ML20005B087
| ML20005B087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1981 |
| From: | Heidel C DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0769, RTR-NUREG-769 EF2-53-894, NUDOCS 8107060298 | |
| Download: ML20005B087 (33) | |
Text
J l\\ '
Charic 5 M. Heidel Ex: u iv cm President-Operations Detroit 2000 Second Avenue E= CI S O n e m # r *" '
June 29, 1981 EF2 - 53,894 Director, Division of Licensing U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
Dear Sir:
Reference:
Draft Environmental Statement (NUREG-0769)
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341
Subject:
Detroit Edison Comments As requested, Detroit Edison is submitting the attached comments on the Draft Environmental Statement for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, for Commission consideration.
Sincerely, C. Lt.dnu cc:
D.
E.
Howell, Esq.
L.
L.
Kintner B.
Little D
(,0 O r
//
lbR'2885T*otb88
g:
r DETROIT EDISON COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (NUREG - 0769)
RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 APRIL 1981 DOCKET No. 50 - 341 l
l JUNE 1981 l
l
i DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 1 4
DETROIT EDISON COMMENTS Detroit re.ison has reviewed the Draf t Environmental Statement (NUREG - 0769) related to the operation of the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2 (Fermi 2) and concurs with the Staff's conclusion that under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 10 CFR Part 51 an operating license can be issued.
Edison's analysis of the information contained in NUREG - 0769 indicates that the Staff has performed an independent, conserv-ative analysis of the information presented in the Applicant's Environmental Report (Operating License Stage). Specific comments on NUREG - 0769, as requested by the Commission,are presented on the following pages.
l l
l r
L-
O DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 2
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION (piii)
. Footnote should read Enrico Femi Power Plant, Unit 1, is presently owned by Detroit Edison-Company not Power Reactor Development Company.
1 I
I l-l 1
I i
f 1
l
DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 3 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Section 1.1 History f
(p. 1-1)
The Applicant has applied for a license to operate a 3292 MWT (rated) nuclear power plant at the Fermi site. This plant will produce 1093 MW electric for distribution throughout the system.
4 t
l
DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 4 CHAPTER 2 THE SITE Section 2.2.1 Regional Demography (p. 2-1)
The statement in the second paragraph of this section concerning an accelerated population growth during the next three decades in the Monroe County area is not consistent with the trend established by the estimated 1980 population and the projected year 2000 population which shows a compound growth rate of 0.007 over the next 20 years.
"Complan 2000", September 1976 (Ref-erence 1) is no longer an accurate representation of the growth trend in the area and will be updated by Monroe County to reflect the 1980 population data and revised growth rates and trends.
Section 2.3.1 Regional Water Use (p. 2-4)
Figure 2-2.16 (ER-OL) indicates that very little water is supplied from the Toledo municipal system within the 10-mi. radius of the Fermi site.
(p. 2-6)
Since municipal sewer systems have been expanded, the septic tanks in many areas of the Lake Erie shoreldue in the vicinity of the site are no longer in use.
As a result, Lake Erie water is considered suitable for swimming and total body contact by the State of Michigan.
(Table 2.6)The Monroe Power Plant is 6 miles SSW of the Fermi site, not 16 miles. The inteke is on the naisin River and draws cooling water from both the river and Lake Erie.
DE Concents NUREG - 0769 Page $
Section 2.3.4 Water Quality (Table 2.10 The maximum value for mercury should be 0.6
- p. 2-13) l i
l l
l l
l
DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 6 CHAPTER 3 THE PLANT Section 3.2.2.2 Intake Structure (p. 3-3)
The intake canal for Fermi 2 will be dredged as nec-essary, depending on Lake Erie water levels, to maintain a favorable channel depth.
Section 3.2.3 Radioactive Waste Treatm q (p. 3-4)
As noted in the attached letter (EF-2-53702, June 17, 1981) the liquid and solid radwaste systems are be-ing upgraded. Details of the changes will be pro-vided in a forthcoming amendment to the FSAR. The upgraded system is designed to meet the requirements of ALARA.
Section 3.2.4 Chmical, Sanitary, and Other Waste Treatment (p. 3-7)
For clarification, the fourth paragraph should read; Each demineralizer system re;;eneration requires up to 154 kg (340 lb) of acid and 126 kg (278 lb) of caustic and is followed by a backwash with up to 27,200 lb (7200 gal) of water.
Detrolt 2000 Secono Aven Ecison ranar ue June 17, 1981 EF2-53702 Mr. L. L. Kintner Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co==ission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Kintner:
Ref erence:
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 Subj ect :
Fermi 2 Radwaste System Modifications This letter confirms that Detroit Edison has made the decision to substantially improve ns present Radwaste system, and is actively engaged in detailed engineering of it.
We are upgrading both our liquid radwaste system and solid system. The most sign-ificant changes will be to the latter, where we plan to install a completely new volume - reduction and solidification system.
Details will be provided in a forthcoming amendment to the FSAR.
- Sincerly, 7/i'
~
s William F. Colbert Technical Director Enrico Fepni 2 i
l i
I WFC/sim i
l 8
DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 7 CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF STATION OPERATION Section 4.3.1 Thermal Discharge (p. 4-7)
The Pritchara model used by the NRC Staff is an en-pirical model similar in nature to that used in the ER (OL) and was, in fact, derived from thermal dis-charges at shallow gradually sloping Great Lakes sites similar to Fermi. The model is, therefore, a good model from which predictions can be used as a comparison with the ER (OL) predictions. DES Table 4.2 shows the Pritchard model predicts lower 3 F surface areas than the ER (OL) for all cases except Case 2.
For that latter case the DES notes, "The
..arge prediction by Pritchard Model No. 2 for Case 2 l
may be an anomaly of the model because it is known l
for other studies thac this model tends to overpredict the areas contained within the excess isotherms in l
the far field" Under the conditions of a relatively large cross-current, the Shirazi-Davis model may be more appro-l priate than the Pritchard model because the mathemat-ically singularity of the former is not encountered for the temperature of interest. However, the Shirazi-Davis model will underpredict areas because of the depth (no lake bottom interf erence) assumption.
l
DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 8 The Staff's statement that the Applicant's model has built into it the incorrect assumption that the areas are equal with and without an ambient current present maybe true but is misleading. The model, which is based on actual operating data, implicity encompasses the conditions existing while taking the data. Therefore, the model may or may not underpredict under the given conditions of 0.4 fps ambient velocity, depending on the ambient velocity at the time the data was taken.
However, it will certainly overpredict when applied to relatively stationary water.
Section 4.3.5 Effects on Acuatic Biota Through Changesin Water Quality (pp. 4-8, Detroit Edison takes exception to the Staf f 's con-
[fj) clusidn that compliance with NPDES Permit No. MI 0037 028 may result in a discharge of unoxidixed de-chlorintor and cause reduced oxygen levels. There are se.veral points to consider when discussing the possible depletion of oxygen in Lake Erie by unoxidized dechlor-isator:
Lake Erie water is saturated with oxygen (ER(OL) e Supplement 5, pp. A 4-82 to 4-84) e NPDES Permit No. MI 0037028 limits the discharge of chlorine to 160 minutes per day. Dechlorinating agent would only be added during chlorination.
DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 10 CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Section 5.2.5 Radiological Environmental Monitoring (p. 5-3)
The number of direct radiation monitoring stations was expanded to 37 beginning the third quarter of 1980 to conform with Revision 1 of the Branch Tech-nical Position. The network now includes 31 in-dicator stations, 4 special area stations, and 2 con-trol stations. The locations of these stations are shown on the attached figure and table.
(Table 5.1 The control station for fish was changed to the vicinity P. 5-4) of Celeron Island approximately 9.5 miles NNE of the plant. This was necessary due to the low density of perch in the vicinity of the Trenton Channel Power Plant.
l
DE Comments NUREG - 0769 Page 9 e
The area of the discharge plume is very small and nearfield when compared to the area of the Western Basin of Lake trie (approximately 800 sq. miles).
Section 4.5.2 Dose Commitments (p. 4-18, Dose Commitments from Radioactive Liquid Releases to 4-24) the Hydrosphere As indicated in the Applicant's comment on DES Section 3.2.3, the liquid / solid radwaste systems are being up-graded. Preliminary results of Appendix 1 dose calcul-ations indicate a further reduction in the dose from the liquid pathway.
l (Table 4.5 The nearest residence, like the nearest garden, is lo-
- p. 4-20) cated 1.13 km WNW.
(Table 4.7 The total body person-rems from natural radiation P. 4-22) backround is 5.9 X 10+$ not 8.8 X 10 As shown in
~
DES Table 2.2, the O to 50 mile year 2000 population is about 5,480,000, not 8,200,000 as stated in Foot-note (d) to Table 4.7.
Section 4.6 Noise (p. 4-30) The early notification system is not expected to be-come another source of noise as a result of operation of Fermi 2 since it is anticipated to be an all purpose system to be used for all types of emergencies, includ-ing natural disasters and fires. In addition, the system will be configured around existing sirens that are presently used for such purposes.
SUPPLEMENTARY TTE STATIONS r
Sector / Station No.
Incation NW S-1 Pole NE Corner Dixie Highway and Post Road (2 mi. ring)
NNW S-2 Pole NW Corner Dixie Highway and Swan Creek (2 mi. ring)
N S-3 Pole (GDES240G5) on Masserant - South on SE corner of driveway to abandoned barn (2 mi. ring)
NNE S-4 Pointe Mouillee - W Jefferson and Campau Road, Pole (GDE7045GC3) on SE corner of bridge (5 mi.
ring)
NE S-5 Pointe Nouillee Game Area - Field Office, pole near tree north area cf parking lot (5 mi. ring)
NNE S-6 Labo and Dixie Highway - Pole (fl75W3909) on SW corner with light (5 mi. ring)
N S-7 Labo and Brandon - Pole (GDE6150G4) on SE corner near RR (5 mi. ring)
(
NNW S-8 Pole ($RS6DE27305) behind post office in Newport (5 mi. ring)
WNW S-9 Pole (GR45DE40-2-30) on SE corner of War and Post Rds. (5 mi. ring)
W S-10 Pole ($10-78SP-G7-35) on NE corner Nedau and Lapard - near mobile home park (5 mi. ring)
SW S-11 Pole (GDECO3740-6) on NW corner Mentel and Burd (5 mi. ring)
SW S-12 Pole ($DE71-4-408) in parking lot of Department of Natural Resources Office Building - Sterling State Park (5 mi. ring)
W S-13 Pole (GDE74-5-40GC) on Williams Road - school coinplex approximately 200 yards S of Jef ferson High (special area)
WSW S-14 Pole (GDE45-35G6R60) N side of Pearl - Woodland Beach (pop, area)
S S-15 Pole (GDE76-40H5) S side of Iong and Point Aux Peaux (site boundary)
SSW S-16 Pole (GDE58-40-G5RG69) S side of Point Aux Peaux -
next to vent pipe (site boundary)
..v.
,-m.__..%
-.,,.----,___,.-...,.-.,_.-_-.w-,-
,-_-,.,,.,,.w..
.__,m.,,,
BUPPLDGNTARY TLD STATIONS (Continued) j Sector / Station No.
Iocation SW S-17 Fermi gate along Point Aux Peaux Road - on fence post W of gate WSW S-18 Pole (9DE0034-35) on S corner of Tell Road S of main gate W
8-19 Pole (GDE74-40H5) on Toll Road, first residence from Enrico Fermi Drive SSW S-20 Pole (GDE7785BB1) at end of Front Street - in front of Detroit Edison Generation Plant (special area)
SW 8-21 Pole (98-78-150) junction of Mortor and Laplaisance (10 mi. ring) itSW S-22 Junction of Dixie Highway and Laplaisance/Albain (10 mi. ring)
WSW 8-23 Pole (GDE4940B4) Custer (St. Mary's) Park corner of N Custer and Dixie (Monroe St.) (N side, next to river) (special area)
WSW S-24 Pole ($ DECO 31-60A) Milton " Pat" Munson Recrea-tional Reserve - N Custer Road (10 mi. ring)
WNW S-25 Pole (GMIBC2) corner Stoney Creek and Finzel Roads (10 mi. ring)
NW 8-26 Pole ($ DECO 5028) N corner Graf ton and Ash Roads WRt S-27 Pole (GDECO 35 6 40) junctica of Port Creek and Will-Carlton Roads N
S-28 Pole (9064 Y-7224) SE side of I-75, corner Pace and S Huron River Drive (special area) t N
S-29 Pole (GDECO 45 4 40) N side corner of Cahill and Gibralter Roads (10 mi. ring)
NNE S-30 Pole ($DE 55 40G4) S corner of Adams and Gibralter (ocross from Humbug Marina) (special area)
1 kkdOM -ff[Jg[_ Ek,4 0Y" N$
I l
S$.
- li tr +;
a.NNE 1
RT eNNW
- )g, L 4 7
..=-11 9
~
~2 l
x Jz.).LM,!! A, l
- r. 4; y..? t'%.q " - ) r = --
09 i.t...
l C --,..
t 'lNEg E *YQ%E f" "1y ?"' p h ph
- t ' s !; N W s ~~3-
"., D
'fT '-
l 1
-~... 4 g
. y,
.. g.., _..a _1p, a A
i c
74p i
Ms fb g
5
- WNWi r Ci,g',I
=
ENE g
l a.A..r
/
g
.x 4(r,crr j
-x i
l
>,~,.A,g;;h.W-a;,
1 6.7 z
t );. 2r
\\
a s
Jy t,
h4.
l..
ILES 10 CAlLES W
E g
.,7y g v w.. p ~.s-iif,.. &s-1N i
/
.s.
f.s.. ".
n s-ic.
s
' @.fs.11 /
N 4
- e. S-24," '
a',
,f
[/T _; g p
u-i j
\\
,,,, y
- t. g-23 '
-S-12 j
I 2 $[ s' k/
\\
=WSW
).
s' ESE' d
S-N O
e r. C h S-22'-
v
~ ;
N
-,,4, E
N 1
W t ein
.s 1SW SE V:.,u. +I...f. )(
a j
y p
g r,
I
DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 11 CHAPTER 6 ENVIRO:OiENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS The Applicant concurs with the concitaions reached in E2ction 6.1.5 that there are no special or unique circumstanc:_ about the Fermi 2 site and environs that would result in different or substantially greater environmental impacts than those from other presently operating BWR's and that no special or addit-ional engineered safety features should be recommended.
In general, the Applicant is in agreement with the Staff's analyses and evaluations, and believes that they meet with the intent of the Commission's interim policy rega-ding accident considerations.
Specific comments are listed below:
i l
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON CHAPTER 6 1.
Evacuation Model The Fermi 2 analysis is an improvement over similar analyses recently issued for the reactors at the
(}
l Susquehanna site (NUREG - 0564) and the Virgil
(}
C. Summer site (NUREG - 0534) by calculating the results using a realistic evacuation model. This evacuation model, which is described in Appendix H of l
the DES (Reference 3) and the use of evacuation time I
estimates prepared for the Applicant represents a l
l
DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 12 more realistic approach than that used in the Reactor (4}
Safety Study.
In the Susquehanna analysis, for exampie, most of the calculated results were derived by assuming that people would not be relocated for seven days followins e severe, Class 9 accident. This assumption led to a very con-servative prediction of consequences and conveyed an incorrect impression of the magnitude of reactor acci-dents.
2.
Use of the Computer Code CRAC It is appropriate to comment on the use of the computer code CRAC (Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences) since many of the results presented in the analysis i
depend on its use. The assessment methodology employed is that described in the Reactor Safety Study. The major modifications of the RSS methods are the use of site specific meteorological and population data, the use of release categories appropriate to the "rebase-lined" BWR and, as has already been mentioned, the incorporation of a realistic evacuation model. There are, however, other easily incorporated modifications to CRAC which have been described in recent studies such as that of the Limerick BWR The omission of these modifications is a significant source of conservatism.
Examples of these conservatisms include:
DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 13 (a)
Plume Width The width of the plume in the dispersion model used in the RSS is strictly applicable to re-leases of radioactive material of duration 3 minutes; that is, the formulae used in the RSS for calculating the plume width are phenom-enological fits to data taken in experiments in which the duration of release was about 3 minutes.
In practice, the smallest duration of release considered in the RSS was 30 minutes. It is a well-known characteristic of dispersing plumes that, roughly speaking, their average width is an increasing function of the duration of cloud passage. (4) If plume widths appropriate to a 30 minute release are used, the effect is to reduce predicted plume center line concentrations by a factor of about two. Radiation doses are then reduced by the same factor. The predicted effect on the number of acute fatalities depends on the population distribution around the reactor and could also be reduced by at least a factor of two.
(b)
Shielding Factors The CRAC analysis incorporates shielding factors for people assumed to be sheltered from gamma-rays emitted by deposited fission products. In the RSS a shielding factor of 0.3 was used. In the Limerick Study (
, the shielding factor was estimated by consideriag the shielding provided
DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 14 by typical houses to be found in Pennsylvania.
Since brick houses with basements are common there, with excellent shielding characteris-tics, a shielding factor of 0.15 was deduced.
The accumulated ground dose is the dominant contributor to the radiation dose that is used 0
in calculations of early fatalities
, thus the shielding factor can lead to a substantial reduction in that dose.
According to the RSS, the percentage of brick houses in Michigan is slightly lower than that in Pennsylvania, and slight modification would have to be made for applicability to the Fermi site. Since the analysis is intended to be a.
site-specific as possible, it would be approp-riate to include shielding factors that are characteristic of the region.
(c)
Conclusions By including a site-specific shielding factor and a factor of two due to the change from a 3-minute to a 30-minute plume width, a reduct-ion by a factor of three to four in predicted doses is possible. The corresponding reduction in the predicted number of early deaths may be even greater because of the threshold in the early fatality dose-risk relationships.
.J DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 15 3.
Miscellaneous Comments a.
The captions on Figures 6.2 and 6.3 have been inadvertently switched.
i b.
Figure 6.7, Individual Risk of Dose as a Function of Distance, is hard to interpret since there are only two cryptic sentences devoted to it, at the bottom of page 6-29.
It does not appear to add any useful information to that presented in other tables and figures in the analysis and there are no conclusions that depend on it.
It would be better if it were omitted.
c.
The Applicant has reservations about the use of numbers as low as 10' per year for the iso-pleths of the risk of acute fatality per year to
-12 an individual as shown on Figure 6.8; 10 per year means once in a thousand billion years that is, once in a period that exceeds a hundred tiees the age of the earth. Numbers of this nature can have no meaning.
d.
The fraction of the core inventory of iodine that is given in Table 6-3 for the atmospheric t_'.aase seems peculiar. For example, the DES gives release fractions of 0.2 for the TC-[ sequence.
In the Reactor Safety Study, the TC-Isequence is assigned to the BWR3 category, for which the
DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 16 inorganic iodine release fraction is given as 0.1
~
and the organic release fraction as 7X10 (in Table VI 2-1).
Similarly, in Table 6-3 of the DES, sequences S E5and S EIare assigned an iodine release y
2 fraction of 0.1 whereas, in the RSS, these sequences belong to category BWR4, for which the corresponding
~0 release fraction is given an 8X10 for the inorganic and 7X10 ' for the organic iodine. In themselves,
~
these discrepancies are probably not particularly important but they do raise a question. The reasons a
for the choice of the release fractions for the rebaselined PWR's and BWR's that are used in the analysis have never been published. Since it appears that they will be frequently used in studies of this type, it would be useful to publish a complete des-cription of the accident sequences that make up the rebaselined PWR and BWR.
i l
l l
REFERENCES l.
NUREG - 0564, Supplement No. 2; Supplement to the Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Opera-tion of the Sucquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (March, 1981) 2.
NUREG - 0534, Supplement; Draft Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit No. 1, (November, 19G0) l
DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 17 3.
Aldrich, D.
C., Blond, R. M. and Jones, R.
B.,
"A Model of Public Evacuation for Atmospheric Radiological Releases", Sandia Laboratories Report SAND 78-0092 (1978).
4.
Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400 (NUREG 75/014), 1975 5.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Limerick Generating Station, Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket Numbers 50-352 and 50-353, (March, 1981) 6.
Wall, I. B., Yaniv, S.
S., Blond, R.
M., et al,
" Overview of the Reactor Safety Study", Paper presented at the International Conference of Nuclear Systems Reliability Engineering and Risk Assessment, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, June 19-25, 1977.
l
a DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 18 CHAPTER 7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Section 7.1 Resume (p. 7-1)
The Staff's statement that "It is in this context that the Applicant has delayed the commercial availability of the Fermi unit" should be further amplified.
This statement implies that the Applicant intention-ally delayed the construction of Fermi 2 due only to the decline in expected load growth. Design modifi-cations, made necessary to meet new NRC regulations, increased the scope of the project which caused further delays.
Section 7.2.1.1 Production Costs (p. 7-3)
Reference is made to Table 7.1, Page 7-3, where the Applicant's production cost is 0.8 million dollars higher with Fermi 2 than without Fermi 2.
Perhaps the Staff was misled with the Applicant's response to their request. The Detroit Edison Company (DECO) and Michigan Electric Coordinated System (MECS) production costs have not been modified to reflect purchased power; they contain only the self gener-l ated fuel costs. Therefore, attached are revised Tables 1, 2, and 3 that reflect the total energy costs and should replace the data submitted origin-ally.
l
DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 19 (Table 7.2 p. 7-3) Average cost of replacement energy from external sources, year 1985, should be 48.87
$/MWh instesd of 48.81 $/MWh.
Section 7.2.1.3 Reliability Analysis (Table 7.4 p.7-5)
For 1984, EZCO Purchases (Sales) should be (15) instead of 15. For DECO, under the Reserves column, in 1988 the 3678 should be 3078; the 36.4 is correct; the 2804 should be 2145; and the 33.1 should be 25.4; the :itle of the table should be 1984 - 1988 not 1985.
l l
l
__.-.-__,_,_._s.
s TABLE 1 DETROIT EDISON (DE) AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COORDINATED SYSTEM (MECS) NET COST FOR SYSTEM LOAD FORECASTS WITH FORECASTED GROWTH RATE With Fermi 2 Without Fermi 2 DE MECS DE MECS net NET NET NET Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Cost Cost Cost Cost 6
6 6
6 S X 10
$X 10 SX 10 SX 10 1984 1170.4 2129.9 1285.9 2245.2 1985 1156.3 2312.0 1354.0 2471.5 1986 1418.9 2743.8 1634.7 2945.7 1987 1599.3 3149.0 1887.5 3477.2 1988 2020.5 3927.6 2387.7 4355.7 l
June 1, 1981 l
l
TABLE 2 DETROIT EDISON (DE) AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COORDINATED SYSTEM (MECS) NET COSTS FOR SYSTEM LOAD FORECASTS WITH LOAD GROWTH RATE AT HALF THE FORECASTED GROWTH RATE With Fermi 2 tiithout Fermi 2 DE MECS DE MECS NET NET NET NET Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel 6
0 0
6 S X 10 SX 10 SX 10 S X 10 1984 1043.4 1917.4 1143.9 2012.4 1985 1115.8 2097.1 1251.1 2228.4 1986 1270.3 2410.0 1446.9 2575.9 1987 1369.5 2692.0 1614.7 2948.4 1988 1644.9 3159.7 1902.6 3365.0 l
l June 1, 1981
i o
e TABLE 3 DETROIT EDISON (DE) AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COORDINATED SYSTEM (MECS) NET COSTS FOR SYSTEM LOAD FORECASTS WITH ZERO LOAD GROWTH RATE (1980 BASE)
With Fermi 2 Without Fermi 2 DE MECS DE MECS NET NET NET NET FUEL FUEL FUEL FUEL COST COST COST COST 6
6 6
6 S X-10
$ X 10 S X 10
$X 10 1984 943.2 1740.0 1023.1 1810.4 1985 1043.0 1917.9 1161.3 2019.8 1986 1151.5 2143.6 1300.0 2278.5 1987 1208.6 2339.9 1400.0 2532.0 1988 1378.3 2618.2 1583.0 2843.3 i
June 1, 1981
4 DE Comments NUREG-0769 Page 20 CHAPTER 9 BENEFIT - COST ANALYSIS Section 9.4 Economic Costs (p. 9-1)
The Staff requested that the Applicant provide the latest estimate of the completed capital cost of the Fermi 2 unit, the estimate of the fixed charge rate on this investment, and the estimate of the first year fuel and O&M costs (in mills / Kwhr).
In addition, the levelized values over the assumed 30 years operating life of the plant was requested for these same cost elements (i.e., fuel and O&M). The most recent values for Fermi 2 are listed below:
6 o Capital Cost, ($ X 10 )
2000 o Fixed Charge Rate, %
20.6 o Cost, first full year of operatica Fuel, mills / Kwhr 14.3 O&M, mills / Kwhr 10.6 o Levelized Cost, 30 years Fuel, mills / Kwhr 29.7 O&M, mills /rWhr 35.1 The fuel and O&M costs listed above are based on the information on the attached tables, i
i
,~n,w.
,,e-w-a
,.m--,-r,
,w-
a 3
I R
- 2 3 2 2 2
8 e
~
s, g
- n. -
o g
g 4
. ~
~
a a
e.
e -
o.
8 e
E e
~
n o.
't o.
a e.
g
< et
- e e o
e n e
e.
g ena et o e
==
e o g
p.,
e N
e
- o
, =.
- j g e.
e=.
e.
.y e.
==
4 M
e*
e e
e
=
e e-g
- 4 N
e.
c.
e e
e A 5 e
e e
e e o =
m e.
N o
.I.t e e o.
c.
e e'
e.
O e.
e e
p e
e
.a=.
M M
.e e
==
N g
%.4 f0 w
e o e e
H c
e o
e.
e e
p.
c e
e o S
e.
e.
e ce e.
p.
c.
g O
E e
e e.
s e
'O e
S
n e"4 e.
e e
e e.
e e
e.
e e.
O e o
=.
e o -
e.
e e
M e
m o
e e
a s
e e o.
e.
e e.
e.
N.
~.
w o.
e.
e.
e e
c e
c e
g o
e
.- e m N
w 2 3 8
w 5'
8 2 3 2
e.
e m
e o
%a
=
.=
m g
e M
m.
8 N
o ~
M f
g W
N e
e e.
e - ~ ~
e.
er.
O.
e,,
e o w
e.
o.
e o.
c.
w 9
O O.
n.
e.
- cy n
m m e
e e e n e
e O. e O. o
.c.
.e 2 c-a.
-c
=
~
a
~
~ a 8
g e
e o e.
e.
o.
~
e w
=
811 ' g 2
n e_ s.
e
_ e e
=
a e
5 eu e.
ea.
s.e 4
.e.
8 e
e e e e
.e o.
e us u.
e e.
e a
e a
o e.
e.
a e.
e e Q
~.
c e
c e
g
~
8, a n 2
2 a.
. o a
e
- ~
a
.e.
A
~.
3 ee.
e.
n.
o e
f c.
~
o
~
e g
~
o
~
f.,
1 8 e ~.
e
~
. ~ o e.
e n.
~.
3 o.
.- e
~
,o.
~.,
m.
~
~.
e e
e.
e e.
~
~
- e n
.o.
8 e
o <
o e
8 e
m e
e e
.c c.
r e.
--o-2 o
2 e3 8
.,.,,, o.,
e
~
m
~
e - ~ ~
e.
o.
e
~,,
e.
e.
o.
o.
e.
e u.
. ~.
e.
c g
e a e
l g
e.
n n l
2 T..u
- e a
e o m.
e e e
=
8 e.
e ~
e
~
~
,m,,
e e
n e
.,e O C
.e. us
\\
Se d.
vi e
8 z
e.
a a.
~.
o e
8 U
~.
e.
8 8 3
-o e.
...e a.o.
.e m
d
.e e
e mo a
u g
&~,
a R
8.
B.
a
. e u
s m.
o
.o.
.o
.e
.a.
- u. 2 u.
ha.. - i, a 3
-=.
A o
e e.
h.
A C
W 3
e-.
e-.
o o
u g
un y
2 n
n
~
==
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL 7 YEAR BUDGET FORECAST 1984 - 1990 1981 DOLLARS (tb usands of dollars) 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Manager & Staff 780 780 780 780 780 780 780 Owners Group 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 Employee Benefits 4640 4640 4640 4640 4640 4640 4640 5495 5495 5495 5495 5495 5495 5495 t
i l
I l
6/23/81 l
l l
. _. _ _ _ _ _ _... _. ~. _, _.. _..,. _ _ _, _
.. - _ ~,... ~...
d TABLE 1 The Base Case Parameters Related To Fuel Costs Commercial Operation Date November 15, 1983 Carrying Charges for Off-site Investment (Cycle One) 13.4%
Carrying Charges for Fuel Waiting On-site Prior to the Commencement of Operations (Cycle One) 13.4%
Carrying Charges for Off-site Investment (Back-end of the first Cycle and Front /Back-end of other Cycles) 11.0% (no taxes)
Carrying charges for On-site Investment (Other Cycles) 13.4%
c Present Worth Factor 10%
l Plant Capacity Factor 60%
Pre-Commercial Generation 660,000 MWh The price escalations for the nuclear fuel estimates and services, are shown in Table 2.
i TABLE 2 Base Prices and Escalation Rates Fur.1 Cycle 1/1/81 Step Price Escala tion From Rate From Rate ore
$30.10/lb. U 0 1/81 16%
1/83 12%
33 Conversion 4.62/KGU 1/81 5.5%
1/83 10%
Enricluent 105.37/SWU 1/81 13%
1/86 10%
Fabrication 32812/ Assembly 1/81 9.34% 1/87 11%
Spent Fuel Shipping 36.04/KGU 1/81 11%
Spent Fuel Disposal 341.57/KGU 1/81 11%
1/92 2%
Prime Rate 1/81 15%
1/84 11%
a l
I e
0
--,,,--,,-y---
..,-----c,
-o-.
---.,,---.,---,,r,m,,,,an,-..,--nn,-.,---,~.-,,e.rn,-e,-.
.r-e-,
,,-,..,--,.n..
-