ML19250B942
| ML19250B942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ertel A HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19250B943 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911060259 | |
| Download: ML19250B942 (3) | |
Text
____
{ dC
?db
- * *pn neon
,8 o
UNITED STATES
~k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIGN 2 E WASHINGTOP, D. C. hj55
\\...../
SEP 2 01973 The Honorable Allen E. Ertel l
United States House of f
Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515 i
l
Dear Congressman Ertel:
f This is in response to your request to Mr. Carlton C. Kammerer, Director of Office of Congressional Affairs of NRC, for information on the costs of l
permanently closing Three Mile Island, Units 1 and 2.
l l
Estimation of the costs of a permanent closure requires a rather careful and somewhat complex analysis. The estimates we have derived are for major areas and are not based on a detailed analysis. An in depth review I
may modify these estimates; however, we do not believe the conclusicns as l
to general magnitude of asts would change.
There are four major cost items in a permanent shutdown of these units, (1) replacement power cost, (2) undepreciated investment in these plants, (3) unused nuclear fuel in Unit 1 and (4) decommissioning costs These j
f tems are estimated to cost $3.0 billion for the two units. Thc iccompany-ing table provides the basis for the estimates.
In addition, %ere will be an estimated $400 million cost of cleanup of Unit 2.
This must be done either to bring it back into operation or to permanently decomission it.
These estimates depend on a num'ier of assumptions. The replacement power I
costs cover a period of 12 year ;.
By then new capacity could % ouilt to replace the closed units. Replicement power costs for Unit 2 are for the fifth through the twelfth year.
It is assumed that four years will be required to cleanup from the accident. Replacement costs during this period would not be attributed to a permanat shutdown. The additional cost of replacement power is assumed to be 25 mills per kWh which is the approximate difference between the cost of nuclear fuel and the cost of oil or purchased power frca another utility. The costs over the 12 year period are discounted back to the present time to put all costs on an equivalent basis.
A straight-line depreciation is used to get the undepreciated value of the pla nts.
There is an inventory of unused nuclear fuel equal to about a 2/3 load in Unit 1 This would fuel the unit for about 2 years. We assume there is no salvage value of Unit 2 fuel, so this is not included in the analysis.
It is assumed that the units crc -nthballed for decon11ssioning, which would cost about $17 million for the two units.
1273 166 7 911060 c) k
The Honorable Allen E. Ertel With regard to the second question, to our knowledge there are no current provisions in any Federal agency for Federal payment of poss.,1ble investment loss at Three Mile Island. Some of the early nuclear reactors were for the primary purpose of development and demonstration.
Speciallegiplation provided for varimis forms of Federal involvement in capital c6st, fuel cost, and decommissioningc No large commercial reactor, such as Three ile Island, has Federal involvement in direct costs.
Thank you for your interest in this problem.
Sincerely, hsn31 cc.ca by n. G. Smith a
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Table-Preli..inary Cost Estimates for Shutting Down TMI 1 & 2 1973 167
Preliminary Cost Estimates for Shutting Down TMI 1 & 2 (Mi t 1. 219 M'Je Millions of Dollars l
1,160 Replacement power cost, for 12 years 2
333 undepreciated investment in plant 20 undepreciated investment in fue13 decommission cost' 17 Subtotal 1,530 Uni t 2, 906 K4e i
805 Replacement power cost, for 12 years 2
715 undepreciated investment in plant 5
undepreciated investment in fuel 4
decommission cost Subtotal 1.520 Total 3,050 ISased on 25 mills per-k'Wh which1s the difference between oil or purchased power and nuclear fuel and a 3% discount rate and 65% capacity fa c to r.
The first four years of replacecent power cost for Unit 2 (about 480 r llion) is not included because it is associated with the accident.
2The nt value cost of a new plant in 1979 dollars is about 94C a/..c a total cost of about 5768 million for Unit 1 and
$831 f Unit 2.
Apo -
ely 2/3 of the fuel load is unused.
The disposal cost 3
of u;
. i A is about $4 dilion unless the fuel can be used in anotoer reactor.
'The S17 million is for two units and is based on mothballing the units for 1C0 years and dismantling the units at that time.
Cleanup cost for Unit 2 is estimated at 5400 million and most if not all is expected to be covered by insurance.
This cost will occur whether or not the plant is closed permanently.
5The value of fuel destroyed in the accident is estimated to be about $30 million.
1273 168 weedce
.- -