ML19305D232
| ML19305D232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Hopkins L HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305D233 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004140252 | |
| Download: ML19305D232 (2) | |
Text
_
M[N l
0 ser Y
UNITED STATES l
[
g ilUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C.
r WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 go-35g MAR 2 51980 The Honorable Larry J. Hopkins United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Hopkins:
I am pleased to respond to your letter, dated February 7,1980, which was written on behalf of a group of concerned citizens who reside in the Sixth Congressional District of Kentucky.
Regarding the first question about liability for damage resulting from radiation from the Zimmer Nuclear Power Station', liability for damages is not established by the Atomic Energy Act or by the NRC's regulations.
In general, it would be established by applicable state law. For accidents covered by the Price-Anderson provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (Section 170, 42 U.S.C. 2210), a system of private insurance and governmental indemnity is provided to cover the public liability of any person who may be found liable.
For accidents determined by the Commission to constitute an " extraordinary occurrence," the provisions of the Price Anderson Act and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 140 provide for waivers of a number of otherwise potential defenses to liability, specifically waivers of:
"(1) any issue or defense as to conduct of the claimant or fault of persons idemnified, (ii) any issue or defense as to charitable or governmental imunity, and (iii) any issue or defense based on any statute of limitations if suit is instituted within three years from the date on which the claimant first knew, or reasonably could have known, of his injury or damage and the cause thereof, but in no event.more than twenty years after the date of the nuclear accident."
In any event, the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company will be required to comply with the financial protection and indemnity provisions of the Price Anderson Act and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 140 before a license to operate the Zimmer power station may be granted.
Regarding the second concern, the need for power was studied by the NRC staff and reported in its June 1977 Final Environmental Statement. A copy of the appropriate section is enclosed.
t t
l i
80 04140 25L
The Honorable Larry J. Hopkins Regarding the third concern, to the best of our knowledge, the Cincinnati Gas &
Electric Company (CG&E) is willing to send an official spokesman to speak to the families who live in close proximity to the Zimmer plant. Our discussion with them indicates that they have done similar things in the past but do not l
recall having been contacted by any group in this district. It would be helpful, l
of course, if some spokesman for the group in the Sixth Congressional District l
would contact CG&E so that arrangements for an effective meeting can be made.
The applicant's target date for completing the construction of the Zimmer plant has been August 1980. However, the NRC staff presently estimates that the plant construction will not be completed before February 1981.
We plan
'to meet again with the applicant on this matter in April 1980. A potential impact nay arise from the need to implement new licensing requirements to the Zimmer power station as a result of the TMI-2 accident.
In this regard, the Commission is in the final stages of review and approval of an Action Plan implementing recommendations of the President's Commission and other studies resulting from the TMI-2 accident.
I hope this information is useful to you in responding to your constituents.
Sincerely, (Signed) E. Kevin Cornell William J. Dircks Acting Executive Director for Operations Encl osure:
Final Environmental Statement dated June 1977, Section 8
l
~~
ENCLOSURE
'q r
8.
NEED FOR PLANT 8.1 RESUH$
,.y Certain changes have occurred since the FES-CP was issued, which affect the need-for-plant analysis. In the FES-CP a gross electrical power output of 840 MWe was used in the need-for-i ;
power analysis. In the present analysis the staff used the net summer rating of 792 MWe rather i
than the net winter rating of 797 MWe to avoid overstating the benefits of operation. Also, f
Zimer originally was scheduled to come on line in October 1976, and is presently scheduled to l !
begin comercial operation in January 1979. The CCD forecast of peak load has been revised downward in light of the recent changes in the economic and energy situation.
r l
t 8.2 APPLICANT'S SERVICE AREA L
The applicants are the Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company, and the Dayton Power & Light Company, collectively called the CCD companies. The CCD j' ;
service area includes most of southwestern Ohio. In 1975, the CCD companies supplied electricity 1
to 1.4 million customers. In 1962, the CCD companies began constructing electrical generating 4
units on a common ownership basis in order to meet rising construction costs and take advantage j?
4 of cost savings available from larger plants. As of January 1,1975, the jointly owned capa-bility of CCD was 3570 MWe; and by 1979 it will grow to 5362 MWe, including separately owned units, the total system capability will be 9897 MWe in 1979. The members of CCD are also partic-ipants in the East Central Area Reliability Agreement (ECAR).
i' 4
8.3 BENEFITS OF OPERATING THE PLANT j
i The Zimer Nuclet-Power Station. Unit No.1 is being constructed solely for the purpose of I
supplying low cost energy to meet the service area's needs.
j
)b 8.3.1 Minimization of Production Costs
_lL
';s Al[ the operating license stage, it must be determined whether the operation of the station will be
'i l
beneficial to the system. In the absence of any countervailing social or environmental impacts, I'
this decision should be based on economics. The economic decision lies with the operating costs since at the operating license stage the capital costs must be considered sunk costs. All opera-
'I ting cost estimates were escalated from 1975 at 5% per year.
5 The staff estimates the production costs for the Zimer station in 1979 at 5.6 mills /kWh for fuel i a
{
l and 1.7 mills /kWh for operation and maintenance (0&M) expenses.b2 The total operating costs of 1'
l the Zimer station of 7.3 mills /kWh are lower than the operating costs of all other base-load i
stations on the applicant's system. Accordingly, in order to minimize total system production
<i costs, the Zimmer station should be operated.
i.! j
- j i
Since the other base-load units on the applicant's system are coal-fired stations, it is con-Ii servatively assumed that if Zimmer were not available to meet system base-load demand in 1979, l
this demand would probably be met by greater utilization of existing coal-fired units. The staff j
estimates the 1979 coal costs at 10.9 mills /kWh. and 0&M costs at 1.3 mills /kWh.2,3 The total anticipated operating costs (fuel plus 0&M) for coal-fired units is 12.2 mills /kWh.
The difference between the cost of operating the Zimer station, or 7.3 mills /kWh and the cost
')
of operating a coal-fired unit, or 12.2 mills /kWh is 4.9 mills /kWh or the amount of production i
costs that can be saved for each kilowatt hour that is generated by the Zimer station. Assuming l
a 60t capacity factor, the Zimer station will generate 4.2 billion kWh per year. This represents a total production cost savings of $20 million per year. If the Zimer station operates at a 70% capacity factor, the annual savi*ngs can reach approximately $24 million. At a 50% cepacity f
factor, the savings would amount to $17 million per year. Should it be necessary to run oil-fired units to generate the replacement energy or to purchase electricity from neighboring util-ities, the cost penalty for not operating Zimer would be even greater.
i 1
k0}
l 8-i 0
[ot a
a
8-2 The staff has assumed the be'st case in its analysis of the cost penalty of not o% rating the However, examination of more detailed system capacity informat'sn reveals that coal-fired capacity will not be available to supply all the approximately 40 billion kW Zimmer plant.
6 'tjj trical output which will be required in 1979.The fuel cost per kWh for this replacement energy is estimated by generators burning fuel oil.
Not only must higher fuel costs be incurred, but sufficient capac-
- q
](3 Gas turbine generators, at a the applicant at 49.55 mills.
ity will r.ot be available to meet demand in 1979 without Zierner.
cost of $10,000,000 per 50 MWe unit, will have to be added to the system in order to meet pl
'r These peaking units are the only type of unit which could be placed in service by
'b; jected demand.
Installing peaking units.rather than baseload capacity to meet projected baseload de The appifcant will need to install nine 50 MWe ges turbines to
!/
1979.
The applicant's estimate of the fue' cost is inefficient and uneconomical.
I meet the forecasted 1979 level of electrical demand.
Additionally, 450 MWe t
penalty to the system in 1979 f f Zimer does not operate is $65 million.
ti of gas turbine capacity additions would cost $90 million.
j; i:
r The addition of oil-fired peaking.apacity One final point should be added to this discussion.is necessary because replaceme n
The v4e of oil l
((
contract, and peaking units are the only type that could be installed by 1979.
.j i
gi I to generate electricity is not only expensive, but it is contradictory to the natior.al goal 4
l Ih 8]
I limiting the level of oil imports.
h l !
Eneroy Demand and System Reliability 8.3.2 is The addition of 792 MWe of net generating capacity to the CCD system increases system relia e.
Table 8.1 shows the CCD system capability, peak dcmand, and reserve margin with and l
k p:
Zimer station for the years 1979 through 1981.With Zimer on line the reserve margin will be 20.8 percent.
l would f all to 11.1 percent in 1979.
The operation of the Zimer I
which falls within the FPC guidelines of from 15 to 25 percent. Although conservation could
' station will be required to maintain a reliable system in 1979. reduce the total s Ql If electrical demand does not grow at the
'l ;
, the least expensive unit on the system to operate. forecasted rate, the appifcant may be i
l if shortages develop in their systems due to construction slowdowns.
i t
L,I:
w.
l 1
l i
i l
j b
5 I
I it l
d d
i il g!
r
\\\\
pi il o
i k
1 v
y n<
m I }L
[
i a
, \\T
' "
- 4% e9% ;..
-g - f * "~ *$( 'hAU-J.E
- f.
r l
.17 TABLE 8.1 CCD FORECASTED PEAK LOAD. CAPA8ILITY AND RESERVE MARGIN 1979 THROUGH 1981 p
With Zimer Without Zimer With Zimer Without Ziruner Peak CCD summer CCD sumer CCD reserve margin CCD reserve margin q'
Year _
load (MW) capability (MW) capability (MW)
(MW)
(W)
I.
l 1979 8194 9897 9105 1703 20.8 911 11.1 l
1980 8729 10302 9510 1573 18.0
- 781 8.9
{
1981 9299 11277 10485 1978 21.3 1186 12.8 The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company. Wm. H. Zimer ' Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 Environmental Report. Operating 1,3
Reference:
License Stage. September 1975
- p. 1.1-4.
. ~.
b t
f I
l I
I l
=
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
--'~-
____ _ _ _ _ __ __