ML20031G559
| ML20031G559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1981 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110230252 | |
| Download: ML20031G559 (10) | |
Text
10/21/81 5' E 7' K
/
-i Uti1TED STATES OF A!! ERICA T
n. /W.
S'h fiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
r BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
-g, In the Matter of
)
)
ARIZ0llA PUBLIC SERVICE
)
Docket Hos. STN 50-528 COMPANY, ET AL.
)
STN 50-529
)
STri 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
fiRC STAFF RESPONSE TO J0lfiT APPLICAf4TS' REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CONFERENCE
.,g I.
INTRODUCTI0ft In a ple,hding filed on October 1,1981, Joint Applicants, Arizona
~~
Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Southern California Edison Company, El Paso Electric Company, and Public Service Company of New flexico, requested this Board to set a date for a prehearing conference to consider (1) the adoption of a proposed hearing schedule (2) the adoption of a proposal for the Intervenor's review of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) offsite emergency response plan and (3) such other matters as may aid in the orderly disposition of the proceeding.
As is discussed below in more detail, the NRC Staff supports the Joint Applicants' regt.est to establish a date for a prehearing conference to discuss each of the matters referenced by the Joint Applicants.
DESIGNATED ORIGINAI; Certified By f((}
o!OOOhs O
/
O' h /
,. II.
DISCUSSION A.
Proposed Hearing Schedule The NRC Staff is concerned that this proceeding be complete prior to the time the Palo Verde facility is ready to load fuel. We recognize that the Intervenor has not been responsive to discovery requests and due dates set by the Board. We concur that the adoption of a hearing schedule which allows for a timely and orderly proceeding and the avoidance of delay is a matter that must be discussed at the projected prehearing conference.
The Commission in its " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings", of May 20, 1981, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC
, 46 Fed. Reg. 28533, 28534 (May 27, 1981), emphasized the need for setting reasonable schedules for licensing proceedings.
It stated:
II. General Guidance The Commission's Rules of Practice provide the board with substantial authority to regulate hearing procedures.
In the final analysis, the actions consistent with applicable rules, which may be taken to conduct an efficient hearing are limited primarily by the good sense, judgment, and managerial skills of a presiding board which is dedicated to seeing that the process moves along at an expeditious pace, consistent with the demands of fairness.
A.
Time The Commission expects licensing boards to set and adhere to reasonable schedules for proceedings.
The Boards are advised to satisfy themselves that the 10 C.F.R. 2.711 " good cause" standard for adjusting times fixed by the Board or prescribed by Part 2 has actually been met before cranting an
extension of time.
Requests for an extension of time should generally be in writing and should be received by the Board well before the time specified expires.
In response to the direction given the Convaission in House Report 96-1093, 96th Congress, the Commission has projected the following key dates for this proceeding:
Issuance of DES October 23, 1981 Issuance of SER November 6, 1981 ACRS Meeting December 10, 1981 Issuance of SER, Supplement December 31, 1981 Issuance of FES February 12, 1982 Start of Hearing May, 1982 ASLB Initial Drcision October, 1982 Cm nission Decision Date November,1982.M i
The Joint Applicants' construction completion date for Palo Verde, Unit No. 1, is November 1982.
By amendments to 10 C.F.R. S 2., '(f) of September 30,1981, 46 Fed. M. 47764, the Joint Applicantswoulo be able y
A copy of the Commission's report of September 30, 1981, to the Subcom?lttee on Energy and Water Development of the Corxaittee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, is attached to this response for the convenience of the Board and the parties.
=rw-
=e-m -
--,e-w c
- + -
+1-w
=
4-to load fuel and conduct low power testing upon the issuance of a positive decision by this Board in Oct.ober,1982, notwithstanding the filing of exceptions,2.f unless a stay motion is granted under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.788.
Tne Joint Applicants' proposed schedule looks to two hearing sessions, one beginning on February 1,1982, and the other on !! arch 22, 1982.
It also sets many other dates to be met, including the dates hearings will conclude, the dates for the issuance of Staff review documents, the dates for Board orders and a date for Commission decision. This schedule proposed by the Joint Applicants will not necessarily make for the fair, efficient and orderly hearing schedule sought.
See Commission " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings", supra at 28534.
In the Comission Memorandum COM/H-81-2 on " Hearing Schedules" of June 29, 1981, to the Executive Director of Operations and the Chairman of Atomic Safety and Licensing y
In its Statement of Considerations premising this rule change, the Commission stated (46 Fed. Reg. 47764-47765):
... However, the Comm'.ssion has cond uded that
[ Commission] review is not necessary for fuel loading and low power testing. First such activities involve minimal risk to the public health and safety, in view of the limited power level and correspondingly limited amounts of fission products and decay heat, i
and greater time available to take any necessary corrective action in the event of an accident.
Second, in operating license cases since the Three Mile Island accident the Commission has generally conducted its effectiveness review on a two-stage basis, first reviewing a fuel loading and low power testing license and then reviewing a full power license. Commission experience has been that in no case has fuel loading and low power testing prejudiced the later full power decision.
Cf_. 10 C.F.R. 99 2.764(f)(2)(f) and 2.788.
7 m--
sm r-m-
n-y-----e y
,,,-y-I'-P-t T----
I'-?
, l Board Panel the Comission directed the Boards to attempt to set hearing schedules which would enable a Board's initial decision to issue within 300 days of the issuance of the final Staff safety evaluation report or final environnental stateuent, whichever is later. I While such a 300 day schedule must be substantially improved in this proceeding to assure that an initial decision is issued no later than when the Joint Applicants' would be able to physically load fuel and conduct low power tests at Palo Verde Unit 1, the 131 day schedule, set out by the Joint Applicants as the suggested time between issuance of the FES on February 12, 1981, and an initial decision on May 5,1982, is unnecessarily short.
No time is provided in Joint Applicants' proposed schedule for the preparation of testimony after ruling on motions for summary judgment, no time is pro-vided for taking into account material in the FES, and the preparation of findings on one set of issues is taking place at the same time the evidentiary hearings are going forward on other issues.O While there are proceedings where such a schedule may be necessary, it is not necessary here. There are only five contentions now in the proceeding.
It is not shown why the two proposed hearing sessions, are necessary, why the preparation of testimony may not await completion of action on motions for summary judgment, 1
3f A copy of this memorandum is attached for the convenience Gf the Board and the parties.
4f It is noted that while the Commission may set the times for the production of Staff review docunents, a Licensing Board may not do so.
It may only report to the Comission Staff procrastenation in the production of such documents.
See Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 202-207
.(1978). Thus, to the extent the Joint Applicants are seeking to have the Board set such schedules, the Board may not do so.
, or why the filing of findings may not await the completion of the hearings.
Palo Verde Unit 1 will not be completed until November, 1982. Therefore.
while the Staff urges that all actions should be taken and schedules set to assure that an initial decision is issued prior to a time when the Joint Applicants could physically load fuel into Palo Verde Unit 1, the Staff does not necessarily believe that the schedule proposed by the Joint Applicants is a wise one which will lead to a fair, efficient and timely development of the record. The development of a firm schedule to conclude the hearing process before an operating license is needed, as well as other actions to move this proceeding forward, should be the business of the suggested prehearing conference. See Commission's " Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings", supra at 28535-28536.
B.
Offsite Emergency Planning The Joint Applicants propose that this Board adopt a procedure which would afford the Intervenor the opportunity (1) to review the offsite J
emergency plan of the State of Arizona at the time it is initially subnitted to FEMA, and (2) to be heard on any element of those State plans that aggrieves the Intervenor by allowing her to file contentions with the Board (at 6).E This procedure would allow her an opportunity to present litigable issues to this Board on those plans and alert the organization who prepared the offsite emergency plan (Arizona Division of I
5/
The Staff concurs with Joint Applicants that Intervenor's extended time to June 8, 1981, to file contentions on Joint Applicants' onsite emergency plan expired over 4 months ago.
Thus, Intervenor is l
now forclosed from litigating those issues.
See Joint Intervenor's j
Request at 4-5.
j 7_
r 1
Energency Services (ADES)) as well as the reviewer of the plan (Federal Emergency flanagenent Agency (FEftA)) of her concerns prior to completion by FEMA of its final review of the plan. (Id,)
To implement this procedure the Jofnt Applicants propose that at the time that ADES makes its initial submission of the offsite plan to FEMA, a copy of the plan would be served on Intervenor. The Intervenor would then have up to thirty (30) days in which to review the plan and submit contentions to the Board on these State plans. Any contentions filed with the Board af ter such thirty (30) day period would be subject to the Commission's regulations respecting late-filed contentions.
Following discovery by the parties, the Intervenor's contentions would be litigated at the hearing. The Board's decision respecting Intervenor's contentions would be forwarded to FEMA prior to the issuance by FEMA of its final finding on the offsite plan (at 7). This proposal is set forth in the Joint Applicants' proposed hearing schedule in Exhibit A.
The NRC Staff agrees with the Joint Applicants that their proposal is consistent with the objective of conducting a fair and expedetious proceeding. Accordingly, the Staff supports this proposal.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the NRC Staff supports the Joint Applicants' request to set a date for a prehearing conference to consider (1) the adoption of proposed hearing schedule. (2) the adoption of a
d-i, proposal for the Intervenor's review of the PVf4GS offsite response plan and (3) such other natters as may aid in the orderly disposition of the i
proceeding.
i l
Respectfully submitted, i
j' idnM.McGurren Counsbl for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland l
this 21st day of October,1981.
i i
i l
l t
i i
t i
l 4
I
.i f
i l
4
'l f
l 1
1 h
I
-l l
4 i
es~e<,--~.,,-n.,-..--r,,~a.,--~.nn,-,
__a_e._,n,,__.m_n,,g,
,-4,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y*
- }
W ASHIN GT ON,0.C. 20M5
,g.,
a k3b
%, e.s e j[
June 29, 1982 CFrecE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks, Executive Directot for Operations Cotter, Jr.,
ChaLrman, ASLBP
~
Paul B.
Sanuel J. Chilk, Secretatt FROM:
COMJH-81 HEARING SCNEDOLES
SUBJECT:
In the course of its review of the licensing process, the Commission has discussed a number of possible "model" or
" prototype" hearing schedules.
The thought was that a model hearing schedule would be used by the staff in scheduling reviews for future cases in which boards have not set i
specific schedules, and would provide general and non-binding guidance to boards in setting those specific schedules.
The Commission has enneluded that it need not provide such detailed guidance as a model hearing schedule to the staf f
.and boards, since boards would need to adjust the schedules for specific cases to fit those cases in any event.
Instead, the Commission directs that the boards should attempt where possible to set hearing schedules so that the_,
board initial _ decision would issue within 300 days of the isstiance of the fIEa1 staffRe-~EP evaluation repFrt
~
supplement,'~or Tina-i eniflYonm' ental'n'Erement or supplement thereto, whichever is later.
The staff is directed to use the 300-day period as a reference hearing process period for scheduling reviews for cases where boards have not yet set specific schedules, Chairman Hendrie cc:
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne OGC OPE ELD ASLAP l
l
>L v:
1 l a C^iu l u:2
'* C c-A UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
T j
W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555
( 't -
t
\\.'..../
CH AIRMAN September 30, 1981 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chainnan Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Cormittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093.
Enclosed is our eleventh report covering the period from August 15, 1981 to September 15, 1981.
This eleventh report discusses the actions that were taken during this period on operating reactors and licensing reviews of new facilities.
During the reporting period, a full-power license was issued to Sequoyah Unit 2.
In addition, a low-power license was issued to Dic51o Canyon Unit 1 on Septceber 22, 1981. Af ter receiving the low-power license, Pacific Gas and Electric Company discovered that certain piping may not be properly analyzed for seismic loads.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has halted fuel loading until reanalysis of affected piping is completed.
During this reporting period, applicant changes in estimated construction completion cates have occurred for seven plants. The estimated construction completion dates have been revised as follows: Diablo Canyon Unit 2 has been revised frcra October 1981 to July 1982; Summer 1 has been revised from Nove=ber 1981 to December 1981; Watts Bar Units 1 and 2 have been revised from June 1982 to August 1982 and -from March 1983 to June 1983, respectively; Zi:mer 1 has been revised from November 1981 to July 1982; Comanche Peak 1 has been revised from December 1981 to June 1982; South Texas 1 has been revised from September 1983 to July 1984. Because of these applicant changes in construction ccmpletion schedules, the projected total deltys have decreased from 42 months in the last report to 21 months in this report.
Further changes are likely, and the number of delay months at all of the affected units will. change accordingly.
The staff is analyzing the schedules for FEMA findings on offsite emengency plans. The staff is assessing the potential impact of these schedules on the
, licensing process.
The potential impacts have not been reflected in this report.
Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford note that, if the NRC meets its unedules and if adjustments are made for applicants' actual schedules and for recent revision of the low power licensing process, the number of future delay months is likely to be between zero and five.
t (i f T.Lpt6JUCi
^
. _ =
The Honorable Tom Bevill.
We have expanded Table 2 to include all plants for which OL applications have been tindered, thereby indicating all plants for which NRC OL review is underway. We have also added a new Table 3 to show the projected licensing schedules for pending Construction Pemit and Manufacturing License applications.
Sincerely, UMAy Nunzio J. Pa ladino
Enclosure:
NRC Monthly Status Report to Congress cc: The Honorable John T. Myers I
O l
i L
~ - - - -. -
- - ~ - - - -
NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS This is the eleventh 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 August 15, 1981 and September 15, 1981.
0PERATING REACTORS Thermal Shock To Reactor Pressure Yessels During the last month, no new information has come to our attention that would alter the staff's conclusion that no immediate licensing actions are required for operating reactors.
Bacause the implementation of any proposed remedial actions must allow for adequate lead time, letters were sent to the iteensees of eight plants requesting further information to enable the staff to assess what i
actions may be required to resolve this issue. The eight plants (Ft. Calhoun,
~
Robinsen 2, San Onofre 1, Maine Yankee, Oconee 1, Turkey Point 4, Calvert Cliffs I and Three Mile Irland 1) were selected on the basis of their vessel irradiation
, history and their plant system characteristics.
This effort is progressing in I
parallel with the generic review presently underway by the owners groups. The staff has also held meetings with the owner groups this montn to review progress on the 1
l thermal shock issue.
l
OPERATING OCENSE APPLICATIONS Licensing Schedules During the past month, the emphasis on licensing activities continued to be on operating license applications.
During this period, the staff issued a Final Environmental Statement on Fenni 2, a Safety Evaluation Report on Grand Gulf and Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) on Susquehanna and Shoreham.
In addition, a full-power license was issued for Sequoyah Unit 2.
The present licensing schedules for plants projected by utilities 'to be completed in 1981 and 1982 are given in Table 1.
Additional units at the same site with projected completion dates in 1983 are included in Table 1.
The preliminary licensing schedules for plants with lead units projected to be completed in 1983 and beyond are given in Table 2.
Table 2 was modified to include all plants projected to be completed in 1983 a'nd beyond for which OL applications have been tendered, and thus indicates all plants for which NRC OL review is underway. The schedules are based on standard assumptions l
for review and hearing times, except for those plants that are expected to be heavily contested (Byron 1, Seabrook 1, and Midland 2). For those plants, we have projected a 13-month (rather than the typical 11-month) l hearing schedule from issuance of our SSER to Commission decision date.
The staff review process for those cases has been accelerated to compe' ' ate for the additional time allotted for the hearing process. The potentia'.
delays between construction completion and projected issuance of a full-power operating license are presented based on the applicant's expected construc-tion completion date.
l l
l -
. ~. -
3-The staff is analyzing the schedules for FEMA findings on off-site emergency preparedness.
The s:hedules provided for findings on off-site emergency preparedness may cause licensing delays for many facilities.
This month we have added a Table 3 giving the status and projected schedules for pending Construction Permit applications.
There are uncertainties associated with the dates for the ASLB Initial Decision, Commission Decision, and Applicant Construction Completion. As the delays are reduced to small values, these uncertainties bedome more significant and have the potential to impact the totals.
Cost Estimates The NRC is obtaining cost estimates associated with the licensing delays from the Department of Energy-on a monthly basis.
Their latest estimates, dated September 14, 1981, are set forth in Attachment 1.
Commission Actions to Improve the Licensing Process The Commission is amending its recently adopted final rule on review procedures for Licensing Board decisions granting power reactor operating license applica-tions. The Commission will retain to itself the decision as to whether a plant will be allowed to go into commercial operation, i.e., receive a full-power license. However, the rule is being modified so as to delete the requirement that the Commission conduct an effectiveness review prior to fuel loading and low-power testing, and to make other clarifyin3 changes. The reconsideration is prompted by Commission experience in reviewing several recent cases.
O l
l
The staff is analyzing the potential effect of the rule change on liciensing del ays. The results of the staff analysis will be reported in the next report to the Subcommittee.
It may result in further reductions in delay estimates.
PLANT-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 plan.w, Shoreham Unit 1 is included in this discussion since some major milestones are being delayed. Because of a number of applicant changes in construction completion sc.hedules, the projected total delays have decreased from 42 months in the la.st report to 21 months herein.
San Onofre Unit 2 - On June 3,1981, FEMA issued an interim finding -
regarding the conduct of the San Onofre emergency preparedness drill which was performed on May 13, 1981.
Tne applicant is currently undertaking those corrective actions identified in the FEMA interim fi ndi ng.
The hearing on a full-power license started on June 22, 1981, and testimony on seismic issues has been completed.
Testimony on emergency planning issues started during August 1981. The applicant has filed a motion with the Licensing Board for consideration of a decision regarding a low-power license. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for February 1982.
The estimated construction completion date is October 1981.
A four-month delay is projected for this facility if the low-power license is not granted.
2.
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 7. - A favorable Licensing Board decision on low-
~
power operation was issued on July 17, 1981. However, the low-power
~
decision we'; not complevs until the Appeal Board issued its decision on physical security matters. This decision was issued on September 9, 1981. A Commissieri Order pemitting issuance of a low power license was issued on September 21, 1981, and a low power license was issued on September 22, 1981. The Commission directed that two additional con-
/
tentions be admitted to the full-power proceeding.
In addition, a Board order on full-power cor.tentions postpones a ruling on equipment qualification issues until tSe staff's review of this issue is complete and other parties have had an opportunity to review the staff SSER. The appli-cant's initial submittal on equipment qualification was not complete.
The t
l staff worked closely with the applicant to assure that the necessary infor-l mation was provided in an expeditious manner.
The staff conducted an audit during the week of August 31, 1981, and plans to issue an SSER on this matter by early October 1981. Since the Board has indicated that it will finaiize the full-power hearing schedule when the staff's SSER is israed, the hearing is projected to start in October 1981, and a decision regarding I
a full-power license is projected for February 1982. The construction completion date for Unit 1 was in March 1981.
A nine-month delay is l
/ -
projected for Unit 1, but this takes no account of the recently discovered problems in the licensee's seismic analysis. The estimated construction completion date for Unit 2 has been revised from October 1981 to July 1982.
The projected delay for Unit 2 has been eliminated.
3.
Shoreham Unit 1 - A pre-ACRS review supplement to the SER was issued the first week of September, with 20 open items requiring infonnation from the applicant, commitments from the applicant, or technical issues remaining for resolution. The ACRS meeting is scheduled for October 15, 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 construction completion ~ date.
4.
Sumer Unit 1 - The SSER was issued on April 28, 1981. The FES was issued on May 21, 1981. The hearir.g started on June 22, 1981. A decision ce. a full-power license is projected for January 1982. The construction completion date is projected for December 1981. The projected delay has been reduced from two months to one month.
5.
Suscuehant.a Unit 1 - The ACRS meeting was held on August 6,1981, and a
. ACRS letter was received on August 11, 1981.
.A post-ACRS SSER was issued on September 4,1981, with four open items remaining to be resolved. The start of the hearing is now scheduled for October 6,1981. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for June 1982.
A two-month delay is projected for this facility.
l
\\
6.
Zimer Unit 1 - A SSER was issued on Ju'ne 4,1981.
Issuance of ah additional SSER addressing resolved issues is scheduled for October 1981.
Recommencement of the hearing is projected for February 1982. A decision regarding a full-power ifcense is projected for July 1982. The applicant has revised the estimated construction completion date from November 1981 to July 1982. The projected eight-month delay for this facility has been eliminated.
7.
Waterford Unit 3 - The SER was issued on July 9,1981. The ACRS meeting was held on August 6,1981. Staffing and managersnt issues were identi-fied by the ACRS as *equiring further review. Late comments received on the DES, and the applicant's announced planned consolidation with New Orleans Public Service, have delayed issuance of the FES to September 30, 1981. This delay will 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.
Comarche 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 October 19S1. 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 i.isues is now scheduled to begin in December 1981. The full-power hearing schedule remains unchanged and is projected to begin in March 1982.
A decision regarding a full power license is projected for October '1982.
The applicant recently informed the NRC that construction completion cannot be earlier than June 1982.
The projected delay will not exceed 4 months.
Informal information pro-vided to the staff indicates a construction completion date for the racility after October 1982.
Therefore, the projected delay av tie eliminated in the future.
FULL-POWER LICENSES Seouoyah Unit 2 A five percent power license for Sequoyah Unit 2 was issued on June 25, 1981.
A full-power license was issued on September 15, 1981.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS The staff 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, Allens Creek 1, Skagit 1 and 2, and FNP 1-8).
The staff issued its SSER for Pilgrim 2 in June 1981, and issued its SSER for Allens Creek 1 in July 1981. The applicant for Pilgrim 2 cancelled the facility on September 24, 1981.
The staff reviews of the TMI-related information 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, and in October 1981 for.
Skagit Units 1 and 2.
The projected licensing schedules for pending Construc-tion Permit (CP) and Manufacturing License (ML) applications are given in Table 3.
Cn August 27, 1981, the Commission approved a final rule regarding TMI related requi"?-
ments applicable to Construction Permit and Manufacturing License Applications filed prior to the TMI-2 accident.
The rule is projected to be published in October 1981 in the Federal Register and will be effective 30 days after publication.
e 1.
Licensing Schedules CY 1981 - 1982 Plants 2.
Licensing Schedules CY 1983 Later Plants 3.
Licensing Schedules CP and ML Applications
Attachment:
DOE Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays e
i I
F e
4 e
e O
e 4
..,r.
._._,....._.._,--.....,__.,,..,~...,,,..._,_._,,#..,__.m.,~-
e:
U e'
D
- I 6
1 4
e-
' g,f m
V.
7
.'.I
.*. 3 *;,e M
m C c e -
.u., s.-
- ~ - ~ ~
a e g,
.a.
'uI 4
e
= = a a p
~
d" e. ~ -~ -~
a e e 4
Y o
-g 3 g w'
a-a.
~. *
~ m - - =
= g
-a
.e 4
L
- o -
3 a a a a 3
a e e a e 3
m C.
,?
~
3 l
$. Y
.o.
. o
"% Ci
~.
.E. -
d- - ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
e.
~ ~ ~
~ - = = -
O
- = s s a e
z a
a e a. a e e s
a e e e e a a a e g c.
, = >
3.=.*-
e g;
- =
-c 3
e.
[, I n.-
a g.
o o a
- m g g g
=
,3 I.
.*= c a o g g g a
-3
=
C
- - c 3 - =
e I
.c e
"U U e
a e
s I
2 c-3.-
.e.
e 3s'
.t
- I I-I a
~ *- ~ ~ ** *. *,
..I e
e-a.
- 2 i-
-w s
a e e s = s u
I w
s
[.-
1 m
6 a = c N e
e e c
w e E $
o r.,
5 5 * - I E
L e a a o
'o
- *=
O c c1 I
.%. l e4
.8 e
e Ml NI
%. {
. 4 3 _-
g 3I S
~l 84 t
I
.e 4 g
s n*
(,
9 "C'. - ** ~
8 f
r d-
"O
.?
E e
- p. l e
W E
E C
te
- .n
~.
8. -
E e
e
. w e R
R,
- 3%
-a w
S.
C e
J.
N.4' M
E e
.o.
w
.E S
o" M*
N 9
e 8".
m
., t g
g g.
g
.rp 3
v e q
2
= - 3 o D 5 U O %,
3 e6 4.
E 9 4
gg g
e e
=. o -
o
- 9..,a
- s.. m
~
g 3
4
.nd,'
g Q
s g,
J-m-
ek o:
'h
.T MI
.i
. y f
a-
.T
% gg
..e
=
"g
~ ~
~.
~.
w w
w
- w
=...
e.
- 52L-
. =
.c e
- y.. --
o.
- e *-
- o a
a o - - -.
,o or
+
- a u
- e t
e 4. y o C :,
~ - E o
~ -
o R g o p
e q.
s w*
l
~
~.
.c.
.o.
,a m-
.a e m..s.
Q o.,.
..a.
a w *!
-j r
3-p
=..
~
a t n,'
.e.
T. -.= %
y *y"*=.
I g
a t
g Y.
a e-e=
3..: '
-E' E
~ ~
~
~
- e e.. e =,
e.m r
q.
4 9
.e Id-U
)*
er og-ej S
S 9
8".
- s Z
.4, %.
c
- er t.8
- C =.
w
..E
.e, w. w w w e
a
, s{
D
.,g.,.
,o e= s
.e.,
O
=.%
J 9
=
W W
W m
m.,
r p
g
~
a.
o a.
E o..=
e.*
3
%o o a e
g
.S. r f
-o T..g -.
_g.
. a -
s.
~
I 8
e -
e.
e a e9' M
.,. =
C ",
.%se t E.. e.c.,. I-
-of.e
.=
0 I
a t
1 el e
U.
e
~
.ip g
.a e
. -a.s.,. G..
w e.
. a m%*
e
-e es o e w w w w w w w w m
w w w m
W w - -=
-=
m e
. =.
T
- a
.e..g e.
.b
.s 4
<-.)*
m..j e
C
. e p
D.H
~
w r
.M L~
d
- p I. %m Sb
- ~
S*
.o 9.
3e e
r.
9.
9.
D
.E 4 -
s
.C.
F
't IS
.s=
- 9-E"
- 4. A 9 -. &
6.d
,1.. g T e, O "c.aC o
- ze
-e w
s L
. = = =
a En
.C4 i
_~ w w w a w w -
9 w w w ~
~ a w ~ w a 1
~ -
o
.-.s m-e
.~.
. O
)
e.
-. ~
.c
.2c
- - -- - -~
.t4 e
~ -
. e.%. r,t. e n I
m
.e
- o I
.u,-
o.
.m. w:
. u w w w w w w w w
~
c em
.. !e e
e.
e o
o 8
.~. w w w w w o w o ~-
w 9
o o
-. =Q
, 8, -.. n ~- -
,g
.i o
v=
E
.-1 g%
u
~
m,
~
. Y cc c
.i s
.)
l.,
,.. e _e w w w -
w w w w w w -
w w w w - o
.T 3,
w e
c3
... 2.
- 4. >. m a m e,
w-1 1
-t e
~.
R.
w e
~
e o
e o-
.t...,.,
u _a i
Rl.
-o
.f
- 1.., axm-
=
..t.c
.w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
~ w
.-m.
I s
a-=.,a....-i-
.c.,
.m -
9
- ~.
=
w w
.w
~.,. w
=.
e o
-o
..t
- e.. c.
- a g
a t
...m-
..L m.-
v
.m,..
.#.-.m w
. o.
c,
., o..
O ~ o.. - o o - e o -
,..e.,..L-yo.
c.
gp
. E.
.i
..-., -,.. c - '
.4 o e o e-
-e
. 1,.,a o m
.r
~
a.
o
.a
~
.s e
- e.., *. = L3
.= I V, e e. 4.. !.m.mso 3 a
~
e
~
~
e
. e
.&..4 o =.
~ ~
J w
1
.==...e.=.%...4T.
e.
g
..= =.
i.
c 8
Le
~
. =
eo-c 6 -
4.,
. =
e.
e r.
9; 3
3.
o m-ae 2 2 :
3 Y
. s
.,2 2 v s s k -
- I E.
- ': -- -
e o,,,
E e 2
~ c w
w e
5 m =
c
- s.%. c'.l w
-a
~,,.%.e ce
. e-e I
1 wW"
~ *
.g_.
t
a eC
=
.= - - - m m== -
m e e e e e 6. +,4 ne e c c c c c c c c c c c c c
==
s-L. e. =
ay e
C
==
g =.-
N g c N
e-E ec.
=
c
=
- - - o t*
W W.
.E -
==.
1 e
r e
.c' e
e=
m m m
a=
== m e es*
g-e e
.E.,'
l w =g* **
c = c c c c c c c c c c c e
.t w 3 m'
.v. :
T T C E
C N
1
.C=
-N T
C
- - -== -
d*
=
N e
m *. - e
- e e
e e e c c c c c c c c c c g c e e g
a
- - e g
.e '
C.c. c.
=
.c. - w c-
= g g c
s-
=
C
=
E C.* =
e 4
.e at
=
4
==c s*;
N.
N.
N C,
es N
N N
N
==
8"
.=
N e
e au-ga a CC
= = =,
c = c c c c c c c c g c c c 3-
=b N
=
e g e
& se
.a-t,
=
g
= g
-==
N ar
-=
C C
C== = d C
==
= ^ =.
> I*
~
es" a
er C es'.s j
en
=* :
c es N
N v
N N
N em
- w c c c = c c c c c e., T 9
g e' C
e m e e e[
6
= :,
e !.
= = c c e e o -
c e e e s.
C e m m n N
m
=
o.
.e e.
e ew Wj Cl e
i
<* m e e P
- = - c C
C
&C N
, *?,
om R
me e ;;
w,i g e.
N 4.
N N
N N
ew N
N eAIG' 85 N
c e c C
c c c C
C
.=*C c
g.
an e
gens we t.: e#"
- -* i zi=3
en
.e.
N c
.e
.e e e e e
.C >e t :
ei
.E
- j, N
=
g g
N q.
g.
e-
- =
= c
=
e., g
=
=,
E A
t
<m 3,
s in m o e e-6
.* t &
N
.e..=. c en.
.C.i c.
to - c ;
S-t3' a=.
5
=
C.==*.=85 ;
N N
N N
N N
N N
m we N
c C
e e c c c c c e.=**
c m
r=.
m e
.e w
- w.
t 9
e e e.
e e e e e N
c c c c
-e c.-
S *=.
3 ed a
%,p g
g 5"
2 O
=
0 C
=
w C **
3 e=
ee w
==
ega:
.e
.l am
=
m to er, 3 ee e
.e
.C-e-
N m
m.f.l
=.g s; *
- =,
==
g c !
c' L 4
== c e N
N N
N N
N N
N m
- em c.
as e c N
= c c c c c c = c== -
e e
=
c e c c c en o
e m
w
,l e
= = - g = e c e cwe ar
.e sw
- = = o o N
e c -
.o -
ee '
N
.; me
=
==
y,'
c E;
- =
N e
e=
w e sa
==
.=- w c c T en c, g =
.=m N
N N
N N
N N
N m
=I w "ss O
ne N
c c c c c = c c c m
m m
se==
w!
c
} si e c e e c -
e
~ ~ e e e 8 e-
~ e o o = -
oes e
o = -
- c
.N=
- c-
=v
=
w
.==
e-,
-e - o e
N er:
e e e e e =
=
- k.:
er: '
T or u
=c.t en as :
(
N N
N N
N N
N N
m w2-l e
c c c c c c c en c e w =* A l' =.=t.,-l e
m m
l e ~ ~ = w o-g-
e e
e e e c
-as c.*
l --
<=
o o = - = a o o o e
~
l
.: = *
- c sg
.=
9 = 6 en e =.
.es w
m
== e e
- =
ca c
au-
==
w e= w c
- cle
.c.
==
ao
==
l c ed o cw=
==
N
.=
N N
N N
N N
m
.t e.
c r.
c c = c c c c c e
t m
N e
v==
3 se e e se e
ne e
e e ~~ c c c c cs*
.= = c = = = = = =
3
":
- E e* = ;
N N
e
== -
%=
N c.
- =
.c..en
= -
-+
c N
g-e ss a se C C
=-.*a w
=i e c. t me c
w
- T se N.c
- er 4 s a g ot O
O O C C
C C C
C C
C
= = = p
-*2*
~
" 2_2 -l s*6 m-c we i
c.
= cc
.c w c so
- =
== % en
.nr
=e
.e.
---we - m t,
N c
en e.
t
.er at c
.er
>W N
a.s e
n
==
as c
c
=
0
-w 8t g h
n.
t e
-.E
.c
.c u-e w
.E "I-C w
t w
= m w.i. w-w 6
-e e -
c.
6.
- =
.=
s n
+a a:
ac t a.
=
a 6
g e
w 6
se e,
O o
=e u
2 c
s.
E W
-EK en
-E
- ^ c se 6
=* c c H== 8% +
e
I Alit t 3 SIAlus ann ranlitills IAWrJ l SCl41stRf %
Hitl%Iml fir LICIN%INr. 9/1%/R$
!.OR__rf,0,,13.,C,0Njl,m,K I,l_mt yJ pi,y, pyj,1,C,A,{,[@,5, 55tR (IMI Issues) 55tli (Non-lMI lssues)
W4 A Cainealss*an Issue Issue Staf f Icchnical Issue staf f technical Is sise m as Start of Inltlal ikc t sine.
plant DES It5 Input to lit 555 R Input tiy_t L 55t R,
Hecting
- Iscaring, Dec i sion, pate.,
ringria 2 5/
.C C
C C
C C
C 11/09/R8 3/n?
4/n2 INP l-n C
C C
9/10/81 C
9/in/nl luidt 7/R7 7/R7 n/n?
Allens Creek I 0
0 C
C 9/iS/nl 10/15/nl C
3/np n/sl7 9/n2 Black los 1 A 2 C
C 11/81 If/nl 2/42 3/R7 7/82 4,/
p/92 1/n) 7/n}
Skagit/Ilanford 1 A 2 3/R2,l/
n/82 1/
0 10/Al 4/n?
6/R2 F/R2 11/87 4/R3 5/R1 pebble Springs I A 2 C
C N/5 N/5 N/%
N/$
N/5 17/05/R1 5/RJ N/5 7/
perkins I, 2, 3 C
C N/5 3/
N/5 3/
N/5 N/5 N/%
N/5 N/5 N/%,1)
-1/ As a result of field esplorations con.lucted by 415G5, the seismic design of tbc f acl'llty misst be re-esamined. Appllrants In.llcated in Septeeleer 19ful tliat the prepose.1 f acility Is to lee relocated to the llanford ecservatloo. Ance= led IR an.1 PSAR will lie filed in IMeenher 19Rl.
-2/ In response to a 4/7A/R1 Imard order, the applicant stated (5/l4/R1) an Interest In pursuing the review wllh respect to crumpletleig time hearing on envirnennental and site sultalellity issues. Ihwever, the applicant has not Indicateil when tlicy propose to resesse er.tleltles related to tise safety review, particularly on IHi-relateil Issues, therefore, a Cruselssion decision date is not projected at this time for tiils facil?ty.
-3/ Dy letter dated 3/l?/RI, the appilcant rectummended that the NRC not elevote any resoeertes leryond support for the altersiate site hearlag for the nes t.two years.
4/ It is anticipateel that IMI issises only will be ellscussed at the ACR5 meeting.
5/ tacilley cancelled by applicant on September 24, 1981.
r l
i l
l l
ATTACHMENT (The recent change to the construction completion date for Diablo Canyon Unit 2 is not reflected in the attached DOE estimates.)
~
Note:
The estimated delays are c'alculated by the NRC from the applicant's construction completion date to the Commission Decision date. The estimated delays are calculated by the DOE from the applicant's construction completion 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.
S 8
m,._._
ESTIMATES OF THE COSTS OF DELAYING O?ri'.3ING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR PLAN"S Prepared by Division of Utility Systems and Imergency Communications U.S. Department of Energy September 14, 1981 This report is the sixth 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
~ 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 provide potential cost estimates next month for those plants which may be affected.
Summary of Results The most recently projected dates of issuance of operating licenses for new units would result in a loss of 22 months of reactor opera-tion based on the utilities' projected dates of completion for 7 units.
(This does not include the two additional months of loss of operation projected for the undamaged TMI 1 unit.)
Last month's estimate was 36 months for these units.
The estimated cost of these delays, excluding TMI 1, is $584 million, based' on data obtained from the utilities in September, or $502 million, based on independent DOE estimates.
A comparison with last month's report follows:
Excluding TMI-1 Including TMI-1 sept 1961 Aug 1981 Sept 1981 Aug 1961 Estimate Estimate chance Estimate Estimate. Chance Units Delayed 7
8
-1 8
9
-1 Months of 22 36
- 14 24 39
-15 cperation Iest Total cost of Delays (SMM) sased on l
l
~ Utility Data 5 84 715
-13 1 6 12 757
-145 l
-- 00E Analyses 5C2 608
-106 530 650
- 120 The decrease is due to mainly to delay in construction schedules.
i
-g Lencth of Delay
~
The length.of the delay-the number of lost months of reactor operation--is r timated in Table 1.
For units still under construction, t delay is the interval between the utilities' projected date or completion (column 4) and the NRC's projected date of issuance of operating license (column 3).
For units already com-pleted, the delay is based on the period from and including September 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 14 months ( excluding TMI 1) has occurred in the estimated total length of delay (column 5).
The change is due to Delays in construction for Comanche Peak 1, Summer 1 and o
Z brae r 1.
For the Summer unit the change is less than one month,from 11/30/81 to 12/1/81.
For the Zimmer 1 unit the date now coincides with the operating license ~ issuance date; therefore, the unit no longer appears on the list
(-15 months).
omission of costs incurred in August 1981 (since past costs o
are not included) for Diablo Canyon 1 (-l month).
Delay in issuance of operating licenses for Diablo Canyon o
units 1 and 2.
The NRC has reported that the delay is caused by the appl-icant's incomplete submission on l
equipment qualifications (+2 months).
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 o
if the license had been issued when the plant was complete.
This cost differential is affected only by cost elements that change as a result of the delay--for example, fuel, purchased po.wer, maintenance, and other special expenses.
It is not affected by anticipated monthly capital carrying charges or by any other l
costs that would be incurred with or without the delay.
l
(
e
_ _ _ _. _. ~.. _ _ _
l 3-The estimated costs of delay are summarized in Table 2, based on two indep.endent sources:
o one set of estimates (columns 1 through 4) was based on data obtained from the owners of the units; and o
A second set of estimates (columns 5 through 8) was developed independently by DOE staff based on available data on generating resources, puoling arrangements, load projections, capacity factors, and fuel nrices.
The analysis method was summarized in the May report.
Tha key numerical assumptions are presented in Table 3.
Both sets of estimatas 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 esticating 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 utilit es (column 1).
In addition, a few utilities claimed special additional costs associated with the delay (footnoted in c-lumn 1).
DOE did net attempt to estimate such costs.
O
..-n,,
TNEE 1
~
Divitim of titility Systans ant] Dicrgency Q3*amimions ll.S. Ih1urtwnt of Du*rgy Segetader 14, 1981 (WIA 0410CIrN1 INI1S Willi OPf 3%TINr; I,1mtW. IW2AYS y I'rojectal Date l'rojectal IMle Constnaction Car-of Issamco of of Issuance of pletice IMtes Puo-Mmths of Cagacity C vuatfry I,1 cense Oncratlin 1lcense jectal Isy Coquny Delay Iteplaceunt I % r i
Unit (PHI Asupist 1981 Septim&utr 1981 Septadmir 1981 (1) - (4)
Ebel thstr 4
{ll (2)
(M (4)
(5)
W Otminche Pealc 1 1,150 10/82 10/92 6/82I (7) a Diablo Canyon 1 1,084 1/82Y 4
Ces Self generatest 2/82Y Y
3/81 6
Diablo Canyun 2 1,106 1/82l 011-Ces Self-genera W 2/82Y 10/81 4
Oll-cas Self-g m eratal San Onofre 2 1,100 2/82 2/82 10/81 4
011 Self-genera :sl Stswer 1 900 1/82 1/82 12/81 1
Coal-011 Self 9enera.ml Susquelanna 1 1,050 6/82 6/82 4/82 2
011-CasY Riterford 3 1,151 11/82 11/82 10/82 J
Oil Purchasorl/S.f.f-Self generaist 4
Total (now unita)..................................................................................
generate 22 776 10/81Y Y
1MI 1 10/81 I
2 Oll-coal Purchase-Sources Utility Cogianin Nuclear Ikyulatory Ommission i
7/ According to coguny sources, tim MC-projectal dates do not reflect enlulltlisj prucalures a a.
3/ Ut1 1 has rdceival an quratirq license anl las tan in geration,MC in its Aaqust report. to tie ik= vill Connittee sligint tin 1he l
~
refucitrq during Felwuany 1979, anl was eult allcutil to retunn to scavice following rhe 1Mt 2 accident.llwtwr, the unit me taken ait of serv being finisint with 1111 1 pullfications ly the cast of 10/81 1he cospany anticipates NBC piojects it will s.ike r %1slon on the unit in 10/81.
4f Delay wtzald rnluce utility's coal-firal anl oil-firal exports Alch wtmald replace power. tJe PJM o01 derived from oil arul less efficient cual plants, 3
j5 Delays for these cogiletal innits prior to 9/81 are not inclinin1 j6 h cmpany los lasilcatal tlut the unit will not le realy for fuel lomling prior to 6/82.
is unler review.
An exact construction coq)letion $ata b
G j
TNME. 2 Divirion of Utill y Systons ard Bnertjesry Osmur icctirne U.S. th turtm nt of Dergy Septm Ltr 14, 1981 E3 rum 1m OEIS O' OIUWTitG LICl2EE IXJAYS HMt taCIEAR INilS Costs Ikasal on Ompany futa 11/
Tkplactensit Capicity thplacementM Costs Itasal on Irdeperslent DOE Anal / sis lbtal 14Tlacment /
Unit h wer Costa Factor timer Costa Cost liwer Costs
_f' actor Itm.cr Costa Qast Captcity Replacw ent
'DNat
-SetMtmth-
-l'ercen t-
-C/kWi-
-SitF
-$PtMtmth-
-Ivrcent-
--C/k e--
. Sne (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8) 6 nanche Peak 1 18.5 70 3.2 74 14.5/
8 Diabau ranyon 1 26.8Y 60 2.9 58 i
65 5.3' 161 26.0 60 5.5 156 Diablo Can p a 2 28.7Y 65 5.5 115 26.5 60 5.5 106 San Giofra 2 36.0Y 70 6.5 144 29.6 60 6.1 118 Simner 1 12.7 65 3.0 13 8.5 60 2.2 9
Susguchuma 1 25.0 65 5.1 50 18.I Y I
Materford 3 27.4Y 60 3.9 36 75 4.4 8
27 19.1 60 3.8 y
'lotal (ruw units)
............................................... 584
.............................................. 502 7MI 1 14.0 70 3.6 28 14.0 70 3.5 20
'Ibtal (ircitdirvj 1MI i r......................................... 612
...............................................h.
Cost of replacment puer minus fuel arvl operatievj costs of rumlear units.
Deplacement twer costa divided by kilcmaatt-trmra replacol. (Colism I i Culienn 2 Unit cagnacity y 720 hour0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br />sAmonth).
j/ Cost of fuel for 1981 estinutal by utilityDerival by analtiplytruj nmthly replacutent. gmer costs (coltam 1) by tle total mmthe o 8
4 Does rot irclido other atsumnal msts of $15.25 million Ier nonth.
Does rut inchale oiler also wl costs of $2.7 million ser numth.
Osst of replacmmt par snisms rumlear fuel costs of 6 mills /kW. Estinutes do not ircitale capacity charges Aldi nay be incurral if puer is parchasal fran otl.'r. systasan.
8/ n>st of delay occurs in 1982 tJu refore, fuel cnsts are Insal on 1982 estinntes.
9/ De' ived by cultiplylivJ monthly replacment pwr costs (whom 5) by total nriths of dolay (Table 1, colism 5).
r 15/ tAclear luel cost of to mills /kw are usal in this calculation.
}IfOwnerrhipofunits Cunarscle I'cak 1: itxas Electric Service Co. - 35 5/61,1wxas tower and I.ight - 31 1/24. Dallas Itnaer s t.ight - 14 ;/tt, 1bxas nmir lpil huer hjercy - 61/54, Drazos Etn:tric hwer Coop - 3 4/54,1wx-tm Electric Coop. of h - 4 1/34.
Diablo Canyon I arul 2:
Pacific Cas arul I:lectric Q). - 100% of loth imits.
San o mtre 2: Soutlern California nilexm - 76.554: San plego Gas arul Electric - 201: City of Riverside - 1.79ti City of Anahelse - 1.66*.
Semener 1: Sosth Carolina Gas asil Eltetric - 66t; South Carolina hablic Service hatharity - 344.
Surspuchanna la Pe:msylvania hwer arul Light - 9043 Allegieny Electric Cooperative - 104.
Waterford 3: Inulsiaru huer an! IJ ht - 1004.
9 1HI 1: M>trogelitan Illison - 504, Jersey Central I wer asil I.lght - 25%: hwmsylvania Electric Co. - 258.
o O
'DuuE 3 Division of titility Systasne and huurgency Ozmeinications U.S. t>gurtesnt of D ergy Segitands.r 14, 1981 Kr ' MWPJ'rIOG IN DOE ISrlm115 O' Ortr (F PACIJN4 I1Nir IM3AYS Tieg>lacrment.
IV1)lactsnent lleat itste ofb Unit Ibel Mix nml Ivice skylaciwnt it al
- M erlus-
-Iml/ kien-Comancte Peak 1 Cas (1004)
Gas 3.19I 10,911
'Diablo Canyon 1
(*>0 %)M 4a 011 6.30 10,678 Gas (50 %)
cas 4.90 Diablo Canyon 2 011 (50 t) M Oil 6.50 10,618 Gas (50 %)
Gao 4.9C l
i San Onofre 2 011 (1001)
Oil 6.71 10,135 I
Simoner 1 Coal (81 %)
Om1 1.71 Coal 10.001 011 (19 %)
011 7.26 011 9,944 Stasspiehanna 1 Coal (33 %)M Qui 1.67 Coal 10,081 011 (67 t) 011 5.84 011 11,240 Hat 5rford 3 011 (1004) 011 3.91Y 11.223
'IMI 1 Cm1 (50 %)
Coal 1.67 Coal 10.083 t
Oil (50 t)
Oil 5.84 011 11,240 4
I
~
If 'scmirce:
u.s. Departent of nergy, nerin informaticnt Mainistratim, ric rons 423.
I 2/ Prices are 1982 projections; all other prices are on a 1981 basis.
j J/ Dasel on rww infonnation, DOE las revisani its anasgitions.
4 i
e 1
e e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0lR11SSION BEFORE THE AT0f1IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-528 C0ttPATU, ET AL.
)
STN 50-529
)
STN 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO JOINT APPLICANTS' REQUEST FOR PREHEARING CONFERENCE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 21st day of October, 1981:
Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman
- Administrative Judge Ms. Lee Hourihan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 6413 S. 26th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Phoenix, AZ 85040 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Board Panel
- Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Dr. Dixon Callahan Appeal Board
- Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Union Carbide Corporation Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box Y Dak Ridge, TN 37830 Docketing and Service ection*
c Arthur C. Gehr Esq.
Office of the Secretary Charles Bischoff, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Snell & Wilmer Washington, DC 20555 3100 Valley Center Phcenix, AZ 85073 Rand L. Greenfield Assistant Attorney General P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa'Fe, New Mexico 87504-1508 in su Hen'ry JWicGurrer, l
Counsel /for NRC Staff i
l i
.-