ML20204A370
| ML20204A370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle, 05000426, 05000427  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1973 |
| From: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197G423 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-663 NUDOCS 8605120132 | |
| Download: ML20204A370 (4) | |
Text
_
'T DISTRIBUTION Docket Nos. 50-424, 425 426 6 427 L-Rdg.
JUL 6 1973 L-AD/SS IrCBAB Docket Numbet 50-42)50-42s ENt/fr.v. Il,
['lQ (NEpg) 50'426 and 50-427 Daniel R. Nuller, assistant Director for Environmental Projects, L COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY DRAFI ENVIRONMENTAL STATFliENT FUR VOCrLE PLANT NAME: Alvin W. Vogtle Huc1 car Plant LICENSING STAGE:
CP DOCKLT NUMBER:
50-424, 50-425, 50-426 and 50-427 RESPONSIBLE BRANQl: Environmental Projects Branch No. 2 PROJECT NANAGER:
R. Clark DATE REQUEST RECEIVED BY CBAB: June 20, 1973 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE:
June 28, 1973 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE: Corments on preliminary DES.
REVIDi STATUS: Completed as roc,ards cost-benefit analysis.
Enclooed are comments on the preliminary draf t environmental statement for the Vogtle Nuclear Plant. These deal with various mattern of con-sistency, wording, and organization of the material. The comments were given informally to the project mnager of July 3.
),
5
. Lpa. vmbs t.
jm l
Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: w/o enc 1.
A. Ciachusso W. IfcDonald w enc 1.
J. Hendrie S. Hanauer G. Dicker R. Clark R. Ballard
- p. Fine B605120132 860131 ~
..l L:AD/SS-L:CBAB PFine:peb HDen tori
)
sunwr.
CGiZ-m m,JTiff50 ol" l 7! 6 / 73 ~
... -,. -........ ~.
~
~~"
on,,7/6/73 7
1
(
i COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY DRA' FT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR VOCTLE NUCLEAR PLANT
.On page iii in the second sentence of item 2, it is suggested that the words "Each unit" be replaced by the words "Each of the four units."
On page lii in the third sentence of item 2, the thermal capacity of 3,425 megawatts is related to a net electrical capacity of 1,100 mcgawatts, whereas the attached copy of the Quarterly Progress Report on Status of Reactor Construction submitted to the AEC by the applicant as of March 31, 1973, gives a corresponding figure of 1,121 megawatts.
On page iv in the next-to-last item, it is suggested that the words
" transmission line" he inserted before the words " rights-of-way."
In Chapter 8 on "The Requirement for Power," since there are a number of references to a report of April 1,1972, from the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council to the Federal Power Commission, it is suggested that a paragraph be included to indicate whether any of the conclusions would be changed if the analysis were based on the report of April 1,1973.
(The 1973 report is referred to in Chapter 9.)
On page 9-2, the first sentence of the third paragraph scens weak in stating that the staff does not expect any foreseeabic reduction in demand to eliminate the need for at Icast one Vogtle unit.
Chapter 8 dealt with the need for all four Vogtle units.
On page 9-4, Table 9.1 is confusing in that it includes costs from a variety of sources dating back to 1970 and not specific to the vogtic plant.
(The figures in parentheses ascribed to the applicant's Environnental Report do not check with those given on page 8. 3-la of that report.)
The conclusion indicated by Table 9.1 that a nuclear plant would he much more economical than an oil-fired plant does not agree with the figures given on page 8. 3-la of the Environmental Pwport, although it is not clear how those figures were arrived at.
An explanation of this discrepancy is needed.
On page 9-4 in the second sentence of the last paragraph, the lower consumptive water use and heat discharge to the river for a coal-fired than for a nuclear plant is due not only to the higher ef ficiency of a coal-fired plant but also to its discharge of some heat to the atmosphere th rough the smokes tack.
On page 9-5, the statement in the second paragraph that, from an environmental viewpoint, neither a coal-fired nor nuclear plant of fers a significant advantage at this site does not give sufficient weight to the fact that air pollution would be auch greater for a coal-fired plant.
The greater heat discharge to the river for a nuclear plant is rendered insignificant by the use of a closed-cycle cooling system.
(
_2-On page 9-9, the first paragraph assumes that the Vogtle units operate for
,80% of the time, but further deducts 15% of the capacity for reserves. The result is that the number of kilowatt hours per year is lower by 15% there than elsewhere in the preliminary DES, for example, at the bottom of page 10-14.
I The heading of " Conclusions" for Chapter X does not describe its contents appropriately.
It is suggested that Sections 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 be included in a new Chapter X entitled " Impact of Proposed Plant on Natural Resources" and that Section 10.4 be placed in a separate Chapter XI entitled
" Balancing Costs and Benefits of Proposed Plant."
On page 10-7, it is suggested that the last sentence of the fourth paragraph i
and the second and third sentences of the fif th paragraph be deleted, on the grounds that electric energy is only one component of total national economic activity and that this component should not be equated to the total.
On page 10-9, the next-to-last sentence gives an example of a cost of $70 million for complete restoration, referring to a document for the Diablo Canyon Site.
There are to be two units at that alte, while there would be four units at the Vogtle site and added costs on that account.
On page 10-17 in Table 10.5, a cost of $30.8 million is given for decommissioning, but that cost is not mentioned in the prior discussion of decommissioning on page 10-9.
On page 10-20, Table 10.6 deals with only part of the costs of the proposed facility and needs a modified heading. The entry for the U.S. A. of national resources consumed would seem to apply during conatruct ion and operation more than for post operation as presently indicated.
l i
I
setste approted zud. et
..W sad.: o 2/69 ti. S. AT0fGC ENERGY CO:CIISSION Burecu ilo. 38-R107 t
(
QUARTERLY PROG. dS REPORT ON STATUS OF REACTOR.0::STRUCTIC:i c;-7;CIAL TITLE A1D IDCATIC's 2.
ICRSO:i TO EE CO:iTACED:
(:i :e, ;t:y CF PROJECT:
and Address Including ZIP Cede)
Alvin W. Vogtle Nuc1 car Plant Unit No.,1
- 1. S. Mitchell, III, Vice Pres. & Sec.
Vaynesboro, Georgia Georgia Rower Co., P. O. Box 4545 (Burke County)
Atlanta, Ca. 30302 I"n on e :
5 n-?t.no n.nu Mecavatts
- ES C
- *ED PC'hR CITTPUT: :ffn'ti:clxrtre)x g,
ner=al capacity of recetn:CSSS.(3 A11.+ 14 Pump) 3,425 3,579 a.
b.
Electrical capacity of plant, grcoa.....
1.167 c.
Electrical capacity of plant, net.......
1,121 c a ::ATA:
ESTI:'.ATED COST
- .uclear Production Plant (Include the costs of ens;ineering services (in thouscats) supplied by other cc= panics, engineering cad supervision perforced t.y the utility, and administrative cad general extenses, taxes, in-surance and interest during construction to the extent pe
- :itted u2 der Electric Plcnt. I:.structicas of the FPC Uniforu Syste s of Ac-counts. Exclude s tep-up trcnsforrer, switchyard, trcnanission cad dis tribution systees).
.1.
Acad cnd Icad richts 950 2.
Structures cnd i= prove =ents 132,040 3.
Reactor plant equipment 283,440 k.
Turbogenerator 110,410 5
Accessory electric equip =ent 40,980 6.
Miscellaneous pcver plant equipment 2,280 7.
Total !iucicar Production Plent 5 70. ] C J 8.
Cumulativo ecsts to date (excluding substation)
- ?
- 11. i n t..-
Training Pesearch cad Develop ent Tuel Fabrication Initial Core Sonres First ritu 1.
Cost *, thousands of dollars
$ 40,500 3
- one Q
- ot Available 2.
- u=ber of asse
- blies 193 3.
Kilogra s of U-238 83,721 k.
E11ogrc a of U-235 2,312 5
0ther (speci.^/ kgs of 2, Pu,.U-233) hs /* / ".'rces : ct / / include costs of uraniun, thorien nlutenlun or U-233.
CL?.0:>0 LOGY:
l=en n e c yearf ges tica:.ec cate n events neee not occurrecJ Application fcr ecnstruction a.
Firs t crern. tion at picat 's e.
per=1; (initial) 8-72 design rull pcver b.
Start of ecnstruction at f.
Plant placed in ec.recreial site operution 4-M Application for facility c.
g.
Firs t dischcrge of nuclear fuel,_
license h.
Firs t ship:ent of irradiated d.
First criticality nucicar fuel for reprocessic;;
Fl".C1.:sT OF PHY5;;AL CC.i3TRUCIC i CC.'1P~.2fIC;i /J2 OF Maren.;i. 1913 J
~- C E.') hY:
y;;. :
si
>>.1..>
I 5 Mitc M11. I!!
Ce Organi:ntion C "r i
iY tic _tice i'r. : 1 u.-r -
3
- ..c r. t.i r Y Signruure
.