ML20028A187
| ML20028A187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Jason Wright HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028A188 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211160550 | |
| Download: ML20028A187 (14) | |
Text
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.__
a t' h
Gr NOV 3 1982 The Honorable Jim Wright United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Wright:
This letter is in response to the four letters (from Dan Wilson, Bill Kerns, Stu Brown, and Judy Sands) which you forwarded to this office on October 12, 1932. Those letters expressed concerns regarding the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (CPSES). The Comanche Peak plant is under construction near Glen Rose, Texas. Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGC0",
or "the applicants"), as agent for the co-owners, was granted permits by the NRC to construct the plant, and has filed an application with the flRC for operating licenses.
We have addressed below, the concerns of Messrs. Wilson, Kerns, Brown and Ms. Sands.
Construction Deficiencies Three concerns were expressed in this category:
a)
Inadequate foundation, b) Problems in welding and concrete work, and c)
" Hon-regulation of pipe supports in the containment building" A public hearing in Fort Worth, Texas has been held by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board which examined allegations of construction deficiencies and shortcomings fn quality assurance. The above three concerns were included in that hearing. The hearing sessions, which were pre-noticed in the Federal Reqister in accordance with the Comission's regulations, were held on the following dates:
12/02/E1 - 12/03/81 06/07/82 - 06/11/82 07/25/82 - 07/30/82 09/13/82 - 09/17/82 At these hearings, the parties provided testimony regarding these matters, including detailed analyses by the NRC staff and by engineers who designed and
. built the Comanche Peak plant. Substantial cross-examina: ion was conducted.
In addition, at these hearing sessions interested members of the public were allowed to participate by making oral and/or written limited statenents pursuant to the Comission's regulations. The 1.icensing Board has not yet issued its decision on these matters. Even in the event of a licensing decision favorable to the applicants, a prerequisite to the issuance of an operating license would be final construction and systen testing. These tests will be designed to reveal any deficiencies in either design or construction of the facility that wuia ouvenmy aireu. w: sate operauon or Lne racility at a f 2ture time,
... ~................
....... ~. -.. ~.. ~
-~~.-~~~~~
~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~
omca>
~~~"""
" " " " " ~ ~ " " " ~
" " " " " " " ~ ~ " "
" " ~ " ~ ~ " " " "
8211160550 821103 om PDR ADOCK 05000445
. - - ~ ~. -..
~~.--..~.~..
.. ~. - ~ ~. ~.. ~.
... -. - - - ~ ~ ~ ~
H PDR OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam m-ass-seo wac ronu m oo% sacu ano
F
}
The Honorable Jin Wright Additional inspections, including nonitoring of these tests, will be conducted by the HRC staff to ensure that safety-related construction matters identified will be adequately resolved prior to recomending authorization for the loading of fuel and the operation of Comanche Peak.
Need for Power The Comission has amended 10 CFR Part 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection," effective April 26, 1982, to provide that need for power issues will not be considered in ongoing and future opera-ting license proceedings for nuclear power plants unless a showing of "special circumstances" is made under 10 CFR Section 2.758 or the Comission otherwise so requires (47 FR 12940, March 26,1982). Heed for power issues need not be addressed by operating applicants in environmental reports to the NRC, nor by the staff in environmental impact statements prepared in connection with operating license applications.
(See 10 CFR S1.21, 51.23(e), and 51.53(c).)
This policy has been deternined by the Comission to be justified even in situations where, because of reduced capacity requirements on the applicant's system, the additional capacity to be provided by the nuclear facility is not needed to meet the applicant's load responsibility. The Comnission has taken this action because the issue of need for power is correctly considered at the construction permit stage of the regulatory review where a finding of insuffi-cient need could factor into denial of issuance of a license. At the operating license review stage, the proposed plant is substantially constructed and a finding of insufficient need would not, in itself, result in denial of the operating license.
Construction and Operating Costs The apparent overruns in construction costs are in large part due to three factors: (1) inflation, (2) high interest rates, and (3) additional safety requirements arising out of the Three Mile Island accident.
Construction costs were considered by the HRC as part of the environmental review at the construction permit stage of the licensing process. Because the substantial capital costs and environmental costs associated with construction have already been incurred, the only economic factors that are relevant for consideration now are system fuel costs and operation and main-tenance costs.
Substantial information exists which supports the contention that nuclear plants are lower in operating costs than conventional fossil plants. If conservation, or other factors, lowers anticipated demand, utilities remove generating facilities from service according to their costs of operation, with f
the most expensive facilities renoved first. Thus, a conpleted nuclear plant could serve to substitute for ' ess economical generating capacity (See 10 CFR 51.21, 51.23(e), 51.53(c) and also 46 FR 39440, August 3,1981).
omce >
suamue >
pue)
Nncrosu veo0803nacuom OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY usom mi-nm
x The Honorable Jim Wright.
The CPSES Final Environmntal Statement (FES), HUREG-0775, September 1982, was published prior to me Apr1111982 rule change eliminating consideration -
.of need for power issues at the operating license stage. That FES includes L
both a Benefit-Cost Summary (Section 5.16) and in Chapter 2,.a comparison of fuel costs between nuclear and the other fuels available to the Texas Utility Company System (TUCS). Six copies of the FES are enclosed. - A comparison of-the relative fuel costs indicates that the operation.of CPSES would reduce the' total fuel costs for TUCS.- If only one unit of the CPSES were operational in 1983, over $100 million would be saved (Table 2.2).
The savings would not 1
be significantly ~ altered if the demand for electricity grows at a lower rate than assumed, because.the TUCS marginal energy source would continue to be gas. A production-cost analysis should also include the differential in i-variable operation and maintenance costs between the CPSES units and the' units that would provide the replacement energy. However, these costs are small in relation to the fuel-cost differential and would alter the ultimate cost differential only slightly.
I' Radiation Leaks Reaching Fort Worth This concern has been interpreted to mean the transportation of radioactive i
releases from the plant which may be borne by wind currents to the Fort Worth area (nearest boundary is 33 niles away).L 'While radioactive doses in the Fort Worth area are not specifically estimated.1 average doses within 80 km (50 miles) are included in FES Table 5.10. Comparing the-estimated airborne radiation of' l
e 8.8 person-rem to the natural background radiation of 150,000 person-rem
~
indicates that the radiation emanating from the' plant is an extrenely small part (0.006 percent) of the total airborne radiation.
t Using the information published in the FES (Tables 5.9 and 5.10), 0.62 mrem / year of radioactive gaseous effluents from both units at CPSES and an average natural background radiation dose of 74 nrec/ year, less than 1 percent of the total radiation dose at the nearest site boundary (1.29 miles) will be attributable q
to the plant during normal operations. The remaining 99+ percent of the radiation
{
dosage represents the average natural background dose.
In the early stages of the Comanche Peak operating license proceeding, there was a contention that the applicants failed to make any effort to determine the effect of radioactive releases on the general public other than at the i
exclusion boundary. The contention was voluntarily withdrawn by the intervenor, Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation (CFUR) in consideration of a stipulation with the applicants. The applicants and CFUR agreed... "that the applicants will operate Conanche Peak such that dose comitments from planned gaseous radioactive batch releases are as' low as is reasonably achievable. Applicants
.in achieving this objective. graphy and batch characteristics into consideration shall take meteorology. demo j
orea>
- sunmuub
.......... -... ~...
................. ~
~~
i omy
........... ~. ~......
. ~ ~ -. -
' wac ronu m oo-somacu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam --nsmo
~..
.~ _. _. - _. _ _ - _ _. _ _ _, _
1 y
i The Honorable Jim Wright In addition to the health effect estimates for CPSES, there have been studies comparing the nortality rates resulting from electricity produced from both nuclear and coal-Considering only the fuc1 requirement for the electrical energy used to produce the nuclear fuel, the table on page 8-11 of the FES shows that for a 1,00014W plant the excess mortality risk to the general public is 3.8 to 4.7 times greater if coal is used to produce the electricity used in the nuclear fuel cycle rather than using nuclear for total electricity production. The mortality risk is even greater for all coal versus all nuclear.
Waste Disposal The question of radioactive waste disposal encompasses the areas of spent fuel and the low level radioactive waste resulting from normal plant operations. When the CPSES becomes operational, storage of spent fuel will be subject to the Comission requirements governing storage of spent fuel at operating nuclear power plants. Af ter a permanent repository for spent fuel is established, the spent fuel will be transported to the repository.
In the near futui low-level radioactive waste will be processed on-site and sent to one of three sites within the United States for disposal. Table 5-12 of FES includes an estinate of the exposure of the general United States population resulting from the transportation of fuel and waste. Additional exposure due to transportation is about 0.00005 percent of the natural back-ground radiation.
Long range plans for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste are to be handled by the State of Texas, through the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority.
I trust that the above information answers the concerns posed in the four letters.
Sincerely, (Signed) Jack W. Roe William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Enclosura:
NUREG-0775 (6) l l
W N
l
- SEE PREVIOUS ORC FOR CONCURRENCES.
If/g82 "h"" " """M DL:LB#1*
DL:LB#1*
OELD*
DL:AD/L*
DL:DIR*
1RR:
R E
'"""""~ "~
~ " ~'""""""
GOTEk7Tp"" ' SBUY9sTT" '
E N EbE~
~~-
E AYA E ~ --
0N SA*U'~ N W--, 'NAS~~ ~-
- w~c > GEd+ son-blood-dYounf 8,2,,,.
,19L...L62........104.. 182.........1D4..1B2...... 1.0/.p.82....
te/..l../.82........
1.042.9/,82,,,,
10/,,,,,
l oere >
une rena sia 0o-803 nacu cao OFFIClAL RECORD COPY 4sm mi-m-no
,. ~.
The Honorable Jim E-ight will operate Coaianche Peak such that dose commitments from planned gaseous radioactive batch releases are as low as is reasonably achievable. Applicants shall take meteorology, demography and batch characteristics into consideration in achieving this objective."
In addition to the health effect estimates for CPSES, there have been studies comparing the mortality rates resulting from electricity produced from both nuclear and coal. Considering only the fuel requirement for the' electrical energy used to produce the nuclear fuel, the table on page 8-J1 of the FES shows that for a 1,000 Ki plant the excess mortality risk the general public is 3.8 to 4.7 times greater if coal is used to produce t electricity used in the nuclear fuel cycle rather than using nuclear for otal electricity production, The mortality risk is even greater forj1 coal versus all nuclear.
Vaste Disposal The question of radioactive waste disposal en asses the areas of spent fuel and the low level radioactive waste res91t1 from normal plant operations. When the CPSES becomes operational, storage of pent fuel will be subject to the Co-nission requirenents governing storac of spent fuel at operating nuclear power plants. After a permanent repos ory for spent fuel is established, the spent fuel will'he transported to th repository.
~ In the nea future low-level radi etive waste will be processed on-site and sent to one of three sites withi the United States for disposal. Table 5-12 of FES includes an estimate of he exposure of the general United States population resulting from the ransportation of fuel and waste. Additional exposure due to transportati n is about 0.00005 percent of the natural back-ground radiation.
t.ong range plans for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste are to be handled by the State of exas, through the Texas low 1.evel Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority.
I trust that the ab e information answers the concerns posed in the four letters.
Sincerely, William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Enclosure-NUREG-077 (6) r 0CA g/
pWO/ /82
- SEE EVIOUS ORC FOR CONCURRENCES.
j j,-
gg NRR:DIR ED0 DL:LSel DL:LSel OELD D-omcn > GO.1 ckJ.19.*...~
Sgurws11L....
..... - ~... ~..
~ ~. ~.
sum== >.GMis.9n*.......
.V.Y.9N.n.@ lpm *.Hmby*..........T. ogy. k........
hut.... tiRDen. ton....... WJD.irris......
10/2sg2...
1.9L. za2...... Jgt.. za2......19/g3.2....... gg.at...... wt.../.a z...._.. ton. a z._._
em, une ronu sia paoi e4acu o24o OFFICIAL RECORD COPY' mom ini-awwo
l
[l The Honorable Jim Wright 7 Additional inspections, including monitoring of these tests, will be con by the NRC staff to ensure'that safety-related construction matters ide ified will be adequately resolved prior to recomending authorization for t loading of fuel and the operation of Comanche Peak.
Need for Power The Commission has amended 10 CFR Part 51, " Licensing and Re latory Policy and Procedures for Environnental Protection," effective April 2,1982, to provide that need for power issues will not be considered in ong g and future opera-ting license proceedings for nuclear power plants unles showing of "special circunstances" is made under 10 CFR Section 2.758 or th Conmission otherwise so requires (47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982). Heed forgower issues need not be addressed by operating applicants in environmental yeports to the HRC, nor by the staff in environnental impact statements prepped in connection with operating license applications.
(See 10 CFR 51. 1, 51.23(e), and 51.53(c).)
This policy has been determined by the Comis on to be justified even in situations where, because of reduced capacit requirements on the applicant's system, the additional capacity to be provi ed by the nuclear facility is not needed to meet the applicant's load respo ibili ty. The Comission has taken this action because the issue of need fo power is correctly considered -1 i.h construction permit stage of the regula ory review where a finding of insuffi-cient need could factor into dental of issuance of a license. At the opera %
license review stage, the proposed p1 nt is substantially constructed an(
finding of insufficient need would t, in itself, result in denial of the operating license.
Construction and Operating Costs The apparent overruns in constr ction costs are in large part due to three factors: (1) inflation, (2) hi h interest rates, and (3) additional safety requirements arising out of t e Three Mile Island accident. 9: firn ' +,
Mletien, can maxe a con v errtm-appear te 6 weh-larger-than-it-reaMy-45.
~ ~ifis because 1982 dolla s are not the sane
,,for-examp13973 dollars h
Q(wlien-earlier plant costs ere estimated).~In~fa> 4, nearly three times as
{ many 1982 dollars-are re. ired to~eiual the 1973 allar estimates in terms of I real purchasing power?.T econdly, skyrocketing interest rates the last few years have dramatically incNased construction costs beyond what most builders could foresee. Finall, the additirinal safety requirements which were develop-ed af ter' the Three Hi)e Island accident have resulted~1n additional costs for
~
" ~ ~,-
gied equipment, pers'onnel, and facilities.
Construction costs ere considered by the NRC as part of the environnental review at the cons ruction permit stage of the licensing process. Because the substantial c ital costs and environmental costs associated with construction have already been incurred, the only econonic factors that are relevant for cons deration now are systen fuel costs and operation and main-p tenance costs omce>
suauwe) one>
knc ronu ais oomp.ncu aao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa m e _ m.ca
The Honorable Jim Wright Substantial information exists which supports the contention that nuclear plants are lower in operating costs than conventional fossil plants. If conservation, or other factors, lowers anticipated demand, utilities remove generating facilities from service according to their costs of operation, with the most expensive facilities removed first. Thus, a completed nuclear plant could serve to substitute for less economical generating capacity (See 10 CFR 51.21, 51.23(e), 51.53(c) and also 46 FR 39440, August 3,1981).
The CPSES Final Environmental Statement (FES). HUREG-0775, Septerterfi982, was published prior to the April 1982 rule change eliminating consideration of need for power issues at the operating licen:e stage. That FES includes both a Benefit-Cost Sumary (Section 5.16) and in Chapter 2, a 40mparison of fuel costs between nuclear and the other fuels available to e Texas Utility Company System (TUCS). Six copies of the FES are enclosed A comparison of the relative fuel costs indicates that the operation of C ES would reduce the total fuel costs for TUCS.
If only one unit of the PSES were operational in 1983, over $100 million would be saved (Table 2.2)
The savings would not be significantly altered if the demand for electric y grows at a lower rate than assuned, because the TUCS marginal energy sou e would continue to be gas. A production-cost analysis should also inc de the differential in variable operation and maintenance costs betwee the CPSES units and the units that would provide the replacement energy. H ever, these costs are small in relation to the fuel-cost differential an would alter the ultimate cost differential only slightly.
Radiation Leaks Reaching Fort Worth This concern has been interpreted to. an the transportation of radioactive releases from the plant which may be orne by wind currents to the Fort Worth area (nearest boundary is 33 miles ay). While radioactive doses in the Fort Worth area are not specifically est, mated, average doses within 80 km (50 miles) are included in FES Table 5.10.
6mparing the estimated airborne radiation of 8.8 person-res to the natural ba ground radiation of 150,000 person-rem indicates that the radiation em ating from the plant is an extremely small part (0.006 percent) of the to al airborne radiation.
Using the information publis ed in the FES (Tables 5.9 and 5.10), 0.62 mrem / year of radioactive gaseous effl nts from both units at CPSES and an average natural background radiation dose 74 mrem / year, less than 1 percent of the total radiation dose at the nea st site boundary (1.29 miles) will be attributable to the plant during norm 4 operations. The remaining 99+ percent of the radiation dosage represents the av6 rage natural background dose.
In the early stages of/the Comanche Peak operating license proceeding, there was a contention that/the applicants failed to make any effort to determine the effect of radioa tive releases on the general public other than at the exclusion boundary. The contention was voluntarily withdrawn by the intervenor, Citizens for Fair U 111ty Regulation (CFUR) in consideration of a stipulation with the applicant. The applicants and CFUR agreed... "that the applicants cmcr >
sua m e>
cuep me ronu sia tio-ao) meu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa m i_us.o
- e.,
The llonorable Jim Wright
-4 Peak such that dose commitments from planned gaseous radioacti batch releases are as low as is reasonably achievable. Applicants sna11 tak meteorology, denography and batch characteristics into consideration in hieving this objective."
In addition to the health effect estimates for CPSES, ere have been studies comparing the mortality rates resulting from electric ty produced from both nuclear and coal. Considering only the fuel requir. nt for the electrical energy used to produce the nuclear fuel, the table on page 8-11 of the FES shows that for a 1,000 tW plant the excess morta ty risk to the general public is 3.8 to 4.7 times greater if coal is used to oduce the electricity used in the nuclear fuel cycle rather than using n ear for total electricity production.
Waste Disposal The question of radioactive waste dispo 1 encompasses the areas of spent fuel and the low level radioactive waste re Iting fros normal plant operations. When the CPSES becomes operational, storag of spent fuel will be subject to tne Comission requirements governing st rage of spent fuel at operating nuclear power plants. After a permanent re ository for spent fuel is established, the spent fuel will be transported to he repository.
In the near future low-level rad, oactive waste will be processed on-site and sent to one of three sites wit n the United States for disposal. Table 5-12 of FES includes an estimate o the exposure of the general U.S. population resulting from the transport ion of fuel and waste. Additional exposure due to transportation is about 0005 percent of the natural background radiation.
Long range plans for the d) posal of low-level radioactive waste are to be bandled by the State of T kas, through the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority.
I trust that the above nformation answers the concerns posed in the four letters.
Sincerely, William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
/
Enclosure:
HUREG-0775 (6) /
l M
M tj OCA N
& g/#y f(v i
f f g.ftA 10/ /82 MW 1.
gg1 DL:LB#
OELD DL:AD/L DL:DIR NRR:DIR ED0 cm% _g.......mn,e.1.....g g.g.g....... g.).;. g... g.g..... g.g.....
- sunn= b GEdison h.JY.oungb. load g,914fagfy.igff,w gj.....f,gg......w1..../.aa.... w/..../.aa..... 10/..../.az........
1.9L2.sL82,,,,,,,
7 om>
-- C1 "'
^ ' " "? "
em
/
..[...
UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
cj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565
- %....*/
The Honorable Jim Wright United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Wright:
This letter is in response to the four letters (from Dan Wilson, Bill Kerns, Stu Brown, and Judy Sands) which you forwarded,to this office on October 14, fpM,)
1982. Those letters expressed concerns regarding the Comanche Peak Steam
- [
/ Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (CPSES).
The' Comanche Peak plant is under construction near Glen Rose, Texas. Texas U'tilities Generating Company (TUGChh as agent for the co-owners, was granted pe/mits by the NRC to construct the plant, and has filed an application with the NRC for operating licenses.
/ e have addressed those-concerns below k cwuw,op mm. w.h fw, % u sw. b4.
W Construction Deficiencies Three concerns were expressed in is category:
a)- Inadequate foundation, b) Problems in welding and coperete work, and c) "Non-regulation of pipe supports in the containment building"
/The NRC~ staff'has-investig d-these-matters. AM public hearing in Fort Worth, Texas has been hel y an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board which examined allegations of struction deficiencies and shortcomings in quality assurance. The above thrfe concerns were included in that hearing. The hearing sessions, which were prp-r.aticed in the Federal Register in accordance with the Commission's regulations, were held on the following dates:
12/02/81 - 12/03/81 06/07/82 - 06/11/82 07/26/82 - 07/30/82 09/13/82 - 09/17/82
/At these hearings,-alt the parties provided testimony regarding these matters, including detailed analyses,sthe NRC staff and by engineers who designed and g,j built the Comanche Peak plant. Substantial cross-examination was conducted.
In addition, at' these hearing sessions interested members of the public were allowed to participate by making oral and/or written limited statements pursuant i
s'to the Commiss, ion's regulations.
The 1mrr Licensing Board has not y[et issued
,mk Jjur
' d f4ejn its decision on these matters. Evm,a yf(t,%f.
W yddubwhy ~ Mt 1 % w f, hfLk., _ 4 (
dabpeph d ahuci meld chi n n <~d h
J h
/ Id Y U v & fc h a W h 7 " 6'
/dd{yJ.}fLe%b.Adhday sa i
i v
.-,i-y---
,-,,n--i-+w-.
c
-c.
Ad including monitoring of these tests, will be conducted by the tiRC Staff to ensure that safety-related construction r,
matters identified will be adequately resolved prior to i
h recommending authorization for the loading of fuel and t e operation of Comanche Peak.
P
(.
The Honorable Jim Wright Weed for Power hJ
/The Commission has amended 10 CFR,51, " Licensing and Regul ory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection," effective April 6, 1982, to provide that need for power issues will not be considered in on ing and future opera-tinglicensegroceedingsfornuclear.powerplantsuniesashowingof"special circumstances is made under 10 CFR Section 2.758 or he Commission otherwise so requires (47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982). Need fo power issues need not be addressed by operating applicants in environmental reports to the NRC, nor by the staff in environmental impact statements pre red in connection with operating license applications.
(See 10 CFR 51 1, 51.23(e), and 51.53(c).)
I This policy h een determined by the Comi ion to be justified even in situations wh<
, because of reduced capaci y requirements on the applicant's system, the a6aitional capacity to be prov ded by the nuclear facility is not-needed to meet the applic at's load resp sibility. The Commission has taken this action because the issue of need f power is correctly considered at the construction permit stage of the regul ory review where a finding of insuffi-cient need could factor into denial o issuance of a license. At the operating license review stage, the proposed p ant is substantially constructed and a finding of insufficient need would ot, in itself, result in dental of the operating license.
i Construction and Operating Cost The apparent overruns in cons uction costs are in large part due to three factors: (1) inflation, (2) gh interest rates, and (3) additional safety i
requirements arising out of j he Three Mile Island accident. The first factor, j
inflation, can make a cost verrun appear to be much larger than it really is.
This is because 1982 dollars are not the same as, for example,1973 dollars (when earlier plant costs were estimated).
In fact, nearly three times as many 1982 dollars are quired to equal the 1973 dollar estimates in terms of real purchasing power. Secondly, skyrocketing interest rates the last few years have dramatical) increased construction costs beyond what most builders could foresee. Finally, the additional safety requirements which were develop-ed af ter the Three hile Island accident have resulted in additional costs for added equipment, pe sonnel, and facilities.
Construction costs /were considered by the NRC as part of the environmental review at the con /truction permit stage of the licensing process. Because the substantial papital costs and environmental costs associated with construction have already been incurred, the only economic factors that are relevant for co sideration now are system fuel costs and operation and main-tenance costs.
l
i The Honorable Jim Wright i Substantial information exists which supports the contention that nuclear i
plants are lower in operating costs than conventional fossil plants.
If conservation,'or other factors, lowers anticipated demand, utilities / remove generating facilities from service according to their costs of oper6 tion, with the most expensive facilities removed first. Thus, a completed nuclear plant
%dpuld serve to substitute for less economical generating capaci f (See 10 CFR 51.21, 51.23(e), 51.53(c) and also 46 {R 394
, August 3
/gCPSESFinalEnvironmentalStatement(FES),NUREG-077 Th s published prior to} April 198 and includes both a Benefit-Cost Summary (Seg ion 5.16) and as C@2.p.
comparison of fuel costs between nuclear and the other f 41s available to the v'rexas Utility Company System (TUCS). in CMpter 2.-
Six pies of the FES are enclosed. A comparison of the relative fuel costs ind atos that the operation of CPSES would reduce the total fuel costs for TUCS.
If only one unit of the CPSES were operational in 1983, over $100 million w id be saved (Table 2.2).
The savings would not be significantly altered if e demand for electricity grows at a lower rate than assumed, because the T S marginal energy source would cor tinue to be gas. A production-cost ana sis should also include the differential in variable operation and maintena ce costs between the CPSES units and the units that would provide the rep acement energy. However, these costs are small in relation to the fuel-cost ifferential and would alter the ultimate cost differential only slightly.
Radiation Leaks Reaching Fort Worth
'Thisda'sNeen interpreted to mean the tr nsportation of radioactive releases f
from the plant which may be borne by wind currents to the Fort Worth area (nearest boundary is 33 miles away). dhile radioactive doses in the Fort Worth area are not specifically estimated,/verage doses within 80 km (50 miles) are included 3Jable 5.10.
Comparifig the estimated m tborne radiation of
/ [Eg8'.8 person-rem to the natural backgtound radiation of 150,000 person-rem F
indicates that the radiation emana ing from the plant is an extremely small part (0.006 percent) of the total airborne radiation.
Using the informatiori published /in the FES (Tables 5.9 and 5.10), 0.62 mrem / year of radioactive gaseous effluen i from both units at CPSES and an average natural background radiation dose of 7 mrem / year, less than 1 percent of the total radiation dose at the neares site boundary (1.29 miles) will be attributable to the plant during normal operations. The remaining 99+ percent of the radiation dosage represents the avera natural background dose.
Cs A FMc openho bm p s ocuMS V]n the early stages of the WN precca, thdre was a content' ion that the Vapplicants failed to make any effort to determine the effect of radioactive releases on the general blic other than at the exclusion boundary. The contention was voluntari/y withdrawn by the intervenor, Citizens for Fair Utility b Regulation (CFUR) in copsideration of a stipulation with the uti"ty.
ine W m v' applicants and CFUR ag eed... "that the Alpplicants will operate Comanche l
I
F e,
_?
e s
t s s DISTRIBUTION FOR GREEN TICKET
- 12383 WITHOUT ENCLOSURE
- w/ incoming ~
1 C M 1. M %N hl W M )*:rsw pp NRC PDR*
L PDR*
PRC System
- 4 LB#1 Rdg.*
J. Youngblood S. Burwell M. Rushbrook*
D. Eisenhut/R. Purple J. Jordan, DEQA:IE J. Taylor, DRP:IE Attorney, OELD T.Hovak/L. Berry (ED0#12383)*
M. Bridgers, ED0 SECY (3) (82-1014)
H. Denton L. Underwood G. Cunningham E. Case /H. Denton PPAS Rdg.
S. Hanauer R. Mattson
' R. Vollmer H. Thompson P. Check B. Snyder 0CA (3)
NRR Correspondence Clerk NRR (ED0#12383) 4 l'
i 4
FROM ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO,
~ ~ - -. ~ <
is/29,-
12383 1
DATE OF DOCUMENT J,
10/12/82
,~ Ten,u aonv TO PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE bca~ aura N
?"
CA FILE LOCATION
]'s
(/
gb MEXECUTivE oinECrOR 1 f OTHCR DESCR:PTION trtita O utuo O nc,Onr O OTHcn SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Escloses constitutant 1trs fts Dan Utison, 3111 Kerns Stu Droun & h dy Sands re Comesche Peak asvo~co to oE
.~r""'""*"
SECT-82-1914
_Destas, mast lo/15/st conninghen
_Eisenhut 10/15/at Lunderused n.
< c_
Case /Denton t I dI 1.
PPAS 4
'/ " Y '
2.
Hanauer
- /,
3.
Mattson O-4.
Vollmer
- 5. TW 7,
3,yg,,
6.
Check r
J NRC FORM 232 EXCCUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS 4
i p)
PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
._ _~
- W b e Mg ju,.g.p g.p.
at M
e I
-.h"'s r'h--
m, C-1 10/14/82 n
SFCY-82-1014 Logyas D.es NRC SECRETARIAT To:
O Comme soner D.ie Gen. Counsel j h Emec. DirJOper.
J Cong. Li.ison solicitor J
G rundic Art. irs secret.rv
' a*==
'a' O
O r.iiev sveiueis.n Rep Jim Wright, Const Refs
- n
- o,
Don C. Wilson, et al y,
OCA 10/12/82 To:
D.te oppo3ns the bui.1dina and operatina of the suti ect:
C0 man,che Peak nuC plant in Glen Rose. Texas O pre re,e,iv or.i.n.ivre o<:
v i
O Ch.or a l
Commessioner O e oo oc. co. sot. ra.secy. ix. r.
sepicture tdeck omitted O
Return origin.1 of incoming with ree onse X M Fordi'*ctrap'v' Suspense: Oct 25 O ror ropri.ie.cii a O Foriniorm.iion OCA to Ack Romerks:
hme For the Commission:
- Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correepondence.nd Records Branch Rc'dO!f.EDO T
W O** !.*I ACTIO'1 SLIP Imm.
i feRC Fonet 62A iTuno ~e._y,2 [, %.,
i nm i
m..
m 7.
_._