ML20197H920
| ML20197H920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1984 |
| From: | Johnston W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197G423 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-663 NUDOCS 8408060364 | |
| Download: ML20197H920 (14) | |
Text
~
( iTRIBUTION:
Central File El 3 01984 SAB Reading File SAB Plant File f1 Fields LBykoski AToalston DCleary WRegan Poc ke t '.'es.
50-424 WJohnston 50-425 T f9.u ' " FCR:
Thorias !:. i.'cval', Assistant Director J
for Licensing Eranch, DL F?r. ':
!!illia:a V. Johnston, Assistant Pirector l'aterials, Chenical i. Envirorr. ental Technology, EE SU2dECT:
SAB I!J'UT TO T!!E V0CTLE ELECTRIC CCUERATIfT-PLA"T, L"'IT 1
/dD UNIT 2, DES-OL Plant Ne: Vogtle Electric Cenerating Plant, Unit I and Unit 2 sec!:et Pos:
50 ?.24 and 50-425 Liceasin.3 Stage: CL c.esiensit.le franch:
LP. f4; !*.
f; iller, LP" S:'E Cevicrers:
L. Bykoski, and !!. Fields
%ccested Co.:pletion Date: July 26,1904 Fevieu Status: Caaplete I c.1 fontarding, by this neaorandtn, the Site taalisis Franch contributions to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant DES-OL.
The sections are 2.0, Purposes and Need for fction; 3.0, Alternatives to the Proposed fction; c.2.1, Er.ternal.aPrearar.ce and Station I.ayout; f.3.5, l'istoric and archealnnical Si tes; 4.0.7, Socioeconolic Characteristics; 5.7, Historic and Archeclogical Sites; 5.I,, Socioeconmic Ierects; 5.11, Pecomissioning; ti.e.?, tenefits; 6.4.0, Ecer.caic Costs; sod inrtions of Table G.I.
In addition an cP;endix (I.)
en cui taral. resources has been added.
Should ycu require any clarification, contact Louis f,ykoski, on X27025 or 2lick Fields on X24744.
. ! 111ian V. Johr.stor$, f.ssistar.t Director
!4terials, Chrrical.~. Environ-entrl Tec%elony 3(a'l Ng rivision if Enqineerinc g.
.rclas>ro:
Il <; t s
- c '
cc:
'il l ar
- See previous concurrence sheet l
cu M DE:SAB:AEAS! DE:SAB
.DE;SAB:AEAS.),,DE:SAB..
.. DEg.S I E.T.
I.iFiel.d.sMj.;.. *AByko. ski,,,, &T.ga.1.s.t.op.,
- DC. lea ry..
.WR' va n....
. MJohns. ton... _.
. ~.l.
" N,7/26/84
, 1, 7,G,6/,8.4,,,,. 7,# # / M,,,
.7.G.6/R4,,,.7M.V84.
.7/JJ/.84..
...f.
e.nc cav sia n em e.acu ono OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
i
(
2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ACTION The Commission has amended 10 CFR 51, " Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Pro-cedures for Environmental Protection," ef fective April 26, 1982, to provide 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 F_R 12940, March 26, 1982).
Need for power issues need not be ad-dressed by operating license applicants in environmeatal reports to the NRC, nor by the NRC staff in environmental impact statements prepared in connection with operating license applications (10 CFR 51.53, 51.95, and 51.106(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 stage of the regulatory review where a finding of insuf-ficient'need could factor into denial of issuance of a license.
At the operating-license review stage, the proposed plant is substantially constructed and a finding of insufficient need would not, in itself, result in denial of the operating license.
Substantial information exists that supports an argument that nuclear plants are lower in operating costs than conventional fossil plants.
If conservation or other factors lower anticipated demand, utilities remove generating facili-ties from service according to their costs of operation, with the most expen-sive facilities removed first.
Thus, a completed nuclear plant would serve to substitute for less economical generating capacity (46 FR 39440, August 3, 1981, and 47 B 12940, March 26, 1982).
Accordingly, this statement does not consider need for power issues.
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 Register, 46 FR 39440, August 3,1981.
--, "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceed-ings," final rule, Federal Register, 47 FR 12940, March 26,1982.
(
l 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 l
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 applications (see 10 CFR 51.53, 51.95, 51.106(c), and 51.106(d)).
The Commission has concluded that alternative energy source issues are resolved at the construction permit (CP) stage, and the CP is granted only after a find-ing that, on balance, no superior alternative to the proposed nuclear facility exists.
In addition, this conclusion is unlikely to change even if an alter-native is shown to be marginally environmentally superior in comparison with operation of the nuclear facility because of the economic advantage that opera-tion of the nuclear plant would have over available alternative 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 not c'onsider alternative energy sources 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 Proceed-ings," proposed rule, Federal Register, 46 FR 39440, August 3, 1981.
--, "Need for Power and Alternative Energy Issues in Operating License Proceed-ings," final rule, Federal Register, 46 FR 12940, March 26,1982.
- 4. 2.1 External Appearance and Station Layout A general description of the external appearance and plant layout is provided in Section 3 of the FES-CP and a sketch of the proposed layout for Vogtle Nuclear Plant Unit 1,2,3 and 4 is presented in Figure 3.2.
~
Since publication.of the FES-CP, the major change that has occurred is the reduction in plant size from four to two units and the deletion of two reactor
-buildings and cooling towers.
Figure 3.1-2 in the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ER-0L presents the Unit 1 and Unit 2 station layout.
The major building and canponents on the site include the containment buildings, cooling towers, turbine building, administration building, radwaste service area, warehouse, diesel generator and auxiliary facilities. Other changes that have occurred include the addition of the energency operations facility which is located in the simulator building one and a half miles southeast of the site.
1
t
(
4.3.6 Historic and Archeological Sites Section 2.3 of the FES-CP discusses the closest sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
These sites were over twenty-five miles from the plant. At present, there are no listed sites within ten miles of the plant.
O O
1
(
4.3.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics The general socioeconomic characteristics of the region, including demography and land use, are represented in Section 2 of the FES-CP.
As indicated in the FES-CP, the plant is located in the eastern area of Burke County, Georgia about 26 miles from Augusta.
The plant is situated on the southwest side of
_the Savannah River at about. river mile 151 and directly across the river from the large. restricted. area of the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Plant.
The ten mile area surrounding the plant site includes part of Burke County and a small portion of Richmond County in Georgia and parts of Barnwell County, Aiken County and a small portion of Allendale County in South Carolina. The general area is characterized as rolling terrain which is primarily wooded and wtiich includes some land devoted to fanning. The area is sparsely populated. Girard, which is located 7.5 miles south-southeast 0f the plant, is the only town within the ten mile area. According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, Girard declined in population from 241 persons in 1970 to 225 persons in 1980. Waynesboro, which is located about fifteen miles west of the plant, increased in population from 5530 persons in 1970 to 5760 in 1980.
According to the applicant, the 1980 residential population, which includes construction workers, within ten miles of the plant is estinated to be 2560 persons.
The residential population within ten miles is estimated to be 2096 persons in the year 2007 (SER-OL, Table 2.1-4).
The staff has reviewed the applicant's demography data by comparing their estimates with independent data sources and found the a'pplicant's estimates reasonable.
f
__ =.
(
5.7 Historic and Archeological Sites ~
j As pointed in Section 4.3.6 of the CP-FES there are no sites listed in National Register of Historic Places within ten ailes of the plant.
Transmission line construction continues at present. Under condition 7d presented in the FES-CP, the applicant submits proposed right-of-way locations for transmission lines to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHP0) for detennination of whether the right-of-way will disturb any structure or site of historical or archeological significance. Cul tural resource management plans (CRM) are developed in close consulation with and approved by the SHP0 for each segment of each transmission line. The management plans apply for the life of the transmission line and provide protection during construction and operation for selected sites identified in the cultural resource surveys.
To date, a CRM plan has been established for the Vogtle to Madley portion of the Vogtle to Scherer line.
It is anticipated that a total of four CRM plans will be developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
In those cases where sites are identified as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the NRC will consult with the SHP0 and make determination of eligibility requests of the. Keeper of the National Register.
O e
l 1
I
(
5.8 Socioecononic Ympacts The socioeconomic impacts of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant's operation are discussed in Section 5 of the FES-CP.
Presently it is estima ted that about 957 workers will be required to operate the plant.
Over 300 workers are already on the site (ER-OL, QE310.3-1).
The remaining workers, who will be hired over the period until 1990, are likely to reside in locations
~ similar to those where existing plant enployees live.
Therefore, about sixty percent of the workers are expected Eto live in Richmond County, twenty percent in Columbia County, ten percent in Burke County, and one percent in Aiken County with the remaining residing in other surrounding counties.
Because of the relatively small number of workers required to operate the plant, the impact on the communities in which they reside and traffic is expected to be minimal.
The annual payroll of the workers is projected to be 20.77 million (in 1984 dollars).
Local purchases of materials and supplies relating to the operation of the plant is expected to total about 3.54 million annually (1984 dollars).
Local purchases are expected to be made within the Augusta standard metropolitan statisical area and Burke County. Table 5.1 shows the estimated ad valorem taxes for the first five years of operation and Table 5.2 shows the estimated local option and use taxes for the first five years of operation.
(
5.11 Decommissioning The purposes of decommissioning are (1) to safely renove nuclear facilities fran service and (2) to remove or isolate the associated radioactivity fron the e'n-vironnent so that the part of the facility site that is not permanently cannitted can be released for other uses.
Alternative methods of accomplishing these pur-poses 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 the electricity--have been or are in the process of being 1
decomnissioned. Although, to date, no large conmerical reactor has undergone decommissioning, the broad range of experience gained from snaller facilities is generally relevant to the decommissioning of any type of nuclear facility.
Radiation doses to the public as a res;1t of end-of-life decannissioning activi-ties should be small; they will come primarily fran the transportation of waste T
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 generic rulemaking 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 decomnissioning plans and financial arrangenents for deconmissioning nuclear fac.ilities.
Applicant's estimate of the economic cost of decommissioning the Vogtle units is provided in Section 6.
i i
l
(
6.4.2.
Benefi ts A major benefit to be derived from the operation of the Vogtle units is the lower production cost for approximately 11 billion kWh of baseload electrical
. energy that will be produced annually.
(This projection assumes that both units will operate at an annual average capacity factor of 55 percent.) Production
_ costs avoided on approximately 11 billion kWh of electrical energy will be 41.5 mills per kWh (ER/0L Table 8.1-7) resulting in a total annual avoided cost on existing generation of $450 million' (constant 1987 dollars).
The addition of the plant will also improve the applicant's ability to supply system load requirenents by contributing 2250MW of capacity to the Southern Co.'s system.
6.4.3 Economic Costs The economic costs associated with station operation include fuel costs and i
operation and maintenance costs, which are expected to average 14 mills per l'
kWh and 7.5 mills per kilh, respectively (ER-OL Table 8.1.6 1987 dollars, l
adjusted for a 55% capacity factor rather than applicant's estimate of 59 percent l
capacity factor). Total annual production costs for 11 billion kWh per year produced by the nuclear units would be approximately $237 million (constant 1987 dollars).
The applic' ant's estimate of the deconmissioning costs for each of the Vogtle units is $50 million (1980 dollars, ER/0L Section 8.2.1.3).
rr mm as
(
Table 5.1 i
l Estimated Ad Valoren Taxes (a) Attributable to VECP (Thousands of Dollars)(b)
YEAR Paid to Burke County Paid to Burke County Board of Commissioners Board of Education 1990
$6,384.7
$5,74 6.3 1991
$6,384.7
$5,746.3 1992
$6,384.7
$5,74 6. 3 1993
$6,384. 7
$5,746.3 1994
' $6,384.7
$ 5,746.3 l
1 Source: Table E310.6-1, ER-0L.
(a) According to the applicant, ad valoren tax figures are based on budgeted expenditures for VEGP real estate and imporvements, with allowances for anticipated pollution control expenditures. Ad valoren taxes given are coupilations of estimates of taxes to be paid by Georgia Power Company and Oglethorpe Power Coorporation, together with "in lieu of tax payments" to be paid by Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia.
The remaining coowner, the City of Dalton does not pay ad valoren taxes to Burke County.
It is j
assumed that millage rate will remain constant at 4.50 mills for the Burke County Board of Commissioners, and 5.00 mills for the Burke County Board of Education.
(b) Stated in 1984 dollar.s.
f i
j 1,
k t
I I
., - - - + - ~.
ry ~
m._,,,-,,_m--,~,
ew--,
..~,..~-,.,_.m.,_,.,
-....--..,.*-,-,.,.---.-,,--...,,.-~_-,,,,-.,_.-,------,---...----r--
Ta bl e 5. 2 Estimated Local Option and Use Taxes (d) Attributable to VECP (Thousands of Dollars)(b)
YEAR Paid to Bu rke County Paid to City of Pa id to Ci ty of Pa id to Ci ty of Board of Conmissioners flidville Sardis Haynesboro 1990
$917.0
$34. 6
$60.9
$297.5 1991
$963.2
$36.3
$64.0
$312.5 1992
$1,012.2
$38. 2
$67.2
$328.4 1993 51,063.3
$40.1
$70.6
$34 5.0 1994
$1,117.2
$42.1
$74.2
$362.5 Source:
Ta ble E310. 6-1, ER-OL.
(a).
According to the applicant, local option sales and use tax estimates are based on estirnated operating and maintenance expenditures for Georgia Power Conpany and coowners.
The local option sales and use tax is a one percent tax paid on all goods delivered into or used in Burke County.
The tax is payable on materials and supplies used at VEGP, including nuclear fuels.
A nearby county would only receive local option tax on
~
supplies sold to VEGP if VEGP picked up the supplies in that county.
Georgia Power is responsible for payment of this tax and is then reimbursed by the coowners for their pro rata share.
Figures reflect gross estimated amounts of sales and use tax without any deduction for vendor's compensation or State of Georgia administrative fees.
It is assumed that the percentage split of total local option tax collected renains constant at Burke County (70.0 percent), City of Haynesboro T22.71 percent),
City of Sardis (4.65 percent), and City of Midville (2.64 percent).
( b).
Stated in 1984 dollars.
(
~
Table 6.1 Benefit-Cost Summary for Vogtle Station Primary Impact and Effect Quantity Impacts
- on Population or Resources (Section)
BEliEFITS Capaci ty Additional generating capacity.
2250 t1We large Economic Reduction in existing 11 billion kWh/yr floderate system production costs 0 41.5 mills /kWh or
$450 million/yr**
COSTS Econanic Fuel 14.0 mills /kWh**
Small Operations and Maintenance 7.5 mills /kWh**
ffodera te Total
$237 million/yr**
lbderate Decommissioning
$ 50 million/ unit ***
Small-Moderate Subjective measure of costs and benefits is assigned by reviewers where quantification is not possible:
"Small"=fmpacts that in the reviewer's judgement, are of such minor nature, based on currently available information that they do not warrant detailed investigation or consideration of nitigative actions; "tioderate"=fmpacts that, in the reviewer's judgement, are likely to be clearly evident (mitigation alternatives are usually considered for moderate impacts); "Large"= impacts that in the reviewer's judgement, 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.
- 1987 dollars.
The net reduced generating cost is the difference tetween
$450 million/yr and $237 million/yr, which'is $213 million/yr for both units.
~
- 1980 dollars
m APPENDIX A HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES e
O G
e A