ML19350D186
| ML19350D186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104130655 | |
| Download: ML19350D186 (22) | |
Text
.. - - ~,
areg 4 p*
g E ^ 3 d., ^%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
wAssiNorow, o. c. 20sss
.. g k 'w 8
,e M' arch 31, 1981 CHAIR N
's 4
gfFN
(
s The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development 1
ApR 0 719815 =12 Committee on Appropriations
~
u United States House'of Representatives c,
N=Y"' '
Washington, D.C.
20515 f
4
Dear Mr. Chairman:
N w
This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093. 'Our fifth monthly status report is enclosed and covers the period from February 15, 1981, to March 15, 1981.
This fifth report discusses the actions that were taken during the last month on operating reactors and licensing reviews of new facilities.
I should note that the schedules in this report for units to be completed in 1981 and 1982, the units most affected by licensing delays, do not yet reflect the time savings we hope to accomplish by measures now under consideration by the Comission.
We will adjust the schedules for these units in future reports, as Commission actions are taken and the effects of those actions can'be factored into the individual cases. Also, there continue to be substantial differences between the applicants' and NRC's estimated construction completion dates in a number of cases.
We are working with the applicants to understand and resolve these differences, but have not been able to complete this effort in time to include the results in the schedules in this report.
- incerely, t
/osep M. Hendrie J
Enclosure:
NRR Monthly Status Report to Congress cc: The Honorable John T. Myers 8104180b
NRR MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS This is the, fifth monthly status report to Congress, in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093.. The fourth NRR monthly status report to Congress was transmitted by'1etter dated February 27,1981 and covered the period from Jarcary 15, 1981 to February 15, 1981.
This fifth report provides a brief discussion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between February 15, 1981 and March 15, 1981.
OPERATIG REACTORS 1.
Intersystem LOCA The Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400 identified an intersystem loss of coolant accident (LOCA) in a PWR which is a significant contributor to the risk of core melt accidents.
The scenario which leads to this type of an accident, termed " Event V", is initiated by the failure of check valves to function as primary coolant system pressure isolation val ves.
The potential check valve deficiency can be minimized by periodic testing which improves valve reliability.
Although such requirements were issued and implemented several years ago, concern was recently heightened by the failure of such check valves at two fa.ili ties. The staff has recently completed an evaluation of the intersystem LOCA potential in 35 affected roerating plants.
Orders are being issued to these plants which require measures for detennining
' l valve position,s well as periodic testing of these values over the i
l duration of plant life.
It is expected that the Orders, which finalize th'e Event V effort, will all be issued by the end of March,1981.
2 2.
Fire prctecticn
\\
ine effective cate of the new regdiat' ion for fire protection,10 CFR 50.tS and Appendix R to 10 CFR 50, was February 17, 1951.
In support cf -his rule, all of the resolved issues on individual piants tnat had not been previously recorded in NRC staff reports were dccumented by the issuance of Supplements to the NRC fire protection Safety Eval ua tions.
Seventeen such supplements were issued during the reporting period.
In addition, the new rule reinsta.ted various license conditions teraporarily suspended on October 29, 1980.
These.
conditions required completion o'f certain approved fire protection modifications by specified dates.
Fourteen licensees required extension of these dates for a few items on each plant.
The staff reviewed these requests for extensions to assure that the licensee had established good cause for the extension and that the extension would not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
These reviews were completed during the reporting period.
3.
Environmental Qualification The Commission, by Memorandum and Order dated May 23,1980 (CLI-80-21) direc.ted the staff.to complete its review of environmental qualifications of sarety related equipment on operating plants, including the publication l
of Safety Evaluation Reports, by February 1,1981.
The NRC staff is nearing completion of its technical review of the equipment qualification submittals for all operating facilities (with the exception of two facilities whose November 1,1980 submittals were inadequate and whose f
resubmittals are currently under review).
These evaluations have identified a number of potential equipment deficiencies for every facility, involving
,1
J' a lack of proper documentation, improperly assumec or justified environmental conditions following a'n accident, and/or inadequate environmental testing of equipment, such' tnat conformance with the specified acceptance guidelines cannot be demonstrated at this time.
Since the staff's review has identified considerably more potential deficiencies than the licensees had identified, the staff has undertaken a two-steo corrective approach.
During the. months of February and March 1981, the staff is sending a.
the preliminary results of its review to each licensee enumerating the potential deficiencies identified by the staff for its facility (ies).
This document is being sent with a letter requesting that each licensee submit, within 10 cays of receipt of our letter, its overall finding regarding' continued safe operation of their facility in light of the preliminary results of the staff review.
b.
Following receipt of the licensees' responses, the NRC is finalizing its conclusions and requirements and issuing Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs) beginning in March 1981.
The SERs require that needed information identified in the SERs be provided within 90 days after the issuance of the SER. The licensees are being required to either provide documentation of the missing qualifi-l cation information or commit to a corrective action (requalification, l
replacement, relocation, etc.) consistent with the requirements to 4
establish the qualification of all items by June 1982.
If the latter option is chosen, the licensee must provide justification l
for operation until such corrective action is complete.
-4
' OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS During the past month, the emphasis on licensing activities continued to be on OL applications.
The present\\ scheduling for plants projected by utilities to be completed in C.Y 1981-1982 is given in Table 1.
The estimated impacts are presented, based on both the NRC and the applicant's expected construction completion date.
Although the NRC is presently considering changes in its regulations which would have the effect of reducing the amount of time allocated for hearings and for the Immediate Effectiveness Ru'.6, Lt.a :chedules on these CY 1981 and 1982 plants have not been changed at this tine to account for these potential time-saving measures.
Schedules for tho'se plants in this group for which savings can be realized will be modified when the effective dates of these rule changes become known.
Table 2 presents target schedules for plants which utilities project to be completed in late CY 1982 and CY 1983.
These schedules are based on completing the licensing process prior to the applicant's estimated construction completion date. The schedules do take into account the estimated effects of the rule changes under consideration by the Canmission.
Thus, the schedules are based on an assumed standard interval of 11 months from issuance of the Staff Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) to the NRC Decision date. We have begun to allocate additional resources to the licensing review effort.
These schedules assume that this effort will be fully f
completed in the near future.
Five of these schedules are tentative and are undergoing refinement.
The schedules for the five facilities in this l
group (St. Lucie 2, Seabrook 1 and 2, Catawba 1 and 2, South Texas 1 and 2, l
and River Bend 1 and 2) show a difference between the NRC and applicant's l
l
v projected completion date of 12 months or more.
The Staff will be meeting with management from these utilities to resolve the differences in construction completion dates for these plants.
Detailed schedules for plants beyond those to be completed in CY 1983 have not been developed at this time, since none of those projects will have NRC milestones within the next year.
On February 17, 1981, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development requested that the NRC amend its monthly report to include 1) the utility's and the NRC's estimates of the monthly cost to the utility. to maintain each unit in an inactive status while awaiting licensing and 2) actions taken by the Commission to improve the licensing process.
Regarding the utility's estimate, the staff has requested such information directly from the utilities this month.
Since these estimates are likely based on different methodologies and assumptions, care must be taken in their use. These results are presented in Attachment 1.
The NRC has also requested the assistance of the Economic Regulatory Administration of the Department of Energy in obtaining cost information.
This request was made considering their expertise and their information resources in this area.
They have agreed to provide cost estimates beginning in April.
. ?
l Also, as requested, the NRC staff has developed cost estimates for these plants.
The staff's estimates, along with a summary of assumptions and a description of the methods used are set forth in Attachment 2.
e a
-E-o The ".aren 12, 1951, is er to the Subc;mnittee desc-ibec : e ac;icr.: :ne s
Ccamission is taking to i.nprove the licinsing process.
These actions inciuced:
i) revising review schedules where possible tc eliminate er minimize the licensing impact, 2) increasing e'fficiency in the hearing process, 3) agreement to reduce time needed to review ALSE Decisions prior to allowing plant operation (Immediate Effectiveness Rul.e), and 4) proposing legislation to allow interim plant operation prior to the completion of the hearing process'.
Subsecuently on March 18th the Canmission submitted the proposed legislation.
In addition to the above actions, the NRC has taken other steps to increase its ability to meet the accelerated schedules for operating licenses reviews.
NER commenced mandatory overtime on March 16, 1981 and the EDO has allocated certain additional resources to NRR to support licensing reviews.
In addition to these internal actions, on March 13, 1981, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation sent a letter to the presidents of
~
potentially impacted uti1ities.
The letter transmitted the detailed licensing schedules for CY 1981 - 1982 and requested that the utilities I=
prcvide the NRC all required information concerning the application two weeks prior to the last date for staff technical input to the Division of Licensing (DL).
.=
u:
.. =.
PLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF DELAYED PLANTS The following is a discussion of the status of the lead unit for each of the
\\
delayed facilities.
No significant changes in overall schedules have occurred j
since the last monthly report.
1.
San Onofre, Units 2 and 3 - The geologic and seismic SSER was issued in December,1980.
The SER and a SSER on TMI matters were issued in February,1981.
A concurring ACRS letter was received March 17, 1981.
The start of hearing is expected to be July 1981.
A decision on a full power license is expected in April 1982.
In a letter to the Chainnan, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, dated March 12, 1981, the applicant reported a construction comp 1'etion date of June 1981.
This results in a ten-month delay using the applicant's date and six months using the NRC's date.
2.
Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2 - An updated SSER for low power operation was issued March 5,1981.
Hearings will commence in May for low power. A licensing decision on low power operation is expected in February 1982 resulting in a thirteen-month delay using the applicant's construction completion date and eleven months using the NRC's date.
The SSER for full power operation is scheduled for March 31, 1981 and the full power hearings are projected to begin in September.
3.
Shoreham, Unit 1 - The SER for Shoreham is now scheduled for March 31, 1981.
l Construction completion is estimated in May 1982.
A decision regarding l
a' full power license is expected in October 1982 (a five-month delay based on the applicant's date and one month using the NRC's date).
4.
Summer, Unit 1 - The SER was issued on February 6,1981. A meeting with the ACRS was held on March 13, 1981.
A concurring ACRS letter was received on March 18, 1981. The projected licensing completion date is
. June 1982.
Witr. a current construction completion date of August 1981, a ten-month delay is estimated using the applicant's completion date i.
and eight months using the NRC's-pat.e.'
5.
Susouehanna, Units 1 and 2 - The SER for'Susquehanna is scheduled for April 6, 1981.
Hearings are projected to start in October 1981.
A decision on the full power license is expected in November 1982 (a seventeen-month delay using the applicant's completion date and a eight-month delay using the NRC's date.)
6.
Zimmer, Unit 1 - The Zimmer SER is scheduled for issuance on May 29, 1981. The Zimmer hearings are pr'ojected to commence in October 1981.
A decision on a full power license is expected in July 1982 (an eight-month delay using the applicant's construction completion date and a three-month delay using the NRC's date).
7.
Waterford, Unit 3 - The SER for Waterford, Unit 3 is scheduled for May 30,1981.
Construction completion is estimated in October 1982.
A decision regarding a full power license is expected in January 1983.
This. corresponds to an delay of three months based on both the applicant's and NRC's completion date.
1 8.
Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 - The SER for Cananche Peak is scheduled for June 11, 1981.
Construction completion is estimated in December l
1982. A decision regarding a full power license is expected in February i
l 1983 (a fourteen month delay using the applicant's completion date and two months using the NRC's date).
l
, 4 The status on plants which have been ijshugd'a icw or zero power license and' '
for which a full power license is pending (Salem, Unit 2; Farley, Unit 2; and McGuire, Unit 1) follows:
1.
Salem, Unit 2 - Issuance of a full power license continues to be delayed due to the status of development of emergency plans.
The
~
NRC Safety Evaluation Report on all others matters is complete and was issued in January 1980.
A full power license cannot be issued until first, the'affected states (Delaware and New Jersey) have provided adequate Emergency Response Plans, and second, an emergency response' exercise is conducted and NRC receives an assessment of the exerci se from FEMA.
The scheduled date for the exercise is April 8, 1981.
A report from FEMA on off-site emergency preparedness is expected April 24, ~1981.
With the exception of Emergency Planning, the plant has been otherwise ready to proceed to full power since April 1980.
2.
Farley, Unit 2 - The Commission has authorized the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to issue a full power license to Farley-2 when he determines that NRC requirements are met.
The licensee is currently loading fuel under a low power license issued last year.
A full power license is' projected for late March or early April and will not cause del ay.
l 3.
McGuire, Unit 1 - The SSER for low power operation at McGuire, Unit 1 was issued January 8,1981.
A fuel loading and zero power testing license was issued January 23, 1981.
--.y---
Hearings en a full power license started on February 24, and 'are expected to be completed by the end of March.
A ce:ision on a full r
i, power license is expected in December'1981 (an eleven-month delay using both applicant and NRC dat'es).
LICENSING SCHEDULES FOR PENDING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS The Comission has continued its effort to develop a new regulation concern-ing the manner and extent to which new requirements, as a result of the Three Mile Island 2 accident (1NI Action Plan), should be. applied to pending CP applications.
The Comission directed that a proposed final rule be published in the Federal Register for further public coment.
Twenty days are allowed,for such coments.
Tne Federal Register notice was issued on March 24.
Following a Comission decision on this new rt.gulation, further case-specific actions to include TMI-related requirements can be undertaken for the pending CP applications.
A schedule for construction permit decisions for pending CP applications based on the NUREG-0718 is difficult to predict. The schedulo for applicant submittals of TMI-related information in PSAR amendments is not known with any certainty and each of the near-tenn/ construction permit applications must complete the hearing process before a decision can be reached. The nature of the contentions that will be considered in the hearings as a result of TM1 is not yet clear.
Both of these factors are heavily deper. der.c l
on the scope of the TMI-related requirements to be specified in the new regulation.
Table 3 is enclosed to provide the status and projected
- 11 L
tentative target schedules for pending' ccnstruction permit applications.
. \\
The table was developed assuming that.the final rule concerning cps would be published in liarch.
These sche.dules will,be revi sed when the final regulation is approved.
d 9
e e
e I
J f
4 e
y--
e.,
c,
12 -
Tables:
1.
Licensing Schedules CY 1981 - 1982 Plants 2.
Licensing Schedules CY 1983 Plants '
3.
Status and Projected Target Schedu,1 s, for Pending Construction Permit Applications Attachments:
1.
Utility Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays 2.
Cost of Replacement Energy and Capital Expense Incurred Due to Licensing Delays l
e o
a O
1 u
-s e
13 -
i s
v 4-I v
C G
E c
E e%
p C
C N
C
- s
==
..
s N
m.
= = -
- e. - -= *.
N
=
ts==
=
s
=
.=
=
y-
.= = C % % %
% % =
=
= C e%
es
=
=
=.. =.
C gr g; s.-
.,=.
N s
= g.=.
.s.
o.
g G
.L.
.v 6
E**
=.
j
., *.== e%
e.
e% N
.=- -
c ew ew s C C' % % C C s % % C C C e.
e ew - ew c a
- c% e c e e% N -
ca.
v C
s c c i
6
=
s s.
.=-
s s.
s c N N.
.c.
s
.=- -
.a.
=
gr t P
e=
g C
.c
=
2 4
==
.=.
v c
v w
=
=
=
C
==.
- c;-
C C
3 v
==P a-s e.*
e%
ew s e% -
3*
85. C
==
.=
ew ew N e"w f
e ew==
c N C
- N e
m C C fw N O
E
-F E g s c c
c :=
C" C
s
% C s e s P.
C C
- c. s
.N L
t
- s s
ss
.es C %
.C
.=- sN.s s
=
.e%
C'.
4 C e e% m
=
=
e.t e
er N
fw=
=
=h
=
Es
= =. *
.e,,
b 6.
m.
e c el EE
.-==
gr tw g h-eV== C $C e% f% c% C I' g c
c e ew =
c e e s - % e c e =
cg, 2 2 s.,
s 'd s.
~
Es
% - 2 e % s s 1 5 3 s c m
e e
es
- m m c%
~ ~ ~
m am 1
- -v
.v.
.v
.- - - - - - e e N c
s 1
- 4. s.=.e
- e
.v e
-- e e e c e so e s e e
.s s
c e s % % s s
= ac,i
.v r ew r e e m e
R E% % O m e e- - s sm - %
- m m-s ew - - - e p
e m - - - ew m - m s % ew em s.
s s s
s
- Mi e
Ess s s s s s
% - e% %
ew e
m m m
e.
.c e, e % e c - - e c
.a.c.
I c
.I' m..
ri
==
m,
.- c.-
W v
e
=
W
% w c:
E w
r.= c -
-v e
- - - e e ew e
i
.v s % - e e e c ow
.v s
e e e c
- - e e e s s c -
,u.=.4
% scm-s s s e
- s s
- e e s s s e e s e
3 w =
o e N
c' c
.e e
s-s e % ar e% es -
m e
ce =.
r -
ew -
s E s-s,-
s A 4
- ew tw
. e.= I ew.
% s ew s s s s s s e -
b ew m ew e m e or m ~ % e - -
5 6
c e
.m i e
e e e
-e w
s%
- e c=
c
= m;
."i",;
m,!
s
,e e
e,,
s s s u v %
- - ew - v.v s
ew - m - m n
v v
v ss c - m
.v
=r eI
.v s
-s e
s s -
c.
ew v
w c e e cm e.w
.v
.v
.=c
.c a
2.:.
- c J
e e c
-c
- - % s es c %
x c s e c= c c e-e% e
.=.
e' v * = es -
=
C s ew C
c= e ;
E e
C=
~ ar m E 2 E
g & s
_m N W & % N N m.
"e, U
c
- = ~
?
.v -l
$ ss C -
i at
$ $s s N
- E
~s
~ = = cn en en s c
s % e.-
"C O
- - e m m 2
% e c
=
.c...
-v e
c h
v v v
.v I
a t
w w
- ew e
e - -
e e c - e c e
a a a
a os c c a a s s s c s s e
er.cc..
=:.=. c e v v c
w v c - % % v v e - c % cn es o
v s s w==.
C c m e c w w m = m A s -
e w
g ne el e
m e E
E s ss
- .=.=s
==
s % C s s s m ew w m e e cm - m 2
6 3
m ew w
n.?
b me al e,,
-a, e
. m.
v
=
8
.e f C.
2 g
.
I.m.c= a!
N C
c.v u
e.e v v
.v
.v gc v = v v
cc cc = c c e
w c
. % w % w em w p' cc s s.s s s e
E E=
m
% ew c w ew c ew
. ew g
a e, __
i e- =-
s N
N s s
-s s % %
E
==6 N
m m
e e e C m es C
=a b
g s.e
==.-
==
ed ee 4
-e a
=
=
c = = =
c e-O,e s
- =
s.
-C s = %
s
===;:
=
w
,a v
v
- v. =
w v w y P w
w M.
e m
c
> c.
v
.v- % %
s w s c
.e.=
==
w w
m er F.
e m ew h
e
./
s
.e t-ae
.- 6 ;
aG
.e,, w.e 'F.,
.N.
C
.C-
.M ea
- er O
==
Q S m C N O C m 3.,
- en
.er. C C - g es as e.
2 i
.E. e..a i
E i
o s
e
- C.E cs
"N v
-c
.a N C e
.= c0 e C m M N O C C C IP "c -
O C C v
E.
.=
=.
..=
W'O
.C=
I g
b O O C."3 N
N 3
.& O e
ew m
g cc e
5 4===
=
.nf ew
==
N C
b b
b 89 e
C ew A b & N b b W e
m
==
==
s s,
e v 5s E
=
c, 3 -
c ew c.
w e g E
z e
=
=
- w cs
- b v
s.
c.
ew = :
r-e.=
e s
s
.y
-t-g 4
6 b
.= N d
y 3
J.:
S.
=
3
=
6 - 5
' 2 T.
- =- : 1 e =
d.
.a -.
-E - - -
c%
L n
=
=
=
a : =
r
.a
= -
i
/
e/*
E
=
-*. =
- a. = :. " 3 s.
r.
==
h*
6*-
/
== '.. 3 3
x e
. s.-
a n.
4 e
e 14 =
=
e 9
1
< \\.
8 s
-e y
NNNmmmmmmmmm e
de e e c c c to e e c c e so N
c h
w%%%%%%%%%%%
m
-6
.c -== c c c O Q C Q @ e-sac,
Oe---eem% e cm o w e.g e e6 3e N
A, ~g LJ m - m. m m m m m.. e.
C etoecsososoaoenseeDeDen c u.er u it N N ere % e N N m O to EP O ed i
u o-COO--O-Co-a b
cm O
W m.s.=.
NNNmmmmmmmmm O
u ea es to en so to ao to to so e to e so en.#
M==**
4 m
zve
---oo3eseBSC W
oO =--
o o go W
O ed 8'*
6
==
6 ww
==
O CR NNNNNNNNMMmm CB C
co e to ao so 40 to en ec e e e
- * = =.% % % %. % C O.% % % % %
o ee W
- n. e g w en e
=-Nme ee o0000-e=-0000 em e
- 3
>=
e m-s.o a
ri'.e r
o.
Q t a.c
== - - N N N N N N N N N W
3as e um co co so en e en an e ao en
==
ea e 3
u
.na m
-== N N N eri en e e es O==
c e
.= - - O o o C O o O - -
== sh M
>=
==
u u E
3 EK as:
as 2
.J NNNNNNNNNNNN sn O
Gn.
W m.a o e to so so sc to ao e so c to 2
e.e I - - N m m 8 8 N $ O a= N m
o e
u m cc ooooo o
e g
E
>u u
b
==
0 d
es e
== -
N N N N N N N N N e.
V er a.3 to co so co e ao E e en e e ao eg c
u-e CE
--NNNem O-O 3
---ooco g
.=
0
=
e
---NNNNNNNNN k
e 3e en so ao so 40 so an e to e e so O
en.r C
e.
c o - =- e eene=eemC 2
O en e
- -.= Q O O O o O o O==
.C
==
=
=
w
>=
Dd
=
== - - em - N N N N N N N M.a ea 5 en.a e ao so so e so ao e e ao to e i
e as aan esc % 0 = - - - N w en e m m
en o C O - c=== Q o O O O O O W
==
$s8 e
y C
.J.
w ed D
3 T
==
k 000oo 000000 es ea aC 5
- % z o
e o m e*
a-t O
T
~ b.k. O) k w
ea oc COC000000000 m e=
W 21 wu E
kW 3 A
T. a i
m e
e N
N N
ed
%e N%
th C
N e= N e=
e % s=
+86.A O
%N N N e-O s=
@ em Jjf T
C 9
- W N N ** a= ea C ey Mg
%==
6.
f R. % %
e U @ (w
- = e-T.e er su -
et e
N C G es MQ e B
00W e.3.a >
- 4. **
C As=
n,a ed e y >= t.
to ne. en s.'=.e e JD E ebo O b. 9 **
- u.d O
e e
and g
C s
e== a=
b t e=
em.
e a=
e ** e @ e-O De W = S O==
Q 9
a*
>=
A.
u to 4. M V 3 m 6. E W eh E E
4 4
==
4 e
e ee e
e e ee e
TAllLE 3 SIATUS AND PROJECTED TARGET SCilEDULES FOR PENDING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS Latest non-Hearing IIcaring ~ ~(4)-
PLANT F5AR ER SER ACRS THI SSER FES non-THI non-THI THI ACRS Illi.
)
Docketed Docketed
!!L9-Start End SER IHI SSER
. _... ~ ~ ~
Allens Creek 1 12/73C 12/73C ll/74C l2/74C 13/79C 12/00C 11/810.
. ;_z.__ :
09/81 0 7/111 9a/lil 09/01 Black Fox 1 & 2 12/75C 12/75C 06/77C 16/77C 13/79C 02/77C 18/77C 02/190 03/81 0 9/;11 IW81 Pebble Springs 1 & 2 10/74C 08/74C Ol/76C 12/76C 15/78C 04/75G 15/78C (1) 09/g1 1 0/!11 ijfgj l
e Perkins 1-3 05/74C 06/74C 03/77C
.14/17C 17/77C 10/75C 11/150 02/79C (2)
T2f "(2f Pilgrim 2 12/73C 12/730 06/15C 11/75C ll/79C 10/75C 10/75C
~
j 08/79C 06/81 07/01 08/81 l
1 Skagit 1 & 2 01/75C 09/74C 08/77C 11/77C 10/78C 06/75C 17/75C (3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
~
g filp 1-8 07/73C 07/73C 011/75C Series 02/80C 10/75d
')6/ 76C 10/19C 10/a1
,1 1 /111 12/01 (1) Seismic issues delayed safety review. Alternative site review based on the Seabrook decision resulted in FES I
supplement on this nutter. llearings not concluded; in addition to Till-2 issues, generic issues (ALAD-444),
need-for-power, and alternative site matters are pending.
Site Certification by State is not complete.
1 (2) Motion was flied to reopen to consider THi-2 issues. Applicant indicated in July 1979 that no final decision has been made by them on the construction of Units 1, 2 and 3.
(3)
As a result of fleid explorations conducted by USGS, the seismic design of the facility must be reexamined. -
Appilcants indicated in September 1980 that proposed facility to be relocated to site on the llanford reservation. Arm:nded ER and PSAR will be flied in September 1981.
(4)
Schedules shown are based on issuance of the final rule on TMI requirements in March.
(5)
Schedules shown are based on very preliminary. estimates of when PSAR amendments related to i
TMI requirements would be filed. '
l
)
o
\\.
-s i
i AW ACHME.NT 1 r
i I
i l
l i
b e
t i
k
- 6
o i
UTILITY ESTIMATES OF COSTS DUE TO LICENSING CELAYS
- v.
t P.epl acement Caoital Energy Cost Excense Per Month Per Month 6
UNIT MWe
$1 x 10
$1 x 106 Sumner 900 11.6 9.2 Diablo Canyon 1 1084 26.4 10.8 Diablo Canyon 2 1106 28.9 8.2 San Onofre 2 1100
, 36.5 16.5 l
Zimer 792 5.3 6.0 i
l McGuire 1 1180 6.9 9.0 Susquehanna 1-1050 17.0 25.0
[
Waterford 3 1110 27.4 15.3 2horeham 1 820 23.5 20.0 Comanche Peak l 1150 18.5 19.0 Y
j I
[
- Information provided by telephone with follow-up written reports e pected X
by April 3,1981.
a
o
\\,
s >
4 l
l i
P00R ORIGINAL AT*ACEMENT 2 i
N e
l i
i l
2
_ COST OF DELAY MATERIAL FCR MARCH STATUS rep 0RT TO CONGRESS
\\
y.s Table 1 identifies ten nuclear units where the estimated construction completion date orecedes the completion of the licensing effert.
The NRR staff was asked to develop esti=ates of the costs that will be incurred as a result of these licensing delays. These estimates appear in the attached Table.
One should be cognizant that the estimates are highly sensitive to underlying assumptions which are subject to much uncertainty (fuel price escalation, sources of replacement energy available, expected performance of the nuclear unit in its initial consnercial start-up, etc. ).
only be viewed as benchmark estimates.Thus, the values reported in Table 2 should Cost of Replacement Energy For the purpose of this assessment, the staff has assumed that all replacement energy will be made-up by capacity already on the applicant's system.
Where a system is heavily conunitted to a particular energy source, replacement energy is viewed as coming totally from that source.
If a system's capacity is assumed to be equally distributed among those energy so factor of 60t during the delay period.It is assumed that the nuclear unit w The fuel costs in mills per kWh are based on the following assumptions.
The fuel cost for coal, oil, and natural These values were converted to mills per kWh based on of 11,000 BTU per kWh for oil and gas-fired plants and 10,000 BTU per kWh for coal fired plants.
to reflect estimated costs in theThese costs were then escalated at a nominal 10%
1981-83 timeframe. The nuclear fuel cost is based on a 1977 estimate of 7.83 mills per kWh (assumes no recycle), and escalated at a nominal rate of 5% per year to reflect estimated cost in the 1981-83 timeframe.
of NUREG -0480 (Coal and Nuclear:These nuclear fuel cost assumptions are based o Baseload' Electricity by Region),
A Comparison of the Cost of Generating Caoital Expense Durina the Delay Period e
The capital expense represents the interest charges associated with carrying tha capital investment during the delay period.
For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that interest accrues on the completed capital cost of the facility at the annual rate of 10% per year.
This expense shifts I
the financial burden from one group to the other and shifts payments in i
time, and should not be weighted as societal costs in the same manner as the expense of replacement energy.
1
.,.-.-_r..__
s.._.-,
- 2: -
o e
Tnis view assu es that:
(a) during :ne :aried.cf ceisy, the T:ney e ai.e: :;. :_s : e s whi:r. would.0: er.i st be paid ir. rites :ne i
uni: were coeratinc can be invested a
- inancial returns e;uivalent to : nose :0s' s : aid by the utility in ca rying the ian-in its cer.5:ru::' r. werk i, ;r::ress accoun:;'it: thera is a e:ca:e regional Lo'..er su: ply ir. One snori-term sucn ;.a: :nere is no neec to make real economic resource commitments to expecite completion of other generating capacity (c) the delayed nuclear unit dees not deteriorate during the delay per;iod such that its useful operational life is shortened; and (d) the delayed start-up does not result in the unit being technologically obsolete during the end of its useful life which has now been stretched out because of the delayed start-up.
- Chairman Hendrie notes that f6r the great majority of customers this assumption is not correct.
Comm ss oner Ahearne disassociates himself from this argument and this e
e e
e I
d COST OF REPI ArtMIN1 int RGY AHil CAril Al [Xi'INSE INCIIHRIO lilI[ lo llCINSING lit l AYS
{Al.L 0051 T5IIMAILS ARI IN CilRRINI 8061 ARS)*
CAP 11A1 1 xl'1 fr,I COST OF RtPl Ar[MI NT ENfRGY
~
7
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Everage
( 511 -
Tnt'41 licplace- ~ Estimated i niciese Cost of Incre-sisted Replace-nii sit Capital Ih. lay Casil t al Replace-Nuclear mental length ment
[nergy Cost liin ing Impense ment l'uel fuel of Ener9y Cost Per of linit at th: lay l'e r j
Fuel Cost Cost Delay Cost Mnnth fengsletion** Perinal** llonth
- REPI ACEMINT FUEL i
,f MIX 1 0
6 6
l_IN!L,,,,,,,_,,,, _,Wy,,,.CpAL,,g!(
GAS MBJs/Jteh MI1Is._f}Wh Mi1Js/k Q th_1___jj,x JO
_}], a 10 jj,n,10 _.
_,,gg, yg _ _ _,
- immier 900 50 50 31.1 10.0 21.1 8
66.4 8.3 twin
'. J. 3 h.7 lH.ihlo Canyon i 1084 100 62.2 9.5 52.7 12
,300.2 25.0 1050 105.0 n.11 ro
.ss.si j.#7.0 i
014I.1o Canyon 2 1116 100 68.4 10.0 Sil.4 5
141.4 28.3 184 0 Sois unofre 2 1100 100 60.3 9.5 50.0 6
147.0 24.5 1182 0 91.0
- 1!. 2 linsner 192 50 50 44.6 10.0 34.6 3
36.0 12.0 1030
'2 5. 11 n.6 Hi.Gnlic I 1100 100 16.9 9.5 7.4 11 1 1. 11 3.8 770 til. h
- e. 4 if Sir.epiehanna 1 1050 50 50 31.2 10.0 27.2 8
100.0 12.5 11140 122.7 15.3 s
W.iterford 3 1110 100 50.7 10.5 40.2 3
58.5 19.5 1230 30.n l u..I She.schase I fl20 100 41.3 10.0 31.3 I
11.2 11.2 2210 Ill.4 lit.4 Iseune.he Peak i 1850 100 26.6 10.5 16.1 2
16.2 8.1 1820 1 16. 7 9.3 l
- See accongianying text for explanation and underlying asstagitions o*Convoissioner Bradford riotes that anyone who would include these columns as part of the costs to society of delaying these units is economically illiterate.
J
,