ML20136D266
Text
_ -
~ ^ ' '^~
~ ? ._' 4 '
W "'8ec UNITUD STATES i$p % NUCLsAR REGut.ATORY cOMMISs!CN WA0HINGTON, 'J. C. 20535 6,, 'Q*j OCT 3 01c84 MEMORANDUM FOR: Charles Z. Serpan, Jr., Chief Materials Engineering Branch P' Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Lloyd J. Donnelly, Chief Resource Analysis Brancn Division of Budget and Analysis
- Office of Resource Management
SUBJECT:
COST ANALYSIS GROUP'S PROPOSED COST ANALYSIS FOR REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99, REVISION 2 The Cost Analysis Group (CAG) proposes developing a cost estimate that captures the replacement energy cost penalty associated with 112 of the 141 reactors identified in the attachment to your memo of October 23, 1984. The 29 reactors to be dropped from our analysis include 13 reactors that are now officially cancelled (See attached Table A), and 16 reactors that your memo
, identifies as having no change in unit availability (zero ratchet).
Of the 112 reactors to be included in our study, the CAG~has reactor specific estimates for 90 This constitutes all reactors currently operational er expected to be operational by the summer of 1986. Estimates for the remaining 22 reactors will be developed by assuming costs comparable with other reactors (adjusted for size) owned by the same utility, same power pool, or electric reliability region, depending on data availability. It should be noted, that of these 22 reactors, only 9 have construction work currently on-going and have scheduled completion dates. For the remaining 13, all construction effort has stopped and the completion date is indeteminate. Nevertheless, since these reactors have not been officially cancelled, we have conservatively assumed that they will eventually be completed and enter comercial operation. For the purposes of our calculations, we will assume commercial availability as of the year 1990.
j It is noted that two reactnrs that are currently operational were not included in your original list of 141 --- Fort St. Vrain and Hanford Nuclear. We will await your instructions as to whether these were inadvertently omitted and thus warrant inclusion in our cost analysis.
' The CAG proposes adopting the following basic assumptions in developing this est.imate:
- 1. Replacement energy cost penalties are assumed to be constant in real tems over the remaining useful life of the reactor. This means costs are not assumed to increase faster than the rate of general inflation.
B511210270 851022 PDR FOIA BELL 85-361 PDR
up 1, . Cha~rles Z. Serpan .
t
- 2. For reactors already operational, replacement energy cost penalties are assumed to comence in 1985. Comercial operating life of a reactor is assumed to be 30 years. Thus, remaining useful life equals 30 minus number of years in operation prior to 1985.
- 3. For future reactors, replacement energy cost penalties will comence in estimated year of initial comercial operation and continue for 30 years.
4 All costs will be expresse'd in 1984 constant dollars and discounted back 4 -
to 1984 assuming a 10% real discount rate. The final cost estimate will represent a 1984 present worth value in 1984 dollars. -
- 5. The estimate of change in down time provided in the attachment to your memo of October 23, 1984 is assumed to be constant over the remaining useful life of each reactor.
Any concerns with our proposed approach, and clarification on the status of Fort. St. Vrain and Hanford Nuclear should be directed to either Brian Richter (X27770) or Sid Feld (X28331) of my staff
- f.
Lloyd J. Donnelly, Chief Resource Analysis Branch Division of Budget and Analysis Office of Resource Management cc w/ attachment:
$*5,Ranga1hMEBR B. Richter,RM/BR J. Clark, RM/BR -
, E. Triner, RM/B 4
go l
f I
. - . . _ . ~ -- . . . . - ._ . , _ - - . - - , . . . _ . - - - . - - . - , . -
Ej e ..
ATTACHMENT TABLE A 0FFICALLY CANCELLED REACTORS 3 -
- 1. Zimmer .
2-5. Hartsville 1 thru 4
- 6. Hope Creek 2
- 7. River Bend 2 8-9. Phipps Bend 1 and 2 10-12. Cherokee 1 thru 3
, 13. Shearon Harris 2 4 l