ML20050C281
| ML20050C281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1982 |
| From: | Bauser D GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050C282 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-50-30 NUDOCS 8204080369 | |
| Download: ML20050C281 (10) | |
Text
-.
SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M STRE E T, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 2OO36 RAMSav O. POTTS MARM %UGENSUCM ROBERT 5. ROBeiNS SONNIE 5. GOTTUES STEUART L. PeTTMAN E RNEST L. SLANE. JR 12O28 822-5000 STEVEN M. LUCAS HOWARDH SMAFFERMAN otoRGE F. TRO*emsDGE CAmtToN S JONES DAW 1D M.. RUBENSTEIN DEsORAMB BAUSER STE PMEN D. POTTS THOMAS A mAA TE R LvNN WMtTTLESEY WILSON SCOTT A ANENBERG CERALD CMANNOFF JAMES M. SURGER MAri AS F. TRAVsESO-DIA2 SETH M. MOOGA$ SAN P*estup D SOSTWICM SMELDON J. WEISEL TELECOP8E R VeCTORIA J PE RMINS SHEELA McC. MARVEY R TIMOTHY MANLON JOMN A McCULLOUOM JO*eN M. O'NEILL. JR DEUSSA A. RIDGWAY 12O21 8221099 & 822499 GEORGE M. ROGERS. JR J PATRaCM MtCuEY JAVA EPSTIEN MENNETH J. MAUTMAN FEED A LITTLE GEORGE P MICHAELT. JR RAND L. ALLEN DAVID LAWRENCE MtLLER JOHN 5. Rt'etNELANDER JAMES TMOMAS LENHART TIMOTHY S. McSRfDE ANNE M MRAUSMOPF LRUCE w CHURCHILL STEVEN L. MELTZER TELEX EL4SABETH M PENDLETON F REDERICM L KLEIN LE ELIE A. N4CMOLSON. JR DE AN D. AUUCM PAUL A. MAPLAN OCRDON R MANOFSMY MART 4N O. MRALL JOHN ENGEL 99 2693 ISMAWLAW WSMI MARRY M GLASSPIEGEL SALLY C. ANDREWS RfCHARD J P E NDALL CMARLkSS T E M s4N CABLE '-SMAWLAW~
TMOM AS M McCORMICM JE FFREY S. OtANCOLA JAfE SsLRERO STEPMEN 8 MUTTLER WILUAM P SARR HANN AM E. M LIE BE RM AN EAEB ARA M ROSSOTTa WINTHROP N SROWN SUSAN M FREUND SANDRA E. FOLSOM OE ORGE V ALLE N, JR JAMES 3 MAMuN JOMN L. CARR. JR M ARCI A R N t R E NSTEIN a
FRED DRASNER RANDAL3 MELL WRITER S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER PMetsp J MARVEY JUDITH A. SANDLER R RE NLY WE SSTFR ROBERT E. KAMLE R ACBERT M GORDON EDWARD D YOUNG. til NATHANIEL P BREE D, JR RICHARD E. GALEN 822--1215
=^a= A a* J MoaoEN WENoEL N ^. *M'TE to April 2, 1982 A
/
93 b
R e "v,,..
Mr. William 11. Regan, Jr.
""L' Chief, Siting Analysis Branch U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission g/:'pR 0 082b [
'~S 4550 Montgomery Avenue k
Room 5109 q,
rc Bethesda, Maryland
@s N
p"
Dear Mr. Regan:
Enclosed please find GPU's answers to questions 1, i.
2, 6 and 7 provided by the Staff at the February 26, 1982 meeting held in Bethesda to discuss the Staff's preparation
.of an environmental assessment on the psychological impact of restarting TMI-1.
J Sincerely, M /3 h I
Deborah B.
Bauser Counsel for Licensee DDB:jah cc (w/ enc.):
William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Dr. Richard Tepel, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2 copies)
G)od
.s
/- /
$9 0
PDR N
.)
i Question 1
'" Assuming NRC's approval of TMI-l restart, when do you estimate the unit would be available for commercial operation. Also, provide
^
your latest estimate for-availability of TMI-2."
Answer 1 As we anticipate discussing in detail with the Staff in a forth-i coming meeting, our current plans for the repair of the leaking steam-generator tubes indicates that the repairs will be complete and the plant readyJto enter hot functional testing in September 1982.
The hot functional testing will be 4-6 weeks in duration followed by approximately 4 weeks of power escalation testing.
This would have the plant at 100% power.in November 1982.
This entire estimate is. based on an assumption of no extensive licensing-delays during i
-the process.
f Our most recent official submittal to the Pennsylvania Public i
Utility Commission estimates that THI-2 will be available in the-j 1988-89 time frame. The range in time is based on the number of unknowns that remain to be evaluated during the cleanup of TMI-2.
l; 4
4
+
~
e Y
w e-g y
,.-y-
+
-,c+.y-
~ q
l l
Question 2
" Estimate the remaining useful life of TMI-1 and explain your basis, Also, identify any planned future outages associated with the unit (i.e. for retubing, etc.)."
Answer 2 The current NRC license expires in 2008, however, a positive action by the NRC on the petition for rulemaking covered under Docket No.
PRM-50-30 would allow the extension of the TMI-1 license to 2014.
In a letter of February 9,1982 (copy attached) GPU Nuclear supported the proposed license extensions.
An evaluation of the operational history of TMI-1 has indicated that there are no evident impediments to the plant operating until its license expires in either 2008 or 2014.
The planned future outages will be described in the answer to Question 6.
There are no present plans for long term repair items, such as steam generator retubing, associated with the present steam generator leak correction effort.
If sleeving of steam generator tubes is required, it is expected this would be done during normal refueling outages.
Question 6
" Discuss and provide dolls r istimates of all non-recurring costs that would result if TMI-1 were to resume operation.
(e.g. retubing, special maintenance resulting from extended idleness, future repairs, plant modifications, etc.)."
Answer 6 Our current plans for the repair of the leaking steam generator tubes do not call for long range items, such as retubing of the steam generators. Therefore, there are no extraordinary outages planned for-TMI-1 in the future.
Anticipated plant modifications and repairs will be conducted during the outages associated with reactor refueling.
Based on recent experience and the ongoing planning process that we are conducting, it is our estimate that the capital budget will be in the range of $40-50 million (1982 dollars) in the near term, exclusive of the steam generator tube repair.
With respect to special maintenance to the plant resulting from extended idleness, this is an ongoing program that will be continued as long as we anticipate the restart of TMI-1.
As such, we do not i
believe that this is an appropriate item to include in this evaluation.
Question 7
" Discuss-and provide dollar estimates of all non-recurring costs that would result if TMI-I were terminated.
(e.g. disposal of spent fuel, loss of nuclear fuel, decommissioning, contract termination, etc.)."
Answer 7 In response to this question, the following information is enclosed.
1.
A table entitled " Estimated Fuel - Related Costs in the Event TMI-1 is not Permitted to Restart" including i
a description of the basis for each value.
2.
A copy of the most recent GPUN cost estimate, submitted to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, for the decommissioning of-TMI-1.
This estimate is based on the GPUN selection of in-place entombment as the most desirable method of deccamissioning.
1 3.
With respect to contract terminations, GPUN has assumed that a decision not-to restart TMI-1 would'not be made in the short term (less than six months).
Based on this we cannot identify any existing contracts that would result in a significant cancellation penalty.
,+
4
~
7...
EFr1 MATED COSTS - 100% OWNERSHIP DEC0tC4ISS10NING OF M I-L IN-PLACE ENTOMBMENT (51,000,000's)
Excluding Non-Nuclear Total Effort Portion of Plant Ot2ECT COSTS 1973 Dollars l'.5 7 3 Da t t a r s 1.
Pre-5ntombnent Activities
~0.1 0.1 2.
Decontaminate Fluid Systems 3.1 3.1 3.
Remove and Decontaminste Radioactive components to be Stored Cn-Site 3.1 3.1 4.
Re move, Dacontaminate, Package and Ship Radioactive Compsnents for Off-Site Surial 4.9 4.9 5.
Process, Package and Ship Liquid Radio-active Waste for Of f-Site Burial 3.0 3.0 6.
Entomb Primary System 2.5 2.5 7.
Entomb Containment Suilding 1.2 1.2 8.
EtitLab Au:<iliary Building and Air Intake Tunnel 0.7 0.7 Waterproof Entombed Buildings.
0.6 0.6 9.
LO.
Dismantle Turbine Buildings 4.9 11.
Dismantle Cooling towers 1.8 12.
Dismantle River Water Pump lbuse 4.9 13.
Dismantle !!isc. Structures & Outside Tanks 0.2 0.1 14.
Licensing and Environmental Report 0.6 0.6 Direct Costs 31.6 19.9 INDIRECT COSTS 1.
Engineering sad Owners' Costs 3.4 2.7 2.
Capitalized Annual Post-Ceco =missioning Costs 0.9 0.9 3.
Omissions and Contin;encies 3.7 2.4 Indirect Costs 8.0 6.0 Total-Costs (1975 Dollars)
~
39.6 25.9 Total Costs (1932 Dollars *)
58.0 37.9
- Assumes 10% escalation per year from 1978 to 1982
+
M_-
e
.M_
4 ESTIMATED FUEL-RELATED COSTS IN THE EVENT TMI-l IS NOT PERMITTED TO RESTART S
6 10 Dollars (1982)
Irradiated Irradiated Unspent Unirradiated Fuel Unirradiated Fuel Spent Fuel Fuel In Reactor In Reactor In Inventory
-208 As'semblies 125 Assemblies 52 Assemblies 126 Assemblies
_Comt Component 96.57 MTU 57.96 MTU 24.11 MTU 58.42 MTU Sterage 20.01 12.01 Dizposal 27.34 16.41 Spent Fuel Shipping 4.92 2.95 28.57 Unused Energy 4.19 10.16 Lest Fabrication Value UO Recovery-2.31 5.60 y
.10 D: contamination Subtotal cost 52.27 59.94 6.60 15.76 Total Cost 134.57 l
BASES FOR COST ESTIMATES 1.
IRRADIATED FUEL STORAGE
~,.
There are currently no plans for either a government or commercial facility to store spent fuel,although such facilities may be established in the future. During the period when federal plans provided for a government-owned storage facility, the Department of Energy estimated fee requirements for interim storage of spent fuel until a final waste repository was in operation. The DOE estimates are reported in DOE SR-0006, " Report on Fee for Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage and Disposal Services", October, 1980, and are used as the bases for storage costs
.from 1982 until 1997, the earliest date when a disposal facility is expected'to be available.
Storage Cost (Per KGU) = DOE Storage Fee x Escalation (10%/ Year)
Period of DOE Storage X Period of TMI Storage
= ($137/KGU)(1.21) (15 years)
(12 years)
= $207.21/KGU (1982$)
2.
SPENT FUEL DISPOSAL The same DOE report referenced in 1. above provides an estimated fee for
' spent fuel disposal.
Disposal Cost = DOE Disposal Fee x Escalation (10%/ Year)
= $234 (1.21)/KGU
= $283.14/KGU 3.
SHIPPING COSTS The most recently published cost estimates which were-found were from a study reportec in NUREG CR-0130, " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning 'of a Reference PWR Power S stion", (3 vols.) June, 1978.
The' shipping costs listed in Table 2.9-1 of Vol. 1 of'that report are 1$3.084 x 109 for the reference plant. The1 reference plant for this study was-
". Trojan which contains 88,688 KGU (DOE /ET/34012-3, Uranium Utilization Exper-
-ience in Light Water Reactors, Sept. 1981). Therefore, the shipping cost estimate for the current study _is:
r-a-~~-
6 Spent. Fuel Shipping Cost = 3.084x10 (1978$) x Escalation (10%/ Year) 88,688 KGU
]
= $34.77 (1 464)/KGU
= $50.91/KGU 4.
VALUE 3F UNUSED ENERGY IN TRRADIATED FUEL IN THE CORE Irradiated fuel from earlier cycles is currently loaded in the core, and represents a significant amount of unused energy since it has not reached its discharge lifetime.
The value of this energy is estimated as:
Value of Unused Energy = Value of Fuel (1982$) x Remaining Energy Design Energy 4
The table below lists the value of unused energy in each batch of irradiated fuel in the core.
Batch Unused MWD /MTU
- of 1982 Energy Assys.
MTU E Design E Unused S Value Value (1982$)
0 25 11.590 32947 8086
- 12. 202x10 2.995x10 48 22.25,3 25995 8980 23.428 8.093 45 20.862 26272 18590 21.964 15.542 7
3.245 17722 10040' 3.417 1.936 28.566 5.
FABRICATION VALUE OF UNIRRADIATED FUEL Although the design of the unirradiated fuel is mechanically compatible with other B&W plants, due_to contractual obligations, enrichment require-ments and recent design improvements, the fabricated assemblies do not
- represent a fungible commodity. The contained enriched material is marketable portion of the assembly.
Consequently, the fabrication cost is a value lost in extracting the enriched material. That cost in 1982 dollars is $80,700.
4 s
6.
DOWNLOADING AND RECYCLING OF ENRICHED URANIUM Bundle disassembly and rod downloading and UO, recycling will be required to produce a form acceptable to other utilities. The cost of these operations is estimated to be equal to the labor portion of fabrication cost or 55% of the fabrication cost. This cost component is $44,370 per assembly.
In addition, shipping costs to the fabricator will add an additional $100 for a total of $44,470 per assembly.
7.
DECONTAMINATION COSTS The 52 unirradiated assemblies currently in the core will require decon-tamination to acceptable levels of activity in order to permit shipping and handling during the downloading process. Alternatively, glove box operations at substantially higher cost will be necessary. Without previous experience, there is concern that decontamination of these assemblies may not be successful. However, for the current estimate it is assumed that decontamination could be accomplished in 2 shif ts with a crew of 6.
The labor costs for this effort are approximately $2000 per assembly.
9
,