ML20005B868
| ML20005B868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/28/1981 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005B867 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109150054 | |
| Download: ML20005B868 (18) | |
Text
-
NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS This is the tenth monthly status report to Congress in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093. This report provides a discussion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between July 15, 1981 and August 15, 1981.
i OPERATING REACTORS Thermal Shock To Reactor Pressure Yessels As reported in June, the NRC and industry have been evaluating the effects i
of thermai shock to reactor pressure vessels. This concern is particularly 1
I related to older plants whose vessels have b2en subjected to more radiation damage, thereby making them more susceptible to thermal shock during over-l cooling transients. Vendor owners' groups were requested to provide, by l
l May 15,1981, a ganeric assessment and justifications for continued operation.
Also, the licensees of the operating PWRs were requested to provide their plans by May 22, 1981 for resolving the issue. -The responses of the owners groups and the licensees have been reviewed by the staff. As a result of its review, the staff has determined that immediate corrective action is not
?b0'c000?n$$@B28 CORRESPONDENCE PNI
necessary but that substantial work is needed by the industry during the coming year.
As a result of the staff's review, a followup meeting was held July 29-30,1981, with the PWR owners groups to present the staff's preliminary conclusions and positions, and to discuss progress to date and furtner actions.
Pipe Breaks in the BWR Scram System As r(ported last month, the staff has completed its review of the generic evaluation (NEDO-24342, "GE Evaluation in Response to NRC Request Regarding BWR Scram System Pipe Breaks") s;S%it.ted in response to the staff's generic questions in its April 10, 1981 letter on this subject.
The results of this revied wi1T be published as NUREG-0803, " Generic Safety Evaluation Report Regarding integrity of BWR Scram System Piping." This HUREG report provides guidance that should be followed by licensees and applicants in providing the plant specific responses requested in our April 10,1981 letter.
NUREG-0803 is expected to be published on August 31, 1981.
e 11 1
OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS Licensing Schedules During the nait month, the emphasis on licensing activities continued to be on OL appifcations. The present licensing schedules for plants projected by utilities to be completed in 1981 and 1982 are given in Table 1.
Addi-tional units at tne same site with projected completion dates in 1983 are j
inciaded in Table 1.
The preliminary licensing schedules for plants with lead units projected to be completed in 1983 are given in Tarle 2.
Table 2 schedules are based on standard assumptions for review and hearing times, except for those olants that are expected to be heavily contested (Byron 1, Seabrook 1, Midland 1 and 2). For those plants, we have projected a 13 month (rather than the typical 11 months) hearing schedule from issuance of our SSER to Commission decision date.
The review process has been accelerated to compensate for the additional time allotted for the hearing process.
The potential delays between construction completion and projected issuance of a full-power license are presented based on the applicant's expected construction completion date.
Cost Estimates The NRC is obtaining cost estimates associated with the licensing delays i
from the Department of Energy on a monthly basis. Their latest esticates, dated August 14, 1981, are set forth in Attachment 1.
e
Commission Actions to Improve the Licensing Process Currently, the Commission's regulations recuire that need for power and alternative energy sources be considered in its review of both applications for permits to build and licenses to operate nuclear power facilities. The Commission believes that the construction permit proceeding is the appro-priate place for resol.ing these issues because, at this stage, there has been little environmental disruption at the proposed site and the capital investment by the applicant for the permit is relatively small.
It is also the time when real alternatives to construction and operation may exist'.
Acccrdingly, on August 3,1981, the Commission issued in the_ Federal Register a proposed amendment to its Rules of Practice for public comment. The pro-posed amendment would eliminate. consideration of need for power and alternative energy source issues from its review of applications to operate nuclear powe'r facilities.
The rule change also provides that these issues
'could-be reconsidered at the operating license stage if there were a showing made of special circumstances.
3 FLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF DELAYED PLANTS The following is a discussion of the status of the potentially delayed facilities. Although not projected to be a delayed plant, Shoreham Unit 1 is included in this discussion since some major milestones are b'eing delayed.
1
. 1.
San Onofre Unit 2 - On June 3,1981, the Federal Emergency Managenent Agency (FEMA) issued an interim finding regarding the conduct of the San Onofre emergency preparedness drill which was performed on May 13, 1981.
The applicant is currently undertaking those corrective actions identified ir. the FEMA interim finding. The hearing on a full-power license startad on June 22, 1981, and testimony on seismic issues has been completed.
A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for February 1982. The estimated construction completion date is projected for October 1981.
A four-month delay is projected.
2.
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 - A favorable Licensing Board decision on low-power was issued on July 17, 1981.
However, the issuance of a low-power license cannot be addressed by the Commission until the Appeal Board renders its decision on physical security matters. This decision is projected for early September 1981.
A Commissi.on decision on low-power operation is projected for early September.
? Board order on full-power contentions postpones a ruling en equipinent qualification issues until the staff's review of this issue is complete and the intervenor has had an opportunity to review the staff SSER. The applicant's submittal on equipment qualification is not yet. complete.
The staff is working closely with the applicant to assure that the necessary information is provided.
Assuming that the additional information expected from the applicant in e,arly September 1981 is acceptable, the staff plans an audit in mid-September and a final SSER soon af ter.
Since the Board has indicated that it will finalize the full-power hearing
~
schedule when the staff's SSER is issued, the hearing is now projected to start in October 1981, and a decision regarding a full-power license is
j i
projected for February 1982.
Based on information submitted by the applicant, the construction completion date for Unit 1 ha.
ven revised from January 1981 to March 1981.
As a result, an eleven-month delay is now projected for Unit 1 and a four-month delay is projected for Unit 2.
This is a reduction of one month of delay for Unit 1 and an increase of one month of delay for Unit 2.
3.
Shoreham Unit 1 - A pre-ACRS review supplement to the SER is scheduled to be issued the first week of September, with about 10-20 major open items expected to remain for resolution.
The ACRS meeting is now scheduled for October 8,1981.
A post-ACRS supplement to the SER is projected to be issued following the ACRS meeting.
A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for September 1982, which is concurrent with the estimated construc-tion completion date.
4.
Summer Unit 1 - The SSER was issued on April 28, 1981.
The FES was issued on May 21, 1981.
The hearing started on June 22, 1981.
A decision on a full-power license is projected for January 1982.
The estimated con-struction completion date is projected for November 1981.
A two-month delay is projected for this facility.
5.
Susquehanna Unit 1 - The ACRS meetirg was held on August 6,1981, and a favorable ACRS letter was received on August 11, 1981.
A ppst-ACRS SSER is scheduled for September 4,1981, with 2 open items expected tc remain to te resolved.
The start of the hearing on selected issues is now scheduled for October 1981. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for June 1982. A'two-month delay is projected. for this facility.
6.
Zimmer Unit 1 - The SSER was issued on June 4,1981.
Issuance of SSER 2 is scheduled for October 1981.
Recommencement of the hearing is projected for February 1982.
A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for July 1982. The projected delay for this facility is eight months; however, the applicant has informed us that construction is presently several months behind scl.edule and, therefore, the estimated delay will be less tnan the current projection of eight months. A revised schedule is to be supplied by the applicant in Septenber 1981.
7.
Waterford Unit 3 - The SER was 'ssued on July 9,1981.
The ACRS meeting was held on August 6,1981.
Staffing and management issues were identi-s fied by the ACRS as requiring further review.
Late commer.ts received on the DES have delayed the publication of the FES to August 31, 1981. Also, the applicant announced a planned consolidation with New Orleans Public Service, which may further delay issuance of the FES about one month. This delay would have no impact on the hearing schedule or licensing. A decision
~
regarding a full-power license is projected for November 1982, The estimated construction completion date is October 1982. A one-month delay is projected for-this facility.
8.
Comanche Peak Unit 1 - The SER was issued in July 1981 with over 40 open items. A pre-ACRS supplement to the SER is ' projected to be issued in Octobcr 1981.
The ACRS meeting is now scheduled for November 12, 1981. A post-ACRS SSER is projected to be issued in December 1981.
The FES is projected to be issued on September, 18, 1981. The hearing on selected issues is now scheduled to begin in December 1981. The full-power hearing schedule remains unchanged, T
and is projected to begin in March 1982.
A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for October 1982. A ten-month delay is projected for this facility, based on an estimated construction completion date of December 1981.
However, the applicant has stated that construction is behind schedule and, therefore, the estimated deley is less than that currently projected.
A revised construction completion schedul? is to be supplied by the applicant in September 1981.
FULL-POWER LICENSES McGuire Unit 1 The Commmission authorized the issuance of a full-power license on June 29, 1981.
The license was issued on July 8,1981, and initial criticality was achieved on August 8,1981.
Seguoyah Unit 2 A five percent power license for Sequoyah Unit 2 was issued on June 26, 1981, and initial critica'ity is expected by the end of August 1981. A Commission decision regarding the issuance of a full-poder license is projected for early September 1981.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS Ths stafr is continuing to review the TMI-related items for those CP and ML applicants who have submitted information regarding the TMI-related matters (Pilgrim 2, Allen's Creek 1, Skagit 1 and 2, and FNP l-8).
The staff issued its SSER for Pilgrim 2 in June 1981, and issued its SSER for Allens Creek 1
-9 i n July 1981.
The restart of the Pilgrim 2 hearing on these remaining issues is now scheduled for October 1981.
The staff reviews of the TMI-related i nformation for FNP Units 1-8 and Skagit Units 1 and 2 are in progress. Results.
of its reviews are expected to be issued in September 1981 for FNP Units 1-8, i
and in October 1981 for Skagit Units 1 and 2.
On August 27, 1981, the Commission approved a final rule regarding TMI require-ments applicable to Construction Permit and Manufacturing License Applications filed prior to the TM1-2 accident. The rule is projected to be published on or about October 1,1981 in the Federal Register and is projected to be effective 30 days af ter publication.
Tables:
1.
Licensing Schedules CY 1981 - 1982 Plants 2.
Licensing Schedules CY 1983 Plants
Attachment:
DOE Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays e9
- IA8it I CT 1981 - 1982 ftANIS 81tlil04 O LIClustMG 8/15/81 SIR SSER 1st Staff Staff A$tt Come.1/ Arpl.
Delay issue Techalc al Issue ACR5 Issue Techaltal Issue Start of Initial Dec. ~ tonstr.
Decision Date Corp 1.
Plant (Monthst DE5 Input to Dt.
SE R ft5 Input to DL 55(R Nearing _
> 5equefah 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C Mone None 09/88 J/ 09/013/
tasalle 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C hone hone 09/88 12/88 Grand Gulf I O
C C
9/07/81 10/13/81 1/15/81 10/25/81 11/15/81 None how 12/81 12/81 Olablo Canyon 1 Il C
C C
C C
09/81 9/15/81 7/
10/88 01/82 02/82 03/01 Olablo Canyon 2 4 C
C C
C C
09/81 9/15/01 2/
10/81 01/82 02/02 10/81 g
sumer 1 2
C C
C C
C C
C C
12/81 01/82 11/88 Watts Bar 1 0
C 9/11/81 10/09/81 11/12/81 C
11/26/81 12/11/01 None hone 01/82' 06/82 l
& 5an Onofre 2 4
C C
C C
C C
C C
01/82.
02/C2 10/81 LaSalle 2 0
C C
C C
C 4/01/82 5/01/82 None None 06/92 06/82 McGuire 2 0
C C
C C
C 4/01/82 5/01/82 C
C 06/82 06/02 g Susquehanna 1 2
C C
C C
C 8/20/81 9/04/81 10/81 5/ 05/82 06/82 04/82 war.2 0
C 2/12/82 3/12/82 4/09/82 12/31/81 4/30/82 5/28/82 None None 07/82 12/82 25mer 1 64/
C C
C C
C 9/15/81 10/01/81 02/82 06/82 07/82 11/81 4/
p San Onofre 3 0
C C
C C
C 6/01/82 7/01/82 C
01/82 08/82 08/82 Feral 2 0
C C
C C
8/31/81 9/14/81 9/25/81
!!/81$J 08/82 09/82 11/82 Shoreham 1 0
C C
C 2/ 10/08/81 2/
C 9/01/81 2/
9/11/81 2/
02/82 08/82 09/82 09/82 Callaway 1 0
9/25/81 9/11/81 10/09/81 11/12/88 1/15/82 11/20/81 11/27/81 11/81 6/
09/82 10/82 10/82 Comanche Peak i 10 4f C
C C 2/ 18/12/812f9/18/81 9/19/81 2/
10/18/81 2/
12/81 5/
09/82 10/82 12/81 4/
j 5t. Lucie 2 0
9/25/81 9/11/81 10/09/91 11/12/81 1/15/82 11/20/81 II/2F/81 04/82 09/82 10/82 10/82 raio Verde 1 0
10/23/81 10/09/81 11/06/81 12/10/81 2/12/82 12/18/82 12/31/81 05/82 10/82 11/82 11/82 Waterford 3 i
C C
C C
8/31/81 8/ 8/19/81 9/18/81 03/82 10/82 11/82 10/82 Watts Ber 2 0
C 9/11/88 10/09/81 11/12/81 C
I/01/83 2/01/83 None None 03/83 03/83
$usquehanna 2 f)
C C
C C
C 2/01/83 3/01/83 10/8154 05/82 04/83 04/83 Palo Verde 2 0
10/23/81 10/09/81 11/06/81 12/10/81 2/12/82 9/01/93 10/01/83 05/82 10/82 11/83 11/83 Comanche Peak 2 0 C
C C
II/12/81 9/18/81 10/01/83 11/01/83 12/81 5/
09/82 12/83 12/83 Total 47 1/ Cmaission Decision Date does not reflect additional potential impact from FEMA review.
7/ Pre-ACR5 SSER schedule. Post-ACRS 55th will folliw the ACRS meeting.
3/ Low power Itcense was issued on June 25, 1981.
. ~I/ Appilcant states that construction is presently several months behind schedule and, therefore, the estimated delay is less.
A revised schedule is to be supplied by September 1981.
5/ lie: ring on Ilmited selected issues. Tull hearing schedule resalns unchan9ed, hence A$te Initial decision dates remain unchanged.
W/ OL Construction eficiency issue only.
~7/ Soard order on full power enntentions Indicates ruling on equipment quellfication 5. sue will be made af ter completion of the staff's review of this matter. Applicant did not pass initial staf f audit. Additional infor:netton is espected from the appilcant in early September 1981. hence the staff estloates $$tt on this issue on September 15, 1981.
~8/ Late comments received on Ots have delayed FES to 8/31/81. Applicant announced planned consolldation with New Orleans Public service may further delay issuance of F[s by about one month.
TABLE 2 CY 1983 PLANTS DIVISION OF LICENSING - 8/15/
SER SSER Est Staff Staff ASLB Come.1/ Appl.
Delay issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue Start of Initial Dec. ~ Constr.
Plant (Months)
DES Input to DL SER Mtg FES Input to DL SSER llearing Decision Date Comp 1.
Clinton 1 0
11/01/81 12/05/81 1/05/82 2/05/82 3/15/82 2/12/82 2/28/82 07/82 12/82 01/03 01/83 Wolf Creek 1 0
1/05/82 3/07/82 4/07/82 5/07/82 6/05/82 5/10/82 5/30/82 10/82 03/83 04/d3 04/83 8yren 1 0
11/05/81 1/07/82 2/07/82 3/07/82 4/05/82 3/10/82 3/30/82 08/82 2/4/ 03/83 04/83 4/ 04/83 Perry 1 0
2/05/82, Y O/82 5/10/82 6/11/82 7/05/82 6/15/82 6/30/82 11/82 04/83 05/83 05/83 Stabrook 1 0
5/05/82 8/07/82 9/07/82 10/08/82 10/05/82 10/10/82 10/30/82 03/832f 10/83 11/83 11/83 Midland 2 0
2/05/82 4/06/82 5/06/82 6/06/82 7/05/82 6/10/82 6/30/82 11/82 2_/
06/83 07/03 07/83 Midland 1 0
2/05/82 4/06/82 5/06/82 6/06/02 7/05/02 10/01/83 11/01/83 11/82 06/83 12/83 12/83 Catawba 1 0
5/05/82 7/09/82 8/06/82 9/10/02 10/05/82 9/12/82 9/30/82 02/83 07/83 06/83 08/83 So. Texas 1 0
6/05/82 8/07/82 9/07/82 10/08/82 11/05/82 10/10/82 10/30/82 03/83 08/83 09/83 09/83 3/
River 8end 1 0
7/05/82 9/04/82 10/04/82 11/05/82 12/05/82 11/08/82 11/29/82 04/83 09/83 10/83 10/83 1/ Commission Decision Date does not reflect additional potential impact from FEMA review.
'l/ licavily contested plants reflect 13-month hearing schedule (vs 11 months) from SSER to Commission decision date.
7/ Appilcant states that construction is behind schedule. A revised cnnstruction
- completion date is expected in September 1981.
-4/ The Commission notes that a Licensing Board Order dated August 19, 1981 sets November 3,1982 as a tentative date for beginning the hearing. This date does not reflect the potential time-saving of about 3 months d.ue to the accelerated staf f actions compared to the Board's schedule, llowever, the Commission is of the opinion that progress to date may indicate the dates in this Table are overly optimistic. Commissioner Ahearne is convinced the current ghge sgogstic and has serious doubts that the Commission will be able to complete its licensing s
e t
f ATTACHMENT i
(Recent changes to the licensing schedule for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 are not reflected in the attached DOE estimates.)
d i
l Note:
The estimated delays are calculated by the NRC from the applicant's con-struction completion date to the Commission Decision date.
The estimated delays are calculated by the DOE from the applicants' construction com-pletion date, or the current date for completed units, to the Commission Decision date.
Therefore, the DOE estimates exclude delays'from prior months for completed plants.
ESTIMATES OF THE COSTS OF DELAYING OPERAT.ING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS Prepared by Division of Utility Systems and Emergency Communications U.S. Department of Energy August 14, 1981 This report is the fif th in a monthly series of estimates of the costs of delay in the issuance of operating licenses of the Nuclear.
Regulatory Commission (NRC).
This month's report takes account of changes in the estimated length of delays and continues to provide j
Department of Energy (DOE) estimates of the costs of delay, in addition to revised estimates supplied by utilities.
Completion of emergency preparedness plans required under the safety review may result in delays for some plants.
DOE will monitor the 2
impact of this requirement on affected units in subsequent reports.
Summary of Results The most recently projected dates of issuance of operating licenses for new units would result in a loss of 36 months of reactor. opera-tion based on the utilities' projected dates of completion for 8 4
units.
(This does not include the three additional months of loss of operation projected for the undamaged TMI 1 unit.)
Last month's j
estimate was 37 months for these units.
i j
The estimated cost of these delays, excluding TMI 1, is $715 million, i
based on data obtained from the utilities in August,.or $608 million, j
based on independent DOE estimates.
A comparison with last month's report follows:
Ereluding TMI-1 Including TMI-1 August 1981 July 1981 August 1981 July 1981 Estimate Estimate Change Estimate Estimate Change Units Delayed 8
8 0
9 9
0 Months of operation 36 37
-1 39' 41
-2 Lost Total Cost of Delays
($HM) Based on
- Utility Data 715 774
-59 757 830
-73
- DOE Analyses 608 666
-58 650 722
-72 1
i
The decrease is due to omission of costs incurred in July 1981.(since past c6sts are not included).
Length of Delay length of the delay--the number of lost months of reactor The For units still under operation--is estimated in Table 1.
construction, the delay is the interval between the utilities' projected date of completion (column 4) and the NRC's projected date of issuance of operating license (column 3).
For units already com-the delay is based on the period from and including August
- pleted, 1981 through the projected month of issuance of an operating license.
Last month's estimate of the licensing dates are shown in column 2.
A net change of 1 month (excluding TMI 1) has occurred in the estimated total length of delay (column 5).
The change is due to omission of past delays for the Diablo Canyon 1 unit that is already i
complete.
Costs of the Delay The cost of a delay in issuing an operating license after a plant is physically complete is equal to:
The total costs the entire utility system (or systems, o
if the unit is jointly owned) would incur to satisfy its customers' energy requirement, based on the delayed licensing schedule, minus i
The total costs of satisfying the same energy requirement J
o if the license had been issued when the plant was complete.
i This cost, differential is affected'only by cost elements that change as a result of the delay--for example, fuel, purchased and other special expenses.
It is not affected
. power, maintenance, by anticipated monthly capital carrying charges or by any other' costs that would be incurred with or without the delay.
The estimated costs of delay are summarized in Table 2, based 4
on two independent sources:
One set of estimates (columns 1 through 4) was based o
on revised data obtained from the owners of the units; and A second set of estimates (columns 5 through 8) was o
developed independently by DOE staff based o'n available load data en generating resources, pooling arrangements, projections, capacity factors, and fuel prices.
The The key analysis method was summarized in the May report.
numerical assumptions are presented in Table 3.
4 e
i
^6
_ 3 _.
Both sets of estimates used the same length-of-delay information (from Table 1, column 5).
Capacity charges were not taken into consideration in the DOE analyses.
Most of the utilities indicated that the replacement power for the delayed nuclear units would be generated within their own systems.
It is possible that, in some cases, there would be a capacity charge for purchased power, but DOE has no current basis for estimating its cost.
DOE's assumptions generally resulted in lower estimates for the monthly cost of replacement power (Table 2, column 5) than those provided by the utilities (column 1).
In addition, a few utilities claimed special additional costs associated with the delay (footnoted in column 1).
DOE did not attempt to estimate such costs.
d 6
9 4
n e
G S
Divition of Utility Systes an! Dnergercy otmanmications un1E 1 U.S. Department of nwzyy Mist 14,1981 DATA ON NUCLEAR UNITS WITl! OPERATING LICENSE DEIATS, If Frojected Date Frojected Data Construction Cour.
Unit of losuance of of leeuance of pletion Dates Fro.
Months oC
~
Capacity Operating License Operating License jected by Company pelay Replacement Towet I
d)
O)
(4)_
_O) - (4)
Q Source HW)
July 1981 August 1981 Auguet 1981 (c)
(6)
(7)
Comarche Feek 1
.1.150 10/82
'10/82 12/81 10 cas Self-generated 31;b13 Canyon 1 1,084 1/82E 1/82 -
3/dl 6
Oti-Ces Self-generated 1I,
1/82,/
10/91 3
011-cas self-senerated 2
Diab 13 Canyon 2 1,106 1/82 San OnIfra 2 1.100 2/82 2/ a,2 10/81 4
011 Self-generated Suommer 1 900 1/82 1/82 11/81 2
Coal-011 Self-generated Susquehanna 1 1,0a 6/82 6/82 4/82 2
011-Cae self-generated Witerfsrd 3 1,153 11/82 11/82 10/82
.1 011 Furchased/Self-genercted Coal-011 Sel f-gew rat ed Zimmer 1 810 7/82 7/82 11/81
,8, 36 Titc1(newsmite)......................................................................................
MI 011 roel Furchased M
M 10/81 TM1 1 776
>10/81 Saarcoas Utility Companies Nuclear Regulatory Commionion C:v:re all unite for which coristruction to sapected to be completed at least one mouth before an operating license fe f eaued.
1/
reflect expdditing procedures available to the Cometentois.
2_/ Acestding to company sources, the NRC-projected dates do not TM1 1 has received an operating licenae and nos been in operation. However, the unit was taken out of service for a routtaa refuel?ng The company antittpetes being fintehed with 3/
during February 1979, and wee not allowed to return to service follow!ng the TN12 accident.NRC projects it will make a deciolon on the unit i TH1 1 modifications by the and of 10/81.
Delay would reduce utility's coal-fired end. oil-fired exports which would replace power in the FJM pool derived from oil and lese ef ficient 4/
coal ple to.
5/ D: lays for these completed unita prior to 5/81 erJ not included.
f e
Divisien of Utility Systems an! Du rgercy camurticaticos n.3. Departmer.t of Dwsyy
'INE 2 Atsjust 14, 1981 TITI'DSITD (IX7IS CF (FI2WTItG 1.1U2E DEIAYS IM PAJCITNL LNIT.,'
Costa Based cn Inkterdent Im Analysis costs 1bsal cn CbTa ty Data Y
Peplacsent Capacity Enplactmmt
'Ibtal ReplacmentM Capacity Peplacwamt
'Abta1 thit Ibwer Costs Factor Ptwer Cbsts Cbst ibwer Oosta Factor Power Costs Ctzt
-SitMtnth-
-Percent-
--C/kMr--
-#Ma
-$PM ttmth-
-Percent-
- C/kMt -
- $PM-(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(e) 14.5Y 60 2.9 185 Otmanche Peak 1 18.5 70 3.2 185 Y
65 5.3 161 26.0 60 5.5 156' Diablo Canyon 1 26.8Y 65 5.5 86 26.5 60 5.5' 80 Diablo Car. yon 2 28.7 E
70 6.5 144 29.6 60 6.1 118 l San Onofre 2 36.0 Sumer 1 12.7 65 3.0 25 8.5 60 2.2 17 N
60 3.9 36 Susquehanna 1 25.0 70 4,7 50 18.1 5/
75 4.'4 27 19.1 60 3.8 19 Materforil 3 27.4 87 60 1.3 y
N 4.6 1.5 32.
Elmmer 1 4.6 52
............................................... 608 715
'Ibtal (new tai ta)...........................................
'DG 1 14.0 70 3.6 42 11.0 70 3.5 42
............................................... 650
'Ibtal (Incitaliry 'IMI 1)...............................'...... 757 Cost of replacwumt power mlrms fuel an1 coerating costs of raclear unita.
(Coltrn 1 Colten 2 thit capacity a 720 hournAnrmth).
Replammnt gewer cuts divido1 by kilowatt-hours replacev3 Derivtul by cultiply!rvi monthly replacanent power costa (culton 1) by the total months of delay (Table 1, coltan 5).
Onnt of itel for 1981 estimatal by utility.
Does not incitale otler alvormT1 mots of $15.25 million per month.
Does not incitale etJer atnorm11 costa of $2.7 millicn per armth.
Entimates do ret incitale capacity charges Mtich Coat of replacenent power mirnis raclear fuel costs of 6 mills /kwho any be incurral if power is turtfasal frem otfer systons.
ttmt of delay occars in 1982; therefore, fuel trots are imani on 1982 estimaten.
8/ Derival by cultiplyirv) ntmthly replacmont power costa (mitre 5) by total ponths of delay (Table 1, m1tsm 5).
'Ihe capany appears to inve usal a capacity factrr repcesentative of initial geratituj performince, 1
inclear fuel cost'of 10 mills /kwh are unal in this calculation.
s.
Divicion of Utility Syntans and.my,q Otmaastiatime VME3 U.S. Department of Bergy August 14, 1981 FET ASSlf'#rICf6 IN DCE EFFDRUS & (.0 fir OF MJCITAR PIMir [E2AYS f
M IIcat Pate of Deplacement Deplacowrit Replacment hel nel Price Uhlt Tbel Mix _
-$fittnus-
~ -RIU/k)Ar-22 10,911 Cas 3.19 Otmuncho Peak 1 Cas (1004),
011(50t)M G11 6.50 10,678 Diablo Carrim 1 Cas (30 al Gas 4.90 011(50%)E 011 6.50 10,678 Diablo Canym 2 Cas (50 %)
Gas 4.90 San Orotro 2 Oil (1004)
Oil 6.71 10,0.$5 g
amner 1 Oual (81 t)
Ooal 1.71 Coal 10,001
~
Gil (19 %)
011 7.26 011 9,944 cosi(33t)M coal 1.67 (bel 10,083 Susr Avma1 011 (67 %)
011 5.94 Oil 11,240 0113.91M 11,223 mterfoni 3 Oil (1004)
I 10,567 zimner 1 Ocal (1004)
(bal 1.79 mr1 coal (50 t) coal 1.67 cost 10,083 Oil 5.84 Oil 11,240 011 (50 %)
U.S. Department of Fhergy, nergy Infomatim hhinistration, ETC Ibra 423.
L Prices are 1982 projectims; all other prices are m a 1981 basis.
i Smrce:
Baned m new infcranation, DCE has revisal its asamstions.
r sa e
9 6
9
.__