ML20009C982

Forwards Eighth Monthly Status Rept in Response to Direction Given in House Rept 96-1093,covering Period 810515-0615.Rept Discusses Actions Taken on Operating Reactors & Licensing Reviews of Plants

ML20009C982
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1981
From:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS
References
NUDOCS 8107220286
Download: ML20009C982 (22)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ 'o, UNITED STATES g,y >-h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W gg WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 m E 4 June 30, 1981 CHAIRMAN [ O) The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman 3g\\ Subcomittee on Energy _ and Water - 9I 4 -12 Development 1 ~ Committee on Appropriations-g p United States House 'of Representatives d

Washington, D.C.

20515- ,o g\\

Dear Mr. Chairman:

.W This. monthly _ status report is in response to the oirection given in _ House Report 96-1093. Our eighth monthly s'tatus report is enclosed _and covers the period from May 15, 1981 to June. 15, 1981.- This eighth-report discusses the actions that were.taken during the last month on operating reactors and licensing reviews of r,ew facilities. m During the report period, two licenses werr issueO a full power license 'to Salem Unit 2 on May 20, 1981, and a five percent power license to McGuire Unit 1 on June 12,.1981. ~ Several Comissicn. actions were taken in this period to improve the licensing-process. On May 20, 1981, the Commission issued a Policy State-Ment providing specific _ guidance an the efficient conduct of licensing proceedings. Effective May 28, 1981, the Comission's Rules of Practice Lwere amended t_o permit startup about two months sooner for plants with hearings which have received a favorable initial decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. On May 28, 1981, the Comission approved an. amendment to Part 51 of its regulations, effective June 25, 1981, which removes the _ issue of alternative sites from censideration at the operating

license' stage of review.

Effective June 8,1981, the Commission's Rules of Practice were further amended to permit more timely completion of hearings. On June 8, 1931, the Commi_ssion also issued for public comment a proposed rule regarding several other amendments to facilitate expedited conduct of hearings. Since this will be the last monthly status report that I will sign as .Chainnan, I would like to note two additional actions taken in the two

weeks 1since the end of the report period.

On June 25th, a five percent power license was issued to Sequoyah Unit 2. In directing this action, the Commission noted its intent to act on the full power license on a '8107220286 8'id63Ol PDR COMMS NRCC ( . CORRESPONDENCE PDR)

w a. 1% . _7 c? _ - ;The Honorable Tom Bevill --2-- ~ schedule~conrnensurate with TVA'r need fo'r full; power authorization.and 'also. sits ~ intent!to reduce:the present two-stage Comission. review to a 5singleistagelby.cdelegating the fuelfloading and _.five percent. operating-licensing; authority to the' Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, this + " step to; bet aken'as fexperience with the present review shows it to be. t Ijustifiedi-10n June.29th,- the Comission authorized-a full power operating. ~ j 11 cense for'McGuire Unit.1. a 3 t cerely,. t. [ r j. M. Hendrie JEiiclosure:)

e

. lNRC Monthly-- Status 1 eport R ~ ltotCongress; t 'JTh :Ho orabl ; John T :Myers : cc: e n e ~ ~l '

.~c r.;=

a I 4 b b g. 9 e d 's . Iy _ y 3, .,r- "e 4 ? i s 4_ W r "a = l .mm m m -um..- m m-m -m.

+ i N.,.. m L W NRC MONTHLY STATUS-REPORT TO CONGRESS p y J ( ThisLiis;the eighth monthly status report to. Congress:ip response to the t ~ (direction given inl House Report 96-1093. This: report provides a dis-ln - cussion _of;the major-actions that;were taken on. operating reactors;and us Q ' ( on Llicensing; reviews? ofJ new efacilities during the' period of t:ae between t a. Msy ?'l5,.1981. and ~Jun'e 15',11981.: nQ y n jf " f ' ' J0PERATING REACTORS-p m ; pipe Brehksiin th'e BWR Scram System 2 3 yx:. " 'o[' ' As reportedilast month, the1NRC's Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Opera- ~ ~ ~' T N~ W~* T ,tional Datafissued:'aireport.on AprilL 3,1981 entitled " Safety Concerns Asso-- t E L~. ciated with Pipe Breaksiin the BWR Scram System.".The report describes-a E-I potential sequence off eventsf resulting in a degraded core condition. The- ~ ~ sequence.:is. based on a:p_ostulated break in.the BWR scram discharge piping. - 7 ~ ALnumb'ers offrecomendations were.ma'de in the report to remedy the potential ~

safety < concerns.

y ' V f Afletter was. sent tol all BWR~ l.icensees on April 10, 1981 requiring a I . 7gener[c: evaluation Lof the safety concerns within 45 days and a plant specific!e' valuation within 120 days. :In response to the staff's request, cthe General; Electric Company (BWR reactor -vendor) provided on April 30, p 1981l a generic. analysis _ of the safety concerns associated with pipe breaks It'n the'-BWR_ scram system. ~ The.-. staff is -performing-an accelerated review of the generic analysis and istaff's ' safety. evaluation report is scheduled to be completed by the end ^ of June 1981., a-... m. -m

p 9 3 ly,tc. f-

0PERATING LICENSE [ APPLICATIONS flicensino : Schedules.

cDuring'the past' month,- the e@hasis on. licensing activities continued ~ it'o'. be~ on;0Ljapplications.; The present' licensing schedules for plants. o ?. projected by,utilitiesstoibe completed in 1981 and -1982 are: given in 1- } Table.41C and the licensing schedules. for plants' projected to be -com- -.pleted in -1983 are given :in Table 2. "The _ potential ~ delays. between 3 ~' construction completion ~and projected issuance of a full-power-x glicense:are presented: based on the applicant's expected construction j ~

co@letionidate.L Recentlyhtwo^ applica'ts' reported revi,sions to.their estimated con-n strucfion fdate's. Thi est'imatednn5truction completion date for

.~

• Shoreham Unit lihas been revised from May-1982 to September 1982, and-

-.forJSummer; Unit 1, the date has been revised from August 1981 to JNovember 1981'. Both plants have:been projected as being potentiall/ ~ ' delayed; facilities. 'Because of the applicants' revisions of the con-istruction completion dates,; the' three-month delay for Shoreham Unit 1 i has been eliminated and the delay for-Summer Unit 1 has been reduced from five to two months. - s . Proposed Rule for TMI-Related Recuirements .The Comissionf s considering changes to its regulations that would incorporate i

TMI-related requirements which mst be met by OL applicants.

The require-

ments,:which:were previously approved by the remission a.nd referenced insit's December.1980 Policy Statement, resulted from intensive reviews

'of the lessons. learned from the TMI-2 accident and are in addition to 1those safety-requirements' already incorporated in the regulations. The proposed rule was issued for a 90-day public coment period on May 13,1981.and is expected to reduce litigation related to these requirements in the licensing process.

y==- . 4 i / u y w. . 3 ] e-3,: .l m t Cost : Estimates -- - IThi NRC is ;obthiningl cost estimates} associated with the' licensing V-4 "' .-delaysifrom?theLDepartment of E..ergy;on' a monihly b' asis. ; Their latest \\ ^ t estimates',: dated Juneil5, ~1981, f are set forth in ' Attachment 1.

,._$P R'

M- . Commission' Actions to?Imorove -the' Licensing : Process .j DuHng-thiireporting period, the'Comission has taken a number of ' actions 1 o improve-the licensing process. :Those actions are t ~ _ _ l'

g l discussed below.,

.i f4 JThe Comission: issued 1in the Faderal: Register on March 13, 1981,. ~~ 'W (

pboposed? amendments to its Rules of Practice that would aid in more

~ x; .a p D ~ Ltimelyf co@le_ tion of h' earings.. The staff analyzed the : numerous .-comments that were' received and prepared a final rule for Comission -: consideration.. 3The Commission has approved the final. rule, which c Jadopthseveral of the! proposed amendments to its Rules of Practice ~ ' g~' - : effective June 8,:1981. 'The adopted amendments (1) euthorize the licensing boaros:to make oral rulings on written motions during the ~ course? of 'a prehearing conference. or a hearing; (2) preclude parties

from fil,i'ng'. responses to' objections to a prehearing order unless the

~ +*

1icensing board ls'o directs; (3) revise the schedule for filing proposed fi.n' dings ofcfact andiconclusions of law; and (4) permit summary dis-position. motions. to_ be filed at any time during the course of the

' l proceeding. t e Y

./, ~, ~ z 4., i i n"..,. c Wpn 1 ^ e n x V. c_ .z. _4 '\\ x m k: a^ { ' 1 i.0n:.MayN20d1981, ithe'Comission issued a. 5tatement' of ~ s a W <,iofTLicensing Proceedin'gs' to ' emphasize the.Comissio @n Thearing processihibh vill produce sound licensing decision _ [ 7and ~timelyf manner.1 Specific guidance in the Statement of P ~ l h uld setLand adhere to reascnable, ~ 1 - A L. ..d 57 x tvidesithati(l) 1icensing; boar s s o ~ lidated wL re l y m + ~ .. schedules for.l proceedings;-(2) ~intervenors should be conso ~ $y ia'pproppiate,;so[thatLail.ead intervenor can act for the^ gro i c - g (that; arp substantially;thefsame;-(3) allL parties are enc c Rg V,'1 d . negotiate Natious matters:priorito and:during the hearing -s w. (5) settlement _ con-My oldhduld manage;and su'pervise the discovery process; ..A ' ~ u.7r r fferences should be used, where appropriate; (6) boards shou %y ~ )[ l:g I ::timelyarulingseon'al1[ matters; f(7); boards should enco 1;x -.. fQ a to invbke the use of the summary disposition procedure, wher Qk' k l vpriate;"and!(8) variou'sidevices should be encouraged q Ibriefs,1 prefiled testimony outlines, cross-examini.tica plans s.,: (biMng rebuttal andisurrebuttal testimony, to expedite the y ^

e n

Tpresentation by each party.- 'g f tive May 28,1981, ?The:Comission:has amended its-Rules of Practice l t which has receivl to permit mare imediate operation of a nucle:r poder p an t ii fuel 'a f avorable Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Initial Dec s The amendment elim-loading and low-peaer testing or full-power operation. by the Atomic Safety and Licensing App y i z i nates' the rev ew directed.by, Appendix B to Part 2 of the Comission' iil for determining whether the effectiveness of the Lice ~ ' 1 Decision should be delayed pending normal agency ap c f- .e I .n-. .._,-----_-___.------__.----_---____----_.--..-.-------a

c c ~ ',,E, (' ' g, 4 - ~

1. . l7 4

The:ComissionDintends to decide on whether-a~ favorable Initial Decision Jshouldlbecome effective within.10. days for atfuel-loading and ilow-poaer testiing license and within'30 days for a full-power license. ~ LThe prior rules:provided.for. such a Comission-decision within~ 80 days si.nce 3.. [ c*- sthestime allowed for Appeal l Board review was 60 days, followed by '20 days 1 1 Tor Comission reviewb: On May.28,.1981'- the Comission approved an amendment 3 L ^.. _ - which removes the sto Part 51 of 'its1 regulations, 'ef.fective June;25,1981,- '>~

W

'issuetoff alternative sites from' consideration at the operating _ license ~, stage of reviewisince iteis no; longer likely-to be a reasonable alternative fat thatistage. (Th'e Com$ission a.l'sblnstructed the boards to not "dmit conten-- ..g 4: ~ . = i t t OL hec"ings. stions norLraise~ the:. issue.of alternative s tes sua spon e a gy i-The Comission Lissued in th'e-Federal Register on June -8,1981 several-J , propose'd amendments to its Rules /of Practice f?r public corarent. ~ nThese: proposed amendments would '(1): require a' person secking inter- ~ E 2 ventioniinLformal NRC hearings to set' forth the facts on which he .s_ basbsihis contentions and the sources and documents he uses to s u establish those" facts; (2) limit the number of interrogatories that a; party may file -on another party.in an NRC proceeding; and (3) permit . ithr board'to require ofal answers to motions to ccmp 1 and service ofndocuments by express mail. The public coment period expires on

June.29; l981.

-,.4 k , ML O a a.... m o.- m

wn + 7; J -F ,i, ?.& e 4 1 PiANTiBY-PLANTDISCUSSIONOFDELAYEDPLANTS_- t ion of the status'of;each of the delayed k "TN~ following 'is la d scuss i ~ 4 facilities.- The SSER L1.' San OnofreLUnit 2.--~ The FES was issued on Nay 8,1981 an emer-f wassss'ued.on MayL8,1981.. On May :13,1981, ~ ^ ; gency: preparedness drill was' performed for the San Ono a f the State. %D A., 9 $ ',l facility to ev$1uate thEi>ff-site capabilities o

and local) jurisdictions to respond to' a nuclear emargency. -

~ .w RPa l Emergency Management Agency-yu _ = 0n June 3,'1981,: xthe Federa ~ (FEMA) issued.an intierim finding regarding the1 conduct y ~ [' l ~ lthisidrill.- The FEMA finding states that State and loca igovernnent radiological emergency response plans are m ';i ( mally Ladequate; however, until corrective actit, s have been

taken,-the-off-site capability for implementation of the i

e evaluating . plans; is not considered adequate. The part es ar l for the the FEMA f.inding to determine the scope and schedu e ~ The results of these corrective actions to be taken.._. evaluations will determine the impact, if any, on the The hearing is scheduled current. projected licensing schedule. Based on the current tchedule, a to start on June 22, 1981

1982, decision on the full-power license is projected for February facility.

which. represents an eight-month projected delay for this 4 6

b Q. A:'

p, W L, ' fyy/ , 9h zw: {N., -Q 7- :- g, L2.- Di_ablo Canyon' Units 1 and 2~- An updated SER for low-power operation ~ was issued March 5,1981.:.The_ hearing 1for low-power operation began L .x

YT S

7 ?d' Ton.Mayjl9,Tandiwas concluded on May 22. The-SER for: full-power cperation= w D W.~. - was issued April. 2,;1981. The full-power hearing is, scheduled to begin 'ji : ^ A decision on.a full-power license' is projected foEJanuary ut g.{ i n September.. R_ 3 11982.;IA twelve-month delaysis project 6d. for Unit 1 and a three-month delay V, y b. Y:. 1 :is ' projected for Unit 2.- 0 i3.-' Shoreham Uniti1~--?The SER for Shoreham Unit 1 was issued on April -10, - (? -ly ; - g 11981' with 61 majorfopen. items requ, iring _further information from the ,DI,t

applicant. ~0ne'of th ;_.ese items encompassed information relating to all m

~ ..z s- , a-a sr y @~ ~_ pm 9[. s

post.TMIl issues. jBecause..of:the large number and significance of the open

[b $. . items, Ethe.ACRS~ deferred its review. of this_. case pending a more complete: _ em. g -- e ^ Q -Q:jf.- p I resolution of the.open items. LBy June 1,1981, the applicant provided .g lits responses)to most of the.open items identified in the SEP, including. Op + N, TM11 ssues. The: staff is presently reviewing the adequacy of ~ ^ llfofEthe: Mi ; g , these-responses and :is preparing the first supplement to the SER for th 1 a e-m M.4 ~ j . August ACRS meeting. "A decision regarding a full-power license is projecte r x: 'for. August 1982. Becauseiof the applicant's revision of the estimated con- '/ stiuction conpittion date from May 1982 to September 1982, the three-month delay which had:been projected for this facility has been eliminated. ] ). : 'Sunrner Unit 1 - The SSER.was issued on April 28, 1981. The FES 'was issued on May 21, 1981. The hearing is scheduled to start on ~ June 22,1981. A decision on a full-poder license is projected for Januar2 1982.- Because of the applicant's revisica of the estimated construction l' " 4 corpletion date from August 1981 to November 1981, the delay projected fo ~ this facility has been reduced from five to two months. -m.a 1.- 4.a. ....i-

l n .<.;1 y+ ~ m + 1%; N v f-y [c . -8 ' i o ~ m o Em r 5.. iSusquehanna Unit li-iThe SER for Susquehanna Unit.1 was : issued on -p ^ -AbilL10,91981;with.103iopenjitems. Because of.the large number and' 7 ,7 sOnifIicance.Lof the!open items,lthe ACRS: deferred;its review of. ^ ^ e ~ 1 ithisicasefpendingla more complete resolution of the1open items. M j l ?The <appli cant <has fnowj provi cied ithe, required Linf ormation. to resolve t m j 7.. h [:mosMofjthetitems.. ThelestimatedLconstruction completion ~date is m A decision. on the full-power license is projected %M ' : April 1982.e -. .+ p,. 1 OforEJuneD1982. !A two-month delay 1.s: projected for this facility. 4 ~ ~ l} w I6.: !Zimmer Unitill-SSER l:wassis' sued on June. 4,1981. Thel schedule for -[~ 1 i .y s., gg fW NSSER.2fwillybe.'esYablished Yo'llowingidiscussions with the applicant u s; e m f~~ ~ %[' f concerning"its -' ability to -submit additional. info,'mation to close out AG k 7' thelopenissues.- The' hearing 'is scheduled:to recomence in October b:r s ~A1 decisionion the full-power license is projected for May 1982. 1981.1 ywy Q w w,2 A six-monthi delay is' projected' for this f acility. jyf ~ ^

y eq w f.

' 7. Waterford Unit 3 .:The DES was issued on May 1,1981. In March 1981, y lthe schedule for SER' issuance for Waterford Unit 3 was accelerated to LMay 30._1981 to minimize the -impact of the projected delay in issuance ~ : fo 4 Due to the large number of open issues (over 50) iofian operating license. y ~ n still' remaining,.SER issuance for Waterford Unit 3 has been rescheduled f from May 30,19811 to July 6,1981 This date was established by mutual agreement with the applicant and is based on a commitment by the applicant y to provide adequate information by June 19 to close out most of the open A issues. The estimated construction completion date is October 1982. decision regarding a f'ull-power license is projected for November 1982. e - A delay of one conth is projected for this facility. u --u-=-____---- -__-__a--_--.,--._---__-_u_-.,----____-

em b-s T ~ gy, f 's.. 1 x ._g_ ~ ~ " ~ g '; P.. V

28. ' Comandhe Peak Unit'l.- The DES was issur 'on May 15, 1981.' Due to the-

L w; -

.nu 11arge number!of open issues ?(over 90).stil1 remaining, SER issuance N.g: jforIComanchelPeak: Unit lihas been rescheduled from June. 11,1981 to Sb -;Julyi8,21981t The-revised date -which has been established by mutual' M

3en.

~; @ l-enzagreemantioftheapplicant, tis ' based on receiving adequate information;from. p;. n .c:n - f P itbe applicant, by June 19 to close out most of the open issues. The-J iestimsted construction completionidate'is December 1981. A decision ~ ' regafding' the' full-poder license is projected'for October 1982. (. . A. ten-mc-nth. de. lay;is, projecte _. or this facility. df t n;n pt. M' 3 9. 'McGuire' Unit -l

The : hearing for a. full-power license was completed sc w s

Eon March 19f1981~,. and the ASLB issued a f avorable initial-decision ~ y$N ~ 5 'p - ,' zon May[28,1981. A five percent power license was authorized by thr. >m . 7%s Comission en June 9,1981 and was issued on June 12, 1981. t

1. b L;p W!K

The Comission. notes.that the inability of the applicant to use the

~

authority' to~ load fuel and conduct zero power physics te

.19, which Nas granted-by the Comission in January 1981, suggests that McGuire 1 ^ i i f 1should not have.been included as a' delayed plant in th s ser es o -reports...Thus, each;of our previous reports should be adjusted to ~ . shostzerol delay' months for this ' unit attributable to the regulatory m

p_rocess, a-i W

L k

N 4

,.T ~ z.n-

y %e.,z ~ h F ~ y-8- -FULL POWER LICENSES.- gs . Salem Unib 2 LThe:Comis' ion auth'orized ;the issuance of 'a full-power license to g n f s g Salem' Uniti2-on May:19,1981.- ~ The license was: issued on May 20,'1981.- ) ^ ~ LSeauoyah~ Unit'2L -The SSER _for a-full-power. licenseifor_ Sequoyah Unit 2 was issued on n e June. SL1981. : The applicant! projects that ' Unit 2 will be ready for fuel load in, late ' June 1981. - A. five-percent; poyer' license:for Sequoyah Unit 2 was Q[(f 25',)1981. - A7Comf$sion decision on the issuance of a full-power ~ k. sissued on June t ? license isiprojected for)lat[ June 1981. N-gs k+ TCONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS-yn g5 -The-Co' mission is conpleting its efforts to develop a new rule con-k

cerning the manner and _ extent to which new requirements resulting from eh~

x ^ Ethe TMI-2. accident _(TMI: Action Plan) should be applied to pending CP pc s Land ML ! applications.: The Comission published a proposed rule on TMI-related construction permit requirements in the Federal Register _ f or public-cocment on March '23, _1981. - The public coment period for the propued rule expired _ April 13, 1981. The staff has reviewed the public. i i . coments that were received and has -prepared a final rule for Com ss on Following a Comission decision on this rule, detailed v. consideration.- schedules will be pr.ovided for the pending CP applications. ~ 4 u Y m.______c_e -__.._______________m _______________m______.__.__._.-_.____m___--__.___m-_ _____._e_______.__________._.____._____

pr-

w. '-

4p I }l. r f _:L y Tables: y t + 1. Licensing Schedules CY 1981 - 1982 Plants f

2. -Licensing Schedules '.Y 1933 Plants 3

i i-

Attachment:

' DOE Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays i t w [_< a 1.-y }: - c fi m. 1.. g-k p. h h-r k (- i k'-

,; L ^;_ ['l c3 ~ f y;g

21L';f d, l } Q a

^i: l '.;eb' -'l y ', .u y> c e t e t, ~ ' Division of 1.fcensing 6/16/81;- .CY 1981 - 1982 PLANTS.. TABLE 1 SER ^ 'SSER . Estimated Starf SIHi- ' Start.' ' ASLB ' .Comelssionl Appilcant: Plant (Months) DES ' _ Input to Dt. SER

• M1 -

' Issue; Technical. sIssue

_of, Initial.

Decision ~ ~Constructfon Delay. Issue Technical Issue' ACRS: FES. cInput'to DL1 SSER . Hearing JDecision Date JCorpictiont t Lasall,e 1 0 xC C C; C ,C' ~C 6/22/81 -None ' Mone. 08/81 - 09/81: ~ Lasalle 2 0 C C -C

C; C

.4/01/82; 5/01/82 Hone. None-DE/82 06/82' . San Onofre 2 8 'C C C C C 'C.' C 07/81 01/82-02/82.~ 06/81 IC '6/01/h2 7/0'1/82 07/81 .01/82 08/82!

08/82 San Onofre 3.

0 C C C C ~ Diablo canyon t 12 C C C .C-C C C; 09/81 12/81-

01/82'

.01/81; 09/81 J 12/81 01/82-10/81, Diablo Canyon 2 3 -C C C C-C C-C r McGuire 1 0 lC C-C C. C C -C 'C .C' 06/J 07/81' McGuire 2* O C .C C C C 4/01/E2 5/01/82 C' C 06/82 06/82 Shoreham 1 0 .C C C 1/ ' 8/06/81 C 8/20/81 '8/28/01 -01/82 07/82 08/82-09/82 Summer 1 2 C C C C .C Ci Ci 06/81 12/81-01/82 11/81 Sasquehanna 1 2 C C C 1/ 8/06/81 6/15/81 - 8/20/81' '8/28/81 10/81' 05/82 06/82-04/82 Sequoyah 2 0 C C C C-C C-C Hone None 06/81 3/. ~ 06/Cl Zimmer 1 6 C C C C C C .C 2/ ,10/81 04/82 05/82 11/81 Baterford 3 1 C 6/19/81 7/06/81 8/06/81 8/08/81 8/19/81-9/18/01 ~03/82 10/82 11/82 10/82 Co:mnche Peak 1 10 C 6/19/81 7/08/81 8/06/81 8/12/81 8/19/81 9/18/81 01/82 09/82 10/82 12/81-Fermt 2 0 C 6/10/81 6/30/01 9/10/81 8/31/81 9/14/81 9/25/81 02/82 08/82 09/82 11/82 Grand Gulf 1 0 C 8/14/81 9/07/81 10/13/81 9/15/84-10/25/81 11/15/81 None None 12/81 12/81 Callaway 1 0 9/25/01 9/11/81 10/09/81 11/12/81* 1/15/82 11/20/81 11/27/81 04/82 09/82 10/82 10/82 l St. Lucie 2 0 9/25/81 9/11/81 10/09/81 11/12/81.1/15/82 11/20/81 11/?7/81 04/82 09/82 10/82 10/82. Watts Dar 1 0 C 9/11/81 10/09/01 11/12/01 t 11/26/81 12/11/d1 None None 01/82 06/82 i Palo Verde 1 0 10/23/81 10/09/81 11/06/01 12/10/81 2/12/82.12/18/82 /31/31 05/82 10/82 11/82 11/82 5/28/82 lione j None 07/82 12/82 VNP-2 0 7/ 31 / 81 2/12/82 3/12/82 4/C9/S2 12/J1/81 4/30/82 1/ SER has been issued; Pre-ACRS SSER is scheduled to be issued June 26, 1981 7/ SSER 1 was issued on June 4,1981 3/ Low power license was issued on June 25, 1981

e t i f c &OC C= 3 vvw m m e 'e e = e e = ede =%G Z D C C 5 M 2 C N -e 6- %. c n m o he o m e e w h+ e O O O Q O U C e Mc"5 ou U 1 t p. C 1 c w o' m m A m n A m m m o ! V#w C C 10 C C C 2 m M a

==e N e. C Zv0 e e v w e n 2 e D Q Q O Q Q O Q 3 e e C d2 I V 2 I e' w 4e N N M A A m m m m e O -l., v J c=d C 2 2 2 2 O O 2 m ~ m w- ,j me u N N - n m w a n 2 7 C MC G e e O. O O O 3 Q C w ~O ro e 4 w N N n A P' A O On o's c h N = n C D D M= n m b 6 N ee w n 3 O e e N m w av . C O e e e O C O. O e= i f b c eg ' N

• • N T N N

N N N N N Dw = m E C C 3 Q = C A

1. e

'N [..=4 +m N N w . so 7 O e (cN ', e o O O o Q 5 o - e .e e 24d W N N N N N N N N N ce m L M C C C C C 'PM, ew N N N N n mw m m o o N e O e N 'mm O Q Q 3 O C e w e e >u. M j N N N N N N N N N Ed C C C C C C C C C ve N N N o e o e m O e O O O Q Q Q Q w e ,[< \\ N N N N N N N N N DE Q C C C C M M C w ew N N N ++ ~ e e e a n o O ~ O O O O O O. Q O e e o e e N N N N N N N 4. 34 m m C C A C C a 2 1 - ew N ma e e e e N w r D ~ 1. ~ w e O O O O O O O 5 e W e W h4 c c O O O O O O O O dow e vo edCC A e w w N N ~ N e N N e T s C e e w N N e e e s

• a "C

o C 6 e e 4 c o u N &l b s c h e 3 e 6 y cl o c h o 6 e e o .s-e e 6 6 e s e e t 3 x u e o - e , A V 3 d b Z U d E rR G 9

l - t I t -AITACHMENT 1 w l l l l t O e 2 --c ~4.n. d,, .m:

Of.. 9 -

\\ = i. ??'.., + >.., -O 6M k .r.:,". 't. [a.V..* w

• a p
• pm e.

.,_T.<..- w-f ',.E 'wI e he #'acD g-c e I D 0 g ^ 4 l,

'ISTIS.TES OF THE COSTS OF ~ DELAYING ~: . OPERATING. LICENSES FOR b'UCLEAR PLANTS .- f (l; Prepared'by Divi'sion of Power Supply and Reliability U.S. Department of.. Energy June 15~, 1981 This report is the third in a monthly series of estimates of the costs.of : delay in the issuance.of operating licenses of the-Euclear This month's report takes account of 1 Regulatory Commission (NRC). changes ;in the estimated. lengt h t of delay, in-

Department of Energy -(DOE)

estimates _ of t e cos saddition' M

Like :the JMay1 report, t.his. month's report doe's not include estimates These of. capital carrying. costs that are incurred during the delay. costs are not: considered ?direc". tosses. incurred during the delav. s / Suraary o_f_ Results ~ The most recently-projected dates of issuance of operating lit enses ~ tiion based onl the uti11 tie.s'. pi~ojected - dates of com e~ ~(This. does not incidde the five additional months of loss. ~'. Last month's of - operation: projected for the' undunaged TMI 1 unit. ) units.- s estimate was 51 months for these units. ~ T e c'st'imated cost of these delays,.Iexcluding TMI.1, is S934 million, ~ or $S12 millied, based on-data.obtained from the utilitics in June,A direct comparison vitb last based on? independent DOE; estimates. donth'.s -reportican be made by adding the costs of.TMI 1, and by applying the! DOE: cost: estimates. toa.last month's estimates of the- ~ length of' delay,=as follows: June-1981. June 1981 -May 1981 Estimate Estimate Estimate (Excluding -(Including (Including TMI-1). TMI-1) TMI-1) Change _ -9 10 12 -2 Units Delayed .41 46 57 -11 Months-of' Operation -Lost-Total Cost of Delays ~

(S MM) Based on

-282 934 1,019 1,3ol - : Utility Data -157 -. DOE Analyses S12 882 1,039 4 4' [ L l-. m.

Salen 2 rocaiving its op rating licensa, 6: cr as-is du to (1) i seen made an initial earlier decision on tho McGuira 1 unit hav ng % Th - (ASLB), and (3) cuiaion of (2)' by the Atomic safety and Licensing Board costs incurred in May 1981 (since past costs are not included). I,eneth of Delav t hs of reactor -.The length of the delay--the -number of lost monFor units still under construc-operation--is estimated in Table 1. tion, the delay is the interval betw and the NRC's projected date of date of complet' ion (column 4) issuance of operating license (column 3). For units alrendv con- ~ pleted, the delay is based on the period from and including June 1981 through the projected month of issuance of an operating t lacense. Last month's estimate of the licensing dates are shown in col"-m 2. ~~ (excluding THI 1) has occurred in the A net change of 10 months estimated total length of delay (column 5). The change is due to: Omission of past delays for the two units that are alreacy complete (-2 months). The delay -in donstruct: ion of Shoreham 1, resulting in (-3 months). the unit no longer being it.pacted (-l nonth). The granting of an operating license to Salem 2 The initial decision earlier :than expected on.McGuire 1 by (-1 mont with a final decision now expected in June the ASL3, (-3 months). The delay in construction of Summer 1 8 Direct Costs of the LDelav

u...

}.:.,,,, - The cost of a delay in issuing an operating license af ter a is ahysically complete is equal to: m. (or systems, m, The total costs the entire utility systemwould incur to satisfy its I o ~ if the unit is jointly owned) based on the delayed customers' energy requirement, licensing schedule, minus same energy requirement The total costs of satisfying theif the license had been l o t elements that - This cost differential is aff ected only by cosfuel, purchased change as a. result of the delay--for example, It is not affecte power, maintenance, and other special expenses. ther by ' anticipated monthly capital carrying charges or by any o l costs that would be. incurred with or without the de ay. bas Th^ estir.ated d. :ect costs of delay are summarired in Table 2, 4 - on two independent sources: O '~

---

_m_

c

[.V 3 T ' 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 lof estimates (columns 5 t.hrough S) was .o developed independently by-DOE staff based on available -data -on ! generating; resources, pooling arrangements, lead The projections); capacity:facters, and fuel prices. analysis. nethod was. summarized in the May report. - The key are essentially: unchanged. (numerical ' assumptions' (Table 3) Both Tsets of < estimates used the same, length-of-delay information p ~~ r -(from Table' 1, column 1.5),. n Capacity charges;were not taken into consideration in the' DOE --

analyses. _ Most of the utilities indicated that 'the replacentat power fos._the1 delayed > nuclear units would be. generated within their own It-is possible that, in some cases, there would be a-syste:<.s. -

capacity charge /for purchased powcr,'_ but DOE has no current basis - for estimatingtits._ cost. -DOE 'C assumptions general y respited - in ' lower esti: nates ior the l than.those monthlyLeostiof replace:nent _ power -(Table 2, colnmn 5) In' addition, a few utilities Y- 7 provided by ithe utilities- -(column 1).-d - special additional. cost W .claime in: column'l). ' DOS did not. attempt' to estimate such costs.c F k 1 S 9 P O s O.. w 4 O e-r 4 L:-

~ E, 'g

5..;,

i

y

^f.g Qileify.(dj.tyfj9'** 6 Division l.ofl Power Supply and Reliability. - 4' ':lj+jf Department of Energy ,g/ J. J uno. - 15, 1981

e e' 7.>~

Tabis 1 3,[ f f ~ DATA OH ^ HUC1. EAR Uti1TS WITII OPERATI!!G LICENSE ' DELAYS m... g Projected Date P 9ted Date Conntruction Com-uance of pletion Dates Pro 11onths of. Unit _ of Insunnen of Capacity Operating License Og

ing License jocted by company Delay Replaecment Power i.

se'1931 June 1981 - (3) ~ - (4)' ruct source 7 5T-~ T6)~ ~(7I (inf) April 1981 'CI) (4). ~ 71) {2) 4f 12/61 110 Can ~ Self-gentrated Comanche Ponk i 1,150 2/83 10/02

nF oil-can snit-generated Diab 1-) Canyon 1 1,004 2/82M 1/02M.

1/01 Diablo Canyon 2 1,106 3/02M ,1/0 2 M, i-10/81-3 Oll-Gas Self-generated IF Coni self-generated Mocuire 1 1.100 12/81 6/01 i 1/81 8. OL1 Self-generate'd shi 6/01 San Onotre 2 1,100 4/02 2/02 2 Coal-o&L selt-generated 1/02 11/01 900 6/02 Oil-Coal M self-generated summnr 1 6/8'2' '4/82 ,2 Susquehanna 1 1,050 '11/82 1 011' 'rutchaand/scir Waterford 3 1,165 1/83 11/02 10/82' genera ted 6. Cont-oil self-gener ated 11/81 5/82 010 7/02 Ilmmer 1 41 5F oti-Coal Purch. ed Total (new unito)

• 10/81M 10/81M 776 TMI 1 Utility companien

' Sourcen: Nuclear Itegulatory Comminnion ( y in innund for which con:'truction is expecte.d 'to hn completed at 1 cant or$e month trroco ope enting licenne the NnC-projteted dntet: do not reflect nepediting pro :edd're n avalu. bin to thn comalen ton. 2/ Covern all unito the unit was taken out of nervice for a 1.ccording to company nourcen, 2/ 1 han received an operating 11conne and has been in operation. However, rollowing the Tnt 2. accident. The routino ref ueling during rebruary 1979, And wan not allowed to return to nervien Unc projects it will make a decision y Tt:1 ' company anticipates helsig fininhed with Titt 1 modificationn by the end of 10/01. in 10/G1. in the T*.7H pool dnrived from oli and lema on thn unit nmM recauco utility's coal-fired o:tpdcts which s,ould ropinco power 4 ~

/g --.--{ i

s I

DLvision cf Power hupply cnd ReliabL11ty l U. S. Department of Energy - I Tcble 2 June 15, 1981 ~ ESTIMATED COSTS OP OPERATING. LICENSE DEIhfS FO.( UUCLEAR UNITS. e i l Estluated Direct Costs Based on Independent DOE Analysis. Estimated Direct Costs Dased on Company-Data. Total 10/= Replacement / Capacity Replacement /' Total 3/ Replacement / Capacity Repiscement 8 '2 1 Unit Power Costs ractor Power Costs Cost Power Costs Factor-Power Copts Coat-l -$tui/Honth- ' -Percent- --c/kWh-- -$lui- - -$MM Month-- -Percent- -- UkWh-- -$MM-(1) (2): (3)- (4) (5) (6) '(7). (8) 14.52/ 60 2.9 -~ 14 5 70 3.2 185 Comencho Peak 1 10.5 Diablo Canyon'1 26.8 / 65 5.3 214 30.1 60 6.4 '241 ~ 4 l Diablo Canyon 2 28.71/ 65 5.5 86 30.7 60' 6.4 92 6.92/- 60 1.4z 7 .5.5' 60 1.1 6 l ( ncGuire 1 t San Onotre 2 36.01/ 65 7.0 288 l 29.6 60 6.1 237 25-8.5 60 2.2' 17 4 Summer l' 12.7 65 ~ 3.0-Susquehanna 1 25.02[ 70 4.7 50 13.5 60 3.5 27 19.32/ 60 3.8 19 i Waterford 3 21.4 75 4.4 27 28 4.62/ 60 1.3 5211/ ~ 2.8 52 21mmer 1 8.6 812 934 Total (new unit.2) TMI 1 17.0 70 4.3 85 14.0 ,70 3.3 70 802 1 1019 Total (including TMI 1) l f uel and operating conta of nuclear unitn. Unit capacity I 720 hours /n inth). Cont of replacemert power minun (column 1 i Column 2 1/ neplacement power conto divided by kilowatt-hours replaced. (column 1) by the total months of delay (Tabin 1, enlumn 51. 2/ T/ Derived by moltiplying monthly replacement power conta 7/ Cont of tuel f c r 19nl cr.tinsted by utility. fuel-carrying chargen. 5/ Includen include other abnormal costs of $2.5 million. F/ Doca not include other abnormal costs of $2.7 million. Estimates do not include capacity charges which cost of repincement power minua nucicar fuel costs of 6 mills /kWh. 7/ Dnen not ~8/ if power in purchased from other systemn.thereforc,. fuel contn are based on 1982 cntimaten. may be incurred ~ Dttr mn 5).by total months of delay (Talsle 1, column 5). t# tant of delay occurs in 1902:

' ' ' f Q,f,,'yS)*: : pf'< s T; b13.3 Divisid cf Power s;pply and Rollability' Departm:nt CI En'.rgy June 15,-1981 ~ s KEY. ASSUMPTIONS IN DDR-n4TIMATES Or COST OF'liUCLEAR PLA!TT DELAYS Replacement Repincement M Heat Rate ofM

Unit,

-ruel Mix ruel Price M acement ruel -$/MMnTUs-- -DTU/kHh-g g Comanche Peak 1 Can (100%) Can 3.19M -10,911 Diablo. Canyon 1 011 (1001)' 011 6.50 10,673 Diablo Canyon.2 '011 (1001) ' 'CIL I. 6. 5 0 ~10,678 McGuire 1 Coal (89.5%) ' Coal 1.09 Coal 9,438

iuclear (10.5%)

San Onofre 2 011 (1001) .,11 6.71 10,035 0 6tt - Sur:vnet 1 . Coal (011) , Cpal 1.71 Coal 10,001 011 (191) ~,'011 7.26 011 9,944 Sunquehanna 1 . Coal (501) Coal 1.67 Coal 10,083 011 (50%) 011 5.84 011 11,240 Waterford 3 011 (1001) OL1 3.91 / 11,223 21mmer 1 Coal (10'))) Coal 1.792f 70,567 TMI 1 Coal (50%) Coal.1.67 Coal 10,083 1 011 (50%) 011 5.84 011 11,740 l l/ source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informatlon Admlnistration, PPC Torm 423. y Prices are 1992 projections: all ot'icr ;>rlcen are on a 1981 bania. age J}}