ML20198F971

Submits Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch Responses to Doi,Fpc & Fea Comments on Des.Disagrees W/Doi Statement That NRC Should Recommend Maximization of Project Benefits W/O Considering Costs

ML20198F971
Person / Time
Site:	Satsop
Issue date:	05/08/1975
From:	Pollnow L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Norris J NRC
References
CON-WNP-1251 NUDOCS 8605290163
Download: ML20198F971 (2)

Text

i

[0.60$l5Cf MAY 8 1975 DISTRIBUTION OCen ral File -

ttRR: Rdg. File I4RR: CBAB Jan A. ?! orris, Project !1anager, Environmental Projects Branch 4 TliRU: 14111er B. Spangler, Chief, Cost-Benefit Analysis Branen i

REVIEW OF C0!EEllTS 0:1 UNP-3 AtlD 5 DES

We have reviewed the agency corments on the WNP-3 and 5 DES and in general find few, if any, serious problems with the corments as re-lated to any benefit-cost issues. Most of the coments were not directly related to benefit-cost aspects of the DES.

Specific Coments U.S. Department of Interior

1. He do not agree with the statement that NRC should recomend the maximization of project benefits to the public without consider-ing the costs associated with these benefits. Costs as well as benefits must be considered in reconnending investment and manage-ment decisions to utilities.

2. We agree that the nuclear facility may be a r.. ore important recre-

" atica attraction than the Staff has indicated since such facilitics open to the public are not as comon in the Northwest as in other parts of the county. .

i

3. The Department of Interior recormends that the Applicant be required to insure a ministaa flow in Elizabeth Creek to maintain its biolog-ical productivity during low-flow periode. A quick and rough benefit-cost analysis of the loss in productive potential and the cost to the Applicant of avoiding such losses would be helpful in assessing the merits of this reco::rendation Federal Power Cocaission.

1. Supports the DES need for power conclusion.

,[

n ,

' Federal Energy Administration ;k ] /

1. Supports the OES need for power conclusion.

,k

[,j' 8605290163 750508 PDR ADOCK 05000508 '

<s a D PDR O "'C * ** . . . . .

sunua us t- _ __

DA?s D* . . . . . ~

Foran AEC 318 (Rev. 9-53) AECM C240 W u. s. eovsanusnr painrine orrecs sete.sas.ies

t IRAY 8 W5 l Jan A. iiorris .

I

2. The FEA recci:r.:enes a r. ore detailed description of conservaticn measures undertaken by the Applicant along the lines of the discussion in the Jamesport FES. The treatrcent of energy conser-

! vation is rather general and could be strengthened by including a

more thorough discussion of tiie Applicant's effort in tnis area.

l The Jamesport DES clight serve as possible r.odel. .

l l Lynn A. Pollnow i Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch

Division of Technical Review cc

H. Denton A. Kenneke J. Beckerly i

-l ,.

\

(

i o .e

• TR:. By IR;_CBS _

sunw.us h o QW:Ck_ MSpan

. . , , , 5/#//75 5/7/75 Forma MC-318 (Rev. AS3) AECM 0240 # u. s. eovanmusnr paintime orricas ser4.eae.ies L.