ML20136D226

Forwards Cost Analysis Group Review of Cost Analysis Contain in Value Impact Analysis for Rev 2 of Reg Guide 1.99, Per 840927 Memo.Industry Operating Cost Overstated by Bnwl

ML20136D226
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/11/1984
From:	Triner E NRC OFFICE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (ORM)
To:	Serpan C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20136C160	List: IA-85-361, Forwards Cost Analysis Group Rept Re Cost Analysis in Support of Proposed Revs to 10CFR50,App J,Per Dec 1984 Request.Proposes That Rept Be Issued as Nureg.App J Revs Will Result in Cost Savings.W/O Rept ML20136C156 ML20136C289 ML20136C414 ML20136C458 ML20136C476 ML20136C501 ML20136C519 ML20136C549 ML20136C951 ML20136C957 ML20136C967 ML20136C986 ML20136D017 ML20136D045 ML20136D070 ML20136D108 ML20136D124 ML20136D226 ML20136D242 ML20136D266 ML20136D294 ML20136D311 ML20136D328 ML20136D345 ML20136D376 ML20136D400 ML20136D428 ML20136D598 ML20136D614 ML20136D622 ML20136D647 ML20136D670 ML20136D695 ML20136D709 ML20136D731 ML20136D743 ML20136E335 ML20136E359 ML20136E376 NUREG/CR-4025, Preliminary Review of Cost Analysis Contained in NUREG/CR-4025 Concerning Proposed Design Mods to Gessar
References
FOIA-85-361, RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-1.099 NUDOCS 8511210259
Download: ML20136D226 (1)

Text

.

m-i

.p* "h,I*

t UNITED STATES NUCl.s/. A REGULWORY CCMMisslCN l

,i 3.Q NASHINGTCN, O. O. 20555 i

iLY//

E+,... '. " -/

OCT 111984 MEMORANDUM FOR:'

C. Z. Serpan Jr., Chief Materials Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Technology FROM:

Edwin G. Triner, Director Division of Budget and Analysis Office of Resource Management

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF COST ANALYSIS CONTAINED IN PNL'S VALUE IMPACT ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED REVISION 2 0F REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99 l

In response to your memorandum of September 27, 1984, the Cost Analysis Group (CAG) has prepared the attached review of " Proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99 Value Impact Analysis."

Our review centered on t$e industry operating cost because of its dominant role in the overall value impact analysis.

In our view, this cost has been overstated by the consultant because 1) the future cost stream is not discounted, and 2) it fafis to account for those reactors that will benefit from the adoption of revision 2.

The CAG is also prepared to provide RES with a more precise replacement energy cost estimate which is based on reactor specific analyses in lieu of the generic $300,000 per day value currently i

assumed. This is predicated on RES being able to identify the reactors that would be impacted by revision 2.

If you have any questions concerning the attached report, please contact Sidney Feld on X28331.

d i

Y.

,Q, y,,' Q,-f,.Q:t.CU i

Edwin -G. Triner, Director Division of Budget and Analysis Office of Resource Management

Attachment:

l As stated S. Feld, NRT ~

cc:

8. Richter,1Di R. Hartfield, RM L. Donnelly, RM I

I 8511210259 851022 PDR FOIA l

l BELL 85-361 PDR

'" ( ~'

e

--n e -

e w

a r-