ML20041G437
| ML20041G437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1982 |
| From: | Lazo R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | JOINT APPLICANTS - PALO VERDE |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203220298 | |
| Download: ML20041G437 (11) | |
Text
.
=
'1GT,E O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g ATOMIC SAFETY AND ENSING BOARD h
pot p
Administrative Judges:
'e REcy;ygg 9
U Robert M. Lazo, Chairman SERVEC MAR 18UB t
"1Skl 9 Jggg u Dr. Richard F. Cole 2
C
{ "*yf[
10 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan
//
s 16
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. STN-50-528-0L
)
STN-50-529-0L ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL. )
STN-50-530-0L
)
)
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,)
Units 1, 2 and 3 Operating License
)
March 17,1982 Proceeding)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (RULING ON MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITIONS)
This Memorandum and Order relates to Motions by Joint Applicants, Arizona Public Service Company, et al., for summary disposition of Contentions No. 5, No. 6B and No. 7, which are the three contentions remaining in this proceedin'g. The first two motions were filed on January 15, 1982, the third on January 29, 1982.
The NRC Staff responded in support of the motions on February 9, and February 22, 1982.
The Intervenor, Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan, who advanced the three contentions, hasnotrespondedtothemotions.1 1
By Memorandum and Order dated March 3,1982, the Board extended the time for placing answers to the three motions in the hands of the Board to March 16 1000 O
4 2
1.
General Statement of Law Summary disposition motions are authorized to be filed by the Commission's Regulations under 10 CFR 2.749.
We are directed, under that authority, to render the decision sought where the filings in the proceeding, depositions, arswcrs to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material f act and that the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
All material f acts set out in the statement of material f acts which accompanies a summary disposition motion are deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the opposing party, 10 CFR 2.749(a).
Where motions for summary disposition are supported by affidavits, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his answer but his answer by affidavits or as otherwise provided must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact.
10 CFR 2.749(b). When a response to a motion has been provided, we must view the record and affidavits both supporting and opposing the motion in the light most i
l favorable to the opposing party.
See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-36, 7 AEC 877, 879 (1974). The Supreme Court has held, also, that the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material f act.
Adickes v Kress & Co., 389 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
The law, regulations and cases make clear therefore that prior to approving a motion for summary disposition, we must be pursuaded that
4 3
no genuine issues relating to the matter under consideration are left unresolved. We now move to a resolution of the motions before us and consider them in the order they were presented in the proceeding.
II.
Motions for Summary Disposition Contention No. 5 reads as follows:
" Applicant will not have an assured supply of usable treated municipal effluent for cooling purposes for Unit 3 of PVNGS during months of peak reactor need for the first five years of operation."
Based on the material f acts set forth in their motion, and the supporting affidavits and documents attached to the motion, Joint Applicants contend that no material issue of f act remains and holding of an evidentiary hearing on Contention No. 5 would serve no useful purpose.
JointApflicants maintain that the f acts clearly. demonstrate that there is an assured supply of usable treated municipal effluent for cooling purposes for Unit 3 of PVNGS during each month of the first five years of its operation.
In an affidavit in support of Joint Applicants' motion, Mr. Raymond 0. Gonzales, who is a Hydraulic Engineer in the Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, states that in his opinion there will be sufficient usable treated municipal effluent from the 91st l
Avenue plant, for operation of Units 1, 2 and 3 of PVNGS during months of peak reactor ned for the first five years of operation.
In reaching that i
conclusion, he considered only the effluent to be available from the 91st Avenue plant.
l
4 However, in a letter dated February 10, 1982, addressed to the Board Chairman, Mr. Bill Stephens, Executive Director of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, has advised the Board that Agreement No.13904 pursuant to which effluent will be supplied to Joint Applicants for cooling purposes at PVNGS, is being renegotiated. According to Mr. Stephens, the issues being renegotiated include:
(a) The extent of the right of the cities pursuant to Sec. 21 of Agreement No.13904 to refuse to deliver effluent for Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3 when there exists in the cities a critical need for water to be used for domestic purposes; (b) The amount of effluent, if any, available for cooling purposes for Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3; (c) The monthly delivery ' schedule for the amount of effluent available for Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3; (d). Permissible uses of the effluent other than for cooling purposes at Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3; (e) Cost of effluent for Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3; (f)
Source of effluent for Palo Verde Units 1, 2 and 3.
In view of this development, the Board believes that it has no other choice but to deny Joint Applicants' motion for summary disposition of Intervenor's Contention No. 5.
Contention No. 6B reads as follows:
"The Applicants have nst incorporated measures designed to mitigate a postulated ATWS event."
5 ATWS is an acronyin for " anticipated transients without scram."
The Joint Applicants' motion, which was supported by an affidavit from F.W. Hartley, Manager of Nuclear Operations for Arizona Public Service Company, incluaes the following summary of material facts:
ATWS is an unresolved generic safety issue which has been included by the NRC Staff in its " Task Action Plans for Generic Activities." NUREG-0371 (riovember 1978), as Task rio., A-9 (Joint Applicants' Affidavit, Hartley, para. 7).
Tne flRC staff has issued its Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of tne Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Statio.n Units 1, 2 and 3, riURE6-0857 (i<ovember 1981) and its Safety Evaluation Report related to the final design of the Standard Nuclear Steam Supply Reference System,.CESSAR System 80, NUREG-0852 (November 1981)(Id., para. 8).
The Staff's review of ATWS for PVNGS is set forth at pages 15-1 to 15-2 of the Safety Evaluation Report for PVNGS. (Id., para. 9).
In its Safety Evaluation Report for PVNGS at page 15-2, the NRC Staff has identified two procedural requirements which in the Staff's view serve as an acceptable basis for operation of PVNGS pending completion of any plant modifications ultimately required by the Comnission in its final resolution of ATWS as a generic safety issue. (Id., para.10).
As set forth at page 15A-29 of the PVNGS Final Safety Analysis Report, Joint Applicants have committed to meet the NRC Staff's ATWS procedural requirements set forth at page 15-02 of the Safety Evaluation Report for PVNGS.
(Id., para. 11).
As set forth at page 15A-29 of the PVNGS Final Safety Analysis Report, l
J, int Applicants have committed to have the required procedures implementing l
the Staff's requirements available for NRC review at least 60 days prior to fuel loading.
(Id., para. 12).
l In support of Joint Applicants' motion for summary disposition of Contention No. 68, the Staff submitted an affidavit from Marvin W. Hodges, Section Leader in the Reactor Systems Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
In his affidavit, Mr. Hodges states that contrary to the allegation set forth in Intervenor's Contention No. 6B, the Joint Applicants will incorporate measures required by the Staff to mitigate an ATWS event.
(Staff Affidavit, Hodges, paras. 7-10).
6 The Board concludes that based upon the foregoing and other matters of record, there are no genuine issues of material f act remaining and, accordingly, Joint Applicants' motion for summary disposition of Contention No. 6B is granted.
Contention No. 7 reads as follows:
"The Applicants have failed to demonstrate their financial qualifications as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix C, because they have inadequately fiqured decommissioning costs."
The Joint Applicants submitted the affidavit of Albert A. Weinstein, Manager of Engineering, The S.M. Stoller Corporation, in support of its motion for summary disposition.
In support of Joint Applicants' motion, the Staff submitted the affidavits of Raghaw Prasad, an Economist with the Environmental Impact Studies Division of the Argonne National Laboratory, and Michael L. Karlowicz a Financial Analyst employed by the Commission. The following summary of facts was submitted:
The most commonly recognized decommissioning alternatives are immediate dismantlement, safe storage and entombment.
Immedi ate dismantlement refers to the dismantlement of the facility at the end of its operating life resulting in unrestricted access to the site.
Safe storage refers to the mothballing of the facility for a period of time by putting it in protective storage af ter all fuel and radioactive fluids and waste have been removed from the site.
Entombment refers to the sealing off of the f acility in a manner which provides structural integrity for such period as significant quantities of radioactivity remain with the material in the entombment.
(Joint Applicants' Affidavit, Weinstein, para. 6).
Joint Applicants have not yet decided on a particular mode of decommissioning for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station ("PVNGS").
However, for purposes of developing a cost estimate for decommissioning, Joint Applicants assumed that the method of immediate dismantlement would be used.
(Id_., paras. 7-8).
7 The decomissioning cost estimate for PVNGS was prepared by the S.M.
Stoller Corporation in 1979.
The 1979 study was a comprehensive update of an earlier study prepared in 1975.
(Id., para. 9).
The following ground rules governed preparation of the estimate in 1979:
(a)
Plant data was taken primarily from the combustion Engineering Standard Safety Analysis Report, from the PVNGS Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, and from data provided by Arizona Public Service Company.
In a few cases where detailed data was not readily available, an estimate was made based on data from similar units.
(b) Essentially all costs were based either on data from le decommissioning of the Elk River and BONUS reactors or on data from the PNL Study performed by Batelle Pacific Northwest Labs ("PNL"). Where the data resulted in different costs for a task, the more realistic value was used.
(c)
Costs were estimated from the Elk River experience by extrapolating the Elk River costs based on a ration of weights or volumes as appropriate.
(d)
Costs were estimated from the PNL study by using the methodology of that report and the plant data for the PVNGS units.
(,I,., para,10).
The PNL Study was performe'd for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, an 1175 MW(e) pressurized water reactor, as a reference reactor power plant. Using this nuclear steam supply configuration in conjunction with a generic site and structures, systems and components typical of the current generation of large pressurized water reactor power stations, PNL developed a set of work plans for the decommissioning by imediate dismantlement of this station. The choices of plans and techniques made in the study were predicated on the utilization of demonstrated methods for decontamination and dismantlement and on the provision of an appropriate level of safety to the public and the decommissioning workers. The realistic bases and the level of detail applied in the PNL Study make it a definitive evaluation of decommissioning costs.
(Id., para. 12).
The basic methodology used in the cost estimate for PVNGS was to divide the dismantlement operation into six discrete tasks and to develop a cost estimate for each task. The tasks used in the PVNGS study generally conform to the task definitions for the Elk River decomissioning and the PNL Study.
(Id., para. 13).
4 J
8 The six discrete tasks analyzed for PVNGS, and their respective estimates in 1979 dollars for each unit, are as follows:
TASK
$(MILLIONS)
(a)
Site and facility preparation.
6.1 (b) Removal and shipment of spent fuel.
1.2 (c) Decont amination.
1.5 (d) Removal of nuclear and containment system components.
19.4 (e)
Shipment and burial of radioactive wastes.
10.1 l
(f) Demolition 5.1 Subtotal 43.4 CONTINGENCIES 13.3 TOTAL 56.7 (Id., para 14).
The nominal net power output of each Palo Verde unit is 1270 MW(e).
(Id., para.15).
l l
The PNL Study was performed for a 1175 MW(e) pressurized water reactor.
The PNL Study resulted in an estimated cost for immediate dismantlement, including (a contingency allowance of 25 percent of $42 million in 1978 dollars.
Id., para 17).
Mr. Weinstein's conclusions concerning the different decommissionir.g studies appear to be reasonable.
His conclusion that the S. M. Stoller Corporation estimate is the most accurate of the projections with respect to the decommissioning for the PVNGS unit is correct. The S. M. Stoller study l
l is based upon the Pacific Northwest Laboratory study.
(Staff Affidavit, Prasad, para. 4).
Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL), in their comprehensive study of the methods and costs of decommissioning a reference PWR (" Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power l
Station," June 1978, NUREG/CR-0130) have estimated the costs of decommissiong a PWR similar in size to the PVNGS units.
PNL's approach was to develop I
l l
t
)
9 detailed work plans based on the specific design of the reference plant and r
exoected levels of activity and contamination based on typical PWR operating experitace. Based on the estimated requirements for equipment, energy, supplies, and speciality contract labor for these tasks, a total cost for decommissioning by immediate dismantlement was estimated. PNL also estimated costs for alternate modes of decommissioning.
(Id., para. 5).
PNL's estimate of immediate dismantlement cost for a 1175 MWe PWR power station at a midwestern site including a contingency allowance of 25 percent is just over $42 million in terms of 1978 dollars. This cost includes such costs as those for shipment and disposal of radioactive materials, staff labor, materials, equipment and demolition services.
Demolition of the decor.taminated structure is estimated to be about $8 million.
Since demolition of the decontaminated structure is not required by NRC regulations, the total decommissioning cost could be reduced by 19 percent by not demolishing the structures.
PNL's method of cost estimation technique for decommissioning follows the usual engineering cost estimation procedure.
In the absence of actual decommissioning expe<ience of a large size pressurized water reactor power station, this technique is valid and accceptable. PNL's estimate of decommissioning costs of this size reactor is reasonable.
(Id., para. 5).
The S. M. Stoller study which was prepared by S. M. Stoller Corporation (SMSC) for Arizona Nuclear Power, Project ( ANPP) [" Update of Estimated Costs for Decommissioning one of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units," October 3,1979], draws heavily from the PNL work but makes reasonable adjustments for design differences between PVNGS and the Trojan Nuclear Station (PNL's reference reactor unit). The earlier analyses of decommissioning costs made by SMSC for ANPP were developed from basic cost data derived from decommissioning of the Elk River reactor and from the Bonus reactor.
If the PNL cost estimates appear to be more valid than the Elk River reactor - derived experience, the former estimates were used.
The present SMSC's estimates for imediate dismantlement of a PVNGS unit are
$56.7 million in 1979 dollars, a value which included $13.3 million contingency allowance (about 24 percent of the total cost).
$56.7 million is a reasonable estimate of decomissioning costs for PVNGS.
(Id., para. 6).
Under contact for the NRC, the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory issued its report, "Technolugy, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning (June a
Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station"
- NUREG/CR-0130 1978).
In both this report and its August 1979 Addendum, the Battelle Laboratory estimated the costs of decommissioning various types of reference pressurized water reactors under various types of decommissioning methcds.
The maximum cost of decommissioning one reference pressurized water reactor unit under the immediate dismantlement method was estimated by Battelle to cost a total $42.1..iillion or $126.3 million in 1978 dollars for a three unit combined facility.
Since their publication, the Battelle Report and Addendum
10 have been adopted by the NRC staff as the benchmark estimate for pressurized water reactor decommissioning costs.
(Staff Affidavit, Karlowica, para. 5).
The Joint Applicants have estimated that it will cost $56.7 million to safely decommission each unit of the Palo Verde Station or $170.1 million for the entire facility.
The applicants based this amount on an independent cost study by the S. M. Stoller Corporation dated October 3,1979. As a result of the inherent conservativeness of the Joint Applicants' estimate to safely decommission the Palo Verde facility by being higher than the Battelle estimate, the Staff adopted the $170.1 million funding requirement to evaluate the applicants' financial qualifications to obtain such an amount.
(Id., paras.6-7).
The applicants plan to finance the estimated $170.1 million necessary to safely decommission the facility is to collect these funds through revenues over the operating life of the facility.
To adjust for inflation and other cost factor revisions, utilities commonly conduct periodic reviews of decommissioning costs to account for any changes in economic reviews of decommissioning costs to account for any changes in economic conditions and advances in technology, and such changes are customarily incorporated into the annual charge or decommissioning costs.
(Id., para.8).
Should additional amounts be needed over and above those realized through accrual of annual charges the applicants' have two other traditional sources of funds available to me,et any such amounts. The first source is internal cash generation attributable to:
(1) depreciation expenses for all utility plants; (2) retained earnings; and (3) normalized tax depreciation and levelized investment tax credits for the investor-owned electric utility applicants.
The second source of funds is the external capital market. As public utilities constitute the most capital-intensive industry in the United States, they have long had access to funds in the public securities market.
To access such additional external funds the applicants would issue debt in the form of bonds and the investor-owned applicants would also issue additional preferred or common stock, or a combination of both.
The applicants' combined demonstrated ability in raising over $6.3 billion over the past five years, including their present $2.5 billion investment in the f acility leads one to reasonably conclud6 they would have little difficulty in financing additional amounts over the $170.1 million estimate in costs if required by the decommissioning of the Palo Verde facility. (Id., Paras.
9-10).
Contrary to the intervenors' assertion in Contention 7, even if greater decommissioning costs are incurred for the Palo Verde facility, the applicants should have little, if any, oifficulty in obtaining sufficient funds to cover increased amounts of ultimate decommissioning costs.
(Id.,
para,11).
,3 11 Joint applicants have demonstrated the reasonble assurance required by 10 CFR 50.33(f) that they can obtain the necessary funds to safely decomission the Palo Verde Facility.
See also 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix C (I) (B). As a consequence of this, the Joint applicants are financially qualified to safely decomission the Palo Verde facility to the extent of each of their respective ownership interests.
(Id., para. 12).
Based upon the foregoing and other matters of record, we conclude that there is no genuine issue of material f act in Contention No. 7.
Accordingly, Joint Apg/licants' motion for sumary disposition of Contention No. 7 is granted.1 III. ORDER For the foregoing reasons and in consideration 'of the entire record in this matter, it is, this 17th day of March 1982 ORDERED
- 1. That Joint Applicants' January 15, 1982 Motion for Sumary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention No. 5 is denied;
- 2. That Joint Applicants' January 15, 1982 Motion for Sumary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention No. 6B is granted; and 3.
That Joint Applicants' January 29, 1982 Motion for Sumary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention No. 7 is granted.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD R Aedn1.Lv Robert N. Lazo, Cf'afrd /
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 2/The Comission on March 11, 1982 approved a final rule to amend 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 to eliminate the present financial qualifications review and findings for power reactors at the CP and OL stages. Accordingly, Contention No. 7 Wuld have become moot upon publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _