ML20008F239
| ML20008F239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1981 |
| From: | Andrews I, Hefner W, Hendon B HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103120615 | |
| Download: ML20008F239 (4) | |
Text
- ..;._.
r=--
[
3 40ngress of the TEnittD 5tEtts 2.
Rouse of Representadhes
- 6 DOCl27 NUM3
- R e==.
googup,ac.g,,-f),1 T g E9 0
ELu@ington, irs.C. 20515 March 2,1981 fi
'.~
8 tt
.~
g-=
j 1.
4
~
N
{
ooeme L;;-
_.ne Honorable John F. Ahearne an 7,.
t=,
lg-Chaiman rn Nuclear Regulatory Comission C
i 01981 > r Washington, D.C.
20555 Offa d m secretmy 9 tr Dd*W & sen:e Fr=~
k=
Dear Mr. Chairman:
g crp y
ig*
h We are writing to comunicate our strong about the nuclear licens-f.
ing procedure in general and the effect that delays in this process could have on one particular project, the McGuire Station in North Carolina.
- E.;
i=
It is our understanding that your January 30, 1981 report to the House
!=
Appropriations Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development, followed by iz*
testimony before that Subcommittee and also the Interior Subcomittee on i
Energy and the Environment, underscored the following problems inherent E.1_.
in the current system:
F5 mr
- Costly delays in the licensing process are all too frequent; r=~
- There is a misallocation of staff resources at the Comission h[.
which has aggravated the licensing delay situation; M
im;
- There is a need for a clearly-stated nuclear licensing policy.
E=
=~~.~
C Combined, these problems will jeopardize our efforts to ensure adequate energy supplies for the nation and will cost U.S. consumers virtually I
billions of dollars in unnecessary expense.
- .n Your report to the Appropriations Subconcittee pointed out that it is k.i.
probable the construction of 13 plants will have been completed and those he plants will be idle a total.of 90 months prior to the issuance of l=~
cperating licenses. The r esultant costs are estimated to, run in the T
~-
billions of dollars.
This points out the need for action to improve the licensing system.
I5 We would suggest that imediate steps need to be taken to expedite the D303 licensing procedure.
Specifically, we feel that the imediate 5
5 I
effectiveness rule should be reinstated so that licensed plants may 5.
begir operations as soon as authorized by a properly-informed licensing j /
z..
3/5...To EDO To Prepare P ep? y f or Commission review and Signature of: Chm... D ate du e..Comm{ F. arch'- I6... Cp ys t o : Chm, Cmrs, PE, SECT,
"~
~
~
OCA to Acknowledge, Docket... 81-0278 810312O N.....
. ~... - -
g, f
- .2:
The Honorable John F. Ahearne Page Two Z
~~
=-
board.
There is substantial justification for this request.
Your recent J E7 i
testimony revealed tnat tne suspension of this rule in Novemoer 1979 Et:.
was effected to ensure that tne licensing boarcs were properly advised of f
regulatory changes resulting from the Three Mile Island accident.
Surely
.=.Z.
tnis overview has been compl'eted.
_.i.
Of the utmost concern to us is the possibility that the McGuire Station 5
in North Carolina could be delayed even further due to the combination of a short-staffed NRC, the recision of the imediate effectiveness rule i;fe and the uncertainty of future U.S. nuclear licensing policies.
E~-.
Ei[
Duke Power Company filed its initial application for the McGuire Station C
construction license in-September 1970.
The project has moved through the construction process and a zero power license was issued by the NRC on January 23, 1981.
fr.=-
- z.
Needless to say, any delay in final approval could have a serious effect
[~E.
on the service area in our State for two principal reasons.
First, the E.i McGuire Station will~ be ready for the production of electricity in a u.
few weeks.
Company officials estimate that their reserve margins of E6 generating capacity will fall short this summer, even with final accroval z-of the McGuire Project.
(Please refer to the attached figures suppliec
=Z by Duke Power.)
Second, any delays in completion of the licensing Ei process will increase the total capital costs of the project substantially, and those increases would have to be borne by the consuming public.
- -e Consequently, we urge your most serious atten on to the concerns we M
have highlighted.
We look forward tc receiving your coments on this U
matter.
[
Yours truly, h
/
E5.
gfL Aw QW 5
Ja h T. Broyhill, M.C.'
3 Ike Andrews, M.C.
/
ger.
h)
Y l
W.G. Hefner, M.C.
James G. Martin, M.C.
- h
~
d E.. F
- ~
s M1 E
te 3 Fa Bill Hendon, M.C.
Eugen/Johris.tfn, M.C.
!?
~
'ATTAC1!MDT A DUri POW'ER 1951 SU12CR RESERVE CAPACITY E57!MA*E The fellowing table end notes represent the fore:as: for the 1951 sum:ser load and reserve capacity st:ua:1en with and without M: Outre Uni: No. 1:
- /out McGuire #1
- Jith McCuire #1
=
Genera:i :.
12, 0 *. 8 h'.'
13,228 W Tir : Purchases 92 W 93 W Total 12,141 W 13,321 W Expected Peak 10,460 W 10,460 W Installed Reserve 1,681 W 2,861 W Percent Reserve 16.07 27.35 :
Scheduled Out Ocence f1*
(860)W (860)W Forced Out Miscellaneous (500)W (500)W Total Unavailable (1,360)W (1,3 60)W Operable capacity 10,781 W 11,961 W Operating Reserve 321 W 1,501 W b Ne: Percent Reserve
- 3. 07 % * *
- 14. 3 5 % * **
- oconee Unit il to begin a 15-week outage for refueling and modifications on July 27, 1981.
- This reserve does not take into account any large unit forced outage.
Should ei:her of the Belevs Creek units be out of servi:e along with the
=1sec11aneous 50 W du.ing the time of syste= peak load, opera:ing re-serve capa:1ty (Duke owned) will be deficient (799 W), (7.6%).
- Inis reserve also does not take into account any large unit forced ou: age.
Should either of :he Belevs Creek units be out of service along with the ciscellaneous 500 W during the time of sys:ez puk load, the reserve ca-pa:ity will be 381 W, 3.643.
ATTACHMENT A - pago 2 Under foverable 1951 summer peak conditions with an expected peak of 10,460 MR, en instclled reserve zargin of less than 25.0 per:er.t is rat cor.sidered ade-quate.
This makes no allowance for system loads greater than forecast load due to extreme wtacher or for the simultaneous forced outage of more tha n qa's Iarte unit on the system.
Addittonsily, Duke's cesventional nydro espa:ity
( rt t ed a t 64 MW) is energy limited and acy be used only for peak load situa-tions without a reduction in capacity or waste (loss: of available energy.
The above table proje=ts a 321 MW reserve capacity for the expected summer peak load period without McGuire Unit No.1.
There are several generators on Duke's syster. larger than 321 MW.
An outage of any one of these generators, which is very likely, will more than deplete the reserve carseity.
It is our engineering jud;2ent that without McCuire Generator No.1 in servi:e during the 19S1 summer, capacity assistance from neighboring electric systems vill no t always be available as needed, and a very hich orobs.bility exists that re-tating blackouts will be recuired to reduce system loads.
The estimated additional cost to Duke's operations for the e.onths of June 1981 -
February 1952 without McGuire No. 1 is:
Month Additional Cost June
$ 4,112,000 July 6,470,000 Augue 8,110,000 September 6,130,000 October 5,605,000 November 6,365,000 Dec emo er 6,671,000 January 3,098.000 February 2,070,000 TOTAL
$48,631,000*
- S175,135 per day.