ML20198F058
| ML20198F058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 08/01/1974 |
| From: | Fine P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Loose R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1213 NUDOCS 8605280402 | |
| Download: ML20198F058 (3) | |
Text
_ _.
3
~
}
e i' r-e
\\
~
i l
I DISTRIBUTION:
4 f%entral File AUG 1 1974 L:Rdg.
q L:AD/SS i
i L:CBAB i
JNanald R. Lasse,-Project Manager, Environmental Projects Branch 4 L
,#r.. o
....u,
..C.1.1 REVIEW OF AENDENT N0;.1 TO ENVIR0f0 ENTAL REPORT FOR WPPSS NUCLEAR l ;C l PN MECT M9.:1.. M 4 v.%.51:.'; O h a ?,s m l,.
...u.:G@Mh My %jf.S W W [ % Gy3'
' 7',.u:
y 9
j; M :
l 1.3. 3.':. ::yW:
O PUWT NAfE:'l WPPS5 Nuclear Project No.1
~ ~ l?. ' 'T ~ ~ "
i
!c ! 5-
. LICENSING STAGE: CP
... t a-N
~
./
~"
?
DOCKET m M
' e w
O l
..RESPONSISLE BRANCH: Environmental Projects Branch 4 FROJECT IWWAGERL Ronald Loose 1.
i
+
- DATE RE@EST RECEIVED'BY CBA8: Telephone conversation in July 1974.
~
RE WESTED C0 WLETION DATE: Not specific.
DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE: Review of Amendment No.1 to Environmental i
Report.
REVIEW STATUS: Complete as regards cost-benefit analysis.
,.m Amendment No. I to the Environmental Report for WPPSS Nuclear Project
-T 2 No. I replaces' the' previous Environmental Report, deals with relocation j
. - to a different site at Hanford, and includes a description cf a duplicate
' unit at that site. It is suggested that the following additional infor-motion be requested from the applicant.
,.a
, ;w
.~.
{
- 1. - Subsection 1.1.1.9 on " Facts Potentially Affecting Demand" should y',
_ include a discussion of the recent experiences in the Pacific
' Northwest in conserving electrical energy and the long-term implications with regard to load projections.
- 2. Various figures are given for the capacity factor of the nuclear 1
plant.
In Table 8.1-1, the entries for capacity and expected average i
annual generation (first year) correspond to a capacity factor of about 755. -Table 8.2-2 in footnote (2) gives a capacity factor of
. m..
i 4 % 62.35. Table 9.3-2 gives a systas capacity factor of 57% for the N. '
. fnuclear. plant. These differences should be explained.
1 l
., G, a.
' 3.
Subsection 9.2.2.1.en " Coal-Fired Steam-Electric Generating Plant" i
i should include a cost estimate for a coal-fired plant in Montana or Wyoming and associated transmission lines.
.c -
2-t a.,,, s,. y
,s n
Y t
1 f
i fhK05000460 2 740001 3
i onnees >
D t
l PDR 1
ev....e >
+
j f
./
c j
a f Fons MC.)la (Rev.913) MGM 0240
.. # w. s. eovannusar P sames orPscse sof4.ese.see
/
.. w.:. u.a e u w.. w..u;x.,a c ;a. w,.
...s.L
...w..
.a.
..u
. w...s J
~. n...
J
___.__,.-_..._,_.m.,
~
sq
.. +
)L
, ~..z..
g 6
y a
l
.e l
.e
+
4 R. R. Loose
^
-2 '
AUG 1 1974 I
- 4.. In Section 10.1 on " Cooling System Alternatives." the mechanical-I Jdraft wet cooling towers discussed are of conventional rectangular W. : design and should be compared with towers of circular design not i
'.V,.' being offered commercially, which have somewhat differer.t operating f
- I y i,:.7.;;yf and environmental characteristics. See Section 10 of the Environ-x
>f 'M,-7.ta:, mental Reports for the Cherokee and Perkins Nuclear Stations.
[Q@;;l,H!?(Attached is a copy of, Table 10.1.0-1 from the Cherokee report.)
'l
- n. :
.n 'y u
.t >
y N5 Section 10.5 on " Biocide Treatment" should include a discussion of
~ the alternative of cleaning condenser tubes by mechanical methods i.
w
'l
' #. T..$ balls er. brushes).
,. p.G :; "
g c
2.' 4.~. w{ w -
.g...
4'..y. :, y, m..y ]".#,
.a 2-o
<...t '
j) _., i :-
- jj
.. f.;*, ** J '. * ;, g ; ',,
y w.
. c. ;,
1 a
L m,
Paul C. Fhe 2
o'
,e Senior Cost-Benefit Specialist i.,. "
O.
s Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch, L
+..-,?r.cc:~ A. Giambusso
._a,,..~....., -
l
..,4.....,.,.w,,,.
m m
c,..
s
..n.....
i y R.aM.1' J. Hendrie e
....~
. - w.. e -. v.._
l
- W. MdDonald '..'R n. g.l 6 'e,,
yu r
u.
- 5. Hanauer y
.M. Denton 1
W.-Regan i.'
l
. J. Panzarella
<y s
..:A. Kenneke I
~
-R. Boyd 1
1 4
- 1J a
. }R.DeYound J
r V. Moore r
~
.TR Asst. Directors
'~
155 Branch Chiefs
- f. e i. '
J.
s i
M f.,f6;P.: Fine.
,. h;l,y.@':M.R
,.,a.,c,
.A m
- m. n,. -,,,w w,.
,e
, +. - A.::, %. ll':, p,,p> y ;;,,'g;4.,. s.s *,
.+
~,s
.., ~
4
.. 4..,'.; e. a, 7.. in.. r 'n,4..N.,...,g.r, -
,sg a :.
m.~
c e
...~
.,,e.+.y.
., ".a, A,,';?: m e p,& u
_.t,.
n.jw p,,.
s
,c-w s.,,
.a
.;,',,y.; - O g y &
WW'r
'~
&. j,", p r.,.
.r % :n, i;l w...
- p. 7, y.
aye
.,a 3
c.t -
e,s s
.,5-r a
w 4
t
....~
j
- e.,...
L:CBAB
^ '.i.+
I
, mm... > _2Eine:c(
S/1/74 For.e ABC 318 (Rev. M3) ARCM 0240
)., p,
g W u. a. novsamesamt Pasurine orricas sspa.ase.see j
e m ) A s
';.en+.a wJw.is af
,9m 4,.Nwet n d. mew <,
,..u, 4;...g;,.
- v. _ g. 4, b., 4 u..A., a J.; M ');*,1;a
... ~..
=
n, ER Table 10.1.0-1 Cherokee Nuclear Station Cost Comparison - Coolino Svstem Alternatives (I)
Circular Mech.
Rectangular Mech.
Draft (Procosed)
Draft Natural Oraft Cooling Towers (2) 23,605,000 27,320,000 22,309,000 Fan Motors and Switchgear 3,018',000 9,035,000
' CCW Pumps 6,642,000 6,642,000 6,642,000 CCW Pump Hotors
- 2,431,000 2,431,000 2,431,000 Piping.
8,013,000, 11,500,000 8,710,000 Penalties 39,581,000 40,468,000 49,204,000 i
Total
$83,290,000
$97,396,000
$89,296,00 2 fin 1982 dollars, 1
includes cooling tower, precast concrete, erection and basin.
- 3) includes capacity lost from fans, pumps, and back-pressure, and energy losses from the same.
l
. _,.__..