ML19221A823
| ML19221A823 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-09.1.3, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-9.1.3, SRP-09.01.03, SRP-9.01.03, NUDOCS 7907090197 | |
| Download: ML19221A823 (28) | |
Text
Section 9.1.3 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 9.1.3 STAFF ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND SYSTEMS REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 8.2 Costs 9
Alternative Energy Sources and Sites Environmental Reviews 4
Environmental Impacts of Construction 5
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation 9.1.1 Alternatives Not Requiring New Generating Capacity 9.1.2 Alternatives Requiring New Generating Capacity Standards and Guides None Other Responses to requests for additional information Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies Federal Energy Administration annual energy outlook review Federal Power Commission weekly FPC Neus REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmental Statement Sections 9.1.3 Staff Assessment of Alternative Energy Sources and Systems Other Environmental Reviews 10.4.3 Benefit-Cost Balance: Summary I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staff's analysis, evaluation, and comparison of alternative means of generating electricity with the proposed project.
Based on environmental conditions, the 107 9.1.3-1 7 9070 90ly
February 1979 reviewer will determine if one or more of the alternatives can be expected to (a) provide an appreciable reduction in overall environmental impact, or (b) of fer solutions to potential adverse impacts predicted for the proposed project for which no mitigation procadure could be identified.
When such environmentally preferable alternatives are identified, the reviewer will compare economic costs of these alternatives with the proposed project to determine if any alternative is preferred (superior) to the proposed project. When superior alternatives are identified, the reviewer will recommend consideration of (1) adoption of the alter-native by the applicant and (2) denial of the construction permit.
The scope of the review directed by this plan will be limited to those alter-native energy sources and systems that the reviewers of ES Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 have identified as available to the applicant and potentially competitive with the proposed project.
II.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFCRMATION The kinds of data and information required will be governed by the nature of the alternative energy sources and systems selected by the reviewers of ES Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2.
Since coal-fired plants will generally be considered as an alternative, data for these plants have been emphasized.
The following data and information will usually be required:
A.
A summary of the predicted environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed project, including both environmental and socioeconomic impacts (from ES Sections 4 and 5).
B.
A summary of the predicted environmental impacts of the construction and operation O' each potential alternative identified by the reviewers of ES Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1. 2 (from ES Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2).
r
<r l
~)
9.1.3-2
February 1979 C.
Data as required to update the health effects analysis contained in NUREG-0332, " Health Effects Attributable to Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Alter-natives" (Ref. 12) (from the general literature).
The following data and information will be required when alternatives identified by the reviewers for ES Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 have been determined to be environmentally preferable to the proposed project.
D.
Capital cost estimates for the proposed project and for each alternative in the format outlined in Table 9.1.3-1.
For the coal alternative, cost estimates for use of high-sulfur coal with scrubbers and for low-sulfur coal (from the ER and Ref. 8).
E.
Decommissioning cost for the proposed project and for each alternative (from the ER and ESRP 5.9).
F.
The fixed charge rate for the utility or consortium of utilities as outlined in Table 9.1.3-2 (from Ref. 9).
G.
Fuel cost estimates at time of application for the proposed project and for high-and low-sulfur coal alternatives, as shown in Table 9.1.3-3 (from the ER and Refs. 5 and 7).
H.
The operation and maintenance costs estimates (fixed component and variable component) at time of application for the proposed project and each alter-native (from Ref. 10).
I.
Escalation rates from date of application through plant lifetime (30 year life) for the components of operction and maintenance and fuel for the proposed project and each alternative (f rom Ref. 6).
J.
Discount rate for the proposed project and each alternative (f rom Ref. 6).
109 i0o 9.1.3-3
February 1979 III ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The alternatives to be analyzed by the procedures of this environmental review will be determined by the reviewers for ES Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2.
- However, in almost all cases, coal will ce considered as an energy-source alternative; for that reason the balance of this section has been prepared primarily as an instruction for analyzing and comparing the environmental and economic costs of a coal-fired plant (s) with the proposed project.
For other alternative. (e.g.,
purchases of electricity, extended service life of existing plant, geothermal energy), the reviewer will require addional assistance from the reviewers for ES Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 to develop cost and impact data that can be com-pared with the proposed project.
In gene. al, the analysis procedure for the coal alternative will be followed.
The depth of the analysis will be governed by the nature and magnitude of proposed project impacts predicted by the reviewers for ES Sections 4 and 5.
The proposed project with any verified mitigation schemes (i.e., measures and controls to limit adverse impacts) will be the baseline against which alternative energy sources and systems will be compared. The nature and adversity of the remaining unmitigated impacts for this baseline will establish the level of analysis required in the review of alternative energy sources and systems to permit staf f evaluation and conclusions with respect to the environmental preference or equivalence of these alternatives.
The first step in the reviewer's analysis will be to compare environmental costs and health ef fects for the proposed project and each alternative. For some costs, a range of costs may be preferable to a point value, particularly when there is some uncertainty in the data.
To the extent practical, the analysis will be made with the objective of presenting the cost comparisons in tabular form.
When environmentally preferable alternatives have been identified (see thc Evaluation section of this ESRP), the review will be expanded to consider the economic costs of any such alternative. This analysis will be done in consulta-tion with appropriate ES Section 10.4 reviewers. Assistance from these reviewers 9.1.3-4
,, q 4 mi
\\J
February 1979 will be needed to establish the economic cost data that will be used to develop a benefit-cost comparison with the baseline proposed project.
The reviewer will campile a tabular summary of the plant and fuel system characteristics of both the proposed plant and the alternatives with which it will be compared. This summary should provide the basic data from which the sub-sequent comparison analyses should be made. A sample format for this table is given as Table 9.1. 3-4.
A.
Environmental Arialysis The reviewer's comparative analyses of environmental costs (impacts) of the proposed project and the identified alternatives will be based on the consumptive / preemptive use of land and water, on plant releases to the atmosphere and to water, on fuel consumption and waste disposal (including requirements for desulfurization), and on social / esthetic impacts.
The reviewer will develop this analysis by preparing an environmental cost comparison similar to that shown in Table 1.3-5.
Instructions for preparing this table are as follows:
1.
Land Use Do not include land use associated with the mining of fuel.
a.
b.
" Total station area" for the nuclear plant will be either the station (site) area or the exclusion area, whichever is larger.
c.
Fuel storage for coal will be based on a 3-month supply stockpi1e.
d.
Waste storage will be for a 30 year plant lifetime.
The reviewer will determine land requirements for coal plant waste materials on the basis of data established in the fuel 9.1.3-5
February 1979 cycle ef fects review.
- The reviewer will use NUREG-0116 to determinc nuclear waste disposal land requirements.
e.
Determine transmission corridor and access road land-use require-ments for new construction only.
2.
Water Use a.
Determine water use on the basis of an 80% plant capacity factor.
b.
Water use will include cooling water, plant system water, sanitary waste water, fuel pretreatment water, and flue gas-desulfurization (FGD) water.
c.
Consumption will include water lost by evaporation and drif t, consumption with fuel, lost in the FGD process, or returned to other than the water body from which it was withdrawn.
d.
Physical impacts will include changes in stream flows, impacts to navigation, impacts to surf ace-water-body users, cr similar type impacts.
AThe following calculations will serve to guide the reviewer:
Based on a 1000 MWe coal fired plant with the following plant data:
25 x 10G J/kg Coal 10.1 x 106 J/kWh heat rate 10% ash 90% scrubber efficiency 2.5% sulfur 150% stoichiometry the following input / output data can be calculated:
Coal input:
350 tonne /hr CACO input:
37 tonne /hr 3
Ash output:
35 tonne /hr Scrubber Sludge output:
85 tonne /hr Assuming an average plant capacity factor of 80%, a 1 tonne /m average densi ty for the wastes and a landfill depth of 5 metres, the 30 year waste disposal area will be about 500 hectares.
109 109 9.1.3-6
February 1979 3.
Releases to the Atmosphere a.
Determine atmospheric releases on the basis of an 80% plant capacity factor.
b.
For coal fired plants, use either staf f-verified data as supplied by the applicant, or staf f-calculated values that will meet applicable Federal or State regulations.
4.
Releases to Water a.
Determine releases to water on the basis of an 80% plant capacity factor.
b.
Assume that releases are to surface-water bodies unless other-wise proposed.
5.
Fuel Cycle a.
Base fuel consumption on an 80% plant capacity factor.
b.
Base nuclear fuel consumption on U S8 3
c.
Report nuclear wastes (both high level and low levei) in the
" ash" category.
d.
Determine fuel and waste transportation in :.erms of rail cars /
year for coal and truckloads / year for nuclear.
6.
Social Effects a.
Plant operation will consider noise, drift, fogging / icing, and effluent (gaseous ard particulate) ef fects.
109 1:0 9.1.3-7
February 1979 7.
Other Effects a.
When adverse impacts of construction or operation have beer; predicted for the proposed project, the reviewer will list these practices and/or operations and their impacts and will estimate the corresponding levels of impact for the alter-native energy sources.
Similarly, when the reviewer can preeint potential adverse impacts attributable to the alter-native enerav sources, the caures and impacts will be listed and compared with the corresponding impacts of the proposed project.
B.
Health-Effects Analysis Reference 12 of this ESRP (NUREG-0332) presents a comparativo analysis and evaluation of health ef fects attributable to coal and nuclear fuel-cycle alter-natives.
This analysis has been prepared as a generic statement suitable for i nc l us i c,n in the staff's environmental statements.
The underlying assumptions for this analysis are included as Appendix A to Reference 12.
The reviewer's analysis of health effects will consist of a review of the material given in Reference 12 to establish applicability of this material to the proposed project and the coal alternative, and to incorporate any updated information to this statement as provided by the Prcject Manager. Unless otherwise directed, the analysis and evaluation will be prepared for inclusion in the ES.
C.
Economic Analyses The economic cost data to be analyzed are the estimated costs of generat-ing electrical energy over the expected life of the proposed project. The data will span 30 years unless there are unique factors that apply to the specific alternatives under review.
Tie 30 year levelized cost will be analyzed for 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 plant capacity factors unless there are particular reasons for doing otherwise.
The cost comparison between uranium and the alternative fuei should be developed in a tabular form.
109 111 9.1.3-8
February 1979 Capital cost estimates based on the CONCEPT code (See ADEP 77 7, Ref. 8) for the proposed project and the coal alternative will be obtained to serve as a check on the applicant's cost estimates.* If the difference between the CONCEPT code estimate and the applicant's estimate is greater than 15%, the reviewer will determine the reasons for the dif ference.
Capital costs for each alternative will be escalated to a common year (normally the year of initial plant operation proposed by the applicant).
Using the fixed charge rate f rom ADEP 77-8 (Ref.
9), the reviewer will convert the staff's capital cost estimate to a unit cost of generating electricity (mils /kWh) for plant capacity factors of 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7.
A table similar to that shown in Table 9.1.3-6 will be prepared.
The reviewer will estimate the operation and maintenance cost using the OMCST program (see ADEP 77-9, Ref. 10) for the y(_r of initial operation for the proposed project and coal alternatives.
The operation and maintenance cost for the initial year af ooeration will be escalated over 30 years; each year will be discounted to the initial year of operation to obtain a present value which is then amortized over 30 years to give a levelized value. ADEP 75-9 (Ref. 6),
will be used as the source of escalation and discount rates. The reviewer will prepare these data in a table similar to Table 9.1.3-7 and will compare the data to similar data submitted by the applicant to ensure that all site-specific data have been considered.
If the difference between the staf f's estimate and the applicant's is greater than 15%, the reviewer will determine the reasons for the difference.
The reviewer will estimate nuclear fuel costs and present ther en a table similar to Table 9.1.3-8.
Data to be used in the calculation of these costs will be taken from ADEP 76-5 (Ref. 7).
The reviewer will calculate th" ' J year levelized cost of nuclear fuel by first escalating the base year cost of nuclear fuel found in ADEP 76-5 to the year af initial plant operation. Using the escala-tion and discount factors of ADE? 75-9, the fuel cost is escalated and discounted A
The reviewer will be responsible for determining that CONCEPT input data for the proposed croject and the coal alternative are appropriate for the proposed plant si te.
109 i'2 9.1.3-9
February 1979 over 30 years to produce a present value which is amortized over 30 years to produce a 30 year levelized cost. These estimates will be compared with estimates sub-mitted by the applicant and if there is a dif ference of greater than 15%, the reviewer will determine the reasons for the difference.
The reviewer will estimate the carrying charges for the nuclear fuel cycle using the base cata provided in ADEP 76-5 and the procedure as outlined for calculating nuclear fuel costs.
The data will be presented in a form similar to Table 9.1.3-9.
The reviewer will estimate the price of high-sulfur and low-sulfur coal delivered to steam-electric generating plants within or near the applicant's service area using the most recent Federal Power Commission data (Ref. 5).
The reviewer will obtain :ne average contract price of high and low-sulfur coal and will escalate these prices to the initial year of plant operation by the escalation rate provided in ADEP 76-5.
If the cost data of Reference 5 cannot bo applied to the applicant's service area, the reviewer will obtain the average contract price of coal from Reference 5 from the nearest recognized fields. The reviewer will then estimate the transportation charge of delivering that coal to the applicant's service area.
For all cases, the reviewer will note the heat content value of the coal.
The coal and transportation costs will be escalated as described above and then summed to provide a coal cost estimate for the applicant's service area. These data will be summarized in a table similar to Table 9.1.3-10 and compared with the applicant's estimated coal costs.
The reviewer will calculate the carrying charges for the coal alterna-tives.
The reviewer will assume that a 3-month supply of coal would be stock-piled at the generating station. The coal stockpile will be treated as a capital cost; that is, the value of the coal stockpile will be based on the cost of coal at the time of initial operation.
The cost of the coal stockpile and carrying charges will be summarized in a table similar to Table 9.1.3-11.
The reviewer will analyze decommissioning costs of the proposed project and the coal alternatives.
Data to be used in the calculation of these costs will be baced on the instructions of ADEP 77-10 (Ref. 11}-
The reviewer will 109 113 9.1.3-10
February 1979 escalate the decommissioning costs to the final year of commercial operation, assuming a 30 year plant life. The annual sinking fund required to produce these funds will be calculated using an interest rate equivalent to the cost of money.
The annual sinking fund payment and unit cost will be summarized in a table similar to that shown in Table 9.1.3-12, The reviewer will summarize all of the economic costs identified in the above paragraphs in a table similar to that shown in Table 9.1.3-13, and will prepare a graph of generation cost versus capacity factor similar to that shown in Figure 9.1. 3-1.
IV.
EVALUATION The reviewer will ensure that each alternative energy source and system con-sidered has been described in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to make an effective analysis and comparison of environmental impacts leading to a staff conclusion that the alternative is environmentally preferable, equivalent or inferior to the proposed project. For those alternatives determined to be environ-mentally preferable, the reviewer will ensure that economic cost data are available in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to conduct benefit-cost analyses and
- omparisons with the proposed project leading to final staff recommendations.
The reviewer will also ensure that all comparisons were made on the basis of the proposed project as supplemented with those measures and controls to limit adverse impacts proposed by the applicant and recommended by the staff. For those alter-natives eliminated from consideration, the reviewer will ensure that adequate documented justification for this action has been prepared.
A.
The initial step in the evaluation of alternative energy sources and systems will be to categorize these systems as environmentally preferable, equivalent, or inferior to the proposed project. The following criteria will be applied to this evaluation:
1.
When the reviewer determines that the proposed project (with mitigation measures, if necessary) will have no unavoidable adverse impacts and will comply with applicable local, State and Federal regulations, the reviewer
]rg 4 1 1
/
I*
9.1.3-11
February 1979 will conclude that there can be no environmentally preferable alternatives. When this conclusion is reached, the reviewer will evaluate the alternatives to identify those that may be considered environmentally equivalent.
For this condition, environmental equivalence will require that an alternative have no unavoidable adverse impacts and meet applicable regulatory requirements.
The reviewer will not indicate a preference between environmentally equivalent alternatives nor will a benefit-cost analysis be made when this condition prevails. Alternatives having unavoidable adverse environmental impacts or that do not meet regulatory requirements will be judged environmentally inferior to the proposed project under these conditions.
2.
When the reviewer determines that the proposed project will meet regulatory requirements but is predicted to have unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the reviewer will evaluate the identified alternative systems far poten-tial environmental preference to the proposed system.
The scope and extent of this evaluation will depend on the nature and magnitude of the proposed project's environmental impacts, and may require an environmental review for the alternatives following the analysis and evaluation procedures of the appropriate ES Section 4 i
and 5 ESRPs. The following criteria apply *o this evaluation:
a.
Environmental preference will be established when an alter-native can be shown to have no unavoidable adverse impacts and will meet regulatory requirements.
b.
Environmental preference may be established when an alternative that meets regulatory requirements can be shown to have unavoidable adverse impacts that are less severe in both nature and magnitude than those of the proposed project.
Determination of environmental preference under these conditions will require consultation with the NRC Environmental Project Manager and the appropriate ES Section 4 and 5 reviewers. This consultation will result in a joint determination of the status of any such alternative.
c.
Environmental equivalence will be established when an alternative that meets regulatory requirements can be shown to have unavoidable adverse impacts of the same or equivalent nature and magnitude as those of the proposed project.
9.1.3-12
February 1979 d.
Environmental inferiority will be established when an alternative can be shown to have unavoidable adverse impacts more severe in both nature and magnitude than those of the proposed project, or the alternative will not comply with applicable local, State or Federal regulations.
B.
When the reviewer determines that there are environmentally preferable alternatives to the prcposed project, the reviewer will conduct those portions of the analysis instructions of this ESRP that deal with the economic costs of the alternative energy sources and systems.
The evaluation of that portion of the analysis procedure is as follows:
When environmentally preferable alternative energy sources and systems have been identified, the reviewer will ensure that economic cost data have been developed for the alternatives, and that these data are adequate for a benefit-cost analysis and comparison with the proposed project. This portion of the evalu-ation procedure will be conducted with the assistance of appropriate ES Section 10.4 reviewers. The reviewer will complete the economic analysis portion of Part III of this ESRP, and will balance cad compare benefits and costs of the environmentally preferable alternative (s) with those of the proposed project. When an environ-mentally preferable alternative can be shown to have the same benefits as the proposed project with comparable reliability and at the same or lesser economic costs, the reviewer may conclude that the alternative should be recommended.
For those cases where benefits of the alternative are less or where economic costs are greater than those of the proposed project, a conclusion that the alternative is to be recommended will require consultation with the NRC Environmental Project Manager and with appropriate ES Section 4 and 5 reviewers.
If thic cinclusion establishes that the benefit-cost balances of such alternatives ire no more than equivalent to the proposed project, they will not be recommended for further con-sideration. When alternatives have significantly decreased benefits or increased economic costs, they will be rejected for any further consideration as alternatives.
V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT This section of the environmental statement should be planned to accomplish the following objectives:
(1) description of the alternative energy sources and 109 i:o 9.1.3-13
February 1979 systems that were considered and the results of the staf f's analysis of these alternatives, (2) presentation of the basis fnr the staf f's analysis, and (3) presentation of the staff's conclusions and recommendations.
A.
Environmental Costs The reviewer will identify those alternatives judged environmentally preferable, equivalent or inferior to the proposed project. The use of a table similar to Table 9.3.1-5 should be used to present the staff's comparison of these potential alternatives. The review will describe any severe environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, as well as any unusual environmental costs (e.g., land use) required by the proposed project or by an alternative.
B.
Health Effects Reference 12 of this ESRP, as modified and updated by the reviewer, will be summarized in this section.
C.
Economic Costs When the reviewer has concluded that an alternative is environmentally preferable and.should be considered as the preferred energy source or system, the reviewer will select tables from those given in Tables 9.1.3-4 and 9.3.1-6 through 9.3.1-13 and Figure 9.1.3 to describe economic costs. A summary table similar to Table 9.1.3-13 should always be presented when an environmentally preferable alternative has been identified.
5
'icient additional narrative detail will also be included in the input to justify the alternative on an envi-rcr otal and economic cost basis.
The reviewer will provide inputs or ensure that inputs are made to the following ES section:
Section 10.4.3: The reviewer will present the results of the evaluation of these data to the reviewer for ES Section 10.4.3 (1) as a conclusion that none 9.1.3-14 3
7 109 i
February 1979 of the alternatives are preferable to the proposed project or (2) as a recommenda-tion that consideration be given to one or more of the alternatives as being preferable to the proposed project.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
Generation Alternatives: ERDA Reports: " National Energy RD&D Plan" (currently ERDA 76-1),1976.
2.
Council on Environmental Quality and other Federal agencies, Energy Alter-natives:
A Comparative Analysis, May 1975.
3.
National Academy of Engineering, U.S.
Energy Prospects:
An Engineering View-point, 1974.
4.
Federal Power Commission, Annual Summary of Cost and Quality of Steam-Electric Plant Fuels, (issued annually).
5.
Executive Office of the President, Council on Wage and Price Stability, A Study of Coal Prices, (Staf f Repor+., March 1976).
6.
ADEP 75-9, " Consideration of Inflation Rates in Environmental Statements."
7.
ADEP 76-5, " Projection of Fuel Prices for Environmental Statements."
8.
ADEP 77-7, " Input Parameters for the CONCEPT Code. "
9.
ADEP 77-8, " Fixed Charge Rates "
10.
ADEP 77-9, " Ope. ration and Maintenance Expenses. "
11.
ADEP 77-10, " Decommissioning Costs."
12.
" Health Effects Attributable to Coal and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Alternatives,"
Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0332, September 1977.
.nJ I
iu i
.U 9.1.3-15
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-1 COST INFORMATION FOR NUCLEAR AND ALTERNATIVE POWER GENERATION METHODS 1.
Interest during con-4.
Average site labor struction
%/ year, pay rate (including compound rate fringe benefits) ef-fective at month and 2.
Length of construc-year of NSSS order
$/ hour tion workweek hours / week 5.
Escalation rates 3.
Estimated site labor Purchased equipment
%/ year requirement man-hours /kWe Site labor
%/ year Materials
%/ year Composite esca-lation rate
%/ year 6.
Month & year that NSSS ordered 6.
Power Station Cost Estimate as of date (M$/yr)(a)
Direct Costs Unit 1 Unit 2 Indirect Costs Unit 1 Unit 2 a.
Land and land a.
Construction rights facilities, equip-ment, and serv-b.
Structures and ices site facilities b.
Engineering and c.
Reactor (boiler) construction plant equipment management services d.
Turbine plant equipment not c.
Other costs including heat rejection systems d.
Interest during construction e.
Heat rejection
(@
%/
system year) f.
Electric plant Escalation equipment Escalation during construction g.
Miscellaneous
%/
equipment year h.
Spare parts al-Total Cost lowance Total Station Cost,
@ Start of Com-
- i. Contingency al-mercial Operation lowance Date Subtotal Cost components of nuclear stations to be included in eacn cost category listed under a.
direct and indirect costs in Part 6 above are described in " Guide for Economic Evaluation of Nuclear Reactor Plant Design," U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, NUS-531, Appendix B, available from National Technical Information Service, Sprin '*ald, Virginia 22161.
9
\\.o
\\I 9.1.3-16
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-2 FIXED CHARGE RATES FOR ELECTRIC UTILITIES (PERCENT)
Comoonent Public Owned Investor-Owned Interest or retuin nn investment (a)
Depreciation (30 yr. S.F. )(b)
Interim Replacements Property Insurance Federal Income Taxes State and Local Taxes Total Fixed Charge Rate a.
Composition of financing should be shown as:
Amount of Interest or rate Financing of return
(%)
(%)
Bonds Preferred Stock C;mmon Stock Composite cost of money b.
The sinking fund (S.F.) rate in percent is equal to i X 100 where i is the (1+i)"-l composite cost of money and n is the plant life, normally 30 years.
1qQ 1 ^n iL-Icu 9.l.3-17
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-3 MATERIAL AND SERVICE UNIT COSTS, FOR FUEL SUPPLY (YEAR) D0LLARS Coal Fuel Supply Cost, $
Low sulfur, J/kg, $/ tonne (a,b)
High sulfur, J/kg, $/ tonne (b)
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Mining & Milling, $/kg U 038 Conversion to UF, $/kg U 6
Uranium Enrichment, $/SWU Fabrication, $/kg HM(d)
UO2 M0X Fabrication, $/kg HM(d)
Spent Fuel Transportation, $/kg HM Spent Fuel Storage, $/kg HM yr Reprocessing, $/kg HM(*)
Waste Disposal, $/kg HM( )
Plutonium Transportation, $/g Plutonium Storage, $/g yr Spent Fuel Disposal, $/kg Losses in conversion to UF '
6 Losses in Fabrication, %
Losses in Chemical reprocessing, %
a.
Low sulfur refers to coal that does not require sulfur removal equipment to meet EPA standards.
b.
Contract price or estimated cost delivered to the plant.
Provisions for escalation in cuntracts should be noted.
c.
Contract price or estimated cost for U,0.
Provisions for escalation in contracts "g
should be noted.
d.
This cost should include shipping to reactor (HM stands for heavy metal in fuel, normally uranium plus plutonium).
e.
This cost should include the cost of waste solidification for disposal.
f.
This cost should include the ccst of shipment to Federal repository.
}oiui 9.1.3-18 gC)
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-4
SUMMARY
PLANT AND FUEL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS NUCLEAR C0AL OTHER (PWR/BWR)
High Sulfur Lnw Sulfur Plant thermal Power (MWt)
XXX XXX XXX XXX Generation - Gross (MWe)
XXX XXX XXX XXX Net (Mde)
XXX XXX XXX XXX No. of Generating Units XXX XXX XXX XXX Heat rejection rate total (J/h)
XXX XXX XXX XXX Heat rejected in cooling system (J/h)
XXX XXX XXX XXX Heat rejected in cooling system blowdown (J/h)
XXX XXX XXX XXX Heat rate (J/kWh)
XXX XXX XXX XXX 3
Cooling water req. (m / sed XXX XXX XXX XXX Cooling system type XXX XXX XXX XXX Fuel System:
Coal heating value (J/kg)
XXX XXX XXX Consumption (tonne /yr)
XXX XXX XXX Average railcars per day XXX XXX XXX Sulfur content of coal XXX XXX XXX Ash content of coal XXX XXX XXX Location of coal source XXX XXX XXX Ash disposal (m3/yr)
XXX XXX XXX Sulfur removal system Raw materials (tonne /yr)
XXX XXX XXX Waste products (tonae/yr)
XXX XXX XXX S0 emissions (tonne /yr)
XXX XXX XXX N0 emissions (tonne /yr)
XXX XXX XXX Particulate emissions (tonne /yr)
XXX XXX XXX Nuclear Fuel System U0 Consumption (tonne /yr)
XXX 38 Specific Power Mdt/MTHM XXX Fuel load (kg U)
XXX New fuel (trucks /yr)
XXX Spent fuel (railcars/yr)
XXX High level waste (m3/yr)
XXX Equilibrium fuel cycle Initial Enrichment (% U-235)
XXX Final Enrichment (% U-235)
XXX Burn up, average (Mn3T/kg U)
XXX Plutonium Production after losses (g/kg U)
XXX Transmission System New corridors (km)
XXX XXX XXX XXX New towers, existing corridors (km)
AXX XXX XXX
)VX New conductors, existing towers (km)
XXX XXX XXX XXX 109 ir 9.1.3-19
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-5 ENVIRONMENTAL COST COMPARISON Category Nuclear Coal Other Alternatives Land Use (hectares)
Station (total area)
Facilities Ponds Fuel Storage Waste storage or disposal Waste disposal, offsite Transmission corridors Access roads or other offsite facilities Water Use Withdrawal ratg (m /sec)
Consumption (m /sec) 3 Return rate (m /sec)
Physical impacts Releases to Atmosphere Particulates (kg/hr)
Sulfur Oxides (kg/hr)
Nitrocen Oxides (kg/hr)
Radioactivity (Ci/yr)
Releases to Water Cooling system chemicals (kg/hr)
Fuel treatment chemicals (kg/hr)
FGD chemicals (kg/hr)
Radioactivity (Ci/yr) 9.1.3-29
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-5 ENVIft0NMENTAL COST COMPARISON (continued)
Fuei Cycle Fuel consumption (kg/hr)
FGD materials (kg/hr)
Ash (kg/hr)
FGD sludge (kg/hr)
Fuel transportation Waste material transportation Social Effects Plant operation Transportation Esthetics Other Effects 109 121 9.1.3-21
TACLE 9.1.3-6 Date estimate made PLANT CAPITAL INVESTMENT
SUMMARY
(a)
NUCLEAR C0AL OTHER UNIT 1 UNIT 2 ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES DIRECT COST Land and land rights PHYSICAL PLANT Structures and site facilities Reactor plant equipment Turbine plant equipment Electric plant equipment Misc. plant equipment
~
Subtotal Spare parts allowance Contingenc allowance e
Subtotal m
y INDIRECT COST Construction facilities, equip't., and services Engineering and const.
mgt. services Other costs Interest during const.
Subtotal Start of const. cost Escalation during const.
T
( % yr.)
?
TotaT plant capital 5
investment Cost, $ per kWe net x'
-a UNIT COST, mill /kWh at g
%, fixed charge rate:
SUE capacity factor 60t capacity
- tor 70% capacity factor N
Footnotes should describe assumptions, cost basis, references, unusual situation, etc.
LJ1 a.
O O
O
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-7 FIXED AND VARIABLE PORTIONS OF OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST Nuclear High 50 Coal Low S0 Coal 2
p Capacity Factor, %
70 6_0
_50 70 60
_5_0 71 60 50 O&M Cost for Initial Year of Operation Fixed, mill /kWh 1.41 1.65 1.98 2.45 2.86 3.43 1.94 2.27 2.72 Variable mill /kWh
.06
.06
.06 2.20 2.20 2.20
.09
.09
.09 Levelized Costs (")
Fixed, mill /kWh 2.43 2.84 3.41 4.22 4.93 5.91 3.34 3.91 4.69 Variable mill /kWh
.10
.10
.10 3.79 3.79 3.79
.16
.16
.16 a.
The O&M cost was escalated at
% per year and discounted at
% to obtain the present value. The present value was aliiortized over 30 years at _% E produce the levelized value.
jQQ' 19/
I'd o.'.3-23
TABLE 9.1.3-8
SUMMARY
OF NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE COST FOR A (PWR)
No Recycle Recycle Pu & U 30 yr 30 yr Escal.
Escal. to level Escal. to level 19--Co s t(b ) (10
) cost 10 Cost (19
) cost ID)
Rate, ) $/kqHM mill /kWh mill /kWh mill /kWh( $/kgHM mill /kWh mill /kWh mill /kWh(c) ta 1/yr U0 Cost as W 3g 6
Enrichment XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Fabrication XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Spent Fuel Dispcsal:
Storage, 5 yr/l yr XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Shipping XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX
)f XX XXX XXX XXX Disposal XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Reprocessing XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Was'e Disposal XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Spent U-235 Credit XXX (XXX)
(XXX)
(XXX)
(XXX)
Pu Credit XXX (XXX)
(XXX)
(XXX)
(XXX)
Pu Storage, 1 yr XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Subtotal (1975 $)
XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX a.
Escalation rates that vary with time should be explained in footnotes. Escalation and discount rates obtained from ADEP 75-9.
d b.
The costs in this column are based on data in ADEP 76-5.
A burnup level of MWD /MT was used to convert O
$/KgHM to mill /kWh.
'JD c.
The discount factor used to obtain present value and levelized values should be indicated in footnote. The discount value obtained from ADEP 75-9.
d.
If the escalation is different for recycle and no recycle a footnote should explain.
N
~q O
O O
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-9 CARRYING CHARGES FOR (BWR) NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE No Recycle Recycle Pu & U Capacity Factor %
50 60 70 5_0 60 70 Carrying charges for fuel (9%)
1975 dollars, $/kgHM 111 94 83 82 73 67 Escalated to 1985 181 154 136 134 119 109 30 years levelized cost $/kgHM(")
312 265 234 231 205 188 Levelized unit cost, mill /kWh(")
1.48.1.25 1.11 1.09
.97
.89 The carrying charges were escalated at _ % per year and discounted at _ % to obtain a a.
present value.
The present value was amortized over 30 years at __% to produce the levelized value.
TABLE 9.1.3-10 CALCULATION OF LEVELIZED COSTS OF C0AL High Sulfur Low Sulfur 1975 coal cost, $/ ton 14.29 16.70 Escalated at 5%/yr to 1985, $/ ton 23.28 27.20 1985 price escalated at 5% per yr, discounted at 9% and amortized over 30 years, at 9%, $/ ton 40.11
.86 Unit cost, mill /kWh 17.87(b) 23.02(c) 6 6
a.
Using a net heat rate of 10 x 10 J/kWh and a coal heating value of 24.8 x 10 J/kg.
6 6
b.
Using a net heat rate of 9.7 x 10 J/kWh and a coal heating value of 21.8 x 10 J/kg.
9 0.1.3-25 3,n
}bg 11 v 7
February 1979 TABLE 9.1.3-11 COST AND CARRYING CHARGES FOR C0AL STOCKPILE Capacity Factor, %
50 60 70 Cost of 3 months stockpile:
6 Hign sulfur coal, $10 28.40 34.08 39.76 6
Low sulfur coal, $10 36.60 43.92 51.24 Unit cost of carrying charges:(#)
High sulfur coal, mill /kWh
.23
.23
.23 Low sulfur coal, mill /kWh
.30
.30
.30 a.
Based on
% carrying charges.
6 TABLE 9.1.3-12 CALCULATION OF COST OF DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR C0AL Lowest Cost Highest Cost 6 (a)
Decommissioning cost, $10 Annual sinking fund 6
payment, $10 Capacity Factor, %
50 60 70 50 60 70 50 60 70 Unit cost, mill /kWh a.
Cost estimates escalated at _ % to 20-, the ena of plant life.
9.1.3-26
\\oo
)0]
el i
TAF>LE 9.1.3-13 CAPITAL COST AND UNIT GENERATION COST COMPARISON FOR NUCLEAR AND C0AL FIRE 0 GENERATION STATION NUCLEAR NUCLEAR HIGH-50 COAL t0W-50 C0AL 2
2 (U and Pu recycle) (No U or Pu recycle}
CAPIfAL COST, $/kW, net 888 888 755 622 (canacity factor, %)(a) 70 60 50 70 60 50 70 60 50 70 60 50 Unit Cost: mill /kWh Capital Charges excluding tax (17.5%)
25.3 29.6 35.5 25.3 29.6 35.5 21.5 25.1 30.2 17.8 20.7 24.9 Capital Charges for tax (%)
Oper< tion & Maintenance I) fixed 2.2 2.6 3.1 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.7 4.3 5.2 2.9 3.5 4.2 variable (b)
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
- 3. 6 3.6 3.6
.1
.1
.1 m
d)
Fuel Cost 8.9 8.9 8.9 10.3 10.3 10.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 24.8 24.8 24.8 Charges on Fuel Investment 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1
.2
.2
.2
.4
.4
.4 IC).5(C).5(c)
Deco:aissioning (d)
(d)
(d)
.4 Total mill /kWh 37.3 42.5 49.0 39.9 44.9 5.16 45.3 39.5 55.5 42.0 49.5 54.4 a.
30-Year levelized cost.
[
k b.
The 1983 costs were escalated at 5% per year and discounted at 10% per year over a 30 year lifetime to o5tain
~
C -)
present worth value. The present value was amortized at 10% over 30 years.
Q G
'O c.
High option.
y d.
Less than 0.1 mill, see Table 9.1.3-10.
(.J C.)
February 1979 9
23x in d
5 HIGH SO2 COAL 2
O-E LOW sO2 m
COAL w
5 C
NUCLEAR i
CAPACITY FACTOR Figure 9.1.3 - 1 8
\\~'
9.1.3-28