ML20198F753

Forwards Comments on cost-benefit Section of Pdes,Per Gk Dicker 720804 Request

ML20198F753
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	08/14/1972
From:	Fine P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Dicker G US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
CON-WNP-0906, CON-WNP-906 NUDOCS 8605290076
Download: ML20198F753 (19)

Text

.-

4

m. . ~

,.._.,..)

G i 4 ,s: ~ ~

AUG14 U7

1. /

Gordon K. Dicker, Chief Environ ental Projects Brench #2 Directorate of Licensing COMerIS 05 PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIROIDENTAL STATDEFI POR HANFORD NO. 2 As requested by your erorendr: of August k, co cents on the cost-Lenefit section of the pre. i .inary draft environ ente: state. ant for Her. ford No. P

re indict.ted cy the c.tteched m isio ac. These were Elve

. to the Proj 2ct Ma nager o 2 Au6 art 1.

Or rE sf V m d N Pa21T'n.e Paui C Fine Cost Felefit Analysis Freach Directorate of L:::e ising cc: w/ encl.

Harold Denton Danie2 Maller Renn' d W !nrd Ro W d Inoce DISTRIBUTION:

L-Suppl./

L-Rdg.

L-AD/SS L-CD l

i i

4 i

orrect , ...L: C E.. .. !. . 8605290076 720014 l pr y~ {DR ADOCK 05000397 sunaur . .PCFint: Ach. .,. . . .

. PDR __

1 O ATE > 6. ./.1..L. ./.7. 2... l Foren AEC-31s .Rev 9 53) AECM 024c neo ees- te -ni ee ps eew s f

i

e XI*1 XI. ALTEIGATIVES 'IO TE PROP 03E3 ACTION AND_ COST-EENEFIT ANA25:S OF TEIP EWIBONENTAL EFFF4TS A. SU?&ARY OF ALTEPNATWES

1. Abandonment of the Project An alternative to be considered in evaluating the hpact cf plant constrt.ction and operation is abandoning the project.

. - Aspects of this are the financial investment sunk in the recility, the environmental impact of alternative power sources, and the costr of delay.

ing the date of availability of power from alternative sources. Total un-recoverable investments in the Lnfor.1 No. 2 project (up to Febrasry 1972) are $27,000,000.1

2. Alternative Sources of Power Power supply alternatives to Fanford No. 2 include purchase of power and fossil-fueled, geotherral, and miscellaneous advanced-concept power plants.

a. Parchase of Power The applicant has investigated possibilities of purchasing power outside the EPA service area and determined that only a srall amount of power (300 average mecavatts) might be purchased in fiscal year 1974, but no indication that any firm power woul'd be available in 1978.2 Purchase of power as an alternative to construction of the Trojan Plant, also part of the Hydro-Therral Power Program, was considered by EPA. "Bonneville has

XI-2 canvassed the power systems in the western United States and Fritish Colurloia with which it is interconnected to determine if any surplus firm power veuld be available in 1974-1975 or 1975-1976. No firm power is available for

[

parchase from any such power cystem cr systems for these years which could replace power not available from the project (Trojan) due to a delay."3 k

Projected growth of power derand in the West Region indicates a continuing requirement for new generating facilities for all systems interconnected to EFA, and no reliable firm energ imports to EPA can be identified.

b. Hydroelectric At the present time, the culk of the electric energ .'onsumed it. the Pacific Northwest is produced fror. hydroelectric plants. However, tort of the suitable hydroelectric sites have already been utili ed, and n

within a few years ainest all of the economically feasible hydro enere potential in the region vill have been built or vill be under construction."5 The generating capacity to ce installed at sore of the enjor hydro projects will be fully utilized oniu occasionally to meet peak loads. The turbine intake capacity of some plants will exceed stream flow most of the year.

The regicn has reached the etage in its development, however, where future electric power plants vill inercasingly have to be therral (steam-electric)

P.aits . Additional low-cost paking power will continue to be obtained from hydro resources by installing more generator units at existing hydro projects, but baseline power production must come increasingly from thermal plants.

c. Foccil-Fuel An advantage of using fossil ful for generutoring electricity is a higher i

em

XI-3 4 t

thermal efficiency than that realized by licht-water nuclear plants. This, together with the discharge of heat to the atmosphere through the stoke-stack of a fossil-fuel plant, means that the amount of vaste heat dis-charged to cooling water is about 35% less for a fossil-fuel plant than for a nuclear plant of the same electrical output.  ;

A serious disadvantage of fossil fuels, however, is the sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulates discharged from the stacks. Particulate removal of more than 99% cen be accomplished with available technology, althoagh the cost is considerable. Techniques used are mechanicel or elec- ,

trostatic collectors, filters, scrubbers, and baghoases. However, ocides of sulfur and nitregen are another matter. No effective fall-sesle e12ip-n?1t for use oy utility generating plants has been demonstrated to be

' effective in removing n high percentage of these emissions. Sulfur emissions can be minimized by burning Icw-sulfir flels, 'aut such faels are in short supply.

! Fael storage at he plant site must also be considered. For a no.rral 80-day supply, one report 10 estimates that a pile of coal 100 feet high and 8 acres in area vould be needed for 1100-MWe plant In addition, storage, transportation, and disposal facilities would ce re-quired fa* waste ash. Assuming coal with a typical ash content of 10%,

and assuming the trapping of most fly. ash, the combined furnace ash and fly ash produced from an 1100-K4e fossil plant operating at a capacity factor of 80% vould be roughly 330,000 tons per year. Disposal of this on land would require 60 acres assuming an esh pile about 100 feet deep.

I

XI-5 It is estimated, beced on EPA standards, that 120 tons per day of SO2

70 tons per day of NOx, and 20 tons per day of particulates vould be discharged to the atmosphere from an 1100 MWe coal-fired plant. ,

3 Oil-fired .

The eupplu cf low-sulfur crude vil in the Western United States is limited, eithough Alaska production is increating. Lov sulfur oil is available fror. .

Indonesia, Liberia, South America, and North Africa, at.d (at higher prices) from the Gulf Coast of thb United States.b 011 delivered by barge up the Columbia River from refineries in Set.ttle vae assumed by the applicant to cost about $4.23 per barrel. One barge load per de/ (a total annual

~ ,

requirement of 14,000,000 barrels) is required for an 1100-MWe plant. -

"It ic anticipated that desulfurization of demestic residual fuel oil, altnough technically feasible, vill not be economically attractive in the foreseeable future. Current estimates indicate that this process vould add about $1.00 per barrel to the cost of the fuel oil to lower the sul- ,

< F fur content to 0 5% by weight without -any accompanying reduction in ash content." Stack gas treatment processes in pilot plant tests can remove about 90% of the sulfur precent in stack gases. Depending upon i the process employed, from $0.25 to $1.00 per barrel is added to the cost of fuel oil burned. ,

l It was estinated, based on EPS standards, that 60 tons of SO2 , 30 tons cf NO x , and 20 tons of particulates vould be discharged daily from an 1100-  :

MWe oil-rired plant.

, + . . , , , . - - . - _ .

XI-6

d. Geother:ral Tre :rajor s ources of geother al energ/ in the U. S. are in California; hosever, the State of Oregen plans to begin exploration for such resources.

Presently, none has teen developed to the point where assessment of its patential has been rade. Forecastirg this potential is uncertain because of lack of knowledge of several influencing factors; namely, availability and extent of geother:ral reservoirs; the cost of obtaining steam and generating power frorr. these sourcec; arad resolution of the resulting poten-

• ~ '

tial envircreental effects euch as inad subsidence, disposal of the hot vater containing checicals, discharge of noxious gases, and noise from escaping stwarr.. These lattirr problecc have been shown to be ranageable with present systers. 3

e. Other Sosrees Cther power producing nethods, such as breder reactors, ragnetohydrodynamics, fuel cells, solar power, cosi gasification, and thermonuclear fucion, are the subject of current research but have not yet attained a practical status for the ccnstruction of large power plants for 1::aediate use.

9 XI-16

a. Once-through Cooling Power plants have commonly used once-through cooling in which water is withdrawn from a river to cool the condenser and then returned to the river.

Once-through cooling has many advantages including low cost, lack of fog

,lyv~cbOL, as might occur from a cooling tower, and a consumptive water use

<{7-since the evaporation from the thermal plume on the surface of the river is generally less than the evaporation from a cooling tower.

. . llowever, once-through cooling results in nearly all the plant waste heat being discharged to the river. This added heat load may have adverse effects en the biota in the river. Thermal standards included in the State of Washington water quality standard l9 contain lhe following special condition applying to the Columbia River between the Washington-Oregon border (river mile 309) and Priest Rapids Dam (river mile 397).

"No measurable increases shall be permitted within the waters designated which result in water temperature exceeding 68 F, nor shall the cumulative total of all such increases arising

~

from non-natural causes be permitted in excess of at = 110/

(T - 15); for purposes hereof "At" represents the permissive increase and "T" represents the resulting water temperature."

The 1960-1968 maximum August temperature of the Columbia River, as measured at the Priest Rapids Dam, was 67.8 F. Thus, on a hot day in the summer-time, it can be seen that very little temperature rise might be possible without exceeding the 68 F limit. Also, taking the ' river temperature as

i

, XI-17 66 F, the maximum temperature rise allowed from at - 110/(T - 15) is 2 F.

Using 7.88 x 109 Btu /hr as the total waste heat loac' and taking as a D conservative assumption no heat loss by evaporation from the thermal plume on the river, the average temperature rise of the overall river in the vicinity of Hanford No. 2 would be 1.0 F at the minimum licensed riverficw of 36,000 cfs, or 0.3 F at the average riverflow of 115,000 efs. Since 1.0 and 0.3 F are sizable fractions of the total allowable temperature rise from all nonnatural causes of 2 F, water quality criteria could be violated. Also, considerable additional study would be required to more completely evaluate the effect of the temperature rise on the river biota.

Consequently, once-through cooling has been rejected in favor of cooling towers. .

About the only atmospheric ef fect of once-through cooling on the Columbia River would be a slight (few hours per week) increase in steam fog near the point of discharge, especially on cold winter mornings. This fog would be wispy, shallow, and not a hazard to navigation on the river.

b. Natural-draf t Cooling Towers Natural-draft cooling towers are large, hyperbolic structures in which the intake air is warmed and humidified at the bottom of the tower by contact with the condenser cooling water thus creating a chimney effect due to its buoyancyj i.e., lower density. This chimney effect causes the y air to flow upward, cooling by convection and evaporation, the water cascading downward through the tower. The air discharges from the top of the tower carrying a plume of entrained water droplets (drif t) from the i

I o

e XI-18 tower. Experience with natural-draf t cooling towers indicates that ground-level fog and icing from such towers is extremely rare, as the plumes tend to rise to considerable heights (500-1500 feet) above the elevated release level. Elevated plumes can occasional 1 extend for distances of 10 or M ' dt, more miles on cold, humid daysy j huge silhouette may be esthetically <k-displeasing, A natural-draf t cooling tower has about the same consumptive water use, by evaporation plus drift, as a mechanical-draf t cooling tower.

The natural-draf t cooling tower system considered by the Supply System for the Hanford No. 2 Plant consists of two towers, each 430 feet in base diameter and 450 feet high. The additional capital cost would be

$8.5 million over the cost of a mechanical-draf t tower system. However, X/D n~4Bh.il- .<Urc y'Z

/ system would fail to operate adequately ebout 20 to 30 days per year, during periods when the temperature was very high and the relative humidity was very low. This problem arises from the generally arid geographical area where the Hanford No. 2 Plant is to be located. The low humidity ccuses most of the cooling in natural-draf t towers to take place through evaporation with relatively little cooling by conduction of heat to the air to raise its temperature and lower its density. Therefore, the difference in density between air inside and outside the tower is low at tiues, resulting in poor draf t and reduced cooling capacity. Consequently, since natural-draft cooling towers would yield inadequate performance during the 4

summer and since there appears to 'be no incentive, economic or otherwise, ,q_

for choosing them, a mechanical-draf t cooling tower system was chosen for Hanford No. 2.

e XI-19

c. Cooling Pond A cooling pond is another possibility for Hanford No. 2. Condenser cooling water would be taken from, and returned to, the pond. The pond dissipates waste heat to the atmosphere by evaporation and convection. The pond would require about 2000 acres of surface area, J The use of a cooling pond would reduce the density and perhaps the extent

, , of surface fog when compared to mechanical-draf t towers, due primarily to the larger area of transfer of heat and water to the atmosphere. Experience c.t existing cooling ponds (Four Corners, Dresden, Mt. Storm) shows that steam fogs over cooling ponds are thin, shallow, and do not seriously reduce surface visibilities at distances 500 feet or more from the pond. There is no drift from cooling ponds.

Icing near cooling ponds poses no problem except within 100 to 200 feet of the shore. The ice that is produced is friable and of low density; it is almost always observed on vertical surfaces, rarely on horizontal ones such as roads.

A major drawback to the use of a cooling pond for Hanford No. 2, however, l

is the problem that could result from rising ground-water levels. The integrity of a lining of reasonable cost which would scal the pond and prevent seepage cannot be asserred. The current mathematical model of the ground water beneath the Hanford Peservation indicates that a significant increase in water table can result from percolation of only a few thousand gpm of water from the pond into the ground.15 Substantial time and ef fort

1 XI-22 Thus, the additional high capital and operatin costs of dry cooling towers, MgAM v (

plus the power loss, . . for Hanford No. 2, especially in view of the very small environmental impact expected from the use of mechanical-draf t cooling towers.

5. Alternative Discharge Configuration For the discharge of bleed or blowdown water to the river, the proposed Hanford No. 2 design is a single-port jet discharge. The discharge configuration will be such as to discharge the effluent stream perpendicular to the current flow and directed upwards at an angle of 15 degrees above the horizontal at the point where the pipe touches the stream bottom. The discharge velocity will be approximately 7 fps for rapid mixing with the river.

An alternative possibility would be a multiport jet discharge, sometimes called a multiport jet diffuser. Such a design might have a length of pipe, perhaps 50 to 100 feet long, with small holes in the pipe top or sides, to create small discharge jets all along the pipe length for rapid dilution of the ef fluent with the river. This design has the advantage of very rapid and diffused mixing of the warm effluent with the river water.

The single-point discharge will mix by a factor of from three to five within four or five pipe diameters from th'e outlet, at which point it will be fully bent and headed downstream. Five pipe diameters would be about seven feet. With a multiport discharge, the dilution factor seven feet from the pipe would probably be greater than three to five, depending on the length l

. XI-23 of pipe and the designs aspects of the multiport discharge. Ilowever, at a distance of 200 feet downstream, there would be little essential difference in thermal or chemical dilution regardless of whether a single port or a multiport discharge were used.

A disadvantage of a multiport discharge pipe is the river bottom disturbance in the installation of such a pipe. For example, if the pipe were supported above the river bottom on anchor blocks, the installation of these anchor blocks would disturb the natural riverbed during construction.

The Supply System has made an agreement with the State of Washingto'n that it will minimize such construction effects on the river bottom.

Therefore, because of the desire for minimum construction impact on the river bottom for installation, and because there is little difference

.L s

200 feet downstream, a single-port discharge was chosen over a multiport discharge.

6. Alternative Transportation Procedures Alternatives, such as special routing of shipments, providing escorts in separate vehicles, adding shielding to the containers, and constructing a fuel recovery and fabrication plant on the site rather than shipping fuel to and from the station, have been examined by the staff for the general case. The impact on the environment of transportation under normal or postulated accident conditions is not considered to be sufficient to justify the additional effort required to implement any of the alternatives.

1

)

l 1

XI-24 i I

B. SLMfARY OF COST-BENEFITS A cost-benefit summary is presented in Table XI-3. Only two alternative nuclear plant designs have been included, the proposed Hanford No. 2 Plant and a similar plant with once-through cooling. All other cooling methods have been found unsatisfactory, not feasible, or of excessive cost to be reasonable alternatives. Two alternative fossil-fueled power sources are considered, coal- and oil-fired plants. Natural gas is not in suf ficient supply to be considered a viable alternative for a baseload plant. Gas-

. . turbine systems have operating costs too high to be considered for base-load power generation. All economical hydro sites are planned for exploita-tion, and ,other energy sources are not sufficiently developed to be included for further analysis.

The primary benefit to be derived from constructing a power plant in the Pacific Northwest is the electrical energy of 8.18 billion kilowatt-hours P 9 per year to be made available to the region which relies heavily on electric- ,

ity for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes.

There are a number of benefits that contribute to the local and state economy. The construction of the Hanford No. 2 Plant will provide peak employment of nearly 900 persons with an average employment over the 4-1/2 year construction program of 545. A total payroll of $65,000,000 and $25,000,000 to be spent for materials and services will contribute to the local economy during the construction period. An operating staff of 65 will be permanently employed.

i

XI-25 TABLE XI-3. Cost-Benefit Summary Nuclear Plants "'d A*"

• Cost and Benefit Factors wit int T w ers Proposed Design lOnce-throughCooling Coal-fired Oil-fired f.nergy generated 9 851 capacity 8.18 a 10 8.40 a 10' 8.18 a 10' 8.18 a 10' factor, kWh/yr Direct employment, persons 65 65 62 62 6

Generation tas, $10 per year 1.64 1.68 1.64 1.64 Total financing required, $10' 410 394a 2M 247 y-Crossannualcosts.**present worth at 61 per year over a 30-year period, $106 272 2 77* 2. h_ 497 724 Total coat, $106 Q E 792 971 h

Land required, acree 30*** )o*** 140 65 6 0 fuel required annually 208 tone U 30g 204 tone U 034 3.6 a 10 tons le a 10 bbl.

(770 tons Uy;8 f or (770 tona Ujo g for initial loading) initial loading)

Chemicals discharged to the air, None None 120 502 80 $0 2 tons / day , 70 NO: 30 NO x Particulatea discharged to the 1.3 None 21 21 sir, cons / day (0.051 drift) 6 0 6 0 Heat added to C'olumbia River 80 a 10 7880 a 10 45 a 10 45 a 10 (man), Stu/hr e

Cheatcals added to Columbia 910 None 4200 4200 River, 1b/ day Impact on Columbia River Not measurable Not completely aquatic biota evaluered lepact en terrestrial blota Negligible Negingible hegligible Negligible Radioactiv1cy discharged to river, 0.2 0.2 None None man-rema/yr Radioactivity discharged to air, 2.2 2.2 '7 None man-reas/yr . e Consumptive use of river water, 37 man. w-U* '-"W 24 26 Y b f2c -

1 tratn/ day Transportation 75 truck loads /yr 75 truc's loadalyr 1 barge / day Atmospheric effecta Visible plume None Visible plume Visible plume from cooling f rom cooling from cooling towers. towers. towers.

Potential for Potential for Potential for fog and ice on fog and ice on fog and ice roads. roads. on roads.

New transmission lines, miles 31 31 31 31 Staff estimate.

Includes cost of fuel, operation and maintenance, insurance, administrative coats, but excludes interest m amortisation 4 M k a..

' Land ut111:ed for plant, escluding undisturbed land used for esclualon twas.

XI-26 l l

l State taxes estimated at $1,640,000 per year will be paid by the Supply l l

System. (This assumes that the power generation tax presently being 1 considered by the legislature of the State of Washington is assessed. This would apply to all plant alternatives.)

The inclusion of a visitors' center at the plant is expected to draw about 15,000 persons per year to learn about nuclear power and observe the plant in operation. Scientific studies of the ecology of the site and of the Columbia River have contributed to the fund of knowledge of the region.

The applicant has estimated the capital cost of constructing the proposed Th-SS 1100-MWe p'lant to be million; total financing required is $410 million. '

^

The present value of the annual operating costs

• of fl'f. $

million over

/\

a 30-year period is $272 million using 6% as the cost of capital. (This interest rate is representative of the cost of money to municipal agencies and public utility districts. Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency, will obtain all its financing by issuing revenue bonds.) The total of these costs is $682 million.

The estimated capital cost of a similar nuclear plant using once-through cooling is $274 million. The staff estimated total financing required would be approximately $394 million. This method of cooling results in lower turbine back pressure and thus greater output from the system.

/

costs (lower without a cooling tower)'were estimated g erating$17,I to be million with present value over 30 years at M Y k rj u

• Includes fuel, operation, maintenance, insurance, administrative costs, and replacements. Excludes amortization, 6 ML "

interest >

• XI-27 6% of h*0 million for a total cost ofhhbmillion. The Supply System b ^

chose not to pursue this design because of less well-known environmental factors. ' ?:.

The 30-year costs of both coal- and oil-fired plants (computed on the same basis as for the nuclear plants) exceed the costs of the nuclear plants due to higher fuel costs. Coal is assumed by the applicant 22 to come from Wyoming or Montana at a mine cost of 13.3 cents per million Beu. Trans-portation cost of $5.15 per ton brings the cost on site to 43 cents per million Btu. Annual operating costs are estimated as $36 million. Es timated cost for fuel oil is $4.23 per barrel equivalent to 66 cents per million Btu delivered to the site. Annual operating costs are estimated to be

$52 million. Heat rejection to the river is substantially lower for fossil-fuel plants, but large amounts of S0 2 , NO , and particulates are discharged to the air.

Having selected mechanical-draf t cooling towers for the proposed design, the applicant investigated various modifications of these towers to reduce the visible plume during winter months when fog may persist at ground level. With the selected towers as the base, incremental capital costs for these modified tower systems were estimated to be:22 Mechanical-draf t cooling towers with 60 foot stacks-- $3,000,000 Mechanical-draft wet-dry cooling towers -- $4,000,000 Mechanical-draft cooling towers with lined pond --$30,000,000 I

XI-28 The first of these design modifications incorporatea 60-foot stacks in place of the 20-foot standard fan stack to discharge the plume at higher elevation.

The second has provisions to mix the moisture-laden air with air heated by hot inlet water. The third proposes using a one-square-mile lined cooling pond in the winter months in lieu of the towers. The occurrence of fog of suf ficient density and frequency as to create a predictable hazard is so small, that the additional expenditure to reduce it is not warranted.

. . Land requirements for the nuclear plant do not include the acreage needed d---

for .sn exclusion area. Only about 30 acres will be disturbed by construction with the r,emainder essentially untouched. Land requirements for the coal-fired plant include that necessary for the building's coal storage pile and ash disposal, while fuel storage area only is included for the oil-fired plant in addition to the buildings. For the latter, a permanent barge off-loading facility at the riverbank is assumed.

[

• M? P f.

q - ^for the nuclear plant operating at 85% - -

^

g *) ,c u; cs A

~7 approximately 208 to 's per year of U3 0s of which a considerable fraction b 'Q/LL .

cchita.Ajkwky QEjkf& l?~J. 4

- .r initial loading c. 770 tons of U 038-l f'LtCA( h h cf Wk h.%s2b'[,J L l Plutonium produced through the fission process is also recoverable l

l for future use. The fuel burned in the coal-fired plant (3.7 million cons /

year) is assumed to be delivered by train; one train load per day would l be required. One barge load of oil per day (14 million bbl / year) would l

l be needed to fuel the oil-fired plant.

i l

i N

l XI-29 Evaporative loss of water from the proposed plant of 37 cfs maximum is I

only about 0.1% of minimum licensed flow (36,000 cfs) of the Columbia River, or 0.03% of the average annual flow (115,000 cfs) .

am loss of l

1 A

water can be attributed to the once-through cooled plant. Cooling towers are assumed for the fossil-fired plants which have only about 24 cfs evaporated water loss.

Alternative land uses are not evaluated because of the abundance of barren land on tha. Hanford Reservation, and the fact that there are no other plans

, . for use of the land. Alt.cnative radwaste systems have not been evaluated because the proposed system meets the requirements of proposed Appendix I of 10 CFR ,Part 50.

1. Balancing of Costs and Benefits The environmental costs of constructing and operating the Hanford No. 2 Plant are the use (for the life of the plant) of 30 acres of land not other-wise used or intended for use in an area of thousands of acres of barren land; the destruction of the habitat of a reduced (by a large wildfire) population of small mammals occupying the area; localized temporary increase in turbidity in the river from dredging; the consumptive use of 37 cfs (maximum) of Columbia River water which is about 0.1% of licensed minimum flow; a possibility of increasing fog in winter on highways a few miles from the plant for 12 to 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> per year in an area where natural fog occurs up to 38 days per year; the discharge of gaseous and liquid ef fluents contain-ing radionuclides that will result in an increased exposure to the local population of less than the normal variation in natural background; the

XI-30 discharge of heat and chemicals to the river in such amounts as to cause no measurable effect on overall ecological balance in the river; the use of 480 acres of desert for transmission lines.

These adverse effects must be compared to the benefits of supplying electricity to the Pacific Northwest, a region critically dependent upon this form of energy for economic growth and the amenities of life. The alternatives of supplying power from fossil-fueled plants would involve 1 cremental present-worth costs l oflIlo.,' ogo, for a ocoal-fired 0o plant and <br-

1. 289,000)o00 for an oil-fired plant. Fossil-fueled plants would contribute to air pollution through the emission of S02 , NO , and particulates to the atmosphere. alternative of once-through cooling for the plant would An}53,

/ 00 0 ,0 o 0 <-

reduce cost by over the 30-year life of the plant, with attendant unevaluated impact on the Columbia River.

The staff concludes that the benefits from the Hanford No. 2 Plant outweigh the environmental costs associated with it and that the alternatives considered are not economically nor environmentally justified.

O