ML17209A847: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:bOCI( | {{#Wiki_filter:bOCI(ET NUMBER/ROD,&UTIL FAC.~FLORIDA PON'ER 8 LICHT COYAPANY MIAMI, FLORIDA h9$5HALL McDONALD CHAlaN OF THE BOARD February 27, 1981 DATE: DOC P'r.Zohn Ahearne, Chairman U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Nashington, D.C.20555 | ||
== | ==Dear Mr.hearne:== | ||
AIDE:REC~ | AIDE: REC~7l CATS: PARA: COM.:+i'OC jCETED USNRO~~~'1 9 t98)>Offi"e of the Secrecy)or I;oH)e g~.$c~~>>Bra.&Cb F~ora.da.Power S Light Company serves.ia i t.e s-aie of Florida and is a major nuclear utility which operates Turkey Point.Units 43 and N and St.Lucie Unit 41 and has St.Lucie Unit e2 under construction. | ||
The construction of St.Lucie 42 has met virtually every major milestone on the critical path schedule established some four years ago.St.Lucie O2 is approximately 65%completed with construction at the present time and is scheduled for fuel load on October 29, 1982.Ne cannot voluntarily accept.tne NRC schedule for licensing of this unit.The NRC staff, despite our protests to the contrary, insists cn a licensing sch'edule assuming a completion date of December, 1983.It.appears that the NRCschedule is predicated on average construction times of many plants over a number of years.This is very inaccurate when used to predict the completion date of a specific plant which is meet:ing the schedule milestones shown on attachment A.If that schedule is not changed by the NRC to reflect the date when we will complete the plant, the results will be as follows: a)FPL will complete the unit: in October, 1982.K>e unit will be operative but remain idle for lack of an operating license for 13 o hs.A4t'~~082eo S5y 4~r Mr.'ohn Ahearne February 27, 1981 1 b)FPL will burn 9, 750, 000 barrels of foreign oil which would not otherwise, be used but for the lack of an operating',license. | |||
'c)That.oil will cost FPL's 2,000,000 customers more than$300,000,000 over and above the nuclear fuel which would have been used in the 13 month period but for lack of an operating license.d)The capital cost of the unit will increase by$164,000,000 because of t'e continued accrual of AFUDC and site maintenance costs during the period between October, 1982, and December, 1983, , thus causing$32,000,000 each year (at current rates of return)of unnecessary costs over the life of the unit.These unnecessary costs would have to be paid by our customers. | |||
'c)That. | Zn addition, the unnecessary.delay in getting St.Lucie Unit 42 on line would delay our ability to convert oil fired generation to coal fixed generation. | ||
Xn view of our nation's policy of reducing dependence on foreign oil, our Company's desire and obligation to maintain reliable service, and most importantly, our obligation,to provide,'nd our''customers'esire to receive, th'e most economically priced electric service possible, the foregoing sequence of events must not be permitted to happen.I urge vou to instruct the NRC staff to base the NRC licensin schedule for St.Lucie Unit 42 on an October 1982, com letion date.Ne are cognizant of the limited resources of the NRC and the backlog of licensing applications confronting your agency.Xn view of that and in order to take every step possible to avoid the potentially scandalous and.unnecessary results set forth above, Dr.Robert E.Uhrig, of our company, and Mr.Denton, of your staff, have been searching for a means to expedite the licensing procedure. | |||
. | February 27, 1981 Mr.John Ahearne-3-They have arrived at an innovative, independent review l process that.can result in a very significant reduction in the review schedule, thereby expediting the issuance.of the Safety Evaluation Report.This independent review is estimated to cost Florida Power 6 Light Company about$3,000,000 and is'undertaken with the expectation that the benefits will be commensurate with this cost and the very large extra effort on the part of our staff that is involved in this procedure. | ||
This independent review process is expected to very substantially reduce the NRC manpower requirements for the review.Xndeed, it is expected that the primary product of the independent review will be a document that is essentially a draft safety evaluation report.We willingly undertake this additional burden in an effort to leave no stone unturned in an effort to keep St.Lucie 42 on its original schedule.Acceptance of this independent design review approach will require NRC support, at all levels.We will willingly undertake the required expenditure of resources if the'RC will agree that its licensing will keep pace with our construction schedule.At this stage of the project, the necessary adjustments to the licensing schedule can still be made in order to avoid the virtually certain delay which will result if'he present NRC schedule is not, changed.Once again, urge you to instruct the staff to revise the licensing schedule to reflect an October, 1982, completion date of St.Lucie 02 nuclear unit.MMcD:mg Attachment Sincerely, k CC: Florida Congressional Delegation UNIT g1 V$.UNIT g2 SCHEDULE MILESTONES L 1977 1978 1979 1980 PSL=2 1981 1982 1983 Qi QeQs 39 MONT{IS MAY~30MONTI{s 1983 1970 1971'1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 PSL-1~I 8 39 MON TI IS 8 k.DEC 30 MONTIIS 1978 STAnT nCB BASE h1AT Cot{C.srAnr IttrAI{a srnvcruna BAsa MAT coNc.STABT AAB BASE MAT Cot{CBETE Q4 coMp EnacT ci TEsT sTEEL cU To EL 149'TAnT nCB INTEBNAL CONCnETE STABT f'IIB BASE MAT CottcnaTE STAnT SETTINO tJSSS MAJOn EOUIPMENT Jth COMMENCE COLD IIYDnosTAnr I{or ors Jti Jta COL'IMENCE Cona LOAD STAnT cn{T PEnFOBMANCE TESTS cot4t4ENCE rowan ascALLAnoN COMManclAL orannrloN 4)I c~Qo mL{q~I 30*1967-1970 1980 2.5 25 20 0 O 15 D 10 1978 1979 1972 1974 1975 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 2.0 1 0-0 0-0 1.0 m a Q IQ K LU.ST<LUCIE 2 CONSTRUCTION STATUS FEBRUARY 27, 1981 0 78 10.20 30 80 4P rP 60 70 PERCENT COMPLETE (A VE RAGE FOR THE YEAR)(TARGET)80 100 ST>>LUCIE UNIT 2 PROGRESS VS, INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE 0 4r, 1m~~~}} | |||
Acceptance | |||
Revision as of 18:13, 7 July 2018
| ML17209A847 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | MCDONALD M FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | AHEARNE J F NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17209A846 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103230853 | |
| Download: ML17209A847 (6) | |
Text
bOCI(ET NUMBER/ROD,&UTIL FAC.~FLORIDA PON'ER 8 LICHT COYAPANY MIAMI, FLORIDA h9$5HALL McDONALD CHAlaN OF THE BOARD February 27, 1981 DATE: DOC P'r.Zohn Ahearne, Chairman U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Nashington, D.C.20555
Dear Mr.hearne:
AIDE: REC~7l CATS: PARA: COM.:+i'OC jCETED USNRO~~~'1 9 t98)>Offi"e of the Secrecy)or I;oH)e g~.$c~~>>Bra.&Cb F~ora.da.Power S Light Company serves.ia i t.e s-aie of Florida and is a major nuclear utility which operates Turkey Point.Units 43 and N and St.Lucie Unit 41 and has St.Lucie Unit e2 under construction.
The construction of St.Lucie 42 has met virtually every major milestone on the critical path schedule established some four years ago.St.Lucie O2 is approximately 65%completed with construction at the present time and is scheduled for fuel load on October 29, 1982.Ne cannot voluntarily accept.tne NRC schedule for licensing of this unit.The NRC staff, despite our protests to the contrary, insists cn a licensing sch'edule assuming a completion date of December, 1983.It.appears that the NRCschedule is predicated on average construction times of many plants over a number of years.This is very inaccurate when used to predict the completion date of a specific plant which is meet:ing the schedule milestones shown on attachment A.If that schedule is not changed by the NRC to reflect the date when we will complete the plant, the results will be as follows: a)FPL will complete the unit: in October, 1982.K>e unit will be operative but remain idle for lack of an operating license for 13 o hs.A4t'~~082eo S5y 4~r Mr.'ohn Ahearne February 27, 1981 1 b)FPL will burn 9, 750, 000 barrels of foreign oil which would not otherwise, be used but for the lack of an operating',license.
'c)That.oil will cost FPL's 2,000,000 customers more than$300,000,000 over and above the nuclear fuel which would have been used in the 13 month period but for lack of an operating license.d)The capital cost of the unit will increase by$164,000,000 because of t'e continued accrual of AFUDC and site maintenance costs during the period between October, 1982, and December, 1983, , thus causing$32,000,000 each year (at current rates of return)of unnecessary costs over the life of the unit.These unnecessary costs would have to be paid by our customers.
Zn addition, the unnecessary.delay in getting St.Lucie Unit 42 on line would delay our ability to convert oil fired generation to coal fixed generation.
Xn view of our nation's policy of reducing dependence on foreign oil, our Company's desire and obligation to maintain reliable service, and most importantly, our obligation,to provide,'nd ourcustomers'esire to receive, th'e most economically priced electric service possible, the foregoing sequence of events must not be permitted to happen.I urge vou to instruct the NRC staff to base the NRC licensin schedule for St.Lucie Unit 42 on an October 1982, com letion date.Ne are cognizant of the limited resources of the NRC and the backlog of licensing applications confronting your agency.Xn view of that and in order to take every step possible to avoid the potentially scandalous and.unnecessary results set forth above, Dr.Robert E.Uhrig, of our company, and Mr.Denton, of your staff, have been searching for a means to expedite the licensing procedure.
February 27, 1981 Mr.John Ahearne-3-They have arrived at an innovative, independent review l process that.can result in a very significant reduction in the review schedule, thereby expediting the issuance.of the Safety Evaluation Report.This independent review is estimated to cost Florida Power 6 Light Company about$3,000,000 and is'undertaken with the expectation that the benefits will be commensurate with this cost and the very large extra effort on the part of our staff that is involved in this procedure.
This independent review process is expected to very substantially reduce the NRC manpower requirements for the review.Xndeed, it is expected that the primary product of the independent review will be a document that is essentially a draft safety evaluation report.We willingly undertake this additional burden in an effort to leave no stone unturned in an effort to keep St.Lucie 42 on its original schedule.Acceptance of this independent design review approach will require NRC support, at all levels.We will willingly undertake the required expenditure of resources if the'RC will agree that its licensing will keep pace with our construction schedule.At this stage of the project, the necessary adjustments to the licensing schedule can still be made in order to avoid the virtually certain delay which will result if'he present NRC schedule is not, changed.Once again, urge you to instruct the staff to revise the licensing schedule to reflect an October, 1982, completion date of St.Lucie 02 nuclear unit.MMcD:mg Attachment Sincerely, k CC: Florida Congressional Delegation UNIT g1 V$.UNIT g2 SCHEDULE MILESTONES L 1977 1978 1979 1980 PSL=2 1981 1982 1983 Qi QeQs 39 MONT{IS MAY~30MONTI{s 1983 1970 1971'1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 PSL-1~I 8 39 MON TI IS 8 k.DEC 30 MONTIIS 1978 STAnT nCB BASE h1AT Cot{C.srAnr IttrAI{a srnvcruna BAsa MAT coNc.STABT AAB BASE MAT Cot{CBETE Q4 coMp EnacT ci TEsT sTEEL cU To EL 149'TAnT nCB INTEBNAL CONCnETE STABT f'IIB BASE MAT CottcnaTE STAnT SETTINO tJSSS MAJOn EOUIPMENT Jth COMMENCE COLD IIYDnosTAnr I{or ors Jti Jta COL'IMENCE Cona LOAD STAnT cn{T PEnFOBMANCE TESTS cot4t4ENCE rowan ascALLAnoN COMManclAL orannrloN 4)I c~Qo mL{q~I 30*1967-1970 1980 2.5 25 20 0 O 15 D 10 1978 1979 1972 1974 1975 INDUSTRY AVERAGES 2.0 1 0-0 0-0 1.0 m a Q IQ K LU.ST<LUCIE 2 CONSTRUCTION STATUS FEBRUARY 27, 1981 0 78 10.20 30 80 4P rP 60 70 PERCENT COMPLETE (A VE RAGE FOR THE YEAR)(TARGET)80 100 ST>>LUCIE UNIT 2 PROGRESS VS, INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE 0 4r, 1m~~~