ML20198F446

Forwards Comments on Des.Portion of 1974 Annual Rept to Congress Also Encl

ML20198F446
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	03/24/1975
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-1246 NUDOCS 8605280511
Download: ML20198F446 (5)

Text

-

~ ~ ~ ~

. DISTRIBUTION:

MAR 4 1375 dlocket File ,

Rdg., NRR CBAB, NRR Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects REVIEW OF DES FOR WPPSS UNITS 3 AND 5 i

! PLANT NAME: Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects 3 4 5 LICENSING STAGE: CP DOCKET NLASER: STN 50-508 and STN 50-509 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: Environmental Projects Branch 4 PROJECT MANAGER: Jan Norris DATE REQUEST RECEIVED BY CBAB: No request received DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE: Review of DES REVIEW STATUS: Caplete as regards cost-benefit analysis ,

We have reviewed the sections on the need for power generating capacity, alternatives, and conclusions of the Draft Environmental Statement for WPPSS Nuclear Projects 3 and 5 for consistency with present practice and policies, and our comments are enclosed.

Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety Division of Technical Review

Enclosure:

As stated cc: A. Giambusso W. Mcdonald J. Hendrie S. Hanauer H. Denton W. Regan r J. Norris J. Panzarella A. Kenneke *

, R. Boyd -

l R. DeYoung V. Moore TR Asst. Directors SS Branch Chiefs P. Fine 8605280511 750324 PDR ADOCK 05000508 g D PDR CBAB CBAB , AD/SS 1

o,,,e . ,

. y9r ..

y. ,__

l . . . - -

• PCEine:cs MBS(yg er HRDentQn' _

.m * . 3/_20/ 7.5 ._ 3/2//75 3/2.//75 ~

. ro.. ucpe in.. 9.m acu oze b .....v. - . , m m .. .,ric.i..u.. ... -

=-

. .. . . ..- . . . _ . . a-.

COMENTS ON DES FOR WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECTS 3 AND 5 On page i of Summary and Conclusions in the first sentence of the second paragraph of item 2, the words "Each of the two units of" should be inserted before the words "The WNP 3 & 5 station".

In Table 5.13 on page 5-27, the entry for Effluents, chemical - Gases -

Hydrocarbons should be 13.5 instead of 12.5, according to page 26282 of the Federal Register of July 18, 1974. Incidentally, the decimal points in the entries of Table 5.13 do not show up clearly.

Table 9.5 on page 9-10 says in the heading that costs are in 1974 dollars.

However, the costs of plant construction given for a coal plant and for a nuclear plant at the Satsop site are taken from the COMCEPT calculations in Appendix C, which include escalation during construction at rates of 8%/ year for site labor, 6%/ year for site materials, and 5%/ year for purchased equipment according to page C-5.

In Table 9.5, the costs of plant operation and maintenance are listed as the same for coal-fired and nuclear plants, although Table 9.2-1 of the applicant's Environmental Reports shows these costs as being slightly higher for the nuclear plant.

~

Table 9.5, which is said to be in 1974 dollars, gives a fuel cost of 5.9 mills per kilowatt hour for a coal-fired plant at the Satsop site. Is

• this a current estimate? Table 9.2-1 of the applicant's Environmental Report gives an annual fuel cost for a coal-fired plant at Satsop that corresponds to about 8.5 mills per kilowatt hour for 1981, when WPPSS unit 3 is scheduled to begin commercial operation.

Table 9.6 for releases to air of dust, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides has entries of "none" for the nuclear plant. However, section 3.2.5 of the applicant's Environmental Report says that the auxiliary boiler, which consumes oil, will operate for 4 to 6 weeks per year during normal opera-tional shutdown and that diesel generators, which are part of the emergency safety systems, will be operated for testing to insure reliability (no other operation is anticipated). The releases to the air from these sources will be very small.

The second sentence of the first paragraph of section 9.3.1.4 says: "In order to dissipate the 17.4 x 109 Btu /hr, a spray canal system approximately 15,200 feet long and 200 feet wide containing 285 spray modules would be required". These dimensions of the canal and this number of spray modules are the same as in Table 10.1-1 of the applicant's Environmental Report, but are given there for one generating unit with a full load heat rejection of 9.100 x 109 Btu /hr.

0

._______a

e ,

Section 9.3 on " Alternative Plant Designs" does not include discussions of alternative discharge systems, chemical waste treatments, biocide systems, or sanitary waste systems, which are treated in sections 10.3 through 10.6 of the applicant's Environmental Report.

It is suggested that the second paragraph of section 10.3.4 be updated to include information on uranium reserves and potential resources en page 130 cf the AEC Annual Report to Congress for 1974 (copy of that page is attached).

D 9

0

/

1974 Annud Reoort ~

t0 COEgress .

Part One: Operating and Developmental Functions

- Part Two: Regulatory  :

Functions

" '" ~ - - - - - - , _ _ _ _ _

v - - - -+ +p , --.----.---.---..-~___-g ,, - , . - - - , , -

130 down indefinitely and one was down temporarily tons of U O.. These additions were primarify in for equipment renovation. Construction of a extensions to known ore trends in New Mexico 1,500 tons of ore per day mining / milling facility and Wyoming. However, additions were more was started by Standard Oil of Ohio and Reserve than offset by ore production (12,600 tons).

Oil and Mineral Corp. in the Laguna area of New losses from mining at lower cutoff costs, and re.

A4exico. Four of seven large-scale mine develop- evaluation in the light of new data.

sunent projects currently underway were started during the year. United Nuclear Corp. reported Potential Resources

' plans to start construction of a 3000 tons of ore The estimated potential for future development per day mill to start up in 1977,in the Churchrock of undiscovered resources has,in the past, bee t area of New Mexico. Plans to recover uranium as restricted primarily to those areas and geologic a byproduct of phosphoric acid production in formations in the western U.S. that have been Horida were also announced by United Nuclear. productive. As a result of the work done in the Western Nuclear, Inc. proceeded with plans for preliminary phase of the AEC's national uranium a snine and mill in the Spokane Indian Reserva- resource evaluation program, estimates of poten-alon, Washington. Further additions to mine and , tial have been expanded to include new areas semill facilities will be necessary in order to meet and formations and are now categorized in three the projected demand through 1980. classes by degree of reliability. Estimates of speculative potential, made solely on geologic Uranium Reserves inference in unexplored areas, have a reliability During the last few years, inflation has had a considerably less than either probable or possi.

segnificant impact on ore reserves. The prelimi-ble potential estimates for producing areas where considerable exploration has occurred. Potential reary estimate of reserves at yearend at an 58 cut-off cost (December 1974 dollars) was 200,000 resource estimates at yearend were:

tons UiO.. The corresponding $15 cutoff reserve $E $$ sis 5.Yo. v.w was 420,000 tons U,0.. The yearend $8 reserve Probable . =. 300,000 380.000 620Cc0 figure, unadjusted for inflation and generally Possible ... ...... 200.000 440,000 640 CCo comparable to the 1972 and 1973 yearend fig- SP 'Cu l' '" -------- 30

• 180 # 210 #

ures of 273,000 and 277,000 tons, respectively, 7* -------- 3 3 0

• 1 ** '*330 "

would have been about 263,000. Extensive drilling and other exploration and

, During the year, the gross additions to reserves development effort will be required to discoser in the $8 category (current dollars) totaled 13,000 and convert the potential into actual reserves.

_. . - ~ . . .- _ _ _

e e m > .o.,

P

.m...a.c.-.a c.-ew-

. . . . w.-.#

,c-,7 q I.

t:

y

- - ... j , . -- - ~,.,. . . m. ..

.3,

.c

• 1 * * -.

..,,, ., .t- 8

..7 n % E s's'? .1

gi g

. 3: 4.; f s 3 ---. --

- .- ~. m- = rt ..

i. . .

% , %g.m1, 27 I

. .. .r .

b.y. J -

w!1:

p.

,,^: .n. .9.,1

.. . i.

!y %, -

.- y

- -A.--_.;gre '.y

p. - ..

w .m; y;w';&.nqLa

(

s.h.c. k.w.f_.M,u.udr.-P . J t- _

The front end loader is moving lower grade uranium cre into a dump Night view of core drimng 'cr ura.

stuck. La'r.r. 6t wdl be m**ed as needed witn higner grade ore to acnieve nium at Ambrosia Lane. N. f *ex., r::t a blend of feed. grade ore for processing in the uranium mdl. far from the Continental 0.vida.

O