ML19347A643
| ML19347A643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1976 |
| From: | Feld S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Nash D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347A644 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310539 | |
| Download: ML19347A643 (1) | |
Text
A
,e n. w,~
.n.~.,-
..,n r v,,
y, ' 's y; y e
e>u Y ! ?.. m y; w s,
~
h Q
M y $W
.w g-
._Qe%
+
v
.g
-a,~
NOV ig n i
.- / w
-..p j
J
,._w'.
eM t
v s
- ll3_- Q'; Q ;^;
~
+h
,'l
^
- gt _.W
- i,. i a
_ NOTE tup Darreichash,:Section Leader -Technology Asses'suent Section,.CBAB:
g
- 4d m ~.
esa.,
~
TESTIN0HY:0N COST;0F HIDLAND VS. C0AL ALTEMATIVES.
~
- ^
3 w w<
u:
. + -
4 Enclosed is'ay testiany prepared for the! Midland Suspension liearing
- _ * :k N
which provides a' cost-comparison between Ridland and, high and low
' sulfur coal ~ alternatives. iThe:testic.ony concludes;tnat~.the low-sulfur option is: preferable to theihigh-sulfur alternative, although it is.
P Y: y e
F ?'
7still disadvantaged: relative to lidland by about L 2 % ills / n on a i
levelized:annualebasis. These results differ froa the applicant's '
9e own:analysisinicWsupports.the' high-sulfurTcoal, option as -being the.
m,
.next test alternative and produces -.levelized annual costs for coal, J
, 4;N t
u PTW that ~are at,out trice jtnose :darivdd 'here. J w
L
~
.,v,
,m 4
'N
.'.,,s'*; f c s
m.
1.
4,
- gg;
,M x v LC0hPARISON GF ESTIMATED GENERATING COSTS FOR~ ALTEMATIVES
$W e _ n
~
%r.,..
t w;+y.. evelizhdfAnnual Mills /Wh in'1951 dollars) ta; (L
- w
=
. g, g.
7 -
. u _, _,, i, _ _
q
., m
~.
y
} %,% ' i 4
- MMidland;m Low-Sulfur Coal JHigh-Sulfur CoalQ _.r j
a n.~ r
- pt:
as yww# %
~ -
+n
+ s t
g mg Total. cost. m.g g#.., 3y _x n%.x,".
Me m,
. _ ~ n. d3
_ s m...
1
. m
. m y gz..,..
m. ~
y r.-
s u.
.y 3,,
y l
.cr-n.
n yw n w.e w
- . n n' 4 t
. Staff's Estimate * " x 343.3u
~ ' 52.5 - %
~55.9: -
4
+ -
usy%l&
vv _x s
1
.s.
~
I Applicant's1Estimatel f 142il '
^
112.0 89.4.
. m r.
_N.
~
a n,
w c
- 4 + M,. '- %
t 4
m AMY N
- ,'.y -
y r% ;
.~
- l;gf j
. y e
^
! k.) $::? q AYS nehe15 j
,r N A Uh_?
w;, ty'y 6% f yp3 Technology, Assesscent Section i:7 %.7##
- Agy9, Cost-Benefit Analysis;ifranch-
+S gl f %
.A
,r; %m;x yp y g.y y,
+ _ w+,;-
3.e,,-
s:. g< "mm wsu x,
-a-m~
w.A
.Eg;M, A %6?c W7&p; e..
a cd AB.JnYoungbloold[Wy..fJ... RobertsPiQMMGC(. -4c:
g QT:e hgy;
- g% F-@C ~ M,
4
- h C c'
~ ; Q g-Qf n W p nyyt.g y % y e N Q"',f.h; 3;y-Qq s'
.v 9,
W ' 1 W A N. g
.n
~'
.IDISTRIBllTION; ' m e - 4. A w ' M, ?.7.%-
i
. ~
. >.~.v.
m.
n v
r W h.
- 6. h,..
M?N :
, -. W, l
' Central; Files - ?I.N *.. e.
n J & ' i,gd.
19 - -
g.(
rc NRR r/fL
?nyqD@
g j
g, P,
A
~M
^
B /f
~
?
p.
,- : omCsa.
C...B. : D. S E. : ET NT?
F. ""
P'
~
P%M
..m
. Q' N" } / /g8,, p>-Q* &+,.l,,- L}l;M, "t>.
a.
V j%:. ).
f
%t
' ov'mM$ms k,
/<
^ ;~
r-
-~*n
, 2 4_..gEp$g.K %pt, r /.
. W c, M. _
- ,','+.n
.g x w/;g,n j*
? g.
n::.4.g g
p.
y*g" ;
.Qp;p F-Wi
" ~ i9g);-
g,..} }
p 9
- ty& QQYf""t v.s. oovanNusNT PRINTING OmCal Fosen e3C 313 (Rev. MD ABCBE 0240 6 % GWp a 8974 336938-pr.g. k *dj,.
M w%.,
&j q3.-99< Myg;mf y
- , 4MW
,