ML042790309

PNNL Questions on Er Alternatives Section

ML042790309
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	05/27/2004
From:	Burzynski M Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML042790309 (4)

Text

PNNL Questions on ER Alternatives Section

1. Is the site in an unincorporated area of Limestone County?

Yes, but just barely; Athens city limits go to the Blacks Landing subdivision, very near the BFN reservation.

2. Does the County have zoning applicable to the site? Is TVA subject to local zoning?

There is no local land use zoning applicable to BFN. No, TVA is not subject to local zoning.

3. Where is reference 7.0-1 cited at the bottom of page E-270 of the ER? Is this the GEIS?

Yes, this is the GEIS, p.8-1 of Volume 1, Section 8.1.

4. How far is the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge from the site?

The refuge lies east of the BFN site. Nearest point is 10.6 miles, just east of the U.S.-31 bridge over the TN river (BFN Tennessee River Mile is 294, Decatur Bridge TRM 305 (upstream).

5. Was Wheeler Dam constructed by TVA? Is it operated by TVA?

Yes, it was constructed by TVA from 1933 to 1936, and is operated by TVA.

6. What is the power rating for the three plants? Page E-271 says 3760 net MWe. Page E-277 says 3840 MWe at full power and 3533 MW average capacity. The 3533 MW number is used as a proxy for natural gas generation. Page E-285 assumes 3840 MW would need to be replaced.

Page E-275 says 3480 MW. EIA says 3291 MWe net summer capability as reported in EIAs survey form 860, Annual Electric Generator Report.

The Southeastern Electric Reliability Council Regional Supply & Demand Projections (EIA-411) for July 31, 2003, lists the current summer net unit capacity in MW for the three BFN Units as 1065, 1114, 1114 (total 3293),

which is prior to the forthcoming planned uprates. After uprates, the gross generation increases from 1164 on Units 2 and 3 to 1280 each, and after Unit 1 restart it will also be at 1280 max, for a site max total of 3840. The 1280 value is limited by generator output capability.

The 3,480 value at the top of p. E-275 is probably a typo and should have been 3,840, but it is also the approximate value of three units at stretch net power of 1160 MW each. The 3533 MW value on p. E-277 is 3840 x 92%

capacity factor, an approximation for purposes of estimating the replacement requirement of continuously-operating natural gas combined cycle plants.

The 3760 value on p. E-271 is the actual expected net for 3-unit EPU.

7. What is TVAs schedule for retiring generating resources? SEISs typically look at delayed retirement and reactivation of retired generating units as alternatives to license renewal. I couldnt find this information in the ER.

TVA has no schedule for retiring current generating units. TVA is adding environmental controls and maintaining the existing units as necessary to keep them running. TVA has no retired fossil units that would be considered for restarting.

8. Is more information available on TVAs geothermal initiatives cited at p. E-573 of the ER? Are these groundwater heat pumps?

For more info refer to the TVA website at <energyright.com>. Yes, these are groundwater heat pumps (TVA has no natural in-ground steam sources), but some are installed in lakes and rivers.

9. Is there room at the Browns Ferry site for siting of additional generating plants?

No, unless the technology involved did not require thermal discharge to the river.

10. If power were to be purchased from other generators in lieu of OL renewal, is the transmission system adequate to support the imported power?

No, not at present. Hundreds of millions of dollars of upgrades would be needed just to import peaking loads (rather than generate peaking power internally); much more for base loads equivalent to BFN.

11. The ER states at p. E-278 that there are no solid wastes of any environmental significance associated with a natural gas combined cycle plant. What about spent SCR catalyst?

Two options are under consideration: shipping spent catalyst back to the manufacturer for regeneration, and in situ regeneration (reactivation for reuse at the site). In regeneration the catalyst material would be chemically washed and retreated. The waste stream that is created during regeneration is small and manageable, but eventually the catalyst material can become hazardous waste. The original catalyst lasts 40,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> on gas fuel, 2,000 on fuel oil.

12. What HAPs would be emitted from a natural gas plant? See bottom of p.

E-281. What is the Threshold Limit Value divided by 40?

This info appears in TVAs FEIS for Addition of Electric Generation Baseload Capacity in Franklin County, TN, beginning p. 4-23. This FEIS is on TVAs website.

13. Will construction of 7 NGCC plants require 7 x 20 months and a peak of 7 x 420 workers? See top of p. E-282.

These values represent the bounding extremes, i.e., if 7 plants were to be constructed simultaneously it would only take 20 months but the peak work force would be 7 x 420. Conversely, if the 7 plants were constructed consecutively it would take 7 x 20 months to complete them but only 420 workers at a given time. The actual case would likely be something in between.

14. Would the three pulverized coal stations likely be located at three different sites? See top of p. E-285. Are the workforce numbers at the bottom of p.

E-289 for one 1200 MW plant?

The three plants would likely be located at different sites, for multiple reasons:

the coal source at a given location would likely be limited; upgrading the transmission grid to accommodate more than one plant would be very costly; and some environmental impacts such as impingement/entrainment and make-up water consumption could be limiting. The workforce numbers at the bottom of p. E-289 are for a single plant (increasing as noted on the following page for a mine-mouth arrangement).

15. For the new nuclear option, the ER states at p. E-293 that 2 new units could be built at the Bellefonte site. Where would the other units needed to replace the power generated by Browns Ferry be sited? Is the 1336 cited at p. E-293 for one unit or two? Table E.7-4 at p. E-298 says that two units will produce 2338 MW.

TVA has not looked in detail at adding a third ABWR unit at the Bellefonte site, but it is a very large reservation and could probably accommodate a third unit. Whether or not it would be the most feasible choice would depend in part on the economic viability of so much power generation being added to the transmission grid at that location.

The ABWR units are large, 1336 MW each. Values in Table E.7-4 were extrapolated (conservatively) from current BFN data, and the 2338 MW number reflects current BFN Unit 2 and Unit 3 power generation.

16. What technologies would be used for control of air pollution under the pulverized coal option? See p. E-289.

Refer to page E-272 under the Pulverized Coal heading,