ML19254E589
| ML19254E589 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1979 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Leed R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911010534 | |
| Download: ML19254E589 (4) | |
Text
,
pn neauq(o UNITED STATES
,7,.
g NUCL2 AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
s-, ( 3 o
o,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%*****/
..v September 21, 1979
.h Q
h NRC P%LIC D i.'.;%
n*
('-
M M/
Roger M. Leed, Esq.
N u-
- c.,.
1411 Fourth Avenue 4\\
Seattle, WA 98101 In the Matter of Puget Sound Power & Light Company, ~et al.
~
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. STN 50-522 and STN 50-523
Dear Mr. Leed:
During the August 30, 1979 session of the hearing in this proceeding, you indicated that you expected the Staff to provide certain information to SCANP in response to requests made by Mr. Carstens of Dr. Winters during the last hearing session.
(Tr. 15,031-32).
The first referenced request involves a comparison of the estimates of the CONCEPT code-versus actual nuclear power plant costs performed by Oak Ridge.
(Tr. 13,402). The results of the referenced comparison were summarized by Mr. Louis Gittleman at the hearing on August 29, 1979, at which time you were not present.
(Tr. 14,627-28). Although a review of Mr. Gittleman's testimony will probably satisfy Mr. Carstens' request for information, I am providing a copy of the results of the inalysis, which are contained in a letter from H. Bowers of Oak Ridge National Laboratory to Mr. Wiener of the NRC, dated September 19, 1977.
Neither Dr. Winters nor Mr. Gittleman are aware of any more recent comparisons.
Your second concern involves Mr. Carstens' request for Dr. Winters to supply the actual fuel burnup rates for operating reactors.
(Tr. 13,418). However, Dr. Winters replied that he did not have any published reports on the subject, and that his information was based upon conversations with others.
(Id.)
Dr. Winters was not asked for any additional information or documents 7egarding this subject. Nevertheless, I telephoned Dr. Winters to determine whether any additional documents are now available which contain the requested information.
Dr. Winters informed me that although data is now available from which the Staff may possibly be able to calculate the actual average burnup rates for operating reactors, such an analysis has not been performed, nor are there any present plans to do such an analysis.
Sincerely,
/0c&' ? bm Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated i283 151 cc w/ encl: Service List L?
7911010 9 i
- [*.
O.'.K RIDGE N ATION AL LABORATORY-OPERATED SV UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION NUCLE AR DIVISION POST OFFICE box Y OAK RfDGE, TENNE 55tE 37830 September 19,.1977 Mr. Martin Wiener Division of Nuclear Research and Applications Energy Research and Development Adm.
Washington, D. C.
20545
Dear Mr. Wiener:
In reply to your request we have used the updated CONCEPT code to make capital cost estimates of 51 PWR and BWR co=mercial nuclear units and have compared these C0KCEPT estimates with cost estimates reporte'd by electric utility
~
companics to ERDA-NRA on Form HQ-254 " Quarterly Progress Report on Status of Reactor Construction". The attached Table i su=marizes these comparisons.
We have tabulated the plant name, unit capacity, plant type, start of con-struction date, commercial operation date, CONCEPT calculated cost, ERDA reported cost, and the ratio of calculated to reported cost.
In cost cases
'we compared only first-unit costs, since the United Engineers & Constructors studies, NUREG-0241 and NUREG-0242, on which the updated cost models are based are' for single-unit plants. However, in several cases we made compari-WPPSS sons where only recond or third units were reported on Form EQ-254.
Units 1, 2, and 4 are all single units and WPPSS Unit 3 is the first unit of a two-unit plant.
For the 34 entries, where comparisons are made, the ratio of calculated to There are five reportea cost.s ranges from a low of' 0.80. to a high of' L92.
- entries where the ratio is equal to or greater than 1.4; we suspect'that in some of these cases the electric utility companies have not reported their If these five cases are omitted and the 29 remaining latest cost estimates.
entries are considered, the average value of the ratio of CONCEPT costs to reported costs is 1 Q14. and the standard deviation is 0.12_5j thus, 68% of the 2
s 1283 'l52
-..w
-~
..w p,-.
',, Er. Martin *n'icner 2
Septceber 19, 1977 time the ratio of calc ~ulated to reported costs would be expected to f all between 0.89 and 1.14, and 95% of the time between 0.76 and 1.26.
If all e'ata are considered (34 entries), the average value is 1.107 and the standa-d deviation is 0.264. Thus, 68% of the time the ratio of calculated to report ed costs vould be expected to fall between 0.84 and 1.37, and 95% of the time between 0.58 and 1.64.
If we can be of further assistance in interpreting th'ese calculat ions, please call on us.
Yours very truly,
/?
---.. f _.
H. I. Bowers Engineering Analysis Section HI3:sf' Enc.
cc:
T. D. Anderson A.P. D' Zmura, ERDA-NRA D. Mathes, ERDA-NRA I. Spiewak S. Strauch, ERDA-NRA J. O. Roberts, NRC 1283 15.3 e
a
' r
id s
,o e
Table 1.
Comparison of capital investment cost estimates calculated by the CONCEPT computer code with capital costo reported to Eh on Para HQ-254 as of April 1,1977 Cost (million dollars)
Plant Start of Commercial Ratio of Calculat Plant Plant Capacity Type
. Constructiou operation Calculated Reported to Roported Cost Hva Arkansas 2 912 PWR.
7/71 7/78
,713 447 1.6C I
Bailly 1
$44 DWR 6/74 12/82
,776 705 1.10 Beaver ValleP 2 552 PWR 5/74 s.
5/82 864 935 0.92 tallefonte 1 1213 PVR 9/74 6/80 833 Braidwood 1 1A20 PWR 8/75 2yron 1 1120 PWR 3/75 10/81 934 j
3/81 897 I
C411any 1 1120 Pn 8/75 10/82 1012 Ca:a.ta 1 1150 PWR.
5/74 7/81 903 649 1.40 Caerokee 1 1260
.WR 6/75 1/84 1142 1007 1.13 Clinton 1 934 BWR 10/75 12/81 855
- ?"
1.04 Cszanche Paak 1 1111 PWR 10/74 1/81 825 850 0.97 Cook 2 1060
. PWR 9/68 6/78 837 437 1.92 Davir,-Bases 2 S06 Pl.'R 4/78 4/85 1064 1121 0.95.
Diatlo Canyon 1 1084 PWR 6/68 1/77 750 Faricy 2 820 PWR 10/70 4/80 730 Tct:1 2 1033 BWR 11/70 12/80 992 899 3.20 l
Tor 14d River 3.
1070 PWR 8/73 5/83 1093 894 1.12 r
Grand Cult l' 1250 BVR 5/74 6/30 855 I
liarris 1 900 PWR 1/74 3/84 982 985 1.00 Hartsville 1 1233 Bn 4/76 2/83 1018 Patch 2 795 BER 11/71 4/79 658 512 1.28 Espe Creek 1 1067 Bn 3/76 5/84 1115 Lass 11e County 1 3078 Bn 10/73 9/79 810
-l Limerick 1 1065 BUR 7/70 4/33 1160 3212 0.99 2:cCuire 1 1180
. Pn 4/71 1/79 813 465 1.'74 Millstone 3 1156 PWR 6/74 5/82 1081 1173 0.91 1;ine Mila Point 2 1100 BUR 6/75 10/82 1065 1107 0.96 I: orth Anna 1 9/77 678 690 0.9d 9 07 PWR 7/69 Palo Verde 1 1238 PWR 5/76 5/82 1032 975 1.06 Parry 1 1205 BWR 10/74 12/81 1026 River Bend 1 934 LWR 9/75 9/83 903
- y Saler 2 1115 PWR*
1/68 2/79 905 San Onofre 2 1100 PWR 3/74 10/81 l967 1132 0.85
~.
Seabrook 1 1200 PWR 10/73 11/81 929
)
e N
5eguoyah 1 1148 PWR 4/69 9/78 819 CO Shoreham 1 819 BWR 9/68 5/79
'813 969 0.63 u
touch Texas 1 1250 PWR 1/76 10/80 839 676.
1.24 St. Lucia 1 810 PWR G/76 12/82 1797 850 0.94 Summer 1 900 PWR 4/73 5/80 1746 635 1.17 Susquehanna 1 1050 BWR 11/73 11/80 883 1097 0.80 Three Mile Is'and 2 906 PWR 9/69 5/78 734 6))
1.16
. b 1100 PWR 9/78 4/84 1003 960 1.04 Tyrone 1 Vogtle 1 1113 PVR 6/74 1/33 396 62*
1.53 Waterford 3 1113 PWR 3/72 4/81 899 811 1.10 Watts ser 1 1177 PWR 12/72 6/79 80S Volf Creek 1 1150 PWR 1/77 4/83 1027 1029 1.06 0.8f WPPSS 1 1218 PWR 8/75 9/81 969 1087 47PSS 2 1100 BWR 8/72 9/80 902 905 1.0 121.2 PWR 4/77 8/83 1100
- 203 0.91 types 3
.