ML19261E957
| ML19261E957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1973 |
| From: | Nash D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261E929 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910171011 | |
| Download: ML19261E957 (2) | |
Text
Octot
'E 1973 THREE fille ISLAtlD flVCLEAR STATI0:1 - DOCKET f10, 50-289 Supplementary Testimony on the Costs of Alternative Facilities By Darrel A. ?! ash Contention 10. The extent to which the liEPA revie'.i concerning cost /
benefit analysis and alternatives may not be complete in that the following point (s) have not been fully analyzed or included:
(e) The cost of the facility as opposed to alternative facilities to rate payers Cost comparisons among alternative facilities include alternative fuel technologies, transmission routes, sites and labor rates and producti-vity.
Fuel system alternatives are more fully treated in the Staff's testimony on (f) of this contention.
Since fuel use is a continuous cost of operation over the life of the plant, both capital and operating costs must be included.
On the basis of present value of these costs, it is found that for the utilization of the plant at 60 percent capacity factor the nuclear plant results in a savings of
~
$80 million over a coal plant and more than $200 million over an oil plan t.
This margin widens as the capacity factor increases.
Estimates of transmission lines costs including the costs of rights-of-way and access roads for each site alternative are the folicwing:
l Thousand dollars Three fille Island 2,840 Gilbert 3,730 i
Berne 4,967 i
Monacacy 4,504 Portl and 5,738 1483 255 i
J T 9101UD
. ~. _ _..
a
- ?
\\
Land values were approximately the same for each of the five noted sites except at Portland which would have involved the purchase of of several homes. Three Mile Island had a c arket value at the time construction began of $536,000 compared to Gilbert (the second overall lowest cost site) of $533,000.
The applicant has extensive experience in labar cost and productivity.
The lowest construction costs for the five sites considered were estimated to be at Three Mile Island.
These factors combine to indicate a nuclear pit r t at Three Mile Island is the least cost choice.
I483 256 2-
\\