ML19221A821
| ML19221A821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-09.1.1.1, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-9.1.1.1, SRP-09.01.01, SRP-9.01.01, NUDOCS 7907090193 | |
| Download: ML19221A821 (7) | |
Text
Section 9 1.1 Februaiy 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 9.1.1 ETERNATIVES NOT REQUIRING NEW GENERATING CAPACITY REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 1.1 System Demand and Reliability 9.1 Alternatives Not Requiring the Creation of New Generating Capacity Environmental Reviews 3.7 Power-Transmission Systems 8
The Need for the Plant 9.1. 2 Alternatives Pequiring New Generating Capacity Standards and Guides Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and 1977 State arid regional air quality standards Responses to requests f or additional information Consultation with local, State, and Federal Agencies Federal Power Commission (FPC) Principal Electric Facilities Publication M-107 (Regional Maos)
National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) annual report (most recent)
FPC Fora 12, Power System Statement Annual report of appropriate electric reliability council to the FPC in response to Order No. 383-3 Applicant's Rel iability Report R-352 (most recent)
REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmente. Statement Sections 9.1.1 Al to natives Not Hequiring New Generating Capacity Other Environmental Reviews 9.1. 3 Staff Assessment of Alternative Energy Sources and Systems 10.4 Senefit-Cost Balance 109 08' 7 9070 90tg 3 9.1.1-1
February 1979 I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the ctaff's review and assessment of the economic and technical feasibility of (1) supplying the projected demand for electrical energy identified in ES Sec-tion 8.4 without constructing new generating capacity, or (2) initiating energy conservation measures that would avoid the need for the plari.
The scope of the review directed by this plan will include consideratien of (1) power purchases from other utilities and reactivation or extended service life of plants within the applicant's system in combinations that will provide an alter-native to the proposed project, and (2) the potential for energy conservation measures that would De equivalent to the output of the proposed project. Energy sources selected by this review will be compared with the proposed project by the reviewer for ES Section 9.1.3.
II.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION The following data or information will be required:
A.
The system reserve margins of electric utilities having long-term con-tracts with the applicant for the sale or exchange of power. The reserve margins should be projected for a 6 year period starting with the first year of commercial operation of the proposed facility (from th
'9).
B.
The projected peak loads of the electric utilities identified in A (above) for the same 6 year period (f rom the ER).
C.
Transmission intertie capability between the applicant's system and the systems iuentified in A (above) during the initial years of plant operation (from the ER).
D.
The availability of the applicant's power plants for reactivation
(' rom the ER).
109 0nr 03 9.1.1-2
February 1979 E.
A listing of the applicant's plants scheduled for retirement during the period extending from date of application through the sixth year of commercial operation of the proposed project (f rom the ER).
F.
The expected plant heat rate, pr2jected availability factor, environ-mental impacts, and operating costs (including capital costs required to put the unit back on line) of any plants with the potential for reactivation or extended operation (f rom the ER).
G.
The potential for energy conservation within the applicant's service area ( f rom ESRP 8. 2. 2. 2).
III.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE A.
Power Purchases and Reactivation The extent of this analysis will be determined by the amount of capacity available through combinations of purchases of power and reactivating or extend-ing the service life of plants within the applicant's system. To make this deter-mination, the reviewer will conduct a brief initial analysis following the proce-dures in 1 and 2 below to identify the probable amount of electrical generating capacity available.
If no more than 50% of the generating capacity need estab-lished by the reviewer of ES Section 8.4 can be identified by this review, the reviewer may conclude that this alternative is not feasible, and this porton of tne analysis may be terminated.* If 50% or more of this capacity need can be readily identified, the reviewer will complete the following analysis.
The 50% figure is intended only as a rough check and may be increased or decreased depending on project-specific considerations.
The intent of this step in the reviewer's analysis is to determine on the basis of a brief preliminary review if sufficient potential energy sources are available to warrant a detailed analysis of this alternative.
109 006 9.1.1-3
February 1979 1.
Power iu.-chases The reviewcr will determine if excess generating capacity (capacity beyond reserve margin requirements) will be available for extenced periods of time from neighboring electric utility companies having agreements for the sale or exchange of power with the applicant.
The time period to be considered for determining this availability will cover a 6 year peried starting with the expe;ted first year of comrrercial operation of the proposed project.
Annual excess generating capacity can be obtained by multiplying the projected coin-cident peak loads of neighboring utilities or more-distant large systems by NEfiC-recommended and NERC projected system reserve margins and calculating the difference in these two values.
Excess generating capacity of these utilities and/or systems will be surnmed and compared with the capacity need established in ES Section 8.4.
If suf ficient excess capacity has been identified to warrant continua-tion of this review, the reviewer will determine if adequate transmission lire interties exist for the ef ficient transfer of this power to the applicant's system.
For neighboring utilities or systems, the reviewer will consult with the reviewer for ES Section 3.7 to identify existing transmission lines and corridors within the region and will determine the practicality of using these lines to transfer power to the applicant's system. When considering the transfer of power from other systems (i.e., non-neighboring utilities) the reviewer will augment this review with an analysis of the FPC documents and reports to the FPC listed in the Other Inputs section of this ESRP to determine the availability of transmission lines ar.d interties.
If transmissien lines and interties are not available, the reviewer will make general estimates of the costs
- to con-struct and maintain such lines and estimates of the environmental irrpacts asso-ciated with their construction and maintenance.
A The cost analyses will be made on the basis of data available in references or that can readily be supplied by the applicant.
\\h 9.1.1-4
February 1979 2.
Plant Reactivation or Extended Service Life The reviewer will inventory the applicant's generating plants to identify:
(1) plants now deactivated but potentially operable and (2) plants scheduled for retirement during the period extending from the date of application through the sixth year of commercial operation of the proposed project. When suf ficient capacity is identified to warrant further analysis,* the reviewer will prepare an estimate of the environmental and operating costs associated with the use of these plants. Factors to be considered in preparing these cost estinates will include the following:
a.
Capital costs needed to reactivate retired plants and to upgrade existing plants, when necessary, to comply with current standards.
b.
Operating costs, including costs associated with meeting current environ-mental standards. These costs should be adjusted to account for reduced availabil-ity far. tors where applicable.
c.
Environmental costs, including the environmental impacts associated with the combustion of fossil fuel.
B.
Conservation The reviewer's analysis of conservation as an alternative to construc-tion of the proposed plant will be based on the analysis and evaluation of con-servation and substitution prepared by the reviewer for ES Section 8.2.2.2.
Except for unusual circumstances, no additional review will be required to com-plete this portion of this ESRP, since the reviewers for ES Sections 8.2.2.2 and 8.4, in the process of analyzing and evaluating the need for the plant, will make a determination that conservation is or is not a practical alternative to the proposed olant. The reviewer will consult with and assist the reviewer for
-x The reviewer may want to consider the plant availability factor at this point.
The expected availability factors through the sixth year of commercial opera-tion proposed project will be used for this analysis.
!b9 OOO 9.1.1-5
rebruary 1979 ES Section 8.2.2.2 in analyzing the effects of conservation on the need for the plant and to prepare data for inclusion in this section of the ES.
IV.
EVALUATION The reviewer will prepare a summation of the total amount of alternative electrical generating capacity avaiiable through a comoination of purchased power and the reactivation and extended service life of plants within the applicant's system.
If this combined capacity is insufficient to meet the capacity needs through the sixth year of commercial operation of the proposed project, the reviewer may conclude that this alternative is not feasible. Where sufficient capacity is available, the reviewer will consider whether there are any factors unique to the applicant's system that could prevent the reactivation or extended service life of existing units or the purchase of power from other systems.
The reviewer is expected to make further inquiries of the applicant in completing this particular evaluation.
ne reviewer will also consider the implications of national policy if it is determined that adoption of this alternative is dependent on the use of scarce fossil fuels, i.e., oil or natural gas.
The reviewer will ensure that cost data associated with this alternative, including purchases of power, transmission-line costs, and capit_., aperating costs of react _ivated and extended service-life plants, are available and accurate and can be compared with the costs of the proposed project.
These cost data will be used by the reviewer for ES Section 9.1.3.
However, when costs of this alternative are significantly greater than costs of the proposed project, the reviewer, after consulting with the reviewers for ES Section 10.4, may conclude at this time that the alternative is not practical.
Where suf ficient electrical generating capwity is available to meet the need established by the reviewers for ES Section 8, and the costs of the altar-native are reasonable when compared to costs of the proposed project, the reviewer will recommend consideration of the identified combination of pur-chased power and reactivation / extended service lif'e of the applicant's exist-ing plants as an alternative to the proposed project.
109 'og o
9.1.1-6
February 1979 The reviewer will ensure that the reviewer for ES Sect),,1 3.4 has con-sidered the effects of conservation in determining (1) system peakload respon-sibility plus reserve requirement, and (2) the need for baseload capacity. When this determination has been made, the reviewer will adopt the conclusions of the reviewer for ES Section 8.4 as they relate to conservation as an alternative to the proposed plant.
V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The depth and extent of the input to the environmental statement will be governed by the analyses required to draw the final conclusion for this section.
The input should include the basis for rejecting or accepting the alternative and supporting data such as (a) the amount of (or lack of) excess generating capacity available for purchase, (b) the utilities with excess generating capacity, (t
the plants on the applicant's system available for reactivation or extended service life and their operating costs and availability f actors and (d) the ef fects of conservation on reducing the need for elm.;rical generating capacity.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made to the following ES sections:
A.
Section 9.1.3.
The reviewer will provide to the reviewer for ES Section 9.1.3 the amount of electrical generating capacity that could be provided without the creation of new generating capacity and the costs associated with providing this capacity.
B.
Section 10._4.
The reviewer will provide to the reviewer for ES Section 10.4 the quantity of electrical generating capacity that would be available without the creation of new generating capacity, the costs of providing the capacity, and the basis for the reviewer's conclusions.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
Federal Power Commission, Steam-Electric Plant Construction Costs and Annual Production Expenses, (issued annually).
2.
Federal Power Commission, Gas Turbine Plant Construction Costs and Annual Production Expenses, (issued annually).
109 0^0 9.1.1-7