ML20055B288

Forwards Proposed Input to Chapter 9 & 10 to Crbr Fes Suppl. Info Reflects Comments Discussed Re Preliminary Draft

ML20055B288
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	06/10/1982
From:	Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Leech P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20049H240	List: ML20054H334 ML20054H337 ML20054H779 ML20055B281 ML20055B284 ML20055B286 ML20055B288 ML20055B290 ML20055B291 ML20055B292 ML20055B293 ML20055B294
References
FOIA-82-272 NUDOCS 8207210178
Download: ML20055B288 (14)

Text

. .

s-

~

a s- .,  ;.

3 .h June 10,1982 Note to: Paul Leech, CRBR0 From: Argil Toalston, AEAB

SUBJECT:

CRBRP, PROPOSED INPUT TO CHAPTERS 9 AND 10 l

Attached is our proposed input to chapters 9 and 10 of the CRBR FES supplement. I believe this reflects most of the coments you discussed

[

' with me on our preliminary draft.

Argil Toalston, Section Leader Antitrust Section Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enclosure As stated DISTRIBUTION:

AEAB Rdg.

AEAB files AToalston Rdg.

SFeld MMessier 1

i G207210178 820712 t PDR FDIA l HATHAWAB2-272 PDR_

NRR;AEA NRR:AEABfj'v NRR:AEAS ATo'als :na MMessier SFeldd.

v 6/ A"/02 6/ // /82 6/ / l /02

Section 9.2.5. (a) Replace paragraph 3 with the following (b ) paragraph 4,10th line replace 25 years and 30 years with about 30 and 35 years, respectively In the NRC's February 1977 CRBRP FES, the staff concluded that a hook-on arrangement offered potential dollar savings on the order of 50 to 100 million dollars.I Nevertheless, the applicant and the NRC found the stand alone plant design preferable because its benefits were perceived to be significantly greater.2 Our update of these alternatives indicates that the hook-on option is no longer viabl e . The potential dollar savings for the hook-on plant no longer exists and in fact substantial economic and schedular penalties would result if this option were pursued.3 This is because outlays for muc'h of the site and plant design costs as well as equipment for the stand alone plant has continued over the years thus making its to-go costs and scheduling requirements far more cost effective than the hook-on option.

l i

l

l. U.S. NRC CRBRP FES, Feb.1977, Table 9.4, p. 9-9.

2. ibid, p. 9-10

3. Response to NRC question 320.lR, Nov.1981.

l l

i

2 The applicant has made a cost comparison of locating the demonstration plant at an alternative TVA site (Table 9.4). A range of cost differences was given to encompass any possible TVA alternative site. Cost data for each specific site was not given because applicant found none of the candidate sites within the TVA service area to be environmentally preferable to the Clinch River Site.

Item 1, escalation, is the additional escalation due to the 43 month delay period on the Clinch River year of expenditure costs. Item 1 does not include the escalation on the increased costs resulting from relocation to a different site (other items in the table) with the exception of item 16, Reduced Revenue from the Sale of Power. These other costs-include, within the values given, escalation for the 43 month delay perjad.

9.2.6 Alternative TVA Sites Outside Its Service Area and Alternative DOE Sites No change has been made in this section of the FES.

9.2.6.1 Schedule Impacts l

! The applicant estimates a schedule delay of 13 months for relocation of the demonstration plant the same as in the 1977 FES. The only difference is that in calculating the cost differences due to a change in site, the applicant established October 1,1982 rather than October 1,1977, as Reference Time 0 for the start of its delay schedules. In the 1977 FES, staff estimated that the delay period could possibly be reduced to a period as short as 27 months

- - - 3 i following an unfavorable FES on Clinch River if all means were pursued to accelerate the effort. In today's regulatory climate, staff does not believe 4

a delay period of 36 months would be unrealistic.

}

b

't 1

'l l

i l .

1 t

i i

I

~

I

._. , _ - . . . . . . - . _ - - , , m._,. . . . , . . . . .~ _ . . . . _ . . . . - - . _ , . - . . , , , , , ,_.mx ..m_ . . . - . . ~_ _ _ , , - ,

9.2.6.2 Cost of Delay The Applicant estimates additional cost requirements at alternative sites These costs are in year of expenditure dollars as summarized in Table 9.6.

and are based on a 43 month delay period. The escalation value shown does not include escalation on the subsequent values in the table except on item 16, Reduced Revenue. The Applicant's cost estimates are from an ap-propriations standpoint and do not reflect interest during construction or present worth discounting. For calculation purposes, to include the cost of money effects, the staff has rounded the 43 month delay period to 4 years and used an 11% discount rate to reflect the costs in 1982 present worth dollars (Table 9.7). The effect of the longer delay period is to increase the total year of expenditure costs due to the additional escalation while decreasing the total present worth cost since the discount rate of 11% exceeds the escalation rate of 8%. To illustrate that the period of delay chosen has minimal effect on the present worth cost, Staff has made one calculation based on a 36 month delay. The difference in present worth costs between the 48 and 36 month delay period was only $0.2 million. Staff has also revised Applicant's estimated revenue adjustments for the sale of power to reflect recent fuel cost statistics. The effect of this adjustment was a reduction in revenues The at Clinch River and at each of the alternative sites except Hanford.

l resulting revenues over the 7 month test period and five year demonstration period are as follows:

f Millions of Dollars t

' Savannah Other River TVA sites Hanford Idaho C11nch River 1097 253 486 350 477 l

TABLE 9.4 APPLICANT'S ESTIttATED COST IMPACT OF RELOCATING CRBRP TO AN ALTERNATIVE TVA SITE - REFERENCE 43 MONTH DELAY CASE Incremental Cost Item $ (Million)

1. Escalation 601

2. Staff and Support Stretch Out 164

3. Equipment Procurement 7-36

4. Relocate Project Office 0

5. Additional Travel 1

6. Difference in Prevailing Labor Rates 0-1 37

7. Site Studies - Other than Geological 'l

8. Site Studies - Geological 7 Site Work Package 3 9.

10. Seismic .11-162 2

11. Foundation Materials and -Walls

12. Site Adaptation Redesign ~~

10-88

13. Excavation .

0-6

14. ER Rework l

15. PSAR Rework l

16. Reduced Revenue from Sale of Power 0 MAXIMUM RANGE OF COST IMPACTS - ADD

,809-1210 l ,.

l t

n

9.2.6.2 Cost of Delay (Cont'd)

The above values reflect the additional escalation over the four year delay period for the sites other than Clinch River as can be observed by comparing Clinch River to the other TVA sites.

Staff assumed for the purpose of the present worth analysis that the additional

" Staff and Support Stretch Out Costs" projected by the Applicant would be allocated evenly over the four year delay period during 1983 through 1986 and ,that the additional labor costs projected by the Applicant would be allocated in, proportion to the projected balance of plant construction for the 1987 through 1993 period. Staff further assumed that tfie additional costs for other refod5Sion

~

~

and site related activities would be7venly spread over the 1983'through 1986 delay period. , 4/

The resulting net cost differences considering costs and revenues of alternative sites as compared to Clinch River are summarized in Table 9.7. The Clinch

River site has the lowest cost both in year of expenditure dollars and in present worth dollars. As can be seen by comparing the Clinch River (Base) case to the Clinch River 4 year delay case, a delay has considerable effect og, the year of expenditure dollars, but negligible effect on the 1932 present worth cost. , ~d i,

Thus, the period of delay chosen for the analysis is not important in comparing _

the present worth costs. This fact is also illustrated oy comparing the 1982 present worth costs of the 3 year and 4 year delay TVA alternative (low range) ,

cases. .

~

e 4-

TABLE 9.6 43 MONTH DELAY-COST IMPACT OF

~ CHhNGING~CRBRPTOALTERNATESITE

~i

, n- ,

F .g

~

.? , ,-

s r/' Incremental Cost

$ (Million)

' ~

Item , t Other TVA

. ." Hanford Idaho S.R. Sites

~,.a ~

s 601 6 01 601

1. ' Escalation

,) -  : 601

2. ' Staff and Support. Stretch 164 164 164 164 Out -

L ,

- 3. ' Equipment Procurement . 6 13 10 7-36

,? ., p 1 "

5 0

4. Relo4 ate J.roject Office

'- 6 7

i 3 3 1 1

5. Additional Travel ' ,

- 6. Difference in Prevailing .

Labor Rates

^

376 51 0-137 q'_, ,, c 429 ,

• 7. Site Studies - Other than 1

, Geological 1 1 1 i, , ,.i 7 7 7 7

8. Site Studies ,,Geolooff.a,b , . -

. i' 3 3 3 3 l 9. Site Work . - . +

Packag2 -

10. Seismic' -

- 11 162 11 11-162

~

11. Foundation Material <, and 2 3 2 2 Walls

12. Site Adaptation Redesign 10 88 10 10-88

13. Excavation (15) 0 (6) 0-6 i'

i l --

14. ER Rework l 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

15. PSAR Rework

16. Reduced Revenue from Sale 356 21 4 (27) 0

~ of Power

~

TOTAL COST IMPACT - ADD 1587 1643 835 809-1210

~.

m I'

\'

- ~

i~,' -

TABLE 9.7 NRC STAFF ESTIMATE OF COSTS FOR LOCATION OF BREEDER REACTOR AT ALTERNATIVE SITES AS COMPARED TO CLINCH RIVER Year of 1982 Expenditure Present Worth

$ Million  % of Base Site $Million % of Base 3,525.2 100.0 3,422.6 100.0 ClinchRiver(Base)U Clinch River s 4,507.2 127.9 3,427.9 100.2 3 ,51 6 .3 1 02.7 Hanford U 4,353.3 123.5 5,395.7 153.1 3,860.0 112.8 IdahoU 3,483.0 1 01 .8 Savannah RiverU 4,594.7 130.3 4,952.4 140.5 3,726.0 108.9 TVA AlternativesU (high range)

~

129.1 3 ,4 61 .9 1 01 .1 4 ,5 51 .2 TVA AlternativesU -

(low range) 4,27 6 1 21 .3 3,462.2 1 01 .2 TVA AlternativesU (low range) i i

f 1/ No delay 2] 4 year delay j 3_/ 3 year delay l

l

i .

9.4 Benefit - Cost Comparison In the NRC's CRBRp FES of 1977 the economic cost differential for the various alternative plant designs were considered. The economic values reported therein reflect cost analyses performed by 00E in 1976. Since that review, no technological or economic advance has occurred that would make any one of the alternative systems more economically attractive. However, in nominal terms, these estimates understate the current absolute difference as escalation due to general inflation has caused the dollar cost of all system designs to increase. In addition, because much of the design, testing and procurement associated with the proposed plant design has already occurred, there has been a real economic shi ft ni favor of adopting the preferred system design. Since neither of these changes would result in an improvement in the rankings of the alternatives relative to the proposed systems, the NRC has not updated these economic cost estimates in this supplement.

10.4.2.2 tionetary Costs The applicant's current estimated cost of the CRBRP is $3.196 billion for plant investment, development, and operation through 1995. The estimated cost breakdownis presented in Table 10.5. The base cost estimates reflect 1974 costs without escalation. The applied escalation rate is 8 percent /per year. Estimated revenues for electricity sold to TVA totalling about $680 million are credited to operating costs.

Estimated costs for decommissioning would vary, depending on the decommissioning mode chosen, from about $20.3 million to $42.8 million in 1978 dollars (See 10.2.4.4). ,

The applicant's cost estimate is from an appropriations standpoint and does not reflect interest during construction or present worth discounting Staff has revised applicant's estimate in Table 10.6 to recognize the time value of money using an 11% interest rate. Staff also believes that applicant's estimate of revenues from the sale of power is overly optimistic and based on recent coal cost statistics has reduced this amount from $679 million to $350 million.

The resulting accumulated costs by year of expenditure and in 1982 dollars are as follows:

Millions of Dollars Year of 1982 Expenditure Present Worth 1974 through 1982 1370 1949 1983 through 1995 2155 1474 Total 3525 3423

l i

Table 10.5 Cost of CRBRP through 1995 Cost  % of project cost Item ($ millions) completed through 1981 Plant investment ,

l Base 1122.3 Escalation 1198.1 Contingency and escalation 182.8 Plant investment total 2503.2 21.2 Development Base 535.3 Escalation 269.1 Contingency and escalation 13.7 Development total __ 818.1 77.6 Operating Base 146.3 Escalation 405.2 i Contingency and escalation 2.9 Less Revenues (679.2)

Operating total (124.8) 0 Project total 3196.5- 36.1

TABLE 10.6 - STAFF'S TOTAL PLANT COST ESTIMATE FOR CRBR IN MILLIONS OF D0LLARS Accumulated P.W. 1922 Y0E 1982 Y0E P.ti, Dollars Factor p .w . Dolla rs Year 2.305 68.9 29.9 68.9 1974 29.9 214.4 70.1 2.076 145.5 100.0 1975 240.2 476.6 140.2 1.870 262.2 1976 424.6 787.3 184.4 1.685 310.7 1977 590.8 1,039.6 166.2 1.518 252.3 1978 239.5 765.9 1,279.1 175.1 1.368 1979 233.3 955.3 1,512.4 1980 189.4 1.232 221.4 1,154.8 1,733.8 1981 199.5 1.110 1,949.4 1.000 215.6 1,370.4 1982 215.6 1,677.7 2,226.3 307.3 0.901 276.9 1983 0.812 254.0 1,990.5 2,480.3 1984 312.8 2,694.7 0.731 214.4 2,283.8 1985 293.3 2,951.2 389.3 0.659 256.5 2,673.1 1986 3,058.5 3,179.7 385.4 0.593 228.5 1987 -

3,299.9 3,308.8 241.4 - 0.535 129.1 1988 0.482 71.3 3,447.9 3,380.1 1989 148.0 3,424.3 101.9 0.434 44.2 3,549.8 1990 3,578.5 3,435.5 28.7 0.391 11.2 1991 3,601.0 3,443.4 1992 22.5 0.352 7.9 0.317 (2.3) 3,593.7 3,a41.1 1993 (7.3) 3,562.1 3,432.1 1994 (31.6) 0.286 (9.0) 3,422.6 0.258 (9.5) 3,525.2 1995 (36.9)

I Year of expenditure dollars. Includes 8% escalation.

2 Factor for projecting or discounting, to the end of 1982 using an 11% discount rate.

, .o 9

10.4.3 Benefit-Cost Summary The staff reviewed the applicant's proposed plant (Chapter 3) and made an independent evaluation of the environmental effects of its construction and operation (Chapters 4 and 5) at the proposed site (Chapter 2). Further consideration was given to technical alternatives (Chapter 8) and the environ-mental and monetary factors associated with alternative plant-site combinations and plant system alternatives (Chapter 9).

On the basis of its evaluations the staff concludes that (1) constructing and operating the CRBRP at the proposed location would be possible without causing any significant impact on the physical environment of the area, (2) locating the project at an . alternative TVA site using the hook-on arrangement is now more expensive and attendant technological risks could jeopardize the ability of the project to meet its intended objectives, and (3) local costs for additional public services needed by. project personnel and their families may exceed the local benefits from the project and,_therefore, should be assessed by the applicant to determine the need for offsetting in-lieu-of-tax payments.

Furthermore, on the basis that accident risks at the CRBRP site will be made acceptably low, comparable to LWR risks, the reduction in potential conse-quences associated with accidents at alternative sites does not warrant relocating the proposed plant when balanced against the detrimental effects of relocation l on achieving the demonstration plant's objectives; the staff therefore concludes that no substantially better alternatives are available to achieve the demonstra-tion plant's objectives. The staff also concludes that the CRBRP would meet -

the demonstration plant's objectives within the LMFBR program (see Chapter 8).

l l

I I

10-23