ML19210C178

Forwards Comments on Proposed Fes

ML19210C178
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	12/01/1972
From:	Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7911130411
Download: ML19210C178 (5)

Text

-

.I k,

5:'dhNMbb,kNN*

$7

$f

),'

O f % '. % N W M d Q 2 2. N k [k gE.fJISTRIBUTION:

Docket File 50-289 L -

50-320 ON, FREEcgg LgRd L-CB Docket No. 50-289 & 50-320 Daniel 1. Muller, Assistaat Director for Environmental Projects, L COMMENTS DE PROPOSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR THREE MILE ISLAND FLANT NAME:

Three Mile Island Buelear Station, Units 1 & 2 LICKESIEC STAGE:

OL DOCKET EUMEER:

50-289 & 50-320 RESPONSIELE REAECE:

Environaeatal Projects Eraneh #4 FROJECT MANAGER:

J. Jenklas DATE REQUEST RECEIYED ST CEAX:

Novemb er 22, 1972 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE:

November 27, 1972 DESCRIPTION OF EXSPONSE:

Comments on proposed final environ-mental statement.

REVIEW STATUS Ceaplete as regards cost =banafit analysis Enclosed are senasats on the proposed final envirenaeatal

. statenest der the Three Mile Island Euclear Staties.

These have been diseassed informally with the Project Manager sa sevenbar 27; 1972,

_m original signed by It It. Denton Enrold 1. Denton, Assistant Director

~

for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated een w/o anel.

A. Giambusso W. Mcdonald w/eac1.

S. Isammer J. Hendrie

1. Ballard M. Spangler ee W. Eagan D

,]D,g.

nI/r o

ju

, S.

} L <,J d

J. fankins oo F. Fine emer >

Lif.R _

L.;CB.

L:SS fl[~

Nh mm,

PFine:jh MSpangler HDe on

_ dQ / 72 11/28/72 11/30/72 I

omtr >

Porma AEC-He (Rev.9-33) AECM 0240 e u. s. oovemeesENT PRedT.ed OFFCE.

1972-466-9 I4 911130 [

h

s l

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR THREE MILE ISLAND Summary and Conclusions In the second sentence of the second paragraph of item 2, th e figures given are gross electrical capacities, before deducting for the power required to operate the station.

The figures used in Sections X and XI are net electrical capacities, 830 megawatts for Unit 1 and 950 megawatts for Unit 2.

To avoid confusion, these figures should also be used in the " Summary and Conclusions."

In item 3.d, there should be some indication of whether these radioactive effluents are serious or not.

Perhaps a better way of treating the subject here is to give the total population dose as a percentage of the natural background.

Section VIII At th e end of the discussion of decommissioning on page VIII-2, the following might be added:

"Although the applicants have not formulated plans for permanent shutdown of the Three Mile Island Station, they have estimated for Unit 1 that the cost of shutdown measures comp a r ab le to those for Hallam would not exceed $6,000,000 based on current dollar values, plus $50,000 per year to cover the cost of round-the-clock surveillance and periodic maintenance to fences and barriers.

(Application for operating license as revised on May 26, 1971.)"

Attached is a copy of pages of interest from the application for an operating license for Unit 1.

Section IX In the third sentence of the second paragraph on page IX-1, the consumption of U-235 should be given as 48 metric tons for 30 years of operation, instead of 63.5 metric tons for 40 years, in order to be consistent with Part B of Seciton XI.

Section X Perhaps the third paragraph on page X-3 should b e deleted as stating a conclusion before the facts are presented.

The next paragraph on th e same page and the paragraph on " Purchase of Power" on page XI-l give a more detailed discussion of the subject.

i590 200

. In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on page X-3, j

reference should be to T ab le 22 ins tead of Table 20.

Section XI

_On page XI_-1 in the second. sentence of the third paragraph, the _.

reference should be to Table 22, not table _15. _

On page XI-2 at the end of the subsection on " Coal-Fired, Base Load Generation," it is suggested that the following be added as a new paragraph:

"A comparison of a coal-burning plant with the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant is given in Part B of this section."

On page XI-2, it is suggested that the second sentence of the paragraph under " Oil-Fired, Base Load Generation" be changed to read:

"A comparis on of an bil-b urning plant with the Three Mile Island nuclear plant is given in Part B of this section."

On page XI-10 in the entry in the t ab le for " Fuel" for the TMI Nuclear Plant, change."450 t/yr" to "330 t/yr."

This will then be consistent with the second sentence of the third paragraph on page XI-14.

On page XI-10 in the entry in the t ab le for " Gaseous radwaste" for the TMI Nuclear Plant, the figure of "9.4 man-rem /yr to population within 50 miles" does not seem to b e given in Section V.

On page XI-10, footnote a should refer to s ub s e c tion B.1 "below" ins tead o f "ab ove. "

On page XI-ll in the entry in the t ab le for " Radiological" for the TMI Nuclear Plant, the figure of "20.9 man-rem /yr to population within 50 miles" does not seem to be given in Section V.

The same figure appears in the third sentence of the firs c paragraph on page XI-16.

On page XI-ll in the entry under " Accidents" for co al-b u rnin g and oil-b urning plan ts, the word " change" should be " chance."

On page XI-12 at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph, it is suggested that the following footnote be added:

)

00

o q.

. w, s.

Q.;,,

"' _ ;g _ e ;. b,W

~

1, 3.

"This cost estimate and the others given below are based on the Applicants' Envirggmental' Report submitted to the AEC in Decemb er 1971.

In a

.e, Q u a r t e rly',P.r o g r e s s Report on Status of Reactor Construction as of September 30, 1972, provided N'

to the AEC by the GPU Service C o r,p., the total cost of the nuclear production, pran t for TMI Units 1 and 2 was indicated at $780,000,000 of which ab out$402,000,000 was the c umula t'ive cost at a time when completion of physical construction was 90% for Unit 1 and 31% for T

Unit 2.A cugrentc comparis on with the Ecs ts E

'o f a c'6d1riu'rnin.g I'o r an oil-b urnin g plant would need to include the effects of. cost escalation on those plants."

On page XI-12, it is suggested that the third sentence of th e second paragraph be rewritten as follows:

"The annual operating cost is estimated as $23,300,000 including nuclear fuel at 1.3 mills per kilowatt hour and nuclear insurance _

and operation and maintenance at 0.57 mills per kilowatt hour; the present worth for 30 years of operation is $234,000,000."

O r. page XI-12 in the ninth line of the third paragraph, change "0.5 mill" to "0.51 mill."

On page XI-12 in the fourth line of the fourth paragraph, change "0.4 mill" to "0.41 mill."

On page XI-13, the last sentence on the page should be re-written as follows:

"The conclusion is that incremental costs for ab an donmen t of the TMI plant and construction and operation of a fossil-fuel plant would be $500,000,000 to

$650,000,000 more than for completion and operation of th e TMI plant, not including the cost of restoration of the TMI site."

e On page XI-14 in the third sentence of the third paragraph, change "246,009 tons" to "275,000 tons."

(The figure of 246,000 tons is for the end o f 19 70, not 1971.)

On page XI-15 in the second sentence of the third paragraph, the total population dose within 50 miles of the plant is given as 42 man-rems per year, which agrees with the last paragraph on page V-2 8 b u t not with the second paragraph on that page.

On page XI-15 in the third paragraph, the s ub j e c t is supposed to be gaseous radioactive e f fluen ts, but the total population dose given is for all effluents.

This paragraph should be made consistent with the en t ry for " Gaseous radwaste" in the n

n"9

\\c'/ d bU

\\

i 4-t ab le on page XI-10.

On page XI-15 in the first sentence of the third paragraph, the average dose to an individual at the site boundary of 3.8 millirems per year does not seem to be given in Section V.

On page XI-15 in the fourth sentence of the last paragraph, "0.5S" is a typographical error and should be "0.4%."

On page XI-17, the second sentence of the fourth paragraph should be rewritten as follows:

"More chan 52,000 people had visisted this center by December 19 71 and had participated in a number of educational programs."

n-'

l _; / J LvJ

_