ML20002B880
| ML20002B880 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1980 |
| From: | Locke R PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002B881 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101070135 | |
| Download: ML20002B880 (16) | |
Text
,
r ~a'
'l 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f, E'r
\\1 OAN.219g/:
ll
-1 on' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAREF fg"e/g t
A OJ
'78 4 5 tay
% 45 P
In the Matter of
)
e,
)
'NAj PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-133
)
License No. DPR-7 (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3)
)
)
MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPLICATION FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT Pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.107, Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PGandE") hereby moves to withdraw its application for license amendment to permit resumption of operation of its nuclear unit at Humboldt Bay.
That application, which was filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on May 20, 1977, requested deletion of sub-paragraph E of the Commission's " Order for Modification of License" issued on May 21, 1976, and sought authorization to return the unit to power operation on July 15, 1977, on the basis of satisfactory completion of the requirements of the May 21, 1976, Order.
Following publication of the application in the Federal Register, several intervenors sought and were granted permission to intervene by a previously constituted Board.
At the same time (August 5, 1977) the NRC staff informed PGandE that it could not support the Company's application to resume operation based on the information currently available to it concerning geologic and seismic issues pertaining to the facility.
PGandE then retained Woodward-Clyde Consultants ("WCC")
to conduct a series of geologic and seismic studies designed to 13 0 i C 7 ()[h g
J
y i
t resolve the concerns expressed by the NRC staff.
While these studies were in progress, PGandE sought and received several con-tinuances in this proceeding to allow completion of these studies.
The latest of these continuances was granted to October 1, 1980, in order to allow PGandE to receive, evaluate, and file with the Board the Report of WCC containing the results of its geologic and seismic studies.
This Report (filed with the Board on Octo-ber 6, 1980) concluded that the seismic and geologic issues raised by the NRC staff appear capable of resolution.
At the time the WCC Report was filed with the Board (October 6, 1980), PGandE asked the Board to delay further action on its application to December 31, 1980, to enable it to analyze the results of its studies and those of its consultant, Bechtel Power Corporation, relating to the costs and economics of returning the unit to operation.
Those studies have been completed and i
copies are attached hereto (PGandE Economic Analysis - Attachment I and The Bechtel Study - Attachment II).
The studies indicate that the potential costs of additional equipment and operating personnel are high when l
measured against the size of the facility and its remaining useful life.
However, a substantial portion of the potential costs contained in the Bechtel Report - some $40-$80 million -
represent a judgment of potential costs of items that are not currently backfit requirements on operating plants, but which might become backfit items depending on future NRC policy.
The Bechtel Report indicates that further definition of the NRC l
backfit requirement policy could have a substantial impact on i
these costs.
When NRC retrofit standards become better known, it
- may well be that the currently projected costs are less than expected and it may then be economic to make the required plant modifications.
For the foregoing reasons, PGandE believes it prudent at this time to withdraw its application to restart the unit.
Instead, the Company plans to evaluate the evolving NRC backfit requirements as well as other alternatives including decommission-ing.
Meanwhile, the plant will remain in a shutdown condition as it has been since the plant closed in June 1976 pursuant to the Commission's May 21, 1976 Order.
Accordingly, PGandE requests that this Board issue an Order terminating without prejudice further action on the appli-cation.
Respectfully submitted, MALCOLM H.
FURBUSH i
PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
BRUCE NORTON RICHARD F.
LOCKE
)
i i
Dated:
December 31, 1980 By l
RICHARD F."LOCKE Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company l
l l
_,_ _ __-.-.. _ ___ - -. ~..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-133
)
License No. DPR-7 (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document of Pacific Gas and Electric Company has been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Linda J.
Brown, Esq.
- Robert M.
Lazo, Esq., Chairman 100 Van Ness Avenue, 19th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing San Francisco, CA 94102 Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Steve Goldberg, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of Executive Legal Director Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger, Member BETH 042 Atomic Safety and Li' censing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Secretary Dr. David R.
Schink U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Department of Oceanography Commission Texas A 0 M University Washington, D.C.
20555 College Station, TX 77840 Attn:
Docketing and Service Section Michael R.
Sherwood, Esq.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
311 California Street, Suite 311 San Francisco, CA 94104 Dated:
December 31, 1980
[/
RICHARD F.
LOCKE Attorney Pacific Gas and Electric Company
- Express Mail
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Economic Analysis of Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3
SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to compare the cost of restarting and operating Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 versus energy replacement through increased operation and existing generation and capacity replacement with gas turbines. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that the unit could be restarted by mid_1956, following completion of Phase II geology, and required plant modifications. The study develops these costs for service lives of lh and 25 years, for three different cost estimates (optimistic, best estimate, and maximum exposure) for the studies and modifications required to restart and operate the unit. The results indicate that for a 25 year life, the level annual cost of replacement power will be 28% to 9L%
higher than Humboldt's cost of power. For the lh year life, Humboldt's costs are 8% lower than replacement power for the most likely case and 5% higher for the maximum exposure case (see Table 1).
These etnclusions are based on the following conservative assumptions:
Replacement capacity is provided by gas turbines.
1.
2.
Half of the replacement energy is made up by Humboldt Bay Units Nos. 1 and 2 vith the balance coming from the system.
Total capitalized costs of future requirements at 3
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit No. 3 (including geology) will be $113 million for the optimistic case, $161 million for the best estimate case, and $209 million for the These estimates are in 1980$
maximum exposure case.
and include indirect costs.
h.
Nuclear fuel costs are assumed to be 20% higher than Diablo Canyon fuel costs due to the special size and configuration of the fuel bundle.
5 Replacement fuel costs are based on residual oil.
6.
Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 vill operate as a baseload resource with a capacity factor of 70%.
_1_
TA3LE 1 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP /d;Y Economic Analysis of Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 SU!a' JiY J
Level Annual Revenue Require = ente (10 $)
Restert Decommission Service Life (Years)
Optimistic Best Estimate Maximum Exposure lh 70.9 90.8 103.L 98.8
~
25 63.8 80.3 96.5 123.8
, December 31, 1980
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0h'PAI.T Econo =ic Analysis of Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 METH0D0L0GY The methodology used employs standard public utility economic analysis.
Operating expenses are escalated, present valued to 1956 and then levelized over the life of the facility. The capitalized a=ount for capital outlays is calculated by escalating base year estimates and adding AFUDC until 1986.
This amount is multiplied by a fixed charge rate to obtain the level annual revenue requirement.
For both alternatives decommissioning costs are treated as expenses which are recovered over the service lives used in the analysis. December 31, 1980
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COPPANY Economic Analysis of Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 Input Data and Assumptions Plant Modifications and Geology See Attach =ent 5 for the esti=ated costs of studies and modifications required to restart and operate the unit.
For purposes of this study, it is assured that the unit could be restarted in mid-1986, following co=pletion of Phase II geology and required plant modifications.
Deco =rissioning Deco==issioning is estimated to cost $30,000,000 (1980 $).
Ferlace=ent Capacity Costs Eeplacement capacity is assumed to be a gas turbine. Gas turbine capacity will cost $617/kW for a unit operational in July, 1986.
Nuclear Fuel Cost PGandE has assu=ed fuel costs for Hu=boldt Bay Unit No. 3 vill be 20% higher than Diablo Canyon fuel costs due to the special size and configuration of the fuel bundle. Attachment 1 shows a forecast of these nuclear fuel costs.
Feplacement Oil Cost Eeplacement oil is assumed to be residual oil. May, 1980 residual oil cost was $h.88/MMBtu. Attachment 2 shows a forecast of these replace =ent oil costs.
I Heat Eates and Capacity Factor i
The heat rate for Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 is 11,800 Btu /kWh. The l
heat rate for replacement capacity is assumed to be 10,750 Btu /kWh based on 50% of replacement Energy from Hu=boldt Bay Units 1 and 2 j
(11,500 Btu /kWh) and 50% from the system (10,000 Btu /kWh). The capacity factor was assumed to be 70%, which approximates Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3's capacity factor while it was operating.
l Operation and Maintenance Costs Humboldt - Actual O&M costs for 1972 through 1976 vere analyzed to i
prepare-the forecast of expenses in 1980. To reflect increased l
l costs due to additional staffing requirements, an additional $1.8 million was added to the 1980 estimate.
I l
l l
h-December 31, 1980 L
Feplacement Capacity - Fixed O&M was assumed to be that of a gas turbine. Accordingly, 1979 fixed O&M for Potrero Units Nos. 4, 5, and 6 was escalated over the expected service life.
Variable O&M was assumed to be an average of Humboldt Bay Units Nos. I and 2 and O&M and syste O&M.
Attachments 3 and h show a forecast of these operation and maintenaree costs, for Humboldt Bay Unit No. 3 and replacement capacity, respectively.
Escalation Annual escalation factors used in the economic analysis are as follows:
1979 1980 1953 After Through Through 1990 1082 1990 General Escalation S.8%
9.5%
6.0%
7.0%
Cperation and Maintenance 12.5 9.5 8.5 Residual Oil 16.0 11.0 10.0 Fixed Charge Rates Discount Rate, and AFUDC Fates Fixed charge rates used in the analysis are as follows:
1h Years 25 Years Gas Turbine 20.06%
16.60%
Nuclear 20.61 17.07%
The discount rate is 13%.
The AFUDC rates are 1982 - 8.9%, 1983 - 9.0%, 19Sh - 9 1%,
~
1985/66 - 9 25.
-S-December 31, 1980 e
PACIFIC GAS AflD ELECTRIC COMPAfiY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF lil#!BOLI7T BAY lHIIT 3 SIR 41ARY FOR EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE = 25 YEARG Capital Expenditures Amount of Expenditure in 10 Eceninted $
Level Annual Revenue Requirements (10 $)
Rentart pocomminnion Maximum Exposure Best Estimate Optimistic ffaximum Exposure Pent Entiente Optimintic Geology Phase II 23 5 19.6 13.7 h.0 3.3 2.3 Plant Modifications Bechtel 3 :2.1 262.5 183.0 58.h hh.8 31.2 PGandE 50.0 38.7 27.6 8.5 6.6 4.7 Decommissioning 1982 35.7 13.8 2011 268.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Replacement Capacity 38.9 6.5 Operating Expenses Nuclear Fuel 9.h 9.h 9.4 Replacement Oil 103.5 Operation & Maint.
13.0 13.0 13.0 TOTAL 96.5 8c.3 63.8 123.8 December 31, 1980
4 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ECONOMIC ANALYi;IS OF IUXIBOLDT BAY UNIT 3 OtM1ARY FOR EXPECTED SERVICE LIFE = 1h YEARG Capital Expenditures Amount of Expenditure in 10 Escalated $
Level Annual Revenue Requirements (10 $)
Restart Decommission Maximum Exposure Best Estimate Optimistic Maximum Exnosure Best Estimate Optimistic Geology Phase II 23.5 19.6 13.T h.8 h.0 2.8 Plant Modifications Bechtel 3h2.1 262 5 183.0 70.5 5h.1 37.7 PGandE 50.0 38.7 27.6 10.3 8.0 5.7 Decommissioning 1982 35.T 14.4 2000 156.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 Replacement Capacity 38.9 7.8 Operating Expenses Nuclear Fuel 7.h T.h 7.h Replacement Oil 76.6 Operation & Maint.
10.h 10.h 10.h TOTAL 103.h 90.8 7G.9 98.8 December 31, 1980
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTilIC COMPANY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF llUMBOLDT BAY UNIT 3 F0llECAST OF NUCLEAll FUEL COST FOIL IIUMBOLDT BAY UNIT 3 3
Fuel Cost (10 4)
Energy Cumulative Output Cost Per Annual Present Worth Level Annual 3
Year (fm x 10 )
rm Amount to 1986 Cost._
1986 193 12.32 2,378 1987 386 12.32 4,756 1988 386 12.73 h,914 1989 386 13.58 5,242 1990 386 15.59 6,018 1991 386 18.49 7,137 1992 386 21.h0 8,260
+
1993 386 24.56 9,480 i
1994 386 27.17 10,488 1995 386 29.82 11,511 1996 386 31.88 12,306 1997 386 34.08 13,155 1998 386 36.h7 14,077 1999 386 33.95 15,035 2000 386 42.01 16,216
$47,530
$7,355 2001 386 44.53 17,189 I
2002 386 48.01 18,532 2003 386 51.31 19,806 200h 386 54.89 21,188 4
2005 386 58.78 22,689 2006 386 62.83 24,252 2007 386 67.28 25,970 2008 386 72.16 27,854 2009 386 81.58 31,490 2010 386 110.60 42,692 2011 386 113 39 43,769 69,340 9,406 December 31, 1980 I.
I 0
8 9
1 1
3 re bmece D
2 t
l n
a e
u m
n 0
0 h
nt 0
0 6,
5, c
A s a
o t
l C 6
3 t
e 7
0 A
v 1
e L
)
h t
3 0
er 0
0 1
vo6 0
0 T
iW8 0,
7,
(
I t.
5 I S t
ut1 5
2 I
Y UT s
l n 9
6 S
o ueo 4
7 J
IA YO C
mst P
AC ue M
B l
C r O
L e
P C
TI u
DO F
C L
I OT R
BI I
T ME l t 00000000000000000000000000 C
UT!,
an 00000000000000000000000000 E
HE uu 6, 2,6,8, 7, 7, 0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, L
C no E
FA nm 20518531002472865717572028 OL AA 2 5 56 6 78 9 012 3 4 6 7 913 6 81 h 8 2 6 0 D
P 1 111111122223334h5 SE I
IA I R S
S YF A
LO r
G A
e T
P I
I C
AS m
7 0 h 0 8 6 5 7 0 6 5 71918 8 h 6 3 7 9 98 76 I
A t
13h679136814816051 74198891 A
F CC s?
11111122223334455667889013 I
I E o
111 C
MR C
A OO P
)
0 yt 1 gu 36666666666666666666666666 rpx 98888888888888838888888886 et 13333333333333333333333333 nuh EOW M
(
r 67890123456789012345678901 a
88889999999999000000000011 e
99999999999999000000000000 Y
11111111111111222222222222
{. (I I
0891 1
3 re b
mece D
3 tne m
hca t
)
t L
A EU
)
F GN 0
5 2
I 1
l 4
6 D
(
l at 4,
9, U
eus 3L s
vno 0
2 C
e enc 1
1 TX s
LA IE n
N(
e Y
U p
N S
x A
YE E
P AS M
BN e
h O
E c
t C
rP n
er yl X a
vo6 7
8 C
l E n
iW8 1
4 I
0 e
t 9
8, 5,
R BE t
at1 T
MC n
l n 5
5 C
UN i
ueo 6
9 E
HA a
mst L
N M
ue E
P D
N n
N SI a
A I A SM n
S Y
o A
LD i
G AN t
lt 272237074980495478015214h5 NA a
an 90946648123571918257079878 C
A r
uu 2, 2,8,6,4, 2,1, 0,1, 2,4, 7,1, 7, 3, 2,1, 3,6,1, 9,8, 0, 5, 3,4, I
N e
no F
CO p
nm 3 T 78 9 012 34 56 8 913 5 7 9 2 4 71482 I
I I O
AA 1111111 11222223334445 C
MT A
OA P
67890123456789012345678901 F
a 8888999999999900000000001 1 O
e 99999999999999000000000000 Y
11111111111111222222222222 TSACE R
OF
Attachment h PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HUMBOLDT BAY UNIT 3 FORECAST OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES (EXCLUDING FUEL)
FOR REPLACEMENT CAPACITY Operation and Maintenance Expenses (10 $)
Cumulative Level Annual Present Worth Annual Year Amount to 1986 Cost 1986 820 1987 1,794 1988 1,965 1989 2,151 1990 2,356 1991 2,544 1992 2,748 1993 2,968 1994 3,205 1995 3,462 1996 3,739 1997 4,038 1998 4,361 1999 4,710 2000 5,086
$16,1hh
$2,h98 2001 5,518 2002 5,987 2003 6,496 2004 7,048 2005 7,6h8 2006 8,298 2007 9,003 2008 9,768 2009 10,598 2010 11,499 2011 12,47T 23,212 3,149 December 31, 1980
PACIFIC GAG AND EI.ECTRIC COMPANY ECONOMIC ANAI,YGIG OF HUMBOI,IfP BAY UNIT 3 ESTIMATED COSTS
- OF FUTUIiE REQUIREMENTS Maximum Most Best Cost Item Optinistic Estimate Expocure I.
Bechtel lieport A.
Known Backfit Requirements 92 M 92 M 92 M B.
Potential Backfit Fequirements h0 M 80 M II.
PGandE Items A.
Phase II Geology TM 10 M 12 M B.
Emergency Planning 3M 3M 5M C.
BWR Simulator 3M 3M 3M D.
FSAR Rewrite 5M 5M 5M E.
General Office Engineering 2M 3M hM F.
Field Engineering 2M 4M 5M G.
Indirects (for E&F) 3M 6M TM
$113 M
$161 M
$209 M
- All estimates include indirect costs except item E&F.
December 31, 1980 m