ML20211C566
| ML20211C566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1987 |
| From: | Baskin K SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B118 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702200132 | |
| Download: ML20211C566 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _
j o
Enclosure Southem Califomia Edison Company P. O. SO M 8 0 0 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUC ROS EMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770 MENNETH P, SASK4N 4
TE LE PMose t v.a t...tc February 2, 1987 i
I Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 4
j
Dear Mr. Denton:
I The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification of a i
matter related to the fuel loading / low power licensing of San Onofre Unit 2 in early 1982.
In a proceeding before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), that Commission has concluded (based on a statement their staff attribute to you during an interview on l
January 28, 1985) that the NRC would have licensed San Onofre Unit 2 for fuel loading and low power on January 13, 1982 if the i
i San onofre senior reactor operator candidates had not earlier failed their NRC licensing examinations.
Based on this l
conclusion, the CPUC has disallowed more than $30 Million of the Company's investment in San Onofre Units 2 and 3.
l The Company has made an exhaustive search and examination of documents, prepared by the NRC Staff as well as the Company, which are contemporaneous to the NRC licensing activities during late 1981 and early 1982.
This examination leads the company to conclude that there is no basis to conclude that the NRC would have issued a fuel loading / low power license to San Onofre Unit 2 as early as January 13, 1982.
On the other hand, the Company finds that there is considerable basis to conclude that the NRC would not have issued the San Onofre Unit 2 fuel loading / low power license as early as January 13, 1982.
The basis for this conclusion includes:
1.
The NRC required the Company to perform an Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) following the discovery of mirror-image design errors at Pacific Gas & Electric's Diablo Canyon Station in late 1981.
On January 13, 1982, the Company met with the NRC Staff and presented for the 8702200132 870206 PDR ADOCK 05000361 P
pon
e s
I i
Mr. Harold R. Denton 2
February ~2, 1987 first time, results from the IDVP which were referred to as Potential Finding Reports.
These Potential Finding Reports documented deviations from the intended design of the facility which had been identified and which could potentially have safety significance.
Presented with these preliminary results, it is inconceivable that the NRC would, 2
on the same day, issue San Onofre Unit 2 a license.
i 2.
From the beginning of work on the San Onofre IDVP, both the Company and the NRC intended there to be an interim report concerning the IDVP which would provide a basis for NRC issuance of a fuel loading / low power license for San Onofre Unit 2.
This interim report was not completed until January l
25, 1982 when it was submitted for NRC Staff review before a y.
license could be issued.
3.
The NRC Staff required the Company to submit additional information concerning the IDVP on February 11 and February 14, 1982, before they considered their review to be sufficient to issue a license to San Onofre Unit 2 on February 16, 1982.
4.
NRC review of the San Onofre IDVP was not completed until their Safety Evaluation Report Supplement (Supplement No. 5)
J was issued.
This supplement was required for issuance of the San onofre Unit 2 fuel loading / low power license on February 16, 1982.
I The company believes that if you did opine in January 1985, as was reported by the CPUC Staff, that a license could have been issued as early as January 13, 1982, but for the senior reactor operator examination failures, you did so without the benefit of review of contemporaneous documents.
The Company is not aware of any analysis that would lead to such a conclusion.
Please advise the CPUC as to whether or not the NRC has performed or is aware of any analysis which concludes that the San Onofre Unit 2 fuel loading / low power license could have been issued as early as January 13, 1982.
Your reply should be sent to:
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California California State Building 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Attention:
Mr. Stanley W. Hulett, President I would appreciate a copy of your reply, as well.
1\\.-.-..-.-------.....-.--
o a
Mr. Harold R. Denton 3
February 2, 1987 Thank you for your prompt attention and reply to this request.
I cannot overstate the importance of this matter to the Company.
Sincerely, i
l l
i l
1
,,m.
. ~ _ _.... - - _.. _ _.. _ _ _. _ _., _
jg, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~-
2 o
i I
wAsmwoTow, n. c.nosss
,[
September 30, 1981 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chainnan Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Comittee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives l
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
~
This monthly status report is in response to the direction given in House
. Report 96-1093. Enclosed is our eleventh report covering the period from Augus t 15, 1981 to September 15, 1981.
This eleventh report discusses the actions that were taken during this period on operating reacto.rs and licensing reviews of new facilities.
I During the reporting period, a full-power license was issued to Sequoyah Unit 2.
In addition, a low-power license was issued to Diablo Canyon Unit 1 on September 22,1981. After receiving the low-power license, Pacific Gas and Electric Company discovered that certain piping may not be properly analyzed for seismic loads.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company has
. halted fuel loading until reanalysis of affected piping is completed.
t l
During this reporting period,' applicant changes.in estimated construction completion dates have occurred for seven plants. The estimated construction completion dates have been revised as follows: Diablo Canyon Unit 2 has been revised fran October 1981 to July 1982; Summer 1 has been revised from November 1981 to December 1981; Watts 8ar Units 1 and 2 have been revised
~
i from June 1982 to August 1982 and from March 1983 to June 1983, respectively; Zimer 1 has been revised from November 1981 to July 1982; Comanche Peak 1 j
has been revised from December 1981 to June 1982; South Texas 1 has been revised from September 1983 to July 1984. Because of these applicant changes in construction completion schedules, the projected total delays i
have decreased from 42 months in the last report to 21 months in this report.
Further changes are likely, and the number of delay months at all of the affected units will change accordingly.
i The staff is analyzing the schedules for FEMA findings on offsite energency l
plans. The staff is assessing the potential impact of these schedules on the l
, licensing process. The potential impacts have not been reflected in this report.
Commissionen Gilinsky and Bradford note that, if the NRC meets its schedules and if adjustments are made for applicants' actual schedules I
and for recent revision of the low power licensing process, the number of future delay months is likely to be between zero and five.
l gtl0ISGC 0I 3'q.
l
..--,.----r>.--w-y.-.
.--w--.-w.,%.r.,,.m,-,.
.-ww
.-w.-
w.-,.-,
y
The Honorable Tom Bevill -
We have expanded Table 2 to include all plants for which OL applications have been tendered, thereby indicating all plants for which NRC OL review is underway.
We have also added a new Table 3 to show the projected licensing schedules for pending Construction Pennit and Manufacturing License applications.
Sincerely, uz Nunzio J. Pa ladino
Enclosure:
NRC Monthly Status Report to Congress cc: The Honorable John T. Myers e
e 1
i e
0 1
+
NRC MONTHl.Y STATUS REPORT TO CONGRESS This is the eleventh monthly status report to Congress in response to the direction given in House Report 96-1093. This report provides a discussion of the major actions that were taken on operating reactors and on licensing reviews of new facilities during the period of time between August 15, 1981 and September 15, 1981.
OPERATING REACTORS
'l Thermal Shock To Reactor Pressure Vessels During the last month, no new information has come to our attention that would alter the staff's conclusion that no immediate licensing actions are required for operating reactors.
Because the implementation of any proposed remedial actions must allow for adequate lead time, letters were sent to the licensees of l
eight plants requesting further information to enable the staff to assess what actions may be required to resolve this issue. The eight plants (Ft. Calhoun, Robinson 2, San Onofre 1, Maine Yankee, Oconee 1, Turkey Point 4, Calvert Cliffs 1 and Three Mile Island 1) were selected on the basis of their vessel irradiation
, history and their plant system characteristics. This effort is progressing in parallel with the generic review presently undebay by the owners groups. The srtaff <
has also held meetings with the owner groups this month to review progress on the thermal shock issue.
1
. OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS Licensing Schedules During the past month, the emphasis on licensing activities continued to be on operating license applications.
During this period, the staff issued a Final Environmental Statement on Fermi 2, a Safety Evaluation Report on Grand Gulf and Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports (SSERs) on Susquehanna and Shoreham.
In addition, a full-power license was issued for Sequoyah Unit 2.
The present licensing schedules for plants projected by utilities 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 Table 1.
Ot The preliminary licensing schedules for plants with lead units projected to be completed in 1983 and beyond are given in Table 2.
Table 2 was modified
- to include all plants projected to be completed in 1983 and beyond for which OL applications have been tendered, and thus indicates all plants for which NRC OL review is underway. The schedules are based on standard assumptions for review and hearing times, except for those plants that are expected to be heav,ily contested (Byron 1 Seabrook 1, and Midland 2). For those plants, we have projected a 13-month (rather than the typical 11-month) hearing schedule from issuance of our SSER to Commission decision date.
The staff review p'rocess for those cases has been accelerated to compensate for the additional time allotted for the hearing process. The potential delays between construction completion and projected issuance of a full-power operating license are presented based on the applicant's expected construc-tion completion date.
~
~
- m..
The staff is analyzing the schedules for FEMA findings on off-site emergency preparedness. The schedules provided for findings on off-site emergency preparedness may cause licensing delays for many facilities.
This month we have added a Table 3 giving the status and projected schedules for pending Construction Permit applications.
There are uncertainties associated with the dates for the ASLB Initial Decision, Commission Decision, and Applicant Construction Completion. As the delays are reduced to small values, these uncertainties bedome more significant and have the potential to impact the totals.
Cost Estimates f*
The NRC is obtaining cost estimates associated with the licensing delays from 0
the Department of Energy-on a monthly basis.
Their latest estimates, dated I
September 14, 1981, are set forth in Attachment 1.
Comission Actions to Improve the Licensing Process The Commission is amending its recently adopted final rule on review procedures for Licensing Board decisions granting power reactor operating license applica-tions. The Commission will retain to itself the decision as to whether a plant will be allowed to go into commercial operation, i.e., receive a full-power license. However, the rule is being modified so as to delete the requirement that the Commission conduct an effectiveness review prior to fuel loading and 1ow-power testing, and to make other clarifying changes. The reconsideration is prompted by Commission experience in reviewing several recent cases.
. w
. The staff is analyzing the potential effect of the rule change on liciensing delays. The results of the staff analysis will be reported in the next report to the Subcommittee.
It may result in further reductions in delay estimates.
PLANT-BY-PLANT DISCUSSION OF DELAYED PLANTS The following is a discussion of the status of the potentially delayed facilities.
(h Although not projected to be a delayed plant, Shoreham Unit 1 is included in this discussion since some majcr milestones are being delayed.
Because of a number of appilcant changes in construction completion schedules, the projected 4
total delays have decreased from 42 months in the la.st report to 21 months herein.
(
--.t.
San Onofre Unit 2 - On June 3,1981 FEMA issued an interim finding.
regarding the conduct of the San Onofre emergency preparedness drill which was performed on May 13, 1981.
The applicant is currently undertaking those corrective actions identified in the FEMA interim fi ndi ng. The hearing on a full-power license started on June 22, 1981, and testimony on seismic issues has been completed.
S
,--,,,,,---..,---,-.----,-----.,.._--,.w,--n---..--.-,
- - - - - - -,, - _ _. -. - _ - ~. - - - - - _ - - - - - -. -. - - - - - - - -,,..,
9 9
Testimony on emergency planning issues started during August 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 completion date is October 1981.
A four-month delay is projected for this facility if the low-power license is not granted.
2.
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 - A favorable Licensing Board de' cision on low-power operation was issued on July 17, 1981. However, the low-power decision was not complete until the Appeal Board issued its decision on physical security matters. This decisiori was issued on September 9, h
1981. A Commission Order permitting issuance of a low power license was 9
issued on September 21, 1981, and a low power license was issued on September 22, 1981. The Commission directed that two additional con-
-tentions be admitted to the full-power proceeding.
In addition, a Board order on full-power contentions postpones a ruitng on equipment qualification issues until the staff's review of this issue is complete and other parties have had an opportunity to review the 1,taff SSER. The appli-cant's initial submittal on equipment qualification was not complete.
The staff worked closely with the applicant to assure that the necessary infor-mation was provided in an expeditious manner. The staff conducted an audit during the week of August 31, 1981, and plans to issue an SSER on this matter by early October 1981.
Since the Board has indicated that it will
~
finalize the full-power hearing schedule when the staff's SSER is issued, the hearing is projected to start in Oc.tober 1981, and a decision regarding a full-power license is projected for February 1982. The construction completion date for Unit 1 was in March 1981.
A nine-month delay is
projected for Unit 1, but this takes no account of the recently discovered problems in the licensee's seismic analysis. The estimated construction completion date for Unit 2 has been revised from October 1981 to July 1982.
The projected delay for Unit 2 has been eliminated.
3.
Shoreham Unit 1 - A pre-ACRS review supplement to the SER was issued the first week of September, with 20 open items requiring infonnation from the applicant, commitments from the applicant, or technical issues remaining I
for resolution. The ACRS meeting is scheduled for October 15, 1981. A post-ACRS supplement to the SER is projected to be issued following the G
ACRS meeting. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for September 1982, which is concurrent with the estimated construction compl etion' date.
4 4.
Summer 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. A decision on a full-power license is prcjected for January 1982. The construction completion date is projected for December 1981. The projected delay has been reduced from two months to one month.
5.
Susquehanna Unit 1 - The ACRS meeting was held on August 6,1981, and a
(
ACRS letter was received on August 11,1981.
.A post-ACRS SSER was issued 4
on September 4,1981, with four open items remaining to be resolved. The start of the hearing is now scheduled for October 6,1981. A decision regarding a full-power license is projected for June 1982. A twc-month i
delay is projected for this facility.
l
l i
I
^
-7 6.
Zim.ier Unit 1 - A SSER was issued on June 4,1981.
Issuance of th
)
additional SSER addressing resolved issues is scheduled for October 1981.
l 1
Recommencement of the hearing is projected for February 1982. A decision f
4 regarding a full-power license is projected for July 1982. The applicant
' has revised the estimated construction completion data from November 1981 to July 1982. The projected eight-month delay for this facility has been l
\\
r i
eliminated.
7.
Waterford Unit 3 - The SER was issued on July 9,1981. The ACRS meeting i
was held on August 6,1981. Staffing and management issues were identi-fied by the ACRS as requiring further review. Late comments received or the,
DES, and the applicant's announced planned consolidation with New Orlearis 1
Public Service, have delayed issuance of the FES to September 30,1981. This l
delay will have no impact on the hearing schedule or licensing. A decision
[
t i
)
l regarding a full-powet license is projected for November 1982. The estimated
[
t l
construction completion date is October 1982. A one-month delay is projected j
1 i
for this facility.
8.
Comanche Peak Unit 1 - The SER was issued in July 1981 with over 40 open j
items.
A pre-ACR$ supplement to the SER is projected to be issued in October L
i 1981. The ACRS meeting is now scheduled for November 12, 1981. A post-ACR$
[
t J
.SSER is projected to be issued in December 1981. The FES is projected to
,i be issued on September 18, 1981..The hearing on selected issues is now I
scheduled to begin in December 1981. The full-power hearing schedule remains i
unchanged and is projected to begin in March 1982.
A decision regarding a I
I l
full power license is projected for October '1982.
The applicant recently infomed the NRC that construction completion cannot be earlier than June 1982.
The projected delay will not exceed 4 months.
Infomal information pro-I vided to the staff indicates a construction completion date for the facility l
I af ter October 1982. Therefore, the projected delay may be eliminated in the future.
FULL-POWER LICENSES Sequoyah Unit 2 A five percent power license for Sequoyah Unit 2 was issued on June 25, 1981.
A full-power license was issued on September 15, 1981.
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS The staff is continuing to review the TMI-related items for those CP and ML' applicants who have submitted infomation regarding the THI-related matters (Pilgrim 2. Allens Creek 1, skagit 1 and 2, and FNP l-8). The staff issued O~
its SSER for Pilgrim 2 in June 1981, and issued its SSER for Allens Creek 1 in July 1981. The applicant for Pilgrim 2 cancelled the facility on September 24, 1981.
The staff reviews of the TMI-related infomation for FNP Units 1-8 and Skagit Units 1 and 2 are in progress.
Results of its reviews are expected to be issued in September 1981 for FNP Units 1-8, and in October 1981 for.
l Skagit Units 1 and 2.
The projected licensing schedules for pending Construc-tion Pemit (CP) and Manufacturing License (ML) applications are given in i
(
Table 3.
j On August 27, 1981, the Commission approved a final rule regarding TMI related requiri ments applicable to Construction Pemit and Manufacturing License Applications filed prior to the THI-2 accident. The rule is projected to be published in October 1981 in the Federal Register and will be effective 30 days af ter publication.
- w---=rww,,w-,.-,
1.
Licensing Schedules CY 1981 - 1982 Plants 2.
Licensing Schedules CY 1983 Later Plants 3.
Licensing Schedules CP and ML Applications
Attachment:
DOE Estimates of Costs Due to Licensing Delays 4
ii A
{
1 i
f
~
1 i
I e
e i
I l
1 l
4 1
~, - - -. _ _ - - - - - -
c.-
J i,w:
i, El i
El
?!;!!!ll!!!!!!st t 2.artag**
a, i
=
- =
srs ea:
5 1
I.',-
,t tt a ga gg gt2 i,2,2g a g3.a =ee r
-].;,:
g asa, ~>3
- aa y,.aas s
, 3 e
t e:
i:
33
=
1.! k 'fI E
I-I
!I!!lll3ll8tjggg (2
2 4 ss
.,i,i
- .t i p!
m,2' x,
-l s,
.s.,
2
~
i*
- s.
- ~ - -
s a; I*Isa=l 2E j g * 3eee2EglC
~ -
et E E
-3*2 f! i s,I r, E g*
" 5 :
g e
-t
=
ja : :i sq 2 3:
j:l ;.
k b. jI.I >
- ~I
.E.
EEiy g-I t t i { ! { ! ! ! ! l $ $ l I
[ [ !_ f N f H f
- gf hk
'
- l ** 5 8
~
- !5-!
f if
,f r s, I. :f =i :,.
-r.
- r.
5
- 2, aj 3
g sg :i e
aa t eEEgeR gg5s e=
~
g W
} f -! ",e
- d
- o c'If
.=. t
==?y2g5se y s J =. s-zi=.
- z. t y
~- - ~
2
.e e
-t t
s
.=
's:-
a,
.e 3.i g{
y
,g r
- 1,8..:
"""'d
--w t 1 r-C 2,
l2
=
"2 yC
~
.s 7
s Iffh:]:j
""""--l---!ll39!, - ) ',, ; sg k
E
- i 12si,y1.41 g
1==
3 3,.
f=. -,,,,=,,--.,,,g~
a ",y y - j
_g -
e: 1, 2..t =,:
a5 e
,sn
,e 4t2!})g
=.
=
,3 5
8 2,
- =
,,2 2,
.e al 31
,=,,,, - -
,, t,,,,
- u y--
-t Eg }5j k
,- s a.-
,.!,s.
,. t :
3 s,
=
e 2*
42 1
3 !I-S$f.!
5 5
- I j - ~ ~ !
!! f!
) E " " " * * * -
,,,,,, " ~ " " 5 Ii j !
i ii s i 4 i..i 1s (1.!ji'inti5 l
ei if-;123.!i.,
ri.
3 3 3 * * - =....,,,, * * * * * - *. -...
- g, j [ 3 d !: j ! !
iI3 1 z 2..-
ar. ni-f.s.i
~
-~
~
~
u
- 3. s: r,is c l':t,
s
-1 a.1 -l c }.
--z~~
.,~s s
~~
x-s t
,n-.a r t!.
at.
J,s y's 3 - t
]- } ~ 3. I sa.1 3:e1.I,:.:;3.5irp :24;ss33Ji!!v
.z--
4 I
-i3
- s
-aaa.[
4 a
a*,3:
ea 3,.
~
===,
,:::3 w
~.
I e
e
?
i
}i.:l EiEiEEEE jgasasasa==EEEEEE a
aaa=s t
4 i
8 Id asssaIs=eeEE[EE eeeee e
gj
=ae
=a 31!
t i t t a t a t t
),
ggyasasaasaal}Ett s=s k
i l'
=.
n:
=,
jj!a a a = = a a s = s!!tartrattet}saa Ett il 73 I
2
!.g,kkk kk,=
=,kg![EEI I
I li,
_===
=s 3:
,ttert ria u
il
.= ;
=tI 5 = = = = = - g,E z E _e _ E g,
1
~saeae a
e i
.-a=-
!,l
'giiEggsginsisi I;
i a
aE---
G
_ir-g
- _is, s
-b ss s_s
}g j
i gw
..g l
gEaE Ea E---
v a!
E 5 5==
= _g
$555E 1,1
-s ss s
.j ggg gg xt m->liiallsglg-ss-111
.; iii i
isi 1
-~
y,
- i. f s'i i
n;,1,=1aagilaala,----
i=k, ii_--
ig i
sss a 3
-l Igj i
is, =1 _1 1 1 1 1 1 l _1 ! ! ! s.
m,,
=~~.-
s 14.
I I*
l
- ti...............Ilj l
=ll' KC ill 1,1 1
~-]
- 1.
s a a l i { s,l. i i. l l 21~issa3}3) l
_1 IE~~}
}A g
s 1
e
i I
--lastt 3 slAIWs 845 F9 Elf Cil9 BASGI sCMIIntis DIfl%BSII Et tKtW%)WG 9/l%/Al La etaal'c ce"5'*1L*' n="' ret).Mue"5 j
YtRllMIIssues}
sjes_luen-INIIssees)
I A$ta Camelsslee Issue Issee statt techalcal Issue statt Technical Issee asas start of Saltlal hectslee ri.et ets rts
_pyet t. m ssin lopet t. a ssem weslag me. ring, e.clslee sete _,
FIlgrle 2 5/
.C C
C C
C C
C II/e9/el 3/n7 4/n2 Far 1 8 C
C C
9/le/Al C
9/94/91 In/nl 7/p7 7/n2 m/n7 i
Allens Creek 1 C
C C
C 9/15/el le/I5/RI C
3/np n/n2 9/92 l
glock Ten I A 2 C
C 11/91 12/R3 2/92 3/A7 7/R2 4/
9/92 I/93 7/43
)
Stagtt/Itanterd I & 2 3/A2 I/
S/82If C
19/03 4/82 6/92 7/s2 II/87 4/R3 5/91 i
i rehhte speless 1 & 2 C
C m/s m/s m/s m/s n/s 12/eltal 5/a3 m/s 7/
1 Perties I 2, 3 C
C W/s 3/
N/5 3/
N/s N/s N/s N/s N/s N/5,3/
l a
t
]
-1/ As a result of field emploratloes conducted by Ir.Cs. the selsmic desty of the fact'llty aest be re-esselmed. Applicants ledicated le September 19ste that the proposed facility is to be relocated to the Meeford reservetsee. Amended IR and PsAR will be filed le Imh 19AB.
l l-
~2/ la response to a 4/24/98 board ordre the applicant stated (5/14/91) se laterest le perselag the review with respect to completleg time heerlag on emetrommental and site saltability itsees. Ibouever the aprilcast has set ladicated when they propese to ressee activilles related to the safety review, particolorly en Int related issues, therefore, a Camelsslee %Islas date is set projected at this Llee for thIs fecIllty.
-3/ py letter dated 3/12/95. Lise aeplicant receamended that the NaC not devote any resserves beyond seppert for the alternate site heerlag for the nes t.tuo years.
4/ It is anticipated that Int issues only will be Alscussed at the ACR$ meetteg.
5/ recility cancelled by applicant en septe her 24.19el.
1 i
I e
1 o
e
ATTACif4ENT (The recent change to the construction completion date for Diablo Canyon Unit 2 is not reflected in the attached DOE estimates.)
Note: The estimated delays are c'alculated by the NRC from the applicant's construction completion date to the Commission Decision date. The estimated delays are calculated by the DOE from the applicant's construction completion date, or the current date for completed units, to the Commission Decision date. Therefore, the DOE estimates exclude delays from prior months for completed plants.
O e
4 4
e
ESTIMATES CF THE COSTS OF DELAYING l
CPERATING LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS Prepared by Division of Utility Systems and Emergency Communications U.S. Department of Energy September 14, 1981 This report is the sixth in a monthly series of estimates of the ' -
costs of delay in the issuance of operating licenses of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
This month's report takes account of changes in the estimated length of delays and continues to provide Department of Energy (DOE) estimates of the costs of delay, in addition to revised estimates supplied by utilities.
Completion of emergency preparedness plans required under the safety review may result in delays for some plants.
DOE will provide potential cost estimates next month for those plants which may be affected.
Summary of Results The most recently projected dates of issuance of operating licenses for new units would result in a loss of 22 months of reactor opera-1 tion based on the utilities' projected dates of completion for 7 units.
(This does not include the two additional months of loss of operation projected for the undamaged TMI 1 unit.)
Last month's estimate was 36 months for these units.
The estimated cost of these delays, excluding TMI 1, is $584 million, based on data obtained from the utilities in September, or 5502 million, based on independent DOE estimates.
A comparison with last month's report follows:
Escludine TMI-1 includine TMI-1 Sept its1 Aug 1951 Sept 1951 Aug 1951 Estimate M mate h Estimete Estimate Qg,ge Units Delayed 7
8
- 1 8
I
- 1 i
Months of 22 34
-14 24 39
- 15 j
operation test Total toet of l
Delays ($MM)
Based on 145
-- Utility Date 584 715
-13 1 4 12 757
-- DOE Analyses 502 60s
-106 530 650 120 i
The decrease is due to mainly to delay in construction schedules.
l 4
v -- - -r-----
n.mn,
-,,_,,.,m--~,mn e----.
,nvn,
_-,e4 y-,., - -
y---,,-,,
--,m,,-,,.-
-g----
-,---n.,
2 Leneth of Delav The length of the delay--the number of lost months of reactor 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-plated, the delay is based on the period from and including September 1981 through the projected month of issuance of an operating license.
Last month's estimate of the licensing dates are shown in column 2.
A net change of 14 months (excluding TMI 1) has occurred in the estimated total length of delay (column 5).
The change is due to o
Delays in construction for Comanche Peak 1, Summer 1 and Zimmer 1..
For the Summer unit the change is less than one month,from 11/30/81 to 12/1/81.
For the Zimmer 1 unit the date now coincides with the operating license' issuance date; therefore, the unit no longer appears on the list
(-15 months).
o omission of costs incurred in August 1981 (since past costs are not included) for Diablo Canyon 1 (-1 month).
Delay in issuance of ope' rating licenses for Diablo Canyon OJ o
units l'and 2.
The NRC has reported that the delay is caused by the app 14 cant's incomplete submission on equipment qualifications (+2 months).
Costs of the Delay The cost of a delay in issuing an operating license after a plant' is 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 customers' energy requirement, based on the delayed licensing schedule, minus o
The total costs of satisfying the same energy requirsment if the license had been issued when the plant was complete.
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 costs that would be incurred with or without the delay.
8 t
The estimated costs of delay are summarised in Table 2, based 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 o
A second set of estimates (columns 5 through 8) was developed independently by DOE staff based on available data on generating resources, pooling arrangements, load projections, capacity factors, and fuel prices.
The analysis method was summarized in the May report.
The key numerical assumptions are presented in Table 3.
q Both sets of estimates used the same length-of-delay information (from Table 1, column 5).
capacity charges were not taken into consideration in the DOE analyses.
Most of the utilities indicated that the replacement power for the delayed nuclear units would be generated within their own systems.
It is possible that, in some cases, there would be a capacity charge for purchased power, but DOE has no current basis for estimating its cost.
DOE's assumptions generally resulted in lower estimates for the monthly cost of repigcement power (Table 2, column 5) than those provided by the utilities (column 1).
In addition, a few utilities claimed special additional costs associated with the delay (footnoted in column 1).
DOE did not attemp,t to estimate such costs.
I e
I e
l 8
e sfeEE 1 Divialese of utility systemis aund L,. 4 e -
losis U.S. thvertneset of therw srptWw 14,1981 DRTA 08 namast tatfTS Wilts Orv3strac 3.K13e IW2AYS y Projected Date Projected Date Cbsistructicos Omr-of 1==' ice of of !=- of pleticus Dates Pro-8tseths of capacity Oswatisus a'^
quatismg 1.1crvise jaetad nur Ompasur Delay heptansa-get hmer tasit 904 Ampest 1981 71F Srytmder 1981 Sestrueser 1981 (1) - (4) heel Losree (2)
O)
(4)
(5)
W r % Peak 1 1.15e 24/t2 le/s2 s/s2'l (7) n *ta canyoun 1 1.e84
- /s2Y 4
ces self,wierated 2/s2Y 3/e1 sY clatalo cassicsi 2 1,106 1/92Y ot t-che senf,iner tad 2/s2Y le/e1 4
cil-cas self guierated sama aiofre 2 1.las 2/s2 2/t2 14/t1 4
ott self,mierates
- -1 See 1/92 1s/32 12/91 1
Omst-Oil self 9esaurated
- m'm1 1.85e 6/92 4/92 4/52 2
Ot1M self guserated tentarford 3 1,151 11/92 11/92 14/92 J
Oil Marctimme4/Self-1btal birw anni ts)..............................................................
,= w ated
.................... 22 Del 1
~
TM 14/31Y le/51Y 2Y Oi14bal harchased
- Scasrms-tJtility yles shetear mespalatory Masiaan 1/ ha all asmits for iAldt===*riseticut is expoeted to tse cxgleted at least esis seseth before ass operati p Wisus to crugessy armarces, tjue asC-pro}==4==a dates dca sent reflect essivuliting 5ew= hares maallat>1e to the sug license is assised, 3/ Det I has received ass <geratisug licesume asal has beest in operaticss.sec la its Jhspast report to the arwill n==
1tua
~
betsus timissed inith Det 1 sedificatlosie tsy the erst of 14/91.refueltsig absrisug Fessinary 1979, asul see si 19me etapes'Y aseticipates sec pro)ccts it teill make a decisicos apt time estit in 14/91.
_4/ Delay essaid rehsce atllity's coal-first asut oll-firat agarts iddcfm naanskt reptam poiser in the fust pool derived fra officient coal plants.
5/ Delays for these ersgiletal entits prior to 9/91 are suot included.
91tur cxmpany has laudicatal that tJie unmit erill siot be ready fcr fuel loading prior to 6/32.
f is useler revient.
Ass exact constnacticut completiosa date a
9 e
=
+
=
- 2
.~
etwisten of utility systems amid mergener oma tiens '.
y tr.s. th,artumset of hergy an re.-a-,34, 39eg sarsutsun awls e crossurac Laanse en2Avs son naamme test 1s comes n==-a em amoser anta twe= mased me - " _ ^
ear Amelysis I1/
m'elacem=mutY Cuencity 88,a - V inta1Y mapame.-a.eV Indt ymmer rhus.
Facter Ptmer them Cast 9tmeer Chsts Facter famer Costs Cos*_
carecity W
stta1Y
-se6e== tar- ~
-pereunt-
-t/ hen--
-spo+-
-speget eith-
-eurcusit-
--4/tade--
. spot.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(41 (5) ist (7)
(ep amenicserpeak 1 3e.5 7e 3.2 74 14.5Y cunio cas I
as.eV 6e 2.3 Se ss s.r ni x.e a
s.s 35s c4 hao cassen 2 2s.7Y ss 5.5 115 x.s Es s.s les son Quofra 2 3s.eY M
s.5 144 29.6 68 6.1 lie h1 12.7 65 3.e 13 e.5 6e 2.2 9
sus,asumes 1 25.e 65 5.1 Se 1e.1.Y I
tentsrford 3 27.4Y 6e 3.9 36 75 4.4 s
y 19.1 6e 3.8
,19, '
1btal Inna amnits)................................................ See
...........................'.................... 542 init 1 34.s M
2.s a
24.e 1e 3.s se Mal (inclistisug DE 1)......................................... 612
............................................... 530 1/ Cast. og r c -
- gamer =4e fumet asut eperatlag costs of susclear tenits.
anyama====* puner====*= divided by h15mantt-hrmers re Dariumd kr maalt.iplyims===* hay m. yaw pcm ec ana=adacent. toonisme 1 colemma 2 i taalt especity f 72e tunsraM.
- W 1) by t3mt Sae=1 mesuths of delay (Table I, colemme 51.
Onst of femet for 1991 estammted by estility.
Does not imcleste mehes" atmenuel costs of $15.25 ad1]$cen per armeh some not incliede ottier ahmommet n===*= ef $2.7 ad31kun per wh cast of r
- 1 puner udsmus musclame fasel an=*= of 6 at11svimen.
mar nur isourred if psmer is pasrcensend fram other systams.
matinates eBo set lacleade capacity dearges eenken e/ seat of delay occaurs Ass 1982:
V emiriset kr enttlytyisug===8hly r- "therafare, feet e-*= are haast een 1982 estimetas.
^
R& ansclear femel cost of le ad11aAmet are mand in this ca,mamen,-suw ammen icainmue 53 br total - =*ha of stelar (Yable 1, colemme sl.
n Ufth.-.<maapofindes tw = + peak 1 sumas Electric servios on. - 3s 5/st, immes sener asst L5ght - 31 1/25. ontlas etner s t.ight - le 1/35, it mas senacient remer a,== y - 61/54, erasne Electric remer one - 3 4/st, imm-tm saectric coop. of immas - 4 1/3t.
Diabao hy== 1 asse 2:
r Pacific Gas asst Electric 03. - Best of teth isdts.
San Ondre 2:
h==shara California atinosa - x.5543 Sase pie,> Gas asui Electric - 20ts City of alverside - 3.790s City of Anaheism - 1.664.
sessmer It wh Carotista Gee asme Electric - 66ts *=ena Carolina rtdatic Service Jhstatority - 344.
Sasury=h==== 1: pasmusylumsnia stas.r aest Light. - 9063 A13eptesur Electric rhymerative - let.
tentertard 3: tennisiana Ptmer ammt Light - last.
1 ret In sentropolitase netsame - 584. Jersey cesstrat Itmer asal Light. - 256: Ptweesylvenia Electric 03. - 259.
e' 9p
Sanz 3 Devle6am of utility Systsam and guesyancy ha, C.S. Bayertamust of shargy
- 14, 1981 uaY ASSeeTatBE 38 eDE ESFWetW3 & Gsf & MDJNL MJeff BE3JWE E
Reple.
2" Iteet Rata of tanit Meet Min ruel Price Arplacuseset Meet
-peenua-
-sitykse.-
cannanctus h ak I Gas (leet)
Cao3.18 16,911 maio ca 1
oit 15e tiV oil 6.5e it 6M Ces (54 tl cae 4.98 3/
011 6.58
. le,6M Dielo canyon 2 oil (se 33 Gas (Se t)
Gas 4.98 San opetre 2 011 (leet) 011 6.71 10,035 8
Sommer 1 cast tel t) coal 1.71 Chat 10,001
~
041 (19 %)
ott 7.26 ott 9,944 W1 cost (33 %)E cost 1.67 Chat 30,083 oil (67 t) 011 5.04 ott 11,240 Y
11,223 tantistese 3 oil (leet) 011 3.91 war 1 cmat (Se 1) cent 1.67 Qant 10,003 oil (54 t) 011 5.04 ott 11,246 1/ sources u.s. emportament of Innergy, hiergy Inferimatic".s Artainistration, PUC morus 423.
I 7/ Prices are 1982 projections; all s*w prices are est a 1981 beste.
y samed ces siew infariaation, EEE has revised its ---._h.
^
e e
O e
'N e
r*