ML20197H759
| ML20197H759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1984 |
| From: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1278 NUDOCS 8406260167 | |
| Download: ML20197H759 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
m 50-532 DISTRIBUTION:
M -
SAB Reading File SAB Plant File NFields AToalston WRegan I!D:0RANDutt FOR: George Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3, DL FRCM: B::. H. Regan, Jr., Chief Site Anaylsis Brauch, DE SUUJECT: SAB'S RECCMiE'tDED DISPOSITION OF SELECTED C0'it'Ef!TS O!! THE WPPSS NO. 3 DES /0L In ny memorandte to you dated l'ay 9,1984 I stated that several CES corrents were inappropriately assigned to my branch for response. Pr. S.K. Singh of your staff requested in a meeting with members of ny staff, our view regarding the appropriate disposition of these comments.
The attached list itemizes each of the cc:r:ents of concern and indicates our views as to their suggested disposition. Any cuestions you have regarding this memorandtn :::ay be directed to Nick Fields, X24744 Ilillian H. Regan, Jr., Chief Site Analysis Branch Division of Engineering Attactrent:
As stated cc: B.K. Singh
~
8406260167 840615 k F ADOCK 0500050 "g 3 k _
-ps[ ]
'?" DE;SAB: AEASl DE:SAB.:6EAS.l6E:SAB-
" .NFields:jj . Aro'a,1,s't'on .WRegan 6/ :./84 6////84 6/'>/84
... . m .. w
~. - . - . .-...-.a.
u - . . . w,
.s ,
m, 7
DISTRIBUTION:
. Central File SAB Reading File SAB Plant File NFields Alcalston WRegan MSiORANDUti FOR: George Knighton, Chief .
Licensing . Branch No. 3. DL FROM: En. H. Regan, Jr., Chief Site Anay1 sis Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
SAB'S RECOMMEMDED DISPOSITION OF SELECTED C0rtMENTS ON THE WPPSS NO. 3 DES /0L x
In my memorandun to yhu' dated May 9,1984 I stated that several DES comments l were inappropriately assigned to my branch for response. Mr. B.K. Singh of ,
your staff requested in a meeting with members of my staff, our view regarding the appropriate disposition of these comments. .
The attached list itemizes each of the coments of concern and indicates our views as to their suggested disposition. Any questions you have regarding '
this memorandum may be directed to Nick Fields, X24744
~~
p ;
,; p . __
William It Regan, Jr., Cnief -
Site Analysis Branch .
Division of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated ,
cc: B.K. Singh l
l L
,' ,A o,,es d;, ,
SEAS...[(.6'E:SAB I
' I sumuaan l N 14. l dsLii..,. .h8egen., ..;,,, .2.
,j
"** f/[.f/.84., ,, },, ,,1,, , , , f ,, ,,,, , ,, , , ,
..6/M/84.. ..., 6/,[.784., , ,, , , ,, , , , , , ,
rar meu sie no.ne, sacu o 4e OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- A .
, 3 ~
Coment 02-1 9
Section 4.2.7 of the statement correctly states, "The (power transmission) systen beyond the WNP-3 substation as evaluated, designed, and built by BPA, the lead Federal agency for the transmission lines." BPA documented this evaluation in an environmental irapact statement entitled "Satsop Integrating Transmission" (Department of the Interior, FES 76-31). A copy of this EIS is enclosed here; please cross-reference this EIS in your final statement.
Pisponse:
Ve believe the responsibility for this clinimirit more appropriately lies with EEB.
Cumuent WNF-3-27,28 In Table 6.1 groundwater consumption impacts is listed as "none" Consistent with Sections 4.2.4, and 4.3.1.1.2 this should probably be "small". Section S.S.2, rt toer than 5.3.2, should be give as a reference for thennal effects
" Cooling lake d-awdcwn" is incorrectly listed as an impact in Table 6.1 Repsonse:
We believe these caaments shculd be responded to by EEB staff.
Comment DEC-3: ?
Footnote "***", end of Table 6.1 (page 6-3),Eoet 'not apka'r applich -
to the table.
Response
This footnote refers to a table entry which was originally provided by SAS staff, (see Msnorandte of Septsr.ber 14, 1983, copy attached) but which was subsequently deleted by the DL staff prior to DES publication. The presence cf this footnote in the DES appears to be an edttorial oversight on part of DL staff.
1 Cawent SD-1:
The logic of the envirorrental review process, as condt.cted by the NRC in the licensing of nuclear power klarts, thus eliminates a broad range of altert:atives
! during the OL stage. Both alternative energy sources as well as alternative sites are no longer relevant. Caxnitted resources and the advanced stage in the process have left no feasible alternatives and none are presented in this DES.
Response
This comrlient takes issue with the Comission's rulemaking not to censider alternattve energy scurces or sites at the operatino license stage. It is not a Occhnical caxnent. He believe it recuires a legal oc cdministrative
! response l .
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.s .
. N -
Comment 50-11:
Discussion of the impacts of the fuel cycle centered around theoretical l design criteria incorporated by reference to optimistic NRC rules and l research documents. A presentation of actual experience in storage, I reprocessing, and waste management would have been very useful.
1 Socioeconomic impacts of UNP-3 should have been expanded to include discussion I of the regional waste management costs, decomissioning impacts. l
Response
The portion of this cement which refers to the " impact of fuel cycle" should be forwarded to the staff member who .is responsible for the section 5.10 input to the DES. The expected social impacts of decamissioning are I discussed in Section 5,11 of the DES. The economic impact of decommissioning (decmmissioning cost) was included as part of my staff's original input to the DES, but was droppedspresumably by an administrative decision, prior to the publication of the DES.
Likewise, my staff's estimate of fJel Cost and O&M costs for the plant, which in general (though not specifically) reflects waste management cost, was dropped from the DES.
_ Comment 50-13: _ , ,
In conclusion, I would'like to argue that the .MNP-3 DES is-adequate but not really necessary as a decision-making tool. An-ilternative to going a1Tead" with the operation of the faciltiy was never presented. It does not provide the type of comparative evaluation NEPA encourages . Also, the licensing procedures require more stringent evaluations than were contained in the DES, (ex. Safety Evaluation Report). The document does not seem l relevant to the agency decision. In many respects, the Environmental l Statement comes to late in the game to matter and simply becmes a l procedural hoop.
Response
l The portion of this cement related to alternatives to "... going ahead with the project..." would have been addressed had staff's economic analysis had not been dropped, presumably by an administrative decision, from the published DES. SAB has consistantly held that the econmic costs and benefits of not operating the plant should be included in the DES to satisfy NEPA requirements. Therefore, the relevancy of the document to an agency decision appears to require a legal or policy response.
i i
l I,
~
- e. b . <
s -m i
Comment 50-14:
There is a procedural contradiction with the NRC in their implementation of NEPA which limits the usefulness of this document. This stems frm the dual role played by the DES. Firstly, it reviews the operational stage of project development. But at the time of the review, the plant was not complete, the radwaste system was not fully evaluated, the financial state and ownership of the plant were even in question, and there is no national consensus on the management of high-level radioactive wastes. This leads me to feel the operational review is premature.
The second purpose of this DES is to ident'ify'and evaluate chang 5s in the '
project since the construction stage of review in 1975. It acts as supplemental EIS, but unlike a supplemental EIS, the NRC procedures have eliminated the re-evaluation of fundamental circumstances, as in this case, a detemination of the need of a project.
Comment SD-15:
If the DES is to act as a supplement, then all altered environmental circmstances should be open for review. If it is specifically concerned with the operating license stage of the program, enviromental review should be conducted at a time when basic conditions are known.
Response: '
g.-
~
Comments S0-14 and SD-15 both appear to require'.;ilicy and'[or legal response.
I l
l f
~
m -
)174tk SEP 141983 Docket No. 50-508 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Hovak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL - ~ ~ ~ - --
FROM: William V. Johnston, ' Assistant Director for Materials, Chemical and -
Environmental Technology, DE ,
SUBJECT:
SITE ANALYSIS BRANCH INPUT TO T!dE WMP-3 DES-OL Please find attached the following sections for the M!P-3 DES-OL: 2.0, 3.0, 4.2.1, 4.3.6, 4.3.7, 5.7, 5.8, 5.11, 6.4.2, 6.4.3 and part of Table 6.1.
These sections are consistent with the numbering schemes of the more recent envirereantal ic: pact statements.
. Sh'ould you have any questions on this input, please- contact Fichael Ka1.t; nan (24608) or Nick Fields (x24744). ~
F
~~
.-f* . _
. bfi lnal l signed by W. H. Regan, Jr.
.jl ,t William V. Johnston, Assistant Director
/ for l'aterials, Chemical and Environmental Technology Division of Engineering Attach 6ent:
As stated cc: G. Knighton -
A. Vietti DISTRIBUTION:
Dockets SAB Rdg SAB Plant WJohnston -
$pp9$$ MI ,7 WRegan AToalston
/
(
DCleary NFields MKal tman uw DE:SAB:RI AS' DE:SAB:RIAS DE:SAB:AEAS DE:AD:MCET
' DE:pAB.:AEAS 'DE:SAB MKaltman 11 DFfleary EhhfeN ATo it'on WRefa WJo'hnIton'
.. o/o/n1 a n oint o r,, ias oil b or roe ne sae
i
(
2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION Th'e Commission has amended 10 CFR 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and' Pro-cedures for Environmental Protection," effective April 26, 1982, to provide l that need for power issues will not be considered in ongoing and future operat- '
ing license proceedings for nuclear power plants unless a showing of "special circumstances" is made under 10 CFR 2.758 or the Commission otherwise so re- !
quires (47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982). Need for power issues need not be ad- ,
dressed by operating license applicants in environmental reports to the NRC, '
nor by the NRC staff in environmental impact statements prepared in connection
'with operating license applications (10 CFR 51.21, 51.23(e), and 51.53(c)).
This policy has been determined by the Commission to be justified even in situ-ations where, because of reduced capacity requirements on the applicant's sys- -
tem, the additional capacity to be provided by the nuclear facility is not needed to meet the applicant's load responsibility. The Commission has taken this action because the issue of need for power is correctly considered at the construction permit (CP) stage of the regulatory review where a finding of in-sufficient need could factor into denial of issuance of a license. At the OL review stage, the proposed plant is substantially constructed and a finding of ,
insufficient need would not, in itself, reruit in denial of the oper'ating
. license.
Substantial i~nformation exists that supports an argument that nuclear plants
.- ire lower in operating costs than conventional foss'il plants. I f, cons _e,rvati on or other factors lower anticipated demand, utili' ties remove generating"facili-ties from service according to their costs of operation,'with the most ex, gen-sive facilities removed first. Thus, a comple't'ec' nuclear plant would-'s erve to substitute for less economical generating capacity (46 FR 39440, August 3,1981, and 47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982). ~
Accordingly, this statement does not consider "need for power." Section 6 does, however, consider the savings associated with the operation of the nuclear plant.
2.1 References U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceedings," proposed rule, Federal Reoister, 46 FR 39440, August 3, 1981.
-- , "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating. License '
Proceedings," final rule, Federal Reoister, 47 FR 12940, March 26,1982.
l- -
. l I
\
1 3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ;
The Commission has amended its regulations in 10 CFR 51 effective April 26, 1982, to provide that issues ~related to alternative energy sources will not be considered in operating license proceedings for nuclear power plants unless a showing of special circumstances is made under 10 CFR 2.758 or the Commission otherwise so requires (47 FR 12940, March 26,1982). In addition, these issues need not be addressed by operating license applicants in environmental reports to the NRC, nor by the NRC staff in environmental impact statements prepared in connection with operating license applicatiq.ns (see 10 CFR 51.21, 51. 23(e), and 51.53(c)).
The Commission has concluded that alternative energy source issues are resolved at the CP stage, and the CP is granted only after a finding that, .on balance, '
no superior alternative to the proposed nuclear facility exists. In addition, this conclusion is unlikely to change even if an alternative is shown to be marginally environmentally superior in comparison to operation of the nuclear facility because of the economic advantage that operation of the nuclear plant would have over available alternat.ive sources (46 FR 39440, August 3,,1981, and 47 FR 12940, March 26, 1982). By earlier amendment (46 FR 28630, May 28,1981), .
.the Commission also stated that alternative sites will not be considered at the operating license stage, except under special circumstances, in accordance with ~
10 CFR 2.758. Accordingly, this statement does nat consider alternative energy
- ources or alternative sites. -
3.1 References -
. ? -
U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission, " Alternative Site Issues in Operating License Proceedings," final rule, Federal Register, 46 FR 28630, May 28,1981. ,
-- , "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceedings," proposed rule, Federal Register, 46 FR 39440, August 3,1981.
-- , "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating Li. cense
, Proceedings," final rule, Federal Reoister, 46 FR 12940, March 26,1982.
e e
b
I m ,.
- 4. 2.1 External App 2arance: and Plant layout A general description of these topics is included in Section 3.1. of the FES-CP. Although Figure 4.2-1 provides more detail than the site layout ,
available at the time of the CP review, the orientation and arrangement
, of major site structures has not changed markedly. An exception to this
. conclusion is the base diameter of the twin natural draft cooling towers which has been reduced from 510 feet to 420 feet.
- 4. 3.'6 Community Characteristics ,
The socioeconomic descriptions.of the area including demography, land use, -
and community characteHstics in general are contained in Section 2.1, 4.4, and 5.6 of the FES-CP. The WNp-3 site, located in southeastern Grays Harbor County, Washington, lies approximately one mile south of the Chehalis' River near its cortfluence with the Satsop River. The. larges.t cities witbinJS miles of the site are Olympia and Aberdeen. Olympia, the state capital,- f has a 1980 population of 27,450 and is 26 miles.eadff"the sit'e while Abe.cdeee with a 1980 population of 18.739 lies'16 miles west of the site. The closest incorporated communities with population exceeding 1,000 are the City of Elma (population 2,720), located approximately four miles northeast of the site and the City of Montesano (population 3,247), located six miles l west-northwest. The applicant developed population within 16.1 km (10 mi) i of the plant through f'ield surveys of housing units. (ER-OL, p. 2.1-1)
Table 1 shows the applicant's data for the 16.1 km area. With the '
exception of six square miles of Mason County, this area is composed of Grays Harbor County which grew by more than 11 percent between 1970 and 1980. For population within 16.1 km to 80 km (10 to 50 mi), the applicant used an equal area approach to allocating 1980 Census data at the enumeration t
1*
- s 2
~
district, census tract, and block levels. (Table 2) Projections prepared -
by the applicant for 10-year periods from 1990 to 2030 were based on a number of sources including county population forecasts prepared by the Washi.ngton State Office of Financial Management, the Bonneville Power Administration, and the U. S. Bureau of the Census, and discussions with .
various regional planning agencies. These data are presented in Table 2.1-2 of the ER-OL. ,
To evaluate the applicant's population data within 50 miles, the staff relied on the applicant's survey within 10 miles as a method that has the potential for producing relatively accurate data. For population data from 10 to 50 -
miles, the s~taff used a computerized allocation' motel 'and U. S. Bure~ alt ~of -
Economic Analysis growth factors to project theyopulation. Table 3 presents
. the staff's population projections for the yea'r d10. An examination of these data and the Table 2.1-2 of the ER-OL indicates that the applicant's -
data are conservative from the staff's perspective.
The transient population in the area around the site is associated with educational and nursing institutions, logging operations and industrial facilities, and recreational activities. There are three school districts within 7 miles of WNP-3: Satsop School District #104 (62 students; 6 staff),
Elma School. District #68 (1734 students,169 staff), and Montesano School District #66 (1478 students,101 staff). Four nursing homes are within 7 miles of the site, the largest being the Oakhurst Convalescent Center (4 miles NE) with 180 patients and 148 staff. The nearest hospital, the Mark E. Reed
3 Hospital, is located approximately 11 miles from the site; it is licensed for 26 beds, but has an average patient population of 11 and a staff of 55. :
, . Specifics on these and other facilities are listed in Table 2.1-3 of the
- ER-OL.
)
Wi.th the exception of public employment, the larges.t employee categories are associated with logging and wood-related industries. The applicant estimates .
that the 100,000 acres of commercial forest within 10 miles of the site can support approximately 120 employees during the course of one year. The four largest employers within 10 miles -- Elma Plywood, Ventron Corporation,
~
Anderson Logging Company, and Elma Cedar Products -- employ an estimated 285 persons at the peak 'of operation. Elma Plywood (8 mi HE) is the4trrgest
' ~
employer at peak, accounting for 120 persons. . 5"
. _.? .,-
Opportunities for recreation also contribute to the generation of transient .
population. The applicant has estimated the peak number of big game and upland bird. hunters within 10 miles of the site. Hunting activities are prim'arily concentrated in areas to the south of the plant site. (ER-OL, Figure 2.1-5) The applicant has also estimated the number of fisheman on the Chehalis River and its tributaries, the Satscp and Wynocchee Rivers.
~
(ER-OL, Table 2.1-5) Three recreational facilities within 9 miles of the plant offer 98 camping sites in addition to opportunities for boating, picnicing, swimming, hiking, and horseback riding. Camp Delezene, a year-round Boy Scout Camp located 3 miles southeast of WNP-3, has an estimated use by 350 scouts in a twelve month period. (ER-OL, pp. 2.1-4 to 2.1-5)
l
. 4 Within 10 miles of the plant site, land use is dominated by activities related to timber and agricultural production. From the SE sector through the WSW sector out to 10 miles, virtually all land is devoted to timber production and logging. Although only a relatively small percentage o'f the land within 10 miles contains soil that-is-suitable for intensive agricul--
ture, agbicultural activities are concentrated in the fertile bottom lands and flood ' plains of the Chehalis and Satsop Rivers. Agricultural land has '
been uhder pressure in Grays Harbor County as a result of residential subdivision activity particularly in the eastern, unincorporated portions of the county. (ER-OL, pp. 2.1-5to 2.1-6) There are no plans for new or expanded industrial activity within the site area.- Programs which do exist for stimulating non-residential activities have focused on Grays Harb'or as a e_ .
3 deep water port and the exploitation of the reg {ogis natur.a1 resources.
(FSAR, p. 2.2-3 )
4.3.7 Historic and Archeologic Sites The FES-CP describes historic and . archeological sites in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, respectively. New information since the issuance of the FES-CP l consists of new surveys and the identification and retrieval of resources.
i The applicant retained professional archeologists to orient construction personnel, conduct field reconnaissances, perform monitoring and recover, evaluate, and preserve cultural resourc'e materials. During construction,
(
2 prehistoric and 21 historic sites were identified and documented. Two
[ sites involved with the relocation of Keyes Road and the removal of farm buildings in the area of the water intake facilities resulted in the
r
- ]
. , 3 5
i f, retrieval and preservation of materials. These mater.ials were placed in the Washington Archeological Collections Repository in Pullman and a few materials were released to the Supply System for display. Finally, the applicant has determined that within the vicinity of WNP-3 there are no properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. (ER-OL, Section 2.6) 5.7 Historic and Archeologic Impacts -
As stated in Section 4.3.7 there are no properties listed or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places in the vicinity of WNP-3. The staff's preliminary determination is that the operation a'nd' maintenance of the station will not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of
' significant historic resources. A final detenni, nation will be mad'e af tYr further consultation with the State Historic Presirvation Officer. -
5.8' Socioeconomic Impacts The socioeconomic impacts of station operation are analyzed in Sections 5.6 and 10.4. Changes that have occurred since then include an increase 'in the estimated operating work force to 514 people; of this total, 470 would be Supply System employees (including security personnel) and 44 would be employee's of contractors. The work force is estimated to have a payroll of l-
$20,560,000, assuming an initial average salary of $40,000.I (ER-OL, p.8.1 -1, l and RQ 310.01) The applicant has projected a build-up of operating workers
(
over a 5 year period, reaching the staff complement of 514 in 1986. (EP-OL, RQ 310.05) The applicant also expects that nearly all operating staff will reside in dispersed communities throughout the Aberdeen to Olympia area. (ER-OL,
_ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . , , , . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . -
. 6
- p. 8.1 -1 ) Because of the gradual build-up of staff and their dispersed residential locations, the staff concludes that local public and private services and faci 11 ties will have an opportunity to adjust to increased demands-and that such demands will not be significant.
Purchases of fuel and other materials. and services will be made by the applicant. (ER-OL, p. 8.1-1) The staff expects that such purchases will be ~
small compared to the size of the local economy and will not be a significant impact.
Tax payments are considered as indirect benefits of the station's operation because they are transfer paynents. Although the public-owned portion of
+ ..
' WNP-3 will not be subject to local real estate t' axes, the , investor owned
.2 - -
utilities that own thirty percent of the plant will pay an estimated 35.7 million in property taxes. The Elma School District, Grays Harbor County -
and the City of Aberdeen will be major beneficiaries. (ER, R0 310.04) The applicant also estimates that a privilege tax on the public owned portion of the plant will pay approximately $1.0 million per year, of which 62 percent would be returned to 1ocal taxing jurisdictions. Sales tax revenues on local purchases by the applicant wil1 yield an additional $2.0 million. Finally, purchases by operating workers will result in approximately $465,000 in sales taxes, assuming a 5% sales tax and a 45% captive rate for retail sales in the state. (ER-OL, p. 8.1 -1 ) The staff anticipates no other significant socio-economic impacts resulting from the station's operation.
Footnotes I
' All dollar values for costs and benefits are escalated costs for the first full year of operation. The assumed cost escalation
- until the first year of operation is 8% per year.
e eae ' =
m -. Sh *
- 6 e ,
i a
t e
9 w
G 9
h * # $@ M
,, e. .. .-
8 4 e
e O
e S
9
i Table 1 -
i
, POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 0-10 MILES IN 1980 .
Sector 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 Total N
NNE T
0 U
3 7/ 17T TT . W 79 280 419 38 62 802 -
NE O 11 13 716 1955 1462 4157 i
ENE O O 105 100 129 375 709 E O O 3 20 74 562 659 ESE 0 0 . 0 6 46 267 319 SE O 0 3 0 0 119 122 i
SSE O 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ~;
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
! SSW 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 -
i SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 i
W 3 0 0 18 35 1748 1804 i WNW 0 29 28 109 356 4214 4736 l NW 0 '
31 84 477 53 0 645 i
NNW 3 12 204 116 59 259 653 i I
TOTAL 15 94 797 2155 . 2806 9298 15,165 r i -
2:4, i i,
')
f-
- SOURCE
- ER-OL, Table 2.1-2 i ,
j ; -
Its i
e i
1 e g .
.-..w
Table 2, - -
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 10-50 MILES IN 1980 Sector 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 410 42 18 3 473 NNE , 499 1019 1577 1817 4912 NE 1902 8680 5334 15247 31163 ENE 2292 26535 13321 223901 266049 E 406 34920 34345 11299 80970 ESE 2491 6231 2760 2438 13920 SE 1789 13210 12560 6619 34178 -
/
SSE 440 638 1465 2741 5284 5 562 444 396 1111 2513 SSW 811 1919 269 1349 4348 -
SW 436 4128 1056 2213 7833 WSW 147 684 1596 0 2427, W 30073 3937 4075 0 38085 WNW 1107 869 2255 73 4304 NW 430 667 46 749 1892 h NNW 50 145 695 548 1438. j TOTAL 43845 104068 270108 499789 81768-i'*? ,
f SOURCE: ER-OL, Table 2.1-2 -
e i ,
I <g 'l .
- i , ,
e g S
Table 3 . : , .'
l POPULATION DISTRIBUTION 0-50 MILES IN 2010 .
Sector 0-10 10-20 _20-30 30-40 40-50 Total N 713 0 95 162' 0 257 HNE 1306 0 3227 3011 434 6672 NE 5878 2636 19466 6186 19748 48036 ENE 1006 2926 35968 13794 220884 273572 E 892 692 39900 51198 9536 101326 ESE 438 3252 15604 6755 4768 30379 SE 179 1827 12527 18292 9390 42536 '
i SSE O O 1971 1493 3358 6822 J S 0 0 1079 0 1852 2931
- 2685 0 0 2685 W 3205 43233 3609 4714 0 51556
- WNW 6406 0 0 3420 0 3420 NW 851 1927 1795 101 1055 4878 NNW 872 0 162 1185 442 1789 TOTAL 21772 59043 145933 ;,1,1f1432 2/586/ 594275 l '? . 8 6
~'
'q i
4 .
1 5
5.11 Decommissioning The purposes of decommissioning are (1) to safely remove nuclear facilities from service and (2) to remove or isolate the associated radioactivity from the environment so that the part of the facility site that is not permanently com-
'mitted can be released for other uses. Alternative methods of accomplishing these purposes and the environmental impacts of each method are discussed in NUREG-0586.
Since 1960, 68 nuclear reactors--including 5 licensed reactors that had been used for the generation of electricity--have been or are in the process of being decommissioned. Although, to date, no large commercial reactor has undergone decommissioning, the broad base of experience gained from smaller facilities is generally relevant to the decommissioning of. any type of nuclear facility.
Radiation doses to the public as a result of end-of-life decommissioning activi-ties should be small; they will come primarily frem the transportation of waste .
to appropriate repositories. Radiation doses to decommissioning workers. should be well within the occupational exposure limits imposed by regulatory requirements.
The NRC is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings that will develop a more explicit overall policy for decommissioning commercial nuclear facilities.
Specific licensing requirements are being considered that include the develop-ment of decommissioning plans and financial arrangements for decommissi,oning nuclear facilities.
Applicant's ' estimate of decommissioning costs are included' in Sect ~ic6 6.4.3.
5.-
p.. -
a l
e e
e
.~. .
6i4.2 Benefits ,
A major benefit to be derived from the operation of the WNP-3 unit is'the approximately 6 billion kWh of baseload electrical energy that will be produced annually (this projection conservatively (low) assumes that the unit will operate at an annual average capacity factor of 55%). The addition of the plant will also improve the ability of WPPSS to supply system load requirements by contributing 1240 MW of generating capacity to the Northwest region.
In_ previous environmental statements, staff has provided general estimates of the economic benefit expected from the nuclear facility under consideration during the first five year.s..of_its proposed operation. Thi.s calculated benefit has resulted from the nuclear facility substituting for more expensive generating resources on the applicant's system and has typically been expected to continue to accrue over the life of the facility. However, in the case of the WNP-3 facility, no such five year benefit was observed. -
If the unit were not allowed to operate, replacement energy could likely be available at a cost which would average about the same as the cost of energy from the WNP-3 unit (Applicant's response to staff question 320.01, ER/0L) assuming sufficient hydro electric energy could be made available, at zero incremental cost. This assumption would change if system load growth accel-erates and/or if adverse weather reduces hydro availability. Over the thirty -
year life of the unit, there is increased likelihood that these conditions will occur. Under these changed operating conditions, economic benefits which are typically forthcoming from nuclear facilities in o'ther regions of 'the country,
~
will accrue to the customers of WPPSS. . ,- .
[_f~
6.4.3 Economic Costs , __
The economic costs associated with station operation include fuel costs and operating and maintenance costs, which are expected to average approximately -
13.6 mills per kWh and 9 mills per kWh, respectively (ER-OL Table 8.2.2, 1988 dollars).
The applicant estimates decommissioning costs for WNP-3 to total 5160 million in 1988 dollars (ER-OL Section 8.2.1.3).
e S
e
Table 6,1 -Benefit-cost sumnary for WNP-3 ~S Primary impact and effect Quanti ty on population or resources (Section)* Impacts **
- BENEFITS Direct .
Electrical energy 6 billion kWh/yr Large Additional generating capacity 1240 MWe La rge (Sec. 6.4.2)
COSTS Economic Fuel 13.6 mills /kWh*** Small Operation and maintenance 9.0 mi11 s/kWh***
Decommissioning ' Moderate 5160 million*** , ;$ mall- '
' Moderate
- Where a particular unit of neasure for a benefit / cost category has not been specified in this statement or where an estimate of the magnitude of of the benefit / cost under consideration has not been made, the reader is directed to the appropriate section of this report' for further-ir? rmatTon.
- Subjective measure of costs and benefits is assigned by review.ers, where quantification is not possible: "Small" = impacts that in the revfe.'we rs '
judgments, are of such minor nature, based.on-currently available informa-tion, that they do not w' arrant detailed investigations or considefftio'Es of mitigative actions; " Moderate" = impacts that in the reviewers' judgments are likely to be clearly evident (mitigation alternatives are usually considered for moderate impacts); "Large" = impacts that in the reviewers' judgments, represent either a severe penalty or a major benefit. Acceptance requires that large negative impacts should be more than offset by other overriding project considerations.
- 1988 dollars '
O e
Table 6.1 m -
B;nef. Cost Sumary for WNP-3 Impact Staff Assessment
- of Benefit Cost Socioeconomic Costs '
Societal cost in tems of
. Historic and Archeol'ogical (5.7) Small ,
Increased demands on public facilities and services (5.8) . Small t
Increased demands on private facilities and services (5.8) Small .
. . S
.T
. ~
f.3 ,
e t
1