NUREG-0480, Responds to 791114 Request for Info Re Questions Contained in Eg Busch on Nuclear Energy.Ol Issued to Util for 40 Yrs,Beginning W/Cp Issuance.Discusses Licensing Process
| ML19257B195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/26/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Bentsen L SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257B196 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0332, RTR-NUREG-0480, RTR-NUREG-332, RTR-NUREG-480 NUDOCS 8001150363 | |
| Download: ML19257B195 (5) | |
Text
rT.
4
. s
\\
UNITEU ST ATES E
i %
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$.,' O t
S
- v. 4mncTor.. o. c. 20sss DEC 2 G E The Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen United States Senator 912 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Senator Bentsen:
This is in response to your November 14, 1979 request for infomation concerning the questions about nuclear energy in an October 30, 1979 letter from your constituent, Mrs. Ernestine G. Busch.
A license to operate a nuclear power plant is issued to a utility for a period of forty years, beginning with the issuance of the construction pemit. Actual operation of the plant is less than forty years since it takes about eight years to construct the plant. At the end of the 40-year' period, the operator of a nuclear power plant must renew the license for another time period or apply for temination of the license and for authority to dismantle the facility and dispose of its components.
The degreee of dismantlement would be determined by an economic and environmental study involving the value of the land and value of scrap material and could range from decontamination and mothballing of the facility to the complete demolition and removal of the complex.
If, prior to the expiration of the operating license, technical, economic or other factors are unfavorable to continued operation of the plant, the operator may elect to apply for license temination and dismantling authority at that time.
In addition, at the time of applying for a license to operate a nuclear power plant, the applicant must show that he possesses "or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of pemanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition." In any event, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that a qualified licensee maintain valid licenses appropriate to the type of facility and materials involved.
Under current regulations, the Commission generally requires that all quantities of source, special nuclear, and byproduct mater:als not exempt from licensing under Parts 30, 40, and 70 of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, either be removed from the site or secured and kept under surveillance. At the end of a station's useful lifetime, the applicant will prepare a proposed deccmmissioning plan for review by the NRC. The plan will comply with NRC rules and regulations then in effect.
1747 289 8001150 36 3
The Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen
2
The decommissioning of reactors is not new. Since 1960, five licensed nuclear plants, four demonstration nuclear power plants, six licensed test reactors, 28 licensed research and 22 licensed critical facilities have been or are in the process of being decommissioned. The primary method of decommissioning consists of mothballing, entombing, dismantling, or a combination of these three alternatives. The three primary methods are defined below in terms of the definitions provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86.
Mothballing is the process of placing a facility in a nonoperating status.
The reactor may be left intact except that all reactor fuel, radioactive fluids and nonfixed radioactive wastes such as ion exchange resins, contaminated scrap materials and contaminated chemicals are removed. The existing license is amended to a " possession only" status and continues in effect until residual radioactivity decays to levels acceptable for release to unrestricted access or until residual radioactivity is removed. The " possession only" license is a reactor facility license that permits a licensee to possess the facility but prohibits operation of the facility as a nuclear reactor.
Entombment consists of removing all fuel assemblies, radioactive fluids, and wastes followed by the sealing of remaining radioactive material within a structure integral with the biological shield or by some other method to prevent unauthorized access into radiation areas. A program of inspection, facility radiation surveys and environmental sampling is required for a licensed facility that has been entombed.
Dismantling is defined as removal of all fuel, radioactive fluids and waste, and all radioactive structures. Surface contamination levels have been established in Table 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.86 which must be met prior to termination of the facility license.
In addition to meeting the surface contamination levels, the acceptability of the presence of materials which have been made radioactive by neutron activation would be evaluated on a case =by-case basis prior to termination of the license.
If the facility owner so desires, the remainder of the reactor facility may be dismantled and all vestiges removed and disposed of.
Immediate Dismantlement is estimated to require about six years to complete, including 1=1/2 years for planning and preparation prior to final reactor shutdown. Following immediate dismantlement the site could be sold and used for other purposes. Preparation for Safe Storage (i.e., Mothballing 1747 c9J
The Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen or Entombment) are estimated to require about three years to complete, also including 1-1/2 years for planning and preparation prior to final reactor shutdown. It should be noted that the area occupied by the mothballed or entombed unit is a small percentage of the total power station site area. Thus, new generating units, nuclear or coal, could be constructed on the land surrounding the mothballed or entombed units. The motnballed or entombed units may be completely dismantled at any time in the future and the area used for other purposes.,
Property taxes are paid by the owner; in the case of a nuclear power plant site, the licensee pays all taxes as long as he retains ownership of the property.
The capital cost of a nuclear power plant consisting of two 1200 MWe units with initial year of operation 1978 using average cost figures from the Southwest region of the United States is estimated to be
$611/kW. Derived from a study prenared for the NRC by United Engineers and Construction, Inc., the labor involved in the construction of a nuclear power plant is estimated to be about 19.8 man-hours /kWe. Expressing the capital cost in terms of kilowatt-hours of electricity produced over the plant's lifetime, the fixed cost, including the cost of prompt removal / dismantlement decomissioning, is approximately 18 mills /kWh for a plant in the Southwest. Adding the cost of operation and main-tenance and fuel, the total cost of generating electricity is on the order of 28 mills /kWh.
The question of alternative investment of resources is addressed in the review process pursuant to each nuclear power plant license application submitted to NRC. The NRC, in following the regulations which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), prepares an analysis and evaluation that weights the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the proposed nuclear power plant against environmental and other costs considering available alternatives. Before a license can be granted, the conclusion must be reached that the most beneficial mode of generating electricity, given the particular situation, is a nuclear plant.
The decision to build a new generating facility of any type is based on the forecasted power requirements and electrical demand of the region under consideration falling within the service area of the applicable electric utility or power pool. The result of these forecasts is a plan 1747 291
The Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen by the power system, with a time frame as long as twenty years, particular mix of modes (oil, coal, nuclear, hydro, etc.)y of a for the retirement and installation of generating capacit that will meet the projected need for power and provide a detemined amount of reserve capacity. As the productive life of a plant passes, the construction of a replacement power facility is not one-to-one per se. Rather, the system is looked at as a whole and the rate and direction of changes in demand for electricity are evaluated to detemine the need for replacement power or additional capacity over the entire area. Sites of retired or decommissioned power plants may be chosen for new facilities or alternative sites are selected and, in the case of nuclear power plants, submitted for review and licensing. An economic analysis made by the power system, taking regional factors into account, would indicate the type of plant which would most efficiently produce electricity for that area with the anticipated productive life-time depending on the type and design of the plant. Land resources will be committed to power generating facilities only as long as the benefits derived from the production of electr* city are deemed greater than the benefits of alternative uses.
The principal energy sources for the generation of baseload electricity through the rest of this century are coal and nuclear.
Both of these energy sources have health and environmental impacts. While future technological improvemente in both fuel systems may result in significant reductions in health effects, based on current estimates for present day technology, it is concluded that the nuclear fuel system is less harmful to man by a factor of three or more than the coal fuel system. However, the increased risk of health effects for either fuel system represents a very small incremental risk to the average individual in the public. Enclosed is a report " Health Effects Attributable to Coal and Nuclear Fue; Cycle Alternatives" NUREG-0332, that compares the two fuel systems.
A comparison of the economics of coal and nuclear generating systems indicate that the nuclear system is more economical than coal in most regions of the country.
In those regions where coal resources are located, coal fueled generating units may be more economical or the difference is marginal. Mcwever, the difference between coal and nuclear generating cost in all regions is less than about 20% and site-specific conditions could alter economic choice in all regions.
Furthemore, other considerations such as diversity of fuel sources, licensing considerations, health and environmental impacts etc., may have a greater impact on the selection of the preferred 1747 292
5-The Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen fuel system than economics. The enclosed report, " Coal and Nuclear:
A Comparison of the Cost of Generating Baseload Electricity by Region" NUREG-0480, discusses the economics of the coal and nuclear fuel systems.
It should be noted that both coal and nuclear resources will be required to meet our energy needs through the next 20 or 30 years.
Thank you for your concerns about nuclear energy.
I trust this infonnation is sufficient to assist you in responding to your constituent.
Sincerely,
- ^
~
y,_..,,,c.--
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
NUREG-0332 2.
NUREG-0480 1747 293 S
e O
9