ML20210S628
| ML20210S628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1975 |
| From: | Cox T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1425 NUDOCS 8605290329 | |
| Download: ML20210S628 (9) | |
Text
_ _
i M 1 d WS
(
Docket Hos. 50-460/513 Applicant: Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
Facility:
Washington Nuclear Project Mos.1 and 4 (WNP-1,4)
SUMMARY
OP 182ND GENERAL MEETING OF ACRS TO CONSIDER THE WNP-1,4 APPLICATION On June 6,1975, the full casumittee of the Advisory Commaittee on Reactor Safsguards (ACRS) met with representatives of the applicant (WPPSS or Supply System) and the NRC staff (staff). The purpose of the meeting was to consider the WPPSS application for a construction permit for the W'iP-1,4 facility. A list of those persons who participated in the meeting is included as Attachment A to this report. Copics of the visual aids presented by the applicant at the meeting are included in the transcript of the meeting.
The meeting is sumanarized in the following sections.
1.0 Introduc_ tion and General Description by WPPSS D. Renberger of WPPSS described the Supply System status as a municipal corporation and a joint operating agency of the State of Washington.
Ec described the WPPSS organization, and in response to a question by Mr. Arnold, described which unbers of the current organization would retaain on the UNF-1,4 project as it moved into the operation and maintenance period.
2.0 Report by the Staf_f_
T. Cox described the eight open items rannining in the review. Uc noted that since the issue of Supplement No. 1 to the SER on June 2, 1975, all but three issues have been resolved with at least verbal co:naitment on the part of the applicant to meet the pertinent staff position.
l 3.0 Discussion Items 3.1 Contaitunent Spray Additives i
W. Pasedag of the staff presented answers to questions raised by the ACES Subcommaittee at the May 16, 1975 meeting. Pe discussed the extent y.r l
8605290329 750619 PDR ADOCK 05000460 arrie = *
._ _.. O _. _
. PDR. _
eunaa'ua >
oata >
Foran AEC 518 (Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240 W u. a; aovanumeur painvine orrscas se,s.saa. nee
t i
Washington Public Power Supply System of utilization of sodium hydroxide as a containment spray additive, the effectiveness of the additive, and what experimental work has been done to verify its effectiveness. He also discussed the staff's evaluations of the effectiveness of sodium hydroxide in removing methyl iodide. Dr. Stratton requested (Tr 243-12) that the staff perform and asport on calculations to evaluate ' sodium hydroxide effectiveness assuming best estimate iodine removed factors rather than the most conservative (least iodine removal) assumptions.
3.2 Applicant's Status Report A. Eosler reported that the applicant considered that five of the eight issues addressed in the staff report were completely resolved pending fornal documentation by the applicant in a PSAR amendment.
D. Renberger presented n====ary report on a meeting of industry and utility participants at the EPRI offices in Palo Alto, California, concerning the aging requirements in IEEE Std. 323-1974. He reported that the result of the meeting was a coordinated industry-wide approach being developed that would probably propose a graduated implementation of the aging requirements. Daughter standards for different equipment types would be developed from lEEE Std. 323 and would be implemented as they are developed. Mr. Renberger noted that WPPSS prefers this graduated implementation rather than a withdrawal of the standard.
3.3 Applicant's Technical Presentation A. Hoeler described the facility general layout and site demography.
R. Chitwood discussed site hydrology as affected by potential dam failures, and included consideration of the possible construction of the Ben Franklin dan. Off-site and on-sito power systems were described by N. Porter of the Supply System. Estimates were given of the probability of loss of all off-site power to the facility. Fe poisted out that in the-unlikely event of total off-site power loan, the reactor plant is designed to decrease power level acteuatically to 15 per cent power, at which level the plant supplies its own power r.eed s.
K. Suhrl.e of B&W addressed the eccfdent sequence posed by the ACRS I
Subcommittee at the May 16, 1975 meeting. Reactor safety was to be evaluated in the event of a unit trip, loss of all off-site power and subsequent failure to start of both diesel generator emers,ency power sources, lie discussed heat removal by natural circulation in the reactor coolant loop and simultane6use. forced circulation in the steam i
l orrecs >
ev== Aus h D ATS b I
Jaren ATC SIS (Rev. b))) ABCM 0240 W u. e; sovanumany rninvene orreces ser4.nsues
a 4-Washington Public Power Supply System l
(1)
Mr. Fox (237-04) - How about the irradiation field? (testing of 1
l sodium hydroxide as containment spray additive)
(2)
Dr. Moeller (238-04) - Has the hydrasina been subjected to radiation exposure?
(3)
Dr. Stratton (243-12) - I will request you to go through the calculation (of iodine removal by esatainment spray) without the additive, as well as with the additive using the best estimata calculations for the estimates for the wash out factors.
(4)
Dr. Bush (263-17) 4 Would like to have tabular compilation of probabilities of failure of all off-site power, for the various assumptions involved.
(5)
Mr. Arnold (282-15) - Does the staff agree with the contention cf B&W on the possibility of a water hammer?
(6)
Dr. Okrent (286-20) - Could you say what you would consider to be the major uncertainty, if any, in the mechanisms of heat trans-fer to the steel (containment) liner or other exposed surfaces?
(7)
Mr. Bender (301-09) - Have you made a comparison between the Bellefonte and WNP-1,4 designs regarding those features that are incorporat ad to meet diectrical separation criteria? Is WNF-1,4 equivalent to or better than Bellefonte?
5.0 ACRS Conclusions The committee concluded that it could write a letter favorable to a construction permit.
l l
cridnal 54nM b l
T. H. Cox, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Emactor Licensing
Attachment:
l List of Attendees orne "
x7886/ LWR 2-3 su.m...*
TCox:rm.
i k_ [.N.
mars k Foran AEG518 (Rev. %33) ABCM 0240 W u. es eovanmusur eninvine arrecua eere.mae.sse
DISTRIBUTION OF MEETING
SUMMARY
JU DATED Washington Public Power Supply System Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esquire ATTN:
Mr. J. J. Stein Conner, Hadlock & Knotts Managing Director 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
P. O. Box 968 Washington, D. C.
20006 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. E. G. Ward Mr. J. R. Schmieder Senior Project Manager United Engineers & Construction, Inc.
Babcock & Wilcox Company 2000 Market Street P. O. Box 1260 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505
_ = - _ _
--- =-
Docket Files SVarga JGiannelli NRC PDR MWilliams P0'Reilly LPDR FSchroeder DTibbits NRR Reading (M. Groff)
RMaccary TGreene LUR 2-3 Reading File HDenton WPasedag VAMoore RTedesco LSoffer RCDcYoung VStello DMuller JKnight KGoller SPawlichi DSkovholt LShao RDenise BGrines JStolz WGammill KKniel MSpangler ASchwencer JKastner DVaasallo RBallard OParr JCollins WButler GLainas BYovngblood VBenaroya WRegan TNovak GDicker TIppolito GKnighton Dross GLear OELD l
RPurP
- I&E (3) '
DZiecann SD (3)
PCollins EGoulbourne WHouston ACRS (14)
RVollmer BCRusche TSpeis TCox RClark cst'ahle
UNITEo STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W AS HIN GTO N. D. C. 20$$ $
Juh i e SS Docket Nos. 50-460/513 Applicant: Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
Facility:
Washington Nuclear Project Nr. 1 and 4 (WNP-1,4)
SUMMARY
OF 182ND GENERAL MEETING OF ACRS TO CONSIDER THE WNP-1,4 APPLICATION On June 6, 1975, the full committee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) met with representatives of the applicant (WPPSS or Supply System) and the NRC staff (staff). The purpose of the meeting was to consider the WPPSS application for a construction permit for the WNP-1,4 facility. A list of those persons who participated in the meeting is included as Attachment A to this report. Copies of the visual aids presented by the applicant at the meeting are included in the transcript of the meeting.
.__,The meeting is summarized in the following sections.
1.0 Introduction and General Description by WPPSS D. Renberger of WPPSS described the Supply System status as a municipal corporation and a joint operating agency of the State of Washington.
He described the WPPSS organization, and in response to a question by Mr. Arnold, described which members of the current organization would remain on the WNP-1,4 project as it moved into the operation and maintenance period.
2.0 Report by the Staff T. Cox described the eight open items remaining in the review. He noted that since the issue of Supplement No. 1 to the SER on June 2, 1975, all but three issuer have been resolved with at least verbal commitment on the part of the applicant to meec the pertinent staff position.
3.0 Discussion Items 3.1 Contairner.t Spray Additives W. Pasedag of the staff presented answers to questions raised by the ACRS Subcommittee at the May 16, 1975 meeting. He discussed the extent l
l l
t Washington Public Power Supply System of utilization of sodium hydroxide as a containment spray additive, the effectiveness of the additive, and what experimental work has been done to verify its effectiveness. He also discussed the staff's evaluations of the effectiveness of sodium hydroxide in removing 4
methyl iodide.
Dr. Stratton requested (Tr 243-12) that the staff perform and report on calculations to evaluate sodium hydroxide affectiveness assuming best estimate iodine removed factors rather than the most conservative (least iodine removal) assumptions.
3.2 Applicant's Status Report A. Hosler reported that the applicant considered that five of the eight issues addressed in the staff report were completely resolved pending formal documentation by the applicant in a PSAR amendment.
D. Renberger presented a summary report on a meeting of industry and utility participants at the EPRI offices in Palo Alto, California, concerning the aging requirements in IEEE Std. 323-1974. He reported that the result of the meeting was a coordinated industry-wide approach being developed that would probably propose a graduated implementation of the aging requirements. Daughter standards for different equipment types would be developed from IEEE Std. 323 and would be implemented as they are developed.
Mr. Renberger noted that WPPSS prefers this graduated implementation rather than a withdrawal of the standard.
3.3 Applicant's Technical Presentation A. Hosler described the facility general layout and site demography.
R. Chitwood discussed site hydrology as affected by potential dam failures, and included consideration of the possible construction of the Ben Franklin dam. Off-site and on-site power systems were described by N. Porter of the Supply System. Estimates were given of the probability of loss of all off-site power to the facility. He pointed out that in the unlikely event of total off-site power loss, the reactor plant is designed to decrease pawer level automatically to 15 per cent power, at which level the plant supplies its own power needs.
K. Suhrke of B&W addressed the accident sequence posed by the ACRS Subcommittee at the May 10, 1975 meeting. Reactor safety was to be evaluated in the event of a unit trip, loss of all off-site power and subsequent failure to start of both diesel generator emergency power sources. He discussed heat removal by natural circulation in the i
reactor coolant loop and simultaneous forced circulation in the steam i
(
i i
Washington Public Power Supply System.
piping by the steam-turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump. Mr. Schrke reported that the plant could be maintained safely, with the core covered by water, under the postulated conditions for at least ten hours, during which time off-site or on-site emergency power could be restored to terminate the transient conditton. The discussion included resulte of specific natural circulation tests performed at the Oconee Unit 1 facility, which testing has been reported to NRC in the Oconee Unit 1 Startup Report, Supplement.1, dated May 15, 1974.
Mr. Suhrke also described the differences between the WNF-1,4 NSSS and that presented in the Bellefonte and Greenvocd arplications. The identified dif ferences were few, including number of contrpi rods and control rod wor'h, emergency safety fG4tures actuation system (ESFAS) t
?
logic, effective dates of applicable k$Mt rodes. num'oer of ESFAS channels, and method of automatic initiation of core flood tank i
isolation valves.
Mr. HoGler discussed the WNF-1,4 containment design, and described pressures developed within the containmaat for several postulated
(
pipe rupture accidents. The distribution of thermal utergy within r
containment structural components af ter an accident was diccussed.
Containment subcompartment differen~tial pressures were discussec.
W. Bainard, of WPPSS, described plant design steps the applicant is implementing to reduce personnel experure during operation and maintenance of the facility, with special emphasis on the W7F3S activities underway to assure minimum exposera due to required in-service inspections. He described on improved inflatable seal assembly that will be used to close the space between reactor vessel and refueling canal prior to filling the refueling canal with water.
This seal is expected to more than pay for itself during the life of the plant in reduced personnel exposures, tased on the current NPC assigned value of $1,000 per man rem. He also described efforts te reduce pressure head removal time, and to develop nheuical cleaning methods that would redcce residual activity in componcats and piping.
l At Dr. Kerr's suggestion, the full coumittee declined tu hear a planned presentation on industrial security since the subject was discussed at the Subcommittee meeting.
4.0 ACRS Concerns During the course of the meeting, a number of concerns were expressed by ACKS members. The following is a list of those which were raised but not completely resolved at the meeting:
i h
i
+
e
-e
,,,-~-e,.
,e s.
l l
Washington Public Power Supply System (1) Mr. Fox (237-04) - How about the irradiation field? (testing of sodium hydroxide as containment spray additive)
(2)
Dr. Moeller (238-04) - Has the hydrazine been subjected to radiation exposure?
(3) Dr. Stratton (243-12) - I will request you to go through the calculation (of iodine removal by containment spray) without the additive, as well as with the additive using the best estimate calculations for the estimates for the wash out factora.
(4)
Dr. Bush (263-17) - Wouli like to have tabular compilation of probabilities of failure of all off-site power, for the various assumptions involved.
(5)
Mr. Arnold (282-15) - Does the staff agree with the contention of B&W on the pcssibility of a water hammer?
(6) Dr. Okrent (286-20) - Could you say what you would consider to be the maior uncertainty, if any, in the mechanisms of heat trans-fer to the steel (containment) liner or other exposed surfaces?
i (7) Mr. Bender (301-09) - Have you made a comparison between the Bellefonte and WNP-1,4 designs regarding those features that are incorporated to meet electrical separation criteria? Is WNP-1,4 equivalent to or better than Bellefonte?
5.0 ACRS Conclusions The committee concluded that it could write a letter favorable to a construction permit.
~
(
T. H. Cox, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Peactor Licensing Attathment:
List of Attendees
t' ATTACHMENT A LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ACRS 182ND GENERAL MEETING WNP-1,4 FACILITY ACRS NRC Prqf. W. Kerr (Chairman)
A. Schwencer Dr. D. Moeller V. A. Moore Mr, J. Arnold T. Cox Mr. M. Bender C. Stahle Dr. S. Bush J. Giannelli Dr. M. Carbon P. O'Reilly Mr. L. Fox D. Tibbits Dr. S, Lawreski T.' Greene Dr. D. Okrent W. Pasedag Dr. C. Siess L. Soffer Dr. W. Stratten r
'UE&C WPPSS J. Dainors W. Bainard J. Daniel R. Chitwood M. Dechter W. Clark A. Ebner S. Engstrom J. Foremny C. Fies A. Friedman J. Hanlon V. Mbni A. Hosler B. tierroff B. McLeod K. Niycgi C. Organ l-K. Parlee N. Porter J. Schmieder D. Renberger
+
E. Scott J. Thomas G. Thornet; D. Tillson C. Valtr.terri O. Trapp G. Waldkoetter B&W Shannon & Wilson J. Agar R. Steinke H. Baker
.K.
Suhrke H. Drubert R. Brockm.an E. Winterich B. Dunn E. Ward J. Rappe11 P. Klink D. LaBelle A. McBride G. Meyer J. Merchact R. Moore W. Rhyne G. Schicek
'{.
t.
liistribution:
M II E LWR 2-3 Reading TIICox FLASit NOTE Docket No. 50-460 p 513 A. Schwencer, Chief, Light Water Reactors Eranch 2-3, DEL W!!P-1,4 FACILITY FINA"CING A lawsuit was filed Thursday, 5/29/75, in Seattle, calling for cancellation of an agrecrent between Scattic City Light Co. and LTPSS for partietw. tion in WPPSS-1, 4, 3, and 5 facilities. The basis for the suit is that Seattle City Light did not write its own environmental impact statemnt to the state on the proposed agreenent. (See attached newspaper article.)
One potential effect of the action could be to delay City Light'a participa-tion in the fundint of the L%T-4 LWA work planned to start later this calendar year.
D. Renberger. Technical Division Manager, does not feel that there would be any delay in initiatina LWA work at the k%T-1 plant location. runds for that effort are aircady available, and in fact, funding for LWA work at V'T-4 nay be assured through options that allow other utility
- acbers of kTPSS to provide the funds originally expected fron Scottic City Light Cortpany.
Farther developrent of t!.is situation vill be nonitored for its potential effect cn our fina: cial qualifications review now undervey.
,Qriginal signed by.
Thomda H. Cox, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Reactor Licensino Enclosurc: Newspaper article cc:
B. Ihasche L. Case A. Giasnbusso ttoore dl MMb
^
YW'"
'j R D. Skovbolt J. Peterson ELD FLASI: NOTE
},
or ce
- LUR 2-3..__
o v.... >
THCoxspaa
_6/.... /7 5.
sars >
Faun AEL.318 (Rev. 9-5 3) ABCM 0140 W u. s. sovseweenw? marme erracsa vers.eas tee D
(
I 4
.FRoM Til1-ctrY HERALD, RcHLsuo, aM.,
M4V 3e /97T D
fa t
(?
o j
r gr S9D? @d @l i uDECTC, bDNBDD 4tH SO/AA Y M77 A lawsuit hled 'Itur: day to have agreed to part:cipate. The addressed all these. <.;uesti cs cancel a nuclear power a;ree-supply system is schedded ta about the need for pov.er, tcth ment.-made by SeaWe City call for bids ca $104 millios la in its app!! cation to the sl ate for Light for participat ng in Lords)!cnday.
site certification and in en.
nudear plants at Hanford and.
vironmental reports ided with
,a s a e the,Nuc Regulatory Ccm-Try ar Satsop was h!ed Thursday.
En versity of Washicgt:n law stu nussion.,les:
, The W a s h i n g i o n vironmental Co=cil ced three dent ced Ken Ecstock cf the In addit:cn, he said, "Those individuals charged the city of Seattle in IUat Co=ty Supe-ior Washi:; ton Come!!!?e on Cca sante f:cters are ecnsidered in sumer Interests bined the envi. the environmental Impact sia.
Court,with -violati:g state en-ron= ental cot =cil in the suit.
tement filed by the Bonnevi!:e varonmentallaws.. ;-
. Power la 1:s Ej'~.,,, gn5 wd 6 id.o. o,f applicats,/idmuustrr.tton The City of Seade "is really They d!ege as the v:. lat.:ca en for a rate m-o the failure of City Lt.ttt to wri:e a
crease.
en enviter.t:entil impact s' ate h"NE # "2d'Ef E. win; what it means,,iU*J.. the Ife expressed conecm th:t il snett ' n an a; ce=ent v.th the o
Ri:hard Aram, u.1, lawyer for Washingian Pthlie Power Sup the plaict:f:s, sr.id Thursday, succers!ul, "/. bout 100 in-p!y System (WPP53). -
dividual utilities wcu!d have to That agreeme:t allows City -.. Aramhuni aho represents the duplic:tc what, the S u p p1 y Light to reserve terween 9 per North Ca.scacess Cc:servati:n. S
~
ccct and !L4 per cent (I the' Ccuncilin efferts ta stop Se2ttle ystem has already done.
..It wou!d certainly~ place a output from nut! ear ~ projects City Light ficm building IlighE burden on t h o s e tilhties,"
planned for completics in the Ross Dam 7
... uhich, he said, include small IM0s at Hanford and Sat:cp. He shaid, "They haven't ad : municipalities and rural electric The Seattle City Council ap dreswd questicas of electried associations, as-well as large, proved the. agree =ect.May 'l,. curtailment, propeir.s, They cities.
City Lir.! tis one ci 101 North o haven't addressed questions of-Earlier this week ' delay int west utilities " asked. ta-Icm energy conservatien.-
construction of the two f.ccleal-credit to the supply sys:em ta They're unfortunately just plants at Hanford ~ was threa '
btrad' the plan 3. The utilities.:r o'1 I i n g tr i ; h the t de tened b'y' : a proposal from!
vere to back the lean of crecit' and cot locung at optice:," he. Ricnland of'icids to reopen site with power.ccatra. cts frera:the :said2:ft's a let cf coney, to te certificatien hearings is include-sptem. -.
-... -+ :..provided by the r:tepayers...-a* cemenk an the soeioe i
UtPity spokesmes said Thurs-A,WFPSS spoiesman today
- ccanornic report about the imi day about to utilities already said, "The Supply Systecx has pact of the WPPSS projecL.
O.
o
a 4
)
DISTRIBUTION:
JUN o t375 DocketFilesEX2(2)
Subject Fild JCPetersen DJSkovholt Reading File AMeltz Docket lios. 50-460 DCioni.
and 50-513 Regis R. Boyle, Cost Benefit Specialist, Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch, Division of Technical Review Thru: Donald J. Skovholt, Assistant Director for Quality Assurance and Operations, Division of Reactor Licensing REQUEST FOR CAPITAL COST ESTI?%TE FROM C0tiCEPT - WASHIf;GT0!l PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM !!0S 1 & 4 Attached is a written confirnation of my June 5,1975 telephone recuest to Mr.110 ward Boucrs at ORfil for C0:! CEPT capital cost estimates on Washincton Public Power Supply System ;ios. 1 5 4 As usual, we need only the nuclear plant estinates and not the estimates for fossil-fired alternatives. He need the C0iCEPT run by Monday, June 16, 1975.
Your assistance and cooperation as well as that of the ORiil staff is appreciated.
$hd$m.
Dick Cioni Financial Analyst Office of the Assistant 0 tractor for Quality Assuranco and Operations Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
cc:
L. Bennett, ORiit H. Dowers. ORNL u'n;"
/,//
H.S. Spangler
[{/)0
{
g 9,
$:{A0lFIrl_ _RL:QA0/ Fill R:
arrie= *
[
DCioni/ mas _.
AM81t1['..
4kovalt_
. o s.
6/ 5 /75
_5Lf.175 6/f.175 form A14 318 (Rev. 9-55) AIC.10240 W u. e. sovsaasumat pai=vswo otracre nova.aae-ise l
m n
t INFL, DATA REQUEST FOR CAPITAL CObr ESTIMATE FROM CONCEPT I.
Required Information 1.
Plant name - Washington Public Power Supply System Nos 1 & 4 2.
Plant location - Richland, Washington 3.
Type of plant - PWR 4.
Type of heat discharge - Mechanical draft cooling towers 5.
Unit size, net MW(e) - 1240, each unit 6.
Nurber of units '- 2 7.
Month and year of NSSS purchase Unit 1 December,1972 Unit 2 July,1974 Unit 3 Unit 4 8.
Month and year of commercial operation Unit 1 September,1980 Unir 2 March,1982 Unit 3 Unit 4 9.
Interest during construction Interest rate, percent / year - 7%
a.
b.
Simple or compound? - Simple 10.
Length of construction workweek, hours - 40 II.
Desirable Information 1.
Cost of site land, dollars. $0 2.
Estimated site labor requirements, man hours /kW(e) Use Concept Code Data 3.
Average site labor pay rate (including fringe benefits) - Use Concept Code effective at month and year of NSSS purchase, $/ hour Data 4.
Average escalation rates projected for site labor, percent / year - 8%
5.
Average escalation rate projected for site materials (e.g., - 8%
structural steel, rebars, concrete, lumber), percent / year W
~v
UNITED STATES
}
l NwdLEAR REGULATORY COMMissiL.4 W ASHINGTON, D. C. 2055 5 JUN 6 1375 Docket Nos. 50-460 and 50-513 Regis R. Boyle, Cost Benefit Specialist, Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch, Division of Technical Review Thru: Donald J. Skovholt, Assistant Director for Q Assurance and Operations, Division of Reactor Licensing
{
REQUEST FOR CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FROM C0tlCEPT -SHINGTON PUBLIC POWER i
SUPPLY SYSTEM f;0S 1 & 4 Attached is a written confirmation of my June 5,1975 telephone request to Mr. Howard Bowers at ORNL for CONCEPT capital cost estimates on Washington Public Power Supply System Nos. 1 & 4 As usual, we need only the nuclear plant estimates and not the estimates for fossil-fired alternatives. We need the CONCEPT run by Monday, June 16, 1975.
Your assistance ar.d cooperation as well as that of the ORNL staff is appreciated.
O m
Dick Cioni Financial Analyst Office of the Assistant Director for Quality Assurance and Operations Division of Reactcr 1.icensing
Enclosure:
cc:
L. Bennett, ORNL" M H. Bowers, ORHL T. Jackscn A. Meltz l
M.B. Spangler
4 INPba DATA REQUEST FOR CAPITAL COSI E$TINATE FROM CONCEPT e
1.
Required Inforriation 1.
Plant name Washington Public Poner Supply System Nos 1 & 4 2.
Plant 3ocation - Richland, Washington 3.
Type of plant - PWR 4.
Type of heat discharge - Mechanical draft cooling towers 5.
Unit size, net HW(e) - 1240, each unit i
6.
Number of units -2 7.
Month and year of NSSS purchase Unit 1 December, 1972 Unit 2 July,1974 Unit 3 Unit 4 8.
Month and year of commercial operation Unit 1 September,1980 Unit 2 March,1982 Unit 3 Unit 4 9.
Interest during construction Interest rate, percent / year - 7%
a.
b.
Simple or compound? - Simple
- 10. Length of construction workweek, hours - 40 II.
Desirable Infermation 1.
Cost of site land, dollars
$0 2.
Estimated site labor requirements, nan hours /kW(e) Use Concept Code Dat'il 3.
Average site Ir.bor pay rate (including fringe benefits) - Use Concept Code effective at month and year of NS3S purchase, $/ hour Data 4.
Average escalation rates projected for site labor, percent / year - 8%
5.
Average escalation rate projected for site materials (e.g.,
- 8%
structural steel, rebars, concrete, lumber), percent / year l
l 1
e 9
___