ML20072J267
| ML20072J267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1983 |
| From: | Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8306300047 | |
| Download: ML20072J267 (24) | |
Text
-
4 h w
.) , s A h Docketed g i
USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2- 'JUN 2 91983 > [9'
..t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY , ** # ** h AND LICENSING BOARD $U I"'
% /.
rA In the Matter of )
)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER )
SUPPLY SYSTEM ) Docket No. 50-460-CPA
)
-(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )
LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES On June 9, 1983, intervenor served the Washington Public Power Supply System (" Licensee") with its second set of interrogatories. Pursuant to Sections 2.740b(d) a;ti 2.741(d),of the NRC Rules of Practice, Licensee sets forth below its response to each interrogatory.
INTERROGATORY 1: State the full name, address, occu-pation and employer of each person answering the inter-rogatories and designate the interrogatory or the part thereof he or she answered.
Response: The individual responsible for answering these interrogatories is Mr. Carald C. Sorensen, Manager, Regulatory Programs, Washington Public Power Supply System. His business address is 3000 George Washington Way, Richland, Washington, 99352.
A 8306300047 830628 DR A30CK 05 g
INTERROGATORY 2 - Identify each and every person you are considering calling as a witness in the event a hear- 1 ing is held in this proceeding and with respect to each of these witnesses:
- a. State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the witness is expected to testify;
- b. Give a summary of the grounds for each opinion; and
- c. Describe the witnesses' educational and pro-fessional background.
Response: To date, the Licensee has not iden-tified any witnesses.
INTERROGATORY 3: What is the complete basis for your position that Licensee's decision in April, 1982 to
" defer" construction for two to five years, and subsequent cessation of construction at WNP-1 was not " dilatory."
Response: The complete basis for Licensee's position is set forth in its April 30, 1982 letter to Mr.
Harold R. Denton , Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as noted by the Staff upon its issuance of the June 16, 1983 Order Extending Construction Completion Date.
INTERROGATORY 4: Please explain fully what you mean by the word " defer."
Response: Defer, as used in this proceeding, means to put off to a future time, to postpone, or to delay.
INTERROGATORY 5: Please explain fully what you mean by the word " dilatory."
Response: Dilatory, as used in this proceeding, means intentional delay without a valid purpose.
INTERROGATORY 6: What is the basis for your response to interrogatories 4 and 5?
Response: The basis for Licensee's response to interrogatory 4 is Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition, 1964. The basis for Licensee's response to inter-rogatory 5 is Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), ALAB-722, NRC , April 11, 1983 slip op. at 9.
INTERROGATORY 7: Why do you contend that Licensee has established good cause for an extension of the WNP-1 construction permit? Explain your answer fully.
Response: See Licensee's April 30, 1982 letter to Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as noted by the Staff upon its issu-ance of the June 16, 1983 Order Extending Construction Completion Date.
e INTERROGATORY 8: What are the reasons Licensee offered to NRC in support of a showing of " good cause" as required ~by 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b)?
Response: See Licensee's April 30, 1982 letter to Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as noted by the Staff upon its issu-ance of the June 16, 1983 Order Extending Construction Completion Date.
INTERROGATORY 9: Is it your position that the rea-sons offered by Licensee to support a showing of good cause are in fact the only reasons why Licensee had re-quested an extension of its construction permit?
Response Licensee requested an extension of its construction permit because it became obvious that constraction could not be completed before the latest completion date in the construction permit. The reasons offered by the Licensee to establish good cause were the cause of the delay in construction.
INTERROGATORY 10: If your response to Interrogatory 9 is no, state all other reasons.
L Response: No response is required.
INTERROGATORY 11. What is the basis for your re-sponse to interrogatories 9 and 107 4
i L_
O Response: 10 C.F.R. Section 50.55(b) requires that the Licensee make & showing of good cause in support of its request to extend its construction permit.
Licensee believes that such a showing was made in connec-tion with its construction permit extension request, as found by the Staff upon its issuance of the June 16, 1983 Order Extending Construction Completion Date.
INTERROGATORY 12: Please axplain fully what you mean by a " reasonable period of time."
Response: What constitutes a " reasonable period of time" is a function of the reasons why a construction permit extension is sought.
INTERROGATORY 13: What factors do you contend should be considered when determining if a requested construction permit extension is for a " reasonable period of time"?
Response: The factors to be considered when determining if a requested construction permit extension is for a reasonable period of time are a function of the reasone offered in support of a showing of good cause.
L INTERROGATORY 14: What do you contend would consti-tute a " reasonable period of time" in the case of WNP-l?
Response: Based on current conditions, a
" reasonable period of time" in the case of WNP-1 would be an extension of the latest construction completion date until June 1, 1991.
INTERROGATORY 15: (a) Is it your position that BPA support is necessary to the financing of WNP-l? (b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 15(a) is in the affirma-tive, identify and give full details with respect to all information upon which you case that statement.
Response: (a) Yes. (b) The net billing agreements signed by each of the project participants, the Licensee and the Bonneville Power Administration provide that the participant's portion of WNP-1 capability will be sold to the participaat, which will in turn assign the capability to BPA. Participants will then pay the Supply System to enable it to repay the bond holders for their purchase of bonds, by which construction of WNP-1 is financed, and BPA will give credit on respective bills from BPA to each participant for payments made to the Supply System. In addition, BPA is required under the net billing agreement to make cash payments to participants for any net billing deficiencies. Because BPA is so directly and intimately involved in the flow of funds during and after construction, the basis for BPA's involvement in the decisionmaking process is manifest.
INTERROGATORY 16: Is it your position that the financial support or lack of financial support by BPA for WNP-1 would have an effect on the financing costs of WNP-l?
Response: Yes.
INTERROGATORY 17: Is it your position that the opinion of BPA as to when WNP-1 should go into commercial operation would have an ,effect on the financing costs of WNP-l?
Response: Yes.
INTERROGATORY 18. (a) Is it your belief that BPA has the authority to disapprove any further financing of WNP-1 construction?
~
(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 18(a) is in the affirmative, explain fully the factual basis for that statement.
Response: (a) BPA has authority to disapprove further financing of WNP-1 construction through the sale o f bonds . (b) Section 5(b) of the Project Agreement executed between the BPA and the Licensee provides that the sale of bonds will be subject to the approval of BPA.
INTERROGATORY 19: Is it your position that the growth rate of electric power requirements has a business relationship as to when WNP-1 should go into commercial operation.
Response: Intervenor stated in response to interrogatory 7 of the NRC Staff's First Set of Interroga-tories that need for power is not an issue in this proceeding. It reaffirmed that position in response to L_
staff interrogatories 8, 13 and 14. Licensee agrees with intervenor that need for power is not an issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, this interrogatory seeks information not relevant to this proceeding and is, therefore, objectionable.
In Boston Edison Company-(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579, 582 -(1973), the Licensing Board stated that "as a rule of necessity, there must be limitations on the concept of relevancy so as '
. . to keep the inquiry from going to absurd and oppres-sive grounds' [ citation'omitted]." Another Licensing Board staded that "$2.740(b)(1) only permits discovery of documents ' relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding,' and than further qualifies and limits the term ' subject matter' to the contentions admitted by the presiding officer in the proceeding. . . . Allied General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Fuel Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489, 492 (1977).
( Consequently, Licensee objects to interrogatory 19.
INTERROGATORY 20: (a) Is it your position that the January 11, 1983 letter to H. Denton, Director, NRR, NRC l from G. D. Bouchey, WPPSS, supports Permittee's assertion 1
( that a deferred need for power constitutes " good cause" for deferring construction?
l l
l l
l 1
er- .
(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 20(a) is in the affirmative, set forth and explain fully the factual basis or legal authority for your position.
Response: Yes. (b) 10 C.F.R. Section 50.55(b).
INTERROGATORY 21: (a) Is it your position that a lack of need for power can, as a matter of law, constitute
" good cause" under 10 C.F.R. 50.55(b)?
(b) If your answer to Interrogatory No. 21(a) is in the affirmative, set forth and explain fully the factual basis or legal authority for this position.
Response: Licensee objects to interrogatory for the reasons set forth in response to interrogatory 19.
INTERROGATORY 22: (a) Does the lack of need for power in the Northwest justify deferring construction of WNP-l?
(b) Explain fully your answer to Interrogatory No.
22(a).
Response: Licensee objects to interrogatory 22.
for the reasons set forth in response to interrogatory 19.
INTERROG'ATORY 23. Explain the factual basis and/or legal authority which supports the position that six to nine years is a ' reasonable period of time' under 10 CFR 50.55(b).
s
-~10 -
Response: See Licensee's April 30, 1983 letter to Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and the June 16, 1983 Order Extending Construction Completion Rate.
INTERROGATORY 24: What do you believe would be a (maximum)-reasonable period of time for extension of the construction completion date for WNP-1.
Response: Under current conditions, a maximum reasonable period of time. for extension of the construc-tion completion date for WNP-1 would be until 1991.
INTERROGATORY 25: Explain the difference, if any, between deferral, mothball and preservation.
Response Licensee objects to interrogatory 25 because it seeks information which is not relevant to the issues in this proceeding, viz., whether Licensee estab-lished good _cause for the construction permit extension for WNP-1 and whether that extension is for a reasonable period of time. This interrogatory seeks information relevant to the question of whether health and safety requirements will be met during the deferral of WNP-1 by seeking to elicit from Licensee a discussion of its ramp-down activities at WNP-1. These are matters addressed by the Staff in its Safety Evaluation accompanying the June 16, 1983 Order. Further, the Commission in Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Projects No. 1
r e and 2) CLI-82-29, 17 NRC , October 8, 1982 slip op. at 13-14, specified that health and safety issues fall out-side of the scope. of this proceeding. Accordingly, inter -
rogatory 25 is irrelevant and Licensee objects to it. The legal basis for.this objection is set forth in'our response to interrogatory 19.
INTERROGATORY 26: To what events is the restart of .
construction on WNP-1 tied? Explain fully your answer.
Response: The restart of construction on WNP-1 is tied to those factors upon which the extension of the
, WNP-1 construction permit until 1991 was based.
4 INTERROGATORY 27: What would be the ef fect of de-fault on WNP-4 and 5 on the restart and completion of WNP I
. l? Provide all probability analyses, scenarios and time predictions. l Response License objects to this interroga-tory, which seeks information concerning a possible de-
-fault on WNP-4 and WNP-5. The status of WNP-4 and WNP-5 is not relevant to whether Licensee was properly granted a
- construction permit amendment for WNP-1. The legal basis for this position is set forth in Licensee's response to j interrogatory 19.
INTERROGATORY 28: What is the effect of deferral of construction on WNP-3 on the restart and completion of WNP-l? Give the basis for your response.
1 f -
4 e- =---v ye v- -, - - y-- y v iy,= +giw pyys,-g-wwy- -
9a,+r..e,-pg,,,myegt.wy-e..,,--w-w,*.,w--c--+,,--+-w,_ym=g<w,,,,+.3, enwwr-m-,,w-iec--.c w w- *+u-- - - - ---- g-
Response: Licensee objects to this interroga-tory because it seeks information concerning the status of WNP-3. That matter is irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding. The legal basis for Licensee's position is set forth in response to interrogatory 19.
INTERROGATORY 29: What is the effect of bond ratings on WPPSS ability to finance WNP-l? Explain fully and provide the basis for your response?
Response: Bond ratings have an impact on the cost of financing WNP-1 to the extent financing is accomplished through the sale of bonds. The more favorable those ratings are, the less expensive cost of financing will be. The basis for Licensee's response is common business practice.
INTERROGATORY 30: If a bond rating service refused to rate WPPSS bonds would WPPSS be able to finance the construction of WNP-l? Explain your answer.
Response: It would depend on which bond rating service refused to rate Supply System bonds, the basis for its refusal to rate such bonds, the type of bonds in ques-tion, and the duration of the derating.
INTERROGATORY 31: Is it your position that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 92) for the Construction Permit found that the Bonneville Power Administration had the power to
approve or disapprove the issuance of bonds by WPPSS. If yes, give the reasons in deti il for approval and/or dis-t approval.
INTERROGATORY 32: Is it your position the ASLB Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922) found that BPA could control the construction of WNP-l? If yes, in what manner. Explain in detail the basis for your answer.
INTERROGATORY 33: Is it your position that the original findings by the ASLB in its Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922) on WPPSS financing ability remains valid? Explain the basis for your answer in detail.
INTERROGATORY 34: Is it your position that the original findings by the ASLB in its Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922) on the need for WNP-1 remains valid. Explain the basis for your answer in detail.
INTERROGATORY 35: Is it your position that the only reason the ASLB Initial Decision (LBP-75-72. 2 NRC 922) found WPPSS financially qualified is because of BPA finan-cial backing?
(a) If yes, explain the basis in detail.
(b) If~no, cite all the reasons you believe the finding of financial qualification.
Response: Licensee objects to interrogatories 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 because they seek information which is irrelevant and outside the scope of this
proceeding. The only issues in this proceeding are whether Licensee established . good cause for its construc-tion permit extension and whether such extension is for a reasonable period of time. The decision in Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Projects No. 1 and 4), LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922 (1975), simply does not bear on these narrow issues. Accordingly, interrogatories 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35, which seek numerous conclusions as to
.the content'of that decision, are objectionable.
Licensee's legal basis for its objection is set forth in its response to interrogatory 19.
INTERROGATORY 36: What constitutes " good business sense" in decisions on nuclear plant deferral?
Response: Licensee does not understand whether intervenor is requesting its opinion as to what consti-tutes "a valid business purpose" as used in ALAB-722, supra, or whether the phrase " good business sense" is referenced from another unidentified document. Upon clarification, Licensee will respond to this inter-rogatory.
INTERROGATORY 37: What constitutes "BPA support?"
Response: Participation in the net billing arrangement, including its agreement to pay all net bill-ing deficiencies, constitutes "BPA support."
15 -
INTERROGATORY 38: How is "BPA support" recognized in the Initial Decision (LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922) on the Con-struction Permit for WNP-l?
Response: Licensee objects to interrogatory 38 for the reasons set forth in its response to interroga-tories 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35.
INTERROGATORY 39: Is cost of financing an issue in this proceeding? If so, why?
Response: The issues in this proceeding are defined specifically by intervenor's contention. Licensee served intervenor with a set of interrogatories and re-quests to produce designed to elicit information regarding the scope and bases of that contention. Because inter-venor's response to such discovery was inadequate, s
Licensee is unable to answer interrogatory 39.
INTERROGATORY 40: Is need for power an issue in thic proceeding? If so, what are the issues which should be .
litigated with regard to need for power?
Response: Licensee agrees with the position of intervenor that need for power is not an issue in this proceeding. See the response to interrogatory 19.
INTERROGATORY 41: What is the legal basis for your answer to Interrogatory 40?
Response: A response to this interrogatory is not required.
e ,vy 4-,W-- # er --g y ' 7 - " - ' ' ' " ' * * - ' ' +
INTERROGATORY 42: Was the construction of WNP-3 (Satsop) halted because of no need for its power?
(a) If so, how does this af fect the five-year deferral of WNP-l?
(b) If not, what were the reasons and how will they af fect the de ferral of WNP-l?
Response: Applicant objects to interrogatory
- 42. The scope of this proceeding is limited to WNP-1 and does not permit an unlimited inquiry into the status of other Supply System projects. As such, the interrogatory seeks information which is irrelevant to this proceeding and is, there fore , improper. The legal basis for Licensee's objection is set forth in response to interrog-atory 19.
INTERROGATORY 43: Is the ultimate cost of power from WNP-1 a factor in the need for the plant? Should it be a factor in the business decisions affecting continued con-struction?
Response: Licensee does not understand what the intervenor means by the term " ultimate cost of power."
Therefore, upon adequate clarification by intervenor, Licensee will respond to this interrogatory. In any event, it is apparent that this interrogatory raises a t
need for power issue. There fore , Licensee objects to it for the reasons set forth in its response to interrogatory 19.
INTERROGATORY 44: Does Licensee now~have the ability to finance any of its projects?
(a) If yes, name the projects, methods of financing and state whether or not BPA approval is necessary and whether or not approval has been granted.
(b) If not, state why, including any BPA disapproval of financing.
INTERROGATORY 45: If the answer to Interrogatory 44 states that financing is not available now for WNP-1, state: -(a) when will the circumstances identified, change (b) why will they change and (c) what assurance is there that they will be changed five years from the deferral of WNP-l?
Response: For the reasons set forth in response to interrogatory 42, Licensee objects to this interroga-tory. Interrogatory 44 and interrogatory 45 clearly con-l l template a general inquiry into Supply System financing.
The scope of this proceeding, however, is limited to WNP-
- 1. Accordingly, Licensee objects to this interrogatory.
The legal basis for Licensee's objection is set forth in its response to interrogatory 19.
18 -
INTERROGATORY 46: What is the difference between BPA withholding approval for financing and BPA disapproving of financing?
Response: To withhold approval contemplates that approval is required for financing to move forward.
To disapprove-financing contemplates that absent an affir-mative action objecting to financing, such financing will proceed.
INTERROGATORY 47: What level of staf fing is neces-sary at WNP-1 to maintain the construction site and equip-ment without deterioration?
Response: Licensee objects to this interroga-tory for the reasons set forth in response to interroga-tory 25.
INTERROGATORY 48: 15 it your position that the only obstacle to financing of the WNP-1 was/is the BPA recom-mendation?
Response: No.
INTERROGATORY 49: In response to Interrogatory 4 of "Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories" you stated that the last sale of bonds for WNP-1 was February 11, 1982:
(a) provide a copy of the prospectus that accom-panied that bond sale;
1 19 -
(b) state what the revenues from that bond sale were to be used for; (c) what were the revenues used for if different ,
than that in (b);
(d) at that time, when was the next bona issuance contemplated?
Response: (a) A copy of the prospectus that accompanied that bond sale will be made available on July 15, 1983. The procedures to be followed are set forth in Licensee's Response to Intervenor's First Set of Inter-rogatories with the following modification, viz.,
licensee will make and supply copies of requested docu-ments at intervenor's expense and at a rate of 15c per page.
(b) Revenues from that bond sale were to be used in connection with the construction of WNP-1.
(c) Revenues from that bond sale were in fact used in connection with the construction of WNP-1.
(d) At that time, no management decision had been made to proceed with the next bond issuance, although the Supply System recognized that additional sales would be necessary.
l l
INTERROGATORY 50: Do you agree that the passage of Washingtori Initiative 395 affected the ability of WPPSS to issue bonds. Explain your answer fully giving the basis and identify all documents relied upon.
Response: Licensee is not aware of Washington Initiative 395. However, if this interrogatory addresses Initiative 394, then the following response is submitted.
Any perceived impediment to the repayment of bonds used to finance the con".truction of WNP-1 would make their sale more difficult. Initiative 394 would clearly have constituted such a perceived impediment. In view of these facts, the basis for this response is clear on its face.
'D In any event, Licensco' notes that Initiative 394 was declared unconstitutional in Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. State of Washington, 696 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1982) appeal dismissed sub. nom. Don't Bankrupt Wa shington Committee v. Continental Illinois Bank, 51,U.S.L.W. 3756, rehearing denied, 51 U.S.L.W. 3841 (1983).
Respec ful y submitted, I
i Nichol gf S/ Reynolds Sanforq L.[ iartman DEBEVC{ISE & LIBERMAN 1200 SuverMeenth St., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 202/857-9817 Counsel for Licensee June 28, 1983 i
f
)
~
STATEOF35H1HGTWI
) relecopied Facsimile (03110F EMIM I G.C.Sorensen,beir.gdulysworn,deposesandsays:
ThatheisManager,RegulatoryPrograms,fortheWashington Public Pwer Supply System, and knows the contents of the foregoing licensee'sResponsetoIntervenor'sFirstSetofinterrogatories; thatthesameistrueofhisownknowledgeexceptastomatterstherein statedoninformationandbelief,andastothat,hebelievesthemto betrue, i
I I Sworntoandsubscribedbeforeme on this 2 8 day of u m ,1983.
' d.T r
Wo4/AJ ?
~
-~ 110tary Pubhc i
d fi) i l
l l . - _ _ --
N.
W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER ) Docket Nos. 50-460-CPA SUPPLY SYSTEM )
)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Licensee's Response to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories" in the captioned matter were served upon the following persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 28th day of June, 1983:
Herbert Grossman, Esq. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mitzi A. Young, Esq.
Mr. Glenn O. Bright Office of the Executive Atomic Sa fety and Licensing Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dr. Jerry Harbour Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l
_ m
e 4
Mr. Gerald C. Sorensen Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Manager of Licensing Energy Facility Site Washington Public Power Evaluation Council Supply System State of Washington 3000 George Washington Way Mail Stop PY-il Richland, Washington 99352 Olympia, Washington 98504 Mr. Scott W. Stucky Mr. Eugene Rosolie D6cketing & Service Branch Coalition for Safe Power U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 527 Commission 408 South West 2nd Washington, D. C. 99352 Portland, Oregon 97204 l
S'anfUrd L. Hartman f'
4
-, - . . . - , . , . , . . , . ,.n , , , --
, . , ...a, ,c-u- - , . _ , , , - - . , , - _ . - - , -