ML13330B539
| ML13330B539 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1991 |
| From: | Ray H SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13329A743 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107310138 | |
| Download: ML13330B539 (2) | |
Text
Southern California Edison Company 23 PARKER STREET IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 HAROLD B. RAY TELEPHONE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT July 10, 1991 4-0o Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
Dear Tom:
My letter to you dated December 28, 1990 forwarded for your information a copy of a cost-effectiveness evaluation concerning San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (SONGS 1) which Southern California Edison submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in connection with our General Rate Case. The evaluation was submitted in support of our request for authorization to make the capital expenditures required to meet the commitments confirmed in the NRC's January 2, 1990 Order.
As I discussed with you subsequently, the CPUC decided in late March 1991 to transfer consideration of our request from our General Rate Case to a separate proceeding known as the Biennial Resource Plan Update (BRPU), in which all state resource alternatives are compared and considered. Accordingly, Edison has prepared and submitted a revised cost-effectiveness evaluation, in compliance with the rules and assumptions specified for the BRPU. A copy of this revised evaluation is enclosed for your information.
At this point in its evolution, the BRPU potentially will consider a broad range of variables and assumptions. The effect of these on SONGS 1 cost-effectiveness is shown on pg. 1-2 of the enclosure. As you will note, SONGS 1 remains cost-effective for most of the sensitivities considered. The "Reference Case" refers to the case considered in our General Rate Case filing.
The "BRPU Case" refers to the required consideration that future operation of a resource will be no better than the average operation over the past 5 years (i.e., 44% capacity factor as indicated on pg. 1-6).
91073101 3 910710 PDR ADOCK 05000206 PDR
Dr. Thomas E. Murley July 10, 1991 As indicated in my earlier letter, we believe that SONGS 1 can operate at a higher average capacity factor following completion of the remaining modifications identified in the NRC Order. Therefore, a long-term capacity factor range of 60% to 80% has been selected, with 70% as a most likely assumption as discussed on pg. 1-13.
Finally, we have assumed construction period recapture following issuance of the FTOL, as discussed on pg. 2-9.
We have noted that license renewal is also a possibility, but have not included credit therefor, except as noted in the discussion of the potential for steam generator replacement on pg. 3-12.
If you have any questions or comments, or if you would like additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely, HBR:bam Enclosure cc:
John B. Martin, USNRC Regional Administrator, Region V