ML20138R494

Forwards Nuclear Energy Svcs Response Clarifying & Supporting Bases for Conservatisms in Cost Estimates for Onsite Property Damage Insurance Contained in post-accident Recovery Cost Study

ML20138R494
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	12/16/1985
From:	Shimshak R DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
To:	Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8512310315
Download: ML20138R494 (3)

Text

r D D4/RYl.AND hh/a/[ COOPERAT/VE P O. BOX 817 2615 EAST AVE SO

• LA CRO (608) 788-4000 December 16, 1985 ..,

'$ N!

9['

Mr. John A. Zwolinski, Director BWR Project Directorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Dairyland Power Cooperative La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR)

Provisional Operating License No. DPR-45 On-Site Property Damage Insurance

Reference:

DPC Letter, Shinshak to Zwolinski dated November 21, 1985

Dear Mr. Zwolinski:

Forwarded for record purposes are twenty (20) copies of an NES-prepared response which clarifies and supports the bases for conservatisms in cost estimates contained in the LACBWR Post-Accident Recovery Cost Study which was recently reviewed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. The response is identified as NES Letter J. May to R. I. Smith, JHM-616 dated December 9, 1985.

Sincerely, c23. Nas Richard E. Shinshak Manager, Special Nuclear Projects RES:daj Enclosure 3 aan - v.c. 7 cc: J. Taylor w/ report /PGL-5076 J. Parkyn w/ report $$^"Q

'C

,'s,SQ882arvase s

0. Hiestand w/ report roa (vass4uoi E. Tre m l w/ report ^" - C. LAINAS (Ltr only}

H. Devine w/ report W. Manion w/o report J. May w/o report R. Mueller w/ report J. Thie w/ report N. Rasmussen w/ report gg 8512310315 851216

~

PDR ADOCK 05000409 d PDR gi 1l

SENT VIA TELECOPY R4. ;sIVED

~ ' '~ .q ym m DEC 161985

} 's.. L_ POWm GROUP NUCt. EAR ENERGY SERVICES AHwTOF'5 CNN*

Mr. R.I. Smith December 9, 1985 Staff Engineer REF: JRM-616 Energy Systems Department Battelle. Pacific Northwest Laboratories Battelle Boulevard Richland, WA 99352

SUBJECT:

Dairyland Power Cooperative LACBWR Accident Recovery Cost Estimate

REFERENCE:

Telecon, J.R. Fby and R. I. Smith; December 6,1985

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter will confirm our verbal reaa'. ion of the remaining questions you had regarding the subject cost est - ate.

NES is appreciative of your position that while you consider the total accident recovery cost estimate to be adequate, you were unable to specifically confirm this position primarily regarding the cost estimate for the defueling operations due to the absence of detailed estimating data.

Fircely, an explanation of the exact dif ference in the cost estimate for the base case (i.e. without fuel melting) versus the final cost estimate (i.e. with 50% fuel melting) will help to establish a proper context within which to accurately understand the explanatory information which follows herein.

The base case accident criteria, which excluded fuel melting, is comparable to NUREG/CR-2601, Scenario 2 accident criteria. However, in order to develop a realistic, but "high", cost estimate, NES chose to apply certain cost elements from the NUREG Scenario 3 accident recovery cost estimate.

The two most significant Scenario 3 cost elements used in the base cost estimate related to radiation worker exposure and defueling operations.

In the case of the cost impact of occupational radiation exposure, NES applied an average of the adjustment factors, shown in Table E. 4-9 for Scenario 3, to the efforts associated with the LACBWR containment clean-up.

SHELTER ROCK ROAD, DANDURY, CT 06810 (203]796-5000 WRTER'S DIRECT DIALING NO. (203)7962 _ l

~

l

m- o I

- . j

?

12/9/85 '

JRM-616 Page 2  !

The volume of the LACBWR containment was shown in the base cost estimate to be approximately 13% of the NUREG containment volume. However, the LACBWR base cost estimate included 76% of the NUREG Scenario 3 clean-up, as shown in Table 7-1 of the LACBWR base cost estimate.

Similarly, NES chose to base its cost estimate for defueling operations on the NUREG Scenario 3 basis. For example, LACBWR would have to remove a maximum of 72 fuel assemblies; or 37% of the 193 fuel assemblies assumed in the NUREG Scenario 3. However, NES projected a defueling schedule and manpower estimate of 50% and 51%, respectively of the amounts included in the NUREG Scenario 3 estimate; as shown in Table 7-2 and Table 7-3 in the LACBWR base cost estimate.

Lastly, the estimated costs for defueling equipment used in the LACBWR base cost estimate was $4.0 million, from Scenario 2, escalated to 1985 dollars. In the LACBWR revised cost estimate, the defueling equipment costs of $11.0 million, from Scenario 3, escalated to 1985 dollars were used. It should be noted that, as presented in the NUREG cost estimate, these estimated equipment costs included the costs of research and develop-ment as well as the fabrication costs. Finally, as used in the NUREG cost estimate, NES applied a 25% contingency factor to the total of all line items and activity cost element estimates.

~

As to the absence of detailed deve spment of cost elements from the NUREG study that NES applied to the LACBJR cost estimates, NES felt that Battelle, and the NRC, had invested considerable ef fort in developing a sound basis for the NUREC cost estimate, and therefore, for NES to repeat that effort, i.e. reinvent the wheel, would not be a prudent use of its client's monies.

Therefore, NES accepted the basis developed by Battelle for those cost elements from the NUREG study that were applied to the LACBWR cases.

We trust that the above information will, as we discussed in our reference telecon, satisfactorily resolve these remaining questions regarding the subject cost estimate.

f Sincerely yours, N LEAR ENERGY ERVICES ohn R. Ma General Magaj;er Waste Manag% ent Services l

cc: R. Shimshak JRM:ek

- - -. .... . ,. . . -. - - -