ML070811097
| ML070811097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07007004 |
| Issue date: | 03/19/2007 |
| From: | Blevins M, Hammer D ICF International, NRC/FSME |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML070810870 | List: |
| References | |
| ASLBP 05-838-01-ML | |
| Download: ML070811097 (24) | |
Text
1 USECs American Centrifuge Plant March 19, 2007, Presentation for ASLB NRC Staff Testimony HTE-6 Donald Hammer, Principal, ICF International Matthew Blevins, Sr. Project Manager, FSME NRC STAFF EXHIBIT 63
2 NRC Staff Environmental Review:
Cost-Benefit Analysis Purpose of the Cost-Benefit Analysis Analytical Methodology Summary of Results Limitations of the Analysis Overall Conclusions Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
3 Purpose of the Cost-Benefit Analysis (FEIS Section 7)
Provides a rationale for deciding the likelihood of a net positive economic impact resulting from the project Used to compare alternatives for achieving stated goals Provide an objective rationale for choosing between competing alternatives Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
4 Analytical Methodology -
General Principles Summarize the environmental impacts along with other costs and benefits Compare costs and benefits Focus on incremental costs and benefits Determine estimates of overall benefits (or costs)
Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
5 Analytical Methodology -
Specific Approach Account for all important costs Adjust costs for inflation Reflects cost-overrun buffers (contingencies)
Conservatively estimate benefits Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
6 Analytical Methodology -
Summary of Raw Data Sources of data considered include:
Numerous topical areas in Section 4 of the FEIS USECs Environmental Report USECs RAI responses Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
7 Analytical Methodology for the Proposed Action (FEIS Section 7.1)
Quantify costs associated with each life-cycle stage of the facility Identify qualitative costs to the economy and the environment Identify qualitative benefits to the economy and the environment Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
8 Summary of Results for Analysis of the Proposed Action (FEIS Section 7.1)
Economic and national energy security benefits Small increases in employment and tax revenue benefits Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
9 Summary of Results for Analysis of the Proposed Action (FEIS Section 7.1)
Socioeconomic Benefits Associated with the Proposed Action Life-cycle Stage of the Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Jobs Created (Annual, Full-Time Jobs)
State Income Tax Revenues per Year State Sales Tax Revenues per Year Pike County Sales Tax Revenues per Year Site preparation and construction 3,362
$2.3 million
$3.7 million
$414,000 Centrifuge Manufacturing 2,130
$1.5 million
$2.4 million
$262,000 Facility operation 1,500
$1.8 million
$2.4 million
$263,000 Decontamination and decommissioning 841
$576,000
$932,000
$103,000 Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
10 Summary of Results for Analysis of the Proposed Action (FEIS Section 7.1)
Costs associated with construction and operation of the ACP Life-cycle Stage of the Proposed Action Cost Site preparation and construction
$1.4 billion (nominal dollars) between calendar years 2006 and 2010 Centrifuge manufacture and equipment assembly
$1.4 billion (nominal dollars) between calendar years 2004 and 2013 Facility Operation Costs accrue between calendar years 2010 and 2040; operations costs are considered proprietary Decontamination and Decommissioning
$435 million (2004$) between calendar years 2040 and 2045 Tails Disposition
$1.8 billion Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
11 Summary of Results for Analysis of the Proposed Action (FEIS Section 7.1)
Other costs resulting from impacts to resource areas and attributes Air quality Socioeconomics Ecological resources Transportation Public and occupational health Waste management Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
12 Conclusions Regarding the Proposed Action (FEIS Section 7.1)
Analysis demonstrates economic and energy benefits Socioeconomic benefits would be realized Costs to environmental resources expected to be small overall Benefits of the proposed action outweigh the costs Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
13 Analytical Methodology for the Comparative Analysis (FEIS Section 7.2)
Evaluate alternatives for compliance with policy and technical objectives (purpose and need)
Compare costs and benefits across resource areas and attributes (based on NUREG/BR-0184)
Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
14 Analytical Methodology for the Comparative Analysis (FEIS Section 7.2)
Benefits are the difference between the operating costs per SWU for the no action alternative and the proposed action multiplied by the level of production of SWU substituted in that year Two scenarios were analyzed Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
15 Analytical Methodology for the Comparative Analysis (FEIS Section 7.2)
Scenario 1: the proposed action replaces 4.6 million of SWU production from the Paducah facility Scenario 2: the proposed action replaces 7 million of SWU production from the Paducah facility Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
16 Summary of Results for the Comparative Analysis (FEIS Section 7.2)
Net Present Value of Net Benefits -
Proposed Action Relative to No Action Scenario 1: Proposed ACP Substitutes 4.6 Million Separative Work Units of Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Production Dollars Net Present Value (3 percent discount) in 2005 in Millions 2005$
$3,630 Net Present Value (7 percent discount) in 2005 in Millions 2005$
$966 Net Present Value (0 percent discount) in 2005 in Millions 2005$
$7,992 Scenario 2: Proposed ACP Substitutes 7 Million Separative Work Units of Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Production Dollars Net Present Value (3 percent discount) in 2005 in Millions 2005$
$6,417 Net Present Value (7 percent discount) in 2005 in Millions 2005$
$2,290 Net Present Value (0 percent discount) in 2005 in Millions 2005$
$13,212 Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
17 Summary of Results for the Comparative Analysis (FEIS Section 7.2)
The Proposed Action Better satisfies DOEs policy and technical objectives Would result in greater savings to the national economy (FEIS Appendix G)
Would have slightly lower health impacts (FEIS Sections 4.2.12 and 4.2.14.12)
Would have positive impacts on local employment, income and tax revenues (FEIS Sections 4.2.8 and 4.2.14.8)
Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
18 Limitations of the Cost-Benefit Analysis Analysis focuses on estimating the economic savings to society from replacing Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant production with a less expensive and less resource-intensive source based on centrifuge technology Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
19 Limitations of the Cost-Benefit Analysis No attempt is made to model the effects of reduced enriched uranium prices on the ratio of nuclear and non-nuclear power in the domestic economy overall power demand and price the potential economic welfare to consumers and suppliers Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
20 Limitations of the Cost-Benefit Analysis Analysis does not consider the costs and benefits associated with actions pertaining to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant No significant change in the factors considered in decision to cease uranium enrichment at Portsmouth Actions pertaining to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant are considered unrelated to the no action alternative and the proposed action Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
21 Limitations of the Cost-Benefit Analysis Certain impacts are not included as part of analysis because the effect of these impacts is assumed to be either:
(1) approximately equal for the proposed action and the no action alternative as defined above; or (2) too small a differential impact to materially affect the analysis.
Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
22 Overall Conclusions of the Cost-Benefit Analysis The analysis in FEIS Section 7.1 demonstrated that there are economic and national energy benefits associated with the proposed action. There are also costs associated with all life-cycle phases of the proposed action. These impacts, i.e., costs, are small in comparison to the benefits of the proposed action Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
23 Overall Conclusions of the Cost-Benefit Analysis The analysis in FEIS Section 7.2 illustrated the net benefits of the proposed action in comparison to the no action alternative, in which there is continued uranium enrichment at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The proposed action better satisfies DOEs policy and technical objectives for meeting future demand for enriched uranium, improved national energy security, and desired technological upgrades, relative to the no action alternative Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML
24 Overall Conclusions of the Cost-Benefit Analysis It is therefore apparent that, either considered on its own or in comparison to the no action alternative, the proposed action is associated with net positive benefits Cost-Benefit Analysis ASLBP No. 05-838-01-ML