ML20041A154
| ML20041A154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1982 |
| From: | Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| HQ:E:82:009, HQ:E:82:9, NUDOCS 8202190176 | |
| Download: ML20041A154 (65) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:@ Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545 Docket No. 50-537 HQ:E:82:009 FEB 12 1982 I 9 l' , N ' ta *
.s 'y
~ #^ \
t i,f:0 > , e 8- / 2 '? e ? (/jy Mr. Paul S. Check, Director CRBR Program Office C "'
'd8Z A<,h' f
.g '
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission /,,,T]rAi',p-Washington, DC 20555 W
Dear Mr. Check:
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE SITES INFORMATION This letter formally transmits the response to Questions 750.2R, 750.3R, and 750.4R regarding alternative sites from your November 30, 1981, letter. Additional information relevant to Part 4 of Question 750.2R is included in our December 22,-1981, response to Question 320.lR. The enclosed information was informally provided to Mr. P. Leech on February 8, 1982. . The response is divided into two major portions: additional information on alternative sites in the TVA region (Attachment 1); and additional information on alternative sites on lands controlled by DOE (Attachment 2). This information will be included in, a future amendment to the Environmental Report. The updated analysis does not change the previous conclusions on the environmental acceptability of the CRBRP site. Sincerely, , Ow John R. Longenecker, Man ge Licensing & Environmental Coordination Office of Nuclear Energy yQ 2 Attachments J cc: Service List /// Standard Distribution Licensing Distribution 8202190176 820212 PDR ADOCK 05000537 PDR
l ATTACHMENT 1 - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON TVA EITEE TVA's original siting assessment for the liquid metal fast
. breeder reactor (LMFBR) was conducted in accordance with 10 CFR
.Part 51 and Regulatory Guide 4.2. Therefore, the primary considerations of this response are whether the previous assessment is consistent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Proposed Rule on Alternative Sites and whether new information has become known which would significantly affect the relative environmental preferability among the candidate sites In terms of the proposed rule, the original siting assessment undertook a product-oriented approach which focused upon the individual qualities of each proposed site. Under this product-oriented approach the proposed rule requires (a) that candidate sites be selected "from the region of interest to provide reasonable representation of the diversity of land and water resources within the region of interest" (45 FR, p 24,176), and (b) that each site meet specific threshold criteria. Based upon our review of the original siting assessment, we have concluded that: (1) the 13 candidate sites previously identified sufficiently, represent the environmental diversity of the TVA region; and, (2) the sites meet the threshold criteria outlined in the rule.
Environmental Diversity The preamble to the proposed rule states that the region of interest should be determined on the basis of environmental diversity such that "a substantial range of environmental alternatives from which to choose is making the final siting decision" (45 FR, p 24,172) is provided. "For the purpose of determining the region of interest, environmental diversity," according to the rule, " refers to the types of water bodies available within the region (upper and lower reaches of large rivers, small rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans) and the appointed physiographic units" (45 FR, p 24,176). The region of interest for the previous LMFBR siting assessment was considered to be the TVA power service area. As can be seen in figul:e 1, the region of interest includes several rivers ranging in size from small, e.g., the Duck and Elk, up to rather large rivers, e.g., the Tennessee, Mississippi, and Ohio. Additionally, the water bodies vary from free flowing to impounded lakes, and for many rivers include an area from their headwaters to their mouths. Physiographic units associated with these rivers include coastal plains, interior low plateaus, the Applachian Plateau, valley and ridge, and Blue Ridge. Based upon these features, the area TVA serves, well qualifies it as an acceptable region of interest.
> . . h!t .-
in euco u u c i
' ot.m ci iv no ,ii.t.t 1
-},-]-{f
. manvi ,,
4
"" aN
- ,#}tjih yb NNE S S 1-
* ';,y.
a, y y . I'. !' I .ntyni - {' i.$nutnruis . .. w[ ""#
!!! 4.',; .
i
~
.i.
-a- I '
o wa cica ' (
'ip j '
mm \ - f' \< 1 k
.< .g
,,f.' 'jy g
EY d., ', I T ' 8 #
,q l' d f. k {fj9[$ [b
..i.!!.
sIppt
't
( h. Ib d j 'L,f ,. . f3
,f' i n $ __
t ., ;
). . l?*",
b.
-t Yl% ,
"F10URS 1 LMFBR REGION OF INTEREST . ;
~
l.
'f.l , S
'. .' 'I ;
i AND CANDDATE SITES j
t . _
'1%
T . J h . p. 9, . , , .
- I
. . . . . .. o. . . ..____.___.__ _. . .
l l l TABLE 1 CLASSIFICATION OF RIVERS WHERE SITES WERE CONSIDERED FOR LMFER IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DIVERSITY Associated
- Pyhsiographic niver River TyDe Units Tennessee Large, impounded Originates in valley and ridge and flows through Cumberland Plateau and interior low plateaus to coastal plain areas Duck Small, impounded Interior low plateau 5
Sequatchie Small, headwater. Appalachian Plateau Clinch Medium to small Valley and ridge area impounded, headwaters Emory Small, impounded head- Valley and ridge area waters Little Small, impounded head- Originates in Blue Tennessee waters Ridge and flows to valley and ridge area Tellicio small, headwater Originates in Blue Ridge and flows to valley and ridge area
- Bolston Medium to small, Valley and ridge area
' impounded, headwaters French Broad Medium, impounded, head- Originates in Blue waters Ridge and flows to valley and ridge area j
r , . . . . . TABLE 1 - Continued Associated Physiographic River River Tyne Unit Nolichucky Small, impounded, Originates in Blue headwaters Ridge and flows to valley and ridge area cumberland River Basin Cumberland La.le to medium, Originates in interior impounded low plateau and flows to coastal plain area Red Small, headwater Interior low plateau Caney Fork Small, impounded, Interior low plateau headwater
, - _ - - . - - . , , .- ,- . - - . _ , _ , . - - . - , , _ - , ,, , _ , . , . , , , . . - . . -_ _ . _ _ _ , _ - 7, --, - .
a.. . .-.-. --- - .. ... _.. . TABLE 2 CANDIDATE SITES Physiographic glig River River Tyne character Spring Creek Tennessee Large, impounded Interior low plateau Blythe Ferry Tennessee Large, impounded Valley and ridge Caney Creek Tennnessee Large, impounded Valley and ridge Clinch River Clinch Small, riverina, Valley and ridge impounded Taylor Bend French Small, impounded, Valley and ridge headwater Buck Hollow Holston Medium, headwater Valley and ridge Phipps Bend Holston Medium, headwater Valley and ridge Lee Valley Holston Small, headwater Valley and ridge Murphy Hill Tennessee Large, impounded Appalachian Plateau i Johntown Cumberland Medium, riverina, Interior low l
- (Hartsville) impounded plateau Rieves Bend Duck Small, potentially Interior low impounded plateau John Sevier Holston Medium, impounded, Valley and ridge headwater Widows Creek Tennessee Large, impounded Applachian Plateau l
I
. _ , . .- , , , , . . - - , , - . - - - - - . -- , , . , . . , , _ . . . , , t -
s . - -
- -. ..-~..c~..-.. . o . . . .
Within the region of interest a *atal of 120 sites was considered in the original assessment, including 109 *new" sites and 11 existing steam plant sites for posible hook-on. These sites were on or near certain rivers in the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins. These rivers are identified in table 1 and are
. classified in terms of environmental diversity. As this table shows, these rivers, and therefore sites along them, are i consistent with the concept of environmental diversity as discussed in the proposed rule.
The slate of 13 candidate sites identified in the previous assessment was devised from this set of 120 sites on the basis of engineering and environmental assessments. As can be seen from figure 1 and table 2, these sites adequately refle environmental diversity in the region of interest.gt the Threshold criteria Each of the 13 candidate sites was reviewed in terms of the threshold criteria stated in section VI.2.b of the proposed rule. When reviewed in terms of information present at the time of the original assessment, all of the sites meet the threshold criteria with the exception of the Rieves Bend site which would not have met criteria 1, 4, and 8 relating to water resources. ! However, the Rieves Bend site could have been excluded as a candidate site without diminishing in any way the representative environmental diversity exemplifed by the reamining 12 candiate sites. The slate of candidate sites was also reviewed in terms of the threshold criteria after having considered appropriate current information. Except as provided in the numbered statements below, current information did not adversely affect any site's ability to meet the threshold criteria and essentially substantiated previous assessments.
- 1. The probable maximum flood elevation has been redefined for several of the sites, but the associated design changes and additional costs that would result would be within 5 percent of overall project cost as discussed in threshold criterion number 8.
- 2. A coal gasification plant is under construction on the Murphy Hill site.
1We recognize that contrary to VL.2.b, no candidate site has the same water source as the proposed Clinch River site. However, within the initial 120 sites the Bull Run ' site on the Clinch River was considered. ,
,a - . - - ,, , -- . - - - - - , - - - - - - - ~ - - - - ----_n--. - - - -- -- . . . ,-- 2. ,O-. - - . - - -
- 3. Light water nuclear plants are under construction at the Bartsville (Johntown) Yellow Creek, and Phipps Bend -
sites.
'. 4. The John Sevier and Widows Creek sites are not included as candidate sites due to the deicison to dismiss the hook-on alternative.
In response to NRC's specific question regarding why certain rivers within the region of interest were excluded from the assessment, the Mississippi River and Ohio River near Shawnee Steam Plant were excluded because of their proximity the the New Madrid seismic zone, the Green, Pearl, Barren, Coosa, Tombigbee, and Black Warrior Rivers were exclued because only their headwaters are located in the region of interest. These headwater areas did not appear to-exhibit adequate cooling water capabilities, i.e., siting opportunities. Additionally, since other small rivers with similar physiographic characteristics were considered, there is fully adequate environmental diversity despite the absence of these rivers, conclusion Based upon our review of the original LMFBR siting assessment, we conclude that our original assessment meets the selection of candidate site requirements of section VI.2.a of the proposed regulations. A sufficient nuuber of candidate sites which meet the threshold criteria was identified to reasonably represent the environmental diversity in the TVA service area. The addition of current information for the most part indicates that the data l used in the original assessment remain applicable today. As a result, the review of our original siting assessment with the addition of applicable current information gave rise to no candidate site which could be considered environmentally preferable to the Clinch River site. While the Applicants have concluded that there are no sites which are environmentally preferable (based on the original and updated 4 evaluations), the Applicant has further categorized the potential sites using the proposed NRC policy guidance for alternative site reviews (45 FR 24168 [ April 9, 1980]). Based on the information summarized below, the Applicants have identified four sites which adequately represent the diversity of water resources and physiographic areas for NRC evaluation.
..._m. _ ____. .. .
l l The four sites which represent this diversity in the TVA region l for pusposes of evaluation of environmental preferabil PhippsBend,Hartsville,MurphyBillandYellowCreek.gtyare: These are representative of diversity since: Phipps Bend - represents an acceptable site for a nuclear plant on a medium river in the headwaters located in valley and ridge areas; Bartsville represents an acceptable site for a nuclear plant on a medium river empounded in a plateau area; Murphy Hill represents an appropriate site on a large river in the Appalachian plateau; and, Yellow Creek represents an acceptable site on a large river. Further, in light of this diversity and since the NRC already has considerable information relating to the environmental characteristics of these sites, the Applicants propose these sites for purposes of NRC evaluation of environmental i preferability. The Applicants are proposing these representative sites for purposes of environmental evaluation, even though the existence of LWR plants on certain of these sites would make them unavailable for CRBRP. Recognizing the two step nature of the alternative site evaluation called for in the NRC policy guidance, the Applicant proposes that these sites be used in the first evaluation step -- to evaluate whether these sites are substantially better from the standpoint of environmental prefer-ability. If the NRC concurs with the Applicant's position that none of these sites are environmentally preferable, than no sites in the water resource and physiographic categories represented by these three would be substantially better from the standpoint of environmental preferability and a finding that CRBRP site was acceptable would follow. If any of these sites is environmentally preferable, then the second test of obvious superiority would then be applied. From the standpoint of the criteria for obvious supericrity, the economic and scheduled effects of a change in site location are essentailly independent of the actual alternative site. There-fore, any degree of environmental preferability found for the representative sites could be meaningfully compared to these cost and schedule impacts evgn though the representative sites may not be the ultimate choice 20riginally the Yellow Creek site was not identified as one of the 120 sites because of unresolved questions about regional seismic activity. In the course of evaluating the Yellow Creek site for the LWR, the area was judged to be suitable from a eismic, engineering, and environmental standpoint. gNo cost or schedule impact would be added by the Prcject for removal of current strutures which ensures that there would be no bias in this evaluation.
~ -
Summarizing, based on the analyses presented below, the Applicants propose that the NRC use four sites (Bartsville, Murphy Hill, Phipps Bend, and Yellow Creek) for evaluating whether any TVA sites would be environmentally preferable to the CRBRP site. If any of these show environmental preferability,
'then the determination of obvious superiority would be based on the schedule and cost impact of moving to any other site.
- - - , - - - .,m,, -,-,,,n,-,--,,,---m
-~,,,-n,,,,,ms-
".-, , e,-a- --- e - - , - - -- - , , - - - - . , , -
. - . . . . - o. ..- . v .
.. x.....^ . . - - .
ATTACHMENT 2 SUPPLEMENTAL ALTERNATIVE SITING ANALYSIS UPDATE FOR TFE LMFBR DEMONSTRATION PLANT 1.0 Background and Introduction 2.0 Consideration of Additional Alternative Sites and Concepts for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant 3.0 Additional Information Regarding Consideration of Alternative Sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant 4.0 Summary and Conclusions i I l . l l l l l
~
~ - -
. X - --- . . . . .
1.0 BACKGROUND
AND INTRODUCTION The primary alternative siting analysis for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant is presented in Section 9.2 of the CRBRP Environmental Report. The choice of the TVA service area cis the region of interest for this analysis was inherent in the selection by AEC of the TVA/ Commonwealth Edison proposal for a cooperative AEC/ utility arrangement to design, construct, and operate the nation's first large-scale demonstration LMFBR.II) This choice was otso confirmed by the DOE's LMFBR Program Environmental Statement Supplement.(2) The conclusion reoched in Environmental Report Section 9.2, offer careful consideration of both a hook-on arrangement of an existing TVA plant and on all new plant at a number of undeveloped condidate sites, was that on all new plant locofed of the Clinch River site was the preferrred choice for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. l 2 With respect to the alternative siting analysis presented in the CRBRP Environmental Report, it was contended by on intervenor in the CRBRP licensing hearings that: Alternative sites with more favorable environmental and safety features are not onalyzed and the onelysis is defective since:
- 1. Sites with more favorable environmental and safety chorocteristics -
were not identified and sufficient weight was not given to those values in selecting the site. I (
- 2. The site selection criteria unduly restricted the range of alternatives. The analysis of alternatives should not be restricted to either the TVA system or the State of Tennessee. The analysis must encompass all fond owned by TVA, including land outside its system, and all land owned by ERDA (and the AEC before it).
(1) See CRBRP Environmental Report Section 9.2 and Appendix D, Section 1.0, for additional information concerning the history of the selection of an AEC/ utility arrangement for the design, construction, and operation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. (2) See LMFBR Program Environmental Impact Statement Supplement, DOE /EIS-0085-D, Appendix G. 13 4
--- +% --- - - - - _-- , , - , _ - _ , _
-t -
. e ... 1. . . . _ . .
- 3. Alternative sites which need to be explored include Honford Reservation, NRTS Idaho Reservation, Nevodo Test Site, co-location with the LMFBR fuel reprocessing plant (e.g., the hot pilot plant) and on LMFBR fuel fabricating plant and underground sites.
Ruling on the acceptobility of this contention in the CRBRP hearings, the NRC Commissioners have stated: l l Alternative sites outside the Tennessee Volley Authority service area ore also relevant to this proceeding, in considering olternatives, including non-TVA siting alternatives, in the present proceeding, the following general principle should be observed: consideration of alternatives need go no further than to establish whether ar'not substontially better alternatives are likely to be available.(3) In occordance with the obove NRC Commissioners ruling and in response to NRC requests for additional information, the CRBRP Project provided in Environmental Report Appendix D, " Supplemental Alternative Siting Analysis for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant," and Appendix E, " Additional Information Regarding Consideration of Alternate Sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant," on analysis of alternative sites outside the TVA service area and the concepts of underground siting and co. location with on LMFBR fuel reprocessing or fuel fabrication plant. The conclusion reached from this odditional alternative siting onalysis was ogain that the Clinch River site was the preferred site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. In a letter dated November 30,1981 from P. S. Check, Director,.CRBR Progrom Office, NRC, to J. R. Longenecker, Monoger, Licensing and Environmental Coordination, CRBRP, NRC requested additional information to update the CRBRP Project alternative siting analysis presented in the Environmental Report. The Project's response to NRC's question concerning the Environmental Report Section 9.2 onalysis of alternative sites
- within the TVA service oreo is provided in (Attachment 1).
The NRC requested update of the supplemental alternative siting onalysis
- presented in Environmental Report Appendixes D and E is provided herein, in parallel
, (3) See CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E for a complete discussion of the i stondords governing consideration of alternative sites outside the TVA service area presented in the NRC Commissioners Order. j 13
- - - , . . , , - ,s--.-
with the organization of Environmental Report Appendix D, a re-examination of alternative DOE sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant is provided in Section 2.1, and Section 2.2 contains a re-examination of TVA owned sites outside the TYA service area. The concepts of underground siting and co-locotton with on LMFBR fuel reproces' sing or fuel fabrication plant are reviewed in Section 2.3. Section 3.0 provides cm update to the additional information concerning alternative DOE sites at Honford, Savonnah River, and Idaho contained in Environmental Report Appendix E. The enclosed update is not intended to supplant or supercede either Environmental Report Appendix D or E since much of the information presented in these oppendixes is still valid and is not repeated here. The enclosed update is intended only to reconfirm, revise, and/or supplement, as necessary, the previous Environmental Report analysis and must be used in conjtnction with it. f I 13 . .
.s.-... . . - - - - _ -
2.0 CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE SITES AND CONCEPTS FOR TE LMFBR DEMONSTRATION PLANT
- This section provides e update af the consideration of odditional alternative sites and concepts presented in Appendix D of the CRBRP Environmental Report. l 2.1 Consideration of DOE Land as Alternative Sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant As requested by the NRC, the CRBRP Project has re-examined the onolysis presented in Appendix D, Section 2.1, of the CRBRP Environmental Report, regarding the determination of whether or not there is a DOE site (s) outside the TVA system that would be o substantially better oiternative site than the present Clinch River site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. Specifically, the previously considered sites of Honford, Savonnah River, and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (IEL) were reviewed to see if they are presently occeptable os condidate sites and if the information provided on these condidate sites in Appendix D is still odequate for comparison to the Clinch River site. The results of this review are provided below.
The Appendix D onalysis of ERDA sites os potential otternative sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant began by screening, in a two-phase process, all U.S. Government real property in the custody of ERDA of the time. The screening process reduced the
- number of feasible sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant to three, Honford, Savonnoh River, and INEL. The principle reasons for which the other sites were excluded included insufficient land orco to meet minimum exclusion area distance, lock of ovalloble cooling water, interference with ERDA's Division of Military Application Weapons Program, high surrounding population density, and the undesireobility of I co-location with existing ERDA facilities. A review of the screening process and the bases for the elimination of all ERDA sites, except Hanford, Savonnah River, and INEL, has found that the prevous screening analysis is still valid. The screening
! process was also applied to additional properties presently owned by the U.S. Government and in the custody of DOE that were not considered in the previous analysis . The survey found no DOE properties of sufficient size to warrant ' ' the consideration as potential alternative sites. 13
The reconnoissance level information provided in Appendix D for Honford (Section 2.1.2.1), Savonnah River (Section 2.l.2.2) and IbEL (Section 2.1.2.3), has been reviewed in detail ond, while most of this information is still correct, some information requires updating. To ensure NRC has the correct, updated information, the previously provided data on site occess; nearby industriol, military, and transportation focilities; demography; meteorology (atmospheric dispersion); geology (foundation conditions); seismology; hydrology (cooling water availability, water quality, and flooding); bio-environment; socio-economics (lobor availability); transmission lines; lond and land use; scenic, orchaeological and historic sites; and utility participation for each site is reviewed and, os necessory, corrected or supplemented in the following sections. Also, a revised comparison of the site chorocteristics at Clinch River, Hanford, Savannah River, and INEL is provided in Table 1. The final conclusion reached based on our review of the updated information for Honford, Savonnah River, and INEL is that the previous findings reached in Appendix D remain valid, i.e.:
- 1. Atmospheric dispersion and site isolation factors (minimum exclusion boundary distance, surrounding population density) are somewhat more favorable at Honford, Savannah River, or INEL than the Clinch River site. However, it must be emphasized that the Clinch River site is still o completely acceptoble site for construction of a nucieor focility.(4)
- 2. A comparison of other siting porometers (see Table I) would not lead one to select the Honford, Savannah River, or INEL areas os preferable to the Clinch River site.
(4) The acceptability of the Clinch River site is fully demonstrated in the CRBRP PSAR and Environmental Report and is confirmed by the NRC staff in their CRBRP FES and Site Suitability Report.
o
'I f
TABl.E 1 l' COMPARISON OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS I-2 CLINCII RIVER ltANf040 10AfE0 SATANNAN RITtt Site Staat
- Esclusten Bevadery 2.200 feet Potential for St.200 feet Potentist for >t.200 feet Potential for ht.tOO feet ! !
Populetten Center Distance 7.0 miles (Oet Ridge 27.55t* j (Etchland-33. Set)* 45 miles (IdahoFal,ls- M5 miles (Auguste-47.532) i! 1 30.6 5) ;- l Coeling ideter C11ach Rfver . Adeguete Coluete River .'Adequete Grounduetoe Adequate Sevennah Rivee . Adequete l Setsselegy . desfgn tests l SSE etceleretton 0.25g 8.25g 0.54 to 0.tegh 0. tog m -
' Atmospheric Stspersten 3 d Shortters(55 I/O in */n ) 'Short teve Short ere Xf g g , mj ,3 e5hert teve (9B X/t in */m )
3 3 (55 X/0 in * /m ) 0-2 hrs 2.96 a 10*3 et 87th{ts) 6-2 hrs 3.0 a 50** Igt7m(tt) At 670s 1.95 a 10*I d 0-2 hrs 2.8 a le .et 1000m(t3 0-0 hrs 1.18 a 10** et 40th 0-8 hrs 2.0 a 10-5 et 6440s At 4023m 3.4 a 10 5 0-8 hre 1.0 a 10** et Siten-(LPZ) (LPZ) * (LPZ) 8-24 hrs 1.42 a 10*I et LPZ 8-24 hrs 1.9 a 10*I et LPZ ' S-24 hrs 2.1 a 10*I et LPI . . 1-4 days 7.75 a 10-6 et LPZ 1-4 days.8.3 a 10-6 et LPZ . 1-4 ders 0.7 a 10*' et LPt
- 4-30 days 4.23 a 10 6 et LPZ 4-30 days 2.5 a 10*' et LPZ 4-30 ders 2.5 a 10*8 et LPt Annual everage 1.44 a 10** Annuel everage 1.7 a 10** Annuel everage t.7 a 10**
(htghestoffsitevalue) (highestoffsttevalue) . (htshest offstte velse) Later evellebtitty Adequate Adequate Potential construction Adequete , . laber shortage {
- a. Etchtend borders the teenford Reservetten for FFTF tt is 8 miles. for ifPP55 f t is e miles
, b. The determinetten of the setsetetty and welcanic herards et the INEL site by the anC staff could be a major source of project delay.
d
- c. SER for WPP55 1 & 4 .
. d. Calculated using stability class F and wind speed of 1.0 #sec votag onette date (100-12049)
- e. 'Sta for Alvin v. Vogtle Nuclear Plant * "'
6
-4 .
i 4 4 TABLE 1 (cont'd) IIMFont le4MB Sandstage alvtg CLit01RITtt I Popuistien Density Cumulative Populetten (1980) Cumulative Population (1980)#Cumulettro Populetten (1980)' Cumeistfee Pepsletten (1977)" 0-1 mile 150 i ' 0-2 miles 740 1 0-3 miles 1460 0 4 miles 2420 Y 0-5 miles 4440 4 6-10 miles 4 .000 0-10 miles 57.040 0-10 miles 25.361 0-10 miles 0-50 miles 830.040 0-50 miles 263.746 0-50 miles $140.550 0-50 miles 4 00.000 (933.700in2030) (328,139in1990) Reed. retiroed. and berge Reed, re11 reed, and berge Reed and retireed only need. rollrood and nerge Site Access . Only minor transmission uncertain Only minor tronentesten line Transmissten 1tne construction 4 .2 miles of transatssten line construction espected construction required required line construction required Ils lio Ils Utility Participetten fes - i Camportsen of Seelegy (foundetten condittens) fleeding potentielt industrial, m111tery and treneperation factittles neer the site tend and lend weeg l equetic ed terrestrial impacts; and scenic and historic sites are essentfally the same for the 4 areas.
- f. From Te)1e I .
- g. ires Figure t
- b. SER for Alvin V. Vogtle
. e
- 3. A cooperative arrangement between utilities and DOE for the design, construction, and operation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant on a utility system is not likely in the localities of the Honford, Savannah River, or IEL sites. This would preclude satisfoetion of a primary LMFBR Demonstration Plant objective.(5) f With regards to the first two conclusions, o very similar comparison of the Honford, INEL, and Ook Ridge National Laborntory (ORNL) sites os port of the Large Developmental Plant LMFBR Conceptual Design Study independently confirmed these conclusions.I'*7) More specifically, the Large Developmental Plant siting and environmental studies concluded that "no information was uncovered which would decidedly indicate that the DemonstratiorIPlant (Large Developmental Plant) could not be located at any of the selected sites," that "occeptoble sites for the Developmental Plant have been identified on each of the Hanford, Idaho, and Ook Ridge reservations,"
! and thet "the results of economic and other comparisons of these sites did not identify any factors significant enough to favor one site over the others." On the basis of the foregoing, neither Honford, Savonnoh River, nor INEL is ] environmentally superior or preferable to the Clinch River site. In addition, the Project l previously provided (Environmental Report Appendix E) additional information showing
~
that the Project's ability to meet LMFBR program ond project information goals is strongly site dependent and that the Clinch River Site is the preferred otternative for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. A re-examination of this information based upon current information is provided in Section 3.0 below. This analysis confirms that neither Hanford, Savonnah River, nor INEL ore substantially better alternatives for satisfying progrom and project objectives for this demonstration plant. (5) See CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E and Section 3.0 for odditional information concerning LMFBR Program and LMFBR Demonstration Plant project objectives. (6) LMFBR Developmu.tal Plant Conceptual Design Study Final Report, Site Evoluotion Report, CDS 400-9, March 1981, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. l (7) LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptuct Design Study Final Report, Preliminary Environmental Review Summary, CDS 400-10, January 15,1981, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. t l 13 t l
- l. , _ _ _ _ . . . . . . - . . _ . . . .
2.l.1 Honford The reconnaissance level information provided for the Honferd site in Section 2.I,2.1 of Appendix D to the CRBRP Environmental Report has been reviewed to ossure that it is odequate for comparison to the Clinch River site. The results of this review are reported below and are based on telephone conversations with and information received from cognizant personnel of the Honford site and the references listed in Section 2.1.1.15. 2.I.1.1 Site Access No significant changes, t 2.1.1.2 Nearby indestrial, Military, and Tronsportation Focilities In oddition to those onsite activities previously discussed in Appendix D, Puget Sound Power and Light Company is planning to build a two-unit commercial nuclear power station (Skagit/Honford Nuclear Project) of a site opproximately five miles west of the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Unit 2. 2.l.l.3 Demography in a recent report by Pocific Northwest Laboratory, the population distributions within o ! 50-mile radius of four locations on the Honford site were calculated based on the U.S. Bureau of Census 1980 population counts for Washington and Oregon. Tobles 2 and 3 show the population distribution within the 50-mile radius of FFTF for 1980 and the projected population distribution for 1990, respectively. Auditional demographic dato in the vicinity of the Hanford site with projections post 1990 are available in the bkogit/Honford Nuclear Project Environmental Report.
~
As specifically requested during telephone conversations with members of the NRC staff, 46* 26' Latitude,119 23' Longitude, are reasonable coordinates for NRC's use in computing population distributions and densities around a possible LMFBR Demonstration Plant site at Honford. 13 9 w , e
. . ,- ~ ~ - - - - -
y - .- l l TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN 50-MILE RADIUS OF THE FFTF j BY POPULATION GRID SECTOR FOR THE YEAR 1980 Compass number of People Direc tion 0-10 et 10-20 et 20-30 mi 30 40 et 40-50 et Totals NDRTH 0 78 859 811 16.267 18,015 IssE 20 343 ' 5,728 2.945 1,021 10,057 If 114 377 76C 1.033 217 2,501 ENE 211 1,041 2,644 492 451 4.839 EAST 229 600 183 169 183 1,364 ESE 229 442 544 292 1.0% 2,567 SE 344 25,267 13,654 2,105 952 42,322 55E 10,829 40,933 5.688 719 2.364 60,533 5OUTH 11,760 9,385 1,525 5,611 15.691 43,972 SSW 1,446 4,550 583 185 1,927 8,691 SW 179 1,538 5.234 535 239 7.725 WSW 0 1,206 7.7% 14,956 481 24,391 ; WEST 0 190 3,339 6,089 17,171 26,789 WNW D 0 932 1,221 3,176 5, 329 IIW 0 0 295 903 705 1,903 lefW 0 0 264 1.302 1.1 82 2.748 TOTALS 25,361 35,950 49,980 39,368 63,087 263.746 , S
. --v m ..
l 1 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION WITHIN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF THE FFTF BY POPULATION GRID SECTOR FOR THE YEAR 1990 Compass Number of People
- Of rection, 0-10 et 10-70 mi 20-30 et 30-40 el _e-50 mi Totals NORTH 0 107 1,057 968 19,099 21,231 NNE 27 467 7,121 3.517 1,205 12,337 NE 156 .513 997 1,293 270 3,229, ENE 288 1,415 3,598 671 611 6,583 EAST 312 817 249 211 208 1,797 ESE . 312 602 6 34 324 1,176 3.048 SE 452 34,069 17,622 2,394 1,252 55,789 55E 13,881 52,612 7,t60 867 2,8 21 77,541 SOUTH 15,073 12,032 1,955 6,678 18,712 54,450 SSW 1,854 5,832 744 229 2.249 10,909 SW 228 1,971 5,709 638 279 9,825!
WSW 0 1,546 9,109 17,380 559 28,594 tdEST 0 244 3,946 7.076 19,951 31.217 IdNW 0 0 1,149 1,416 3,659 5,224 sai 0 0 346 1,045 750 2.141 senf 0 0 310 1.528 1.386 _ 3.224 l I TOTu S 32,583 112.227 62,907 46,235 74,187 328,139 l l l l *
, - - - - - . , - . . , , , , . - - . - ~ . _ , _ - , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
- 2. l. l .4 ' Meteorology (Atmospheric Dispersion)
No significant changes.
'2.1.I.5 Geology (Foundation Conditions) l l
No significant changes. 2.1.1.6 Seismology No significant changes. It should be noted, however, that on investigation is currently in progress to evoluote recently obtained data related to reported foulting in the crea which may impoet (increase) the required des 1En' basis acceleration for the safe shutdown earthquake which is presently 0.25g. 2.1.I.7 Hydrology (Cooling Water Avallobility, Water Ooolity, and Flooding) No significant changes. 2.1.l.8 Bio-Environment l ! Two federally listed, threatened or endangered animal species are known to occur within the Honford Reservation, bold eagles and peregrine folcons. Bold eagles are winter residents, although sporatic nesting ottempts have been mode in the post. The only published records of peregine falcons in the Tri-cities crea is of winter migrants. There are no other significant changes from the bio-environment description of the Honford site in Appendix D, but odditional information is available in the references listed in Section 2.1.1.15.
~
2.I,l.9 Socio-economics (Lobor Avollobility) The most up-to-date socio-economic information concerning the area surrounding Honford is contained in the Environmental Report for the Skogit/Honford Nuclear Project. A review of this study plus the recent planned termination of the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Unit 4, Indicates that on odequate labor supply would be available in the Richland-Kennewick-Pasco crea with a minimum influx of new construction workers. 13 . l -
- 2. l. l.10 Transmission Lines No significant changes.
.I.I.ll Land and Land Use No significont changes.
2.l.1.12 Scenic, Archocologicol, and Historic Sites The U.S. Department of the Interior (1979) lists 20 historic sites for the three counties l (Benton, Grant, and Franklin) in which the Honford site is located. Among these, the Ryegrass Archocological District is listed as being in the "Honford Works Reservation" l (since 1978 designated as Honford Site") along the Columbia River. Other historic sites listed are: Paris Archeological Site, Hanford Island Archeological Site, Honford North Archeological District, Locke Island Archeological District, Rattlesnoke Springs Sites, Snively Canyon Archeological District, Wooded Island Archeological District, and Savage Island Archeological District. Concerning natural and scenic features, two sites have been proposed for designation as National Natural Landmarks, the Honford Dunes and the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve. In addition, the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve along with the rest of the Honford Site, exclusive of the operating orcos (approximately 6%) was recently designated as a National Environmental Research Park (ERP). The Honford Reoch of the Columbia River, which includes the entire length of the river within the Honford Reservation, is the lost free-flowing section of the Columbia River and has been proposed as a potential wild, scenic, or recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Honford, as a condidate site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant, is not pre-empted by any of the above updated findings. Additional information concerning the above con be found in the references listed in Section 2.1.1.15.
. 2.1.1.13 Utility Participation (To be provided upon receipt of confirmation letter from the Northwest utilities.)
13 i
l 2.1.1.14 Other New Considerations Two other items need to be noted to sofisfoetorily complete this update for the Honford site. First, as a result of the May 18,19G0 and subsequent eruptions of Mount St. Helens cr) additional new design basis is necessary for Honford retofing to ash fall. Ash fall would offect mostly equipment qualification and HVAC system design. While this is an added design basis not opplicable to the other sites, the significance in terms of odded plant cost should be relatively minor. 1 l l The second item concerns the recent announcement by the Washington Public o ower Supply System (Supply System) that it intends to terminate the construction on Nuclear Unit 4 (WNP-4) which is opproximately 25% complete. While it may appear initially that some large cost sovings or schedule reduction could occur should the LMFBR Demonstration Plant utilize the existing WNP-4 site, structures, and services, a more detailed examination quickly finds this would not be the case. There are significant size and generic design differences between the 1250 MWe WNP-4, which is a Babcock and Wilcox light water reactor, and the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. For ir. stance, the WNP-4 containment building, internal structures and supports, and foundation would be totally unsuitable for use by the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. Also, co-location of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant in such close proximity with the other two Supply System Units, WNP-l and WNP-2, would create undue interference and problems for both the Supply System and the LMFBR Demonstration Plant project. In oddition, any cost . savings that might be realized would be negligible in comparison with the lost LMFBR program and project benefits and increased costs from relocating the LMFBR Demonstration Piont to Honford (see Section 3.0). 2.1.1.15 Additional Sources of Information Sources which were utilized for the update of the Hanford site description include: Skogit/Honford Nuclear Project Preliminary Safety Analysis Repcrt and Environmental Report Population Estimates for the Areas Within o 50-Mile Radius of Four Reference Points on the Honford Site (PNL-4010) D.J. Sommer, R.G. Rou, and D.C. Robinson, Pacific Northwest Laborofory, November 1981
/
~
13
e o *06666.8 se LMFBR Developmental Plor.t Conceptual Design Study - Phase ll, Preliminary Environmental Review, Volume II, Honford Reservation, CDS 500-10, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study Final Report, Site Evoluotion Report, CDS 400-9, March 1981, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. Final Environmental impoet Statement, Supplement to ERDA-1536, December 1975, Waste Monogement Operations, Hanford Site, Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-level Radiooctive Waste Storage, April 1980, DOE /EIS-0063 2.1.2 Savannah River i The reconnaissance level information provided in CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix D, Section 2.1.2.2, " Savannah River" hos been reviewed to assure that it is odequate for comparison to the Clinch River site. The results of this review are reported below and are based on telephone conversations with and information received from cognizant personnel of the Savonnah River Plant and the references listed in Section 2.1.2.14. l 2.1.2.1 Site Access No significant changes. l 2.1.2.2 Nearby Industriol, Military, and Transportation Focilities No significant changes. I i . l
)
L 13
. ; -- .. . . g _ . . o,. _ ._ .........,;---- . . - - -
2.1.2.3 Demoorophy , The current work force at the Savannoh River Plant hos increased to 8300 (July 1980). This transient work force could grow substantially as a result of the proposed decision to construct and operate o Defense Waste Processing Focility of the Savannah River site (expected peak construction work force of 5000). The Vogtle construction work force is another large source of daily transient population in the vicinity of the Savannah River site. . Although a revised distribution of population within 50 miles of the Savonnoh River Plant based on 1980 U. S. Census data was not readily available, Toble 4 presents the 1980 census population dato for counties and communities where 89% of the current Savonnah
- River Plant work force resides (see Figure 1);
As specifically requested during telephone conversations with NRC staff members, 33 19' Lotitude, 81 32' Longitude, are reasonable coordinates for NRC's use in computing population distributions and densities around a possible LMFBR Demonstration Plant site at Savannah River. _ 2.1.2.4 Meteorology (Atmospheric Dispersion) . No significant changes. 2.1.2.5 Geology (Foundation Conditions) No significant changes. 2.1.2.6 . Seismotogy No signifi' cont changes. 2.1.2.7 Hydrology (Coolino Water Avollobility, Water Quality, and Floodino) No significant changes. 13 '
TABLE 4 1980 POPULATIONS FOR SELECTED COUNTIES AND COMJNITIES ! l SURROUNDING THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT Ascei n po,us.i.on
- s.um C.,wina A*en County ins.s7s .
Cdy of Norm Augusta 13.593 Cdy of AAen 14.978 Asiene.ie County 10.700 Town of Aueneene 4.400 S.mbers Couney 18.1i8 City of 8amberg 3.672
- Cdy of Denmorti 4.434 Sarnwell County 19.868 [g*
Cdy of Barnween 5.572 Georgia Columbia County :, 40.116 C.ty of Grovetown , 3.491 Richmone County 181.629 City of Augusta ,
. 47.532 3 TOTAL 376.058 Source: U.S. B u re au ot C ersus.1980 Ce nsus of Population and Housing. South Carolina. .
PHC80-V-42; Georgia. PHC80-V 12; March 1981. as-sss4 . SC yguda / xington GA gergeld ' Aiken - Barnwell g
~
*Aiken Columbia e' gusto "
,,pg
.N michmond .r. N ,
..A Burke 11end
*s, o*
, > ampton
- MWR ,
i . GA SC FIGURE 1 COUNTIES AND COMMUNITIES SURROUNDING THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT , , , , - - , - - - c , = - - - , , - - - , - - - - . - - - - -
.j.
2.1.2.8 Bio-Environment Four species listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been identified on the Savonnah River site. They are the bold eagle, red-cockoded w'oodpecker, Kirtland's worbler, and American alligator. There are no other significont changes to the bio-environment descr'ption of the Savonnah River site in Appendix D, but odditional information is available in the references listed in Section 2.1.2.I'4. 2.1.2.9 Socio-economics (Lobor Avollobility) i' m..u
. . _ w , ,.
~~
The most recent source of information concerning labor ovallobility and socioeconomic conditions in the Savannoh River site area is the Draft Environmental Impact' Statement for the Defense Waste Processing Focility (DiNPF). Based on this informatiori, it appears that labor availability is sufficient, but any conciusion on socioeconomic impoets from construction and operation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant would require additional onalysis and would be decadent on the timing of labor requirements for The ongoing l ~ "' Vogtle Nuclear Plant constnction, and potential construction of the DWPF.* 2.1.2.10 Transmission Lines li The Savannah River Plant is currently connected by two 115 kV transmission lines to the utility system and the reservation is crossed by a 230 kV transmission line. l 2.l.2.1 i Land and Land Use No significont changes. l l l 2.1.2.12 Scenic, Archocologicol, and Historic Sites No significont changes. 2.1.2.13 Utility Porticipation - The previous determination that the Southeast utilities (Duke Power Company, Carolino Power and Light Company, Virginio Electric and Power Company, the Southern Company, and South Carolino Electric and Gas Company) could not constitute o utility owner-13 . . __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __
operator group for locating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant on any of their systems including the Savonnah River site, has been reconfirmed in a Janvory 26, 1982 letter from Mr. William S. Lee, President and Chief Operating Officer of Duke Power Company. (A copy of Mr. Lee's letter is ottoched as Exhibit ll clong with copies of his two previous letters of November 4 and December I,1976 for the readers' convenience.) 2.1.2.14 Additional Sources of information Sources which were utilized for the update of the Savannob River site description include: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Defense Woste Processing Focility, Savonnah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolino, September 1981, U. S. Department of Energy (DOE /EIS-0082D) Environmental Information Document Defense Waste Processing Focility, July 1981, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (DPST-80-249) 2.1.3 Idaho National Engineering Laboratory As has been done for the Honford and Savannoh River sites, the reconnoissance level information provided in CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix D, Section 2.1.2.3,
" Idaho National Engineering Laboratory" has been reviewed to assure that it is odequate for comparison to the Clinch River site. The results of the review are given below and l
l ore based on telephone conversations with and information received from cognizont l personnel of the INEL and the references listed in Section 2.l.3.14. 2.1.3.1 Site Access No significont changes. 2.I.3.2 Nearby industrial, Military, and Transportation Focilities I No significant changes. l 13 l .
l l l 2.1.3.3 Demoarophy ' 1 Figure 2 is provided to give the best available information regarding the distribution of , population within a 50-mile rodius of the IEL Centrol Focilities Area. Both the ! distribution based on the 1970 U. S. Census and on updated distribution based on preliminary 1980 U. S. Census dato is shown. Figure 3 illustrates the area encompassed by the 50-mile radius circle surrounding the Centrol Focilities Area. The 1980 population residing within 50 miles of the Centrol Focilities Area (including Pocatello, which is just outside the 50-mile radius circle) was 140,550. Tables 5 ond 6 show the population of towns within the 50-mile rodius having more than 300 inhabitants and the population by county for those people who reside within the 50-mile radius, respectively. (Because the population distributions in Figure 2 ore estimated, total population values do not correspond exoctly to those shown on Table 6.) As specifically requested during telephone conversations with NRC staff members,43 40' Latitude,112 30' Longitude, are reasonable coordinates for NRC's use in computing population distributions and densities around a possible LMFBR Demonstration Plant site at INEL. 2.1.3.4 Meteorology (Atmospheric Disperson) No significont changes. 2.l.3.5 Geology (Foundation Conditions) l No significant changes. 2.l.3.6 Seismology -
~
lt was previously stated that INEL was reclassified from seismic Zone 2 of the Uniform l Building Code to the higher risk Zone 3 in 1970. This seismic zone classification has,
- however, recently been reduced bock to o seismic risk Zone 2. This reduction was based l- en the fact that the Eastern Snake River Plain geologic province is relatively aseismic although surrounded by seismicity and that the earthquakes of the neighboring tectonic j provinces could not logically be expected to occur within the Eastern Snake River Ploin where INEL is located.
13 .
N 7W88 12(13 152/174 7454 82 6844 18t19 138/158 400/448
""3 Sid 929/9T3
""' ~
8 ,,8 n-8 88/ 30f 24/27 353/396 0 85 , 108/ 2690f n,=
,,0,,33 m ma = 0. =
, 5,m80 3.=
13 00 1 1364/ 185/207 1 1378 Oc 04 M M M Sr12 04 04 100I125 2H1253 131/157 010 og 850/1063 42993/ . 00 04 Ce = 35494 g 00 10 Miles 70r ' 12120 88 5629!$424 - 20 Miles 250000 04 71141 00 46/58 7340 09 1607/2164 - 30 Miles 13/18 435C060418' 40 Miles 840/1008 208712062 50 Miles S
- Includes about 39000/45022 residents Population Data in Pocatello, which is slightly
, 1970 Census /1980 Preliminary Census beyond the 50-mi'3 radius l l lNEL A 18 305 FIGURE 2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AROUND THE INEL, CENTERED AT THE CENTRAL FACILITIES AREA , l
A i 8 l
} Lomhl 8 Clart .
- s.% n.ouw.} c-as 22 ' j Fremont j Camas, e3 g y ,
Jefferson ~ c *' c T-
\ ,,
uud w. -y
; Madison
- Torret Aesburg Mackay Dam - ,OO 33 =-
MadL* sname 20 usemay 12 D suti. u idaho 8'b'"' Vational uena a,0b4 E neerinoa Lewisville . Riree 4 boratory - g ;
.n.
. / . / i,co # ! i ucoa a I N f lone
\. awuc
( y . sonn.,me e
,ldaf Falls Alomic City j N 15 shetier.. ,
Basalt 20 I l Ferth
"{ "
26 Blackfoot ' 20 91 r Blaine , Bingham I Minidoka SP'i"9'I 'd ! [ - 'Ft. Hall Indian Reservat.on 39 iPower . 'N ~ hI Chubbuck N7 Lincoln Abrdeendf/ // ' Bannock Carloou 86
] /- M - Pocatetto i.
r N. American no.orvoi, Faits . g _.^at?.t.L 'iL_ . __ ... . / / 1. e i___ .
.j Miles , -_
FIGURE 3 , 1 INEL VICINITY MAP CENTERED ON THE CENTRAL FACILITIES AREA (CFA) 1
l l j TABLE 5 POPULATIONS LIVING WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE CENTRAL FACILITIES AREA BY COUNTY Popul a tion Coun ty" 1970 1990 Bannockb 42,183 49,672 Bingham 23,474 28,404 Blaine 360 432 Bonneville 40,959 50,380 Butte 2,%6 3,352 clark 62 65 Custer 602 - 668 Jefferson 5,973 7,287 Lemhi 22 25 Power 221 265 Total 116,822 140,550 Source: 1970 U.S. Census (Bureau of the Census 1973) and 1980 preliminary i U.S. Census data (8ureau of the Census 1080).
- a. Four other counties (Frenont, Lincoln, Madison, and Minidoka) intersect i the 50-elle circle; however, no population centers lie within the circle.
nclude residents of the city of Pocatello, which is just outside 'he
-- -- -, , a - e,
., ,e.e.. -
TABLE 6 CITY POPULATIONS WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE CENTRAL FACILITIES AREA *
,: Popula tion City 1970 1980 Aberdeen 1 ,542 1,436 Amon 2,553 4,616 Arco 1 ,244 1,230
( Basalt 349 410 i Black foot 8,716 10.054 Chubbuck 2,927 6,880 ( Firth 362 450 Idaho Falls 35,776 38,6 % Iona 890 1,070 Lewisville 468 498 Mackar 539 536 M, men 545 5'J8 l Poca tellob 38,826 45,022 - Roberts 393 456 Shelley 2,674 3,260 Ucon 664 928 Sources: 1970 U.S. Census (Bureau of the Census 1973) and 1980 pret teinary U.S. Census data (Bureau of the Census 1980).
- a. Cities with more than 300 inhabitants.
- b. Pocatello is just outside the 50-eile radius, but is included in the table.
l l
~
Estimated maximum bedrock occeleration postulated by rupture along known faults at the INEL range from greater than 0.S g on the western boundary to less than 0.2 g in the southeastern corner. It is expected that a site for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant could be found with a design basis safe shutdown earthquake of 0.2S g or less. It should be noted, however, that because there is no NRC licensed focility on or near INEL, a long project delay could occur while the NRC staff evoluotes not only the seismicity of the INEL site, but also the history and the hozords that may be posed by the volcanic nature of the INEL site. 2.1.3.7 Hydrology (Cooling Water Avollobility, Water Ouolity, and Flooding) No significant changes. 2 2.l.3.8 Bio-Environment No significant changes. 2.l.3.9 Socio-economics (Labor Avollobility) No significant chenges. I 2.1.3.10 Transmission Lines l No significant changes. 2.1.3.1 l Land and Land Use No significont changes. 2.1.3.12 Scenic, Archaeological, and Historic Sites l One historical site in oddition te EBR-1 hos been identified on the INEL. The site ha: beam fenced and the information required for potential registration as o notional historic site hos been sent to the State. This historic site, however, has no impact on the INEL as a site for the condidate LMFBR Demonstration Plant. 13 2.l.3.13 Utility Porticipation (To be provided upon receipt of confirmation letter from the Nc,rthwest utilities.) 2.1.3.14 Additional Sources of Information Sources which were used for the update of the INEL site description include: LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study - Phase 11, Preliminary Environmental Review, Volume I, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, CDS S00-10, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. LMFBR Developmental Plant Conceptual Design Study Final Report, Site Evoluotion Report, CDS 400-9, March 1981, prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc. 2.2 Consideration of TVA-Owned Land Outside the TVA Service Area os Alternative Sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant A review of the Environmental Report Appendix D Section 2.2 onalysis was conducted. The review verified that the Page and Artemus sites located in Kentucky are still the only TVA-owned sites outside the TVA service creo, but that the sole of the Page site has l been opproved by the TVA Board of Directors. The review otso verified that the general site chorocteristics, transmission hookup costs, and off-site power requirements information provided in Section 2.2 of Appendix D is still valid. Therefore, the basis for and the conclusion reached that no TVA land outside the TVA service oreo is better, much less substantially better than the Clinch River site, remains uncleonged.
~
2.3 Consideration of Co-Location with on LMFBR Fuel Reprocessing and on LMFBR Fuel Fabrication Plant and Underground Sites Although not specifically requested by NRC to re-look at the conce;ns of underground ! siting and co-location of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant with various other fuel cycle facilities such as on LMFBR fuel fabrication plant and/or on LMFBR fuel reprocessing plant, o review has been made of the previous onalysis of these alternatives in 13 y
Environmental Report Appendix D Section 2.3. Based on this review we find no findings or developments have crisen from studies of these concepts since the onolysis was done to change the resulting conclusion that neither concept offers tangible improvement in safety, environmental occeptobility, safeguards, or economics of the proposed C'RBRP, and thus these alternofives do not worront odoption for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant. f G 4 13
1 3.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE SITES FOR Tif LMFBR DEMONSTRATION PLANT This section is on update to CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E which, in response to on NRC request,- provided additional information concerning alternative sites at Honford, Savonnah River, and INEL, and to o more limited extent, potential sites within the TVA service area. Appendix E otso provided the CRBRP Project's overall ossessment and balancing of factors that were regarded es significant in the comparison of alternative sites. The overall ossessment in Appendix E was logically divided into four successive ports, each of which is reviewed here. The conclusion of this review and update is that the Clinch River site is the preferred site and that no other site represents a substantially better otternative for meeting pertinent LMFBR program and LMFBR Demonstration Plant project objectives. The Ste .dords Governino Consideration of Alternative Sites Port A of Appendix E to the Environmental Report contains on important discussion of the stondords that the NRC Commissioners recognized as controlling the revi~ew and evoluotion of alternative sites for the CRBRP project. No change is required to this discussion of the four basic principles embodied in the Commission's Order that are of fundamental importance to the alternative site onolysis (see Environmental Report Appendix E, pages E-4 to E-6). Indeed, the discussion is buttressed by the legislative history of the Project from its inception to the present, and in porticular, by the Omnibus , Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. (See Applicants' Memorandum in Support of Request to Conduct Site Preparation Activity (" Applicants' Memorandum"), November 30, 1981 (Docket No. 50-537), at pages 14-25; Appendix A). Program and Project Objective The basic LMFBR program and LMFBR Demonstration Plant project objectives updated in the LMFBR Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Supplement (DOE /EIS- ! 0085-0) remain essentially the some as discussed in Appendix E. The current plan, however, now identifies only two major developmental plant projects, CRBRP and the Large Developmental Plant, and the revised timing objective for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant (CRBRP) is that it should be completed as expeditiously as 1 13 ( !
possible.(8) The critical objective of demonstration of the technical performance, reliobility, maintainability, safety, enviror.v erfol occeptobility, and economic feasibility, with extensive utility involvement in a utility environment remains unchmged. The essence of the findings in Appendix E Port B therefore remains the some. These findings were that. the evoluotion of alternative sites in terms of the objectives defined in the DOE LMFBR Environmental impoct Statement must focus upon whether the alternatives are likely to be available os substantially better meons for meeting the fundamental objectives of (l) timing (as expeditiously as possible) and (2) demonstration with utility porticipation in o utility environment. The Clinch River Site is the Preferred Alternative for Meeting Progrom and Project Objectives 1 The CRBRP Project has reviewed the evoluotion in Port C of Environmental Report Appendix E that previously showed the likelihood of the Clinch River site meeting the timing and utility participation objectives and that neither Honford, Savannob River, nor INEL are acceptoble alternatives for meeting these objectives. The latest CRBRP Project schedule of key milestones is given in Table 7. It is clear from this schedule that the timing for construction and operation of CRBRP support the revised program objective of completion of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant as expeditiously as possible. On the other hond a decision now to locate the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at either Honford, Savannah River, or INEL would cause o bare minimum delcy of 33 months and a more probable delay of 43 months or more starting from the time a decision was mode to change sites. These delay times are the some os those in Appendix E since no changes have occurred that would offect the basis for their calculation (see CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E, pages E-Il to E-19). From this it is obviously clear j that considering the probable impoet upon project arrangements and authorizations, and even the optimistic estimates of time determined in the Appendix E evoluotion to reach today's stage of the CRBRP licensing process for either Honford, Savannah River, or
~
INEL, none of these alternative sites is a satisfactory means for meeting the present l LMFBR progrom timing objective. (8) LMFBR Program Environmental impoet Statement Supplement, DOE /EIS-0085-D, p. 51-52. See also Applicants' Memorondom at pages 14-25; Appendix A. i3 _ -. - . _ , . . _ . _ , .- -v,. ,4, , y - ,, -,
TABLE 7 CRBRP KEY MILESTONES NRC Commission grant Section 50.12 request March,1982 Stort Site Preparation March,1982 NRC Grant on LWA under 10 CFR 50.10(eX3Xi)-(ii) June,1983 Start Nuclear Island Mot June,1983 NRC grant of CP June,1984 Submit FSAR to NRC June,1985 Start No System Testing December,1987 NRC grant of OL April,1988 Stort Fuel Loading May,1988 Initial Criticality September,1988 l l 0 1 14 '
Similarly the extent to which Clinch River, and the alternative sites at Honford, Savannah River, and INEL will be available for meeting the project objectives of extensive utility porticipation and demonstate in a utility environment examined in Appendix E remains unchanged (see CRBRP Environmental Report Appendix E, pages E-20 to E-25 and Sections 2.1.1.13, 2.1.2.13, and 2.1.3.13 obove). Therefore, we again conclude that since the Clinch River site fully satisfies the objective of utility participation and demonstration in a utility environment, and neither Honford, Savonnah River, nor INEL is likely to be available for meeting these objectives, Clinch River is clearly the preferred alternative site for the LMFBR Demonstration Piont. Honford, Savannah River, and INEL Do Not Offer Significant Advantages in Comparison to Clinch River 2 The last part of the discussion in Appendix E of the Environmental Report, hypothesized for the purposes of the analysis that Honford, Savannah Riv-r, or INEL were likely to be available os means for satisfying LMFBR program and project objectives, and showed that even then a closer examination of the significant differences between Clinch River and these sites disclosed that on balonce of all relevant considerations, these sites were not substantially better alternatives than the Clinch River site. The differences between the Clinch River site and the three alternative sites which our previous review found to exist were (1) cost, (2) benefits, (3) effectiveness of the demonstration, and (4) risks.
- 1. Costs i
t The comparative cost onalysis presented in Appendix E of locating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at Clinch River versus Honford, Savannah River, or INEL has been recently updated (June 1981) for the reference 43-month delay cose and the results are presented in Table 8 The basis for this revised cost update is similar to that previously utilized and described in Appendix E. As con be seen the costs have oli increased as would be expected. Thus, there remains a dramatic increased cost that would result from relocating the LMFBR Demonstration Plant from the Clinch Rivcr site. The Applicants have provided updated estimates of delay costs for the project in the November 30, 1981 Site Preparation Activities Report, The January 18, 1982 Applicant's Answer to Questions Set Forth in Attachment A to the Commission's December 24, 1981 Order (Question / Answer 9(a), (Costs)), and the January 28, 1982 Applicant's Response to NRDC and Tennessee Attorney General Comments. These analyses confirm that costs in the range of $120 - 240 million dollars are 13 conservative. ,
. . - - . . . ....a. .
TABLE 8 ESTIMATED IMPACT OF RELOCATING CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT . TO ALERNATE SITE Incremental Cost item $ (Million) Savonnah Honford Idaho Rive - Escolation 601 601 601 Staff cod Support Stretch Out 164 164 164 Equipment Procurement 6 13 10 Relocate Project Office 7 6 S Additional Travel 3 3 1 Difference in Prevailing Labor Rates 429 376 SI Site Studies - Other than Geological l I I Site Studies - Geological 4 4 4 Site Work Pockoge 1 I I Seismic 0 250 0 Foundation Materials and Walls 2 3 2 Site Adaptation Redesign 15 IS IS Excavation (15) 0 (6) Water Supply Line i 1 0 Environmental Report Rework I I l Preliminary Safety Analysis Report Rework I I l Reduced Revenue from Sole of Power 356 214 (27) TOTAL COST IMPACT - ADD 1577 1654 824 I4
- 2. Benefits to the LMFBR Program As Indicated previously, the recent LMFBR . Program EIS Supplement reconfirmed the basic objectives and direction of the LMFBR Program and' colled for completing of the CRBRP as expeditiously as possible. This reconfirmation was concluded offer performing a new onelysis of optional programs, structures, and timing.0) Thus siting the LMFBR Demonstration l
Plant at Honford, Savannah River, or INEL would result in substantially diminished benefits for the LMFBR Program for the reasons discussed in Appendix E and in the LMFBR Progrom EIS Supplement.
- 3. Effectiveness of Demonstration in a Utility Environment The some arguments raised in Appendix E remain valid today concerning ,
use of otypically remote sites, os opposed to the more typical Clinch River site, and exposure to additional costs and delays if some future and presently unknown circumstonce persuaded a utility (utilities) at Honford, Savannah River, or INEL to even portially assume some operating responsibility. Thus the effectiveness of demonstration of the LMFBR technology in a utility environment is better at the Clinch River site than at Honford, Savannah River, or INEL.
- 4. Risk i in Appendix E on evoluotion of the relative potential consequences associated with postulated severe occidents was mode to determine whether o significont reduction in consequences would result at any of the alternative sites os compared to Clinch River. The basic results, which
- remain valid, showed that the consequences, and hence the risks, associated with oil design basis occidents at CRBRP ore less than those associated with natural bockground rodiotion. Although the onolysis also showed that the more favorable atmospheric dispersion chorocteristics and population
. distribution of Honford, Savannah River, or INEL further reduced these (9) LMFBR Progrom Environmental impoct Statement Supplement, DOE /EIS-0085-D, Section IV.
13
consequences by approximately a factor of 50, the predominance of retural background radiation Indicates that on insignificant reduction in real environmental impoet would result for any of the three sites os compared to Clinch River. For odditional information on this analysis and o discussion on how the requirements and design features of CRBRP will ensure that risks associated with occidents beyond the design basis are sufficiently low, and are comparable to LWRs, see Appendix E, pages E-33 12E-40. - Therefore, the Project, offer careful consideration of the cost, benefits, effectiveness, and risks ossociated with the alternative sites, believe that the reduced environmental impoets of accidents for the alternative sites are still substantially outweighed by the lesser costs, greater benefits, and enhanced effectiveness of the demonstration h a utility environment for the Clinch River site. A summary of the key reconfirmed Gnding is illustrated on Toble 9. Thus, we conclude that Clinch River is the preferred site and certainly neither Honford, Savannah River, nor INEL represent substantially better alternatives for satisfying LMFBR program information goals. k O 13 . I
o i TABLE 9 SUPNARY OF ALTERNATIVE SITE COMPARISONS
.0 ,
l Clinch River Hanford Idaho Savannah River ! i t Support Completion as Yes No No No i Expeditiously as Possible , 7i l' Demonstration in . i Utility Environment? '. i a. Licensing Representative of (These sites are atypically remote and may not establish typical utility site clearly the licensability in a typical utility ,g environment)
- b. Utility Participation TVA operator maximum (Utility participation unknowable but unlikely) utility participation Congressional Authorization Exists (Need transitional legislation and Project arrangement approval) ,
Reference $1577M $1654M $824M Cost Schedule Reference (43 months delay from the decision to relocate) Program Benefit Reference (LMFBR Program benefits greatly diminished or lost) Environmental Impacts Below Natural (No significant improvement) of Accidents Background
'~ .
4.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS The results of this review and update of the Environmental Report supplemental alternative siting analyses contained in Appendixes D and E have shown that the previous conclusions reached have remained unchanged. In summary these conclusions are:
- 1. The two TVA owned sites located outside the TVA service oreo, one of which is in the process of being sold, are clearly not substantially better than the Clinch River site.
- 2. Neither the concepts of underground siting nor co-location with on LMFBR fuel reprocessing or fuel fabrication plant offers tangible improvement in the safety, environmental acceptcbility, safeguards, or economics of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant.
- 3. Thet among all U. S. Government real property presently in the custoay of DOE the Honford, Savannah River, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) sites are occeptable condidate sites for the LMFBR Demonstration Plant but that none of the three is a satisfactory alternative for meeting the pertinent LMFBR program and project objectives of timing and utility participation, respectively.
Furthermore, even if it were hypothesized for the purposes of analysis that the Honford, Savannah River, and INEL sites were satisfoctory alternatives for meeting these objectives, it is clear that they do not represent substantially better otternatives for meeting the pertinent LMFBR program and project objectives. In fact, upon consideration and baloncing of the relative costs, benefits, effectiveness, and risks associated with Hanford, Savannah River, INEL and Clinch River, it is clear that Clinch River remains as the preferred plant location. 13
._m-.
u O EXHIBIT I i l l i l 1 l l e
^ - - - - - -
. . . . . . .. .. o .
Insert confirmation letter from Northwest utilities concerning Honford I-a
l l l i g.;.
~
United States Department of the Interior BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION d '4' 3 r.o.s san,roartuo ontr.os enes 3,,,i, uter s.: F November 10, 1976 , Mr. Peter Van Nort Ceneral Hanager Project Management Corporation Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project k P.O. Box U Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Dear Mr. Van Nort:
I have been requested to review the role of the Northwest utilities in the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program and the significant decisions related to our role in the siting of the demonstration 3 _ plant on the Hanford Reservation. C-
;: E
-c 5*-s The Joint Power Planning Council, a group of 104 public agencfes,3 private utilities, and Bonneville Power Administration, joined. in the. Q' Project Definition Phase of the IFEBR program with Westin'ghoyse Li a.
Electric Corporation. In the course of our studies the Hanfo'rd e,v F L Reservation was selected as the site on which the Northwest would". construct the plant if we were awarded the project. At the concluw sion of the Project Definition Phase program, utilities and the AEC recognized that the cost of the demonstration plant and the related ! R&D programs were significantly more than the funds available to construct more than one demonstration plant. . Two comittees were estabushed to evaluate the proposals made under the PDF. These consnittees were the Senior Utility Management Com-mittee and the Senior Utility Technical Panel. During the course of their review the Northwest utility representatives realized the capital investment comitment of the owner would be substantially more than could be dedicated by the Northwest utilities. Also, the Northwest utilities did not have the technical expertise in nuclear plant construction and optrations to take on such a task as had been identified. The October 1971 statement that was made by Mr. Price, Manager of the Eugene Water & Electric Board, as a representative of the Northwest group stated, "The Northwest had extended an invi-
. tation to ownership participation to a larger area than the Pacific Northwest with specific invitation to,the California utilities. The Pacific Northwest not only needs dollars to proceed with such a
- plant but they also need the necessar'y leadership to handle such a q project."
I-b '
#D% .e4 .
2 , Ltr. to Peter Van Nort, Oak Ridge, Tenn., Subj: Role of Northwest ~
=
utilities in Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program , Subsequent to that statement, in later meetings Frank Warren, Presi-dent of Portland Ceneral Electric Company, another representative on the comittee, stated the Northwest was not available to take on the responsibility of the desenstration plant but would support the research and development program. During the course of the Joint Power' Flanning Council Comittee's development of the Project Definition Phase and the process of site selection, a presentation was made to the group by the Eastern Idaho Nuclear Industrial Council. They proposed that the AEC facilities' site at Arco, Idaho, be considered as an alternate to the Banford Reservation for the demonstration plant location. The coomittee evaluated Arco as a possible site and rejected it on the basis that
. no utility owner in the issnediate area could be found. Also, the -
transmission facili*ies and backup power resources in the area did not lend themselves ar readily to absorbing a 350-NW interruptible resource such as the demonstration plant. During the review process the AEC Technical Panel pointed out that ; they preferred a site that was not as isolated as Hanford. The con-cern was'that the conenercial breeder plants would have to be locateid .' in areas of less eycelusion and therefore the demonstration plant should go through the process of construction and operation in that , context. ' In reviewing the current situation in the Northwest relative to l siting the demonstration plant at Hanford, we feel unable to proceed with a plant at that site. The reasons are somewhat different from our original position. The Northwest now is substantially consmitted . i l to cossnercial nuclear power generation with the Washington Public Power Supply System constructing five nuclear, plants and the private utilities in the process of planning and constructing four more plus. the operation of the Trojan Nuclear flant. All of the technical, f financing and managerial capability is concentrated on this program l - in an attempt to overcome projected energy deficits in the Northwest in the 1980's. . We feel that this comitment has first priority and would not be willing to take on additional obligations. Sincerely yours, t ? +*/ . Richard C. Nyland Special Assistant to Power Manager (Chairman, Joint Power Planning Council
- Committee on IJiFBR)
I-C -
l 'C ,
' }f,
. United States Department of the Interior llONNI.Yll.l.E. l'unrR AlnllNIS I x A IluN P.O. n Sm. remi s awe, eme s.e:S = w..
jj k eepe r ateese: P December 28, 1976 Mr. Peter Van Nort General Manager Project Management Corporation Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project P.O. Box U Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Dear Mr. Van Nort:
In response to your request for confiraation of the current position of the Northwest utilities va undertaking the management, construc-tion and operation of the W.FBR' Demonstration Plant at Arco, Idaho, I have discussed the. situation with the tatilities involved. The two utilities serving the imediata site are Utah Power and Light Company and Idaho Power Company. James E. Bruce, president of Idaho Power Company, and E. Allen Hunter, president of Utah Power and Light Cocipany, both state their utilities are not currently in a , position financially or technically to undertake sueli a major project. The position of other major Northwest utilities was stated in my
/Ietter of* November 10, 1976," and confirmed t; Frank H. Warren, Presi-dent and chairman of the board, Portland _ General Electric Company, and Alan Jones, chairman of the Public Power Council.
The Northwest utilities, although not in a position to take on the project owner or manager role at the Hanfo'rd or Arco sites, are strongly behind the program and are supporting it with their Research
. and* Development Funding.
Sincerely yours,
*f a Richar,d C. Nyland
<f Special Assistant to Power Manager 6
g%}.
- sy%dJ . . . .
g .g $ I-d
1 EXHIBIT 11 i i 2
- a r a
/ P g _ - . . i Y 0
- s, 1
/ (
v 9
-l
--_:._---_-- , \ i--------------------------------- -
DUKE POWEH COMPANY P. O. Box 0318e GIIABLOTTE, N. G. asa4a u.,....,.. ..u. . tea m .. . . . . . January 26, 1982
- Mr William F Rolf General Manager Project Management Corp P O Box 0 .
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Dear Bill:
As expressed in my letters of November 4 and December 1, 1976, I do not feel that the Savanah River Reservation is currently a viable site for the breeder demonstration plant. Sincerely, V ___ k M W S Lee WSL/s cc Mr Lawrence J Kripps Energy, Inc
~
i l l II-a l
, _ _ _ , _g
2 :M .-
- Durz Powza GoxrA.xy ;
Powzu Bun. nmo, Box e178, CnAntorrz.W. C. cas4 G,.k. . .. u.e .
... - -. .= . - -'
g 'tj. e.* aq., '
'd h 64:
November 4, 1976 3 C'
- .c. w
- N Mr Peter Van Nort Ganeral Manager Project Management Corporation P O Box U Onk Ridge, Tennessee 37830 ,
Daar Peter: As plans for the breeder demonstration project were being formulated in 1971 and 1972, B B Parker served on the AEC's Senior Utility Steering Committee and I served on their Senior Utility Technical Advisory Panel. On several occasions during this period, we at Duke considered the possibility of a site for the breeder demonstration plant on the Savannah River Recervation now under ERDA's management. This Reservation is in '. South Carolina and contiguous to the territory of South Carolina Electric and Gas but not far from Duke Po.er's w system with its heavy transmission - grid interconnecting with a number of southeast utilities. - Decause of Duke's extensive nuclear experience at that time and our proximity to that site, it.was our feeling that for that site to be eligible, Duke would have to be in a position to participate in operating . the plant and to provide substantial technical input for the project.to ba successful. At that time, our engineering, construction and operating personnel were busily engaged in trying to complete and bring in service the three Oconee units, we had begun building the two McGuire units and had committed the two Catawba units, all of which were being designed and built by Duke personnel. Under these circumstances, we were not in a position to undertake a leadership role that we felt would have been necessary for'the Savannah river site to be a viable option. At the joint meeting of the Steering Committee and the Advisory Panel cn May 26, 1971, I advised the group that Duke's other commitments in the nuclear field were so demanding of our talents and energies that the Savannah River site should not be a candidate for the first . demonstration plant'. Bill Parker had checked by telephone with the top officers of our neighboring utilities who concurred in this con-clusion. He reported at the same joint meeting on May 26 that the five principal companies in this part of the southeast could not constitute 4 e utility-owner-operator group for locating the demonstration plant on any of the five systems. Attached is a copy of his letter of June 1,1971, to the presidents of our four neighboring utility (... cystems confirming his telephone survey with them and his report at the May 26 ioint meetinn_ -
- II-b
Mr Peter Van Nort Page 2 November 4, 1976 At th'at time, the other companies were also involved in new nuclear commitments, and it was apparent to us that we could not jeopardize . our own nuclear undertakings by also providing the leadership that we felt would have been necessary to make the Savannah River site a viable option to demonstrate a breeder operating as a part of a utility system. 4 Yours very truly, s
/
v W S Lee . WSL/s . atta cc.w/atta: Mr Ruble Thomas, Southern Services Mr B B Parker Mr George Edgar, Attorney,. Washington, D D l l O e h 0 e If-c; l ,,
~ ~
=.5 .
~~ ~
i . ... : .'. . . .
- . .c Duxz Powzn COMPANY
, 8%was Br:Lorwo .
een sours Catenese srsissv.Catanterva.N C. eos s.s.r..... r .. wie . . June 1, 1971 - e.o:n . Mr. Shearon Harris, President - Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. T. Justin Moore, Jr., President Virginia Electric and Power Company . P. O. Box 1194 - R,ichmond,-Virginia 23209 Mr. Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr., President The Southern Company ~ 3390 Peachtree Road, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 5 30326 Mr. A. M. Williams, Jr. , President ' # South Carolina Electric & Gas Company , l
? P. O. Box 764 .
.- Columbia,, South Carolina 29202 Gentlemen: . r Is you are aware, I have been appointed to a Senior Utility Steering Committee of the AEC and Bill Lee has been appointed to a Senior Utility Technical Advisory Panel to advise and assist the AEC in developing an acceptable Fast Breeder Program.
The first meeting of these groups was . scheduled on April 28 with the AEC, but neither Bill nor I could attend.' I learned through Don Crawford on Friday, May 2, 1 , that it was my responsibility to determine the interest of the Southeast Utilities in the possibility of loc,ating l the Fast Breeder Plant in the Southeast and particularly to look at the possibility cf ,one being located on the Savannah. River site. . Re, at Duke Power, decided that we do not have the manpower to jo,in with other Southeast Utilities in providing the manp'ower, talent and l cxpertise to join with other utilitie.s as the owner-operators of a j Fast Breeder Plant. We made a quick telephone survey and received l essentially the same response from each of your companies. 1
.r II-d .---- .,-----..,,-m-. -r...w..-, - - . - - - 4-.-.-,-...w.. mse , - _ , , - - -, - - < - .. -. - -- - - - , + , ---g - - - - , - - - - - - -
Mr. Shearon Harris, President Page 2 , June 1, 1971 Mr. T. Justin Moore, Jr., President Mr. Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr. , President Mr. A.' H. Williams, Jr. , President I would like to report to you that in a joint meeting of these two panels in Washington with the AEC on May 26, I informed the group that - insofar as our five companies are concerne4 we could not, at this time,
- onstitut;e a utility-owner operator group for locating this fast areeder plant on any of our systems. I would like to point out, aowever, that this matter is still open for, further 6onsideration if any of you so desire. .
. Sincerely, ic."y-Q' bp/ck .
l
- opy: Mr. J. A. Jones ,
Mr. E. B. Crutchfield l Mr. V. C. Summer , J r. W. S. Lee l - l II-e -
- 1
Duxn Powza GOMPANY Powza Bvrx.nzmo, Box aire, CmAmmorrz.N.G.ses4e .
-s..su -
e so . == . Deceinber 1,1976 , Mr Peter Van Nort General Manager _ Project Management Corporation - P O Box U Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 _
Dear Peter:
My . letter of November 4 outlined the factors in our 1971 and 1972 determination that the Savannah River Reservation was not, inThe- our . opinion, a viable site for the breeder demonstration plant. reasons as stated in my letter apply equally today, and we there-fore do not feel.that tha't site is a viable alternative to the Clinch River site. . Sincerely yours, 1 . . s - W S Lee WSL/s
.~
@ g
.p W e
Dg 1 .
= . . s .
- ~
e e II-f , , e
- y. - , - - - - - y-., .- - - -
,,,-,-,,.-..g...m >.,e--.m-,
yOe O V er V g 49* e"" e e 0 e EXHIBIT 111 1 l 1 l l l l l l l s , e
Insert confirmation letter from Northwest utilities concerning INEL t I f l III-a
. <e/~ . United States Department of the Interior
- x. s.
i -
'6'r a BON,NEV1Lt.E POWER
,o.... un,,oarin ADMINISTRATION o.oatr.os enes q-J _
w . .*
'F November 10, 1976 . .,,g .,r , e.: ,
Mr. Peter Van Nort General Manager Project Management Corporation
, Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project 4 P.O. Box U Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Dear Mr. Van Nort:
I have been requested to review the role of the Northwest utilities in the Liquid Netal Fast Breeder Reactor Program and the significant decisions related to our role in the siting of the demonstration n plant en the Hanford Reservation.- . g
~
5
~;
y* s The Joint Power Plenning Council, a group of 104 public agenefes,N.
- private utilities, and Bonneville Power Administration, joined, in the.
Project Definition Phase of the IEFBR program with Westin'ghoyse Li " 4 Electric Corporation. In the course of our studies the Nanfo'rd
,.y .5 b
l ' Reservation was selected as the site on which the Northwest would", construct the plant if we were rearded the project. At the conclu- . l sion of the Project Definition F. *se program, utilities and the AEC recognized that the cost of the demonstration plant and the related R&D programs were significantly more than the funds available to construct more than one demonstration plant. . Two comittees were estabushed to evaluate the proposals made under the PDF. These consnittees were the Senior Utility Management Com-mittee and the Senior Utility Technical Panel. During the Eourse of their review the Northwest utility representatives realized the capital investment comitment of the owner would be substantially more than could be dedicated by the Northwest utilities. Also, the Northwest utilities did not have the technical expertise in nuclear plant construction and optrations to take on such a task as had been identified. The October 1971 statement that was made by Mr. Frice, Manager of the Eugene Water & Electric Board, as a representative' of the Northwest group stated, "The Northwest had extended an invi-tation to ownership participation to a larger area than the Pacific The Northwest with specific invitation to,the California utilities. Pacific Northwest not only needs dollars to proceed with such a
- plant but they also need the necessar'y leadership to handle such a
- conio oject." ,
III-b l .. . ' n.. ..e,
. . . - . .e . . .. .
1 Ltr. to Peter Van Nort, Oak Ridga., Tenn.,Subj: Role of Northwest Utilities in Liquid Metal Fast 3reeder Reactor Program . Subsequent to that statement, in later meetings Frank Warren, Presi-dent of Portland Ceneral Electric Company, another representative on the consnittee, stated the Northwest was not available to take on the responsibility of the demonstration plant but would support the research and development program. During the course of the Joint Power
- Planning Council Comunittee's development of the Project Definition Phase and the process of site selection, a presentation was made to the group by the Eastern Idaho Nuclear Industrial Council. They proposed that the AEC facilities' site at Arco, Idaho, be consider ~ed as an alternate to the Banford Reservation for the demonstration plant location. The comunittee l
evaluated Arco as a possible site and rejected it on the basis that
.. no utility owner in the inanediate area could be found. Also, the-transmission facilities and backup power resources in the area did not lend themselves as readily to absorbing a 350-HW interruptible '
resource such as the demonstration plant. During the review process the AEC Technical Panel pointed out thatf-they preferred a site that was not as isolated as Hanford. The con-cern was that the consnercial breeder plants would have to be locate ~d
~
in areas of less e,xclusion and therefore the demonstration plant
- I should go through the process of construction and operation in that .
l context. t In reviewing the current situation in the Dorthwest relative to siting the demonstration plant at Hanford, wc feel unable to proceed , with a plant at that site. The reasons are somewhat different from our original position. The Northwest now is substantially cossaitted . to consnercial nuclest power generation with the Washington Public Power Supply System constructing five nuclear, plants and the private utilities in the process of planning and constructing four more plus. the operation of'the Trojan Nuclear flant. All of the technical, financing and managerial capability is concentrated on this program
.. in an attempt to overcome projected energy deficits in the Northwest in the 1980's. . We feel that this commitment has first priority and would not be willing to take on additional obligations. ,
Sincerely yours, , t w.' ./
~
Richard C. Nyland - Special Assistant to Power Manager (Chairman, Jointi Power Planning Council .
. Coarnittee on DiFBR)
- III-c
.=,.- v_%......_... '""
Umt'ed States Ucpartment of the Interior
' ' '~
I
- P.
/, itONNI.Vll.l.E.Nml'.R AlnstN13 Rgiisex
- P 0 *-* **fl. P8 ell A980, eet e.eW 97:een
,. ..' t
- I
.N- -
December 28, 1976 i...ps, in e.: P Mr. Peter Van Nort General Manager Project Management Corporation Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project P.O. Box U
- Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 l -
r
Dear Mr. Van Nort:
In response to your request for confir. nation of the current position of the Northwest utilities on undertaking the management, construc-j tion and operation of the LMFBR Demonstration Plant at Arco, Idaho, I The I have discussed the situation with the utilities involved. two utilities serving the imediate site are Utah Power and Light Company and Idaho Power Company. James E. Bruce, pre;sident of Idaho t I Power Company, and E. Allen Hunter, president of Utah Power and Light Company, both state their utilities are not currently in a , position financially or technically to undertake such a major project. The position of other major Northwest utilities was stated in my
/Ietter of* November 10, 1976,* and confirmed by Frank M. Warren, presi-Ich and ' chairman of the board, Portland General Electric Company, and Alan Jones, chairman of the Public Power Co'uncil.
h ..
.The Northwest utilities, although not in a position to take on t e project owner or manager role at the Hanfo'rd or Arco sites, are '
strongly behind the program and are supporting it with their Research *
- and* Development Funding. ,
' Sincerely yours, 3d.M.,L/
Richar,d C. Nyland Special Assistant to Power Manager p* . 5 m 5 - sM7619N/
..~~ .. .
l - . III-d
,, ,.--4 # _ . _ . - - . .}}