ML16340B563
| ML16340B563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Furbush M PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104020783 | |
| Download: ML16340B563 (16) | |
Text
pe REGS P
~4 0
Cy y%
L, O
- g n W**y+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos.:
50-275/323 Nr. Nalcolm H; Furbush Vice President
- General Counsel
, Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company P. 0.
Box 7442 77 Scale Street San Francisco, California 94106 J'l~
Harch 25, 1981
~yU>-~"
e-', ~CfjP~ "
Dear Yjr. Furbush:
As you are aware, the U.S.
Congress requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ma'or acti provide the Subcommittee on Energy and Mater Development a mon hl t
th j
ons taken on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new y repor on e
facilities.
In a letter da e
er ated February 17, 1981, the SubcoIImittee on Energy and a er Development requested that the monthly report be amended to include various information for each impacted plant.
One category of additional information im acted unit in a requested is the utility's best estimate of the monthly t t t
p uni in an inactive status while awaiting a full power operating license.
It is re uested that q
you provide such an estimate including separate costs of replacement energy and the capital expense during the dela "h
IRC p
'nformation received to Congress.
For your information, enclosed yperio.
I ei report to Congress.
is NRR.'s estimate of the cost of delay which we plan to incl d 'h tl I
1 8.
ue in e
arcI 91 Your estimate should be provided orally to the Project Manager by noon Friday, Parch 27, 1981 and confirmed in writing by April 3 1981.
Pl
.f 1
lo d'
'di hi i fo Sincerely,
Enclosure:
NRR's Estimate of Cost of Delay cc:
See next page Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
r P' l I
h 4
>gr
/
/ i;; <') ~
".~
Hr. Malcolm H. Furhush Vice President
- General Counsel Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94106 cc:
Philip A. Cranp, Jr.,
Esq.
Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company P.O.
Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94106.
Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Puhlic Utilities Commission 350 YcAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 l'ir. Frederick Eissler, Pres. ident Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.'623 Vore Mesa Orive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth.hpfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Nr. Gordon A. Silver Ys. Sahdra A* Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry N. Willis, Esq.
Seymour 8 Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Nr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical Associates Suite K
1723 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose, California 95125 Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406
Hr. Malcolm H. Furhus'h ceo Resident Inspector/Diablo Canyon NPS c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis'sion P. 0.
Box 396 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Elizabeth S.
Bowers, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic, Safety 8 Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety 8 Licensing Board V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard S.
Salzman; Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety E Licensing Appeal Board U.
S. Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. W.
Reed Johnson Atomic Safety 5 Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety
& Licensing Appeal Board V. S. Huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ns.
Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 John R. Phillips, Esq.
Simon Klevansky, Esq.
Margaret Blodqett, Esq.
Mario'n P. Johnston, Esq.
Joel
- Reynolds, Esq.
Center for Law in the Publ'ic Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90067
Nr. Nalcolm H. Furhush CC:
Paul C. Valentine, Esg.
321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Nr. Byron S. Geergiov Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Nr. John Narrs Nanaqing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram - Tribune ITtTTl P. 0.
Box 112
'an Luis Obispo, California-93406 Herbert H. Brown, Esg.
Hill, Christopher 8 Phillips, P.C.-
1900 N Street, W.M.
Mashington, O.C.
20036 Nr. Richard E. Blankenburq, Co-Publisher Nr. Mayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter South County Puhlishlng Company P.
O.
Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Mr. 11alcolm H. Furbush 4
CC:
Mr. James
- 0. Schuyler Yice President
- Nuclear Generation Department Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94106 Bruce Norton, Esq.
Suite 202 3216 North 3rd Street
- Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Mr. M. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0.
Box 355 P'ittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Michael R. Klein, Esq.
Wilmer, Cutler 8 Pickerino 1666 K Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
Suite 709 1735 Eye Street, H.
W.
Mashington, D. C.
20006 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and l.icensina Board Panel U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Thomas S.
Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashinoton, D.C.
20555 Marjorie Hordlinger, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion Washinoton, D.C.
20555
COST OF DELAY Table 1*identifies ten nuclear units where the estimated construction completion date precedes
.the comoletion of the licensing effort.
The NRR staff was asked to develop estimates of the costs that will be incurred as a result of these licensing delays.
These estimates appear in the attached Table 2.
One should bo cognizarit lhat the estim I are highly sensitive to underlying assumptions which are subject to much uncertainty (fuel price escalation, sources of replacement energy available, expected performance of the nuclear unit in'ts initial commercial start-up, etc.).
- Thus, the values reported in Table 2 shoul!'.
only be viewed as benchmark estimates.
Cost of Re lacement Engrg The selection of an alternative. energy source is not something one can r< id:ly predict.
Logically, the utility will rely upon the least
<<xpensive
<iltr <na'.iv" available.
<lowev< r. what is avai <able will <lop<<nd on the system cal icilv m'x and the demands exis'ing on the system during the delay period.
Dependi<<g on these
- factors, replacement energy may be supplied by sorae combination of
- base, intermediate, and peaking.units utilizing varying fuel sources, or thru outside purchases.
For the purpose of this assessment, the staff has assumed that all rupia!:ement energy will be made-up by capaci ty alre<idy nn the applicant's sy"'t.er.:.
a system is heavily committed to a particular energy source, rrl>1ace:;:ent energy is viewed as coming totally from that source.
If a sysl:.m's c'<.p<'ity is heavily distribu"ed among two or more fuel sources, the replacem<<nt
<:.rorriy is assumed to be equally distributed among those energy sources..
It is assumed that the nuclear unit would have operated at an avcri:;e ca:<acity factor of 60K during the delay period.
The fuel costs in mills pei
~.! h
<r!'ased on the following assumptions, The fuel cost for coal, oil, a
d na:or<1 gas is based on actual values (4 per Nl BTU) paid by each ul.ility., nf lui.
These values were converted to mills per klih based on average plant, heat r".
of 11,000 BTU per kWh for oil and gas-fired plants and 10,000 BTU l>er kHh f:
coal fired plants, These costs were then escalated at a n<iminal lOI, per y~'<
to reflect estimated costs in the 1981-83 timeframe.
The nucl<<.<r t'uel c<i is based on a 1977 estimate of 7.83 mills per kMh (assume.
no i.c;cia}, '.
escalated at a nominal rate of 5X per year to reflect estimated -n.t in 'I<<
1981-83 timeframe.
These nuclear fuel cost assumptions aru ba:.<> '<ibl": >
of NUREG -0480 (Coal and Nuclear:
A Comparison of the Cost of ';.<:<ra"in<
Baseload Electricity by Region).
Ca ital Ex ense During the Dela Period The capital expense represents the interest charges associateri with carryir<<'he capital investment during the delay period.
For the purpu:.<'s o: this analysis it is assumed that interest accrues on the completed capital co;.'f the facility at the annual rate of 10K per year.
It is our pn'il.: <n this does not represent a real cost to the utility or its rutep<iy<<r'-
'.<ut rather shifts thr financial burden from one group to the orb.r
<l r <<
payments) and shi fts payments in time.
Thus for example, il
<l << <.,
l
" not enclosed
. 'per'iod the state VLC does not allow the interest i
~.'hrough to the rat.cpayer, the stockhold.. 's a id.. i ti1ity will be recuir
~
'ecome operaLional, these add tional inter capitalized and recovered by the utilit f 11'f b
th til t old f
th t th Mt t
1 y, hereas t e tepayers ll b ill b dhi h
h b
t' It carrying charges durinq th d
1 is argued that what t e
e ay period can b
carrying charges of the future.
s o
money to enablee them to repay the additiona'.
I This neutral position with respect to increased ca i to a number of simplifying assumptions:
a.
During the period of delay, the mon a.
y, e money retained by i.u..tomers o ierwise be,paid in rates if th operating can be invest d
t f to tho o t
'd b th e
a inancial r t in its const ti k '
y e utilit in ion wor in progress account.
b There is adequate regional ower pl commitments to e'xpedite completion a
ere is no need to make real economic r
'c resource o p o
o" o""
9 c.
ihe delayed nuclear unit does not d
d 1
'od h th t 't uc at its usefu'l operational life is d.
The delayed start-up does"not result in th technologically obsolete durin the een stretched out because of the
COST OF REPLACEHEIIT BIERGY AHO CAPITAL EXPEIISE INCURRED OUE TO LICBISIIIG DELAYS UNI T COST REPLACBIEHT IIIX Vitae COAL OIL
~ALI. COST ESTIHATES ARE ftt CUPREttT DOLLA~RS OF' REPLACEHEtIT ENERGY Average Cost of Replace-ment Fuel sti-ma ted Length of Delay Total Replace-ment Energy Cost 1:x 10 Incre-Huclear rental Fuel Fuel Cost Cost FUEL GAS Hills k~llh Pli 1'ls
~kNh Hl1'Is kMh Ro ths Replace-ment Energy Cost Per Honth 1 xlO CAPITAL Est Ima ted Capital Cost of Unit at Completion 1 xlO Capital Expense Delay During Delay Period EXPEttSE Capital Expense Per I'anth
$ 1 x 10 Senner Diab1 o Canyon 1
Diablo Canyon 2
San Onofre 2 2 intr~r HcGuire 1
Susquehanna I
Materford 3 Stiureham 1
Coranche Peak I
900 50 50 1084
'106 1100 100 100 100 I110 8?0 1150 100 IGO
'92 50 50 1180 100 1050 50 50 62.2 68.4 60.3 16.9 37.2 50.7
- 41. 3 100 26.6 9.5 10.0 9.5 10.0 9.5
)0.0 10.5.
10.0 10.5 52.7 58,4
- 50. 8 34.6 7.4 27.2 40.2
- 31. 3 16.1 31.1 10.0 21.1 66.4 8.3 300,2 25,0 141,4 28.3 147.0 24.5 36,0 12.0 41.8
.3.8 100.0 12.5 58,5 19,5 11.2 11.2 16.2
- 8. 1 1050 840 1820 1030 770 1840 1230 2210 1120 53,3 6.7 105.0 8.8 35.0 7.0 91.0 15.2 25.8 8.6 70.6 6.4 122.7 15.3 30.8 I0.3 18.4 18.4 18.7 9.3
- acco: panying tiit for explanation and un'~ rlying assumptions
'I
~ j,
'I ll