DCL-10-082, Response to NRC Letter Dated July 6, 2010, Request for Additional Information for the Applicants Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage
| ML102240074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/2010 |
| From: | Becker J Pacific Gas & Electric Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| DCL-10-082, OL-DPR-80, OL-DPR-82 | |
| Download: ML102240074 (48) | |
Text
Pacific Gas and Electric Company James R. Becker Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site Vice President Mail Code 104/5/601 P 0. Box 56 August 2, 2010 Avila Beach, CA 93424 805.545.3462 Internal: 691.3462 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Fax: 805.545.6445 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Response to NRC Letter dated July 6, 2010, Request for Additional Information for the Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage
Dear Commissioners and Staff:
By letter dated November 23, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) submitted an application to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the renewal of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82, for Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Units 1 and 2, respectively. The application included the license renewal application (LRA), and Applicant's Environmental Report -
Operating License Renewal Stage.
By letter dated July 6, 2010, the NRC staff requested additional information needed to continue their review of the DCPP LRA. PG&E's response to the request for additional information is included in Enclosure 1. Provided in Enclosure 2 is County of San Luis Obispo Allocation of Unitary Tax Revenue from PG&E Power Plant Property Tax Bills for Fiscal Years 2007/08-2009/10.
PG&E makes no regulatory commitments (as defined in NEI 99-04) in this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Mr. Terence L. Grebel, License Renewal Project Manager, at (805) 545-4160.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on August 2, 2010.
Sinc rýely, James c k eprr A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway
- Comanche Peak
- Diablo Canyon ° Palo Verde
- San Onofre
- South Texas Project
- Wolf Creek W-*
Document Control Desk August 2, 2010 Page 2 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 pns/50328355 Enclosures cc:
Diablo Distribution cc/enc: Elmo E. Collins, NRC Region IV Regional Administrator Michael S. Peck, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Andrew L. Stuyvenberg, NRC Environmental Project Manager, License Renewal Alan B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway
- Comanche Peak
- Diablo Canyon
- Palo Verde
- San Onofre e South Texas Project o Wolf Creek PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Page 1 of 41 PG&E Response to NRC Letter dated July 6, 2010 Request for Additional Information for the Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage Archaeological and Historic Resources RAI #1 Please provide the updated 2010 file search results that supplement the cultural resources overview prepared by Price and Trumbly (2009), including any updates to Appendix C tables and maps.
PG&E Response to Archaeological and Historic Resources RAI #1 The following tables provide a supplementary bibliography and site record summary that are derived from the 2010 updated records search. Table 1 lists documents associated with cultural resources located on the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) lands. Table 2 lists cultural resource sites identified within and near the DCPP lands and transmission corridors. The records search was completed by Far Western Anthropological Group in January and February of 2010. The study area lies within San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Fresno, Kings, and Kern counties.
Records searches were therefore conducted at various California Historical Resources Information System facilities including the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University; the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield; and the Central Coastal Information Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Page 2 of 41 Table 1 - Diablo Historic Properties Management Plan - 2010 Supplemental Bibliography Date Author Title 1951 Pilling, A Surface Archaeology of the Pecho Coast 1975 Hoover, R.L.
Notes on Northern Chumash Ecology and Settlement Patterns (E-265) 1978 Greenwood, Surface Survey and Evaluation, SLO-2 at Diablo Canyon R.S.
1978 Greenwood, Background Research Regarding Diablo Canyon and SLO-2 R.S.
1978 Greenwood, Recommendations for Cultural Resource Management at Diablo Canyon R.S.
1978 Greenwood, Archaeological Assessment of CA-SLO-2, Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo R.S.
County (E-27) 1980 PG&E Archaeological Resources Management Plan Diablo Canyon Site 1987 Gibson, R.O.
Results of Archaeological Surface Survey for the Port San Luis Trail Project, San Luis Obispo County, CA 1991 Jackson, R.J.
Working Draft; Action Plan: Development of a Cultural Resources and A.G.
Management Plan in Support of the Diablo Canyon Natural Resource Caruso Management and Land Stewardship Program, San Luis Obispo County, California 1993 Wickstrom, B.
A Cultural Resources Survey of Portions of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power and K.
Plant South Property, San Luis Obispo County, California Tremaine 2006 Denardo, C.
Rancho Canada de los Osos y Pecho y Islay Prehistoric Archaeological District and Texier, B.
Nomination, San Luis Obsipo County, California 2009 Price, B.A. and Cultural Resources Overview for the Diablo Relicensing Feasibility Study, San M. Trumbly Luis Obispo, Monterey, Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Page 3 of 41 Table 2 - Supplemental Site Records Search (March 2010)
Have Site Within P-Number Trinomial Map Record?
loom Type*
P-15-13725 CA-KER-07701H Buttonwillow Y
Y H
P-15-13726 CA-KER-07702H Multiple Y
Y H
P-15-13717 CA-KER-7698H Multiple N
Y H
P-40-001137 CA-SLO-1137 Pismo Beach Y
P P-40-001379 CA-SLO-1379 Morro Bay South Y
P P-40-001381 CA-SLO-1381/H Morro Bay South Y
Y H
P-40-001468 CA-SLO-1468 Port San Luis Y
P P-40-001469 CA-SLO-1469 Port San Luis Y
P P-40-001470 CA-SLO-1470 Port San Luis Y
P P-40-001509 CA-SLO-1509 Port San Luis Y
P P-40-001744 CA-SLO-1744 Morro Bay South Y
P P-40-002078
.CA-SLO-2078H Templeton Y
P P-40-000215 CA-SLO-215 Morro Bay South Y
P P-40-002393 CA-SLO-2393 Morro Bay South Y
P P-40-002466 CA-SLO-2466 Morro Bay South y
Y P
P-40-002569 CA-SLO-2569 Morro Bay South Y
P/H P-40-002570 CA-SLO-2570 Morro Bay South y
P P-40-002571 CA-SLO-2571 Morro Bay South y
P P-40-002572 CA-SLO-2572 Morro Bay South Y
P P-40-002573 CA-SLO-2573 Morro Bay South Y
H P-40-002574 CA-SLO-2574 Morro Bay South Y
P P-40-002592 CA-SLO-2592 Pismo Beach Y
H P-40-002600 CA-SLO-2600 Arroyo Grande NE Y
H P-40-002601 CA-SLO-2601 Arroyo Grande NE Y
P P-40-002602 CA-SLO-2602 Arroyo Grande NE Y
P P-40-002603 CA-SLO-2603 Pismo Beach Y
P P-40-002604 CA-SLO-2604 Pismo Beach Y
P P-40-002606 CA-SLO-2606 Pismo Beach y
P P-40-002615H CA-SLO-2615/H Arroyo Grande NE Y
H P-40-000565 CA-SLO-565 Morro Bay South y
P P-40-000773 CA-SLO-773 Port San Luis Y
Y P
P-40-000774 CA-SLO-774 Por-t San Luis N
P-40-000775 CA-SLO-775 Port San Luis Y
P P-40-000945H CA-SLO-945H Morro Bay South Y
H PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Page 4 of 41 Table 2 - Supplemental Site Records Search (March 2010) (continued)
Have Site Within P-Number Trinomial Map Record?
loom Type*
P-40-000957 CA-SLO-957 Morro Bay South Y
H P-40-000958 CA-SLO-958 Morro Bay South Y
H P-40-000530 CA-SLO-530 Morro Bay South Y
P P-40-040930 CA-SLO-930 Morro Bay South N
H P-40-041076 CA-SLO-1076 Pismo Beach Y
H P-40-041167 CA-SLO-1167 Morro Bay South Y
Y H
P-40-041179 CA-SLO-1179 Templeton Y
H P-40-041216 CA-SLO-41216 Pismo Beach Y
H P-40-041217 CA-SLO-41217 Arroyo Grande NE Y
H P-40-041218 CA-SLO-41218 Arroyo Grande NE Y
Y H
P-40-041219 CA-SLO-41219 Arroyo Grande NE Y
H P-40-041221 CA-SLO-41221 Arroyo Grande NE Y
H
- P= prehistoric; H=historic PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Page 5 of 41 Archaeological and Historic Resources RAI #2 Has Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) observed any change in the rate of coastal erosion in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) discharge cove or elsewhere on the property since operation of the DCPP cooling system started? If so, please explain the direction and magnitude of the changes in coastal erosion rates. Does PG&E monitor for erosion of archaeological sites, and especially for erosion of human burials?
PG&E Response to Archaeological and Historic Resources RAI #2 PG&E has not observed any significant changes in the rate of coastal erosion in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) discharge cove or elsewhere on the property since the operation of the DCPP cooling system started. In 2004, a study of Patton Cove, commissioned and completed by PG&E, estimated the average rate of shoreline retreat along the sea cliff at the DCPP property is on the order of approximately 0.015 to 0.22 m/yr1. This estimated rate of coastal erosion is consistent with a recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study of the California coastline. The USGS study indicates that the average rate of coastal erosion along the Central Coast is 0.20 m/yr in the region surrounding the DCPP property2.
Annual photogrammetric surveys of the sea cliff near Patton Cove, completed from 2006-2010 in accordance with Special Conditions 4 and 5 of the California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit No. A-3-SLO-04-035 for the PG&E dry cask storage facility, have not shown significant erosion or accretion of the sea cliff within the study area during this time period.3 Procedure EVI.ID2, "CA-SLO-2 Site Management," requires PG&E to complete monitoring at CA-SLO-2. Photo-monitoring stations have been established to monitor surface activities and any physical changes to site CA-SLO-2. At regular intervals, a PG&E cultural resources specialist or archaeological consultant conducts photographic monitoring. The photos are taken with comparable film, cameras, and lenses to allow adequate evaluation of the site over an extended period of time. Monitoring is performed on foot. The location of each photo-monitoring station is shown on a topographic map of site CA-SLO-2, which is
'William Lettis & Associates, Inc.- PG&E Diablo Canyon Power Plant Shoreline Retreat Study Diablo And Patton Coves (2004) 2 Hapke, C.J and D. Reid - National Assessment of Shoreline Change Part 4: Historical Coastal Cliff Retreat along the California Coast (2007) 3 Pacific Gas and Electric Company - ISFSI Slope Stability and Shoreline Erosion Monitoring Annual.Report No. 5 (2010)
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Page 6 of 41 on file with the PG&E Land & Environmental Department. Monitoring stations may be established or eliminated, as necessary, by the cultural resources specialist.
Currently, many of the photo-monitoring stations are located in areas where coastal erosion is evident or "slumping" has been observed.
If human remains are encountered during the yearly monitoring, PG&E follows the procedures set forth in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
The code states that the county coroner must be notified of the find immediately and that there shall be no disturbance of the remains until the coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are of Native American ancestry, the county coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will identify and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has the right, with permission of the landowner or the authorized representative, to inspect the site of discovery. Once inspected, the MLD has 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to give recommendations. These recommendations may include scientific removal, nondestructive analysis of remains and/or associated constituents, and reinterment at the location of discovery or elsewhere. Final disposition of the remains and associated materials are determined by the landowner in consultation with the MLD.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 7 of 41 Archaeological and Historic Resources RAI #3 Please provide information about two most recent training events for archaeological awareness for PG&E employees at DCPP. This information should include, at a minimum, dates for the training events, the number of PG&E staff and contractors in attendance, and a description of the material and instructions provided. Also, please indicate whether any tribal or State representatives were involved in the training, and if so, how.
PG&E Response to ArchaeoloQical and Historic Resources RAI #3 PG&E's procedure for the protection of CA-SLO-2, does not require training of staff on cultural resource awareness. In practice, PG&E does have a cultural resources program in place for training staff for a wide variety of projects (both on and off of Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) lands) that utilizes web-based training and provides material for tailboard meetings.
Moreover, all-ground disturbing activities undertaken on DCPP lands are reviewed by the Land Stewardship Committee. The committee, which includes a PG&E cultural resources specialist, is charged with directing land management practices on DCPP property. In this capacity, the designated cultural resources specialist provides recommendations for avoiding impacts to cultural resources on the property and facilitates "tailboard" meetings prior tothe start of ground disturbing activities.
The tailboards, which are provided on an as-needed basis, raise employee and contractor awareness of the sensitive cultural resources on the property, emphasize the need to avoid all such resources, discuss standard protection protocols, and clearly communicate PG&E's stewardship ethic. Thus, while a formal archaeological awareness training program for employees and contractors is not currently in place at DCPP, resource protection is achieved through active participation in all projects by a PG&E Cultural Resource Specialist. The following examples illustrate PG&E's approach to communicating pertinent information regarding cultural resources on DCPP lands.
Most recently, a cultural resources tailboard was provided to a DCPP contractor tasked with completing a geological reconnaissance of the property. The proposed investigation involved mapping a specific geologic unit and occasional collection of in-situ rock specimens. Prior to the initiation of fieldwork, a PG&E cultural resources specialist contacted the contract geologist via telephone and email (June 10, 2010) in order to provide general information on the presence of archaeological resources within the DCPP property, notified the contractor of strict prohibitions on collection of specimens from within archaeological sites, PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 8 of 41 and highlighted locations of particular concern without divulging the exact location of archaeological resources.
This year PG&E has hosted various events to mark the 25th anniversary of operation of Unit 1 at DCPP. The events have provided an opportunity to educate facility staff on the cultural legacy represented by the resources located on the property. An hour-long presentation was recently provided (May 26, 2010) to approximately 40 DCPP personnel that focused on the history of the property, historic and archaeological research undertaken, site stewardship efforts, and resource awareness. The well-attended presentation emphasized the nonrenewable nature of the cultural resources on the property and highlighted PG&E's efforts to protect the sites. Maps depicting the general location of resources were used to illustrate the richness of sites within the property and to highlight the environments that are most sensitive. In the course of the presentation, which was followed by a question and answer session, the Land Stewardship Committee's process for assessing DCPP ground disturbing activities and standard protection measures were discussed.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 9 of 41 Archaeological and Historic Resources RAI #4 During the site audit, NRC staff noted that archaeological surveys were completed for placement of emergency sirens. In several cases, intact archaeological sites are located immediately adjacent to the poles (pole location only was excavated). Does PG&E or its contractors perform additional archaeological work in pole maintenance or replacement scenarios? What procedures are in place to consistently treat archaeological resources previously identified at siren locations?
PG&E Response to Archaeological and Historic Resources RAI #4 Currently the only procedure in place at Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) to review cultural resources is EV1.ID2, "CA-SLO-2 Site Management," which focuses on the protection of CA-SLO-2. EVI.lD2 states:
4.2 Planned CA-SLO-2 Site Maintenance Activities and New Projects The following steps shall be followed to initiate planned CA-SLO-2 site activities or projects. This includes the clearing of brush surrounding the roadways as well as any roadway surface treatments, erosion repairs, and maintenance work to structures in the area.
4.2.1 The requestor shall write a clear, concise description of the proposed activity, including location, and forward to the DCPP director or designee in charge of CA-SLO-2.
4.2.2 The DCPP director or designee in charge of CA-SLO-2 shall determine if the proposed activity is acceptable under the ARMP, based on the recommendation of the company cultural resources specialist.
4.2.3 The DCPP director or designee in charge of CA-SLO-2 shall promptly coordinate any required submittals and agency contacts, provide the activity proposer with written confirmation or denial of the proposed activity, and assign personnel to coordinate area maintenance within CA-SLO-2.
4.2.4 The cultural resources specialist shall determine whether the proposed activity requires monitoring by cultural resources personnel and shall advise the manager of such need.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 10 of 41 Additional cultural resources reviews may be required if PG&E seeks to obtain permits, approvals, or licenses from county, state or federal agencies. As noted above in response to Request for Additional Information #3, all projects on DCPP lands are screened by the Land Stewardship Committee to coordinate resource protection measures. Past archaeological studies performed on the DCPP property form the basis for assessing potential impacts to archaeological resources. These studies are referenced to determine the extent 6f past pedestrian surveys, the spatial extent of resources, and the need for further archaeological work. PG&E has an on-call contract in place for completing archaeological investigations and monitoring on short notice. As such, previously identified archaeological resources are considered in the course of planning all ground disturbing projects, including pole maintenance and replacement activities. Based on this assessment, monitoring and/or mitigation measure may be proposed and implemented as appropriate.
\\
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 11 of 41 Archaeological-and Historic Resources RAI #5 Please provide the total acres and percent of the PG&E lands archaeologically surveyed (indicate any overlap in survey boundaries, so acreage is not overestimated in calculating the percent). Please provide the same (total acres and percent) for all transmission line right-of-ways.
PG&E Response to Archaeological and Historic Resources RAI #5 The table below provides a summary of the survey coverage on PG&E's Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) lands, which includes the Morrow, Gates, and Midway transmission corridor rights-of-way (ROW). The DCPP property (including Parcel P) covers approximately 8,782 acres of which roughly 28 percent of the land has been surveyed for cultural resources. Parcel P, where the vast majority of development for the plant has occurred, has been nearly completely surveyed. Of the transmission corridors, the Morro ROW has received the most survey coverage at just over 21 percent of the total area, with the Midway ROW trailing slightly behind with approximately 19.4 percent coverage. Only a small portion of the Gates ROW has been surveyed (approximately 1.5 percent).
Table 1 - Cultural Resource Survey Coverage Area Total Total Acreage Percent Previously Acreage Previously Surveyed Surveyed PG&E Property* (minus Parcel P) 8042.46 2243.03 27.89%
Parcel P 739.92 733.15 99.09%
Morro ROW (Outside PG&E 51.30 10.78 21.01%
Property)
Gates ROW (Outside PG&E 3298.61 49.02 1.49%
Property)
Midway ROW (Outside PG&E 4000.59 777.46 19.43%
Property)
Total**
16132.89 3813.44 23.64%
- Generalized property extent
- Note: The areas used above have been cropped so that there is no overlap between them. For the purpose of this exercise, the transmission right-of-way areas stop at the point where they touch the PG&E property boundary.
PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 12 of 41 Socioeconomics RAI #1 Please explain why tax payments from DCPP to San Luis Obispo County have risen from $20.7 million in 2007-2008 to $22.3 million in 2008-2009 and $24.5 million in 2009-2010 (see March 2010, 'The Local Economic Impacts of Decommissioning the Diablo Canyon Power Plant'). Is this roughly $2 million annual increase going to continue? What future trend does PG&E anticipate and why?
PG&E Response to Socioeconomics RAI #1 Tax payments are based on the company's fair market value assessed by the State of California Board of Equalization (BOE). The BOE determines fair market value by considering market conditions, use of the property, income generated by property, replacement costs, investments in the property, regulatory climate, depreciation, and other factors.
The economic report anticipates that there will continue to be increases in tax payments because of the on-going capital maintenance program and increases in energy demand throughout the service territory. Recent capital projects at DCPP include the steam generator replacement project, reactor vessel head replacement, and the independent spent fuel storage installation project (dry cask storage); all of which add significant value to the unitary value determined by the BOE as well as unitary tax allocations by San Luis Obispo County. On-going capital maintenance will be determined by on-going operations, which in turn affect valuation.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 13 of 41 Socioeconomics RAI #2 According to the Environmental Report (ER), annual property taxes paid to San Luis Obispo County are based on the value of DCPP (see ER Section 2.7, Taxes).
According to the March 2010 report to the California Public Utilities Commission, "The Local Economic Impacts of Decommissioning the Diablo Canyon Power Plant," DCPP's assessed value is based on energy production capability rather than plant assets (see page 19). How is the assessed value determined? If there are different ways of assessing the value or taxing the value of DCPP, please describe these methods.
PG&E Response to Socioeconomics RAI #2 Ad Valorem Taxes:
PG&E is a centrally assessed company under the jurisdiction of the State of California Board of Equalization (BOE). Under current law, PG&E is not protected by Proposition 13 and is annually reappraised at fair market value for all its properties that are owned or used as of 12:01am on Jaunary 1st.
Article XIII, Section 19 of the California State Constitution, provides the BOE the authority to annually assess properties for companies transmitting or selling gas and electricity. Property taxes are levied and collected in the same manner as county assessed properties.
Property taxes are based on a fiscal year period beginning July 1st through June 30th. The calendar year property tax expense amount is determined by using two fiscal period property tax amounts. For example, the 2010 calendar year property tax is comprised of one half of fiscal year 2009-2010 and one half of fiscal year 2010-2011.
Assessment:
PG&E is appraised annually as a unit without regard to the component parts that make up the unit. The method of valuation used by the BOE is referred to as the unit concept method. Currently there are two indicators of value developed by the BOE in determining company assessments; they are the Historical Cost Less Depreciation (HCLD) indicator and the Capitalized Earnings Ability (CEA) indicator.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 14 of 41
- 1. The HCLD indicator, with some modifications, approximates rate base and includes the historical or original acquisition cost of all property less nontaxable items and property assessed elsewhere. This results in the taxable historical cost. The taxable historical cost is then reduced for the regulatory accounting depreciation of the taxable property. This results in the assessable HCLD. The value of possessory interest, franchise payments, and/or leased properties are added together to arrive at the final HCLD value indicator.
- 2. The CEA indicator, under optimal conditions, should approximate HCLD.
The CEA indicator estimates future annual income and converts this income into a value estimate by means of a capitalization rate. Property Tax Rule 8 excludes property taxes, income taxes, and capital recovery from the definition of gross outgo in the computation of capitalized earnings values.
Since the company is a closely regulated public utility, the primary indicator used by the BOE is the HCLD. However, both indicators are-considered and blended to become the total value the BOE sets for the company.
Property Tax Drivers:
Five factors drive property taxes
- 1. The first factor is plant growth. Typically, the more investment the higher the property tax.
- 2. The second factor is the tax rate imposed within each county. The trend over the last few years has been for the tax rate to grow within each county. Larger populations in each county have resulted in more demand for services/programs.
- 3. The third factor is special assessments approved by local governments.
These fees typically-represent direct charges/fees imposed by newly formed assessment districts. The fees have been growing in number and dollar amount.
- 4. The fourth factor is revenues. Taxable operating revenues are converted to values.
- 5. The fifth factor is the valuation methodology used by the state.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 15 of 41 Allocation:
PG&E's unitary assessments other than land and some directly assigned properties are allocated to the counties using an allocation factor that is based on reproduction cost new less depreciation (RCNLD). RCNLD is an estimate of the current cost to replace the existing property with a new property that is an exact replica. The allocation factor is developed by the BOE and applied to the RCNLD of each piece of property to determine its allocated assessment. These assessments are then categorized by improvements and personal property and provided to the counties where the assets are located. The county accepts the assessments and applies their individual county tax rate and later bills PG&E.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 16 of 41 Socioeconomics RAI #3 Please indicate whether the breakdown of the 2009/2010 Unitary Tax Revenue shown in Figure 4 and discussed on pages 17 to 19 in the March 2010 report, "The Local Economic Impacts of Decommissioning the Diablo Canyon Power Plant" (provided by DCPP staff to NRC staff at the site audit) is an' accurate representation of the distribution of tax revenues from DCPP to the San Luis Obispo County General Fund, San Luis Coastal Unified School District, and Port San Luis Harbor District. Can the percent distributions identified in this report be applied for each of the tax years discussed in the DCPP ER?
PG&E Response to Socioeconomics RAI #3 The breakdown of the 2009-2010 Unitary Tax Revenue is based on PG&E's actual 2009-2010 tax bill from San Luis Obispo County.
The values set by the State of.California Board of Equalization (BOE) are used by county governments to levy local property taxes and determine that annual tax allocation to local entities. San Luis Obispo County allocates those tax payments based on a unitary factor in accordance with California Revenue and Tax Code 100. Based on historical unitary values and unitary factors, it is reasonable to assume the percent distributions could be applied for each of the tax years discussed in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Environmental Report. Included in Enclosure 2, is a copy of the unitary factors and tax allocations to different governmental and quasi-governmental entities for the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 tax years. The state through the BOE establishes the value of the asset, in this case DCPP. In turn, the county applies its formula to distribute tax revenues to appropriate jurisdictions.
The code is available at the following web address: http://info.sen.ca.-ov/cai-bin/displavcode?section=rtc&ciroup=00001 -01 000&file=1 00-100.95 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 17 of 41 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives RAI #8 Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1 states that 'Whenever possible, wind measurements should be made at locations and heights that avoid airflow modifications by obstructions such as large structures, trees, and nearby terrain.
The sensors should be located over level, open terrain at a distance of at least 10 times the height of any nearby obstruction if the height of the obstruction exceeds one-half the height of the wind measurement." During the Diablo Canyon Site Audit, the NRC meteorology reviewer noted that the onsite meteorological tower is within 250 feet of the Simulator building. Given that the building height is about 35 feet - approximately the same elevation as the 10 meter wind speed sensor - its proximity to the meteorological tower could influence the wind speed and direction data used in the SAMA analysis. The meteorological tower is also located within an asphalt parking lot, which could potentially affect the stability classification under certain meteorological conditions (e.g., sunny days with low windspeed). Justify that the meteorological data used in the SAMA analysis (collected at 10 meters) are high quality data representative of the Diablo Canyon site and are not adversely affected by the siting of the meteorological tower.
PG&E Response to Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives RAI #8 Effect of the Simulator Building on Wind Direction and Wind Speed Building and Tower Locations The location of the primary meteorological tower and the simulator building are shown in Figure 1. The primary meteorological tower was installed in 1967; the simulator building was constructed over the period beginning in September 1983 with the interior portions of the building completed in mid-1985.
The distance between the northwest corner of the simulator building and the meteorological tower is approximately 203 ft.; the distance between the southwest corner of the simulator building and the meteorological tower is 262 ft.
Assuming the simulator building 35 ft. tall, the distance between the primary meteorological tower and the simulator building is less than 10 building heights.
PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 18 of 41 Figure I - Location of the primary meteorological tower (black dot, center of picture) and the simulator building. The map is from Google and is aligned to true north (Top of Picture). The simulator building, the inverse L-shaped building complex, was constructed in the early 1980s directly east of the primary meteorological tower.
Wind rose plots, which show the frequency of occurrence of the hourly wind directions (wind blowing from) and the frequency of occurrence of wind speeds in certain predefined bins using telescoping bars, are prepared. These plots cover the period before and after the simulator building is constructed. The plots are reviewed to determine if there are any obvious changes before and after building construction.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 19 of 41 Wind Rose Presentations The primary met tower has wind speed and wind direction instrumentation at the 10-meter level and the 76-meter level. Due to the proximity and the dimensions of the simulator building, the 10-meter level would be the level affected by the construction. To analyze the potential affect on the wind rose, wind rose plots of the 10-meter wind speed and wind direction are prepared. The period of record for the primary met tower begins in May 1973; therefore, the first year of complete data (i.e. January-December) is 1974. Individual wind rose based on 16-cardinal wind directions (22.5 degree sectors) for each year from 1974 through 1986 are presented; combined two-year wind roses based on 36-wind directions (10-degree sectors) are presented for 1981-82 (before) and (1985-86 (after).
Wind Rose Description The wind rose is the method of graphically presenting the wind conditions, direction, and speed, over a period of time at a specific location. To create a wind rose, average wind direction and wind speed values are logged at a site, at short intervals, over a period of time (e.g., one week, one month, or longer). The collected wind data are then sorted by wind direction so that the percentage of time that the wind was blowing from each direction can be determined. Typically the wind direction data is sorted into 12 or 16 equal arc segments, 30 or 22.5 degrees in each segment, in preparation for plotting a circular graph in which the radius of each of the segments represents the percentage of time that the wind blew from each of the twelve 30 degree direction segments. Within the wind rose radius, the telescoping bar indicates the frequency of occurrence of wind speed in a predefined bin. Figure 2 presents the wind rose for the 10-meter wind speed and wind direction data collected at the primary meteorological tower site for calendar year 1974. There are 16 telescoping bars emanating from the center of the circle. The length of the bar is proportional to the frequency of wind directions blowing from that 22.5 degree sector. Each bar is telescoping with each segment of the bar representing the frequency of occurrence of wind speed in each of six wind speed bins. The number at the end of each bar represents the percent of time within the year the wind direction is blowing from the direction indicated. The table at the bottom of the wind rose provides a numeric value to the frequency of occurrence of wind speeds in each bin. In Figure 2, 34.22 percent of the time in 1974 the wind direction was blowing from the northwest and 3.36 percent of the time the wind was blowing from the east.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 20 of 41 Annual Wind Rose 1974 - 1986 The calendar year wind roses for the 10-meter level of the DCPP primary meteorological tower are presented in Figures 2 through 14. As is evident in each wind rose, the prevailing wind direction at this site is northwest. Generally, the wind direction is from the west-northwest, northwest, and north-northwest between 50 and 60 percent of the year. On average, winds from the northwest occur 33.7 percent of the time. Wind directions from the east-northeast, east, and east-southeast occur, respectively, 3.0, 3.2, and 6.6 percent of the time.
A visual year-by-year review from 1974-1982, 1983, and 1984 when the simulator building was constructed, and 1985 and 1986 (post simulator building),
indicates no significant change in the wind direction distributions. The only change evident in the wind roses is in 1984 and 1985 when there was an increase in west-northwest directions, which may be the result of more frequent Pacific storms during that two-year period.
K PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 21 of 41 3533 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1974 10M Level N
35.33 W--------------
5.75
-9.92 4.51
- 4. 18 9.18 1.74 ----
3.12',
.... 3.00'-
E 0.l=.
81 y,
7 1.04 8.43.'
" 1.08 3.44,
.16, S
Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
66 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DAR 9-1 J
6.9 115 184 24.2 N
114 2.35 L.73 0,51 0.02 0.01 NNE 1t25 2.02 0.99 0.23 o0o 0.00 NE 1,44 1.52 0.74 0.45 0.03 0.00 ENE 1 44 0.75 0.56 0.36 0.01 0.00 E
1.54 1.08 0.21 0.15 0.02 0.00 ESE L.64 2.38 1.37 1.17 0.47 0.11 SE 1.29 3.45 2.27 1.05 0.17 0.21 SSE 0.82 1.61 0.41 0.33 0.11 0.15 TOTAL OBS = 8694 MISSING OBS = 66 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR U1 11 U. 115 1842 24.2 S
0.66 059 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 SSW 069 0.29 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 SW 0.75 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.00 0,00 WSW 0.43 0.31 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 W
0.97 0.48 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.00 WNW 1.54 2.77 2.46 1.58 0.49 0.33 NW 1.36 3.80 6.59 10.39 6.99 6.20 NNW 0.83 2.39 2.63 2.44 1.06 0.56 CALM OBS =
I Figure 2 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1974 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 22 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1975 10M Level N
34.22 W -----
&19 512
~
4.09' 9.91 2.61 140 465,,
.1.29 6.41 1.07 3.88 2.08 E
S n.1 3.S Spe
(
e PS.
e H2o Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
161 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 0-1 3.5 6.9 115 18.4 242 N
1.06 1.97 1.51 0.49 0.08 0.01 NNE L01 2.43 094 0.27 0.00 0.00 NE 1.60 1.52 0.87 0.08 0.01 0.00 ENE L08 0.98 0.33 0.20 0.02 0.00 E
1.38 1.50 0.35 0.12 0.01 0.00 ESE 1.76 1.63 0.77 0.37 0.12 0.01 SE 1.10 2.30 1.50 0.81 0.29 0.40 SSE 0.76 2.00 0.72 0.15 0.10 0.15 TOTAL OBS = 8599 MISSING OBS = 161 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 0.1 3.5 6.9 11.5 184 24.2 S
0.84 0.85 0.27 0.10 0.00 0.02 SSW 0.58 0.41 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 SW 0.66 0.48 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.02 WSW 0.60 0.55 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.00 W
0.78 1.20 0.92 0.35 0.02 0.01 WNW 1.13 2.73 2,85 1.92 0.94 0.34 NW 1.07 3.44 6.18 10.56 7.34 5.64 NNW 0.87 2.50 3.02 3.35 1.48 0.76 CALM OBS = 0 Figure 3 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1975 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 23 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1976 10M Level N
35.39
- - -- 7.73 - - - -
.54 4.51' 10,52 W
- i o..
0.89 4.38',
2.7i",
-- --- 3.471 ---------
7
- 6. 19, 7.74,"
,/
E 0.91 1.22 3.44 1.62 S
W.1 3Sp
(
1eed (ie PH Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown, 196 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY IR 0.1 3.5 6.9 115 184 24.2 N
4.52 2.20 0.73 0.26 001 0.00 NNE 1.79 2.04 0.55 0.13 0.00 0.00 NE 2.14 1.38 0,71 0.14 0.01 0.00 ENE 1.54 0.47 0.48 0.26 0.03 0.00 E
1.88 0.91 0.30 0.34 0.05 0.00 ESE 2.48 1.99 0.97 0.68 0.05 0.02 SE 1.51 2.88 2.68 0.47 0.14 0.06 SSE 0.99 1.92 0.43 006 0.02 0.01 TOTAL OBS =8588 MISSING OBS= 196 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY 018 Q-1 21 6L-115 184 242 S
0.91 0,61 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.00 SSW 0.59 0.43 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.00 SW 0.57 0.21 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 WSW 0.48 0.26 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.00 W
0.92 0.49 0.22 0.03 0.01 0.02 WNW 1.50 2.73 2.55 2.10 1.01 0.63 NW 1.70 3.43 6.64 10.07 6.54 7.01 NNW 1.10 2.27 2.58 1.03 0.44 0.13 CALM OBS =
6 Figure 4 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1976 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 24 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1977 10M Level N
W 37.55
-- 561 8.46-4'76-0 11 19
.1 - - - -- - -
81--
0.89 0.56 7.5T 1.3 3.20-1.60
.02 3.05
.34 4-.
E Wn1 3.S (M
- 11.
l PeA Hr Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
201 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DE 91 35 k9 11.5 18.4 24.2 N
1.61 2.40 1.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 NNE 1.48 2.21 0.96 0.11 0.00 0.00 NE 1.38 1.52 0.62 0.05 0.00 0.00 ENE 1.29 0.74 0.41 0.37 0.01 0.00 E
1.46 0.90 0.27 0.36 0.06 0.00 ESE 1.85 2.16 1.18 0.90 0.20 0.06 SE 1.55 3.28 1.96 0.47 0.26 0.05 SSE 1.07 1.59 0.42 0.06 0.06 0.00 TOTAL OBS = 8559 MISSING OBS = 201 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 0i1 3.5 6.9 11.5 184 242 S
0.84 0.71 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 SSW 0.64 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 SW 0.36 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 WSW 0.55 0.27 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 W
0.72 0.71 0.27 0.08 0.00 0.02 WNW 1.09 2.86 3.04 2.61 1.19 0.41 NW 1.53 4.25 7.57 10.63 7.47 6.10 NNW 1.02 2.62 2.56 1.61 0.42 0.23 CALM OBS = 0 Figure 5 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1977 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 25 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1978 10M Level N
30.15 4.68 W -------
3,17 3.
7.02 E
1.02 X
1.45 4,27
-2.60 8.53 S
Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
882 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR j *
. 9 1
1 2
DIR 021 U 9 11.5 14 24 N
1.31 1.87 1.22 0.42 0.09 0.16 S
0.99 0.90 0.32 0.14 0.13 0.13 NNE 1.35 2.21 0.81 0.18 0.05 0.13 SSW 0.67 0.46 0.27 0.04 0.00 0.01 NE 1.76 2.02 0.74 0.10 0.03 0.04 SW 0.63 0.32 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 ENE 1.43 0.80 0.65 025 0.03 0.01 WSW 0.48 037 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 E
1.47 1.07 0.50 0.36 0.06 0.00 W
0.83 0.90 0.36 0.16 0.06 0.01 ESE 1.61 2.01 1.28 1.60 0.46 0.06 WNW 1.28 2.49 3.25 3.22 1.71 0,89 SE 1.83 3.60 1.68 0.86 0.46 0.10 NW 1.52 363 5.23 8.72 5,99 5.05 SSE 1.14 1.82 0.79 0.34 0.15 0.03 NNW 0.96 1.90 1.95 1.89 0.69 0.30 TOTAL OBS = 7878 MISSING OBS 882 CALM OBS = 0 Figure 6 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1978 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 26 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1979 1OM Level N
34.80 3.73 4.26 w ------
2.95',
-- 3,291 --------
10.10 1.50 -----
--- *1-E 0.9 6
7.20' 90.77 9,9 1.11 4.53 S
1.98 S
Wn 3S 6*
K
(
16 P rHu Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
826 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCER Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DO UR 35 0.9 115 hA 242 N
1.05 1.53 1.17 0.25 0.01 0.00 NNE 1,17 1.83 0.68 0.05 0.00 9.00 NE 2,14 1.47 0.58 0,06 0.00 0.00 ENE 1.71 0.83 0.33 0.08 0.90 0.00 E
2.12 0.72 0.24 0t11 0.04 906 ESE 2,34 2.18 1.41 0.95 0.28 0.04 SE 1.92 3.87 2.91 0,62 0.13 0.25 SSE 1.26 2.29 0,66 0t16 0.08 0.08 TOTAL OBS = 7933 MISSING OBS = 826 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY 0IR 01 13 6k2 L5 18 242 S
1,07 0.76 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 SSW 0.73 0.29 0.06 0.03 0.90 0.00 SW 0.47 0.24 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 WSW 0.63 0.29 0.03 0.01 0.90 0.00 W
0,79 0.52 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.00 WNW 1.26 2.79 2.36 2.02 1.30 0.38 NW 1.36 4.00 5.32 10.89 7.73 5.51 NNW 1.06 2.14 2.71 2.26 0.74 0.21 CALM OBS =
0 Figure 7 - DCPP 10-Meter Wind Rose for 1979 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 27 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1980 10M Level N
37.91 w------
43966 8.39
-- 1.46--
1'.14 4.43, 2.97 3.22 -
6.38 8.49 E
0.92 1.15 0
S
_.3.82-ini Sp*eed i' e P H
Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM tMe directions shown.
338 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR Q 1 35
§ 9 LS 184 242 N
1.10 2.05 0.98 0.25 0.01 0.00 NNE 1.17 2.04 0.46 0.05 0.00 0.00 NE 1.98 1,48 0.88 0.07 0.02 0.00 ENE 1.46 0.84 0.51 0.17 0.00 0.00 E
1.86 0.95 0.27 0.12 0.02 0.00 ESE 2.00 2.00 1.02 1.07 0.30 0.00 SE 2.01 3.00 2.25 0.70 0.40 0.13 SSE 1.02 2.18 0.44 0.12 0.07 0.00 TOTAL OBS = 8446 MISSING OBS 338 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 9-1 i
U1 1L1 114 242 S
1.09 0.73 0.07 0.11 0.OO 0.00 SSW 0.64 0.32 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.00 SW 0.59 0,22 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 WSW 0.72 0.37 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 W
0.82 0.47 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.00 WNW 1.14 2.49 2.21 1.55 0.69 0.32 NW 1.26 3.86 7.35 11.19 8.68 5.58 NNW 0.98 2.65 3.13 2.05 0.53 0.26 CALM OBS = 0 Figure 8 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1980 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 28 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1981 IOM Level N
37.02 10.23
?
-*.*22.
8.38 3.95, 23.17 2.79 -
W E
0,79 653 8.22' 1.18 1.13 4.05.
1.80 -...
S W n 3.6 6
(
l Per 18.4.2o Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded, Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
385 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 01 3.5 6.9 15 184 24.2 N
1.07 2.33 1.13 0.38 0.04 0.00 NNE 1.42 1.92 0.78 0,10 0.00 0.00 NE 1.89 1.53 0.47 0.07 0.00 0.00 ENE 1.54 0.87 0.42 0.25 0.04 0.01 E
1.60 0.64 0.36 0.18 0.00 0.01 ESE 1.78 205 1.17 1.31 0.22 0.00 SE 1.65 3.50 2.29 0.60 0.11 0.07 SSE 0.87 2.28 0.61 0.17 0.11 0,01 TOTAL OBS = 8375 MISSING OBS = 385 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY 018
- 0.
3.3 1
.1
.Ut 114 241 S
0.85 0.87 0.06 002 0.00 0.00 SSW 0.69 0.30 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 SW 0.74 0.41 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 WSW 0.53 0.22 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 W
0.88 0.62 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 WNW 1.27 303 2.30 1.25 0.42 0.11 NW 1.37 4.53 7,20 11.49 7.11 5.33 NNW 1.05 3.08 3.25 2.03 0.70 0.12 CALM OBS =
I Figure 9 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1981 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 29 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1982 10M Level N
34.70 4.51
-8.26 4.15 4.70 W -----------
-1.76 8....
4.13',
3.71 K l'
E
..^
1.16 0.83 1.04 3.67 2.09 6.72,"
9.46 S
Win 3.S ee (8e Per Hour)
Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
199 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 9,1 3.5 69 115 14 242 N
085 2.06 1.43 0.18 0.00 000 NNE 114 187 1.05 0.08 0.00 0.00 NE 1.90 168 1.00 0.11 000 0.00 ENE 2.06 0.93 0.75 0.40 0.00 0.00 E
2.21 0.97 0.29 0.22 0.02 0.00 ESE 1.78 2.27 1.16 1,13 0.32 0.07 SE 1.41 3.96 3107 0,71 0.20 01t SSE 1.03 2.03 0.40 0.13 005 0.03 TOTAL OBS = 8561 MISSING OBS = 199 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 0J 35 69 11 4
24 S
0.93 0.77 0.15 0.22 0.01 0.00 SSW 0.54 0.30 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.00 SW 050 0.23 0.07 002 0.00 0.00 WSW 0.61 0.29 0.11 0,14 0.00 0.01 W
0.75 0.70 0.16 0.14 0.01 0.00 WNW 1.33 2.79 2.21 1.82 0.74 0.22 NW 1.14 3.94 6.70 10.19 7.81 4.92 NNW 0.86 1.94 2.86 2.04 0.41 0.14 CALM OBS = 0 Figure 10 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1982 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 30 of 41 33.8 W ----------
I.....
Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1983 10M Level N
0 5.10 8.69 4.96 3.96 10.11 2.25
-2.08 -- --- - -
- -2781-0.90 8.81 E
0.92
"- 1.02 8.92" 3,79 1.90 S
Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
76 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per How)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY D15 0.1 5-5
§9 12.5 18.4 242 N
0.91 2.50 1.43 0.25 0.01 0.00 NNE 1.23 2.50 1.04 0,16 0.03 0.00 NE 1.78 1.44 0.59 0.12 0.03 0.00 ENE 1.21 0.54 0.38 0.12 0.00 0.00 E
1.46 0.82 0.32 0.13 0.03 0.01 ESE 1.59 2.02 2.35 2.19 0.59 0.08 SE 1.15 2.61 264 1.24 0.50 0.78 SSE 0.99 1.54 0.56 0.37 0.24 0.08 TOTAL OBS = 8684 MISSING OBS = 76 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY D01 0.1
-1 09 I1 5 184 242 S
0.78 0.77 0.22 0.09 0.03 0.00 SSW 0.56 0.31 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 SW 0.50 0.29 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.00 WSW 0.52 0.32 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 W
0.75 0.97 0.30 0.06 0.01 0.00 WNW 0,81 2.67 3.05 2.54 0.73 0.31 NW 0.88 3.13 6.38 11.31 7.89 4.21 NNW 0.67 2.42 3.05 1.95 0.46 0.15 CALM OBS = 0 Figure 11 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1983 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 31 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1984 10M Level N
2568 4.24 7.98 4.36 15,80 4.13 3.13 343-W E
4.44 V
6.18 5,05 2.34 1.23 2229 S
Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
96 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 2d 21 0-9 115 184 242 N
0.75 2.16 1.01 0.30 0.01 000 NNE 1.09 224 0.87 0.15 0.00 0.00 NE 1.46 1.65 0.87 0.14 0.01 000 ENE 1.30 0.86 0.69 0.25 0.02 0.00 E
161 1.22 041 0.17 0.01 0.00 ESE 1.58 1.99 1.15 132 0.12 0.02 SE 1,28 1.95 1.27 0.47 0.07 0.02 SSE 0.64 1.34 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.03 TOTALOBS-8688 MISStNGOBS-96 PERCENT OCCURRENCE Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR U_1
§3 -9 115 184 242 S
0.70 0.44 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 SSW 0.74 0.46 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 SW 1.11 0.91 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.00 WSW 1.07 1.25 1.19 0.83 0.09 0.01 W
1.09 2.01 1.66 2.18 1.14 0.44 WNW 1.25 285 3.58 3.96 2.45 1.70 NW 1.00 2.95 4.22 6.94 6.09 4.48 NNW 0.67 2.21 2.67 1.90 0.38 0.15 CALM OBS = 0 Figure 12 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1984 PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 32 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1985 10M Level N
29.34 3.67 7.76 3.38 3.86 W
2.90----
1.30 1.23 2.78 2.7 - %1,"" 5.65 E
1.40 2.26 8.43 4.51 S
Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
141 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR Ul 3.5 6.9 11.5 18.4 242 N
1.20 1.67 0.53 0.23 0.03 0.00 NNE 1.14 1.57 0.56 0.12 0.00 0.00 NE 1.79 1.33 0.60 0.14 0.00 0.00 ENE 1.57 0.68 0.44 0.09 0.00 0.00 E
1.66 0.75 0.20 0.08 0.01 0.00 ESE 2.20 2.16 0.55 0.57 0.16 0.01 SE 2.38 3.52 1.88 0.55 0.12 0.00 SSE 1.47 2.36 0.50 0.09 0.09 0.00 TOTAL OBS =8619 MISSING OBS= 141 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIR 0.1 35 6-9 11.5 LEA 242 S
1.22 0.81 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.00 SSW 0.72 0.57 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 SW 0.73 0.45 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 WSW 0.71 0.44 0.10 0.3 0.01 0.00 W
1.26 1.08 0.35 0.15 0.06 0.00 WNW 1,23 4.22 4.46 4.98 2.89 1.03 NW 1.33 4.46 6.80 9.42 5.08 2.25 NNW 0.95 2.42 2.44 1.49 0.29 0.17 CALM 03S = 0 Figure 13 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1985 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 33 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1986 10M Level N
4.51 10.38 3.10 W ---------
2.41 ---
1.52 1.54 1.77 5.14 2.31 3.50 3.39 2.86--
8.33 E
S Win 3Sp ee 11.( 1 Per Hor Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 10% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
115 observations were missing.
PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY DIt 01 3.5
§ 9 t15 131 24.2 N
0.86 2.08 1.28 0.28 0.01 0.00 NNE 0.93 1.43 0.54 0.20 0.00 0.00 NE 1.38 1.45 0.53 0.10 0.05 0.00 ENE 1.31 118 0.67 0.23 0.00 0.00 E
1.65 0.72 0,29 0.16 0.03 0.00 ESE 2.76 1.99 0.72 0.83 0.58 0.01 SE 2.52 2.82 180 0.89 0.15 0.14 SSE 1.68 2.50 0.67 0.17 0.07 0.05 TOTAL OBS = 8645 MISSINGOBS= 115 PERCENT OCCURRENCE: Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
LOWER BOUND OF CATEGORY D01 91 35 6.9 115 184 242 S
1.37 0.89 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 SSW 0.99 0.69 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 SW 0.68 0.65 0.16 0.05 0.00 0.00 WSW 0.64 0.50 0.27 0.12 0.00 0.00 W
0.89 1.10 0.29 0.12 0.01 0.00 WNW 1.06 3.03 3.17 2.09 0.38 0.12 NW 1.31 3.81 6.93 10.09 6.80 3.57 NNW 1.13 2.81 3,64 2.11 0.61 0,07 CALM OBS = 0 Figure 14 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1986 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 34 of 41 Multi Year Wind Roses - Before and After Simulator Building Construction The data for calendar years 1981 and 1982 were combined into one file; the data for calendar years 1985 and 1986 were also combined into one file. Two new wind roses, multi-year wind roses using 36 sectors rather than 16 sectors, were created to provide additional detail on the wind rose before and after simulator building construction. These two wind roses are presented in Figures 15 and 16.
In Figure 15, the period prior to simulator building construction is examined.
Wind directions centered on 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110 degrees occurred 1.54, 1.46, 1.35, 1.57, and 2.66 percent of the time.
In Figure 16, the 2-year period after the simulator building is completed, wind directions centered on 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110 degrees occurred 1.26, 1.22, 1.06, 1.68, and 2.61 percent of the-time.
It appears that there are no significant differences between the wind roses for these two periods.
PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 35 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1981-82 10M Level N
20.26 12.57 3.62 2.59 19: 1.7, 2.01 W -------
6.515 2.00 1.80 S
7.1
.74 47 1.64 1.03 1.46 0.613 -- - - - --------
- - - 1.35 -------.
0.81
,,,/
1.57
.44 2.66 0.41 3i83 0.43 3.83 0.47 3.83 0.40, 2.63 053063 0.83 1.06164 E
S W.d.Spe(9 '1' 1(i4 PH.2 Wind Speed ( Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded.
Rings drawn at 5% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
584 observations were missing.
Figure 15 - DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1981-82 (Before Simulator Building)
PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Sheet 36 of 41 Joint Frequency Distribution DCPP 1985-86 10M Level N
16.80
.- "" 3.5 2.31 1.,71 1.57.5 6/10
.5
,/.58 1.33
" 11.37 1.58 1693 "3.97 1.26 S1.67
- 1.22 1 22 0 -- -- - -- -- -
1.06 --------..
So82 1.668 059 2.61 0.68 3.39 0.63 3.79 0.52 3.54 0.65 3.12 086076 0.97 1.25189
-E S
Wind Speed (Miles Per Hour)
Calms excluded, Rings drawn at 5% intervals.
Wind flow is FROM the directions shown.
256 observations were missing.
Figure 16-DCPP 10-Meter Level Wind Rose for 1985-86 (After Simulator Building)
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 37 of 41 Annual Average Wind Speed - 10 Meter Level The annual average wind speed for the 10-meter level from the DCPP primary meteorological tower for the years from 1974-2009 are presented in Figure 17.
The graph illustrates that there is little change in the annual average Wind speed recorded at the 10-meter level from 1974, prior to any construction activity at the site, through 2009 (operating power plant).
Annual Average Wind Speed (mph)
Annual Average Wind Speed (mph)
DCPP 1OMeterLevel 15 C.
10 0
i 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 Year Figure 17 - Annual Average Wind Speed (mph) for the 10-Meter Level at DCPP from 1974-2009.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 38 of 41 Distribution of Atmospheric Stability Vertical and Horizontal Stability Atmospheric stability is classified using vertical temperature difference, termed Delta-T, and/or wind direction standard deviation, termed sigma theta. At DCPP, vertical temperature difference is calculated between the 10-meter level and the 76-meter level and the 107meter and 46-meter level of the primary meteorological tower. Sigma theta, the standard deviation of the wind direction, is calculated from the wind direction measurements collected by the wind direction sensor at the 10-meter level. The delta-T defines the vertical stability and the sigma theta defines the horizontal stability.
DCPP Simulator Building and Parking Lot As previously stated, the DCPP primary meteorological tower was installed on site in the late 1960s and meteorological data exists in the archive since May 1973. The DCPP simulator building was constructed in the early 1980s and it is assumed that the parking lot was most likely constructed at the same time.
Analysis I
The DCPP primary meteorological tower data for vertical temperature (76-meter/1 0-meter) and the standard deviation of the wind direction (sigma) is analyzed for each year from 1974-1980 (pre-simulator and parking lot) and 1986-1996 (post-simulator building and parking lot) to see if there are any significant changes in the distribution of stability classes at the primary meteorological tower. The results are presented in Table 1.
For the 8-year period from 1974-1980, the bulk of the vertical temperature stability classifications fell into the neutral and slightly stable classes, 39.9 and 38.8 percent, respectively. The unstable classifications accounted for around 6 percent of the hours and the moderately and extremely stable classifications account for around 15 percent of the hours.
For the 11-year period from 1986-1996, after the construction of the simulator building, the installation of the parking lot, and the substantial completion of the power plant itself, the bulk of the vertical temperature stability classifications still fall into the neutral and slight stable classes, 48.5 and 28.8 percent, respectively.
The unstable classifications accounted for around 11 percent of the hours and the moderately and extremely stable classifications account for around 12 percent of the hours. The percentage difference between the two periods is presented in Table 1.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 39 of 41 For the vertical temperature difference measurements, there is a sight shift from the stable stability classifications to the neutral and unstable stability classifications. This may be associated both with the changes in the surface under the primary meteorological tower (i.e., paved surface) and the presence and proximity of structures associated with the power plant, which did not exist in the 1974-1980 timeframe.
For the 8-year period from 1974-1980, the bulk of the horizontal stability (wind direction standard deviation or sigma theta) classifications fell into the slightly unstable to slightly stable classes, 58.9 percent. The unstable classifications accounted for around 38 percent of the hours and the moderately and extremely stable classifications account for around 3 percent of the hours.
For the 11-year period from 1986-1996, after the construction of the simulator building, the installation of the parking lot, and the substantial completion of the power plant itself, the bulk of the horizontal stability classifications still fall into the slightly unstable to slightly stable classes, 65.6 percent. The unstable classifications now account for around 34 percent of the hours and the moderately and extremely stable classifications account for around 1 percent of the hours. The percentage difference between the two periods is presented in Table 1.
For horizontal stability measurements, there is a decrease in the extreme stability classifications and an increase inthe neutral stability classification. This is most likely associated with the increases in surface roughness around the primary meteorological tower due to the parking lot and the presence structures associated with the power plant, which did not exist in the 1974-1980 timeframe.
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 40 of 41 Table 1 - Percentage Occurrence of Vertical and Horizontal Stability Class for 1974-1980 (Pre-Simulator Building) and 1986-1996 (Post-Simulator Building) Observed at the Primary Meteorological Tower.
Delta-T Class 1974-1980 1986-1996 Difference A
Extremely Unstable 1.89%
3.87%
1.99%
B Moderately Unstable 1.86%
2.86%
1.01%
C Slightly Unstable 2.09%
3.88%
1.79%
D Neutral 39.93%
48.51%
8.58%
E Slightly Stable 38.77%
28.78%
-9.98%
F Moderately Stable 9.77%
8.11%
-1.66%
G Extremely Stable 5.69%
3.98%
-1.71%
Wind Direction Sigma Theta Class 1974-1980 1986-1996 Difference A
Extremely Unstable 31.48%
28.48%
-3.00%
B Moderately Unstable 6.57%
5.52%
-1.05%
C Slightly Unstable 10.77%
9.80%
-0.97%
D Neutral 21.70%
32.09%
10.39%
E Slightly Stable 26.42%
23.74%
-2.68%
F Moderately Stable 1.56%
0.30%
-1.26%
G Extremely Stable 1.51%
0.70%
-0.81%
PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Sheet 41 of 41 Summary and Conclusions The simulator building was constructed in 1983-1984 at a location directly east of the primary meteorological tower. The distance between this building and the meteorological tower is slightly less than 10 building heights.
Wind roses, for 10-meter wind speed and direction were created to provide a graphical display of the frequency of occurrence of winds blowing from different directions. This was performed for each calendar year from 1974 until 1986 and then for 2-year periods prior to and after simulator building construction.
A visual inspection of the results, focusing principally on the easterly wind directions, indicates that there are no significant changes in the distribution of wind directions due to the simulator building construction.
For atmospheric stability, a review of the vertical delta-temperature data (vertical stability) and the wind direction sigma theta (horizontal stability) for the 8-year period from 1974-1980, and the 11-year period from 1986-1996, does indicate a slight shift from the more stable classes to the neutral and unstable classifications. For the vertical temperature, this may be associated with the presence of a paved parking area under and surrounding the tower. The shift is small with the increase in Stability Classes A, B, and C on the order of 3 percent, which corresponds to a decrease in the more stable classes (F and G) of around 3 percent.
A shift in the horizontal stability is also noted with decreases in the extreme stability classifications and an increase in the neutral stability classification. The change in wind direction sigma is most likely not due to the simulator building as there frequency of occurrence of winds from that direction is quite low; however, the shifts to a more neutral classification may be associated with increasing surface roughness surrounding the tower (i.e., parking lot) and the presence of the power plant structures.
Based on this analysis, there appears to be no change in the wind speed data collected at the 10-meter level as the occurrence of winds from the direction of the simulator building are infrequent. There is a slight shift in the vertical stability classifications and the horizontal stability classifications, which appears to be associated with the presence of the power plant and associated structures.
However, the measurements from the 10-meter level on the primary meteorological tower are still considered representative of the current physical conditions at the site and are valid for the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis.
County of San Luis Obispo Allocation of Unitary Tax Revenue from PG&E Power Plant Property Tax Bills for Fiscal Years 2007/08-2009/10 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Page 1 of 4 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ALLOCATION OF UNITARY TAX REVENUE FROM PG&E POWER PLANT PROPERTY TAX BILLS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2007108 - 2009110 2007/2008 UNITARY FACTOR 2007/2008 PG&E TAXES 990,000,126
$22,583,480.03 200812009 UNITARY FACTOR 200812009 PG&E TAXES 990,000,222
$23,989,667.50 2009/2010 UNITARY FACTOR 11 2009/2010 PG&E TAXES 990,000,313
$24,455,910.09 FUND AGENCY 0001 0002 0007 0026 0166 0198 0213 0223 0227 0229 0231 0232 0233 0234 0235 0368 0473 0474 0475 0476 0477 0478 0480 0481 0483 General Fund Roads Air Pollution Control District County Library Garden Farms Water Santa Maria Valley Water Cons Dist Cambria Community Hospital Cayucos Sanitary District Arroyo Grande Atascadero (inc 0709 sanitation)
Grover City Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo Cachuma Resource Conservation District Port San Luis Harbor California Valley Community Srvcs Dist Nipomo Community Services District Cambria Community Services District San Simeon Acres Community Srvcs Dist Templeton Community Services District Nipomo Sewer Maintenance Nipomo Drain Maintenance Linne Community Services District 26.63604%
1.20099%
0.11802%
1.94566%
0.00190%
0.00240%
0.01600%
0.02323%
0.20133%
0.27797%
0.08359%
0.93631%
0.27662%
0.12446%
0.53768%
0.00185%
1.54708%
0.01059%
0.02128%
0.08075%
0.00451%
0.02728%
0.00061%
0.00061%
0.00067%
6,015,343.62 271,224.50 26,653.75 439,397.55 429.64 541.68 3,613.62 5,246.90 45,467.79 62,774.60 18,876.84 211,451.70 62,469.48 28,107.39 121,426.14 418.48 349,383.92 2,392.64 4,804.87 18,235.39 1,019.30 6,160.65 137.69 137.69 151.82 26.73769%
1.16322%
0.11575%
1.93107%
0.00211%
0.00268%
0.01974%
0.02811%
0.24494%
0.34292%
0.10963%
0.92982%
0.34315%
0.15748%
0.63903%
0.00183%
1.50650%
0.01106%
0.02590%
0.09739%
0.00507%
0.03544%
0.00074%
0.00074%
0.00082%
6,414,282.91 279,052.61 27,768.04 463,257.27 506.18 642.92 4,735.56 6,743.50 58,760.29 82,265.37 26,299.87 223,060.73 82,320.54 37,778.93 153,301.17 439.01 361,404.34 2,653.26 6,213.32 23,363.54 1,216.28 8,501.94 177.52 177.52 196.72 26.73769%
1.16322%
0.11575%
1.93107%
0.00211%
0.00268%
0.01974%
0.02811%
0.24494%
0.34292%
0.10963%
0.92982%
0.34315%
0.15748%
0.63903%
0.00183%
1.50650%
0.01106%
0.02590%
0.09739%
0.00507%
0.03544%
0.00074%
0.00074%
0.00082%
6,538,945.43 284,476.04 28,307.72 472,260.74 516.02 655.42 4,827.60 6,874.56 59,902.31 83,864.21 26,811.01 227,395.94 83,920.46 38,513.17 156,280.60 447.54 368,428.29 2,704.82 6*334.08 23,817.61 1,239.91 8,667.17 180.97 180.97 200.54
PG&E Letter DCL-1 0-082 Page 2 of 4 200712008 UNITARY FACTOR 2007/2008 PG&E TAXES 990,000,126
$22.583.480.03 2008/2009 UNITARY FACTOR 2008/2009 PG&E TAXES 990,000,222
$23.989,667.50 2009/2010 UNITARY FACTOR 2009/2010 PG&E TAXES 990,000,313
$24,455.910.09 FUND AGENCY 0528 0643 0647 0651 0652 0654 0662 0675 0687 0693 0694 0723 0724 0725 0726 0727 0741 0742 0743 0747 0748 0750 0752 0755 0761 0773 0781 0803 0811 0825 0827 0831 0837 Grover City Street Light District #1 San Luis Obispo County Flood Control Dist Nacimiento Water Services District Flood Control Zone 1 Flood Control Zone 1A Flood Control Zone 3 Flood Control Zone 9 County Waterworks No. 8 Nipomo Light San Miguel CSD (Light)
County Serv Area # 23 (former San Marg Lt)
County Service Area #1 County Service Area #1 Zone A County Service Area #1 Zone B County Service Area #1 Zone C County Service Area #1 Zone D County Service Area #7 County Service Area #7 Zone A County Service Area #7 Zone B Los Osos CSD Zone A Los Osos CSD Zone B Los Osos CSD Zone D Los Osos CSD Zone F County Service Area #10 County Service Area #12 County Service Area #16 Heritage Community Service'District San Miguel Sanitary District Oceano Community Services District Cayucos Fire District San Miguel CSD (Fire)
Santa Margarita Fire District Arroyo Grande Cemetery District 0.01641%
0.27775%
0.35012%
0.00805%
0.00067%
0.01116%
0.02514%
0.00201%
0.00146%
0.00382%
0.00165%
0.00043%
0.00186%
0.00097%
0.00030%
0.00124%
0.00151%
0.00620%
0.00154%
0.01429%
0.06874%
0.00064%
0.00044%
0.00528%
0.03279%
0.00125%
0.00976%
0.00291%
0.03304%
0.00689%
0.01356%
0.00624%
0.00597%
3,705.95 62,725.84 79,070.01 1,817.36 150.65 2,521.24 5,676.63 453.11 329.58 863.68 372.99 96.65 419.95 218.73 67.91 279.42 341.36 1,401.26 347.40 3,227.73 15,524.86 145.08 100.41 1,192.47 7,404.02 282.32 2,205.18 656.85 7,461.66 1,555.00 3,062.01 1,409.25 1,348.82 0.02059%
0.27626%
0.34652%
0.00827%
0.00078%
0.01311%
0.02831%
0.00241%
0.00174%
0.00457%
0.00178%
0.00050%
0.00214%
0.00113%
0.00038%
0.00154%
0.00199%
0.00805%
0.00196%
0.01571%
0.08296%
0.00081%
0.00050%
0.00670%
0.03160%
0.00158%
0.01233%
0.00332%
0.04035%
0.00869%
0.01569%
0.00685%
0.00675%
4,939.47 66,273.86 83,129.00 1,983.95 187.12 3,145.05 6,791.47 578.15 417.42 1,096.33 427.02 119.95 513.38 271.08 91.16 369.44 477.39 1,931.17 470.20 3,768.78 19,901.83 194.32 119.95 1,607.31 7,580.73 379.04 2,957.93 796.46 9,679.83 2,084.70 3,763.98 1,643.29 1,619.30 0.02059%
0.27626%
0.34652%
0.00827%
0.00078%
0.01311%
0.02831%
0.00241%
0.00174%
0.00457%
0.00178%
0.00050%
0.00214%
0.00113%
0.00038%
0.00154%
0.00199%
0.00805%
0.00196%
0.01571%
0.08296%
0.00081%
0.00050%
0.00670%
0.03160%
0.00158%
0.01233%
0.00332%
0.04035%
0.00869%
0.01569%
0.00685%
0.00675%
5,035.47 67,561.90 84,744.62 2,022.50 190.76 3,206.17 6,923.47 589.39 425.53 1,117.64 435.32 122.28 523.36 276.35 92.93 376.62 486.67 1,968.70 479.34 3,842.02 20,288.62 198.09 122.28 1,638.55 7,728.07 386.40 3,015.41 811.94 9,867.96 2,125.22 3,837.13 1,675.23 1,650.77 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Page 3 of 4 2007/2008 2007/2008 2008/2009 2008/2009 2009/2010 2009/2010 UNITARY PG&E TAXES UNITARY PG&E TAXES UNITARY PG&E TAXES FACTOR 990,000,126 FACTOR 990,000,222 FACTOR 990,000,313 FUND AGENCY
$22,583,480.03
$23,989,667.50
$24,455,910.09 0843 Atascadero Cemetery District 0.01637%
3,697.58 0.01868%
4,481.27 0.01868%
4,568.36 0844 Cambria Cemetery District 0.00388%
875.68 0.00461%
1,105.92 0.00461%
1,127.42 0845 Cayucos-Morro Bay Cemetery District 0.08766%
19,797.74 0.08691%
20,849.42 0.08691%
21,254.63 0847 Paso Robles Cemetery District 0.01898%
4,285.70 0.02200%
5,277.73 0.02200%
5,380.30 0851 San Miguel Cemetery District 0.00400%
904.14 0.00459%
1,101.13 0.00459%
1,122.53 0852 SantaMargarita Cemetery District 0.00593%
1,338.89 0.00599%
1,436.98 0.00599%
1,464.91 0853 Shandon Cemetery District 0.00419%
946.13 0.00416%
997.97 0.00416%
1,017.37 0854 Templeton Cemetery District 0.00413%
931.85 0.00486%
1,165.90 0.00486%
1,188.56 0895 Avila Beach County Water District 0.29045%
65,594.55 0.28035%
67,255.03 0.28035%
68,562.14 0896 Avila County Water Improvement Dist #1 0.00816%
1,842.76 0.00964%
2,312.60 0.00964%
2,357.55 1205 Coast Unif (Cayucos Elem) 0.11384%
25,708.49 0.12795%
30,694.78 0.12795%
31,291.34 1211 Cuyama Joint Unified 0.11949%
26,984.44 0.11614%
27,861.60 0.11614%
28,403.09 1217 Paso Unified (Pleasant Elem) 0.01203%
2,716.92 0.01522%
3,651.23 0.01522%
3,722.19 1221 Paso Unifed (San Miguel Elem) 0.09114%
20,582.36 0.10721%
25,719.32 0.10721%
26,219.18 1223 Coast Unified 0.34325%
77,517.40 0.41089%
98,571.14 0.41089%
100,486.89 1225 Paso Robles Unified 1.16993%
264,210.50 1.40324%
336,632.61 1.40324%
343,175.11 1227 Santa Maria Joint Union High 0.00010%
21.50 0.00010%
23.99 0.00010%
24.46 1228 Santa Maria Joint Union Elementary 0.00012%
26.33 0.00012%
28.79 0.00012%
29.35 1231 Templeton Unified 0.31862%
71,954.37 0.38201%
91,642.93 0:38201%
93,424.02 1234 San Luis Coastal Unified 37.48453%
8,465,310.88 36.42259%
8,737,658.24 36.42259%
8,907,475.86 1253 Lucia Mar Unified 1.78082%
402,171.87 2.14756%
515,192.50 2.14756%
525,205.34 1273 Atascadero Unified 1.41438%
319,416.53 1.53387%
367,970.31 1.53387%
375,121.87 1293 Shandon Unified 0.24070%
54,358.89 0.24159%
57,956.64 0.24159%
59,083.03 1303 San Luis Obispo Co Community College 7.59050%
1,714,198.30 7.55381%
1,812,133.90 7.55381%
1,847,352.98 1308 County School Service 4.50289%
1,016,909.92 4.48101%
1,074,979.40 4.48101%
1,095,871.78 1309 Allan Hancock Joint Community College 0.01532%
3,459.03 0.01489%
3,572.06 0.01489%
3,641.49 0115 ERAF 9.25951%
2,091,119.72 8.97130%
2,152,185.04 8.97130%
2,194,013.06 0236 PASO REDEVELOPMENT 0.04039%
9,122.44 0.07905%
18,963.83 0.07905%
19,332.40 0237 FIVE CITIES REDEV 0.01375%
3,106.30 0.02419%
5,803.10 0.02419%
5,915.88 0239 ARROYO GRANDE REDEV 0.00941%
2,125.68 0.02203%
5,284.92 0.02203%
5,387.64 0238 GROVER BEACH REDEV 0.01091%
2,464.61 0.02227%
5,342.50 0.02227%
5,446.33 0251 ATASCADERO REDEV 0.03128%
7,064.23 0.06817%
16,353.76 0.06817%
16,671.59 PG&E Letter DCL-10-082 Page 4 of 4 2007/2008 UNITARY FACTOR 2007/2008 PG&E TAXES 990,000,126
$22.583.480.03 2008/2009 UNITARY FACTOR 2008/2009 PG&E TAXES 990,000,222
$23.989.667.50 2009/2010 UNITARY FACTOR 2009/2010 PG&E TAXES 990,000,313
$24.455.910.09 FUND AGENCY 0252 GBIE REDEVELOPMENT TOTAL 0.00182%
411.27
(
0.00430%
1,031.56 0.00430%
1,051.60 100.00000%
$22,583,480.03 100.00000%
$23,989,667.50 100.00000%
$24,455,910.09 ASSESSED VALUES BY FISCAL YEAR LAND IMPROVEMENTS PERSON PROPERTY NET VALUE 2007/2008 65,993,429 2,015,612,857 176,741,717 2,258,348,003 2008/2009 65,993,429 2,099,436,292 233,537,029 2,398,966,750 2009/2010 65,993,429 2,262,610,081 116,987,499 2,445,591,009