ML19221A822
| ML19221A822 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-09.1.2, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-9.1.2, SRP-09.01.02, SRP-9.01.02, NUDOCS 7907090194 | |
| Download: ML19221A822 (13) | |
Text
Section 9.1. 2 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 9.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING NEW GENERATING CAPACITY REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 1.1 System Demand and Reliability 9.2 Alternatives Requiring the Creation of New Generating Capacity Environmental Reviews 2
Environmental Descriptions 8
The Need for the Plant Standards and Guides None Other The site visit O'
Responses to requests for additional information Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies Current FEA annual energy outlook review REVIEW OUTPulS Environmental Statement Sections 9.1.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity Other Environmental Reviews 9.1. 3 Staff Assessment of Alternative Energy Sources and Systems I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staff's identification and review of alternative sources of energy for generating plants that could reasonably be expected to meet the demand f or addi-tional generating capacity determined for the propnsed project.
Energy sources selected by this review will be compared with the proposed project by the reviewer for ES Section 9.1. 3.
The scope of the review directed by this {p(Ifgl w} } be
}
9.1.2-1 7 9070 9oR4
February 1979 governed by consideration of national policy, by site-and region-speci fic factors, and by the extent ^o which the energy sources may be considered as commercially exploitable.
Within this scope, tha reviewer will determine the current and projected status of (1) alternatives not yet commercially available, (2) fossil f uels, taking into account national policy regarding their use as fuels, and (3) alternatives uniquely available to the applicant (e.g., hydropower).
II.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION The kinds of data and information required will be affected by site and regional factors as they concern availability of the alternative energy sources, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the technological status of the alternatives. The following data or information will usually be required:*
A.
For alternatives that have not yet achieved commercial acceptance, DOE Research, Development, and Demonstration / commercialization schedules and projected capability as a source of central station power (f rom the general literature).
B.
For natural gas and petroleum fuels, the fuel quality, availability to the applicant, rate of consurt.ption estimates, potential environmental restric-tions, and definition of U.S. national policy with respect to new uses of these fuels (from the general literature)'.
C.
For coal 1.
Site locations suitable for alter:.ative coal-burning plants (from the ER).
2.
General geographic location (s) or supply regions of sources of coal to supply the plant (from the ER).
A Where it is readily apparent that an alternative is noncompetitive on bases such as technological status or availability, only data and information needed to update the material given in Appendix A to this ESRP will be required.
n7 o!"
\\
U 9.1.2-2
February 1979 3.
Average characteristics of the coal as mined (heat content, per-cent sul f ur, percent ash) (f rom the ER).
4.
Methods of transporting the coal f rom source to plant (rail, barge, truck) and approximate distances traveled for each method (f rom the ER).
5.
Estimated ef fects of coal preparation (crushing, washing) on coal characteristics, quantities of water required, and quantities of wastes produced (f rom the ER).
6.
Estimated average consumption of coal and solid waste production (daily rate), and the methods and locations for disposition of solid wastes (f rom the ER).
7.
Effluents released to the atmosphere from coal combustion as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulates (daily rate) (from the ER).
8.
When plant operation is based on use of sulfur-removal equipment, the proposed sulfur-removal process, estimated quantities of materials (e.g.,
limestone) required for operation of the sulfur-removal equipment, and the esti-mated quantity and disposition of byproducts or wastes resulting from such use (f rom the ER).
D.
The potential availability of less conventional energy sources (e.g.,
geothermal) that could be used by the applicant.
For these alternatives, the extent of the resource, environmental problems, licensing constraints, status of commercialization, and engineering problems associated with each source (from the ER and consultatica with local resource agencies).
III.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The reviewer will identify those alternative energy sources that are avail-able to the applicant, and will categorize them as either competitise or non-competitive with the proposed project. To be selected as a competitive alter-native, the energy source or system must meet the following criteria:
9.1.2-3
]gQ nn'
February 1979 1.
The energy conversion technology must be developed, proven, and avail-able to the applicant.*
2.
The alternative energy scarce will provide generating capacity equivalent to the capacity need established by the reviewer of ES Section 8.4.
3.
The capacity must be available within the time frame determined for the proposed project.
4.
Use of the energy source is in accord with national policy goals for energy use.
5.
Federal, State, or local regulations do not prohibit or restrict the applicant's use of the energy source.
6.
There are no unusual environmental impacts or exceptional costs asso-ciated with the energy source that would make it impractical.
O The reviewer will consider the following energy sources:
Solar and wind Geothermal Petroleum liquids Natural gas Hydrodynamic Advanced nuclear Municipal solid wastes Biomass Coal.
ACurrent reports on specific technologies may be identified from the monthly key-word index published by the DOE Library as DOE Headquarters Report Index.
w w.
9.1.2-4
February 1979 In the absence of unique regional factors, it has been the staff's recent experience that of the above energy sources, only coal will prove to be a com-petitive alternative. When this is the case, the reviewer's analysis of these other alternatives will consist of (1) confirming thrcegh use of the above criteria that the alternatives are noncompetitive, and (2) reviewing the alter-native discussions provided in Appendix A to this ESRP. The reviewer will update and modify these statements as appropriate to the applicant's system and prepare them for inclusion in the environmental statement.
For those cases where alternative energy source <
sher than coal meet the criteria for competitive alternatives, the reviewer.ill develop an analysis based on the nature of the energy source that will describe the source plant combination in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer of ES Section 9.1.3 to compare the environmental and social costs of this alternative with the proposed project.
Specific analytical procedures will depend on the alternative, and the reviewer will develop an analysis procedure in consultation with the reviewers of ES Section 9.1.3 (for analysis requirements) and ES Section 2 (for environmental descriptions and socioeconomic data).
For the coal alternative, the reviewer will ensure that there are suitable sites within the applicant's system (or available to the applicant) for an alter-native coal burning plant, and will determine the general characteristics of such a site plant combination.
The results of this analyeis will be used by the reviewer of ES Section 9.1.3 in determining the costs (environmental, health, dollar, etc. ), of the coal alternative and comparing them with costs of the pro-posed project. Based on an appropriate site for the coal-fired plant (this may include the proposed nuclear plant site) and the coal sources identified by the applicant, the review r will determine the following:
1.
Distances from the coal sources to the plant, probable transportation means, and mileages for each transportation means.
2.
Average daily coal requirements based on the installed capacity need determined by the reviewer for ES Section 8.4 and the heat content of the coal 109 0';5 9.1.2-5
February 1979 as fired.
Calculate requirements for plant capacity factors of 50, 60, and 70 percent.
3.
Requirements for coal pretreatment (e.g.,
washing), including the volumes of materials (water) required, the quantities of wastes produced, and means of waste disposal.
4.
Requirements for combustion product solid waste disposal, including the quantities of wastes produced and means of waste disposal. Calculate require-ments for plant capacity factors of 50, 60 and 70 percent.
5.
Requirements for flue gas desulfurization, the process to be used, and (on an average daily basis, for plant capacity facters of 50, 60, and 70 percent) the raw material inputs and byproduct and/or waste product outputs and means of waste disposal.
6.
Average daily atmospheric releases of S0, N0, and particulates calcu-x x
lated for plant capacity f actors of 50, 60, and 70 percent.
IV.
EVALUATION The reviewer will ensure that'all al urnative energy sources available to the applicant have been evaluated using the criteria listed in Part III of this ESRP to determine if the alternatives can be considered competitive with the proposed project. For noncompetitive alternatives, the reviewer will ensure that the statements given in Appendix A to this ESRP have been updated, are appro-priately referenced, and apply to the applicant's system; and that the staff's ret sons for rejecting these alternatives have been provided.
For the coal alternative and for those other alternatives that ha.a beon determined to be competitive, the reviewer will t.nsure that sufficient data tre available to permit the reviewer of ES Section 9.1.3 to make an accurate comp --
ison of the environmental costs of these alternatives with costs of the proposed project.
x w{
n 9.1.2-6
February 1979 u
I.MPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT This section of the environmental statement should be planned to accomplish the following objectives: (1) public disclosure of the alternative energy sources considered, (2) presentation of the basis for the staf f analysis, and (3) presen-tation of staff conclusions for each alternative energy source considered.
The following information will usually be included in ES Section 9.1.2:
A.
For each alternative established as noncompetitive, a brief statement describing or identifying the alternative and the basis for the staf f's conclu-sion that it was noncompetitive. The statements in Appendix A t'. Wis ESRP will be used as the basis for this input. They are to be updated prior to their use to provide the most recent available data and refer ences, and should be mooified as needed to ensure their applicability to the system and region under consideration.
B.
For each alternative established as competitive, a more detailed descrip-tion ct the energy source / plant combination. This will include the basis for the staf f's conclusion and sufficient design / performance data to permit the subsequent comperison of this alternative with the proposed project. This input will also be provided to the reviewer of ES Section 9.1.2.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
ERDA Reports, " National Energy RD&D Plan" (currently ERDA 76-1), 1976.
2.
Council on Environmental Quality and other Federal agencies, Energy Alte*
natives:
A Comparative Analysis, May 1975.
3.
National Academy of Engineering, U.S. Energy Prospects:
An Engineering V i twooi nt, 1974.
4.
Federal Power Commission, Technical Advisory Commi ttee of Resear t.ii and Development, The National Power Survey, Energy Comparison Research, June 1974.
109 op 9.1.2-7
Appendix A to ESRP 9.1.2 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 9.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING NEW GENERATING CAPACITY APPENDIX A NONCOMPETITIVE ENERGY SOURCES The following statements identify and describe alternative energy sources that generally have been found to bs noncompetitive with nuclear power on the basis of one or more of the following criteria:
The technology for large-scale central power station energy conversion has not been daveloped.
energy source will not provide suf ficient capacity.
e The energy source will not provide the required capacity by thc time it will be needed.
Energy source use is not in the interests of national policy.
1.
Solar and Wind The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has initiated a research and develop-ment program that may lead to commercialization of several types of generating plants deriving their energy directly from the sun or indirectly f rom wind or ocean thermal gradients (ERDA Reports, " National Energy RD&D Plan").
- However, the ERDA plan is expected to achieve a nationwide level of power production f rom wind energy by 1985 equivalent to only one or two nuclear units.
For the solar alternatives, only small demonstration plants will be achieved prior to 1985.
Wi';hin the time frame of the need for poi ir, neither solar nor wind alternatives will be available.
2.
Geothermal Geothermal energy is generally thought to be the result of the decay of radioactive elements in the earth's interior.
This heat is conducted outward 9.1.2-A-1 10o n/U n
/
U
February 1979 toward the earth's surface, producing a geothermal gradient (avg. 30 C/km (Ref. 1).
However, in some areas, heat is concentrated in " hot spots" near the surface as a result of magmatic intrusion, volcanic activity, crustal plate movements and associated faults.
The heat of the magma (molten rock) is conducted through layers of crystalline rock and in some areas surface water contacting the hot rock produces hot springs, geysers, or fumaroles.
Naturally occurring steam has been used for prcduction of electrical power since 1904 in Italy. Tod:, geothermal resources are used for generating electric power in Italy, the Unit J States, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, and Iceland. However, the total world production in 1973 was only about 1,000 megawatts (Ref. 2), an amount produced by a single modern power plant unit using conventional fuel. This low level of production is due to the dif ficulties con-cerning exploration and those associated with estimating the extent and life of a poteatial development.
There are four major types of geothermal systems:
vapor-dominated, hot water, geopressured reservoir, and hot dry-rock systems. Vapor and hot water systems are created naturally when (1) a significant heat source (hot rock, magma) exists near the earth's surface, (2) the heat source is overlain by a perme:ble formation (aquifer) enabling contained water to transfer the heat, and (3) an impermeable formation caps the aquifer, preventing loss of the hot fluids.
Geopressured reservoirs occur where highly porous sands are saturated with high-temperature brines under high pressure. These reservoirs are located in sedi-mentary basins that have been subjected to geologic deformation (Ref. 3).
Hot dry rock is the most common geothermal resource.
In principle, hot dry rock can be reached from anywhere on the earth by drilling deep enough (6 to 15 km).
Such depths are beyond present drilling capability.
However, there are many areas exhibiting above-normal geothermal gradients, indicating hot rock systems relatively near the surface (Ref. 3).
Geothermal reservoirs, such as those described above, must meet the following requirements to have appreciable potential for exploitation:
(1) relatively high temperature (greater than 100 C, depending on use and processing 9
\\ Oh 9.1.2-A-2 k
(U
February 1979 technology); (2) a depth shallow enough to permit economic drilling; (3) suf fi-cient rock permeability, either natural or induced, to allow the heat-transfer agent (water and/or steam) to flow continuously at a high rate; and (4) suf fi-cient water recharge or fluid in place to maintain production over many years (Ref. 4).
Presently, large-scale power generation from geothermal energy is limited to vapor-dominated and hot-water systems.
In vapor-dominated systems, the dry high-temperature steam flows directly from the reservoir to, and is expanded in, a low pressure turbine which drives a conventional electric gener-ator.
In hot-water systems, where lower temperatures or higher pressures exist, the circulating fluid is water or brine, and heat is extracted by partially
" flashing" the liquid to steam or transferring its heat to a secondary fluid (Ref. 5).
Prototype binary-cycle technology is being developed to utilize reservoir temperatures below 175 C.
Other research is in progress on methods for utilizing geopressured and dry hot-rock systems.
Geothermal energy is currently being developed as a power source in many f avorable areas in the world. These areas are located where anomalous occurrences of low pressure steam, hot water, or hot brines are present near the earth's surface.
In the United States, these types of resources are, so far as known, limited to the western and western Gulf states.
The Geysers in northern California is the only geothermal facility in the United States producing electrical power commercially.
It is the largest geothermal power plant in the world. This plant (11 units, 500 MW) is presently experiencing a growth rate of 110 MW per year, which ray soon increase by virtue of contracts negotiated with additional steam producers in the area.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has the responsibility to classify areas according to their potential value as a geothermal resourcc. A geothermal resource refers to heat in the earth's crust that is subject.o recovery and use by man, whereas a geothermal reserve is heat that is economically recoverable and usable'. Areas are classified as "known geothermal resource areas" (KGRAs) wher the prospects for extraction of geothermal steam or associated geothermal 9.1.? A-3
}09
]00
February 1979 resources are good enough to warrant expenditure of money for that pu pose" (Ref. 3).
According to the USGS, the majority of the KGRAs in the U.
S.
are located in 14 western states (Ref. 6).
In consideration of the location of KGRAs with respect to the applicant's service area and the current status of development of genthermal resources other than dry steam, the staf f has concluded that this alternative is not practical.
3.
Petroleum Liquids In view of the uncertain supply of imported oil (over one-Lhird of U.S. consumption) and the importance of petroleum as motor-vehicle fuel and as petrochemical feedstock, it is in the public interest that new industrial uses of petroleum as an energy source be avoided.
4.
Natural Gas Although natural gas is highly desirable as a fuel from an environ-mental standpoint, it is expected to become more scarce and possibly subject to allocation rastrictions in the future. Accordingly, fer reasons of practicality and public interest, new industrial consumption of this valuable fuel should be avoided.
5.
Hydrodynamic There does not appear to be suf ficient undeveloped hydrodynamic poten-tial to provide the required electrical generating capacity.
Moreover, this capacity is not generally suitable for baseload operation because of water availability. Thus, hydroelectric power generation is not a practical option.
9
}09
$b 9.1.2-A-4
February 1979 6.
Advanced Nuclear Sources Two advanced nuclear energy sources are the breeder reactor and the controlled thermonuclear reactor.
Scientific feasibility of the latter has not yet been demonstrated, and more than a decade will be required to demonstrate commercial feasibility of a breeder reactor.
These alternatives cannot be con-sidered as practical sources for commercial power prior to the 1990s.
7.
Municipal Solid Wastes The burning of municipal wastes (mixed with coal) as a power plant fuel has been demonstrated successfully and several utilities are now under-taking programs to exploit this fuel.
The staff considers this fuel as a supplement to coal rather than an alternative energy source.
8.
Bicmass Conversion A wide variety of products can be made from the conversion of biomass, including methanol, ethanol, medium-BTU fuel gas, substitute natural gas, and fuel oil.
As with solid wastes, the staff considers that these energy sources will supplement the combustion of conventional fuels, and that they are not practical alternatives to central-station production of electrical energy.
REFERENCES 1.
R. DiPippo, Geothermal Power Plants of the United States:
A Technical Survey of Existing and Planned Installations, Report C00-4051-20, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, for the U.S. Department of Energy, April 1978.
2.
U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Development Plan (EDP):
Geo-thermal Energy Systems, 1977, Report DOE /EDP-0014, March 1978.
09 102 9.1.2-A-5
February 1979 3.
U.S. Department of Energy, Proceedings:
NAT0/CCMS Conference on the Economics of Direct Uses of Geothermal Energy, June 21-22, 1977, Washington, D.C., Report CONF-770681, Division of Geothermal Energy, July 1978.
(NATO-CCMS Report No. 66).
4.
Government Institutes, Inc., Energy Technology V, Challenges to Technology, Proceedings of the Fifth Energy Technology Conference, February 27-March 1, 1978, Washington, D.C.
(April 1978).
5.
J. Gustaferro, C. Warlick, A. Maher, R. Wing, Preliminary Forecast of U.S. Energy Conzmption/ Production Balances for 1985 and 2000 by States, Working Document prepared by Office of Ocean, Resource and Scientific Policy Coordination, U.S. Department of Commerce, November 1, 1978.
O 9
109 10,3 9.1.2-A-6