ML20198F844
| ML20198F844 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1974 |
| From: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1030 NUDOCS 8605290116 | |
| Download: ML20198F844 (4) | |
Text
._
/
s. j' DISTRIBUTION
/j2sket File (2)
L: Rdg. File
^
S DEC 311374
- f. C
\\
Daniel R. Ik11er. Assistant Director for Environcental Projects. L REVIEW OF DES FOR WPPSS 1 AHD 4 i
i j
PLANT NAME: Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects 1 & 4 LICENSING STAGE: CP DOCKET NUMBER: 50-460 and 50-513 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: Environmental Projects Branch 4 PROJECT iWiAGER:
R. R. Loose DATE REQUEST RECEIVED DY CBAB: December 20, 1974 REQUESTED CONFLETION DATE:
December 31,1974 DESCRIPTIGH OF RESPONSE: Review of DES REVIEU STATUS: Complete as regards cost-benefit analysis In response to a request by the Proje.:t Manager, we have reviewed the sections on the need for power senarating capacity, altsrnatives, and evaluation of the proposed action of this Draft Environmental Stateraent for consistency with present practice and policies, and our cocinents l
are enclosed.
,g H. R. Denten l'arold R. Denton, Assistant Director i
for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
l As stated cc:
A. Ciambusso i
W. ticConald l
F. Schroeder S. Hanauer W. Regan i
R. Loose J. Panzarella r
A. Kenneke R. Boyd RP Asst. Directors TR Asst. Directors SS/GC's l
P. Fine 8605290116 741231 PDR ADOCK 05000460 D
}c....$
PFine;ek
_H tto n. _
126//.74
_.A\\/g.__
i r. aw a.,. v.m acu wa w............,....,............,.......
i
e
/
COM'iENTS ON DES FOR WPPS 1 AND 4 Item 2 on page i of " Summary and Conclusions" states:
"Two steam tur-bine-generators, one per station, will use this steam to provide 1,257 megawatts electrical or NNe (net) of electrical power capacity. A predicted maximum power level of 3,779 M',lt (1,247 MWe) is anticipated at a future date and is considered in the assessments contained in this statement." Tha last figure would correspond to 2,694 M!!e for both units together. However, Table 9.1 uses 2,500 Fl.le,. Table 9.2 uses 2,400 MWe, Table 10.2 uses 2,300 MWe, and subsection 10.4.1 uses the equivalent of 2,630 MWe (17.3 billion kWh/yr. at capacity factor of 75%).
In Table 9.1. the staff estimate (in parentheses) of $1,365 million for the present value of the cost of plant construction for the nuclear plant is apparently based on a CONCEPT calculation as described in the enclosure to a letter of September 30, 1974, from L. L. Dennett of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (copy to R. R. Loose, OL). However, the correspcnding staff estimates of costs for a coal-fired plant given in Table 9.1 do not seem to match those from the CONCEPT calculation.
Scme reference or expla-nation for the staff estimates of construction costs for both the nuclear and the coal-fired plants should be provided.
Section 9.3 on " Alternative Plant Designs" does not deal with such aspects as alternative intake, discharge, chemical, biocide, and sanitary-waste systems, which are treated in Sections 10.2 through 10.6 of the applicant's Environmental Report.
Subsection 10.1.2.3 should mention the occupational onsite radiological exposure as given in the third paragraph of subsection 5.4.5.
/
l\\
t 1
e DISTRIBUTION f*.f MED STAWS (ODr.ketFlie(2) 4 f
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION L: RDG, File
h'V.
ey a N 4(
WASHWGTON, D.C. 2M45
(; 40/$$
Li CBAB DEC 311974 Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects, L REVIEW 0F DES FOR llPPSS'1 AllD 4 PLAflT !!:WE: Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Projects 1 & 4
- LICEllSI;G STAGE: CP DOCKET lMiBER: 50-460 and 50-513 RESPONSICLE CRANCH:
Environmental Projects Branch 4 PROJECTIWIAGER:
R. R. Loose DATE REQUEST RECEIVED BY CEAS: December 20, 1974 REQUESTED C0itPLETI0tl DATE:
December 31, 1974 DESCRIPTIOil 0F RESP 0tlSE: Review of DES REVIEW STATUS: Complete as regards cost-bonefit analysis In response to a request by the Project Manager, we have reviewed the sections on the need for pcwer generating capacity, alternatives, and evaluaticn of the proposed action of this C. aft Environmental Statement for consistency with present practice and policies, and our comments are enciesed.
/
Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
A. Giambusso W. licDonald F. Schroeder S. Hanauer W. Regan R. Loose J. Panzarella A. Kenneke R. Boyd RP Asst. D'irectors I.
TR Asst. Directors SS/BC's P. Fine s
a C0fGENTS ON DES FOR WPPS 1 AND 4 Item 2 cn page i of " Summary and Conclusions" states:
"Two steam tur-bine-ger.erators, one per station, will use this stcam to provide 1,267 megawatts electrical or'KUe (net) of electrical power capacity. A predicted maximum power level of 3,779 IMt (1,247 MWe) is anticipated at a future date and is considered in the assessments contained in this
', statement." The last figure would correspond to 2,694 MUe for both units together. However, Table 9.1 uses 2,500 KWe, Table 9.2 uses 2,400 MWe, Table 10.2 uses 2,300 MWe, and subsection 10.4.1 uses the eouivalent of.
2,630 !?.e (17.3 billion kWh/yr. at capacity factor of 75%).
In Table 9.1, the staff estimate (in parentheses) of $1,365 million for the present value of the cost of plant construction for the nuclear plant is apparently based on a CONCEPT calculation as described in the enclosure to a letter of September 30, 1974, from L. L. Bennett of the Oak Ridge National Labcratory (copy to R. R. Loose, DL). However, the corresponding staff estimates of costs for a coal-fired plant given in Table 9.1 do not seem to match those from the CONCEPT calculation. Some reference or expla-nation for the staff estimates of construction costs for both the nuclear and the coal-ftred plants should be provided.
Section 9.3 on " Alternative Plant Designs" does not deal with such aspects as alternative intake, discharge, chemical, biocide, and sanitary-waste systems, which are treated in Sections 10.2 through 10.6 of the applicant's Environ ental Report.
Subsection 10.1.2.3 should mention the occupational onsite radioleg.ical exposure as given in the third paragraph of subsection 5.4.5.
t 0
4 0
.