ML20209B113

Forwards 12th Monthly Status Rept for 810915-1015 in Response to House Rept 96-1093.Rept Discusses Actions Taken on Operating Reactors & Licensing Review of New Facilities

ML20209B113
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	10/30/1981
From:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bevill T HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS
Shared Package
ML20209B118	List: ML20209B113 ML20209B287 ML20211C525 ML20211C566 ML20211C600
References
NUDOCS 8111270065
Download: ML20209B113 (23)

Text

. . _ ._

[oAu\ ' *

' ' UNITED STATES s .- . .

[}

s, a 7,

j ,-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

wAsm NCTON, D. C. 20555 ,

f .

f CHAMAN , OCT 3 01981' The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and Water .- ,

Development Comittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 '.

Dear Hr. Chaiman:

- This monthly status report is in response '.to the direction given in House-

. Report 96-1093.. Enclosed is our twelfth report covering the period from

- . September 15, 1981 to October 15,1981. 'This twelfth report discusses the actions that were taken during this period on operating reactors and on licensing reviews pf_Itew facilities.

I During the reporting period, a low-power license was ' issued to 'Diablo Canyon Unit 1. After receiving .the low-power license, the' licensee discovered that

{ - certain : piping and equipment may not be properly analyzed for seismic loads and halted fuel loading until a reanalysis of the affected piping and equip-ment is completed. The licensee met with the staff on October 9,1981 to review 1.ts reevaluation program. A staff review team also met with the '

licensee at its office"during the week,of October 12, 1981 to reivew the overall audit program. The licensee's evaluation and the staff review is continuing.

A number of.. licensing review documents were issued during the reporting perio These include two Final Environmental Statements, two Draft Environmental

- Statements, two Safety Evaluation Reports and three supplements to Safety Evaluation Reports.

Several changes to applicants' construction completion dates are included in

' this' month's report. The plants involved are LaSalle Unit 2 (from June 1982 to December 1982), San Onofre Unit 3.(from August 1982 to November 1982),

Callaway Unit 1 (from October 1982 to June 1983), Diablo Canyon Unit 2 (from April 1982 to July 1982), and Summer Unit 1 (from December 1981' to February 1982). In addition, Texas Utilities recently announced a revised construction The specific date has not been reported completion to the NRC.

date for Ccrnmanche Peak 1.However, the date will be after the date. The projected delay for this facility has been eliminated. ,

The Comission has amended its rules so as to permit issuance of low-power r- .- licenses innediately af ter a favorab.le hearing board decision. The net effect.

of this change is to reduce the overall projected delay by five months (i.e.,

one-month reduction for each of five impacted 11 ants). This represents a

- change in our previous approach to computing tie delay.

l

s. .

The hearing board decision for Diab 1o Canyon Unit 1 is now projected to be three months later than estimated last month. Recent events cast doubt on when the licensee will, be ready to proceed beyond low-power.

I would like to add that as the total months are reduced the uncertainties associated with the hearing schedules become more significant. The total cumulative months of delay projected for all impacted plants is currently 13 inonths as compared to 21 months in the previous. report.

Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford agree that the construction completion

' estimates in this report are becoming more realistic. They still adhere to their opinion of last mo. nth that, if NRC meets its schedules, the best estimate of future delay months is between zero and five. In addition, they would assign no past or future delay to Diablo Canyon until that situation is clearer as to needed-modifications.

Sincerely, .

a. -

' Hunz'io J. Palladino y

Enclosure:

NRC Monthly Status Report to Congress cc: The Honorable John T. Myers .

e t

9 4

1. O

, , , - _ _ - r- _ . , , , . m ,, __,.-

NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO UNGRESS This is the twelfth inonthly status report to Congres> in response to the

)

direction given in House Report 96-1093. This report prov des a dis-

~ cussion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between September 15, 1981 an(. October 15, 1981. ,

7. t

. OPERATING REACTORS - .

Thennal Shock To Reactor Pressure Vessels During the last month, no new information has been deve'oped mat would alter the staff's conclusion that no innediate licens.,g acticns are required for operating' reactors. Because the implementation of any pro-posed renedial actions nust allow for adequate lead time, letters wera

- sent to the licensees of eight plants on August 21, 1981, requesting furthei

, information to enable the staff to assess what actions should be taken to resolve this issue'. The eight plants (Ft. Calhoun, Rob'inson Unit 2., San Onof re Unit i, Maine Yankee, Oconee Unit 1, Turkey Point Unit 4, Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and Three Mile Island Unit 1) were selected on the basis of their vessel irradiation history and their plant system characteristics.

The licensees for seven of the .eight plants have informed us that they will have conflicts in providing some information and in meeting the submittal l

date for other information. The staff is currently evaluating these respenses.

This effort is progressing in parallel with the generic review underway by industry owner groups (Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox and Combustion Engineering). The staff has also held meetings with the owner groups in

~

September and October to review progress on the thermal shock issue.

e OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS 1.icensing Schedules During the past month, the emphasis on " licensing activities continued -to be on operating license applications. During this period, the staff issued the following: (1) Final Environmental Statements (FES) for Grand Gulf' Units

. ~

'1:end 2, Comanche Peak Units 1. and 2 and Waterford Unit 3, (2) Draft Environmental Statements (DES) for Callaway Unit l' and St. Lu:ie Unit 2, (3) Safety Evaluation ,

~

t.' nit 2, and (4)' Supplements

' Reports (SER) for Callaway Unit 1 an"d St. l.ucie to SERs.(SSER) for Diablo ' Canyon Units 1 and 2, Fermi Unit 2 and Waterford

-: ~

Unit 3. In addition, a low-power (5".) license was issued tt Diabic Canyon Unit 1. The present' licensing schedules for plants projected by utilitus to be completed in 1981 and 1982 are given in Table 1. Additional units at the same site with projected completion dates in 1983 are included in l

Table 1. ~

The preliminary licensing schedules for plants with lead units projected to Table 2 also includes all plants with be coupleted in 1983 are given in Table 2.

lead units projected to be completed beyond 1983 for which'0L applications have been tendered, and thus indicates all plants for which NRC OL review is The schedules shown on Table 2 are based on standard assumptions

, underway.

for review and hearing times, except for those plants that are expected to be

~

For heavily contested (Byron Unit 1, Seabrook Unit 1, and Midland Unit 2).

those plants, we have projected a 13-month _ [rather than the typical 11-month) hearing schedule from issuance of the SSER to Comission decision date on a full-pcwer license. The staff review process for those cases has been v the hearinc accelerated to compensate for the additional time allottu ard+nch _ _ - _ - _ - . _ - . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ __

The staff is analyzing'the schedules for FEMA finding: on off-site emergency preparedness. The schedule provided for findings on off-rite energency pre- .

' ~

paredness may cause licensing delays for some facilities.

Several changes to applicants' construction congletion dates have been announced by the utilities and are included in this month's report. The plants involved .

x. -

are LaSalle. Unit 2 (from. June 1982 to December 1982), San Onofre Unit 3 (from August 1982 to November 1982), Callaway Unit 1 (from October 1982 to June 19'83),

~ Diablo. Canyon ~ Unit 2 (from. April 1982 to July 1982), and Summer Unit 1 (from December'1981 to February-1982). For the above plants, on'y Sumer Urit 1 had a projected delay. Although the Commission decision date for Sumraer Unit 1 has also been delayed by two months to reflect a delay in the start of the hearing l

on a seismicity issue, the projected one-month delay for the facility has oe n eliminated since we now project the issuance of a low-power license in February 1982, immediately following the ASLB decision.

In addition, Texas Utilities recently announced a revised construction completion

- date for Comanche Peak. .The specific date has not been reported to the NRC.

The However, the date will be af ter the projected Commission decision date.

projected delay for this f acilit.y has been eliminated.

s s

Cost Estimates

-- o .

The NRC is obtaining cost estimates associated with the licensing delays froc Their latest estimates, dated the Department of Energy on a monthly basis.

October 20, 1981, are set forth in Attachment 1.

e ,

Commission Actions to . Improve the Licensing Process

- Iffective . September 23, 1981, the Comission. amended its recently adopted .

- final rule on review procedurts for Licensing Board decisions tnat authorize the issuance of power reactor operating licenses. The rule was modified so as'to delete the requirement that the Comission conduct an effective-ness review prior to issuing a fuel loading and low-power te' sting license, J: *. ,

'- and $o make other clarifying changes. The reconsideration was prompted by Comission experience in reviewing several recent casas. Ho.<ever, the Comission will retain to itself the decision as to whether c plant will .

be allowed.to receive a full-power license. In addition, t' e Comission re'tained 'for itself the decision regarding fuel loading and low-power s,

'~'

testing on certain pisnts"(e.g7, TMI Unit-19aMSGn80N$iEE~.Ofi .

Canyon). -The effe~ct of the rule change is that it will eliminate' one month of the potential licensing delay on the schedule for comercial operation for Summer Unit 1, San Onofre Unit 2, Susquehanna Unit 1, Comanche Peak Unit 1 and Waterford Unit 3 (for a total cum 21ative re-duction of up to five months).

PLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF DELAYED PLAhTS

~

The following is a discussion of the status of the potentially delayed  ;

f acilities.

e i

- - - . - - _ . . . . . .m ,_ _ _ _ . . , , , , . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. l

1. San Onofre Unit 2.-- On June 3,1981, FEMA issuec an' interim ~

finding regarding the San Onofre emergency prepareci.;ss drill which was perfomed on May 13, 1981. The applicant is currently undertaking those corrective actions identified in the FEMA interim finding. The hearing on a full-power license started on June 22, 1981, and testimony on seismic

.' issues has been completed. .

Testimony on emergency planning issues started during August 1981 an.d was completed .in September 1981. The hearing record is now

= ,. _.

closed except for additional infomation and findings o be pro-

' v'ided' by FEMA in November 1981. The . applicant has. filed a motion with the Licensing Board for consideration of a decision regarding a low-power license. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for February 1982. The estimated construction com- ,

~

pletion date is October 1981. Since we now project the issuance

^ .

cf a low-power license in J/inuary 1982, immediately following the _. _.

- ASLB decision, the projected delay for this facility has been

. reduced from four to three months. Commissioner Bradford notes this plant has yet to complete construction, so the estimated -

completion date cannot be accurate.

2. Diablo Canyon Unit 1 - A Comission Order permitting issuance

~

of a low-power license was issued on September 21, 1981, and the li' cense was issued to Unit 1 on September 22, 1981. A Board order on full-power contentions postponed a ruling on equipment qualification issues until the applicant's submittal and the staff's

-.e. --

, , - - . . . n,a .-

9 review of this issue was complete and other parties have had an opportunity to review the staff SSER. The SSER on this matter was issued in early In addition, the Commission directed ti.?t two additional October 1981.

contentions be admitted to the full-power. proceeding. The Board now projects .

that the full-power hearing will start in January 1982 based on projected

' issuance of the SSER on emergency preparedness on November 6,1981 and

.Therefore, a i preparation.for hearing on the two additional contentions.

. decision regarding.a full-power license is now projected for May 1982

.~ .

instead of February 1982. . ,

The'appiicant recentAy-trot'ified the staff of' errors in the plant seismic analysis. The staff is monitoring this situation as well i.: any impact en the plant schedule. In past reports, a construction completion date of March 1981 has been used to calculate delay for the unit. Table 1 estimates a delay of 9 months reflecting both the 6 month period from March 1981 to September 1981, when the low-power license was issued, and an estimate. of 3 months delay from a projected February 1952 date of readiness for operatien Following the above low-power to,thE frojected May 1982 decision date.

discovery of seismic analysis errors, the Commission is in disagreement as to whether the plant was in fact qualified to operate in March 1981 and whether the 6 month estimate of past delay should continue to be included in our estimate.

There is also disagreement as to whether any projection of delay has validity in l

l light of the uncertainties now present and the emerging information abcut seismic design errors. We will present a revised calculation next month

~

when the extent of the necessary modifications is clearer.

s.

3. Summer Unit 1 - The SSER was issued on April 28,13?'. The FE3 was

. issued on tiny 21, 1981. The hearing started on June 22, 1981. The Licensing Board has stated that becauseif the staff's notion for directed certification on the seismicity question and the require-ments laid on the Licensing Board by the Appeal Board as a result of that motion, the hearing on the seismicity matter had to be

.[ -..

~

,~ postponed. - The hearing on this matter, originally scheduled to begin on Septenber 21, ]81,.will probably not start until mid-Fovember

,1981. As a result, the projected decision date for a full-power license has been revised from January 1982 to . March.1982 The projected construction completion date has also been revised by two months from December 1981 to February 1982. Since we now project the issuance of a low-power license in February 1982, imediately

~

following the ASLB decision, the projected delay for this facility ,

has been eliminated.

4. Suscuehanna Unit 1 - The ACRS meeting was held on August 6,1981, and an ACRS letter was received on August 11, 1981. A post-ACRS SSER was issued on September 4,1981, with four open items remaining to be resolved. The hearing on some issues started on October 6,1981. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for June 1982.

Since we can now project the issuance of a low-power license in May 1982, irrnediately following the ASLB decision, the projected delay for this facility has been reduced f rom two months to one month.

---

J

-B-The ACRS S. Waterford Unit 3 ,The SER was issued on July 9,1981.

meeting was held on August 6,1981. Staffing and m .1gement issues l ,

were identified by the ACRS as requiring further review. The EES .

and'the SSER were issued in October 1981. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for November 1982. The estimated construction completion date is October 1982. Since we now

.[.7 '

. project the issuance of a low powet license in October 1982,

/ immediately following the ASLB decision, the projected one-month delay for this facility has been eliminated.

f 6. Comanche Peak Unite The SER was issued in July 1981 with over

' 40 open items. A. pre-ACRS supplement to the SER is projected to O"-

be issued in October 1981, and the ACRS meeting is scheduled for Novemb.er 12, 1981. The FES was issued in September 1981. The hearing on selected issues is now scheduled to begin in December 1981. Th.e full-power hearing schedule remains unchanged and is projected to begin in March 1982. A decision regarding a full-i power license is projected for October 1982. The applicant has

informed the NRC that construction completion cannot be' earlier than June 1982. However, information provided to the press by the

. applicant indicates a construction completion date for the facility 1

after October 1982. Therefore, the delay for this facility has been eliminated.

I

- . - - . . - _ --. . - . _ . . - _ _ _ _ , - - _- .--_-_-____________L________

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS .

The staff is continuing to review the TMI-reisted items for those construction

_ permit (CP) and manufacturing license (ML) applicants who have sub:nitted in-formation regarding the TMI-related matters (Allens Creek Unit 1, Skagit Units 1 and 2, and FNP Units 1-8). The staff issued its SSER for Allens Creek

'f Unit 1.in July 1981 and for FWP Units 1-8 in September.1981. . -

v-The staff review of the TMI-related infenna' tion for Skagit nits 1 and 2 is in progress. Results obthis review are expected to be issued later this month. -

..- 5-The projected licensing schedul'es for pending CP and ML' app 1':ations are given in Table 3.

~

Tables ,

^

- '.1 Licensing Schedules CY 1981 - 1982 Plants

2. Licensing Schedules CY 1983 and Later Plants

3. Licensing Schedules-CP and ML Applications

Attachment:

DOE Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays

-e e

f

• ?

O O

• O

$8 q g ,

e e

e 9

ene

• 6e - .

g. .

T r

,L*,

O e

9 o* ee

.~

m' e

• b e

umpw'* ** e **

=

• e.

9

-. S

• ee 9

O A,, # 6 a

. TABLES e

TE S

4 T.-  %

e

• w W+.

t e

o*

e e

6+

e f

e ee e 9

' L1 1981 - 1982 PLANIS

.- . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

1 A8tt 1 i* 15asid on Le d Unit; List' Cla preer/f%roject:d Comaisilen Sectsfon Date)

'~ - -

Sta

, 55tn . . ' .' * '

Ast8 Come. Appl.

l Staff Staff Itsee ' startof Inftiti Dec. u Constr. -

Est 1stee ACRS Issue Technical Nearing _ Dettston Oate _'I Comp 1.

Oelay issue Technical inpet le SL 55tR '

Plaxt (Months)_ DES _ input to OL_ SCR _ g li Fts _

11/01 12/81 C

• lione None C- C, C C C 0 C

• 12/81 ta5alle 1 '

liene llene 12/81 C

~

C 10/25/81 11/15/81 C C. C 0 02/82 10/81 fGrandCult1 '

C C C 01/82

~

C C C C C San Onstre 2 3 C 62/82 03/82 02/82, ,

C C C I Su===e r 1 - 0 N C C ,

C C None lione 03/02 08/82 t

C 1/26/82 2/12/82 1

0 C 10/30/81 12/01/81 1/0T/82 . ~

03/81 j Netts Bar 1 01/82 N 04/82 05/82 t Cl C.

Olabis Canyon i 9 8 C 'C . C C C 01/82 M 04/82 0$/82 01/82 C C C ,

C C C 1 Olabis Canyon 2 0 Ilone lione 06/82 12/82 C C 4/01/82 5/01/8t C C C _

0 06/82 06/82 ftasalle2

C C C 4/01/82 5/01/82 C C 0 C C '

04/82 j McCulre 2 C' 10/81 M 05/82 06/82 C C C C

j 51srigehanna 'i 1 M C C None None 07/82 12/82 12/31/01 4/30/82 $/28/82 0 C 2/12/82 3/12/82 4/09/82 01/81 WMP-2 02/82 06/82 01/82 C C 10/19/81 '10/30/81 C C C 0 11/82 Zisoner 1 C 6/01/82 1/01/82- 't 01/82 08/82 C C C 0 C 11/82 i $sn On.fre 3 C 03/02 08/82 09/82 C' C C C C C Femt 2 0 02/92. 08/82 99/D2 09/92 C C 11/02/81 11/16/81 C C Shortham 1 0 C 10/82 06/g3 1/15/82 11/20/r1 11/2//81 11/81.N 09/82 Callaway 1 0 C C C 11/12/01 12/01,N 09/C2 10/82

'- *N C 12/GI/81 12/14/81 C 11/12/81

, nche Peak 1 0 M C C 04/82 09/92 10/82 10/t2 1/15/82 11/20/81 11/27/88 0 C C C 11/12/81

, ~t. Lucle 2 05/02 10/82 11/82 II/t,2 2/12/82 12/18/82 12/31/01 i

0 10/23/81 10/30/81 11/06/81 12/10/81 10/ 2

! Fale Verde 1 C ,C N C C CM, 03/82 10/82, 11/82 0 C C  ;

Waterford 3 None None 03/83 06/83

2/01/83 12/01/81 1/07/82 C 1/01/83

.0 C 10/30/81 04/83

, Matts 8ar Z '3/01/83 10/81 N 05/82 04/83*

C C ,C <i01/93 0 C C 11/83 Srsitwahanna 2 ,

05/8! 10/82 11/83 2/12/82 9/01/93 10/01/83 0 10/21/81 10/30/81 11/06/81 12/10/81 12/83 Palo Verde 2 12/81 09/82 12/83 l C 10/01/83 11/01/83 C C C 11/12/0. ,

Cinnanthe Peak 7 0,

.s. .. _ .. .-......

9 -- N[ ..

e', .M: * *,.

?

i .-lif.'

I

~ . .; ,

l Tab' .

. -. i j

. FOOTMOT I

1/ Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential deldy from Emergency Preparedness Review. .

! 2/ The astimated delay for each of these five

• plants has been reduced Estimated by orie month delays t's teflect eatly for Sin

~

issuance of low-power licenses immediately following ASLB decision. ,.

On.ofre and Susquehanna based on difference between ASLB decision (low power) and applicant's l construction completion date.

l 3/

Nin'e month delay based on 6 mos. delay prior to issuance df low power ( 3/81 to 9/81) and ~

projected 3 mos additional delay from date estimated reaf.y for full. power to Committien decision date. Commissioners Bradford and Gilinsky would not assign NRC delay to this '

l .

unit at this time.

! This may lepact the  !

4/ The projected.date for an off-site emergency preparedness . finding was'. not met.

' hearing schedule. '

Full hearing schedu1e rema' ins imchanged, hence, ASLB ,init{al 5f.llearingonlimitedselectedissues. '

decision dates remain unchanged. '

7 6/ OL , construction deficiency hearing only.

i 7/ Appilcant announced a construction completion date af ter 10/82 subsequent to close-out date for this

report. The specific date has not been reported to the NRC. .

A final SSER will be issued ,

8/ Additional ACRS meeting required to discuss management organization. -

f

' subsequently.  !

9/ Seven months are projected in the future; six months have been realized. .Consissioners Gillhsky l and Bradford do not agree that any past NRC delay shc.id bc assigned to Diablo Canyon until it is clearer whether that plant has been qualified to operate since ~ March 1981'..

-n - --- _ _ - - -

e e

, ==. .

so ao es as n.nd w e, e.,

• l= *j co  %.  % N  %  %

O N *E" cc'  % *=-

6t>

eC ea**ca.,  %

e O

N

==

O nts O

N O,

C:

O O

~ ~ -

== N @

O O - ~. O

- EC E O *

% eG O O * .

OY>

O.=

Nl

• "* j

• m m m r*, m m e e e en-cc sts

• ap

• e .ea m m m c3 c3 as c;; c3 cc z

.s u +d CD cc cc  %

sc%

CD CD N N  %  %

c s

O N es*

w se N A CD C *== N *=

• O

==

UCO, *== e ee" + &#5 O O - - e O 'O m O O O O 2

W M 9 C m mm f=5 M ema e v one

.= c N m c'i m do CD as to 2 cD ED

.J ED cD cD 40 eD co  % C  % *  %  %

e == ED o @ c - m +

=== e4  %  %.

-@ v== ch O e C r= O e N f*t e=> ee-O O w O C C W C e==

• • =u= w C C C O **

CW e 2 *== 0 T O m l

• • ==  %

==

ut ta=  ! %l N

Wl %l Ml N

e e e C

O em N ae*

3 o en C N N *N N *N mm M CD cD es cD cD c0 cD *==

e9 cp cD CD  %  %

+a = C cc as  %  %

ED

%  % ====. N  % C  %  %

au" 4D O . ==

O. bb  %  %

O C e== = N ee* f"5 *= 0 -

O O O == == u se se T==

C e O - == 0 0 C * * > es ed ee W9 V) M , b=

C en o e ==

W GA

, C 44

• g ese N N N N f*3 fut at

"* *"= N N N N ED cD c0 cD au* b

, .=eA

' CD to CD cD aur  % M eur

• s C CD CD cc CD e ed W CC, =%  %  % cri O - u3 ===

%W O O  %

m *'mOm O C *'. m  %  %

. 3. c m 3bJ C) *N m O  % em m ut e en m N **1 n  %  %  %  %=.  % att O kO

. en W1  %  %  %  %

@ @ EPn e== O e== (** C e=* O- C6 ed O ** N 4#1 > f') e= c= m

+ ed CEl ,

b, M tJ u 6ma "O &4 N M e")

M J N N N N N C vi 47 e= O N N ED 8) CD ED er e to b se cD cc CD to cc ED

%  %  % 44'  % M fa cD sn M' es  %  %  %  %  % == cD c2 cD k g uO  %

O nts ED C  % e,s-

=  % ===.  %

e- 9 **=*d N .o= N= C - O e C' N 84* es Q X C h C w .O

-. a=

• O ai h-quC 19  % g.N N  % *= O O O ED

.J n=*

• h 4 e3 N . ht) c @ no Ch y= ,=

• bet k se u 5 Lr ,==

+ch. et ** en Q.

g Q M >= ** C C ea N N N N N f*3 -

bK

• A1d i N N N N C ED CD h .* O

%' cD CD CD C C C CD

%  % m  % C ==

N *%  %  %  % N f"9 4 et" W Lt1 Lfl Ltt cD 8"p cD h ed W Lt1 W @ Lft O  % C ED c e

W I O O O O O O  %  %  %  % em 2M *= O  %  %  %  %  %  % e==

C3 m 40 e- ==

%  %  % N O P== *O cPt O P E 2 == e ainJ f"1 %D etr P=m f== C = w e= O e ===

ag; Ch en 6 r= *d

== ,

Ch.

• e= en &

m ac; M e>Q CD e N N N N N M an'* es= =se Ch J N N N N C C C C m CD M C C ** O a= C C O CD CD CD

%  %  %  %  % C  %

CD

• % *=n. C cJ o

%  % *==. LD  % P==

GA == *d

% em LO O &#1 CD N O On C =

>= == th &#1 Pa= Pa=

O *= O. O O  % O O O . ed 3 Qm cE' O O O

e cD o e en de O ed  %

Ltt t=) @ no Ch

• O c. to =

RE N m w &

en m e= u es eo N N N N e M m de en .==

"C N N N N N C cD c3 C m CD cD C C S C c0 c3 C cD

%  %  % =% c3  % cD

%  % o t'h*U

,EJ  % *% w  %

=

u i, es l *%  %

N f==

0 @ 4D er *==

O e O C N N === C e3

• • ==.C C D CC tt)

O O - C O O  % c=  % O O -

== b u en b.J O  %  %  %  %  %  %

Pa=

===: cg e v)  %  %

m C O cPe 2 "O e en w* me i

em EE" N hti e== *U ed 6.,J i M , e & e.m.

f*5 ed .C .C

.=J N N N N N u ed ed

.== N N N C C C C m m es C

{ p Q C C C c3 C  %  % et N M a= gT*

e CD ED EE" 40 cc C b uO  % N @ Ch qu' N %D  %  %  % h a estm Ltt A *== 0 O O O **== 0 - el e UC h == ed O O *= 0 C  %  % O  % N C==

• C' O %e%  %  %  %  %

es" *= 4D O == 6. f'i a= == b u4ea  %

• e' P'= Ch (D to W D N m r* ee" *8 > *8 or a esa C 60 C to p= c C u os e==>

j

• • 1 es u N N N N ea - ei N e= N N cD a2 C 88 *== d 5 em ED cD sD 4D cD c0

%  % M  % m N e**

o at C e CD  %  % .%  %  %

cc -O 4D so CD es

%  % sti sts sti N  %  % T n= === ea n#5 sts its tri O O  % e m ett att O O O O O N  % t#5 O -

na 6.J C O  %  %  %  %

et* O - O sa ** SJ eO -=  %  %  %.  %

N nts P== ntt N O ed en

.= w - N e C be*

• == ,

e

,=

O ,e= at es C&C>

c h we

- T e4 1 *WW en O O O O O O 3 - ** .CN h2 O O O .O C, u e et -

ed ss ** O.O O .

e, se *:

l en e C . O **C bsoc" m r n.J eJ o CoC

• O 'lr. ==*

o u o===

\ == ==

== a= we en an= e e en ,M e"%

= em C e= eJ .= == == == se T T =#

.ait N es. C p= =* em e .= co > ==

e= ca ca ,mt C - es o >= a C es o e o a w t as w T e O C == ca ==

ed' C 6= -

C .p o as a= b 9 W :"= W Z N' C O O C h e N b h-a=

de a= e3 . -

e ed e eJ JD n= e l

~

H C h O b a=

"U r9 > "e ~

'U p O

e c>

5

'i['IC.5;*~

• I,

-  ?

.)*. .- 3 s.

. . ,:. ,,,s . . '

• '3 c . t. ' . ,

. . . . . [. . . , '. ,

',' 91VilllHI 0F LICth5fMG 10/15/81_

STATUS AND PR&lECit0 1ARCCT SCNEDULES jlA8tt3 TOR PENDlHG CON 51RUC110N PEIMit APPLICAil0015 .~

1 l

. 55tR (IMI Issuest_ 55ER (Non-TMI Issues) j A5tB Consal issue . ACR$ Start of Initial

• Decir staff Technical issue 5teff echalcal Meeting Hearing _ Dectslen Det Issue issue 55th lie to DL _ ,55tR _

IES _ input to DL

! Plant Oti _ ,2/02 7/82 0/t C . C- 10/01 C C C* ,,

fNp I.8 C '

C $/02 8/82 9/I C. 10/15/91' \0/30/01 C C C - 1/83 2/1 i

!A11essCreek1 ' 2/02 3/02. 2/02'3/-

8/42 11/81 12/81 C C -

. 4/s) 5/

I Black Ica 1 1 2 7/s2 11/e2 J

C 10/a1 ' 4/s2 , s/s2 Stagtt/nante're 1 4 2 3/s2 y e/s2 y N/5 4/ N/:

• N/5 N/I N/S 12/01/01 4/

C N/5 N/5 C '

fFebbloSprings182 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 N/:

N/52f N/5 2f fr:rkins1,2,3 5 C C Aprilcants faditated in September 1980 As a result of fleid emplorattens conducted by if5GS, the seismic design of the facility auss'. be re-esselped. Amended ER and F%

l 1/ that the proposed facility is to be relocated to the Hanford reservation.

• the alternate sith he, ring for the -

2/ Sy letter dated 3/12/01, the appilcent recomunended that the NRC not devote any researces beyond seppert for nest two years.

I I

ls anticipated that 1MI Issues only will be discussed at the ACR5 seeting. i h hearing J/

f 4,' Ih response to a 4/28/01 board order, However, the the e,3pilcant applicant has not stated Indicated (5/14/81).

.ehen t en Interest in pursuing the revldw with re at thlt .tlee for this facility.

i ce environmental and site sultability issues. review, particularly en 1Mi-related issues, therefore, a Commission decisten date la .

O t 9 e

O

s. .

ATTACHMENT DOE Estimates of Costs Due

+o Licensing Delays Hote: The recent change to the estimated delays for.Diablo Canyon 1, Comanche Peak 1, San Onofre 2, Susquehanna 1. Sumer 1 and Waterford 3 are not reflected in the attached DOE estimates. The estiraated delays used by DOE are calculated from the applicant's construction i congleti'on date to the Comission's decision date. The DOE estimates t

exclude delays from prior months for completed plants.

1

- - . o . ..

I i

t -

{

l

OPERATING LICEHSES FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS

>- s.

'Pfepared by Division 'of Utility Systems and Emergency Communications U.S. Department of Energy ,

October 20, 1981 Thi_s report .is the seventh in a . monthly series nf estimates of the costs of delay in the issuance? cf operating lice es of the . Nuclear l

Ragulatory Commissi~on'(NRC). This wonth's report takes account of changes in the estimated length of delays and continues to provide '

Dcpartment of .Inergy (DOE) estimates of the costs of de?ay, in '

codition to cost estimat.es suppli.ed ,by, utilities.- -

' DbE _will .not be providing estimates',' as'. originally. indicated, f or plant ~s -delayed due to scheduling problems in approval 'of requir.ed cr6ergency preparedness' plans. Timely approval of these emergency

.. preparedness plans is now expected.

~

. Summary cf Resu'lts - -

'.J.. . . . . . '

.,s..

j TKe' meist' recently. )rojecte'd" dates of issuance of operating licenses "fdr new . units would result in' a ' loss 'of 20~ months of rqactor opera-tion bas ~ed on the utilities' projected dates of comp;etion for 6 units. * .(This does not int:1ude the three additiot.::.1 mcnth'. of loss of operation projected for the undamaged TMI 1 unit. ) Last conth's ostimate was.22 months.

e estimated cost of these delays, excluding TMI 1, is $522 million, j based on data obtained frein the utilities in October, or 5448 million,

- based on independent DOE estimates. A comparison with last month's report follows: .

Excludine M -1 Includme M-1 Oct 1961 Sept 1931 Oct 1931 Sept 1981 Estimtte Estinate chance Estinnte Estirate chance Units Delayed ,6 7 -1 7 8 -1 20 22 -2 23 24 -1

~

M:xt.hs of

Operaticn Lost

'Itrtal Ccst of Delays (SM4)

. Based on 522 5'4 8 -62 564 612 -48

- Utility Data 448 502 -54 493 530 -40

- DOE Analyses i

i Changes are due mainly to delay in construction schodules and l

slippage in operating license is.suance.

I

- _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ - . . _ . .._ - .=_- - ..-.- -- - _ . _ - - _ - -

s.

4 . j Leneth of Delav . ,

i ne length of the delay--the number of icst months of reactor operation-is estimated in Table 1. . Tor units st.ill under construction, the delay is the interval between the utilities' projacted date 'of completion, -(column. 4 ) and the NRC's projected date of issuance of operating license (column 3). Fo. units already com-plated, the delay is based on the period from and including october

• 1981 through the projected month of. issuance of an operating license.

~

i

.Last month's estiste of the" licensing dates are shown in, column 2.

A met change of 2 months (excluding TMI 1) hasThe occurred in .the estimated total length of delay (column 5). change is due to:

i. , ,6 Delay in construction for Diablo Canyon 2 which has resulted in

."2,.:'

• the unit no longer being impacted(-4 months).  ;

+ .y ,,

^

Delay in issuance of an operating license for Diablo Canyon 1 o

(+3 months).

'o omission of costs incurred in Sept' ember 1981 (sis.ce past co.sts are not i,ncluded) fer Diablo Canyon 1 (-1 month)'.

]

Costs of the Delay .,,

e cost of a delay in issuing an operating license after a plant l

l s physically complete is equal to: ,

o The total costs'the entire utility system (or systems, if the unit.is jointly owned) would incur to satisfy its cust'emers' energy requirement, based on the delayed '

' licensing schedule, minus ,

! o The total costs of satisfying the same energy requirement if the' license had been issued when the plant was complete.

I This cost differential is affected only by cost elements that i change as a result of the delay--for example, fuel,Itpurchased is noj affected power, maintenance, and other special expenses.

by anticipated monthly capital carrying charges or by any other costs that would be incurred with or. without the delay.

The estimated costs of delay are summari=.ed in Table 2, based I on two independent sources: ,

o one set of estimates (columns 1 through 4) was based on data obtained from the owners of the units; and i.

l l

l

- s.

A second set of estimates (columns 5 through 8) was o

' developed independently by DOE staff-based on available. load data on generating resources, pooling arrangements, The projections, capacity factors, and fuel prices. The key analysis method was. summarized in the May report.

numerical assumptions are presented in Table 3.

- Coth sets: of estimates used the same length-of-o..1ay information -

~

(from Table 1, column 5) . i  :.

' - .- . :. - - - : ~ . .. . .-

Capacity charges were not taken"ltito consideration in the DOI

~

1. 'linalyses Most of the utilities indicated that the rep 16eement i hi

_T-power for' the delayed nuclear ' unit's pould' be generated with n t e r i

own. systems. It is possible that,, in some cases, there would be a capacity charge J for purchased power, buti . DOE has no current basis .

fo.r estimating its cost. - - . i. .

i .

C;;. DOE'.s ' a ssump' tion's genera 11yJresulted in '. lower . estimates forcolumm 5 ) tha'n 4 ,.the m6nthly cost of replacement powgr (Table 2,In addition,:a few' i - ' those provided by the utilities (column.1).

~

utilities claimed special additional costs associated wi'th the DOE did,.not atterept tn _ estimate del',ay2(footnoted in column 1). - - -

! such costar.. -

! * -,.. a . .

D

~

.c;

! s .

- ~ .

l .

i l

L -

I h

l

' a. ,

I I.

O I

_--..,e-.my_,-...--.._~,,,,__,_._-g.- , . , _ _ _ , _ - _ . . _ . . - ,-_r-_._-___..-_._.m,,. _ .-_ . . - - _ - - . . _ _ _ _ _m. --_____

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

e e 4 4 4 g 9 E er 9 e 6 6

• • er en en er 6 e e e e e et *e , o e em to am 4 >  % 6 4 g,. y eg

• to w am 6 e W 6 6 de es 4 6 m e to ** E S S S S er e ed a me g g

$ F W W 6 6 6 8 e 4=

e p ==

e W W e M e e6 e e, e an

• = D d E .C C se 8e efB B 6 e e 4 w me me e# e. ne of = === tus he he & E> (, m g e, y 44

, asS em

, =D se ** == me he es e

em 9 e, age e e

& e 9 e t 9 ahe 4 ee == q, en ey

• • en 44 m WD to to & an e, i

et **

% 9 W ** me a= e ==

& art e s .e Fr. . .m

. ne e e e e e ao se o e e, en se o e

• e t> .R es 3 e,

• 8"o U U O O M e 3 ed e ap

&.s'8 er t

• 4 8 8 e a sus ese aan a g as se De Ele 'im* 8* se se sus aus ame e e 3 e en te es W ane af me e ** e ="

• O aus O e a, - e p u S

e - t) "O *O G

e O e g W e.

a 8 *e e D *.g g e e

• ** C es 3 e == a e o one

• e g ee = =e .e.

t e OC = es to

.=

• == es e aus e w e es === C te me s == =* O 4 *e  % %j eri e == .

E 1 de e her ao

=e ami e er ce . eel O M e =-

e e=

e w

o. y e es y

.e e .A ** 4 e ens j N e e an == a

. en g toe ,ee

...a e '**

o A me 1 A me= e g g ,

4 1h e=i e, gp og g a ee es amm8 e

ad .c ee e ese ,R an.

v4 e e er er g h e aus ee & D > y e se == es ese b .

48 e p and e

W g e b ft

a. E. O en e Da W eur * . . * >* 1 E ase to sus *3 ea e en

.R se 0 $ km .

e ene e & U

• • 14 OC = ea se oss g

• • ** he . e , s. .

e ese. 9 ene & e e e e ,

1*

48et9 " 4. e **

W

=. "

6

• e t= W GC 4 .&

4 w e et et me se  %

• o e die e# ==

"M * $e e6

• %l

@ **nm9mI , e em og.

& y g k

=4= ate *

• e es O ==* Wl . .

e

,p ak 2 e as ,a

' y Se O * ** e se.

e == a. &3 mi a e em N e=s .ed ett ene -

't se e m.

-.E See *.

ed W & .De A &W as G e e**=. e %e  %

<a

• ** * *e e9 C R.

e g W t

ey y

O P* **

% ==.

5 f es b *W e a8 her  %

• en

'M O ' et et O e ,

g .r@ [, g, g, que

'S as f *=sl . en

.eme en a e se a ew .I ne M

s. .

e .as ,e e, es =a

== e 24 M ed o. M == 9 WG we e y

i n .ee O C se ===

de e*

g ell we e B O se e

aus -e #

4.) O W M

8%

- .=

So ue't e

e e

J .e. G e

> b. .N .

, o  %

• e.

w e ., - u . a,.e, e u s

. . c a ~~,, o

e. . .k u.

e 3: I .e N;~ ~

'l t=

uw

.o .

t .%?. = = --.o e = .

. % J** Uo .e,s e.

W . & ,.

. e %

- : . o. f7) .. g "et M me A

e4 S S *=*

• U ami **

• s N

NI.N N- *N

. O e.j .= N.o* N

o. .t e aus es e e e,,

ei, s.

er as.

• hm

3. C e

e se e

% .O ' N g S e & he N g as f *E 9 e e as == W W

• == *==

e e e e e

• 'e6 ams &>

> en g g e g

4

.== . = = . = e# 3 E W e)

U e a= .A ws' O e.N e ge ne , g *Mse= = . "'3 O Eg .s ===

• er

> en se . e em

& Ve g 3 89 & *9 Ed 4 e es e - e O e & C e"9 e* e ** . . '*

• e 'ef

• aC 9, 0 6m e 9 as W *1 e e > em .E @ 3 b b t. WQ

• g .C W aE e ea

• Q he t) 3. e e e 5 *v en ***"m a e O o G eo

• e C OS g ==8 e & sE E ==

E *

.E *W 3 ** C

• D= e & O O E g num ** en 3 L to C& @

= en me e e

• • 3 *g e4 3 *t e

@ e, Dme .ee 3 h e C, e e, g h em e WB 4 . . 3 m y

& en e9 e =&

D tus y em e W g & == h to

• • en C&W e % h e ,g, O h m g

A 4- w.

E e b e e ej b e Ow g 6e 3 & m e te e d

• g a & e === em W

• We he e == C& D C

E 9 C N N N N N S

N e e e 0 e ==ausw e 4 o eto h *=s to e ==

• e E S S es e S a(' @

e 8J4.W D *N  %  %  %  %  % o  % C D ,g eE en It

==

et F w a 'e=, W

.O.

N N es e me e

• O.

. , .C . .. g en . .

.a se W .e e

e .$ o . .=a .

e v.

.,- e e w .A e se me es se == &. C E O h S,. e u os E O e, me se a

me C == $ C

a. = e, e- * &

E a. =O s. to l

i e S. et e es y == E E es e == W e C Q o et C .E 3 g eq W .g 8

e g == g gg g ea es ag es 9=,,, es se e g me me e e e C3 to 9 t=

et e = te e es & e, ee O 3

.se a C C e e C

ei S. e as y se u e e e

OO e b == % C o

e = p C ,e,,, ess en.

6 O t m0 **6 **

e et E w en g == 3 == and a

>= en C U e u . me e.

e 9e9 es O S es 80 g, 8 8. EL 9

=e smal

@ == en *=

• ew & ed .2 u 3 t== O tr O O M e o eu. e ed eeen eeg3yO e e ed eene=e C e S O e86 e'b ee e E Me erg O es e P. e e e> en o

4. *msTus' em e .Oe ens o e == e ens g ge g ase g g sum as 5 e g& e8 9.

e e' O 68 4 ' en as e ek e Q an ese se sua se ed C es 9 e 3 d e

e e >. e e e en Cghe en eoe mE 3E ts & en >g og e

w ee 99e es e ge"ed en W 'S e

• s==

>= se e On S se  % em8 =e ed e me e W es 8'88 8 Gd ad me e to

&@ o aun =e eum e e 8'8 ed ep gW ge ef y g es es 3 Ce he es W

e39 == 9 en 4 E e *{w " E 1

e a= 9 De S gg E ef W CenW **e' p 3 ==

W er e

& a e sun s== p 6 C D e bm 9 e SeF i# W e,

f g 9 me *8 at *g e e e **9 ** as ES tw E ed D 6 e J =e *9 e W e .E .C t# w "e"r f ee V U e4 e en em e

>= es ed e C

D *e 6 e mm g 8e

@ to to 9% w ea es bn 9 ** g4b ed . en e . se es se es 4e C as W em aus 3 as e me T $ e e'8 ** e8 We W muf C C e ed S E

'g g one  % e t == e> 9e ens b eW # =C *

.c e = w4 3 e=en a e # ** ** 8 ed S s 8 8 e O N D& en qw e e m e et e e se f

a. g g g W Da h to ev &#

• g g to se 3.n=en e e == a g =*E S a t e e. er e e sua e 6

• ea' s Q an es e, a > b es em .D aus, to O S

,g ,g g e O O ,C e

aus te e, es & O .2 6 E6 6. & C.' $= ="E""

e & O em 3 to 88 W v De 4 $e km

$ C es Gr ee 9' ** S **  %

e E e me  %% hun  %

Wl en G , p e E

>=

O th se j Nj M) er l r "" O C yn og yp 3

==

g .- .s - #

• e i '

Cislatencf.dtilItOy:leteMed endy Cnementestleni . .

TAtl.E 3

• J W.S. liepertme:t Cf. Energy j

, isctaber 2o.19el .

. ESTIMATED COSTS OF (IPERAf tlIC LICElest DELAYS FOR IlWCLRAR)llitt .

e

! Ce&le sesed en IsideDendent 00s Anstrete .

Coets sesed on Company note Replacement O 's C4petity Eeplacement Totalb peplacement O Cog.ecity Replacement , Tetel Power Ceote test

. raver Conte _ Cost Peeer Coete [ deter U48tgg rever Cests Factor __

6P4teent- -c /hwli-- -$1M-

--c/hwh-- -$tel- -$les/Montle- (e)

-$tm/ Month -Percent-(4) (5) (4) (r)

(1) (2) (3) 14.5 8I 60. 2.9 50 TG 3.2 74 1R.5 5.5 200 Cesenache Feek 1 .26.0 40 Dtible Canyon el 26.[ ~

65 5.3 214 4.1 118 70 6.5 144 '29.6 60 sui Onofre 2 36.0 -# 2.2 9 13 8.5 66 12.7 65 3.0 3.9 8 36 sweswr 1 18.1 40 65 5.8 30 sxquehenne 1 25.0 3.8' _ l 9, 75 4.4 y 'l9.1 &O ,

27.4 0

...... ................................... 448 v2terford 3 Total (new enite) ............................................... 322 42 14.0

)O 3.5 42 14.0 70 3.6 TMl 1 Tetet(includingTMli)........................................... 564 . .......................................... 490 4

Il Cast of replacement power minee feet and operating coste of nuclear (Coluimiunite.

I I Colvent i ? Unit'espeelty ? 220 Iseers/ month).

I/ Osplocement power costo divided by tilowett-howre replaced.3/ Derived by'aultiplytag monthly teplacement epower co l/ Cast of twel for 1981 estimated by utility.

5/ Does not include other ebnermet coste of $15.25 million per month, il Does not leclode other ebnerassi comte of $2.F seilllen rer month. Estimeteo de siet includt. tapetjty ehertes Islifelt 7/ Cost et replacement power minee aveleer fuel comte of 6 mttle/hwk. ,

may be lacwered if power le perchased from other ersteme.

• 5).

el Meet of deley occere la 19821 therefore. fuel coste are treeed on 1982 eettentes.9/ Ikrived by miettlplytag mo III 18velear fuel cost of le mille /kwh are weed in thle enleviation.

'ii/ Ownetehty of initte ,

Delles Power & Lisht - 18 1/J1

~ Tesee Electrie Service Co. - 35 3/6Il Tenne Fever and Light - 31 if.32Il 4/SIl Ten-Le Electric Coop. of Tedes'- 4 I/31 I

Comenche reek laTesee Insalcitet power Agency - 6 I/511 arenes Electric re.-r Coop ~

Diebte Cenyon le Feelfte Coe and Electric Co. - 1001.sen Diese ces and Electric - 20!! City et Riverelde - 1.f918 City of Anelwim - 1.642.

Seethern cellforsite relleen - 76.5521' San onofre 2 Seegeehenne it pennsyleente Power end Light - 90Il Allegheny Electric Cooperative .- 101.

• 3e teeteteneEdleon veterfordMetropoliteit Power and Lly.ht - 100I. . f5I. .

THI la - 3021 Jereer Central Power and Light - 2511 Penn.yleseld kloctrie Co. - .

F

s. .

b g . ,

a.

~ .

J. .

~

1

~ .

.l. ,

-i ;

g MJ 3

-o

~

~

. .- ., E ..,. .m . M. M

.m .

-- - . R. .

y=

,.. . .. 2 . - .- -M - --

3 t- .. . =

. Tjf .3 - -

4*8* 8* ~

. ~E ' I' f 4 g e

.s '

t' h.

35-u 4 3 -

o 6 t "t # ' " " " " " "

1, .  %  %.

w ni col e. a

.I O .e se e w . m. .a.,

• In. 4. 3

m. m. es. e. as. .i. e .. .

. a. e . m. .i 4 g 8 v.

e g m*ea e

.s e n m

= .e e

. e =. .- .= =. ..

3. . u ou o ..u 6 . u.

k .  !*

. g - e

- E.

1 8t M e .

. 2 - *

~ .

4. b K

• b E

M MM M MM MM M MM

. .IW*

5 .t m" E e.

.m.. . E.-.E= . .m . .

5 -

E u au o aou en

> .s o.a e 6a ..c.

> V an &

tw*%

a.

8 ~., .

.a o .

.R

. n .

i . .

.t . ..

R u e t. e. W D . 7 -8 w

.a g e. J. t y a.

E Q 9 as d WB 4.

.* 9 .

=. &. r . e

- a p a E, 5 .a m v. se .,-l wt e

N 5

.C i >

.. - . - - o

,7..

penc 4 Jg ,

UNITED STATES . .

E o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.{ i I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

., November 27, 1981 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chainnan Subcomittee on' Energy and Water Development Comittee on Appropriations .

United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515.

i

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This monthly status report is .in respohse to the direction given in House Report 96-1093. Enclosed is our thirteenth report covering the period from October 15, 1981 to November 15, 1981. This thirteenth report discusses the actions that were taken during'Yhis period on ope' rating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities. -

On November 19. 1981, the' Comission suspended Pacific Gas & Electric Company's (PG&E) license to load fuel and operate Diablo Canyon Unit 1 at power levels up to 5% of full power, and specified programs that must be satisfactorily completed before license suspe.nsion will be lifted. The license suspensien was based upon recent NRC inspections that identified a number of serious quality assurance program weaknesses _ related both to the errors found in the Unit 1 seismic design and to the implementation of applicable criteria of Appendix B of 10 CFR 50.

~ Several licensing review documents were issued during the repor':ing period.

i These include two Draft Environmental Statements, a Safety Evaluation Report and a supplement tp a Safety Evaluation Report. In addition, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) completed its review and issued favorable letters for three plants. ,

Three changes to applicants' construction completion dates are included in this l month's report. The plant's involved are Grand Gulf Unit 1 (from December 1981, i

to February 1982), Comanche Peak Unit 1 (from June 1982 to June 1983), and San i

Onofre Unit 2 (from October 1981 to December 1981). Of the three plants, only San Onofre Unit 2 was reported last month as a potentially delayed facility.

As a result of the revised construction schedule for San Onofre Unit 2 and since a decision on a low-power' license is now projected for December 1981, the '

projected three-month delay for this facility has been eliminated. However, the facility will not have a sufficient number of licensed operatiors to permit fuel loading before January 1982.

Sincerely, l ,

i c , .

Nunzio J., aliadino

Enclosure:

) NRC Monthly Status Report to Congress .

l

. cc: The Honorable John T. Myers Q;+1 M 00 Wh .2 .: ,

L.____ _ _ ___. . - .. _

_z_. - -

1 s

l NRC MONTHLY STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS This is the thirteenth monthly s'tatus report to Congress in response to the-direction given in House Report 96-1093. This report provides a dis-cussion of the major' actions that were taken on operating reactors and on' licensing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between October 15. 1981 and November 15. 1981. , .

OPERATING REACTORS Therinal Shock To Reactor Pressure Yessels During the last month, we have received the ihitial (60-day) responses to -

letters sent to the licensees of .eight plants on August 21. 1981 requesting information to enable the staff to assess what actions should be taken to resolve this issue. The eight plants (Ft. Calhoun. Robinson Unit 2. San Onofre Unit 1. Maine Yankee. Oconee Unit 1. Turkey Point Unit 4. Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and Three Mile Island Unit 1) were selected on the basis of their vessel irradia- **

" tion history and their plant system characteristics The licensees provided . .

informatio.n to assess current reactor ve.ssel material toughness and to evaluate operating procedures and training relating to the thernal shock issue. The staff is currently evaluating these responses., Following receipt of the additional (150-day) responses, the staff will complete its review of,this matter.

.- THI Unit 1 Restart By Order dated Septemb'er 11. 1981 the Licensing Board reopened the hearing record oh the TMI Unit 1 restart proceedings to obtain evidence on allegations of cheating offenses on NRC operator licensing exams. The Board specifi

• cally reserved the right to modify its conclusions presented in the .

August 27. 1981 partial initial, decision on manageme.nt issues. The Board

~

-2 .

has' appointed a Special Master to preside over the reopened hearing which began evidenti,ary sess, ions on November 10. 1981. It is expected that the record on this matter will remain open for several weeks, with a Board i ,

supplemental initial decision projected for March 1982. T,he Board initial decision on the' other major areas of the pgeeeding, i.e. design and modifi- ,

cation issues and emergency planning issues. is projected for the first part of December.1981. The Comission has not determined whether restart of TMI Unit 1 will be considered prior to a decision on the cheating allegations.

l OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS 1- . .

f ,,

• Licensing Schedules l

i Duiing the past month, the emphasis on licensing activities continued to be focused on operating license applications. During this period, the staff issued the following: (1) Draft Environmental Statements (DES) for Palo Verde Units 1 2 and 3 and Byron Units 1 and 2; (2) a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for Palo

. Verde Units 1. 2 and 3; and (3) a Supplement to th'eSER (SSER) for Zimer Unit 1.

In addition. ACRS meetings Sere completid and favorable ACRS letters were re-ceived for St. Lucie Unit 2. Callaway Unit 1 and Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2.

i .- In previous reports, the licensing schedules for CY 1981-1982 plants and for CY 1983 plants and beyond were presented in two separate tables. Starting this l month, the two tables have been merged into one. Therefore, the present licensing schedules for all plants'with pen' ding OL applications are given in Table 1.

I g

. .. t.. *

.3

, Additional units at the same site with proNeted construction completion in

• CY 1982 and 1983 are included in Table 1. The schedules shown for CY 1983 plants and beyond are based'on standard assumptions for review and hearing times, except for those plants that are expected to be heavily contested (Seabrook Unit 1 and Midland Unit 2). For those plants. the projected schedules allow for a 13-month (rather than the typical 11-month) hearing phase from .

issuance of he SSER to Comission decision date on a full-power license. ,

The staff review process for those cases has been accelerated to compensate for the additional, time allotted for the hearing process.

The estimated regulatory delays and the target dates for Comission decision ,

shown in Table 1 do not reflect a.ny potential impact from the schedules for FEMA findings on off-site emergency preparedness. Any additional potential ~

delays, based on the staff's analysis of the schedules for the FEMA findings, are included in a monthly report to the Senate Subcomittee on Nuclear Regula-tion which is transmitted jointly by the NRC and FEMA. -

During the past month, the applicant for Grand Gulf Unit 1 announced a slip in construction..

completion from December '1981 to February 1982. Grand Gulf

~

Unit 1 has never had a projected delay. In addition, the applicant for San Onofre Unit 2 has revised its construction completion date from October 1981 to December 198i. This reduces the projected regulatory delay from three months

.. to'one month. However, since a decision on a low-power license is now projected

, for December 1981 San' Onofre Unit 2 is no longer considered a potentially delayed facility. In last month's report, we stated that the ~ applicant for Comanche Peak Unit 1 had announced a revised construction completion date -

which -was b'eyond the projected Comission decision date of October 1982. .,

The applicant subsequently stated that the new completion date is. June 1983.

. -4 '

Cost Esti=te:i' The NRC;is obtaining cost estimates associated with the' licensing delays

- from the Departinent of Energy on a monthly basis. Their latest estimates are set forth in Attachment 1.

i PLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF. DELAYED PLANTS The following is a discussion of the status of the potentially delayed facilities. ',

1. San Onofre Unit 2 - On June 3.1981. FEMA issued an interim finding regarding the San Onofre emergency preparedness drill which.was performed on May 13.1981. The applicant. has completed those corrective actions identi-fied in the FEMA interim, finding and has informed FEMA of the actions taken. ' .

The hearing on a full-power license started on June,22.1981, and testimony '

on all issues has been completed. The hearing record is now closed except for additional information and findings to be provided by FEMA on emergency preparedness later this month. The applicant has filed.a motiion with the

• 9 .

Licensing Board for consideration of a decision regarding a low-power license.

l

t.. .

- 5-The applicant had been projecting an October 1981 date for construction completion; however, construction was not complete at that time. The applicant has informed us that it has modified its schedule for completion

~ so that the plant would be rea# for fuel loading in December 1981 at the time it anticipates that the Board will issue an initial decision. A.*

Board inktial decision on a low-power license is proj.ected for December 1981.

Therefore. the projected three-month regulatory delay for this facility has been eliminated.

During this reporting period, the results".of the Senior Reactor Operator '

(SRO) examinations for San Onofre Unit 2 indicate that 17 of 18 candidates failed the written exam. Five SROs are required for fuel loading and ten SR0s are required for initial criticality and low-power testing. 10 CFR Part 55.12 requires that two months elapse from the date of denial (in this

~

case. November 1981) before an SRO candidate can retake the exam. As a result, it appears that the utility will not have a qualified operating staff.to be rea@ to load fuel before, January 1982.

2. Diablo' Canyon Un t 1 - A Comission Order permitting issuance of.a icw-jower license was issued on September 21. 1981, and the license '

was issued on September 22, 1981. A Board order on ful'l- -

power contentions postponed a ruling on equipment qualification

issues until the applicant's submittal and the staff's review of

~

this' issue'were complete and other parties have had an opportunity a

G

~

.3.., y , , , ,-.g s n ._,,_.7_ . _ . . _ . . _ _

-6'-

• to review'the staff SSER. The SSER on this matter was issued in early October 1981. In addition the Comission directed that two additional contentions be admitted to the full-power p'roceeding.

Issuance of the SSER on emergency preparedness is projected for later -

this month, and the full-power hearing is projected to start in January ,

1982. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for May 1982. .

In late September 1981. in the course of bsponding to a special NRC request for information, an error in the seismic design of equipment and t

piping in the containment annulus of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 was' detected by PG&E and reported"to the NRC. PG&E initiated a reanalysis of portions of the seismic design of the facility. As a result, a number of different additional errors were found. Based upon information supplied by PG&E ,

and URS/ John A. B.lume and Associates, the NRC staff identified serious

! weaknesses in PG&E's quality assuran'ce program. - -

The information indicates that contrary to statements made in PG&E's

~

operating license application, certain structures, systems, and com-ponents important to safety at the plant may not be properly designed

.. to withstand the effects of earthquakes, and further indicates that violations of HRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50. Appendix'B. have occurred.

i j Had this information.been known to the Comission prior to September 22 I

1981. the license wo'ld u not h' ave been issued until the questions raised had been resolved.

e e

, Accordingly, on November 19. 1981, the Comission suspended PG&E's license to load fuel and conduct tests at up to 5". of rated power pending satis-factory completion of the actions specified by the Comission.

In past reports. a construction completion date of March 1981 has been

- used to calculate delay for the unit. Table 1 previously estimated a regulatory delay.. includ'ing the six-month period from March 1981 to September 1981 (l construction completion to issuance of the low-power

~

license). -

The Comission has concluded that the license would not have been issued . . .

had the design ~ errors been known at the time the Comission issued the i .

license. The issues raised were not part of the hearing process. They were errors on the part of the licensee. .

l

3. Sumer Unit 1 - The SSER was issued on April 28. 1981. The FES was

~

issued on May 21, 1981. The hearing started on June 22. 1981. The -

~

hearing on the seismic matter, originally scheduled to begin on .

~

September 21, 1981, and reschedul.ed.for December 14.1981 has now

b'een rescheduled to begin in mid-January 1982 at the joint request of the applicant and the staff becau'se of the new seismic infoFmation.

{ As a result. the projected decision date for a full-power license ha.s

,. been delayed from March to May 1982 based on a revised projected date of Apri) 1982 for a Board initial decision. The projected con-struction completion date for the facility is the end of February 1982.

Since we can project the issuance of a low-power license in April 1982 imediately following the ASLB initial decision, a two-month delay is .,

~

projected for this facil ty.. -

,-,.--,.,..,-n---... n--n ----,,-renn ,------l.---,------ - - - . - -- - , . . - - - - - - - n - - -

- - ~ --

4. Susquehanna Unit 1 - The ACRS meeting was held on August 6.1981. and an ACRS le'tter was' received on August 11. 1981. A post-ACRS SSER'was issued on September 4.1981. The hearing started on October 6.1981 and'was completed on October 23. 1981 approximately t'wo months sooner than previously projected. A Board initial decision regarding a full-power

license is now prbjected for April 1982, and the Comission decision for May 1982. The projected construction completion date for the facility I

i is April 1982. Since we can project the issuance of a low-power license immediately following the Board initial decision. the one-month pttjected regulatory delay for this facility has been eliminated.

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS

~

The staff is continuing to review the TMI-related items for those construction permit (CP) and manufacturing license (ML) applicants who have submitted in- .

formation regarding the TMI-related matters (Allens Creek Unit ,1. _ Skagit e a -

Units 1 and 2. Black Fox Units 1 and 2. and FNP Units 1,-8). The staff issued ,

its SSER for Allens Creek Unit 1 in July 1981, for FNP Units 1-8 in September 1981. and' for Skagit Units 1 and 2 in October 1981.

The staff review of the THI-related information for Black Fox Units 1 and 2 is in progress. The projected licensing schedules for pending CP and ML -

applications are given in Table 2.

y -. . , , - . - _ - -

,----, , - - - , , , , - , w----. - , . . -

y ,_,,c--,--..~,---w---rw-

-9 .

Tables.

1. Licensing Schedules for Pending OL Applications

2. Licensing Scheddles for Pending CF and ML Applications

Attachment:

DOE Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays ,.

aidF e

i e  !

e

~

O

~

e

• q l

e e .

e 9

• • 4 e .

e  %

e O

\

O e

e e e 9

-w _

" * ' ' N 8 = b me& wme aw y y.-e e e ,,,,

e S e G

• e 9

• e e e

e S

ee e

S O

O G O O 6

e 9

9 0

9 9

9 g8g s

h e

O O

e

• O O

TABLE 1 O e e

)

f  %

as e e

l

. e 4

e f

k

• t 0

e

• O I

e e 4 e

e e

D 6

9

, se G

• e e

l

• __ _ . . . . _, . __ _ _ _ . __.. _ _ _ , _ . , . _ _ ___

• _

• i - .

j-

{ %,- *

. .a

. . . DIVISION OF LICENSING 11/15/81 i TABLE 1 '. . l'icensing Schedules for All Pending OL App 1tcations

,IF ga 1 of 4) .. ., (includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion in CY 1982-1983)

. . , IListed in order or Projected casustssion Dectslon Datel

. .SER ' SSER , g. .

Est . Staff Staff ASLB Couen. 1/ Appl. '

Delay Issue . Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue Start of Initial Dec. ~ Constr.  !

I Plant (Months) DES Input to DL SER R FES Input to DL SSER Hearing Decision Date ~ Comp 1.-  :

i LaSalle 1 0 _2/ C C C C C C C None None 12/81 2/ 12/81 i Grand Gulf 1 0 C C C C C C 11/20/81 None None 12/81 02/82 l San Onofre 2 03/ -

C C C C C C C C 02/82 03/82 3/.12/81 3/ l l

! . Susmier 1 1

2 4], , .. C C C C C , C C . C 04/82 05/82 02/82 Watts 8d 1 0 C 12/18/81 2/05/82 3/04/82 C 3/26/82 4/12/82 None None 05/82 08/b2

).Dieb1sCanyon1 0 5/ C C. C C C C C 01/82 6f 04/82 05/82 03/01 i Diablo Canyon 2 0 C C C C C C C 01/82 _6f 04/82 05/82 01/82

.! LaSalls 2 0 C C C C- C 4/01/82 5/01/82. None None 06/82 12/82 McGuiro 2 0 C C C C C 4/01/82 5/01/82 C C- 06/82 06/82 .

Susquehianna 1 0 4f C C ,, C C C C C C 04/82 05/82 04/82 q WNP-2 0 C 2/12/82 '3/12/82 4/09/02 12/31/61 4/30/82 5/28/82 None None 07/82 12/82 I .

0 C C C C C C C 02/82 06/82 07/82 01/92

] Zimmer 1 l i

Saa Onofre 3 0 C C C C C 6/01/82 7/01/82 C 01/82 08/82 11/82  ;

! Fcral 2 0 C C C C C C C 03/82 08/82 09/82 11/82

!.sh reham 1 0 C C C. C C .

1/08/82 2/08/82 03/82 08/82 09/82 09/92 Comanche Peak 1 0 C -

C C C C 12/01/81 12/14/81 10/82 06/83

, 12/81 7f 09/82 St. Lucle 2 'O C C C C 1/16/82 11/20/81 11/27/81 ' 04/82 12/ 09/82 10/82 10/82 i

' ~

' Sub-Tata1** 2 ,

a o

_. - _- . -- _ . - .- _.=. .

DIVISION OF LICENSING 11/15/81.- l;

,T'A8tE 1 Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Appilcations .

(Page Z cf 4) (Includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion in CV 1982-1983)

IL1sted in Urder of Projected Cos:stssion Decision _patel .

SER SSER ,. ,

Staff ",'. ASLB Comm. 1/ Appl.

Est

' Delay . Issue Staff Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue Start of Initial Dec. ~ Constr. ,j; Input to DL Input to DL . SSER , Hearing _ Decision Date Comp 1. 1 Plant (Months) DES SER_ h FES C C . C 1/15/82 11/20/81 11/27/81 11/01 7/ 09/82 10/82 06/83,

,callaway 1 0 C

'- *C 12/10/81 2/12/82 12/18/82 12/31/81 05/82 10/82 11/82 11/82

• Pals Varde 1 0 C C 1

'W3tirf rd 3 04/ C C C C 8/ C C C 8f 03/82 10/82 11/82 10/82 {g .

i 1/05/82 2/05/82 3/15/82 2/12/82 2/28/82 07/82 12/82 01/83 01/83

C111t

21 . .' O 11/30/81 12/05/81 2/05/82 3/04/82 C 1/01/83 2/01/83 Hone None 03/83 .

06/83

. Matts Bar 1 0 C 12/18/81 03/83 04/83 04/83 i Syro21 0 C 1/07/82 2/07/82 3/07/82 4/05/82 3/10/82 3/30/82 08/82 4/07/82 5/07/82 6/05/82 5/10/82 5/30/82 10/82 03/83 04/83 04/83 Wolf Creek I' O 1/05/82 3/07/82

0. C C C C. C 2/01/8'3 3/01/83 C 04/82 04/83 04/83.

Susquehanna 2 4/10/82 5/10/82 6/11/82 7/05/82 6/15/82 6/30/82 11/82 04/83 05/83 05/83 Psrry 1 0 2/05/82 Midland 2 0 2/05/82 4/06/82 5/06/82 6/06/82 7/05/82 6/10/82 6/30/82 11/82 9/10/ 06/83 01/83 .01/83 i 7/09/82 8/06/82 9/10/82 10/05/82 9/12/82 9/30/82 02/83 07/83 08/83 08/83 Catawbe 1 0 5/05/82 ,

9/04/82 10/04/82 11/05/82 12/05/82 11/08/82 11/29/82 04/83. 09/83 10/83 10/83 RivIr Send 1 0 7/05/82 5/05/82 8/07/82 9/07/82 10/08/82 10/05/82 10/10/82 10/30/82 03/839f 10/83 11/83 11/83 5eabreb1 0

s :

0 C C 12/10/81 2/12/82 9/01/83 10/01/83 05/82 10/82 11/83 11/83 l Palo V2rde 2 C

' Comanche Peak 2 0 C C C C C 10/01/83 11/01/83 12/817f 09/82 12/83 .12/83 0 2/05/82 4/06/82 5/06/82 6/06/82 7/05/02 , 10/01/83 11/01/83 11/8210/ 06/83 12/83 12/83 Midland 1 Sub-Tatal 0 , , ,

W

-^

DIVI 510N OF LICENSING 11/15/81_

1.l'ensing c Schedules for All Pending OL Appilcations UA8LE 1 .

(Page 3 cf 4) * (Includes Schedules for Additional Units with Projected Construction Completion in CY 1982-1983)

. IL1sted in order of Projected Connission Decision Datel .

SER 55ER .

Staff ASLS Comm. 1/ Appl.

Est . Staff Issue Start of Dec. Constr.

Delay Issue Technical Issue . ACR5 Issue Tecnnical Initial Input to D1. hearing _ Decision Date Compt.

Picat (Months) DES Input to D1. SER_  % FE5 SSER Sell;far[te 1 12/83 07/83 04/84 05/84 None None 06/84 06/84 l l 0 02/83 10/83 11/83

'

• 07/84 , -i l 07/83 08/83 09/83 08/83 08/83 01/84 06/84 07/84 So;'T xas 1 0. 64/83 06/83 10/83 10/83 11/83 04/84 09/84 10/84 10/84 Steerick 1 0 05/83 07/83 .08/83 09/83 08/83 03/83 12/83 01/84 06/84~ 11/84 12/84 12/84 harris 1 0 10/82 06/83 . D7/83 12/83 01/84 06/84 04/84 05/84 10/84 03/85 04/85 04/85 -

eraldwood 1 0 01/84 11/83 l

Sub-Tatal 0 '

T1tal 2 ,

. I

~

• • . s

'Of W _o

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

f i

(Page 4 of 4) -

1 i .-

I' TABLE 1' .

FOOTNOTES. .  !

l 1/ Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from Emergency ,

t i

Preparedness Review. , ,

2/ December 1981 is the applicant's projected construction completion date. NRC will be prepared to issue 1 an operating license for LaSalle Unit I which will authorize fuel loading and low-power operation up to  !

'i Si p'ower in December. A Commission decision regarding operation above 51 power Will be made on a j schedule commensurate with the~ applicant's need for full-power authortzation. -.

4 . . s .

f l 3/ No delay is projected for San Onofre Unit 2 because the unit will not have a sufficient number ol' i j- licensed SRos to permit fuel loading before January 1982, even though a decision on a low-power license ' ,

j is projected for December 1981.  !

4/. The eslimated delay for each of these th'ree plants has been reduced by one mo$th to reflect early .

issuance of low-power licenses .immediately following ASL8 decision. ..

S/ The delay has been reduced to zero based on design errors found at the facility. ,

4 6/ .The projected date for an off-site emergency preparedness finding for Diablo Canyon was not met. This .

l- may impact the hearing schedule. -  :

7/ Hearing dates for Comanche Peak and callaway are for limited selected issues. Full hearing schedules remain unchanged, hence. ASLB initial decision dates remain unchanged.' t

-8/ Additional ACRS. meeting for Waterford Unit 3 required to discuss management organization .. A final SSER l will be issued subsequently.

9/ " Heavily contested plants reflect 13-month hearing schedule (vs 11 months) from SSER to Commission decision date.  !

Commissioner Ahearne remains convinced this schedule is too optimistic.

l i

10/ Midland Units 1 and 2 have the same hearing. .

( 11/ May be no hearing on St. Lucie Unit 2. ,

l O

4 -

l

TABLE 2 e

w

g. .

I l

. g.

I l

I 1 . .

i

• i LICENSING SCll[DULES 81Yl5!Oll Or LICEN5111G 11/15/81 *

,. TAstt 2 ros ytleplus t0R51RIET10lf'FERFl!T APPLICAil0NS ,

55tR ITMI Issues) 55tR (18en-TMI Issues)

.' ASL8 Commelssion lssee  !!stt Technical Isse? Staff Techalcal Issue ACR$ Start of Initial Decisten Issee .

Meeting Hearing _ Dectsten_

plant DES _ IES_ input to Dt. _ SSIR _ Input to 01. _ 55tR_ _Date l

C C C C C 12/81 5/82 6/82 i fler 1-8 C C ,.

C C C 3/82 8/82. g/ft2 C C C .

Allens Creek 1 C -

12/81 2/82 3/82 2/82 3_/ 8/82 1/83 2/n3

!. aleck rea 1 a 2 C C a 11/81 C 4/82 '8/82 7/82 11/82 4/83 5/83

.5kagtt/IIanford 1 4 2 '3/82 1/ 8/82 1/ C N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 2/02 4_/ W/5 4/ N/5 4/

rebbla Springs 15 2 C C N/5 l . '

1 N/5 N/s N/5 N/5 N/5 N/5 2)

{ rgrtins 1, 2, 3 C C N/5_2/ N/52/

j If As a result er fleid espierattens coeulveted by USGS. the selsmic design of the facility must be re-enemined. Appilcants indicated In Sep'tember 1980

~

that the proposed facility Is to be relocated to the Hanford reservatten. Amended ER and F5A4 will be filed in December 1981.

I 2/ py letter dated 3/12/81, the appilcant recommended that the Illit not devote any researces beyond support for the alternate site" hearing for the nest tun years.

I 3/ It is anticipated that IMI Issues only will be discussed'at the ACRS meeting.

i In response to a 4/28/8I heard order, the applicant stated (5/14/81) an Interest in pursuln, the review with respect to crepleting the hearing 4/ en environmental and site seltebility issues. However, the appiltant has not Indicated when they propose to reswee activilles related te the safety i

review, particularly on TMI-related issues, therefore, a Commelssten decision date Is pet projected at this time for this facility.

[

i ..

5

• i j

j .

) .

. =

l '

1 I

j .

1

~ ~~~

• ~

OPERATING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS

~

~ "

Praparod by

Of fice of Energy Emergency Operations U.S. Department of Energy November 24, 1981

• This report is the eighth and'1ast in a monthly series of. estimates of the costs of delay in the issuance of operating licenses of the Nuclear Regulatory Ccrnmission .(NRC) . This month 's report' takes -

a'ecount of changes in the estimated length of delays and continues to in provide additionDepartmentto cost estimates of Energysupplied (DOE) estimates by utilities. of the costs of delay, Summary of Results .

The most recently projected dates of issuance of operating lice'ses n for new units would result in a loss of 5 months of reactor opera-tion units.

based on the utilities ' projected dates of completion for 2 of operation (Thisprojecteddoes notfor includethe undamagedthe two additional TMI 1 unit. months ) Last of loss .

estimate was 20 months. month 's The estimated cost of these delays, excluding TMi 1, is 5105 ndllion, based'ononindependent based data obtained DOEfrom estimates. the utilities in November, or $133 million, report follows: A comparison with last month's '

G. Excluding TMI-1 Nov. 1981 Oct 1981 Nov. 1 981 Including TMI-3 Oct 1981 Es tima te Es tima te Change Estimate Estima te _Ch Units Delayed 2 6 .-4 3

.* , 7 -4 Months of -

5 20 -15 7 Operation Lost ' 23 -16 Total Cost of Delays ($MM) - '=

i, Based on *

.. - +

-- Utility Data .. 1 05 522 -417

, 133 . 564 -431

-- DOE Analyses 95 , . 448 -353 1 23 490 -367

..e

• The dramatic drop in months of delay is due primarily to the NRC staff 's r.ecently restored authority to issue low power licenses immediately af ter the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) review rather than waiting a minimum of '30 days until the Commission grants a full power , license. ' The drop is also partly due to slippages in construction schedules. -

1 I

e ,

• 8 .

1 2 _

Length of Delay

• The length of the delay--the number of lost months of reactor " .

1 operation--is estimated in Table 1., For units still under construction, the delay is the interval between the ' utilities '

projected date of completion ~ (column 4) and the NRC's projected date of issuance of operating license (column 3). For units already com-pleted , the delay is based on the period from and including , November 1981 through the projected month of issuance of an operating license.

Last' month 's estimate of the licensing dates are shown in column 2. .

. Anet change of 15 months (excluding TMI 1) has occurred in the estimated total length of delay (column 5). The change is due to:

o Delay in construction for Comanch'a Peak 1 and San Onofre 2

(-6 months ). .

t

,o Delay in issuance of an operating licgnse for Sunmer 1

(+1 month ) . . ,

s e o omission of costs incurred in October 1981 (since past

'co'sts are not included) for Diablo Canyon 1 (-1 month). -

o Issuance of operating licenses- for San onofre 2 and Susquehanna 1 earlier than presently projected (-2 months).

o NRC's announced intention to issue low power licenses, af ter the ASLB review in the. month construction is completed O. . for. San onofre 2, Susquehanna 1 and Waterford 3 (-3 months).

o Issuance of a low power license in 9/81 for Diabl$ Canyon 1.

The initial reactor operations that can be performed under the low power' license are expected to be completed before -

2/82. Therefore, the pe,riod from 11/81 to 2/82 is no -

longer considered to be an NRC licensing delay (-4 months).

(Notes Recent problems with the Diablo Canyon 1 unig '

may further delay its operation. ) -

Costs of the Delay -

~

The cost of a delay in' issuing an operating license af ter a plant is physically complete is equal to: -

o' 'The total costs the entire utility Tystem (or* systems,  !

if the unit is jointly owned) would incur to satisfy its i customers ' energy requirement, based on the . delayed licensing schedule, minus ,

o The total costs of satisfying the same energy requirement .

if the license had been issued when ,the plant was complete.

l g O . -

. .. . . .. c -

~

3_ ,

i'

.i This cost differential is affected only by cost elements that .

change as a result of the delay-for example, fuel, purchased power, maintenance, and other special : expenses. It is not affected "

by anticipated monthly capital carrying charges or by any other i

costs that would be incurred with or without the delay. * . * '

The estimated costs of delay are summarized in Table 2, bTsed on two in, dependent sources: "

o one set o5 estimates (columns 1 through 4) was based on data obtained from the owners of the units; and

.o.

A second set of estimates (columns 5 through 8) was developed independently by DOI staff based on available .

• data ,on generating resources, pooling ' arrangements, load projections, capacity, factors, and fuel prices. The i

analysis method was summarized in the May report. The key -

numerical assumptions are presented in Table 3.

' Both (fromsets Table of 1, estimates column 5). used the same length-of-delay infor$.ation Capacity ana1yses.

~ charges were not taken into consideration in the DOE -

Most of the utilities indicated that the replacement power own systems.

for the delayed nuclear , units would be generated within their It is possible that, in some cases, there would be a

~ capacity for estimating its cost.

charge for purchased power, but. DOE has no current basis ,,

DOE's assumptions generally resulted in lower estima'tes for

)

the monthly cost of replacement power (Table 2, column 5) than the utilities (column 1). In addition, a few those provided. claimedby 'special additional costs associated utilities delay (footnoted in column 1). DOE did not attempt to with the "

such costs. estimate 9'

g

. i .

, N

• l t

I g

. J'. *$ . .-

. : ---- - ---- --- --~ ~- ' " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~

Te *

, .; a

• Offito cf tmersy theergy eretiene .

U.S. Department of fa .

t Isevenber 24, 1991 - -

4 l .

DATA 001 BellCLEAR WIllT5 UlTM OPERATIfl0 Ltcr.ssst et1.Afs 1/ ~

l-

~

.trojected ente projected Date conetruetten com-of reemenee of of toewence of pletion pote pro- sienthe of

• I cepecity operating License operating License jeeted by campany . celey. sept eement ps.or I unit (seel october 19e1 seovember 1981 poeendier 1981 j

(2) ~133 - (4) ruel source til .

. (3) . (4) (5) 46)

(73 l

Diable canyon 1 1.004 5/52 5/02 Y 3/e1 Y 3 YM ott-one delf-generate!

' Susener 4 -

900 3/02

• 4/82(5/02) 2/8' 2 coel-ott self generate.

Tetet taev unite) ......................................~........................................ 5 TML 1, , , ,

176 , 10/91 / 12/91 M .

2 5/** pit-cent purchneed Soareees - Utility compentee '

~

) lescleer megelstory Coeumisolose ~ .

I . y covere ett unite for whicto constreetion le empoeted to be completed at least one manth before est operatint IIconee le loomed.

j y Diable canyon hoe had a low power 11conee stnce 9/81.,, The inttlet reacter operettene that can.be performed under the low power ' * ' **

license are not espected te be completed

• before 2/02. Therefore, the period from 11/82 to 2/02 le no Jenser considered to W en ***

• J lenC licone' tag delay. * *

,3f tnt 1 hos recoteed en operatinT license and hee beese in operation. slowever, the unit wee taken eet of servlee for a routine refueling

'j durinT yebruary 1979, and esse not allowed to return to service fellowing the vet 2 eeeldeht. The company antielpetes bolsig finlohed witti Test 1 modifications by mid,11/Rt. selec projecto it will make a decialen on time esitt in 12/91. l y ne cumpletion of heerisige en the unit Ines been delayeds conecaysently, the board will not loome a deeleton until 4/92 et which time the i

• selec v111 opprove e low power IIconee for tlee rect 11ty. A full power license is espected to be granted in 5/92 5/ pelsys for these completed *usette prior to 11/91 are soot Jneleded. .

y he conetrwctions completten%ete of 3/31 le et111 carrteit by both the company and IsRC. DOE e*ece.-tua that the fact 11ty to current 1T j restratned trem feet leadisig untti e reevateetion er oolente enetrole le completed, and that thle may further deley the usett's operetten.

t

. r 1

- , i I -

i .

l .

l .

- .. n -

i v.. l.

j . i i *

-

• i

! I<

7

Tab 13 2 , Of fice cf Enerar Famerga tr:tione .

' ~ ,

I. U.S. Department of En. .

r - ,

. November 24e Ipst -

'* ~ _

. ESTIMATED COSTS OF OreRATIlsC LICENSE DELAYS FOR HUCLEAR UNITS

. . Coote Based con Company Data Costa Based om Indecendent DOC Analeste y ,peplacement M Capacity poplacement Total / peplacement N Copacity poplacement Total b'

' Power Coste Factor Power Costs Cost Power Cost Factor Power Coote Cost

-sent/nonth --rereent -ekwh-- - spes- -snn/nonth- -receent- .-e/kwh- -sms9- -

(1)

. (2) . (3) (4) (5) -

(6) ' (7) (9)

Diable Canyosi 1 *26.8

- Y ,

65 5.3 80 -

26.0 60 5.5 78 .

Sumuner 1 12.7 65 3.0 25 0.5 60 2.2 l'7 total (new en1te)............'.................. 105 ........................................... 95 TMt 1 14.0 70 3.6 28 14.0 70 3.5 28

.. Total (including TM1 1) ...................... 133 .'.........................................

. 123 if Coet of replacement power minue toel and operating costs of nuclear unit's. '

y 2f peplacement power coeta divided by kilowatt-hours repInced. (Columwi 1 i Columei 2 4 Unit capacity 4 720 houre/ month).

Jf Derived by multiplying monthly replacement power costs (columes 1) by the total smonths of delay (Table 1. colums 5).

y cost of fuel for 1991 estimated by utility.

~

y Cost of replacement power minue.nucteer f ase1 costo of 6 allts/kwh. Estimates do not inclesde capaatty charges which may be incurred if power to pearchased fr(ma other systems.

Ef Derived by multiplying monthly replacemos.t power costo (columse 5) by total months of delay (Table 1, colossi St. -

7/ (>nerehty of entte ,

~.

Diable Canyon it l'acific Cae end Electric Company - 2001 Suseners South Carotina Electric and Cao Company (661): , .

South Caro 11ne Fehlic Servic, Authority (341).

TM1 It 19etropoliten Edison - 5033 Jersey Central Power and Light - 2313 Fennsylvante Electric Co. - 231 m ,

g 9

.- s

~.

Ib

• 1 v. ,. ..

• 3

.t g-963 . >$

en.

enc e , -,

• _* o, .n .o i .L: a

> 2 g .E f o g o.

= -

• . 5 g --

.4J Tl

"$5 1.

E Akik ou

45 as -

ik l .

i #9 h .

l .E

a. . ... . -,

g E l' ;u S. S. "1 -n n

~ .n . g i 2- *"

e

- 2

" i s.g -. g

{ ( '- 9 3 Au? 35 us $-3 3 W .

g..

1

- 1 .

I* .  :

5 t i m

g "g 77 77 77 k w g= -c oo

.k NU OO XE

-M  !

M g fl f f ff ff

• p

.. i .

e

9

-l e a

N -

.a g

8 -

f D ,

S 6 - 3 U

. j .

, 4 h

• k' s .

8 .

n