ML20064N852
| ML20064N852 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1983 |
| From: | Bell N NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8302160354 | |
| Download: ML20064N852 (6) | |
Text
. _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
y.nE. LED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'83 FEB 15 All :50 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the h tter of ) C : .. :iI NEN;2
) . Mx4 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, ) Docket No. 50-460 CPA
_et. _al. . )
)
(WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 1) )
COALITION FOR SAFE POWER AMENDED CONTENTION NO. 2 - FEB 11, 1983 Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order of January 26, 1983 Petitioner Coalition for Safe Power hereby submits its amended contention No. 2. TR at 69.
CFSP 2 Petitioner contends that the Permitee's decision in April 1982 to
" defer" co nstruction for two to five years, and the subsequent cessation of construction at WNP-1, was dilatory. Such action was without " good ceuse" as required by 10 CFR 50.55(b). Moreover, the modified request for extension of completion date to 1991 does not constitute a " reasonable period of time" provided for in 10 CFR 50.55(b).
l On April 29, 1982, the Board of Directors of the Washington Public Power Supply System voted to suspend construction of WNP-1 for a two l
to five year period. This decision was made upon reviewing the recommen-dations of the Bonneville Power Adminstration (tPA), reviewing alternative proposals and taking public coment. Ietter to H. Denton, Director of NRR, NRC from G.D. Bouchey, WPPSS, April 30, 1982. Eight and one half mcnths later, following receipt of Petitioner's . contention 2 in this case, Permittee notified the NRC that it was modifying its ,
request from a completion date of 1986 to 1991. Letter to H. Denton, f og Director NRR, NRC from G.D. Bouchey, WPPSS, January 11, 1983. This
}
Wo Mo' action (along with its requisite paperwork) was taken with the full 88 og intention of delaying completion of the plant and thus was " dilatory" w
$$ within the definition provided by Black's Law Dictionary.
00 Such actions also were without " good cause" as required by Section om gh 50.55(b). Permittee has not spe('fied exactly what it believes constitutes
its basis for " good cause". In its Letter, supra of April 1983, WFPSS states:
Because BPA support is essential to the financing of all three Supply System projects, the Board (of Directors]
voted to acdept the BPA recommendations [to halt construction].
l The January, 1983 Letter,, supra merely states that BPA had recommended suspension of construction of WNP-1 from two to five years and it was in view of that recommendation that the WPPSS Board voted to suspend construction. At the Prehearing Conference on January 26, 1983, Permittee's Counsel stated that the reason was lack of need for power from WND.
- 1. TR at 60. Counsel also stated that BPA has the authority to disapprove any further financirg of WNP-1 construction. TR at 79.
BPA is not a part of WPPSS management, as was ?ointed out by Permit-tee's Counsel. TR at 77. Neither does BPA have the authority to control WPPSS finances. The Intial Decision of the licensing board for WNP-1 (Construction Permit), LBP-75-72, 2 NRC 922 at 926 states:
Permanent financing is effected by the issuance of tax exempt long term debt securities. WPPSS debt securities are of the revenue note (short term) and revenue bond (long term) variety. State of Washington law provides that WPPSS may issue revenue bonds or warrants payable f om the revenues of the Utility properties operated by it.
The Initial Decision does not include a finding that BPA need approve or can disapprove any financing for WNP-1. Furthermore, Fermittee has never stated in its submittals to the NRC that BPA could or might disapprove financing for the plant. The vague, conclusionary and unsubstan-l tiated statement that BPA support is essential to the financing of the WPPSS projects, as quoted above, is all Permittee offers. While .
this may be Permittee's suggestion of what ccnstitutes "gsod cause" for its actions, it is neither clear that it is nor is it supported I
I by fact.
Need for power was offered as a reason for " good cause" by Permittee's
Counsel at the Prehearing conference. TR at 60. Nowhere else, including the BPA'; Report " Analysis of Resource Alternatives" dated April 19, 1982, has this erguement beta advanced. IN fact, WPPSS asserts the need for power from the plant does exist. See Letter, supra of April, 1982. The Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference (PNUCC), in its " Northwest Regional Forecast of Power Loads and Resources, July 1982-June 1983" issued in May, 1982 and relied upon by Permittee'and other Northwest utilities (See e.g. Skagit/Hanford Environmental Report) shows that WNP-1 will be needed prior to the dates of completion. Forecast, Table 1.1 and Figure 1-2. Furthmore, the BPA Report, supra at 3 states: -
A number of utility executives and experts believe it is prudent utility practice to plan resources to meet loads in the high portion of the forecasting range. Under these circumstancer, and using the high range recommended, all three net billed projects could prove to be needed on schedule.
Section 50.55(b) of Title Ten, Code of Federal Regulations states explicitly that a completion date can be extended by the Connission "for a reasonable period of time." Construction of the plant is little over half completed. By 1981, Fermittee had already projected the need for another 65 months over an original expected construction tchedule of 60 months. WPPSS Inquiry at 20. Now Permittee wishes to add another two to five years resulting in a delay (over the expected completion date) of sevan to ten ye3rs, and a delay (past the Construction Permit expiration date) of six to nine years. This latter calculation is in the range of double the outside anticipated construction period.
Six to nine years cannot have been contemplated as a " reasonable period of time" by the writers of 10 CFR 50.55(b).
Furthermore, there is ample reason to believe that the dates for constructin completion as they stand presently will not be adequate, ,
- Petitioner does not subscribe to cither the BPA or PNUCC forecasts and does not believe the power from WNP-1 w111 ever be needed.
necessitating further unreasonable extentions. At the time of con struction halt at WNP-1, work had progressed at approximately 91% per year. If construction is halted for the full five yea.. contemplated, four years will remain to complete the remaining 40% of the plant.
This will not be sufficient taking into consideration Permittee's history.-
Moreove", the li?PSS Inquiry (at 19-23) addressed the ability of WPPSS to meet scheoule deadlines:
The rate of delay in plant completion is accelerating...
AstudypreparedbyWPP5h'indicatesthereislittlemore than remote likelihood that the officially adopted schedules can, in fact, be mot.
Schedule delays have a direct irpact on the overall cost of the projects....These extentions expose construction costs to the impact of increasing inflation.
~
The low probabilities of achieving the schedules, as established by the risk analysis, were not discussed by the Board [of Directors] when the schedules were aoopted.
The Committee was unable to find evidence that the officially adepted completion dates for the plants are used by WPSS management to monitor or control the progress of work at the plant sites.
Moreover, Permittee has comraitted to the NRC Staff that:
the final design of WNP-1 will satisfy the requirements of eny future regulations promulgated between the date of docketing and the resumption of construction of WNP-1 from which WNP-1 would otherwise be grandfathered by virtue of its date of docketing. A Supply System letter dated June 11, 1982 makes that committment... ,
Letter to R. Ferguson, WPPSS from D.G. Eisenhut, NRR, NRC, July 16, 1982. Clearly with the committment refered to above, four years (over and above the time for construction halt) is not sufficient time in-which to build the plant. The time requested for the extention.is not reasonable, nor is it adequate, and further requests for extensions would be even more reasonable.
Thus, there exists no record to shew that Permittee's actions to suspend the construction are "beyond the control of the permit holder"
, o
-5" as required for a finding of " good cause" under 50.55(b) or that the time requested is reasonable. Such actions as were taken by the Permittee were intentional and therefore " dilatory".
- Respectfully submitted,
(
Dated this day the lith .- <z /
of February, 1983 Nina Bell, CF5P 4
1 1
e mm
UNITED STATES OF. AMERCIA NUCLEAR REGULAT0*tY COMMISSION 97, git BEFORE Ti:E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 83 FEB15 N150 In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-397CP ,
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM ) S0-460GP g 6c T M. b:.
) BgAttCH (WNP-182)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC E I hereby certify that copies of " COALITION FOR SAFE POWER AMENDED CONTENTION NO. 2 - FEB. 11, 1983" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, on this lith day of February, 1983: ,
l Herbert GEossman, Chairman "Nicholes S. RQ nolds ASLB Debevoise & Lieberman USNRC 1200 Seventeenth St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 Glen 0, Bright Administrative Judge ASLAB Panel ASLB USNRC USNRC Washington, D.C. .20555
. Washington, d,c. 2c555
- State of Washington Dr. Jerry Harbour Energy Facility Site Evaluation Administrative Judge '
Couno 11 ASLB Mail Stop PY-11 USNRC Olympia, Wa, 98504 Wa.shington, D.C. 20555 -
~
l Decketing and Service Section William D. Paton, Esq.
i USNRC ffi e f the Executive l
Washington, I>.C. 20555 Legal Director .
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Gerald C. Sorensen Commission l
Manager, Licens ing Program Washington, D.C. 20555 .
_. 300 George Washington Way Richland, Wa, 99352 4 L U- b W ina Bell -
Intervenor for CFSP
.. _