ML20039C652
| ML20039C652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/27/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bevill T HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112300006 | |
| Download: ML20039C652 (23) | |
Text
__
1
[8 tJNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsm NGTON, D. C. 20555 h.Q*****l
. November 27, 1981 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on~ Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093.
Enclosed is our thirteenth report covering the period from October 15, 1981 to November 15, 1981. This thirteenth report discusses the actions that were taken during"this period on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of l
new facilities.
On November 19, 1981, the Commission suspended Pacific Gas & Electric Company's
]
(PG&E) license to load fuel and operate Diablo Canyon Unit 1 at power levels up to 5% of full power, and specified programs that must be satisfactorily completed before license suspension will be lifted.
The license suspension was based upon recent NRC inspections that identified a number of serious quality assurance program weaknesses related both to the errors found in the Unit 1 seismic design and to the implementation of applicable criteria of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50.
Several licensing review documents were issued during the reporting period.
These include two Draft Environmental Statements, a Safety Evaluation Report and a supplement to a Safety Evaluation Report.
In addition, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) completed its review and issued favorable letters for three plants.
3 Three changes to applicants' construction completion dates are included in this month's report.
The plants involved are Grand Gulf Unit 1 (from December 1981 to February 1982), Comanche Peak Unit 1 (from June 1982 to June 1983), and San Onofre Unit 2 (from October 1981 to December 1981).
Of the three plants, only San Onofre Unit 2 was reported last month as a potentially delayed facility.
As a result of the revised construction schedt ',e for San Onofre Unit 2 and since a decision on a low-power license is now prof ted for December 1981, the projected three-month delay for this facility has been eliminatsd.
However, the facility will not have a sufficient number of licensed operators to permit fuel loading before January 1982.
Sincerely,
}
SNtr r
Nunzio J.
ladino
Enclosure:
NRC Monthly Status Report to Congress cc:
The Honorable John T. Myers 8112300006 811127' ChPDR
$R 0D
NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS This is the thirteenth monthly status report to Congress in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093. This report provides a dis-cussion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between October 15, 1981 and November 15, 1981.
OPERATING REACTORS Thermal Shock To Reactor Pressure Vessels During the last month, we have received the initial (60-day) responses to letters sent to the licensees of eight plants on August 21, 1981, requesting information to enable the staff to assess what actions snould be taken to resolve this issue. The eight plants (Ft. Calhoun, Robinson Unit 2 San Onofre Unit 1. Maine Yankee, Oconee Unit 1. Turkey Point Unit 4. Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and Three Mile Island Unit 1) were selected on the basis of their vessel irradia-tion history and their plant system characteristics. The licensees provided information to assess current reactor vessel material toughness and to evaluate operating procedures and training relating to the thermal shock issue. The staff is currently evaluating these responses. Following receipt of the additional (150-day) responses, the staff will complete its review of this matter.
TM1 Unit 1 Restart By Order dated September 11, 1981, the Licensing Board reopened the hearing record on the TMI Unit 1 restart proceedings to obtain evidence on allegations of cheating offenses on NRC operator licensing exams. The Board specifi-cally reserved the right to modify its conclusions presented in the August 27, 1981 partial initial decision on management issues. The Board
_O has appointed a Special Master to preside over the reopened hearing which began evidentiary sessions on November 10, 1981.
It is expected that the record on this matter will remain open for several weeks, with a Board supplemental initial decision projected for March 1982. The Board initial decision on the other major areas of the proceeding, i.e.. design and modifi-cation issues and emergency planning issues, is projected for the first part of December.1981.
The Commission has not determined whether restart of TMI Unit 1 will be considered prior to a decision on the cheating allegations.
OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS Licensing Schedules During the past month, the emphasis on licensing activities continued to be focused on operating license applications. During this period, the staff issued the following:
(1) Draf t Environmental Statements (DES) for Palo Verde Units 1 2 and 3 and Byron Units 1 and 2; (2) a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for Palo Verde Units 1. 2 and 3; and (3) a Supplement to the SER (SSER) for Zimmer Unit 1.
In addition, ACRS meetings were completed and favorable ACRS letters were re-ceived for St. Lucie Unit 2. Callaway Unit 1 and Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2.
In previous reports, the licensing schedules.for CY 1981-1982 plants and for CY 1983 plants and beyond were presented in two separate tables. Starting this month, the two tables have been merged into one. Therefore, the present licensing schedules for all plants with pending OL applications are given in Table 1.
~
J Additional units at the same site with projected construction completion in CY 1982 and 1983 are included in Table 1.
The schedules shown for CY 1983 plants and beyond are based on standard assumptions for review and hearing times, except for those plants that are expected to be heavily contested (Seabrook Unit 1 and Midland Unit 2). For those plants, the projected schedules allow for a 13-month (rather than the typical 11-month) hearing phase from issuance of the SSER to Commission decision date on a full-power license.
The staff review process for those cases has been accelersted to compensate for the additional time allotted for the hearing process.
The estimated regulatory delays and the target dates for Commission decision shown in Table 1 do not reflect any potential impact from the schedules for FEMA findings on off-site emergency preparedness. Any additional potential delays, based on the staff's analysis of the schedules for the FEMA findings, are included in a monthly report to the Senate Subcommittee on Luclear Regula-tion which is transmitted jointly by the NRC and FEMA.
During the past month, the applicant for Grand Gulf Unit 1 announced a slip in construction completion from December 1981 to February 1982. Grand Gulf Unit 1 has never had a projected delay.
In addition, the applicant for San Onofre Unit 2 has revised its construction completion date ffom October 1981 to December 1981. This reduces the projected regulatory delay from three months to one month.
However, since a decision on a low-power license is now projected for December 1981 San Onofre Unit 2 is no longer considered a potentially delayed facility.
In last month's report, we stated that the applicant for Comanche Peak Unit 1 had announced a revised construction completion date which was beyond the projected Commission decision date of October 1982.
The applicant subsequently stated that the new completion date is June 1983.
_4_
Cost Estimates The NRC is obtainint cost estimates associated with the licensing delays f rom the Department of Energy on a monthly basis. Their latest estimates are set forth in Attachment 1.
PLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF DELAYED PLANTS The following is a discussion of the status of the potentially delayed facilities.
1.
San Onofre Unit 2 - On June 3.1981. FEMA issued an interim finding regarding the San Onofre emergency preparedness drill which was performed on May 13.1981. The applicant has completed those corrective actions identi-fied in the FEMA interim finding and has informed FEMA of the actions taken.
The hearing on a full-power license started on June 22. 1981, and testimony on all issues has been completed. The hearing record is now closed except for additional information and findings to be provided by FEMA on emergency preparedness later this month. The applicant has filed a motion with the Licensing Board for consideration of a decision regarding a low-power license.
. The applicant had been projecting an October 1981 date for construction completion; however, construction was not complete at that time. The applicant has informed us that it has modified its schedule for completion so that the plant would be ready for fuel loading in December 1981 at the time it anticipates that the Board will issue an initial decision. A Board initial decision on a low-power license is projected for December 1981.
Therefore, the projected three-month regulatory delay for this facility has been eliminated.
During this reporting period, the results of the Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) examinations for San Onofre Unit 2 indicate that 17 of 18 candidates failed the written exam. Five SR0s are required for fuel loading and ten SR0s are required for initial criticality and low-power testing. 10 CFR Part 55.12 requires that two months elapse from the d3te of denial (in this case, November 1981) before an SR0 candidate can retake the exam. As a result, it appears that the utility will not have a qualified operating staff to be ready to load fuel before, January 1982.
2.
Diablo Canyon Unit 1 - A Commission Order permitting issuance of a low-power license was issued on September 21, 1981, and the license was issued on September 22, 1981.
A Board order on full-power contentions postponed a ruling on equipment qualification issues until the applicant's submittal and the staff's review of this issue were complete and other parties have had an opportunity l
l l
l l
O to review the etaff SSER. The SSER on this matter was issued in early October 1981.
In addition, the Commission directed that two additional contentions be admitted to the full-power proceeding.
Issuance of the SSER on emergency preparedness is projected for later this month, and the full-power hearing is projected to start in January 1982. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for May 1982.
In late September 1981, in the course of responding to a special NRC request for information, an error in the seismic design of equipment and piping in the containment annulus of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 was' detected by PG&E and reported to the NRC. PG&E initiated a reanalysis of portions of the seismic design of the facility. As a result, a number of different additional errors were foJnd.
Based upon information supplied by PG&E and URS/ John A. Blume and Associates, the NRC staff identified serious weaknesses in PG&E's quality assurance program.
The information indicates that, contrary to statements made in PG&E's operating license application, certain structures, systems, and com-ponents important to safety at the plant may not be properly designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes, and further indicates that violations of NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50 Appendix B have occurred.
Had this information been known to the Commission prior to September 22, 1981, the license would not have been issued until the questions raised had been resolved.
Accordingly, on November 19. 1981, the Commission suspended PG&E's license to load fuel and conduct tests at up to 5% of rated power pending satis-factory completion of the actions specified by the Commission.
In past reports, a construction completion date of March 1981 has been used to calculate delay for the unit.
Table 1 previously estimated a regulatory delay.. includ'ing the six-month period from March 1981 to September 1981 (construction completion to issuance of the low-power license).
The Commission has concluded that the license would not have been issued had the design errors been known at the time the Commission issued the license.
The issues raised were not part of the hearing process. They were errors on the part of the licensee.
3.
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. The hearing on the seismic matter, originally scheduled to begin on September 21, 1981, and rescheduled for December 14, 1981, has now been rescheduled to begin in mid-January 1982 at the joint request of the applicant and the staff because of the new seismic information.
As a result, the projected decision date for a full-power license has been delayed from March to May 1982, based on a revised projected date of April 1982 for a Boar'd initial decision. The projected con-struction completion date for the facility is the end of February 1982.
Since we can project the issuance of a low-power license in April 1982 immediately following the ASLB initial decision, a two-month delay is projected for this facility.
9
. 4.
Susquehanna Unit 1 - The ACRS meeting was held on August 6.1981, and an ACRS letter was' received on August 11. 1981. A post-ACRS SSER was issued on September 4,1981.
The hearing started on October 6.1981 and was completed on October 23, 1981 approximately two months sooner than previously projected. A Board initial decision regarding a full-power license is now projected for April 1982, and the Commission decision for May 1982. lhe projected construction completion date for the facility is April 1982.
Since we can project the issuance of a low-power license immediately following the Board initial decision, the one-month projected regulatory delay for this facility has been eliminated.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS The staff is continuing to review the TMI-related items for those construction permit (CP) and manufacturing license (ML) applicants who have submitted in-formation regarding the TMI-related matters (Allens Creek Unit 1. Skagit Units 1 and 2. Black Fox Units 1 and 2. and FNP Units 1-8).
The staff issued its SSER for Allens Creek Unit 1 in July 1981. for FNP Units 1-8 in September 1981, and for Skagit Units 1 and 2 in October 1981.
The staff review of the TMI-related information for Black Fox Units 1 and 2 is in progress. The projected licensing schedules for pending CP and ML d
applications are given in Table 2.
O l
l j
Tables 1.
Licensing Schedules for Pending OL Applications 2.
Licensing Schedules for Pending CP and ML Applications
Attachment:
DOE Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays
=a e
q e
]
l 6
=
e e
l O
I
(
I I
I 9
(
l l
TABLE I l
-e<l 1
i I
OlVISION OF LICENSING 11/15/81 TABLE 1 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications
. IPage 1 of 4)
(includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion b CY 1982-1983)
(Listed in Order of Projected Consatssion Decision Date)
SER SSER Est Staff Staff ASL8 Comm. 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 Hearing Decision Date Comp 1.
Lass 11e 1 0 2_/
C C
C C
C C
C None None 12/81 2] 12/81 Grand Gulf 1 0
C C
C C
C C
11/20/81 None None 12/81 02/82 San Onofre 2 03/
C C
C C
C C
C C
02/82 03/82 3/,12/81 3/
Summer 1 2 4_/
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/82 05/82 02/82 Watts 8ar 1 0
C 12/18/81 2/05/82 3/04/82 C
3/26/82 4/12/82 None None 05/82 08/82 Diablo Canyon 1 0 5/
C C
C C
C C
C 01/82 6/ 04/82 05/82 03/81 Diablo Canyon 2 0 C
C C
C C
C C
01/826] 04/82 05/82 07/82 LaSalle 2 0
C C
C C
C 4/01/82 5/01/82 None None 06/82 12/82 McGuire 2 0
C C
C C
C 4/01/82 5/01/82 C
C 06/82 06/82 Susquthanna 1 0 4_/
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/82 05/82 04/82 WNP-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 Zimmer 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C 02/82 06/82 07/82 07/82 San Onofre 3 0
C C
C C
C 6/01/82 7/01/82 C
01/82 08/82 11/82 Fenni 2 0
C C
C C
C C
C 03/82 08/82 09/82 11/82 Sh2rtham 1 0
C C
C C
C 1/08/82 2/08/82 03/82 08/82 09/82 09/82 Comanche Peak 1 0 C
C C
C C
12/01/81 12/14/81 12/81 7/ 09/82 10/82 06/83 St. Lucie 2 0
C C
C C
1/15/82 11/20/81 11/27/81 04/82 R/ 09/82 10/82 10/82 Sub-Total' 2
L DIVISION OF LICENSING 11/15/81 TABLE 1 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Appifcations (Paga 2 of 4)
(includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion in CY 1982-1983)
(Listed in Order of Projected Commission Decision Datel l
l SER SSER Est Staff Staff i
ASLB.
Comm. 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 Hearing Decision Date Comp 1.
Callaway 1 0
C C
C C
1/15/82 11/20/81 11/27/81 11/81 7/
09/82 10/82 06/83 Palo Vsrde 1 0
C C
C 12/10/81 2/12/82 12/18/82 12/31/81 05/82 10/82 11/82 11/82-Waterford 3 04/
C C
C C
8/
C C
C 8/
03/82 10/82 11/82 10/82 Citnton 1
.0 11/30/81 12/05/81 1/05/82 2/05/82 3/15/82 2/12/82 2/28/82 07/82 12/82 01/83 01/83 Watts Bar 2 0
C 12/18/81 2/05/82 3/04/82 C
1/01/83 2/01/83 None None 03/83 06/83 Byrcn 1 0
C 1/07/82 2/07/82 3/07/82 4/05/82 3/10/82 3/30/82 08/82 03/83 04/83 08/83 W:1f 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 04/83 04/83 Susquihanna 2 0
C C
C C
C 2/01/83 3/01/83 C
04/82 04/83 04/83 Psrry 1 0
2/05/82 4/10/82 5/10/82 6/11/82 7/05/82 6/15/82 6/30/82 11/82 04/83 05/83 05/83 Midland 2 0
2/05/82 4/06/82 5/06/82 6/06/82 7/05/82 6/10/82 6/30/82 11/829/10/ 06/83 07/83
.07/83 Catawba 1 0
5/05/82 7/09/82 8/06/82 9/10/82 10/05/82 9/12/82 9/30/82 02/83 07/83 08/83 08/83 Rivsr Bend 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
Szabreck 1 0
5/05/82 8/07/82 9/07/82 10/08/82 10/05/82 10/10/82 10/30/82 03/839/
10/83 11/83 11/83 Pale Verde 2 0
C C
C 12/10/81 2/12/82 9/01/83 10/01/83 05/82 10/82 11/83 11/83 Comanche Peak 2 0 C
C C
C C
10/01/83 11/01/83 12/81 7/
09/82 12/83 12/83
, Midland 1
__j[
2/05/82 4/06/82 5/06/82 6/06/82 7/05/82 10/01/83 11/01/83 11/82 10/
06/83 12/83 12/83 Sub-Total 0
e O
l l
i DIVISION OF LICENSING 11/15/81 TABLE 1 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications (Paga 3 of 4)
(includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion in CY 1982-1983)
(Listed in Order of Projected Commission Decision Date)
SER SSER Fst Staff Staff ASLB Comm. 1/ Appl.
Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue Start of Initial Dec. -- Constr.
FES Input to DL SSER Hearing Decision Date Compi.
P t.at (Months)
DES Input to DL SER Mtg _
B211tfante 1 0
02/83 10/83 11/83 12/83 07/83 04/84 05/84 None None 06/84 06/84 So. Texas 1 0
04/83 06/83 07/83 08/83 09/83 08/83 08/83 01/84 06/84 07/84 07/84 Lissrick 1 0
05/83 07/83 08/83 09/83 10/83 10/83 11/83 04/84 09/84 10/84 10/84 Harris 1 0
10/82 06/83 07/83 08/83 03/83 12/83 01/84 06/84 11/84 12/84 12/84 Braidwood 1 0
01/84 11/83 12/83 01/84 06/84 04/84 05/84 10/84 03/85 04/85 04/85 Sub-Tctal 0
Tctal 2
4
{
(Page 4 of 4)
TABLE 1 F00TNOTES
-1/
Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from Emergency Preparedness Review.
-2/
December 1981 is the applicant's projected construction completion date. NRC'will be prepared to issue an operating license for taSalle Unit 1 which will authoriza fuel loading and low-power operation up to 5% p,0wer in December. A Commission decision regarding operation above 5% power will be made on a schedule commensurate with the applicant's need for full-power authorization.
l
-3/
No delay is pro,lected for San Onofre Unit 2 because the unit will not have a sufficient number of licensed SR0s to permit fuel loading before January 1982, even though a decision on a low-power license is projected for December 1981.
/
-4/
The estimated delay for each of these three plants has been reduced by one month to reflect early issuance of low-power licenses.immediately following ASLB decision.
-5/
The delay has been reduced to zero based on design errors found at the facility.
-6/
.The projected date for an off-site emergency preparedness finding for Diablo Canyon was not met. This r
~
may impact the hearing schedule.
f 7/
Hearing dates for Cmnanche Peak and Callaway are for limited selected issues. Full hearing schedules remain unchanged, hence, ASLB initial decision dates remain unchanged.
I 8/
Additional ACRS aneeting for Waterford Unit 3 required to discuss management organization. A final SSER will be issued subsequently.
l
-9/
Heavily contested plants reflect 13-month hearing schedule (vs 11 months) fran SSER to Commission decision date.
Commissioner Ahearne remains convinced this schedule is too optimistic.
H/ Midland Units 1 and 2 have the same hearing.
5 l
1/ May be no hearing on St. Lucie Unit 2.
i I
. 9?-
I-
!o
?
q i
w 1
J 4
i i
1 1
1 I
1 i
1 1
4, 1
4 4
i l
i e
a i,
4 TABLE 2 4
t i
1 t
4 i
1 I
l t
I I
4 t
4 I
e i
f.
l 8
i 1
i
.\\
i e
4
- i 2
L
DIVISION OF LICENSING 11/15/81_
LICENSING SCllEDULES TADLE 2_
FOR PENDING C0ff51RiiCT10K TERM T APPLICATIONS SSER (IMI Issues)
SSER (Non-THE Issues)
ASLO Commission issue issue Staff Technical Issue Staff Technical issue ACRS Start of Initial Decision Plant DES
_f ES
_lg ut to Dt. _
SSER_
_ Input to DL SSER_
Heeting Hearing _
Decision _
_Date FNP 1-8 C
C C
C C
C C
12/81 5/82 6/82 Allens Creek 1 C
C C
C C
C C
3/R2 8/82 9/82 nieck Fos 1 4 2 C
C 11/81 12/81 2/82 3/82 2/82 3/
8/82 1/83 2/R3
. Skagtt/Itanford 14 2 3/82 1/
8/82 1/
C C
4/82 6/82 7/82 11/82 4/83 5/n3 Pebble Springs 1 & 2 C
C N/$
N/S N/S M/S N/S 2/82 4f N/S4f N/S 4/
Parkins I, 2, 3 C
C N/S 2/
N/S 2/
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S 2/
Appilcants indicated in Sep'tember 1980 As a result of fleid explorations conducted by USGS, the selsreic design of the facllity must be re-examined. Amended ER and PSAR will be filed in Dece
-1/
that the proposed f acility is to be relocated to the Hanford reservation.
Dy letter dated 3/17/81, the applicant recommended that the NRC not devote any resources beyond support for the alternate site h
-2/
next two years.
It is anticipated that THI issues only will be discussed at the ACRS meeting.
3,/
response to a 4/?8/81 board order, the applicant stated (5/14/81) an Interest in pursuing the review with respect to
~~4/ In on environmental and site suitability issues. However, review, particularly on THi-related issues, therefore, a Commission decision date is not projected at this time for this facility.
O e
D e
OPERATING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS
+
Prapared by Office of Energy Emergency Operations U.S.
Department of Energy November 24, 1981 This report is the eighth and last in a monthly series of estimates of the costs of delay in the issuance of operating licenses of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
This conth '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 cost estimates supplied by utilities.
Summarv of Results The most recently projected dates of issuance of operating licenses for new units would result in a loss of 5 months of reactor opera-tion based on the utilities ' projected dates of completion for 2 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 20 months.
The estimated cost of these delays, excluding TMI 1, is $105 million, based on data obtained from the utilities in November, or S133 million, based on independent DOE estimates.
A comparison with last month 's report follows:
Excluding TMI-l Including TMI-l Nov. 1981 Oct 1981 Nov. 1981 Oct 1981 Es tima te Es tim a te Change Estimate Es timate Chang Units Delayed 2
6
-4 3
7
-4 Months of 5
20
-15 7
23
-16 Operation Lost Total Cos t of Delays (SMM)
Based on
-- Utility Data 105 522
-417 133 564
-431
-- DOE Analyses 95 448
-3 1 23 490 -367 The dramatic drop in months of delay is due primarily to the NRC staf f 's pecently restored authority to issue low power licenses immediately after the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) review rather than waiting a minimum of 30 days until the Commission grants a full power license. The drop is also partly due to slippages in construction schedules.
Length of Delay The length of the delay--the number of lost months of reactor operation--is estimated in Table 1.. For units still under construction, the delay is the interval between the utilities ' projected date of completion (column 4) and the HRC'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 November 1981 through the projected nonth of issuance of an operating license. Last month 's estimate of the licensing dates are shown in column 2. A ne t change of 15 months (excluding TMI 1) has occurred in the estimated total length of delay (column 5). The change is due to: o Delay in construction for Comanche Peak 1 and San Onofre 2 (-6 months ). .o Delay in issuance of an operating license for Summer 1 ( +1 mon th ). o Omission of costs incurred in October 1981 (since past costs are not included) for Diablo Canyon 1 (-1 month ). o Issuance of operating licenses for San Onofre 2 and Susquehanna 1 earlier than presently projected (-2 months ). o NRC 's announced intention to issue low power licenses, af ter the ASLB review in the month construction is completed for San Onof re 2, Susquehanna 1 and Waterford 3 (-3 months ). o Issuance of a low power license in 9/81 for Diablo Canyon 1. The initial reactor operations tha t can be performed under the low power ~ license are expected to be completed before 2/82. Therefore, the period from 11/81 to 2/82 is no longer considered to be an NRC licensing delay (-4 months). (Note: Recent problems with the Diablo Canyon 1 unit may further delay its operation. ) Costs of the Delay The cost of a delay in issuing an operating license af ter a plant is physically complete is equal to: o The total costs the entire utility ~Yystem (or systems, if the unit is jointly owned ) would incur to satisfy its customers' energy requirement, based on the delayed licensing schedule, minus o The total costs of satisfying the same energy requirerant if the license had been issued when the plant was complete. e e n ..M A E
This cost differential is af fected only by cost elements that change as a result of the delay--for example, fuel, purchased power, maintenance, and other special expenses. It is not af fected by anticipated monthly capital carrying charges or by anf~other costs that would be incSrred with or without the delay. The estimated costs of delay are summarized in Table 2, bised on two in. dependent sources : a i o one set of estimates (columns 1 through 4) was based I on data obtained from the owners of the units; and o A second set of estimates (columns 5 through 8) was developed independently by DOS staff based on available data on generating resources, pooling arrangements, load projections, capacity factors, and fuel prices. The analysis method was summarized in the May report. The key numerical assumptions are presente,d in Table 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 i 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 (colunm 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. O l ~ 8 l l l [
n' T:bla 1
- Cf fica sif EnIrgy Emergency Operstions 2
U.S. Department af Energy - NovembIr 24, 1981 DATA ON NUCLCAR UNITS WITH OPERATIAC LICENSE DELAYS 1/ Projected Date Projected Date Construction Com-of Issuance of of Incuence of plation Date Pro-Months of Capacity Operating License operating License jected by company
- Delay, peplacement Power Unit (tM)
October 1981 November 1981 November 1981 J3) - (4) Fuel Source (1) (2) (3) (4) 15) (6) (7) 2 Diablo Canyon 1 1,004 5/82 5/82 0 2Y 2 3/81 3 oil-cas self-generated Y 2/8'2 2 Ccel-oll self generated Sususer 1 900 3/82 4/82(5/821 Total (new units) ............................................................................... 5 THI 1, 10/81M M 2'I' 776 12/81 011-Coal Purchased Sources: Utility Companies Nuclear Regulatory Correnission if Covers all units for which construction is expected to be completed at least one month before an operating license is issued. 2f Diablo Canyon has had a low power license since 9/81., The initial reactor operations that can be performed under the low power ~ 11cen'e are not expected to be completed before 2/82. Therefore, the period f rom 11/82 to 2/82 is no longer considered to be'an s NRC licensing delay. y THI 1 has received an operating Ilcenne and has been in operation. However, the unit was taken out of service for a routine refueling during February 1979, and was not allowed to return to service following the TMI 2 accideht. We company anticipates being finished with TMI 1 modifications by mid,11/RI. NRC projects it will make a declelon on the unit in 12/81 4f The completion of hearings on tha unit has baan delayeds consequently, the board will not issue a decision untli 4/82 at which time the NRC will approve a low power license for the facility. A full power license is expected to be granted in 3/82 y Delays for these completed' units prior to 11/01 are not included. y The construction completion *ttate of 3/81 is still carried by both the company and HRC. DOE recognizes that the facility is currently restrained from fuel loading until a reevaluation of seismic analysis is completed, and that this may further delay the unit's operation. 4 'I ). 7
T; bis 2 Cffica af Fm rgy Duergincy Oper: tion U.S. Dep;rtmeit of Enirgy >.i Noyenber 24, 1931 ESTlHATED COSTS OF OPERATING LICENSE DEIAYS FOR NUCLEAR UNITS Y Costs Dased on Company Data Conts Based on independent DOE Analvsle M N Unit 7/ Peplacement Capacity Peplacement Total Peplacement Capacity Replacement Total ' Power Costs Factor Power Costs Cost Power Cost Factor Power Costs Cost -$HH/Honth '-Percent --Ckwh-- =$HH- -$HH/Honth- -Percent- --C/kwh-- -$HH-i' (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) b! Diablo Canyon 1 '26.0 65 5.3 00 26.0 60 5.5 78 Sunumer 1 12.7 65 3.0 25 B.5 60 2.2 17 i 6-Total (new units).............................. 105 95 THI 1 14.0 70 3.6 20 14.0 70 3.5 28 Total (including THI 1)...................... 133 ........................................... 123 1/ Cost of replacement power minus fuel and operating costs of nuclear units. a y Replacement power costs divided by kilowatt-hours replaced. (Column 1
- Column 2
- Unit capacity 4 720 hours / month).
3f Derived by multiplying monthly replacement power costs (column 1) by the total months of delay (Table 1, column 5). 4f Cost of fuel for 1981 estimated by utility. 5f Cost of replacement power minus nuclear fuel costs of 6 mills /kwh. Estimates do not include capacity charges which may be incurred if power in purchased f r6m other systems. 6/ Derived by multiplying monthly replacement power costs (column 5) by total months of delay (Table 1, column 5). g ownership of units Diablo Canyon 1: facific Cas and Electric Company - 100% Sumer t South Carolina Electric and Cas Company (66%); South Carolina Public Servis, Authority (342). TMI 1: Hetropolitan Edison - 50Z; Jersey Central rower and Light - 25%; Pennsylvania Electric Co. - 252. l' k
T;b12 3 Offica cf Enirgy FmIrgucy Opirition) U.S. Dip:rtment cf Enirgy November 24, 1981 KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN DOE ESTIMATES OF COST OF 96 LEAR FIANT DEIAYS Poplacement Peplacment Ileat fuite of Unit Fuc1 Mix Fuel Price Replacement ruel -$MtenJs- -BUJ/kWh-Diablo Canyon 1 Oil (50 %) 011 6.50 011 10,678 Cas (50 g) cas 4.90 Cas 10,678 Susener 1 Coal (81 %) Coal 1.71 Coal 10,001 011 (19 %) 011 7.26 011 9,944 TMI 1 Coal (50 g) Coal 1.67 Coal 10,083 oil (50 t) oli 5.84 011 11,240 ,1f Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, FPC Form 423. e F* 9 -) jD e f -}}