ML20151Z299

Informs That Info Requested Seems More than Needed & Matls Available Not Specific to Plant.Waste Mgt Cost Comes from Doe.Study Could Be Confined to Decommissioning,Waste Disposal,Seismic Retrofit & Action Plan

ML20151Z299
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	01/30/1981
From:	Bradford P NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bryson J CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20151Y970	List: IA-87-444, Ack Receipt of Re Plant Licensing.Comments Will Be Forwarded to Secretariat for Inclusion in Public Record, Since Case Is Contested & Commission Cannot Comment ML20151Y964 ML20151Z030 ML20151Z094 ML20151Z137 ML20151Z178 ML20151Z299 ML20151Z384 ML20151Z493 ML20151Z521 ML20151Z540 ML20151Z575 ML20151Z628 ML20151Z642 ML20151Z703 ML20151Z749 ML20151Z789 ML20151Z804 ML20151Z816 ML20151Z853 ML20151Z864 ML20151Z869 ML20151Z888 ML20151Z910 ML20151Z928 ML20151Z938 ML20151Z954 ML20151Z977 ML20151Z984 ML20153B580 ML20153B594 ML20153B634 ML20153B643 ML20153B656 ML20153B663 ML20153B689 ML20153B737 ML20153B777 ML20153B831 ML20153B863 ML20153B891 ML20153B925 ML20153B971 ML20153C002 ML20153C027 ML20153C036 ML20153C050 ML20153C081 ML20153C108 ML20153C184 ... further results
References
FOIA-87-444 NUDOCS 8805050243
Download: ML20151Z299 (4)

Text

._ _ . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _._. ._ .- _

l

+r . .

[% i s UNITED STATES b

g

• %* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, $ wanwenetow, o.c.sesus ,

g, *"** / January 30, 1981 I oerics op two ennanmaananmaan The Honorable John E. Bryson President Public Utilities Commission State of California San Francisco, CA 94102 ,

Cear John:

Your letter as modified looks fine, but it may ask for more than you really need. Furthermore, you will not get detailed ec6nomic analyses on many of the points. The Commission has published some general material on decommissioning costs, but it is not specific to Diablo Canyon. We have some experience with radiation build-up and steam generator tube degradation, but not a lot in coping with it all the way through to a successful conclusion. The costs of resolving the generic safety issues are undefinable until the reschtions are prescribed for particular plants. In any case, the better list is probably the unresolved safety issue list that the Commission is required to report on to Congress. It is much shorter, but these are the more se-ious issues and the ones really likely to get attention in the next few years. We cannot know the costs of items 7 and 9 until the hearings are concluded. - .

I think that the replacement power costs are up to you. We can give yos some sense of the downtime associated with steam generator tube degradation, but you will have to factor in the replacement power costs that you would use.

The waste management costs will come basically from the Department of Energy. I doubt very much that we will alter them for purposes of our own estimates.

Of course, if your coricorn is to fold the Diablo Canyon units accurately into the rate base at some time in the future and to allocate the appropriate expenses per year over the lives of the plants, then the study could be confined to deconnissioning and waste disposal and the seismic retrofit and the Action Plan. Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 will not be problems until they occur, and 3 and 4 may not. Items 8.and 9 are pretty routine operating expenses I should think, and they don't loom very large in the overall scheme of costs. l Sincerely, h$f0hopp 0004m Peter A. Bradford

,d T

HAMLIN87-444 PDR Connissioner

. ~ - ..

• e i '

+ - - -

y,u n

• p~ a DnAPT LETTER TO NRC 1  !

1

) ' m o.i r y 6, 1981 t ,

i r

e a

1 The purpose of this letter is to r

.2st the assistance of the Nuclear I Regulatory Commission (NRC) in providing detailed analysis of the '

prospective costs which the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGEE) j is likely to incur associated with the completion and operatic tt its Diablo Canyon Nuclear Powerplant, Units 1 and 2. L

The California Public Utilities Commission granted certifi-

cates of public convejence and necessity for Units 1 ind 2 of the

) Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in 1967 and 1969 respectively. '

These units are now substantially complete and await receipt of an  ;

i operating license from your Commission, upon completion of review  !

by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and your own staff, and of  :

} any administrativo appeals of the Board's. decisions.  !

In the years since these certificates were granted many modi-  !

i fications have been and continue to be ordered in nuclear plant  :

l 4

design and operating plans by you and your predecessor, the Atomic Energy commission, to enhance the safety of the facilities. :n (

addition, there must ultimately be resolution of certain key generic  ;

issues regarding both the nuclear fuel cycle and the disposition of  ;

nuclear power plants (e.g. method of plant decommissioning and spent q .

!i i

j fuel and waste disnosal). These modifications and the resolution of 1 t

1 these issues allhave alfeady/and willrequ5ontin$$it$es re ut to incur substantial ,

i i

I i d

i i i

\

, r i

O t

1 _ - . . _ . , . . - -

o

_ ('.

additional costs in excess of the costs projected at the time of .

initial certification. We, in our role as rate regulators, e need to be able to estimate with some accuracy additional cost and related reliability implications of these changes. As your staff has the greatest expertise in the country in these areas, and as our own resources are limited, we need your expert assistance in doing so. In particular, we request your best assessment of the chqice of method and costs of the following: -

1. decommissioning

2. on-site or off-site spent fuel and waste storage and disposal

3. correction of premature tube de adation in steam generators

4. coping with unexpected radi ation buildup and re-lated worker exposure problems

5. resolution (if possible) of the over 130 unresolved generic safety issues listed in NUREG-0510, Identi-fication of Unresolved Safety Issues Relating to Nuclear Power Plants

6. responding to the ch nges

~ ~ . . . . . - . . . - , - . . _ _

e ir{bytheTMI retrofitting to achieve acceptable levels of seismic -

safety

8. providing for adequate emergency preparedness p{. providing for sufficient protection against sabotage or thef t Several of these issues also have reliability implications for operating plants which could lead to the incurrence of substantial replacement power costs while they are being resolved. These implications munt also be considered in a thorough cost analysis.

l

d. L 'f M "' ~.; '

l l

i

{

. . N '.

4

_3_

A formal review of the costs of building and operating Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 will occur when the Units become operational and our Commission is asked to authorize rate base treatment for those which have been reasonably incurred. We therefore reauest your analysis of the prospective costs listed above with specific emphasis on those likely to be incurred by PGEE in starting up and operating Diablo Canyon. Your timely response to this request would be greatly appreciated.

i i

I

.