ML20235V542
| ML20235V542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1987 |
| From: | Robert Williams PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| P-87335, NUDOCS 8710150213 | |
| Download: ML20235V542 (7) | |
Text
-
j O Public Service ~
kla..
P.o. Box 840 Denver, Co 80201-0840 September 25, 1987 Fort St. Vrain R.O. WILLIAMS, JR.
Unit No. 1
$"gR RE8 "
PE TIONS P-87335 Executive Director of Operations (LS. Nuclear Regulatory CommissioP 1
Washington, D.C.
20555 YbocktN.A925'0-267 I
SUBJECT:
Exemption From t c FLE man Annual Fees Under 10CFR Part 171 REFERENCE (S):
1)
Federal Register (51 FR 33223) 10CFR Parts 51 and 171, Final Rule (G-86514) 2)
PSC Letter, Williams to Executive Director of Operations, January 21, 1987 (P-87031) 3)
NRC Letter, Stello to Williams, August 7, 1987 (G-87268)
'I 8710150213 e70925 4)
Federal Register PDR ADOCK 05000267)
P PDR Annual License Fee for 1988.
Dear Sir:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 171.11, Public Service Company of Colorado (Public Service) hereby makes application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) for an exemption regarding the payment of alinual fees provided for in 10 CFR 171, et seq.
As you know, this regulation requires that the fees assessed thereunder shall be reasonably related to the regula tory services provided by the Commission and shall fairly reflect the cost to the Commission of providing such services. While the Commission is concerned with 3
g recovery of the costs associated with regulation of power reactors, I({
1 it was not the intent of the Commission to promulgate a fee schedule that would have the effect of imposing fees of such magnitude that
/)*.'G $Y Y 2f?S $ # YYS
(,Q) (y
..u
I P-87335 i
Page 2 September 25, 1987 owners of smaller, older reactors would suffer an adverse economic impact.
Public Service believes that the annuai fee assessed under 10 CFR 171 is unduly burdensome to Public Service and, as such, requests an exemption therefrom so as to eliminate this burden. A similar request was granted for 1987, Slnce that time the capacity of Fort St.
Vrain has been restricted.
In support of this request, Public Service states the fol* lowing:
Public Service is making a-contribution to the nuclear industry by advancing a new technology for the U11ted States. The burden of this effort has been increased by the removal of Fort St. Vrain from the Public Service rate base anc; cMtinuing problems with equipment that is new to the U. S. nuclear industry.
Public Service's Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station is unique in the industry in that it is a High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR).
Public Service is only permitted by the Colorado Public Utilities Commissinn (PUC) to sell power generated tnerefrom at 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour.
Furthermore, because of the a:e and size of Public Service's Fort St. Vrain reactor, Public Service believes that the Commission's general regulatory costs for the plant and the benefits bestowed on Public Service as a result of the general services rendered by the. Commission are substantially below that of other power reactors, thus warranting an exemption from the above referenced fees.
Public Service has been incurring unusually high costs due to its efforts to operate the only HTGR in the country.
Public Service has been paying unusually high fees for NRC services under 10 CFR 170, has incurred plant downtime due to problems with equipment different from that in any other U. S. plant, has been limited to 82% of its rated capacity, and for much of the time has either been unable to generate power or limited to 35% of capacity while making modifications to equipment.
As shown graphically in Figure 1, Fort St. Vrain has only had limited operation, especially over the last three years.
Over the last twe;ve months the plant has generated approximately 174,983 MWhe (net) at an operating cost of approximately $60 million or roughly 34.3 cents per net kilowatt hour produced.
Under 10 CFR '171.11, Exemption, the criteria for the granting of an exemption from the annual fee include the following:
1 I
1 l
l l
- ?
E,'
P-87335 g".,
Page 3
+
September. 25, 1987 11
' A)
Ageof Reactor:
Fort St. Vrain " first went critical?in
?
January, 1974. As such, it was.the.'first reactor to {o initia11y' critical-iin 1974.c Prior'to.1970, eight reactors went critical; between 1970 and 1972 fifteen more went,
- critical, and.'during.1973 eleven reactors went critical.
Therefore, of the'110 reactors currently L having operating
- licenses, Fort St. Vrain was. the. 35th. reactor to.go critical. ;Thistma 9s Fort St. Vrainlamong' the oldest. third of the. nuclear ' unit; currently licensed.
B).
Size.ofaReactor:
Fort St, Vrain is< rated at 330 MWe net.
However, the unit is currently restricted'to 82% of-rated capacity and much o f.
the time has-been inoperable while equipment' modifications are being made. ' Reactors that' have become critical.since 1980 have ranged in size from 829 MW~
. for Farley 2 to.1221 MW for the Palo Verde units.. The newer
. units are roughly 4 times larger than the ' restricted rating of Fort St..Vrain, roughly 9 times.. larger than the capacity that, Fort
.S t. Vrain often realizes, and infinitely larger than the shutdown capacity that has even. more often been reg'ui red in: order to make ' modifications.
This factor greatly limits the_ ability of the Fort St. Vrain reactor to i
. produce revenue to offset any-licensing fees imposed by the Commission.
C)
Number ofc Customers'in Rate Base: The' number of customers in rate base is not applicable to. Fort St.
Vrain.
No
' additional expenses of any kind,. including additional fees a
such~as~the 10 CFR 171 fees, can be passed on to the Public Service rate payers as the result-of_ a settlement of litigation between Public Service and the PUC',
along with other. litigants.
As a result of the settlement, Fort St.
Vrain was removed from the Public Service rate base.
D)
' Net Increase in KWh Cost for Each Customer Directly Related-to the Annual Fee Assessed Under This Part:
No increase in 1
KWh cost to customers of Public Service will result due to k
the imposition of the annual fee.
' Public Service is not J
permitted to seek future rate increases based on increased
. costs due to Fort St. Vrain. The Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station was removed from the Public Service rate base' as a' result of the settlement of litigation referenced in paragraph C above. Of additional importance is the fact that the PUC has limited Fort St. Vrain cost recovery to 4.8 l
cents per kilowatt hour produced.
i
I P'487335 Page'4
"'- September l
25.-1987 i
l
' E)- 'Any Other. Relevant Matter-. Which the Licensee Believes Justifies the Reduction of Annual Fee:
1)
Fort St.. Vrain is an HTGR. Most of the Commis.,lon investigations, rule makings,; program development, and.
1 regulatory tresearch are directed to light water
{
. reactors.
The-Commission HTGR related research and development activity.is directed to advanced. HTGR reactors and has little application to Fort St.
Vrain.-
Substantial additional effort must-be made on the.part
..I of Public Service to analyze the results of the light-water reactor determinations in order to apply them to-Fort St.
Vrain where. indicated.
The NRC seldom attempts.to explicitly. define the relevance of a general regulatory; activity to an HTGR.
Because the work that is being. funded by the Part 171 annual fee is not directed to Fort St.
Vrain_ in most cases, Public Service must incur substantial' additional and unusual costs to analyze NRC regulatory information for non-light water.
reactor applicability and implementation. A reduction in the annual fee should-be permitted to help offset the increased expenses that Public Service incursLin this process.
In.thepreviousexemptionrequest(Reference 2),Public Service provided an analysis that showed only 40% of the NRC budget to be-directly applicable to Fort ~ St.
Vrain.
2)
The Commission staff has estimated that $38 million will be collected during 1988 from Part 170 fees.
The September 4,
1987 analysis indicates that $31 million of this will be obtained from amendments, Part 55 Operator Exams, and inspections.
The charge. to the approximately 110 reactors during 1988 for amendments and special projects is estimated to be $5 million or $45,000 per reactor. The actual charges paid by Public' Service during 1985-86 (the most i
recent data available) for amendments and special' projects totaled $202,791. The result is $157,000 more in extra charges to Public Service or approximately four times the average charge to a utility utilizing a light water reactor. The total Part 170 fees average
$280,000 per reactor, whereas Public Service has been billed $545,000.
\\
P-87335 Page'5
. September 25, 1987 j
Since Public Service is billed nearly twice the average reactor for 10 CFR 170 services, a reduction in annual fee under 10 CFR 171 is appropriate. As the efforts.
under Part 171 are generally not applicable to the HTGR, Public Service is paying more for the specialized services provided under 10 CFR Part 170.
Public Service is requesting 'a total exemption from Part 171 fees as a result of the limited capability to generate electricity from its Fort St. Vrain HTGR, the higher Part 170 fees paid by Public Service, the limited applicability of NRC Part 171 services to a i
present day HTGR, and the age of the reactor.
At. a i
maximum Public Service should be charged based on a capability of 35% of rated capacity (one-ninth the size of' new reactors).
This would result in a Part 171 assessment for Fort St. Vrain ranging from $0.00 based on its frequent inability to operate because of the need to modify equipment to a maximum of $936,000 x 1/9 e
= $104,000 based on the limited operation that has been achieved.
t In summary, due to the size, age, operability, and Colorado regulatory treatment of Fort St. Vrain, as well as the absence of applicability of the Commission expenditures, recovery of which is represented by the assessment under 10 CFR 171, and additional inhouse expenses incurred by Public Service in utilizing the Commission's work
- product, Public Service hereby requests a total exemption in the annual fee payable thereunder for 1988 and each year thereafter.
Fort St.
Vrain's demonstration of HTGR technology is providing information of benefit to the entire industry.
The high efficiency, low use of water, and safety features of the HTGR can be useful to the j
development of future reactors.
Public Service should not be required to make further contribution to nuclear technology.
i
,J P-87335i
'.Page 6
.. c.
- ...Septemberi25,.1987 -
Should Lyou havelany. questions regarding Public-Service's application' for' exemption, please contact Mr. M. H.: Holmes. at (303) 480-6960..
l
.,t Very truly yours, f
$ (t$//
}
. R. ' O. Williams, 'Jr.
Vice President, Nuclear Operations R0W/JW:bac 1
cc: NRC ' Document. Control'. Des k James. Holloway, ~ Jr.
-Chief, License Fee Management Branch, USNRC' l
f i
)
i
'I
_U.__
a;
).;
- h, o
o r
!,. 1 r t - r-w.
L iB..
IN3W3DVad38.801Vln38IJ
.o 2
CD
. + '
-+ s t
rn v-l E
-4 g -
g waxuww.x
- m (IMMBmM,2MMt
" amer, L;t;'nfwuaacaxir e m.u
- a GJ W
i gy;agy g,.aa nummmmm
.- t a
w Es
. LLI LL) 3 a-
- e
- r n
- u.
g
- ::..o m
e L
g -g NOIIVJIdl~1V00
'NONIAN3 B
- y*
R u
a u
-,e ea w
.m w,--
_ m a
- 7 3
Q k
f C M m " M'rW M ?m)
~ q A
1 M
I.'.'.
a
- m sq E
to a-
- n o
-m
- m
=
- a e NOI1V3Idllyn0 1N08IANB i E E j 1
.M l
hh
'a
(-
M,
- r 1
if IN3WN, SIB 8nd38 003 10MINO3 a
Z[
'o o
_ n cc g.
i
=
cu
- in m
u l
~,i CD w m.,ma.,
-, a w
, - i s
r t.
9NIla.,nd38 QNIHjl 1
- m a
eul _ f^". ~"""' Q,a;Q Q
a mammM,,
- n ww N
CL, l'J!DM priTEMMia?M M&W "5 2 RutM t W 3 m ist m TE M
- c)
,[.
CI"R'E METAGNMLjrWMMvMEME,,MTMLTMKNM
- 4 W
[1,]
g r; f:' g mu % uum
- n g,
W
- 6 S$380N I 38 ISION
- i ~
.8"
~Imo i
em
- r wa a
gi,nnmm,.mp%tTmwrmrrnuf.5..
a
- m
,,mmr f
- m i
uma_! _x! MV37 6019NBN~ 0 WV 315 sa : :
W
+
. m.-am-a-Mmmme
.- m.
N bh, KEEXTIM uhu m 4mm.um.ucN CTRiI (f*)
E7XJENTMQ7.C'W"- "mmr"mtwgays7tamt.5WMmmwraammtwppm,Rnym twemw5ymmmmm
- n.txx t
i W'd'""?"WMEZ$?MS ZLL%.EEZZCGEMCiGMM'UE
- b l
y
.y trnw"wrygm.m.cy:nnnmmmmmvatwnn t
i i
c=1
- s-u E
2i l~r; NOI WJ1dI.G014 illdG dOO1801 V703,813 o
a
- n#4 w
4 R Mt W FE
-R j
ke'aanuiQws.zuzuw;WGaM CI?M
- O N
w4mumsmaxwmmmE1"E"'ttra.mmM&Ws "",mmtai
- tr.
(y
C2y'=
~-
fL"'Jp* 9%MURstMME LimmWJ1132$Mn vnW77tn.u.s...... r4M20?E
- a, -
C a
tm
- m I
(O LL.,
ftN, _-' l'Jn J pJ Glk'~,iJ Bd e
a c.d%_m
.e_e m.m.m &
-. t c.n w
i i
i mammums
=
- 4 r
- c2;rmrnmattamatwrumunrmura
- n v4 i
MM?M7???'MM."Mm?!mK728b"'l2fd,%2&MdMU3R7C72CWMWMM'{lgC7/2,'
- m
- u i
8 (A ATmTJWMMM7hSEM CM2M"BMw.am.mmaau.MMXWN.sMMMYEciabM M
- n d
j
(;c,,vrmitecrmmrrgywn.vemuneygggggyrggy;gggy.mygtygg,m,,y,
.- z i
i i
giwmmmmmmygy_vjm;g
-._ o LLI I
i i
es
- o3 t,.r.O.
mm:zrms==:mmmm
- n i
i txugmwwxwmmma
- 6 2
La Aw.ME'lEUMFEMMWRT.E.M CMWGCid137%YNctt3W17mic'sm7E22nriummim
- t: 03 LD i
(Cf&MWWEmmtiTTA:7/m17m.rmnn
- a g.,
p.;
rw
-m :'=7
_- r j
l2i
- u M
LL 4
INIVillSNd3 N01038 lTNISNI(
j-53 S33IA3G g-.
c2 o
o
- a o
a a
a o
G CD t%
O CD CCJ CJ G
G CD C%
ISI C
O G
G
}
=
4
=
=
+
a cw es en a
ca a
ess i
rp
<:t cd Q
n.D s2
<2 C1 f
v4 v4
--4 v4
' ~
CJn0H EMES 0W _-_ _ -}}