with PG&E's maintenance and surveillonce program.
See Contention I.
At best,lPG&E's maintenance and i
surveillance program is on uncertain factor that must beLexamined for its B
potentici role'os o contributor to the increased risks ossocioted with
.cging.
Its existence certainly connot.be: relied on as on excuse not to prepare on EIS.
See page 4 of the EA.
Impacts of Aging Were Not Considered in 1973.FES In the EA-for DCNPP, the NRC claims-that the proposed operating license extension will not create any "new or unreviewed. environmental.
impacts."
EA at 2, The EA also states that the 1973 FES considered a 40-year operating life for DCNPP. Ida Neither of these statements provides f
sufficient support for the NRC's decision not to prepare on EIS.
~
First, the NRC hos learned a great-deal about aging.of. nuclear power.
plants since 1973 that could not possibly have been considered.in the 1973 FES.
Aging was of little concern to the NRC at that time.
Only in.the-post few years, os nuclear plants begon to experience widespread.ond significant aging problems and as the ogencyilooked to the' issue of license' renewal, hos significant research on the: subject been undertaken.
At'this point, the NRC is just. discovering how little it knows obout oging, and trying to amass enough information about~it to begin toJmoke decisions about license renewal.
It is absurd to suggest.that the'NRC onticipated' the complex problems raised by aging of the equipment at DCNPd at.the time
'it prepored the-1973 FES.
Second, SLOMFP has studied the 1973 FES and' con find no direct statement to the effect that it was evoluoting the risks of c 40 year'_
operating life, os opposed to o 40-year existence. LMoreover,-the FES did I
not onticipate that DCNPP would operate for-on additional 40. years ofter.it had oiready been in existence for 15 years.
In fact, the FES couldn't have 1
considered the full length of the period between construction oermit and.
7
i operating license because it was writte' 1973, eleven years before the.
operating license for Unit 1 was issued and 13 years before the operating license for Unit 2 was issued.
Thus, the 1973 FES did not consider the full term of degradotion and aging effects to which the DCNPP would be' subjected over the SS-year lifetime that is now being proposed.
23 Change in Population The EA comments that " population size and distribution is the only time-dependent parameter."
EA at 3.
Yet the EA assumes that the " Low Population Zone CLPZJ, and nearest population center distance will continue l to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 100.11 Co] for the proposed 40 year' license terms. Id.
Additionally, the EA concludes that "the' proposed.
license omendment will not significantly change previous conclusions on the potential environmental effects of offsite releases from postulated.
accidents." id.
But the population size and distribution _of Son Luis Obispo County has changed.
In its License Amendment Request, PG&E notes
~
that 10 miles is currently the Population Center Distance However,-
because of dramatic population growth in the community of;Bogwood-Los Osos, the new Population Center Distance will become 8 miles.
License Amendment Request 92-09 CJuly 9, 1992] at 30.
Substantial population growth in the-j
.Boywood-Los Osos community was not anticipated or analyzed in the 1973.FES.
t The FES projected the Son.Luis Obispo County population to reach?223,000 by
'the year 2000.
FES at 2-12.
As of January 1, 1992, the county population hos already'recched' 221,902.
State Department of Finance.
At a projected-l 2.1S% growth increase per year CLicense Amendment Request ot-3OJ,;the i
projected county population'for the year 202S changes even more_
substantially.
Ih1 EIS is needed to determine whether or not this change in-l 1
8
q.
population offects previous conclusions on the potential environmental impacts of offsite releases.
3]
Cumulative exposure to low level radiation The Mothers for Peace requests that on EIS be performed for the purpose of determining the cumulative and chronic impact of low level radiction on the population surrounding the DCNPP.
The-EA states that "the-plant's contribution to the local population dose within a 50-mile radius is expected to remain insignificant in comparison to that from background.
radiction." EA at 5.
Planned and unplanned atmosphericiand aquatic releases and the generation, storage and transportotion of highfond low level radiction exposes the local population to radiction'through a variety-of pathways: the air, the soil and the water.
Local fish, fruits and vegetables, cow's milk and drinking water all may have some degree of contamination.
FES CMoy 1973I at 5-55.
Planned releases occur with regularity and " hove remained within the bounds of the FES..." EA, ot' G.
Accidental releases of radiation, however, are unpredictable and have occurred.
-- May 8, 9,
1985, unplanned release of radiction from Unit'l' waste gas system CNRC IR 6/7/853;
-- April-10, 1987, Unit 2, o significant release of radicoctive material'during a loss of residual heat removal' system: incident CEAl B7-131, B/7/873;
-- May 5, 1987, o 1,300.gollon leck cf. radioactive water; November '1.,-
~
1990, rodlocctive water leak in containment; reported in o November 5, 1992.NRC IR - high cirborne radiationc release os c result of shot peening activities;
- -on December 18, PG&E violated the U.S. Department of.Thonsportot' ion.
regulations when it exceeded.the 10 millirem limit in the-transportation of low level woute to tho' disposal site in the State-of Washington.
This shipment was received on December 21 and measured 12' 9
millirems.
CLetter to PGSE from State of Washington, Department of Health, January 13, 1993]
The human population is continually being exposed to unpredictable amounts of radiction.
There hos been a great decliof speculation regarding the safety of this exposure on human health.
The Japanese had o single-dose situation with the atomic bombs; it is a more complex situotion where
~
people ore exposed over o period of time.
John Gofmon and Alice Stewart i
both argue that there-is no safe dose or dose rote; in fact, low doses of.
ionizing radiction received over time con be more harmful that single high-doses.
EDdictiDD:lDduced_CDDDer_fpr_LDW:Dpse_ExpDsyrg, John Gofmon, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility C19903.ond DlI_IDDDDD1Dgy_EDY1SW CFebruary 11, 1993].
The lecci papers in Son Luis Obispo. County hove-published the concer rates; there exists on unusually high rote of lung and-breast concer in the county.
A representative from the Environmental-Protection Agency paid a visit to the county in January of 1993 to investigate this situation.
The correlation between exposure to low doses of radiction and the.
risk of contracting concer did not exist when the FES-was completed in 1973.
An EIS is now required to onelyze the effects of chronic low level rodiction on the locci population - before PG&E is granted on additional 13 to 15 years to their operating licenses.
43 High level radioactive waste storage According to the'EA, "the total amount of uranium required ~for the proposed 90 year operating license terms is expected to'be less than the-omount projected in the FES." FES=ot 7.
Perhaps less high leve1~ waste will be generated than originally anticipated, but the document fails to indicate-that PG&E has.no plans for. storage of this waste ofter the. gear 10 l
i
2010.
The plant hos already re-rocked its spent fuel pools to enable then.
to store more rods than originally planned.
"The spent fuel pools currently have onsite storage capacity for plant operation through about 2007 while maintaining the capability for o full-core off-lood.
After 2007, storage space would no longer be available for o full-core off-lood.
The existing. spent fuel storage rocks will be filled by 2010.". License Amendment Request 92-04 CJuly 9, 19923 at 25.
The EA does not discuss how spent fuel is to be stored at DCNPP when f
there is no room in the spent fuel pool.
Thus, there is no means for the.
public to evoluote the risks ossociated with storage of'high level waste generated during the proposed extension period.
The problems of fuel storage at DCNPP are unique within the nuclear.
power plant industry because the plant is located in the State of California, where seismic activity is a constant, real, and serious' threat to safety, and within 2 1/2 miles of on active earthquake Ecult CHosgri].
The disposal of this high level radicoctive woste presents a potentially significant and dongerous environmental impact.
When the FES was compiled in 1973, the Hosgri-Foult had not even been discovered; on EIS is essential to determine the extent of this impact on the hurnon environment.
l
- 5. Low level radioactive waste storage According to the EA, the " volume of solid law level radioactive waste.
generated at DCPP has historically been omang the lowest in the nuclear powar industry." EA at B.
But the document fails to ocknowledge.the difficulty and expense of disposing of this 'ongerous waste.
The Mothers d
for Peace understands that.the waste generated at DCNPP hos previously been sent to the disposal facility in Ucshington; but that plant is no-longer 11
I 4
P b
occepting radicoctive waste from Californio.
PGSE must now transport their-waste to the disposal facility at Bornwell, South Coralino.
This site will i
continue accepting waste from Californio'until July 1994.
What hoppens to-the radicoctive waste generated at DCNPP ofter that date is unknown.
"Civilion Nuclear Waste Disposal," Mark Holt, Congressional Research Service, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division Cupdated' July 22, 1992] at 11.
. Twenty years ago, when the FES for DCNPP was written, the contamination problems and the controversy surrounding the low level. waste.
disposal facilities did not exist.
This issue requires further investigation; on EIS is essential.
53 Cost benefits The EA states: "If the plant is not operated beyond 2008, it is likely that it would be necessary to construct new baselcod copocity... operation i
of DCPP during the requested extension period would only require incremental yearly costs... In summary, the cost-bedefit advantage of_DCPP:
compared to alternative electrical power generating copocity: improves with.
the extended plant lifetime." pg. 12.
The Mothers for Peace find these conclusions untrue.
The energy produced by DCNPP in the years-of the proposed license extension will be costly.
The Division of Rotepayerz I
Advocates CDRA3 of the California Public Uti11 ties Commission prepared o document in response to PGSE's claim in their opplication that grantingithe j recopture will " reduce future electric rates."
License Amendment Request:
i 92-04 CJuly 9, 1992] at 3.
DRA claims that:
i Prices for Diablo Congon's generation ofter 2015 have not been set.
However, there is no reason to expect Diablo Canyon's prices during-the remainder of-the recopture period to be significontly below market,
l levels, nor has PGSE presented any. evidence suggesting that this will 12
5 i
4 I
occur.
In any cose, PGSE is incorrect in csserting that Diablo Congon-will be cost-competitive by 2008.
During-the portion of the recapture c
period where Diablo Canyon's prices are known, 2008 to 2016, operation.j of Diablo Congon will increase rotepoyer costs by billions of I
dollars.
Edmund Texeiro's CDRA] letter to Herschel Rosenthol, i
chairman of the Senote Energy and Public Utilities Committee CDecember 8,
1992] at 4.
i The entire text of this document sheds light on the question of the need for new boselood copocity and the economics of extending the' operating life of DCNPP versus the use.cf olternative energy sources for producing on equivalent electrical power capacity.
This document is ottoched as Appendix A.
f During the December 10, 1992 preheoring' conference, Judge Bechhcefer requested that the NRC Stoff cecept the Son Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
{
Supplement to Petition to Intervene COctober 25, 19923 os o comment in the I
preparotion of the EA.
Transcript at 188, 189.
The DRA document noted
{
obove provided the NRC Stoff with valuable information for the~ preparation'
.l of the EA.
Neither the receipt nor the content of these documents were i
ocknowledged in the EA.
1 I
The EA ossumes that the productivity of DCNPP will remain high and j
that operation will be safely performed. EA at 10.
But PG&E has admitted
-r
- i the.long-term risks that face continued operation at DCNPP.
-l ccknowledges the risk of unscheduled autoges os the plant gets older; the
. risk of higher than expected maintenance and capitol costs as major plant equipment, such as steam generotors, is repaired or repinced; and the risk' i
of reduced plant performance-or higher costs in order to comply with newL l
NRC regulatory requirements or-new government taxes.
Protest of Pacific
?
Gas and Electric Company to. Petition by Toward Utility Rote Normalization.
l 1
to Modify Decision 88-12-083 COctober 16, 19923'ot'10.
l i
13
-l
Justification for Late-Filed Contention 1
1]
SLOMFP has good cause to file Contention XI ot this time because-
~f the EA was not issued until February 3, 1993, and SLOMFP did not receive it; until February 12.
Because the EA was not available to SLOMFP.before.
}
February 12, it could not have prepared a contention chollenging the EA r
before that.
In fact, the Licensing Board rejecte' o previous contention-d f
by SLOMFP which challenged the lock of on EIS for the proposed operating-
.j
?!
license extension, on the ground that it was premature.
SLOMFP has proceeded as quickly as possible to evoluote the EA,ond to.
t ossemble enough evidence in support of Contention XI to_sotisfy the Commission's standard for admissibility of the contention, and we hov'e r
filed our contention within the reasonable time period of 30 days.. WeinoteL that during the time we were preparing this contention we were also required to engage in the time-consuming activity'of preporing' essentially i
all of our discovery in this cose.
i 23 There are no other means by which SLOMFP con protect its interest in.hoving on EIS prepared for the proposed operating license extension.
j t
33 SLOMFP's porticipotion -in the litigation of-this. contention will lead to the developr.ent of a sound record.
5LOMFP.has.obtained technical j
assistance in preporing its cuse on.this' issue and' expects'to be oble to,
]
~
l provide expert testimony on the significant'oging risks posed by the q
proposed operating license extension.
[
43 There is no other party to this cose which can' represent SLOMFP's:
interests.
'S]
Admission of'this contention ot.this time con be. expected to t
brooden and delay this proceeding.-
However, any such' delay would.not be2 I
i t
14-t
- - - - ~ -
.+
7, ;. -..,.
+
the~ fault of SLOMFP.
t1creover, the litigation of this-issue would:not-
- prevent or delay. the ope
- otion of DCNPP.
Respectfully submittedi t.
t Noney Culver, President Son Luis Obispo f1others for Peace 1
9
+ $
r l
6 l
I t
.;i r
15
rm m osac
'93 WR 16 P4 :05 Certificate of Service s
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Son Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Late-filed Contention have been served upon'the following persons by U.S.
mail, first class.
Office of Commission Appellote Administrative Judge Adjudication Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Sofety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Jerry Kline Administrative Judge Atomic Sofety and Licensing Boord Frederick J. Shan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Sofety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Edward O'Neill Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Peter Arth, Jr.
Office of the General Counsel Truman Burns U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert Kinosion Washington, DC 20555 Peter G. Fairchild, Esq.
Californic Public Utilities Commission Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.,
Esq.
505 Von Ness Avenue Winston & Strown Son Francisco, CA 99102 1900 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005 Adjudicatory File Secretory of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Bronch Washington, DC 20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Robert R. Wellington, Esq.
Diablo Canyon Independent Sofety Committee B57 Coss Street, Suite D Monterey, CA 93990 Christopher Ucener, Esq.
Richard Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
77 Beale Street Son Francisco, CA 94106 Dated March 12, 1993, Son Luis Obispo County, CA Jill ZcmEk06 a*JL
4
?O *
'^ '
i
' ~
' Califorma Putdie Utilltes Commession t h
pQd' l DIVISIO'N OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES 505 Van Ness Avenue '
EDMUND k TEXEIRA -
. Phone' (415)70hv1 San Francisco, CA 94102 3298 ~
Director c FAX. (415)703-1981 December 8,-1992
'The Honorable ~ Herschel Rosenthal, Chairman SENATE ENERGY.& P'UBLIC UTILITIES COMMITTEE:
State Capitol,' Room 2035 Sacramento, California; 95814 Dear Senator Rosenthalt
SUBJECT:
Diablo Canyon License Recapture In response to your request,-the Division-of Ratepayer:
~
Advocates (DRA)[1] of the. California'Public Utilities-Commission.(CPUC).has reviewed the application. filed;by' Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)-to recapture the; construction
~
period'of the Diablo' Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units-1:&L2,.
thereby extending their. operation by.13'to'.15-years. "DRA has.a number of concerns regarding statements made by PG&E.-
Specifically, Section 3-of PG&E's application',:regarding the justification for the recapture, contains a number'of; errors and-omissions.
Use of accurate information!would show that the; recapture will-increase ratepayer costs;and-harm theTeconomy.in 4
INTRODUCTION A.
Diablo Canyon Under current ratemaking treatment for the-Diablo Canyon.
Units', ratepayers incur significant costs to pay for the-operation of the facility.
Table 1:shows the current #and forecasted prices for Diablo Canyon's generation.
l
- 1=
Although DRA is under the administrative' umbrella of the:
L CPUC, it acts-independently of the Commission'.(Cal. PU. Codel
'Section 309.5).
These? statements reflect the position of the'DRA.
only,.and do not represent-the opinion of.the CPUC.
~
f' 4
C:k The Honorable H.-'Rosenthal 0
December 8, 1992
-Page 2-e\\
TABLE 1 PRICES FOR DIABLO CANYON GENERATION *'
(Nominal Cents /KWH)
YEAR =
PRICEL 1989 U.3 1990-8.9 1991 9.5 1992 10.2 1993 11.0 1994 11.9 1995
~12.2 1996 12.5 1997 12.8 1998 13.1 1999 13.4-2000 13.7 2001 14.1 2002 14.4' 2003 14.8 2004 15.2 2005 15.6' 2006' 16.0-2007 16.4 2008-16.8 2009
~ 17.= 3 2010 17.7 2011 18.2 Recapture 2012 18.7 Period-2013 19.2 2014 19.7 2015 20.3 2016-20.8 Values after.1994 assume-an annual inflation rata (CPI) of 4%.
Prices during the recapture period'are highlighted;.
the_ recapture period extends beyond the settlement term.
These prices do not-include $54 million collected annually for a decommissioning cost reserve.
These prices are the result of-a' settlement negotiated by DRA, PG&E and the California Attorney General, which was subsequently approved by the CPUC.
DIUL continues to support the.
settlement.
While the pricing: schedule shown in Table-1 assumes.
that'the recapture is obtained, the' settlement contains'other.
provisions should the Nuclear-Regulatory Commission (NRC); deny.
PG&E's request. LThus, the settlement is'not dependent on PG&E's successfully recapturing the construction period.
l
y _
Th1 HonorCblo H. Rosenth21 December 8, 1992 L
Page 3-Since Diablo Canyon's costs were first placed into rates, PG&E's' average residential rate for electricity has increased from 8.6 cents /kwh in 1988 to over 11.5 cents /kwh in 1991.
In comparison, nationwide electric ratss:have remained nearly-constant during the same time span.
Although not.all of the increase in.PG&E's rates can be attributed:to Diablo1 Canyon,~its payments currently account for over 20% of the costs borne by PG&E's ratepayers for electric service [2]..The Units also comprise a significant portion of PG&E's resource mix, representing over 10% of the utility's installed capacity.
B.
PG&E's Application On July.7, 1992, Pacific Gas & Electric Company filed an application with the NRC to modify the operating licenses fo'r the Diablo Canyon Units (NRC Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA-2, 50-323-OLA-2).
PG&E seeks to have the licenses changed-to extend the term of operation of the units from 2008 to 2021.for Unit 1,.and from 2010 to 2025 for Unit 2.
This request is made under the.NRC's-policy regarding.the " recapture" of construction. time [3].
PG&E's application covers a number of. topics.
Section 3 contains PG&E's justification for the amendment, asserting a number of benefits from extending the operation of Diablo Canyon.
Sections 4 and 5 address the safety.and environmental impacts, respectively, of the proposed amendment.
PG&E asserts that'no increase in safety or environmental impacts will occur:due to the extension.
Section 6 asserts that no new hazards are expected'to-arise due to the extension.
2 A consumer advocacy group, Towards Utility Rate Normalization (TURN), has recently filed a petition with the CPUC to modify the prices contained in the settlement.
DRA has filed no comments regarding this petition.
The CPUC has not yet ruled on TURN's request.
3 The NRC issues 40 year operating licenses for nuclear power plants. -Initially, the 40 year period commenced when the construction of the facility began.. Later, this policy was revised to have the period commence on the date of initial operation of the power plant.
The NRC has etablished'a policy of allowing modifications to the early licenses to'" recapture" the difference between the construction start date and the date'of initial operation.. thereby extending the duration of the operating license.
.l The' Honorable H. Rosenthal December 8, 1992-Page 4 DRA'S CONCERNS DRA has no comments regarding PG&E's claims on the safety and
~
environmental impacts of the proposed amendment.
However, DRA has a number of concerns regarding other aspects of PG&E's filing.
The application filed by PG&E to amend Operating Licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82 contain a number of inaccuracies.
DRA is specifically concerned with Section 3 of PG&E's application,
~i regarding the justification for the proposed license amendments.
PG&E has asserted that granting the recapture will provide four benefits to its ratepayers: cost savings; filling a need for I
baseload generation; air emission reductions; and, improvements in the state and local economy (Application, pp. 2 and 3).
DRA l
addresses each of these purported benefits below.
?
t A.
Cost Savings I
PG&E indicates that Diablo Canyon is expected to be " cost-competitive with new power plants" in 2008 and beyond, and that granting the recapture will " reduce future electric rates" (Application, Section 3.2, p. 3).
However, PG&E has not 7
presented any data to support this contention.
In fact, based on estimates used by the California Energy-Commission (CEC) and the CPUC (the two state agencies which regulate resource development in California) and forecasts i
made by PG&E itself, Diablo Canyon is expected to be significantly more expensive than the cost of replacement power through 2016.[4]
A number of resource options, including fossil fueled resources, renewable resources and conservation a
programs, are expected'to be considerably less expensive than Diablo Canyon.
s Prices for Diablo Canyon's generation after 2016 have.
not been set.
However, there is no reason to expect Diablo Canyon's prices during the remainder of the recapture period to 1
be significantly below-market levels, nor has PG&E presented any evidence suggesting that this will occur.
In any case, PG&E is incorrect in asserting that Diablo Canyon will be cost-competitive by 2008.
During the portion of the recapture period.
where Diablo Canyon's prices are known, 2008 to 2016, operation of Diablo Canyon will increase ratepayer costs by billions _of I
dollars.
t i
4 These forecasts can be found in the CEC's most recent resource planning proceeding (CEC' Docket 90-ER-92) and in the
-i CPUC's Biennial Resource Planning Update (CPUC Docket I.89 '
_es
-004).
h
'f
o
(. -
Tho'Honorablo H. Rosenthal December 8,'1992
'Page~5 In addition, the CPUC, the CEC and PG&E~itself have all expressed' concerns regarding commitments to resources in advance of need.
Future technologies'may be much,less expensive than
' currently available resources [5).
If future'needs are filled by-premature commitments to existing resourceF.and. technologies, utilities may not be able to take advantage of the benefits of.
the new technologies.
However, in this'inste.nce, PG&ELis seeking an extension for Diablo Canyon more than 15 years-before its existing license expires.
B.
Baseload Generation PG&E also errs in its assertion that the baseload operation of Diablo Canyon is beneficial to its ratepayers (Application,.
Section 3.1, p. 2)..In fact, PG&E itself has complained of an excess of baseload' resources, and4has asserted a need for~ greater.
operational flexibility.
PG&E wants to require all'new generation (which would be operating during the period of the recapture) to be dispatchable by the utility.
PG&E recently.
negotiated an. increase in its control of the operation of qualifying facilities (QFs) signing new contracts.
Excess baseload generation causes PG&E to have too many-resources operating at times of low system demand..This limits.
the ability of PG&E to take advantage of low cost, spot energy purchases.
It also causes operating problems because ofLthe need to have some units available to follow. load.
Replacing Diablo Canyon with resources which have greater. operational flexibility' would resolve these problems, lowering ratepayer costs.
PG&E also indicates that replacing'Diablo' Canyon couldL significantly exacerbate the need for.new centralized power plants (Ibid.).
However, current PG&E resource plans indicate that the majority of new demand needs.will be met by conservation and other demand-side management (DSM) programs, zus well as spot -
purchases.
The relatively small amount-of new generation resources are anticipated to be retrofits to existing utility
- power plants or new QF facilities, not large, new. centralized
. power plants.
In any event, " exacerbating" the development.of replacement resources is not a detriment to PG&E's ratepayers, if.
they have lower costs than Diablo Canyon and provide greater operational flexibility.
l t
5 The estimates used by the CEC, CPUC and PG&E for resource planning do not assume any improvement in resource efficiencies or costs over time due'to improvements in technologies.
- Thus, the forecasts discussed above likely underestimate.the difference between new resources and the higher costs of Diablo Canyon.-
+
The Honorable H.'Rosenthal December 8, 1992 Page 6~
C.
Air Emission Reductions 6
PG&E asserts-that granting the recapture will significantly
~l reduce-air emissions which would have been produced by the resources replacing Diablo Canyon (Application,-Section 3.3, p.
3).
However, PG&E assumes that Diablo Canyon will be replaced-with 100% gas-fired' generation.
As mentioned above, current resource plans. indicate that the majority of new: resources ~will be DSM, wind, geothermal and spot purchases, not gas-fired, i
baseload resources.
Little, if any, increase in air' emissions would occur if Diablo-Canyon were replaced with these-resources, f
In addition, the resource selection methodology used in California explicitly quantifies the value of reducing air emissions.
To the extent a competing resource has less air emissions than a gas-fired resource, this benefit will be reflected in a cost comparison of the two facilities.
The high cost of Diablo Canyon outweighs any air emission benefits it may have compared to other options.
D.
State and Local Economy Benefits
[
PG&E indicates that continued operation of Diablo Canyon will.
benefit the state and local economies, because of state and local 6
taxes on the facility (Application, Section 3.4, p. 3).
- _However,
^
PG&E fails to consider the benefits of jobs and property. taxes that would occur from constructing and operating the resources that would replace Diablo Canyon's generation. It is the net difference between the amount of taxes-and jobs created by Diablo Canyon versus alternatives which is relevant.
However, PG&E has not shown that there will be more jobs and tax revenues from continuing to operate Diablo Canyon than from building and.
operating. replacement resources.
In addition, the rate increase that would result frem.
granting the recapture will have a negative impact on the state and local' economy.
If'Diablo CanyonLis'just 1 cent /kwh more.
expensive then other options, PG&E's rates will increase by over S140 million annually.
As previously discussed, Diablo Canyon is expected to cost many cents /kwh more than alternatives.
Over the recapture period, Diablo Canyon is expected to increase PG&E's rates by billions of dollars.
t High energy costs are at least partially responsible for the decline in the state economy.
PG&E's rates are already over 35%
7 above the national average.
A sizable rate increase from extending operation of Diablo Canyon would have a significant' l
detrimental impact on the state and local economies, t
i j
.m
- t
,a.
4 Tha Honor blo H. Rosenthal December 8, 1992 Page 7 CONCLUSION DRA believes it is essential that the.NRC have the,best and most accurate information available, prior to making'any determination on PG&E's request.
PG&E has not provided the NRCL with-the information needed to accurately' assess;the justification for the license amendment.
In.particular,.PG&E's.
application relies on the four benefits listed below as justification for extending the operating period of Diablo Canyon:
1.
Cost-Savings; 2.
Need For Baseload Generation; 3.
Air Emission Reductions; and, 4.
State and Local Economy Benefits.
As discussed above, none of these benefits are. expected to-occur, nor has PG&E presented any evidence to support its claims.
Based on PG&E's forecasts and those used by California state agencies, granting the recapture.will benefit neither PG&E's.
Quite the opposite vill occur.
ratepayers nor the economy.
Extending the operation of Diablo Canyon is expected to increase PG&E's electric rates.
Sincerely, 4
fL EDMUND J.'TEXEIRA Director Division of Ratepayer Advocates GIG /EJT:st cc:
The Honorable Gwen Moore President Daniel Wm. Fessler Commissioner Patricia M. Eckert Commissioner John B.-Chanian Commissioner Norman D.
Shumway
~
Neal J. Shulman, Executive Director Peter'Arth Jr., General Counsel CPUC A.84-06-014.and A.85-08-025 Service Lists
.