ML20055B292

Forwards Antitrust & Economic Analysis Branch Input to Accident Impact Section of Captioned Des

ML20055B292
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	05/10/1982
From:	Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Hulman L 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 8207210193
Download: ML20055B292 (4)

Text

F O

Docket No. 50-537 W I O 1982

!!EMORANDUM FOR: L. G. Hulman, Chief Accident Evaluation Branch, DSI FR0't : Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Technology Division of Engineering j

SUBJECT:

INPUT TO CRDR FES (CP)

In accordance with Mr. Thadant's telephone request, we are submitting the l ~

j Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch input to the accident impact section l

of the captioned DES starting with the sentence:

"There are other economic impacts..."

This was prepared without reference to other parts of the accidcat impact I section and it will, therefore, be necessary for someone to carefully check the references to other parts of the Section, i .e., 6.1.4.4 and Table 6.1.4-2.

Also, you may want to show the reference to the Comptroller General's report i

at the end of the Section rather than at the bottom of the page.

Original signed by y

Daniel R. Muller Daniel R. !!uller, Assistant Director l

i for Environmental Technology ll Division of Engineering l8

Enclosure:

As stated i

i cc: 11. Thadani 1

); DISTRIBUTION:

l' AEAB Reading l' AEAB File #

AToalston Rdg.

,' DMuller

'iessier I

8207210193 820712 PDR FOIA HATHAWA8F272 PDR NRR:A NRR:AEA!W4 DE:ADET OFF sCE ) ~

sun - e> Md. ... .. . .....t... ..:.n,a

...gges s i e,r,,,,, , ,.pR. ...hh,..... ..,e,r,,,,

omy .W.. [pl.9.2.......M6. l.22..... . !i[.f....L82...

l nne ronu sie oo4c> nneu ano OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ussm i. ie

1 There are other economic impacts and risk which are not it.7 uded in the cost calculations discussed in Section 6.1.4.4 that can be monetiie$. Th to the accident impacts on the facility itself that result in added ' costs public, primarily taxpayers. These costs would be for oecontaminatio; and Although, it repair or replacement of the facility, and replacement power.

is possible that the facility would simply be decommissioned and not actually restored following a serious (core-melt) accident, an assumption of restoration is considered conservative (high cost) in reflecting the cost impact of an accidtnt. If the worth of the facility at the time of an accident is perceived to be worth more than the cost of restoration, then presumably the facility would be restored and t.ie restoration cost would represent the cost impact.

If t'le worth of the facility at the time of the accident is perceived to be less than the cost of restoration of the facility, then presumably the facility would not be restored and the cost impact would, at least be perceived to be less than the restoration cost such that use of the restoration cost would represent a high side estimate. Since the worth of the facility is primarily in the nature of research' and development the actual value cannot be quantified any more accurately than as it is perceived at the time.

Experience with such costs is currently being accumulated as a result of the Three Mile Island accident. Although CRBR is considerably smaller in electrical output than Three itile Island, the physical size and complexity of CRBR is compaiable and the cost of decontamination and restoration is estinated to be If an accident occurs during the about the same as that for Three Mile Island.

first full year of CRBR operation (1989), the economic penalty associated with the initial year of the unit's operation is estimated at $2250 million

~

2 for decontamination and restoration, including replacement of the damaged nuclear fuel. This is based on a $952 million value in 1980 dollars as reported to Congress by the Comptroller General.1 The $952 million in 1980 dollars has been escalated at 10% to 1989, Although property damage insurance would cover part of this, the insurance is not credited because the insurance payment times the risk probability would theoretically balance,:ne. insurance premium.

In addition, staff estimates average additional production costs of $25 million (1989 dollars) for replacement power during each year the CRBR is being restored. This is based on applicant's net projections of operating ravings during the first six years of operation, discounted at 10% to 1989. Assuming the nuclear unit does not operate for 8 years due to shutdown, the totai additional replacement power cost should be ap-l proximately 200 million in 1989 dollars.

If the probability of sustaining a total loss of the original facility is taken as the sum of the occurrences of a core nelt accident (the sun of the probabilities for the categories in Table 6.1.3-2) then the probability of I Report to the Congress, by the Comptroller General of the United States, i DiD-81--106, August 26, 1981.

l l

l

3 a disabling accident happening during each year of the unit's service life is 1.0 X 10-5 .

Multiplying the previously estimated costs of $2450 million for an accident to CR3R during the initial year of its operation by the above 1.0 X 10-5 probability results in an economic risk of approximately

$25,000 (in 1989 dollars) applicable to CRBR during its first year of operation. This is also approximately the economic risk (in 1989 dollars) to CRBR during the second and each subsequent year of its operation. ,

Although CRBR would depreciate in value such that the economic consequences due to an accident becomes less as the unit becomes older, this is considered to be offset by a higher cost of decontamination of the unit in the later years.

^

l i

1

.