ML17275B373

Advises That Dates in Table 2 of Apr 1981 Bevill Rept Are Acceptable

ML17275B373
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/14/1981
From:	Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17275B372	List: ML17275B371 ML17275B373 ML20126M130
References
NUDOCS 8106110440
Download: ML17275B373 (17)

Text

gW: >CCOg p,

4 O

>>>>%%4 UNITEO STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

ATOMICSAFETY ANO LICENSING BOARO PANEL WASHINGTON, O.C 20555 May 14, 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing B. Paul Cotter, Dr. ~n~

Chief Administrative'Budge, ASLBP

SUBJECT:

LICEHSIHG SCHEDULES We have reviewed the dates in Table 2 from the April Bevill Report and find them acceptable at this date.

We cannot furnish interim dates at this time for Callaway 1 5 2, St. Lucie 2, and Palo Verde 1

5 2 because the proceedings have not progressed t'o the point of making any meaningful estimates.

For example, in the Palo Verde proceeding the first set of contentions (5 or 6) were just admitted in April, and in the St. Lucie proceedings intervenors have not yet been admitted.

We should be able to give you the date estimates requested in.he next 30 to 60 days.

ESTZHATES OP TSZ COSTS OP DE~ZING OPERATING LZCENSES

=OR NUCLEAR PLANTS Prepared by Division of Power Supply and Reliability U.S. Department of Energy May 15, 1981 This report is the second in a monthly series of estimates of the costs o

delay in the issuance of operating licenses by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

This month's reoort takes account of changes in the estimated length of delays, as well as correction of other data, that have occurred since the April 9 report was sub-mitted.

Et provides independently developed Department of Energy (DOE) estimates of the costs of delay, in addition to evised estimates based on data suppl'ed by the utilities.

Un'ike the April reoort, this month's report does not include esti>>

mates of the capital carrying costs that are

ncu ed dur'ng the delay.

These costs are not considered direct losses

'ncurred as a result of the delay.

Summa v of Resu'ts The most recently orojected dates of issuance of ope ating 1'censes or new units would result in a loss of 51 months o

reactor operation, based on the utilities'rojected dates o

completion o" ll un's.

(~his does not include the. six additional months of loss of operation projected for the undamaged TRZ 1 unit.)

Last month's estimate was 95 months or these units.

The change is due primarily to recently o ooosed changes by NRC in its licensing regulations.

The estimated cost of these

delays, excluding TPZ 1, is

$ 1,199 million, based on data obtained from the utilit'es in Hay, or

$ 955 million, based on independent DOE estimates.

A direct compa"ison with 'ast month's reoort can be mace by adding the costs of TA? i 1, and by apolying the DOE cost estimates "o last month's estimates o

the length of delay, as follows:

Un's Delayed-Months of Ope"ation

~est 2'otal Cost of Delays (8!W1 Sased on Utility Data DOE Analyses May 1981 st Ta e

( "-xcludinp eev e' 1, L99 955 May 1981

>ate

( rncl odin'2 57 1,301 1,039 Ap-il 198 L

"=stimate.

( Zncl"ding 102 2,304 1, 723 C..cree

<<L

-45

-L003 684

The large decrease in estima ed cost since last'on&.is primari'y attributable to the. proposed changes in 1'censing regulations,

which, if imp).emented, would save

$ 624 mi3.lion (based on util'ty data) or

$ 450 m'llion (based on DOE analysis)

The remaining portion of the, decrease is due to (1) slippage of construe ion schedu'es, (2) omis-sion o costs incurred in April 1981 (since past costs are not included),

and (3) revisions by utilities o data submitted for the April report.

Len th of Dela The length of the delaythe number of lost montns of reacto operation is estimated in Table 1.

t'or units st'll under construc-tion, the delay is the interval between the utilities'rojected date of complet'on (column 4) and the NRC's projected date of issuance of ope ating license (column 3),

For units al eady completed, the delay is based on the period from (but not includingj Apri3. 3.981 th"ough the p ojected month o issuance o

an operating license.

.=or comparison, last..mont%'s.eskimates,.of the licensing dates are shown in column 2.

The net change of.44 months -(excluding TNT-1) in.the estimated total length of the delays (colu~

S) is primari'y due to the assumption that changes to i"s Rules o

Practice that the NRC is now conside ing w'll be implemented and will, rest"t in a savings o

two months for each of nine reacto s.

Revisions 'n the schedule for Atom'c Sa"ety Licensing Board (ASLB) act'ons for NcGuire 1, Susquehanna lp Summe" 1.,

and Comanche peak 1 were a'so assumed to save an add,:t'onal 11 months.

These changes are discussed

'n NRC's April 30,

1981, repo " to the House Subcomm" ttee on "-nergy and hater Development.

Susquehanna.

2 is not included in this repor" because a

3.icensing delay is no longer projec ed.

An addit'on'al de3.av o

6 montns 's projected for the undamaged TNZ 'nit-Direct Costs of the Dela The cos of a delay in issuing an ope ating license a

er is physically complete is equal to:

o The total costs the e

'ncur to sat's "v '

ment, based on the

.",I'US nti"e ut'ity system (o=

's jo'nt'v ow."ed) would custome=s'ne"gy

" ql

layed censing schecu'e, o The "-otal costs of satis ving the same enercy recu'rement i" the 1'cense had bee.. issued when the plant was complete.

cerenti al is a fected, on 1 y by cos el ements tha chance as a resut t o the delavor ex~~ale, uel, purchased power, ma'n-

tenance, and other. spec'al expenses.

Zt is not a =ected by anticipated monthly capital carrying charges or by any othe costs that wou3.d be

'ncurred w'th or witRout the delay.

l

)

I

The estimated direct cos'ts of aelay are summarized in Table 2, based on two independent sources:.

o One set of estimates (columns l through 4) was based on revised data obta'ned from the owners of the units following an e

ort by DOE anc.

uti3.'tv s aff to resolve any misunderstand'ngs or inconsistencies tha may have been associated with the prelimina y data used in the Apr'3. repo t; and o

A second set of estimates (columns.

5. through 8)'as developed independently by DOE staff based on avail-able data on generating resources, pooling ar angements, load projections, capacity factors, and fuel prices.

The key assumptions used 'n this analysis are summarized in Table 3.

Both sets of estimates used the same ~leng&-of-delay information (from Table l, column 5).

Benlacement vower is the dominant contributor to the cost of licens ng de3.ays.

The-two most'mportant fac"ors a fecti~ regia'ce=

ment power cost are:

o The amount of ene cy that must be replaced--the number of lost kilowatt-hours o

reactor ou put resulting rom the delayanc o

The mix-of fuels used to generate-the reolacement powe" (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, etc. )

Amount o lost ener v:

The ut'ities assumed a capacity acto corresponcxng to a "mature" nuclear uni --one that has operated for several vears.

Capacity fac ors are normally somewhat lower for "immature" units, so the nu+L er of ki'owatt-hours actuay 'ost du

'ncI the delay '

likely to he less t'han the n nhe est'mated oy the utilities.

DOE agrees that a "mature'apac'y factor is approo iate dor es 'mat'np the total k'owatt-hou los"s, hut has

chosen, hased upon "ecent past pe""cdance (Refe ence 1),

a nume cai value (60 pe cent) that is more conse"vative than most utilit'es used.

=-uel Mix:

The utilities used a va. iety o me".'-.ocs to est'mate

"".e mix o= =uels used. to generate replacement r'.ower-e DO~ used the same gene a'pproach or a' units, but added var'ous judgmental assum~"ions based on knowledge o. certain system-specific operating conditions.

(2'or example, units that would operate as part of an

'ntegrated power pool were analyzed on the bas's of the ent're pool, rather than on the basis of the individual utty.)

DOE used the ollow'ng ana.'yt'c approach or estimating the m'x of fuels:

f

o Estimate the amount of electric energy that must'be'roduced, using recent load project'ons (Reference 2);

o dentify the generating resources available to produce this energy, not including the delayed nuclear unit (Reference 3);

o Remove rom consideration (as contributors of replace-ment power) those resources whose level of operation would be unlikely to change as a result of adding the nuclear units.

(These are generally the units with the lowest operating costs or with limitations on their operating hours. or fuel availability);

4 o

Estimate, based on recent historv (Ref erence 4)., the amount of energy contributed by each of the remaining classes of units (which 'generally include coal, oil, and poss'bly gas-fired units);

o Estimate the reduction in operation of each-class of un't if the nuclear unit is added, tak'ng account of (a)

Preferential reduction o

units with h'ghest fuel costs; (b)

Predominance o

units of each uel type; (c)"

Physical opera ing cons'derations; and (d)

Other syst'm-spec'f'c-factors'.

o Calcu'.ate the total costs saved by th's reduct'on in operation using the.uel costs and heat rates in Table 3;

o Subtract the fuel costs for the nuclear unit, assumed to be 0.6 cents per k'lowatt-hour; and o

Assume the operating and ma'ntenance (O&H) costs per k'owatt-hour a

e the same or the nuclear un' and the alternate sources.

An 'mpo tant eature o

DOE's app oach is that i" does not assume tha" the units w'th the h'ghest

=uel costs (i.e., the oi'-fired units) would be t."

on'v un'ts to have he'r operation reduced when a new nuclear un't is placed 'n serv'ce.

Although a ut'1'ty would prefer to reduce the use of high-cost units, there are many ope at'ng considerat'ons "hat recuire such units to be used.

Expe ience has shown tha the introduction of a new baseload unit causes a change 'n the operating levels o

many other un'ts on the system, including units w'th relatively p~w operating costs.

DOE, in allocat'ng the reduced ope"at'on among dif e ent classes of generators, used judgmental approximations wh'ch, a though not exact, were gene al'y consistent with th's exper'ence.

1 1

DOE's assumptions generally resulted 'n lower estimates for the monthly cost of replacemen't power (Table 2, column 5) than those provided by the util'ies (column l).

In addition, a few utilities claimed spec'l addi ional costs associated with the delay (included in column l).

DOE, did'ot attempt to estimate such costs.

TAIII.F, 1/

DATA 0)I HUCI.EAR UNlTS Ill'Al OPVRATlIIG l.lCEIISY. DVIAVS

, Dlvfafnn nf Pnuor S>>pply and II<<lfolflit)>

o D.S, Daporco>ent nf g>>orgy Hay 15, 1981 Ihflt Capacity (Igl)

(ll IJ>sc Hooch s Prop<<ctcd Dat<<of los>>once of Opcroc)ng l.ic<<noa (A rf1 Sl)

(2)

Current I'rojecccd Dote of foe>>once of Operncing I.ice<<oe (Ho 81)

(3)

Coupfctfon Dotes Project<<d by Coo on (Ho 81 Honths of Delay (3

(4) 5 Fuel (6)

Source Re >lacro>cnc Power C<<sonche Peak 1

Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

HcCufra 1

Safe>x 2

Ssn Onofre 2

Shor<<ho>o 1

Suouaer 1

Suo>I>><<hanna 1

uocerford 3

1 ~ 150 1 ~ 084 1 ~ 106 1, 180 1 ~ 115 1, 100 854 900 1 ~ 050 1 ~ 165 2/83 2/822/

3/82 12/81 4/Sl 4/82 10/82 6/82 11/82 1/83 10/82 1/82-/

1/82-2/

7/81 5/Sl 2/82 8/82 1/82 6/82 11/82 12/81 1/81 10/81 1/81 4/80 6/81 5/82 8/81 4/82-10/82 10

~6/

3 6/

Caa 011 011 Coal Oil-Coal 011 011 Coal-011 Oil-Coal-4/

011 Self-gcneratcd Self-generated Self-generated Self-Pe<<crated Purchased Self-gcncratcd Self gcnerotcd Self-generaced Self-generated Purchased/

Self<<generated 2fo>aer 1

810 7/82 5/82 11/81 Coal-Oil Self-.generated Tocol (ncu units)

THI 1

776 10/813/

10/81'/

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

51 011~Coal Purchased Sources:

Utility Cospan1eo IIuclcar Regulatory Co>>>ufosfon

. ~

1/

2/

3/

4/

5/

6/

Covers oll units for which cn<<ocr>>et ion ls expected to be conf>lcted ot l<<ost one >sooth before opcrocing 11cansa io iosued.

According co cospony sources, che HRC pro)ected dotes do not reflect expediting procedureo svsilshla to the Co>sofsofon.

THI 1 hoo r<<calved on op<<roti<<a I fcenve o<<d Ix>o been ln operation.

Huuever, the unit uos taken out of service fot a routine refueling during February

1979, o<<d uas <<ot olio>>a'd to return to service following cha THE 2 occident.

HRC snd the cospony pro]ect chc unit ufll return co ocrvfce in October 1981.

Delay uould reduce ut fifty>s cool-ffr>xf exports which uoul<l replace pnucr in the pJH pool derived fro>o oil ond less afficient coal planta, Sf<<ce lose no<<ch'o report, the constr>>cc fon of thfo unit hoo L<<en delayed by ten aontho (6/Bl to 4/82)

~

Dcloys for these coo>pl<<cad unito prior co 4/Sl are not included.

0

~

N l

l I

l

I'.STIIIATED CA)STS OF OI'I'.RhTIIIG I.lCI'.I)SI'. Dl'.I.hYS }OR IIUCIdlhll UHlT>>

0lvla lail cl(

I'c>iccl

~cilipI y iawil Ra< I Inb) 1 Ig y s

II.S. Dcporincwt o(

I oeryy liny 15, 1981 c ii,i I >it i c::i. i..

c c ~s.a.

I'.st(pasted Dlrcct Costs 8ased on 1>><lc icnilcnt UOE hiiol sls lb>It Replocrc<aca<t I/

I'uuc.a'o<et s

-$)DI/)Ionth-( I)

Copse lty

~poc nr I'cre en t (2)

Rcploccnewt-2/

tuxc~<)sLs g/kwh-(3)

Totol-3/

Cc)nt

$1)II (4) 8/

Rcl>Iac caen t L'nwr~~

-$)N/Ilonth-(5)

Capacity Factor

-percent-(6)

Rcploccncnt.

pouer Costs

~ -q/k)II>--

(1)

TotoL Coot.

$)m (0)

Cunowclie Peak 1

Dlolilo Canyun 1

Diablo Canyon 2

IlcOailre 1

Salcn 2

Son Ono(rc 2

Sliorchon 1

Su<saner 1

Sws9>>eliowna 1

l)ntcr(o<d

7. Iu<<<car 1

18.5 31.3 4/

4/

31. 3 4(i/

23.0 38.77/

30.0 11.5 27 ~ 4 8.6 10 65

>la 60 70 75 52l1/

3.2 6.0 1.4 4.1 1.0 8.1 2.1 4.1 2.8 185 282 28 23 310 90 58 50 27 32 14.5-

30. 1 30.7 5.5 14.3 29.6 20.8 8.5 13.5 19.3 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 2.9 6.4 6.4 3.5 6.1 5.6 2.2 3.5 1.3 145 211 92 237 62 21 19 Tntal (ocu units) 1199

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

s

~

~

a

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

955 17.0 70 102 14.0 10 3.5 ac Toto I ( Ioc Iaid Isa@ TIII 1) 1301

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

1039 I/

Cnst o( raptor<wc<at poucr salsa<<a fuel ood opcrotin8 costs of wwclcor

~in)to.

2/

l<rpl<cc:c'car<>t p<>ucr c:unit<i <llv)cl<<l Iiv kll<iuott-Iiuuas repliacral.

(Cc>l<>ws>

1 I Ca>lunn 2

4 Unit a.'opacity 4 720 hour0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />s/o>onth)

~

1/

Drrlvc<l lsy saasltlplyl>>8 nontlily rcplocearwt poucr costs (cola<st<i 1) by the total e<owtlao o( delay (Table 1, colunn 5).

4/

Ccisit of (>><>i (or 198l cot isa.>lail by ut lllty.

5/

liiclii<les (wel-corrylo8 cbo>Res.

Iil loci>>i)en othe.r olin<>ro sl ccl>ito c>f

$ 2 ~ 5 alll low.

7/

Incl<>>lro other olin>>anal cuo)s o(

$2.7 <<<I)linn.

0/

Cost nf rrplocancwt poucr

<ala<<co wuclc:or (aia.l custn of 6 a>Ills/k'HI<~

')I

)k>ct o( dsiloy occurs lw l982; there(oru, fiicl costs ore l>sorel on 1982 <<st(notes.

IA/

I><ic'Ivcil by nuit lplylog nc><<)lily >'cploccnc<ar poucr costs (col<>><ac> 5) by totnl a<oaths n( delay (Table 1 ~ colunn

5) ~

I lg lhc cc>as)i<lily all)scars tu I<ave uoc I o c lpicclty (clctur rbprcsc<itntlva uf lsiltlul uparait lcc)I per(ore<once.

I [.

w i

~.<<nl ovo I loblr.

I ~

c i

t k

TAllLE 3 Division of Power Supply and Roll,ab,11 ly:y V.S. Department of Energy May 15, 1981 KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN DOE ESTIMATES Ol'OST OF NULCEAR PLANT DELAYS Unit Iteplaccmc>>t Fiiel Mix Rcplaccmcnt Puel Pl ice

<<'$/HlSTUs-liest Rate of 1/

Re lacement Fuel

-BTU kWh-Comanche Peak Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

McGuire 1

Salem 2

San Onofre 2

Shoreham 1

Summer 1

Susquehainia 1

Waterforil 3

Ziuimer 1

THI 1 Gas (100%)

Oil (100X)

Oil (100%)

Coal (89.5%)

Nuclear (10.5%)

Coal (50%)

Ol.l (50%)

Oil (100%)

Oil (100%)

Coal (81%)

Oil (19%)

Coal (50%)

Oil (50%)

Oil (100%)

Coal (100%)

Coal (50%)

Oil (50%)

Gas 3.19 Oil 6.50 Oil 6.50 Coal 1.89 Coal 1.67 Oil 5.84 Oil 6.71 Oil 5.94 Coal 1.71 Oil 7.26 Coal 1.67 Oil 5.84.

Oil 3.91 Coal 1.79 Coal 1.67 oil 5.84 10,911 10,678 10;678 Coal 9,488 Coal 10,083 Oil 11,24i0 10,035 10,389 Coal 10,001 Oil 9,944 Coal 10,083 Oil 11,240 11,223

'0567 Coal 10,083 Oil 11,240 "0

1/

Sour<<c:

I U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,.FPC Form i:23.

RZFERENCES 1.

The 60% capaci-v factor assumption was derived om an internal analysis o

nuclear plants which were granted ooerating licenses during the period 1976 through 1979.

2.

Load projections were obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy Form ERA-411 and util'ty submissions

'o state utility commissions.

3.

Generating capacity data we e obtained from the U.S.

Department of Energy Form E3A-411.

4.

Power generation data were obtained from me U.S. Depart-ment of Energy FPC Form 4.

5.

The nuclear fuel price was obtained from the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy's Annual Report to Conc ess 1980.

e I

I 1

)

1 l

t