ML17212B142
| ML17212B142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110150601 | |
| Download: ML17212B142 (25) | |
Text
Dir 1
~
~ ~gg hfgI 1
0
~o p
~'
l
+~+
+~
0+
~ +
CHAIRMAN UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINCTON, D. C. 20555 September 30, 1981 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman SubcomIittee on Enero~
and Mater
. Development CImnittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives
'Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Nr. Chairman:
This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House
'. Report 96-1093.
Enclosed is our eleventh report covering the period from August 15, 1981 to September 15, 1981.
This eleventh report discusses the actions that were taken during this period on operating reactors and licensing reviews of new facilities.
During the reporting'eriod, a full-power license.was issued to Sequoyah Unit 2.
In.addition, a low-power license was issued to Diablo Canyon Unit 1
on September 22, 1981.
After receiving the low-power license, Pacific Gas and Electric Company discovered that certain piping may not be properly analyzed for seismic loads.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has hal ed fuel loading until reanalysis of affected piping is canpleted.
During this reporting period, applicant changes in estimated construction canpletion dates have occurred for seven plants.
The estimated construction canpletion dates have been revised as follows:
Diablo Canyon Unit 2 has been revised fran October 1981 to July 1982; Summer 1
has been revised from November 1981 to December 1981; Watts Bar Units 1
and 2 have been revised fran June 1982 to August 1982 and irom March 1983 to June 1983, respectively; Zimmer 1
has been revised from November 1981 to July 1982; Comanche Peak 1
has been revised fran Dec@aber 1981 to June 1982; South Texas 1
has been revised from September 1983 to July 1984.
Because of these'pplicant changes in construction canpletion schedules, the projected total delays have decreased from 42 months in the last report to 21 months in this report.
Further changes are likely, 'and the number of delay months at all of the affec.ed units will.change accordingly.
The statf is analyzing the schedules for FENA indinos on offsite emergency plans.
The staff is assessing the potential impact of thes'e schedules on the licensing progress.
The potential impacts have not been reflected in this report.
Canmissioners.
Gilinsky and Bradford note that, if the NRC meets its schedules and if adjustments are made for applicants'ctual schedules and for recent revision of the'ow power licensing process, the number of future delay months is likely to be between zero and five.
The Honorable Tom Bevi11 Me have expanded Table 2 to include all plants for which OL applications have beentendered, thereby indicating all plants for which HRC OL review is underway.
Me have also added a new Table 3 to show the projected licensing schedules for pending Construction Permit and Manufacturing License applications.
Sincerely, Hunzio J.
Pa ladino
Enclosure:
HRC Monthly Status Report to Congress cc:
The Honorable John T. Myers
NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS This is the eleventh monthly status report to Congress in response to the direction given in. House Report 96-1093.
This report provides a discussion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities during the'period of time between August 15, 1981 and September 15, 1981.
OPERATING REACTORS
,; Thermal Shock To Reactor Pressure Vessels During the last month, no new information has come to our attention that would alter the staff's conclusion that no immediate licensing actions are required for operating reactors.
Because the implementation of any pr oposed remedial actions must allow for adequate lead time, letters were sent to the licensees of eight plants requesting further information to enable the staff to assess what actions may be required to resolve this issue.
The eight plants (Ft. Calhoun, Robinson 2,
San Onofre 1, Maine Yankee, Oconee '1, Turkey Point 4, Calvert Cliffs 1 and Three Mile Island 1) were selected on the basis of their vessel irradiation history and their plant system characteristics.
This effort is progressing in parallel wi th the generic review presently underway by the owners groups.
The. staff has also held meetings with the owner groups thi s month to review progress on the thermal shock issue.
~
~
~
~
~02 w OPERATING LICENSE APPL!CATIONS Licensing Schedules During the past month, the emphasi s on licensing activities continued to
.be on operating license applications.
During thi s period, the staff issued a Final Environmental Statement, on Fermi 2,
a Safety Evaluation Report on Gr and Gulf and Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) on Susquehanna and Shoreham.
In addition, a fu11-power license was issued for Sequoyah Unit 2.
The present licensing schedules for plants projected by utilities to be completed in 1981 and 1982 are given in Table l.
Additional units at the same site with projected completion dates in 1983 are included in Table l.
The preliminary, licensing schedules for plants with lead units projected to
'I be completed in 1983 and beyond are given in Table 2.
Table 2 was modified to include all plants projected to be completed in 1983 and. beyond for which OL applications have been tendered, and thus indicates all plants for which HRC OL review is underway.
The schedules are based on standard assumptions for. review and hearing times, except for those plants that are expected to
'be'heavily contested (Byron 1, Seabrook 1,
and Midland 2).
For those
- plants, we have projected a 13-month (rather than the typical ll-month)
'hear i ng schedul e from i ssuance of our SSER to Commi ssi on deci si on date.
The staff review process for those cases has been accelerated to compensate for the additional time allotted for the hearing process.
The potential delays between construction completion and projected issuance of a full-power operating license are presented based on the applicant's expected construc-tion completion date.
The staff is. analyzing the schedules for FEHA findings on off-site emergency preparedness.
The schedules provided for. findings on off-site emergency preparedness may cause licensing delays for many facilities.
This month we have added a Table 3 giving the status and projected schedules
'for pending Construction Permit applications.
There are uncertainties associated with the dates for the ASLB Initial
- Decision, Commission Decision, and Applicant Construction Completion.
As the delays are reduced to small values, these uncertainties become more significant and have the potential to impact the. totals.
Cost Estimates The MRC is obtaining cost estimates associated with the licensing delays from the Department of Energywn a monthly basis.
Their latest estimates, dated September 14, 19Sl, are set forth in Attachment l.
Commission Actions to Improve the Licensin Process The Commission is amending its recently adopted final rule on review procedures for Licensing Board decisions granting power reactor operating license applica-ti'ons.
The Commission will retain to itself the decision as to whether a plant will be allowed to go'into commercial operation, i.e.,
receive a full-power license.
However',
the rule is being modi fied so as to delete the requirement that the Commission conduct an effectiveness review prior to fuel loading and low-power testing, and to make other clarifying changes.
The reconsideration is prompted by Commission experience in reviewing several recent'cases.
~ ~
The staff is analyzing the potential effect of the rule change on li'clensing delays.
The results of the staff analysis will be reported in the next report to the Subcommittee.
7t may result in further reductions in delay estimates.
PLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF DELAYED PLANTS The following is a discussion of the status of the potentially delayed facilities.
Although not projected to. be.a delayed plant, Shoreham Unit 1 is included in thi s di scussi on since some major milestones are being delayed.
Because of a number of applicant changes in construction completion schedules, the projected total delays have decreased from 42 months in the-last report to 21 months'erein..
San Onofre Unit 2 - On June 3, 1981, FERA issued an interim finding
~
- . regarding the conduct of the San Onofre emergency preparedness drill which was performed on May 13, 1981.
The applicant is currently undertaking "hose corrective actions identified in the FEMA interim finding.
The hearing on a full-power license started on June 22,
- 1981, and testimony on seismic issues has been completed.
Testimony on emergency planning issues started during August, 1981.
The applicant has filed a motion with the Licensing Board for consideration of a decision regarding a low-power license.
A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for February 1982.
The estimated construction completion date is October 1981
~
A four-month delay is projected for this facility if the low-power license is not granted.
2.
Diablo Canyon Units 1
and 2 - A favorable Licensing Board decision on low-power operation,was issued on July 17, 1981.
However, the low-power decision was not complete until the Appeal Board issued its decision on physical security matters.
This decision was issued on September 9,
1981.
A Commission Order permitting issuance of a l.ow power license was issued on September 21, 1981, and a low. power license was issued on September 22, 1981.
The Commission directed that two additional con-
.tentions be admitted to the full-power proceeding.
In addition, a.
Board order on full-power contentions postpones a ruling on equipment, qualification issues until the staff's review of this issue is complete and other parties have had an opportunity to review the staff SSER.
The appli-cant' initial submittal on. equipment qualification was not complete.
The staff worked closely with the applicant to assure that the necessary infor-mation was provided in an expeditious manner.
The staff conducted an audit during the week of August 31, 1981, and plans to issue an SSER on this matter by early October 1981.
Since the Board has indicated that it will finalize the full-power hearing schedule when the staff's SSER is issued, the'earing is projected to start in October 1981, and a deci sion regarding a full-power license is projected for February 1982.
The construction 1
completion date for Unit 1 was in Harch 1981.
A nine-month delay is projected for Unit 1, but this takes no account of the recently discovered problems in the licensee's seismic analysi's.
The estimated construction completion date for Unit 2 has-been revised from October 1981 to July 1982.
The projected delay for Unit 2 has been eliminated.
3.
Shoreham Unit 1 - A pre-ACRS review supplement.
to the SER was issued the first. week of September, with 20 open items requiring information from the
~
~
applicant, commitments from the applicant, or technical issues remaining for resolution.
The ACRS meeting is scheduled for October 15, 1981.
A post-ACRS supplement to the SER is projected to be issued following the ACRS meeting..
A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for September
- 1982, which is concurrent with the estimated construction completion date.
4.
Summer Unit, 1 - The SSER was issued on April 28, 1981.
'The FES was.
issued on May 21 1981.
The hearing started on June 22, 1981
~
A decision 7
on a'full-power license is projected for January 1982.
The construction
.completion date is projected for December 1981.
The projected delay has been reduced from two months to one month.
S.
Susquehanna Utn't 1 - The ACRS meeting was held on August 6,
- 1981, and a
1 ACRS letter was received on August ll, 1981..A post-ACRS SSER was issued on September 4, 1981, with four open items remaining to be resolved..
The start of the hearing is now scheduled for October 6, 1981.
A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for June 1982.
A two-month delay is projected for this facility.
h
&7&
I'.
0 ~
EC'.
Zimner Unit 1 - A SSER was issued on June 4, 1981.
Issuance of an additional SSER addressing resolved issu'es is scheduled for October 1981..
Recommencement of the hearing is projected. for February 1982.
A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for July 1982.
The applicant has revised the estimated construction completion date from November 1981 to July 1982.
The projected eight-month delay for this facility has been eliminated.
7 ~
Waterford Unit e
w 3 - Th SER as issued on July 9, 1981.
The ACRS meeting was held on August 6 1981 Staffing and management, issues were identi-fied by the ACRS as requiring further review.
Late comment comments received on. the
- DES, and the applicant's announced planned.consolidation with Hew Orleans Public Service, have delayed issuance of the FES to Septem ber 30 1981.
This delay will have no impact on the hearing schedule or licensing.
A decision regarding a full-'power license is 'projected for November 1982.
The estimated construction comp etion a
e i 1 t d te is October 1982..
A one-month delay i s projected for this facility.
4 M!
8 Comanche Peak Unit 1 - The SER was issued in July 1981 with over 40 open items.
A pre-ACRS supplement to the SER is projected to be issued in October 1981; The ACRS meeting is now scheduled for Hovemb'er p
b'er 12 1981.
A post-ACRS SSER is projected to be issued in December 198.1.
The FES is projected to be issued on Septem er b
18 1o81.
.The hearing on selected issues is now
'cheduled to begin in Decem er T e b
1481.
The full-power hearing schedule ren'ains unchanged and is projected to begin in March 1982.
A decision regarding a
full power license is projected for October 1982.
pp
'he a
licant recently informed the HRC that construction completion cannot be earl' earlier than June 198 The projected 'elay wi no e
'll t
xceed 4 months.
Informal information pro-
~
vided to the staff indicates a construction complet f
tion date for the facility after October 1982.
Therefore, the. projected delay may be eliminated in the future.
FULL-POMER LICEHSES Sequoyah Unit 2 A five percent power license for Sequoyah Unit 2 was issued on June 25, 1981.
A full-power license was issued on September 15, 1981.
COHSTRUCTIOH PERMIT APPLICATIOHS The staff is continuing to review the 'MI-related items for those CP and ML'pplicants who have submitted information regarding the TMI-related matters (Pilgrim 2, Aliens Creek 1, Skagit 1
and 2, and FHP 1-8).
The staff issued its SSER for Pilgrim 2 in June
- 1981, and issued its SSER for Aliens Creek 1
in July 1981.
The applicant, for'ilgr'im 2 cancelled the facility on September 24, 1981.
The staff reviews of the TMI-related information for FHP Units 1-8 and Skagit Units 1
and 2 are in progress.
Results of its reviews are expected to be issued in September 1981 for FHP Units l-g, and in October.1981 for
- . Skagit Units
'l and 2.
The projected licensing schedules for pending Construc-tion Permit (CP) and Manufacturing License (ML) applications are given in Table 3.
On August 27, 1981, the Commission approved a final rule regarding TMI related re ments applicable to Construction Permit and Manufacturing License. Applications filed prior to the TNI-2 accident.
The rule is projected to be publi'shed'in October 1981 in the Federal Register and will be effective 30 days after publication.
1.
Licensing Schedules CY 1981 - 1982 Plants.
2.
Licensing Schedules CY 1983 Later Plants 3.
Licensing Schedules CP and ML Applications
Attachment:
DOE Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays
~',
~
~ CY 190) - 1902 I'thn)5 10ascd.on tea) Unit; tlstcd fn OFr)tr of ProJtcted Cog siss)on Declslon Date) nlyl5 lnn n( I lrLHSInn 9/IS/nl SlR SSfR Plant tsSalle I
Grand Gulf I Surnocr I Matts nar I
lst
((el sy fl:snths)
Issue
, DLS Ce Staff lechn(cal Issue ACRS
~lr (
DL rrR lllr C
C Issue flS Sta(f Itchn(ca)
Issue
)~nut Lo 04 SSf.h C
C C
C c
9/18/AI 6/ 10/9/nl 11/I 2/01 C
C C
C I I/26/Al I2/\\ I/hl C:
~
C C
10/)5/hl 9/25/nl lo/25/AI II/IS/nl t~n. )/ App'I.
Utt..
(.nnstr, Ua\\e Coup) r I 0/AI 12/HI ASI.A Star) nf
)nit lsl
((tiring Utc 1 5 )or(
Hunt Hone Anne Hrrne It/Ol It/AI
'2/nl Un/At C
I2/AI U( /AZ none
~
Hone Ul/AZ Diablo Canyon I 9
C
.C C'
')/Jo/al 6/
lo/al 1/
Ul/nz Ut/AP UJ/nl Diablo Canyon 2
0 C
C C
C C
C.
9/3o/nl c/
10/nl 1/
Ul/82 U1/02 UL/02 San Onofre 2
C C
C C
C C
C C
I /At 01/Ht 10/0 I taS ~ll>> 2 I)cculrc Z Susquehanna I
MHP-2 t lrrroer San Onofre'3 fervrl 2 Shorthsra I
CallsMay I Conanche Peat I
0 C
C 2/Iz/az 3/Iz/at C
C-C C
4/09/82 CI C
12/31/nl 4/30/At C
C 9/22/81 C
c 6/0 I/nt 5/ZA/02 10/0 1/hl 1/01(82 lo/n) 2/
us/nt I(6/hz oc/at Hone Hone 01/nt It/At oz/nt 06/ot of/nt u1/nt ol/ot on/nz Un/nz C
C C
'C C
9/14/01 9/2 5/AI lt/Al t/
Un/Hz Un/At l)/Ut C
C C
ID/15/01 9/2 5/8 I 9/25/nl 10/09/01 11/12/hl C
II/02/hl I I/16/nl
~
02/(It oh/nt 0')/At 01/A1.
I/15/ht I I/ZU/hl II/t1/nl 11/Al 3/
Uq/ht IU/At Ir)/At C
C C
ll/I2/81 9/18/01 12/Ul/nl lt/11/nl 12/Al 2/
09/nt IU/AZ Unr/AZ C
C C
C C.
C/Ol/02 5/Ul/82 Hone Hone 06/nt U6/nz C
C C
C C
4/0)/At 5/Ul/02 c
r.
((6/nt 06/Ut St. Lucle 2 I'slo Yards I Materford 3 Mst'ts Dsr 2 Susqvehanna 2
0 10/16/a)
C lo/0'1/Al 11/I2/nl I/15/ht 11/20/Al II/Zl/nl Io/23/al lo/oq/81 11/06/nl It/lo/nl 2/lz/82 lt/In/nz lt/)I/nl C
C C
9/30/al 5/ 9/10/n)
)O/09/nl'/ll/al 6/ lo/09/Al II/It/01
~ C C
C C
~
I/0) /A3 C
Z/Ul/01 2/01/n) 3/Ul/0)
I'alo Ycrde 2
Corrrsnc (le Pt A 2 0
C 10)ht 2T 0/9/
C II/I2/Al 9/Ih/hl Ih/Ul/nl 11/Ul/Ol 0
lo/t3/Ol 10/09/nl ll/06/nl lt/In/Al 2/It/nt 1/0)/03 10/Ul/A)
Oa/At 01/nt 10/At IU/AP 05/Az Io/02 II/Uz II/nt 03/nt lo/At ll/02 ID/ht Mone Anne 01/n 3 t)G/(0 lo/9) t/
Us/nz UL/n) os/A.l 05/at IO/r)Z 11/hl 11/0)
It/nl 2/
UA/nt Itin)
Iz/AJ I/
tletnS)ng SChtdu)eS Snd DCC)SIOn Datta dO nnt rtf)CCL add)Liana) pOtentlal InpaCL fra ~ lortrgenty PrtpartdneSS rt<<trr.
'I(reae pOlentl ~ I dr)arS pr'R based on'trvtrgency Prtpsrtdrrcss flndfn9 Ates ss rt(vrrtcd In ft((h/HAC Report an lmergchf)'ytf(lrphh(lt) tp'Jn)ralttcd lu thr Sob(rv~vlt(ft on I(>>r)tar 2/ ((caring on llultrd stltc(td Issues rul I hearing schcrhrft reaalns unchangerl, hencr'SLA In(tlal Reels)on datoS rMa n unr. ranqt 3/
Ot Construct)on r(el lelrocy Issue only.
4/
DOard Order On lull Puufr OPtrat)On rCSCrVed Jud9aent On the Cqu)POCnt r(rra))I)eat)On Cantentlana.
'APPIICant r)14 n)t )rSSS In)tlat Staff audits St ~ff estlnstts SStR on this Issue Lo be coop)cte on Septtoher )U, 19hl.
S/
tate c(rn tnts rtcclved on DLS havt delayed frS to ')/)0/hl.
hop)leant announce I trlanncd consol(dation ulth Atu Orleans ('ubl)c Strv)ct nay further delay lisusnce of fthm, ba5e I on appl(cant 5 ahl) lty Ln prov(dc flnanclal,ln(irvatlon.
6/
l(ecting schtrlultd for late Stpttro(rer I')hl, at app))cant'5 rtr(vest, Lo discuss I)censing schedule.
7/
1ht proJecttd date for an off-site ceergency prcpsrtrlncss f)odin) uas nnL vrtt.
Ibis raay lnphct Lhe hearing sche brit'.
8/
fl(teen nnnths art proJtcttd (n the future, sin vronths have hccn rts) lttd.
~
~
~
' t nl 1lhP n
a L L
.I. I J
4 3
a.
r.
(AD)LE 7.
~
(Inc(i)des all OL Ap)il(caT(nns lcm(cred to nate) 0(vis(On or I.lrznslno '- 9/ls/nl P lant.
Est Aclay (I(on(As
)
Staff Issue leclu) Ical Issur.
Of s Input to OL SCII Ssf.ll Stal'f-ACI(S Issur.
Iechnlcal Issue lite FCS Input tn OL SSEII ASI.A Cnaan. I/
App1
.'tart nf lnltlal Orc.
Constr.
IIear lng Occ I s lnn Da tr.
C()nipI.
nyrnn I 0
11/o5/Al I/01/AZ 2/01/Az 3/01/Az 1/o. /AZ 3/lo/02 3/30/02 Cl lntnn 1
0 II/01/01 17/05/Al I/05/nZ 2/O5/nz
. 3/15/nZ 2/IZ/02 Z/Zn/AZ Mnlf Crcck I 0
I/As/AZ 3/01/AZ 1/01/Az 5/01/AZ G/05/AZ 5/ln/AZ 5/30/07 o1/Az 10/AZ An/Az z/
17/07.
01/03 01/03 03/A.l 01/I).3 0'I/A.l ol/I)3 oh/nl nh/03 Perry 1
I(ldland 2 2/05/nz 1/lo/02 5/lo/nz G/ll/n2 1/o5/nz G/15/nz 6/3o/nz I
z/05/A?.
1/06/Az 5/ori/Az G/AG/07.
1/05/07.
G/10/nz 6/30/Az 11/A7 01/fl3 0'i/fl3 OS/03 11/07. 2/
06/03 01/03 01/03 A(ver nend I 0
Scahrnok 1
0 1/o5/n2 9/01/nz lo/oh/02 Il/os/nz
- 12/o5/Az 11/on/n?.
Il/29/nz I
5/Osi/02 0/01/02 9/01/AZ 10/On/AZ 10/05/AZ 10/10/AZ 10/30/07 Nlilland I 0
2/05/AZ 1/06/AZ 5/OG/Az 6/OG/07.
1/05/AZ lo/01/03 11/Ol /03 5o. Tc>> s 1
0 1/OI/03 6/01/03 1/Ol/03 n/O1/n3 9/OZ/n3 O/lh/n3 n/lI/nl ncl lcfonte I Llmcrlck 1 I(arrl s I 1/n1 5/nh 10/0l 11/03 7/03 10/03 ll/03 12/Al.
1/03 1/03 0/03 ri/A3 1/nl S/n.l 5/A3 10/03 10/07 0/03 3/03 IZ/A3 01/nh nra I(liinod 0
A I /Ah 11/03 17/03 I/01 G/Ah 1/Ah O.i/I)1 Cata~ha I
. 0 5/OS/AZ 1/Og/nZ 0/OG/OZ 9/In/OZ 10/05/AZ 9/IZ/AZ 9/3O/AZ 02/03 01/nl 03/03 2/
I I/07 ol/nh I)nnr.
oh/nh or>/01 II)/O'I 01/03 on/03 on/03 09/Al 10/O.l 10/03 lo/nl 11/n.l 11/nl ori/03 17/03
~
I?/03 nri/nh n1/01 o1/nh Anne I)f/nh Or/nh nc/nh ln/nh ln/nh I I/f)h 12/O'I 12/Ah 0 I/ASi O'I/Asi 01/AS Total lf-I/
Ccnnnlsslon Occlslnn nate'ncs nnt reflect addltlonal potcntlal
!epact fren rmrrgcncy Prcpareilncss rcvlcii.
2/
Ilcavlly contested plants rrflect 13-inonth hrarlng scliedwle (vs 11 inonths) frcxa SSrn tn Cnninlsslnn drrlslnn ilatc.
Cnininlssloncr Ahearc reinalns cnnvlnccrl this sclieilulcd Is too nptlinlstlc.
1'hlltE 3
'srnruS nun PAWECIElt r<<curd;I SCurnulES Fon PEttntltn conslnu'erron I FAIIIr'uI Llcnr Ious I<IVI5 IOll Ot Llt:fO'S IHni O/Igi/AI SSEA IIIII Issues)
SSfn (Hon-Ithl Issues)
Plant P l1 grl<<< Z 5/
FHP I-0 AIIens Crack I Alack I'ox I tt Z Issue DES Skagl t/Ilanford I II 2 3/02 I/
Pebble 5prlngs I II 2 Pcrklnc 1, 2, 3
Issue I ES 0/02 'll Staff fachnlcaI Input to DL I'I/nl H/5 H/5 3/
Issue ssr.n 9/IA/nl If/AI 10/0 I H/5 3/
Sta If 1cchn leal In ut to Dt 9/15/01 2/42 h/AZ H/5 H/5 Is'sue SSEB t<<CAS I'ter. ting 3/A7.
6/Az 0/5 7/nZ hl 7/AZ II/5 II/5 9/In/0 I lulnl
- lollslnl, StarL nf Ilcal'ug I I/og/nl 7llt7 3/07.
A/nz 11/nz IZ/Ol/01 H/S nstn It<itlal Dec I sion 3/tl7 7/nz rt/tl7 I/03 h/03 5/03 H/5 Cn<<n< I sc lnn Itac Isinn nate h/02 n/nz 9/nz H/5 7/
H/S 3/
I/
As a 1'cs<<<11. of flcld cxplo< atlons conducted by i<sos, thc.Sais<<<lc design of tbc facll I ty <<utst bc re-exa<<<lned.
I<Apllranls In'llcatcd )n Septrmbcr lqntl that thc proposeil faclllty Is to ba relocate<l Io thc Ilnnford reservation.
I!eroded fll anil PshR.MIII be fllrilIn Itaca<<<har Igtll.
I 2/
ln response to a h/70/Al boar<<l ol<lcr, thr. applicant stated (5/Ih/Al) an 'Intcrcst In pursuing thc ravlc><
><1 th rccp<rt Io s<v<>plctlng thc hcnrlng on environ<<>cntal and cite sultahlllty lssurs.
Ik>uaver, thc applicant has not It>dlcatc<l t<han they propose to rcsu<<<e nrtlvltlcs related tn tile safrty rcvlci<, particularly on IHI-related Issues, therefore, a Co<o<<lsslon drclslnn date Is nnt projccte<l at thlc th<<r. for this f<<sillty.
3/
Ay letter datrd 3/l7/Al, the appllsant recoc<<<>ended that Ihc HAC not devote any rase<trees Iteyottd suppor't for thc O'Itartiate cltr hrarlng for thc next,t><o years.
h/
IL ls anLlslpatc<l that ull Issues only <<III l>e illssusscd at thc hens
<<<actin<0.
5/
Faclllty canccllcd by applicant on Septew>hcr Zh, 1901.
~
~
ATTACHMENT (The recent change to the construction completion date for Diablo Canyon Unit 2 is not reflected in the attached DOE estimates.)
Note:
The estimated del ays ar e cal cul ated by the NRC from the applicant' construction completion date to the Commission Decision dam.
The estimated delays are calculated by the DOE from the applicant's construction completion date, or the current date for completed units, to the Commission Decision date.
Therefore, the DOE estimates exclude'elays from prior months for completed plants.
ESTIMA OF THE COSTS OF DELAYXN OPERATXNG LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR P Prepared by Division of Utility Systems and Emergency Communications V.S. Department of Energy September 14, 1981 This report is the sixth in a monthly series of estimates of the'osts of delay in the issuance of operating licenses of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
~
This month's report talces account of changes in the estimated length of delays and continues to provide Department of Energy (DOE) estimates of the costs of delay, in addition to revised 'estimates supplied. by utilities,.
Completion of emergency preparedness plans required under the safety review may result in delays for some plants.
DOE will provide potential cost. estimates next month for those plants which may be affected.
Summar of Results The most recently projected dates of issuance of operating licenses for new units would result in a loss of 22 months of reactor opera-tion based on the utilities'rojected dates of completion for 7 units.
(This does not include the two additional months of loss of operation projected for the undamaged TMI 1 unit;)..Last, month's es imate was 36 months for these units.
The estimated cost of. these delays, excluding TMI 1, is
$ 584 million, based on data obtained from the utilities in September, or
$ 502 million, based on independent DOE estimates.
A comparison with last month's report follows:
Uni s Delayed Sep 1981 Est imate Aug 1981 Estimate Excludina TNE-1 chanae Sept 1981 Estimate 8
Aug 1981 Estimate E ncludin TME-1 Chance months of Operation Lost Total Cost'f Delay s
( $HH)
Based on 22 36
-14 24 39
-15 Utility Data 584
-- DOE Analyses 502 715 13 1 612 608
-106 530 757
-145 650
-120 The decrease is due to mainly to delay in construction schedules.
Length of Dela The length of the delaythe number of lost months of reactor operationis estimated in Table 1.
For units still under construction, the delay is the interval between the utilities'rojected date of completion (column 4) and the NRC's projected date of issuance of operating license (column 3).
For units already com-
- pleted, the delay is based on the period from and including September 1981 through the projected month of issuance of an operatinc license.
Last month' estimate of the licensing dates are shown in column 2.
A net change of 14 months (excluding TYlE 1) has occurred in the estimated total length of delay (column 5).
The change is due to o
Delays in construction for Comanche Peak 1, Summer 1 and Zimmer 1..
For the Summer un't the change is less than one month, from ll/30/81 to 12/1/81.
For the Zimmer 1 unit the date now coincides with the operating license issuance date; therefore, the unit no longer appears on the list.
(-15 months).
o Om'ission of costs incurred in August 1981 (since past costs are not included) for Diablo Canyon 1 (-1 month)
~
o Delay in issuance of opera ing licenses for Diablo Canyon units 1 and 2.
The'RC has reported that, the delay is caused by the applicant' incomplete submission on equipment qualifications
(+2 months)
~
Costs of the Dela The cost of a delay in issuing an operating license after a
plant's physically complete is equal to:
o The total costs the entire utility system (or systems, if the unit is jointly owned) would incur to satisfy its customers'nergy requirement, based on the delayed licensing schecule, minus o
The total costs of satisfying the same energy requirement if the license had been issued when the plant was complete.
This cost differential is affected only by cost elements that change as a result of the delay--for example, fuel, purchased power, maintenance, and other special expenses.
Zt is not a fected by anticipated monthly capital carrying charges or by any other costs that would be incurred with or without the. delay
~
1 The estimated costs of delay are summar'ized in Table 2, based on two independent sources:
o One set of estimates (columns 1, through 4) was bas d
on data obtained from the owners of the units; and o
A second set of estimates (columns 5 through 8) was developed independently by DOE staff based on available data on generating resources, pooling arrangements, load projections, capacity factors, and fuel prices.
The analysis method was summarized in the May report.
The 3cey numerical assumptions are presented in Table 3.
Both sets of estimates used the same length-of-delay information (from Table 1, column 5).
I Capacity charges were not ta'ken into consideration in the DOE analyses.
Most of the utilities indicated that the replacement power for the delayed nuclear units would be generated within their own syst'ems.
Zt is possible that, in some cases, there would be a
capacity charge for purchased power, but DOE nas no current..basis for es imating its cost.
DOE's assumptions generally resulted in lower estimates for the monthly cost of replacement power (Table 2, column 5).than th e provided by the utilities (column 1)
~
Xn.addition, a few ose p
u ilities claimed special additional costs associated-with delay (footnoted in column 1).
DOE did not attempt to estimate such costs'
1 I
ThDIZ 1 Division of UtilitySystems and Ehurgency Camunications U,S. Department of Bxrgy Septcnber 14, 1901 Dh7h al wucrzhrt tens wnlt opathma r rctmp. DErhys gi Unit Camnche Peak 1
Diablo Canycx> 1 Diablo Canyon 2 San Onofre 2 anna 1
Rlaterford 3 Ca paci ty (tN)
D) 1, 150 1,004 1,106 l,l00 900 1,050 1,153 Projected Date of Ismance of Operating License
<st 1901 2
10/02 1/02K I/02l~
2/82 1/82 6/82 11/82 Projoctcd Dato of Issuance of Ot~atlng License ta~bcr 1981 10/02 2/02~2 2/82K 2/82 ly'02 6/82 11/82 Construction Can-pletion Dates Pro-joctod by Cmyany Se Ccnber 1901 6/82>
3/81 10/81 10/81 12/81 4/82 10/82 Honths of Delay 3 - (4) 4
+5 4
1 2
W Fuel Source
~6 777 Gas Self~cneratod Oil~s Solf~cnera~
Oil-Gas Sel f~encra Oil Self~enerated CoalMI1 Self~eneratod Oil~ Self~enerabxl Oil Purchasod/Self-
"generated Total new units!
(
)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
22 776 10/oil~
IO/81>~
2 J5 Oil-Coal Purchased
'ources:
UtilityConpanieo Huclcar Bec~latory Ccnmiss ion I
Covers a units or wli c
> construction is expected to bo ccmpletcd at least one month before an operating license is issued..
~ p hccording to.cuqany uam'ces, t)m )ZtC-projected dates do not reflect extxxtiting procedures available to the Ccnmission.
'I1w NtC in its harpist report to tho Devill Cannlttce ollptxxl the operating license issuance date fran 1/02 to 2/82.
g3 rNI 1 las roceivcd an otmratlng license and has been in operation.
Ilowever, tin unit was taken out of service for a routine refueling during Pcbaary
- 1979, and was not allowul to ret.urn to service following tlx. %lr 2 accident.
r1m ccapany anticipates being finiolxxlwiU> 'tttl 1 aadifications by rim cnd of 10/Ol.
NtC projects it will make a decision on the unit in 10/Ol.
gh Delay would roclucc utility',o coal-Eirod and oil-fired exports which would replace power in tin PJH pool derived frcm oil anr less efficient coal plants.
g5 Delays for tluse canpletod'nits prior to 9/81 are not includcxl.
+6
'llew cayany has hdlpatcd tlat the unit willnot be ready'or fuel loading prior to 6/82.
hn exact construction ccapletion date is under review.
s>
c
-a C
a~+
a at ThlllZ 2 Division oE UtilitySystans and Bncrgency Oanmtn(catlons U.S. Deparbncnt of Energy Septarber 14, 1991 ESTll%'I~ OOPS OI'ltHNPIKilsICDKE DlXAYS tX)R NlKXZAllUHITS
~ll Unit IIcplncuttcnt
. 'apacity ICcplacancnt t2j tsaor Co"ts Factor
. Sraor Costa
'a Tat iW Cost IIcplacancnt Power Costs Capacity Factor Replacanent Peer Costs Costs Based on Inde ndent DOE Anal sis V.~iI9 Cost Oananche Peak 1
Diablo Canyon 1
Diablo Canyon 2
San Onafre 2
-QI+knIth-(1) 18.5 26.9~~
29.7>
- 36. 0-/
70 65 65 70 3.2 5.3
'.5 6.5
-Percent-C/kwh (2)
(3)
"$%l-(4) 74 161 115 144
-$KHonth-(5) 14 5-I 26.0 26.5
'9.6
-Percent-(6) 60 60 60 60 C/kwh (7) 2.9
-$H+.
(8) 59 5.5 156 5.5 106 6.1 119 Su~channa 1
Waterford 3 12.7 25.0 27.4J>
65 65 75 3.0 5.1 4,4 l
13 50 27 8.5 19.1+
19.1 60 2s2 60 3.9 60 3.8 19 Total (new units)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 594
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 502 14.0 70 3.6 28 14.0 70 3.5 tal (inclcdllxJ IHI 1)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
aa 612
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ aa ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ 530 I
Cost o rcp acancnt peer minus fuel and operating. costs of nuclear units.
J2 Acplacancnt peer costs divided by kilowatt-lIaurs replaced.
(Colcmnr 1 -.'ohxnn 2 -.'nit capacity
-. 720 hour0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />s/nenth).
3 Derived by multiplying ntanthly replacancnt power costs (coicrnn 1) by UIc total nentlIs of delay (Table 1, colmn 5) ~
/ Cost oE fuel for 1991 est(mated by utility.
5/ Does nat inchIde other abnaonal costs oE $ 15.25 million pcr manth.
5/ Docs not include other abcmcntal costs of $2.7 million per Inanth.
Cost oE replacancnt pawcr minus nuclear fuel costs of 6 mills/kwh.
Estimates do not include capacity clIarges wldch may be incurred if power is purchased fran oUIcr, systans.
+9 Mst of delay occurs in 1992r UIcrefarcF fuel costs arc based on 1992 est)nIatcs.
9/ Derived by nultiplying nIanUIly replacancnt pawer costs (colmm 5).by total mantlIS Of delay (Table 1, colunn 5).
1C)/ tluclear fuel cost oE 10 mills/kwh are used in UIis calculation.
~H (Lecrshlp of unl.ts CanuIche Peak 1:.'I~s Electric Service Co..- 35 5/6%, Texas Power and I.ight - 31 I/2%, Dallas.Pawtcr I Light - 18 I/3%,
'IIcxis lltInicipal I'ower hgcncy - 6 1/5'1, Drazos Electric power Goop - 3 4/SlF Vm-La Electric Goop. of Texas - 4 I/3'l.
Diablo Canyon 1 and 2:
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. - 100% of IIoUI units.
San Onafrc 2:
SauUIcrn California Dlison - 76.55%;
San Diego Gas art'd Electric - 20ar City of Riverside - 1.79li C y o Bucrncr 1:
South G~rolina Gas and Electric - 66%; South Carolina Public Service auUIarity - 34%.
Susquehanna 1:
Pennsylvania Peer arel Light - 901> hllcghcny Electric Cooperative - 10%a Wat.erford 3:
Louisiana Power and Light - 1004.
'IHI 1:.'ctropalf tan Edison - 504, Jersey Central power and Light 25%I PcnIIsylvania Electric Co. 254.
~,"I RQlLE 3 Division of UtilitySystems cud Bnergency Ganmunications U.S. Department of Energy Septanber 14, 1901 mV BS"eIIVmS in IIE mrs WFS GF I57 OF'lanXm Puer Dehrs Unit Cmanclm Peak 1
Diablo Canyon 1
Diablo Canyon 2
Bcplaccment Fuel Nbc Gas (100'h)
'Oil (50 ~)>
Gas (50 0)
Oil (50 1)-
Gas (50 4)
Beplacmmnt~1/
Fuel price
~mnus-Gas 3.1&
Oil 6.50 Gas 4.90 Oil 6.50 Gas 4.90 Ilcat Bate oh Be lacanent Fuel tlIU Mx-10,911 10,670
'0,670 San Onofre 2
'Samer 1
IIaterford 3 Oil (100%)
Coal (01 i)
Oil (19 4)
Coal (33 l)+
Oil (67-%)
Oil (10015)
Coal (50
%)
Oil (50 L)
Oil 6.71 I
Goal 1.71 Oil.7.26 Coal 1.67 Oil 5.04 Oil 3.91+
Coal 1.67 Oil 5.04 1Q,Q35 Coal 10,001 Oil 9,944 Coal 10,083
- Oil 11,240 11,223 Coal 10,003 Oil 11,240
~
~
Sources U.S.. Dcpartnent of Energy, Energy Infonawtion I&ministration, FPC Foan 423.
2/ Prices are 1902 projections; all other priceS are on a 1901 basis.
g3 Dasod on ncw information, DOE lms revisod its assarqtium.
Hz. Nunzio Palladino September ll, 1981 X am interested in knowing what your personal position is on this matter and what, if anything, is being done to change some of the procedures presently employed.
A response from you at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely, C.
Sunday C.
Spong SCS/ncaa.
J ii