ML20136D311
| ML20136D311 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/30/1984 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (ORM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136C160 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-361, RTR-REGGD-01.099, RTR-REGGD-1.099 NUDOCS 8511210278 | |
| Download: ML20136D311 (8) | |
Text
. . _ . _ - _ - - _ -
s ,.
l l
PLANT-SPECIFIC REPLACEMENT ENERGY COST ESTIMATES FOR THE REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99, REVISION 2 VALUE-IMPACT ANALYSIS November 1984 i aared by: Cost Analysis Group Office of Resource fianagement
, Nuclear Regulatory nmission J Kt?q
>;J t 1 .
n a Yh f 8
8511210278 851022 l PDR FOIA BELL 85-361 PDR
i.
PLANT-SPECIFIC REPLACEMENT ENERGY COST i ESTIMATES FOR THE REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99,
[ REVISION 2 VALUE-IMPACT ANALYSIS
+
1
! puroose: -
I
-This report is in response to a request from the Materials Engineering Branch (MEBR), Division of Engineering Technology, RES to modify the replacement 4
energy cost estimate contained in the Value-Impact Analysis of Regulatory Guide 1.99, Cevision 2. Specifically, MEBR requested CAG to provide L plant-specific replacement energy cost estimates in present value terms, and to include in our calculations a credit for those reactors that would benefit from the proposed revision.
t i
Background:
CAG reviewed the cost analysis for Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99 and offered to assist MEBR by providing more precise replacement energy cost estimates.. In our initial review, we observed that the cost analysis was l dominated by the estimate of industry operating costs, i.e., replacement energy costs, and that the estimate was flawed in several respects. CAG's
- estimate of replacement energy gst is based on plant-specific data available in a recently published NUREG - prepared under contract for CAG by the Argonne National Laboratory.
L Replacement Energy Costs':
i 2
This analysis was performed using the following assumptions which were listed
! in the October 30, 1984 memorandum of Lloyd Donnelly to Charles Serpan:
)
- j. 1. Replacement energy cost penalties are assumed to be constant in real terms over the remaining useful life of the reactor. This means costs are not assumed to increase faster than the rate of general
, inflation.
i l 2. For reactors already operational, replacement energy cost penalties i
are assumed to commence in 1985. Comercial operating life of a
- reactor 'is assumed to be 30 years. Thus, remaining useful life
) equals 30 minus number of years in operation prior to 1985.
- 3. For future reactors, replacement energy cost penalties will commence
! in estimated year of initial commercial operation and continue for t
] 30 years.
- 4. All costs will be expressed in 1984 constant dollars and discounted
'back to 1984 assuming a 10% real discount rate. The. final cost
. estimate-will represent a 1984 present worth value in 1984 dollars.
n 5. -The estimate of change in down time provided in the attachment to
. your memo of October 23, 1984 is assumed to be constant over the I remaining useful. life of each reactor.
1/
Van Kuiken, J.C., W.A. Buehring, and K.A. Guziel, Argonne National Laboratory, " Replacement Energy Costs for Nuclear Electricity -
- Generating Units in the United States," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4012.
f I
' MEBR furnished CAG with a list of the affected plants and the estimated impact of Revision 2 in terms of hours per year of plant-specific replacement energy needed. Daily replacement energy costs in 1984 dollars were obtained frcm the previously mentioned Argonne work. The costs were converted to hourly figures. One additional adjustment was required because CAG assumes the
, reactors would have been fully available at the time of the incremental outages, whereas the Argonne study is based on an average availability factor.
CAG calculated the yearly cost for each plant by multiplying the number of _
, hours per year the plant would not be producing due to Revision 2, and hence requiring replacement energy, times the hourly replacement energy cost rate.
4 The attached table contains the pertinent data. CAG identified the expected i number of years remaining for each plant assuming a 30 year lifetime. The plants were grouped by years of expected lifetime remaining. The plant yearly replacement energy costs were summed across each group. The present value of these annual costs were obtained using an annuity formula based on a ten percent disecunt rate. Future costs were discounted to provide a 1984 present worth value expressed in 1984 dallars. This value is calculated to be
$70,742,600, which is approxima.ely sixty percent less than the $180,000,000
, , estimate given in the original Value-Impact Analysis.
4 l
9 j
n
- . . -- - -. ._-.---,r-,-.+ .-
y r--r.-,.
+
CHANGES IN PLANT ENERGY REPLACEMENT COSTS DUE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99, REVISION 2 Change in Plant Average Daily Change in Plant Down Time Due Energy Replacement Energy Replacement to Requirement Cost Costs Per Year i (hours / year) (thousands of (thousands of l 1984 dollars) 1984 dollars)
Palisades 12.2 297 207.4 Sequoyah 2 10.8 306 189.0 Indian Point 2 9.5 580 314.4
- Hatch 1 7.8 349 155.2 Hatch 2 7.8 362 161.5
) '
Peach Bottom 2 7.7 521 -
228.7 Peach Bottom 3 7.7 513 225.6 Calvert Cliffs 1 7.1 440 178.2 '
Maine Yankee 5.5 646 203.0 Davis Besse 1 5.4 273 84.2
! Fitzpatrick 5.4 574 177.1 i i Sequoyah 1 4.8 306 84.0 i Kewawnee 4.8 90 24.5 Watts Bar 1 4.8 310 '85.0
. Monticello 4.8 116 31.7 i McGuire 2 4.2 527 126.4
- Midland 2 4.2 334a 80.2 Bellefonte 1 4.2 329h 79.0 Bellefonte 2 4.2 329f 79.0
. . Washington Nuclear 1 4.2 380m 91.1 l Millstone 1 4.2 511 122.6 l Oyster Creek ~
4.2 343 82.3 Browns Ferry 1 4.2 288 -
68.9 Browns Ferry 2 4.2 288 68.9 t
Browns Ferry 3 4.2 288 68.9 Brunswick 1 4.2 341 81.9 ,
Brunswick 2- 4.2 341 81.9 -
Cooper 4.2 130 31.1 Duane Arnold 4.2 106 25.2 La Salle 1 4.2 598 143.2 3~
Susquehanna 1 4.2 545 130.6 Fermi 2 4.2 522 125.2 Perry 1 4.2 376 90.3
- Perry 2 4.2 376f 90.3 j
Clinton 1 4.2 527f 126.4 Grand Gulf 2 4.2 553f 132.7 Hope Creek 1 4.2 564k 135.2 Limerick 1 4.2 555 133.1 Limerick 2 4.2 555f 133.1
-n,- .-.
--.-,-.n., - - - ,,,.-,,,~.,.v., -,----,-,--u ,,n.,,,.--,, n. .na------,---,-,..-~---,~.,r.w,
CHANGES IN PLANT ENERGY REPLACEMENT COSTS DUE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99, REVISION 2 (continued)
Change in Plant Average Daily Change in. Plant Down Time Due Energy Replacement Energy Replacement to Requirement Cost Costs Per Year (hours /yedr) (thousandsof (thousands of 1984 dollars) 1984 dollars)
Nine Mile Point 2 4.2 683j 163.8 River Bend 1 4.2 396b 94.9 Shoreham 1 4.2 541c 129.8 Susquehanna 2 4.2 556 133.1 Cook 2 3.7 '
299 63.3 Cook 1 3.6 288 59.0 1 Arkansas 2 3.6 369 76.0
- Trojan 3.6 324 66.6 i San Onofre 2 3.6 758 155.9 San Onofre 3 3.6 758 155.9 Summer 1 3.6 399 82.1 St. Lucie 2 3.6 420 86.4 Midland 1 3.6 201d 41.4 Braidwood 1 3.6 383e 78.8 Braidwood 2 3.6 383f 78.8
, Byron 1 3.6 580 119.2 i Byron 2 3.6 580f 119.2 Callaway 1 3.6 349 71.6 Comanche Peak 1 3.6 711 146.2 Comanche Peak 2 3.6 684a 140.4 Marble Hill 1 3.6 444n 91.1 Marble Hill 2 3.6 444f 91.1 Millstone 3 3.6 856e 175.7 Wolf Creek 1 3.6 430 88.2 Shearon Harris 1 3.6 360e 73.8 Palo Verde 1 3.6 836 171.7 Palo Verde 2 3.6 822g 168.8 Palo Verde 3 3.6 822f 168.8 Seabrook 1 3.6 856a 175.7 Seabrook 2 3.6 856f 175.7 South Texas 1 3.6 773p 158.8 South Texas 2 3.6 773f 158.8
- Waterford 3 3.6 496 101.9 Washington Nuclear 3 3.6 373m 76.7 Beaver Valley 2 3.6 254e 52.2 Catawba 1 3.6 487c 100.1 Catawba 2 3.6 487f 100.1 Vogtle 1 3.6 5531 113.8 Vogtle 2 3.6 553f 113.8
- - - - e - - - - -- - , - - - y am --y- ,wpa
.+ . .
CHANGES IN PLANT ENERGY REPLACEMENT COSTS DUE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99, REVISION 2 (continued)
Change in Plant Average Daily . Change in Plant Down Time Due Energy Replacement Energy Replacement to Requirement Cost Costs Per Year (hours / year) (thousands of (thousands of 1984 dollars) 1984 dollars)
Pilgrim 1 3.6 548 112.7 Grand Gulf 1 3.0 553 94.8 La Salle 2 3.0 598 102.3 Surry 2 3.0 321 54.9 Washington Nuclear 2 3.0 331 56.7 North Anna 2 3.0 393 67.2 Three Mile Island 1 2.5 406 58.0 Indian Point 3 1.8 649 66.6 Zion 2 1.8 537 55.1 Crystal River 3 1.8 476 49.0 North Anna 1 1.8 387 39.8 Beaver Valley 1 1.8 271 27.9 McGuire 1 1.8 527 54.2 Diablo Canyon 2 1.8 850 87.3 Salem 2 1.7 585 56.8 Watts Bar 2 1.2 310f 21.2 Diablo Canyon 1 1.2 852 58.3 Farley 1 1.2 351 24.0 Salem 1 1.2 570 39.0 Arkansas ANO 1 1.2 360 24.6 Robinson 2 0 N/A N/A Oconee 2 0 N/A N/A Fort Calhoun 0 N/A N/A Rancho Seco 0 N/A N/A Oconee 1 0 N/A N/A Ginna 0 N/A N/A Oconee 3 0 N/A N/A Farley 2 0 N/A N/A 2 St. Lucie 1 0 N/A N/A J
Big Rock Point 0 N/A N/A Dresden 2 0 N/A N/A Dresden 3 0 N/A N/A Nine Mile Point 1 0 N/A N/A Quad Cities 1 0 N/A N/A Quad Cities 2 0 N/A N/A Vennont Yankee 0 N/A N/A Prairie Island 2 - 1.2 106 -
7.2 Zion 1 - 1.2 537 - 36.7 Calvert Cliffs 2 - 1.2 440 - 30.1
~
CHANGES IN PLANT ENERGY REPLACEMENT COSTS DUE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.99, REVISION 2 (continued) i Change in Plant - Average Daily Change in Plant Down Time Due Energy Replacement Energy Replacement to Requirement Cost Costs Per Year (hours / year) (thousandsof (thousands of 1984 dollars) 1984 dollars) 4 I Surry 1 - 1.8 321 - 32.9 Point Beach 1 - 3.0 115 - 19.8 Turkey Point 3 - 3.5 424 - 84.7 Turkey Point 4 - 3.5 424 - 84.7
, Point Beach 2 - 3.6 115 - 23.8 Prairie Island 1 - 3.5 106 - 21.6 Lacrosse - 3.6 10 -
2.2 Yankee Rowe - 5.3 131 - 39.8
- Millstone 2 - 4.8 669 -183.4 Haddam Neck -10.8 436 -268.9 San Onofre 1 -16.8 295 -282.2 i
' NOTES FOR COLUMN 2
- a. Based only on the Summer 1986 estimate.
4 .
- b. Avarige.of Winter 1985/86, Spring 1986, and Summer 1986' cost estimates.
- c. Average of Summer 1985 through Spring 1986 estimates.
- d. Based only on the Summer 1986 estimate for Midland 2 and scaled down due 4
to size,
- e. Average of Spring 1986 and Summer 1986,
- f. Used same estimate 2s for Unit 1 because they are the same size.
- g. Average of Fall 1985 through Summer 1986.
4 i h. Sequoyah 1 and 2 are $306 each 9 1,148 net MWe. Bellefonte is 1235 net MWe, therefore its cost is estimated to be $329.
. i. LaSalle 1 and 2 are $598 each 9 1,078 net MWe. Clinton is 950 net MWe, therefore its cost is estimated to be $527.
J. Nine Mile Point 1 is $386 9 610 net MWe. Unit 2 is 1,080 net MWe, l therefore its cost is estimated to be $683.
0 a
,----n-,ae- - . - , - - - - - ,
v - .-- ----p- - - - ~ - - - . , . , ,- - .---v. - , ,- ,.w,u
.. - . . . - . n.. .. . . . ... .. ..
A
- k. Salem 1 is $570 @ 1,079 net MWe. Hope Creek 1 is 1,067 net MWe, therefore its cost is estimated to be $564
- 1. Hatch 1 is $349 @ 764 net MWe. Vogtle 1 and 2 are 1,210 net MWe each, therefore their cost is estimated to be $553 each.
- m. WNP 2 is $331 @ 1,103 net MWe. WNP 1 is 1,266 net MWe, therefore its cost is estimated to be $380. WNP 3 is 1,242 net MWe, therefore its cost is estimated to be $373. ,
- n. Marble Hill's costs are based on the ECAR average,
- p. Comanche Peak 1 is $711 0 1,150 net MWe. South Texas 1 and 2 are both 1,250 net MWe, therefore their costs are estimated to be $773 each.
SOURCES: U.S. 'NRC, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research; Van Kuiken, J.C.,
et al. " Replacement Energy Costs for Nuclear Electricity Generating Units in the United States," USNRC Report NUREG/CR-4012, October,1984 A