ML20062E620: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation hereby submit responses to questions and requests for clarficiation regarding the Environmental Report for the - | and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation hereby submit responses to questions and requests for clarficiation regarding the Environmental Report for the - | ||
proposed Haven lluclear Plant. These questions and requests were transmitted i | proposed Haven lluclear Plant. These questions and requests were transmitted i | ||
, by a letter dated October 2,1978 from Mr. David Schoengold of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin to Mr. Sol Burstein of Wisconsin Electric Power Company. | , by a {{letter dated|date=October 2, 1978|text=letter dated October 2,1978}} from Mr. David Schoengold of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin to Mr. Sol Burstein of Wisconsin Electric Power Company. | ||
f I | f I | ||
' i s | ' i s | ||
Latest revision as of 12:20, 1 June 2023
| ML20062E620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000502 |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1978 |
| From: | Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812110110 | |
| Download: ML20062E620 (50) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:9. . l v I i wisconsin Electnc n.e ccumr 231 W. MICHIGAN. P.C. 30X 2046. MILWAUXEE. WI 53 01 December 7,1978 i Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director . Division of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20555 ; r
Dear Mr. Denton:
i i DOCKET NO. STN 50-502 HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT , On November 28, 1978, we filed with the Public Service Comission of Wisconsin our responses to their questions and requests for clarification regarding i the Environmental Report for the proposed Haven Nuclear Plant. We have enclosed ! herewith for your information five copies of these responses. Very truly yours,
, F f i
Sol Burstein Executive Vice President 1 73121101to
t i I f 4 . ENCLOSURE 1 . t JOINT APPLICANTS' RESPONSE i TO : 1 ! F PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN i QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING r THE EtiVIRONMENTAL REPORT i F t t f l HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT , i f i f ! NOVEMBER,1978
. t i
[ I - h 1 i (- t I~ r 1 n.,..-. . - , . - - - , , , , , - , , , , - - ,. -,,.v,-- -,-,-,-an , , , - . . ,, , , . ,n- , . -
4 %
. i PREFACE i Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Power and Light Company ;
and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation hereby submit responses to questions and requests for clarficiation regarding the Environmental Report for the - proposed Haven lluclear Plant. These questions and requests were transmitted i , by a letter dated October 2,1978 from Mr. David Schoengold of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin to Mr. Sol Burstein of Wisconsin Electric Power Company. f I
' i s
4 I 9 f I-i r i i s
- e l
i f t [ [ t , L l l l
s y y- , . -
. t PSCW COMMENT (Section 1, Item 1)
The application states that a new study shows a $200,000,000 advantage to building one nuclear unit at Haven rather than an all coal alternative. Please provide a copy of this study.
RESPONSE
Tables 1-1 through 1-6 list the results of and input data for the Haven Alternatives of the 1983-1992 ISUMS Expansion Plans study performed for the evaluation of a. coal alternative to a single nuclear unit at Haven. The production cost were determined using WUMS' production cost computer program and the discounted revenue requirements were determined by the Revenue Requirement Program developed by Wisconsin Electric. S i 9 4
a T^ T;bla 1-1
. . i 1983-1992 UUMS EXPANSION PLANS
~
IIAVEN ALTERNATIVES DISCOUNTED REVENUE REQUIREMENTS' (DRR) Accumulated In 1978 Million Dollars Through Year 2 llaven Units 1 Haven Unit. All Coal Units 1994 DRR 5,301 5,327 5,269 Diff.$ - 26 -32 Diff.% - 0.5 -0.6
. 2017 DRR 9,888 10,191 10,395 Diff.$ -
303 507 Diff.% - 3.1 5.1 Equal DRR Year 1993 1995 . i e e g y _ww- w ye.-- -p = y -. <w-1-- gyp.e-w-m- *.o ,r--- -- w- .---w- yy - - + , , , ,- ,er- n ir yvw+w y ywy + wye -m w ,e y g w- p- =w-w- ,r,--- ei e y
Table 1-2 l 1983-1992 WUMS EXPANSION PLANS
}{AVEN ALTERNATIVES 4
UNIT ADDITIONS and RESERVES (MEGAWATTS) 2 Haven Units 1 Haven Unit All Coal Units Adjusted New Units Total % Purchase New Units Total % Purchase New Units Total % Purchase Yetr Demand Added Capacity Res For 15% Res Added Capacity Res For 15% Res Added Capacity Res For 15% Res 1983 7447 4 00 .9017 21.1 -- 400 9017 21.1 -- 400 9017 21.1 -- 1984 7695 - 9008 17.1 -- 9008 17.1 9008 17.1 -- 1985 8015 400 9408 17.4 -- 400 9408 17.4 -- 400 9408 17.4 l -- 1986 8307 - 9408 13.3 126 - 9408 13.3 126 - 9408 13.3 126 1987 8651 950 10358 19.7 -- 950 10358 19.7 -- 600 10008 15.7 -- 1.988 8970 - 10358 15.5 -- - 10358 15.5 -- 600 10608 18.3 -- 1989 9290 900 11225 20.8 -- 400 10725 15.4 -- - 10575 13.8 94 , 1990 9617 - 11225 16.7 -- 600 l'1325 17.8 -- 600 11175 16.2 -- 1991 9936 300 11449 15.2 -- - 11249 13.2 154 600 11699 17.7 -- < 1992 102J0 450 11868 15.4 -- 650 11868 15.4 -- 200 11868 15.4 -- t e *
. l O %
6 e o e ,
, _ -- , , ,,n, - . . - ---n -
---,,m,, - . , , , ,,e,--m-.-,.g , - . , - . , , -n..-a. -e-w, . , , - ,oe c-, , , , -p, ,e~ ep, , , - , , ,--,
7 - - .-a ,- e,-, ,, - .., ----e-
. - _ _ . - . . .. .. . . . . - _ . . _ . ~
TF.ble 1-3
. ?
1983-1992 WUMS EXPANSION PLANS -
, HAVEN ALTERNATIS
- i Cash Flow Table All Coal Units Production Construction Costs (Thousands of dollars in year shown)
Year Costs 83 Unit .85 Unit 87 Unit 88 Unit 90 Unit 91 Unit 92 Unit 92 Unit (CT)* , 1976 -- 1,363 -- 1977 -- 1,750 200 1978 -- 3,571 1,400 1979 3,100 7,670 3,100 --
.1980 8,100 43,532 9,200 400 1981 8,100 103,729 16,000 1,400 --
1982 8,100 77,091 39,000 6,300 2,300 -- 4 1983 591,004 1,392 157,000 28,900 6,200 476 1984 649,950 -- 115,000 60,800 22,700 1,667 -- -- 1985 730,767 22,000 226,900 49,500 7,503 2,739 134 1986 821,353 ,--- 172,800 195,900 34,420 7,384 468 l 1987 930,870 29,700 156,500 72,414 27,036 2,107 1988 1,050,754 -- 26,900 270,242 58,955 9,669 1989- 1,172,006 -- 205,808 233,320 20,341 -- j 1990 1,316,448 35,373 186,394 75,910 147 1991 1,472,165 --- 32,038 57,811 17,778 1992 1,642,431 -- 9,936 4,634 1993 1,765,158 -- -- 1994 1,891,329 1
- Combustion Turbine 1
- C.__._...-._.__ __ _ __.. ___ . ,__. . _ . . . . _ , . . _ _ __ . . . , . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ . , _ . . , _ _ , _ , . ,,_ . . _ . , _ . . , , , . . . _ . . _ . _ _
Tablo 1-4 1983-1992 WUMS EXPANSION PLANS . HAVEN ALTERNATES -
- Cash Flow Table ..
One jlavan_Ruclear__ Unit , Construction Costs (Thousands of dollars in year shown) Production 89 Unit 90 Unit 92 Unit 92 Unit (CT)* 83 Unit 85 Unit 87 Unit Year Costs 1976
-- 1,363 --
-- 1,750 200 28,300 .
1977 4,800
-- 3,571 1,400 1978 2,200
-- 7,670 3,100 1979 12,200
* -- 43,532 9,200 1980
-- 103,729 16,000 39,100 --
1981 39,000 92,000 .1,310 -- 1982 -- 77,091 476 j 1,392 157,000 183,300 2,382 1983 582,904 4,764 1,667 649,950 -- 115,000 241,800 1984 22,000 264,500 17,865 7,503 __ 1985 730,767 , -- 106,500 41,686 34,420 2,904 1986 821,353 160,787 72,414 7,827 882,570 35,600 1987 -- 123,866 270,242 28,658 1988 984,541 25,011 205,808 62,493 l i 1989 1,098.965 -- 35,373 247,319 147 1990 1,233,608
-- 197,578 17,778 1991 1,378,174 33,961 4,634 1992 1,535,195 .
1993 1,651,938 1994 1,769,892
- Combustion Turbine P
- ~ - . - -
Trbis 1-5 1983-1992 UUMS EXPANSION PT.ANS _ HAVEN' ALTERNATES .
~
Cash Flow Table Two Haven Nuclear Units , Production Construction Costs (Thousanas of dollars in year shown) - 83 Unit 85 Unit 87 Unit 89 Unit 91 Ur.ic 92 Unit Year Costs 1976 -- 1,363 -- -- -- 1,750 200 28,300 1,660 1977 -- 1978 -- 3,571 1,400 4,800 100 1979 -- 7,670 3,100 2,200 155 43,532 9,200 12,200 2,385 1980 -- 103,729 16,000 39,100 5,000 1981 -- 77,091 39,000 92,000 8,700 1982 -- 19,200 1983 582,904 1,392 157,000 183,300 -- 649,950 - .115,000 241,800 60,500 379 1984 1,262 730,767 22,000 264,500 122,200 -- 1985 106,500 241,600 5,302 1,894 1986 821,353 -- 5,176 882,570 35,600 189,000 23,987 1987 -- 94,100 50,625 18,811 1988 984,449 41,157 44,100 188,867 1989 1,058,149 163,238
-- 136,100 1990 1,158,131
- 24,745 122,460 1991 1,291,612 -- 22,346 1992 1,445,059 --
1993 1,546,874 1994 1,662,733 1 l e w
e o b Table 1-6 1983-1992 Expansion Plans 5 . Input Assumptions 1 1. Based on 1976 Advance Plan unit operating data
- c i d
j-
=
- 2. Nuclear fuel cost $0.60/million Btu (1976 dollars) I J >
- 3. .New unit coal cost $1.30/million Btu (1978 dollars) b 4
- 4. Financial Factors Property Tax Rate 2.25 %
l 10.00 % 1 Investment Tax Credit
- I AFDC Rate 4.00 %
Composite Tax Rate 51.80 % 10.864% Discount Rate 1 Coal Nuclear Book life years 34 28 i Tax life years 22.5 16.0 ,
- Salvage value % -1.0 -7.0 ;
Tax depreciation method is double declining balance switching to SYD. , All coal unit plan includes nuclear plant precertificate I ' l' expenditures of $40,500,000 spread over five years which is equivalent to $27 million in discounted revenue j requirements.
. 5. - Cost of Capital Calculation Capital Cost of Weighted Cost f Ratio % Capital % of Capital %
- 9.20 4.416 f Long Term Debt 48.00 i . Preferred Stock 12.00 9.40 1.128 Common Equity 40.00 13.30 5.320 ,
a l Total Weighted Cost of 10.864 . Capital i i 4 ( t 6 l
'PSCW COMMEtlT (Section 1, Item 2)
Table 1.1-19 shows reserve margins of 12-13% in the years 1969-1973. In those years were there any system failures or losses-of-load? RESPONSE-No system failures occurred during the years 1969-1973 due to inadequate reserves. While there was no voltage reduction required by the Wisconsin Utilities to meet demands on any of the annual peak times, there were four situations during the period 1969-1973 when peak reduction by voltage reduction was necessary. These occurred on June 30, July 1, and July 2, 1970 and on July 21, 1972. On the
, occasion of the annual peak of August 27, 1973, while Wisconsin companies were <
l , able to avoid voltage reduction, other MAIN members resorted to' curtailinc interruptable load and exercised voltage reduction. l 1 l r h
! . +
b t t j . l l -
e O a O PSCil COMMErlT (Section 2. Item 1) . l. How will the site plan be modified to make it a one-unit site? Will this change affect any other land use on the site? , t RESP 0tiSE The site plan for one unit remains essentially the same as for two units except that the containment structure, auxiliary building, control building, diesel l generator building, and turbine building for a second unit would be eliminated. The attached Figure 2-1 shows which structures and facilities would be eliminated for the single unit site plan. Land use impacts for one unit will remain essentially the same as for two units, j since the areas disturbed during construction will be essentially the same or slightly less. The land use impacts durina construction are described in , Sections 4.1.3, 4.2.4 and 4.3.1 of the Environmental Report. Land use impacts during the operational phase of the plant are described in Section 5.8 of the Environmental Report. t i e
%p
, I .l l l l l
- I
. . l I
-----,---,e c. .
8I 4
~)
g M i~ y *' Ih ] i i . -,. ./,. h' [f,M,~.; 4A f.m.),I"d-d tiw i I [l'2.,dk_ 3 Ms. :I . 3 d V 3. WF I.+!ggi1 \-
.q,. .F-.
,s.. o /' -
.,t . r i -r I 'r u '.i< b I 4\,%..%.
*hf ~s l It
$ - ~ -h:hh,=N.gt./ l=-ikh' 5'Y Lh:l 1 Wshy* $ 4. -k.gr!.gb!c,d
'a-
> -ER.!W' R. ,'k sii a l h>4 ,g, i@]5$' @ 'i~" N. $%.wpld, t.;.f< 0ii
- m. . $
s ll, 4 i!@., ..k' n%$@i N.%ic*-
- G &p.* &n y:~,rs' ? . r'\ f '.:~,LK
-='
.A
/"" v 4 Q;Vi hW-~% E
^
u ;',I b ' Qy%,(h uE8
- a. '2 x l l.
' w 2' \ : - r 4,~, "
.: ; N h w$5
! hiy!
f i ;. t [ '[.uyI~ty .I' * 'l I'
~
4 hh[OM'9
;l'm.t i
.%s Q ai v.iS] I[Mh El k '
.hf. mN#Ed.[.a a9:I 4Q '
, I Edf.s i
ca. 1 / piiMOO I I k,'i. ji; I 16,9 NF'DW!!'g:w$g(j%h. G j .i % h I wt wgr ,g. r yggg r si e i z' 4...
-.[gqr I
[g$h v ,--l mfg,i , 'l:e +*7 y .ws. g. - y ,L... h m% 2 % e : p .. 3
;[ f . aI 4fi%a?~J;iU=
l
.. w . w - > 1f e48 .
r [: M.
.~ti g
4 i,.!.ngpa w% a i
'. g i u %:-
lii:,
,1
'l
, s
,t a fs.5-.z.h N'
.ci is s i
s f d4 -u ' 8. ' W C wd 8 1a,..
.1 .
._ s), ! '
' &..m. ~h S'qj: b, e h. $31 W,k D I N d-['/jr
$s[h d-[,bON: fMh d WR. s%d .
e m >5% d.., - s% W ~
~p, vb o C a n( M (ja. abbjf I eM 4 l Q
' il p w- ---w4d
=
a Vs. ,) y,k , , a j !
't
!In f
d f..lj rq' 3 4 W :! h i, /
' ' b ~T da3 8
+ ;
' .b i i gl 'g ' i 3?Wi &]1 s
.E I
d I)~~. I i Ys . ,. 3=f)I '[?e [I t '
/ y 3
,a, I / I -n -
[ -
., e n [ '
ci? h! i '.'M'r' + . [ ia,,g a, i va t ig i 7 l Nt 6 I i i i .T7/ g
}g fci
~'
' 3= ,- (gr '
u ' i ,i .,ll!d"A il..fE. e - pGEUv.}k)R,, . mAm,ea,.e m,,rai , cl> y W, ? *, 's > ' < g4 @, Mrg . i
,' } ,
A.M.,,... o 2y y, , !!i , /,e.$sAi A< t. i
'I -
- J (,1
~ .o i W.
g@epdA'w s.T i V.p"I -e L
-~'
q
.d. if b .
c& %s D, ).L.
-' w =:-b-:.edd. .I i N.).s.
i .
,1,n, lJ
;4 j,
,,i!,i t
+ . I.
if f j I A.L.:4;T<.. r&Mvjmw. b"
' ' ?M s--
1[,3. , , l bi i i 1 yi >
. , sJ .
a m .o i
- m. L, , i ,<1-
. - <.w
O - , .. . . i'
. , , I-l-
i- . PSCW COMMENT (Section 2 Item 2) A description of the Town of Haven was not found. ' There was no summary of the i impacts of the proposed plant on the Town of Haven. ;
RESPONSE
The Village of Haven is a small unincorporated hamlet consisting of several residences, a Post Office, the Town of Mosel Town Hall and fire equipment ! garage, two taverns, an auto repair shop, and a combined building supply / lumber
- yard / feed store. The auto repair shop and one tavern also have gas pumps and ,
sell gasoline. Haven is located outside of the plant site boundary (exclusion area boundary) as shown on Figure 2.1-2 in the Environmental Report. i i f Anticipated impacts on Haven include a change in the visual setting and limited : I increases in traffic and noise levels during construction. Details of these ;
' impacts are discussed in Sections 2.3, 3.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.1.5, and 5.7.1 of the ;
Environmental Report. l The building supply store, the auto repair shop, and the taverns are expected i j to benefit by increases in sales during construction, and to a lesser degree - l 1 ( when the plant becomes operational. , i I i 1
. [
t 1 i 1 i e I l r i
, .r--- - - . - - , . , - - ~ -----n,.- . ------ ---,e- ----,- , -,a - - , - - - - -v -. e,
{ PSCW COMMENT (Section 2, Item 3) Section 2.6.4.2 Why does the design basis for accident condition dose calculations maximize 50 percent CHI /Q rather than maximize potential dose? Discuss the difference between selecting a median value for CHI /Q and some larger value.
RESPONSE
The use of a 50 percent CHI /Q is in accordance with guidance provided in U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2,
" Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations", July 1976.
Since the potential radiation dose during accident conditions is a function
. of CHI /Q, maximizing the CHI /Q maximizes the potential dose. Other assumptions used in calculating potential doses fron accidents and the calculated doses 7
are provided in Section 7 of the Environmental Report. The calculated dose using a 1,arger value for CHI /Q would increase as the ratio of the CHI /Q values. . e
' e e
i
J: PSCW COMMEflT (Section J2_Itam 1) How would the plot plan (Figure 3.1-4) change with only Unit I? Would the capabil-ity of adding a second unit be retained in spite of the recent advance plan order? , Are there any plans for adjusting the construction of Unit 1 to facilitate the , addition of Unit 2? At what cost? I t RESP 0t1SE ' The plot plan for a single unit would remain essentially the same except that structures associated with the second unit would be removed. Figure 3-1, attached, shows which structures and facilities would be removed for the single unit plot plan. { Applicants' application for authority to construct a nuclear plant at the Haven [ site is for a single unit. There are no plans for adjusting the construction j of the unit to facilitate the addition of a second unit at some future time. t f a I w i
. t 5
i 1 l
[, . -
* 'DTMT
, ,..e p
. . . . . , _ .= r. =.
. - .. , . -_.rl. . . ._ . I. . 8, .
. . , _ . , , g a
5*N'" ** 5.. ._;7[i'd ijL*.[,i,., C.'."1(, :Er.J ;-l,;L M,f'Y" -
,,,,w E. 7
_-, . . . _ ~' *. :. : .' . . .. '-p {1~~' #-~2-f h . .J'--l.}'.- . ,. j -
- d :. . . -
.- . . .4:. .6. . l , ,-
......#,' j i :,,,, .a d.c $ 03 y,,
sm "
.2. t." p---?.. .*. T./ ..t c .. . .J A -
, S ,'l."l' - p'l.#g,, j 1,g;...[L
-- -- 4 **
,. }l,s; r[ --
.....'"i n(_ 9 j *...
* **1
, , , ,g g. .,
'ips
,,,, y .
c,'_"**.*T.'
. .,. .. 5 D,,i,'I G. ** O ijh, r
*I'***'=
w
'.,_..l *'
s W A;ej
- s. i
." t . . - . g op::;
d
.'". I;" a.iE0
.+
Ij* ! 8' i El s 1 l If'4 3 3 I I I i ) y J l +
- - . . . i
]
,m-
/
7 i ;'. d _ \ \ . l' r I fic 9k y h{ l s s-gd ij . - t.h f
- ti g K4 [ m lI
,4.,.
, a.t
-- s t
i i
\
1
\ g-l,f y e M.g g l
ds 1l* I! itNi
! i n .h: rr :
-~~ '-d 5
I i: : 2 l '
?
I C' -\- E . .. . f - I". 49 *Ji;b 5-lC .O i 3- -* * . .I -
- -a7'
- gl -
md r i ID UE* ji 3{81. 1 ( i hI~
- 11. ' I."!IT~
b
;i ', .:{! A :-
L .. i'~ d .i. p. . jlr- rt p d. 1
- 3. yf/37:8f,1 . :- a J t..:
ts + l g .f:j.- Ol0 : :"'*-'"-*' N 38!";A xd2 Mi tiu el v-
\ }'
. . , ! m ~~# d.! ': . 7 O l O' !: i .\ I:
/. d ,
.I-e *. '
" $ .- 5 3.:
t y !ri l -;; !d })[4 %' T, ! 1.; r
. i *- -Qi; g
.; :ip 4-
;}.,) l ::A g :
l -----4 F r l :i i t :
.i --(D l .it:11r1I sii
. .ie v :: : :s : 11 1: ;f ..,.. I
-i ~,!:,l'.O.-
d , a e ip. ..g., . _ . .. j- . .
. .q.. q t ;..........-
( ; j I %, .g, 2 4,:
.4 ' * - - '
II
i*-'"(*-
l'_._ 8 sp,il';j'iil#_l1. l i $ *-l1
.. ... i !
.. T
( g ii nu.r-- -.i - - - "-li
.i
, 1..._ _.c i l- :.
,oi-4 b<bi
~
I f "I I I .
!.g ' '" ' I 1 r-*~T q .I -
.n.( g
' t >-
lh. i ai .i/p..a M
-g 1
io e
,ID a._t,:
- l. .....,
w J wMi a li
, D.,~
- - - - == - mt
,I ,.
,s. '
I. 10 a; : 3' r. { EY l. lf b.y$ {7 ~~
$a- A.') ;
l u- 7
? al0 --~~
,.~
.i 7- 1 Ts s y; 0 l- 0 ' } I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
l g 3j, ,. \ ; l n. sa-t ) 'i Q\k \ k j- ) ( i s W Y r e ! i eU -
'E o t
M K l B \ Ey O O
~
O
PSCW COMMENT (Section 3, Item 2) Which of the plant characteristics which are reported for two units cannot be' halved to adjust for one unit? Supply the correct adjustments.
RESPONSE
The environmental impact of the Haven Nuclear Plant as reported in the Environmental Report has been developed on the basis of a two-unit plant. The environmental impact of two units is obviously greater than for a single unit although not, in all cases, by a factor of two. As examples, radioactive releases, radiological doses, consumptive water use and cooling water intake entrainment impacts for one unit would be essentially half those for two units. Land use, dredging, shorefront protection, and transmission line impacts for one unit would be greater than half those for two units. In any event, the two-unit impacts described in the Environmental Report are not significant and the, Applicants believe that the impacts of two units can properly and conservatively be evaluated against the benefits of a single unit at Haven. The information contained in the Environmental Report will, where appropriate, be supplemented to provide the benefits of the project in s terms of a single unit as described 'in Table 3-1. 0
A. TABLE 3-1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION HAVEN ENVIRONitENTAL REPORT The following is a preliminary list of sections of the Haven Environmental Report which may require revision to reflect a single unit. Section 1, Need For Power A modified analysis would be provided to reflect the need for Unit l' at Haven. Section 3, The Plant S'ection 3.4 is tue description of the heat dissipation system and would not change significantly. Minor changes for the single-unit service water system would be provided along with a modified service water pumphouse arrangement. Section 3.6 is a description of chemical waste systems for the plant. Dilution of chemical wastes may be smaller for a single unit. If so, modified chemical discharge concentrations would be provided. Section 5, Environmental Effects Of Plant Operation Chemical discharge concentrations for a single unit may be slightly higher. If so, modified chemical concentrations and impact analyses would be provided. Section 8, Socici And Economic Benefits Of Plant Construction And Operation The peak construction work force will be smaller and the construction schedule will be shorter for a single unit at Haven, Thus, the economic benefits from construction payroll and taxes will be reduced. A modified construction work force and schedule would be provided along with modified economic benefits of the . construction and operation of a single unit. Section 9, Alternative Eneray Sources And Sites Single-unit coal vs. nuclear economic comparisons would be provided, along with pertinent alternative site considerations. Section 10, Desian Alternatives Section 10.1 is a discussion of alternative cooling systems. A modified Section 10.1 including all alternatives would be provided for a single unit.
. . 1 t
Section 10.2 is a discussion of alternative intake systems. A modified l Section 10.2 would be provided for a single unit. Section 10.3 is a discussion of discharge alternatives. No alternative is required for closed-cycle cooling. Discharge alternatives for a single unit with once-through cooling would be provided. 3 Section 11, Summary Benefit-Cost Analysis This section is a summary of all cost-benefit information. A modified r section providing single-unit benefits vs. two-unit impacts would be provided. i 4 P e T J P O
+
G I e
i { 3 i i j pSCW COMMENT (Section 3 Item 3) Calculate the accumulated activity present in the environment as a function of years of plant operation. A plot for each isotope is satisfactory, but identify the year in which equilibrium (discharge rate equals natural decay) occurs and .. the level at which it occurs, where appropriate. Specify the environmental burden at the end of plant life for those isotopes for which equilibrium does , not occur. Distinguish between gaseous and liquid wastes. i i RESPONSE i The p.ractical onset of equilibrium can be expressed as the time required to ! The reach a specified fraction of equilibrium, e.g., 95% of equilibrium. I general shape of the curve showing the approach to equilibrium is identical Note that 50% of equilibrium is for every nuc,lide as shown in Figure 3-2. : reached in one halflife, 95% in 4.3 halflives, and 99% in 6.6 halflives. The equilibrium quantity, the amount at the end of 40 years, and the time to reach 95% equilibrium are given for each nuclide in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 for liquid and gaseous releases respectively. The calculations are based on the annual release quantities presented in Tables 3.5-2 and 3.5-8 of the Environmental , Report. Note that, for isotopes with short halflives, the equilibrium quantities l are less than the annual release rate, since these are decaying faster than they are accumulating. 0 e
*t
. . t 7
i t F The data can be further summarized as follows: (1) For liquid releases, all nuclides reach equilibrium within 40 years' except Sr-90/Y-90, Cs-137/Ba-137m, and H-3. Amounts in the environment at the ,. l i end of 40 years of operation are as follows: i i Isotope Curies i H-3 19100. I I Cs-137 2.01 [ i Ba-137m 1.88 : Cs-134 0.33 *
- i. i I
Total of all others 0.04 f ; (2) For gascous releases all nuclides reach equilibrium within 40 years except . Kr-85, Sr-90, Cs-137, C-14, and H-3. Amounts. in the environment at the end of 40 years of operation are as follows: Isotope Curies ; H-3 19100. Kr-85' 6230. i l C-14 638. -
. t
( Xe-133 5.82 Xe-131m 1.12 ; Total of all others 0.13 C 1 l
l TABLE 3 LIQUID RELEASES TO THE ENVIRONMENT
, . Annual Time To Equil. . Amount - ' ' Isotope
- llalflife . Release 95% Equil. Quantity At 40 Yrs.
l (Years) (Curies) (Years) (Curies) (Curies) Cr-51 7.61E-02 1.4E-03 3.29E-01 1.54E-04 1.54E-04 Mn-54 8.30E-01 3.4E-04 3.59E+1" 4.07E-04 4.07E-04 , Fe-55 2.60E+00 1.4E-03 1.12E+01 5.25E-03 5.25E-03 r Fe-59 1.25E-01 9.7E-04 5.40E-01 1.75E-04 1.75E-04
- Co-58 1.95E-01 1.3E-02 8.43E-01 3.66E-03 3.66E-03 i 1 Co-60 5.26E+00 1.6E-03 2.27E+01 1.21E-02 1.21E-02 !
Sr-89 1.44E-01 3.3E-04 6.22E-01 6.86E-05 6.86E-05
- Sr-90 2.77E+01: 6.7E-06 1.20E+02 2.68E-04 1.69E-04 Y-90 7.30E-03 1.7E-06 1.20E+02 2.68E-04 1.69E-04 t
-Sr-91 1.10E 3.9E-04 4.75E-03 6.19E-07 6.19E-07 9.56E-05 2.3E-04 5.48E-03 6.51E-07 6.51E-07 1
-*Y491m
-+Y-91 1.61E-01 4.9E-05 6.99E-01 1.21E-05 1.21E-05 Y-93 1.17E 1.9E-05 5.06E-03 3.21E-08 3.21E-08
- -Cr-95 1.79E 01: .
7.9E-05 7.74E-01 .2.04E-05 2.04E-05 .: i-95 9.58E-02 8.6E-05 8.49E-01 3.23E-05 3.23E-05 no-99 7.61E-03 6.7E-02 3.29E-02 7.36E-04 7.36E-04 ! d Tc-99m 6.90E-04~ 6.lE-02 3.56E-02 7.96E-04 7.96E-04 1.08E-Ol' 3.4E-05 4.67E-01 5.30E-06 5.30E-06 I CRu-103 Rh-103m 1.09E-04 4.7E-05 4.69E-01 5.30E-06 5.30E-06
'Ru-106 1.01E+00 3.3E-05 4.37E+00 4.81E-05 4.812-05 Rh-106 2.47E-04 3.6E-05 1.07E-03 1.28E-08 1.28E-08 -
Te-125m 1.59E-01 1.7E-05 6.87E-01 3.90E-06 3.90E-06 Te-127m 2.98E-01 1.7E-04 1.29E+00 7.31E-05 7.31E-05 , Te-127 1.07E-03 6.0E-04 1.29E+00 7.40E-05 7.40E-05 1 Te-129m 9.34E-02 9.8E-04 4.04E-01 1.32E-04 1.32E-04 ! e-129 1.31E-04 1.4E-03 4.06E-01 1.32E-04 1.32E-04 3.00E+01 7.7E-02 1.30E+02 3.33E+00 2.01E+00 , {Cs-137 Ba-137m 4.85E-06 2.4E-02 1.30E+02 3.llE+00 1.88E+00 ; Te-131m 3.42E-03 1.7E-03 1.48E-02 8.39E-06. 8.39E-06 e-131 4.72E-05 4.6E-04 1.64E-02 8.42E-06 8.42E-06 .
"T-131 2.20E-02 2.2E-01 1.01E-01 6.99E-03 6.99E-03
.a-132 8.86E-03 1.7E-02 3.83E-02 2.17E-04 2.17E-04 i I-132 2.58E-04 5.6E-02 3.84E-02 2.38E-04 2.38E-04 I-133 2.32E-03 2.8E-01 1.00E-02 9.37E-04 9.37E-04 >
I-134 9.89E-05 1.0E-02 4.27E-04 1.30E-06 1.30E-06 I-135 7.62E-04 1.2E-01 3.29E-03 1.32E-04 1.32E-04 ' Cs-134 2.05E+00 1.lE-01 8.86E+00 3.25E-01 3.25E-01 Cs-136 3.75E-02 5.3E-02 1.62E-01 2.87E-03 2.87E-03 i Rb-86 . 5.llE-02 3.6E-04 2.21E-01 2.65E-05 2.65E-05 Rb-88 3.38E-05 9.0E-02 1.46E-04 4.39E-06 4.39E-06 Br-83 2.75E-04 2.0E-03 1.19E-03 7.93E-07 7.93E-07 Br-84 6.05E-05 3.8E-04 2.61E-04 3.32E-08 3.32E-08 i Br-85 5.70E-06 4.7E-06 2.46E-05 3.86E-ll 3.86E-ll Ba-140 3.50E-02 1.6E-04 1.51E-01 8.08E-06 8.08E-06 i La-140 4.59E-03 1.2E-04 1.56E-01 8.87E-06 8.87E-06
l l
~ . .
i TABLE 3-2 (CONTINUED) i l Annual Time To Equil. Amount Isotopc* f Halflife Release 95% Equil. Quantity At 40 Yrs. 3
' (Years) (Curies) (Years) (Curies) (Curies) e-144 7.78.E-01 8.8E-05 3.36E+00 9.88E-05 9.88E-05 ' ~
r-144 3.28E-05 1.0E-04 3.36E+00 9.88E-05 9.88E-05 ! Co-141 8.90E-02 6.4E-05 3.85E-01 8.22E-06 8.22E-06 I Ce-143 3.76E-03 1.7E-05 1.63E-02 Pr-143 9.22E-08 9.22E-08 ! 3.72E-02 3.3E-05 1.61E-01 1.77E-06 1.77E-06 Wp-239 6.42E-03 1.0E-03 2.77E-02 { 9.26E-06 9.26E-06 :
; H-3 1.23E+01 1.2E+03 5.32E+01 2.13E+04 1.91E+04 I I
t carrows indicate parent-daughter relationships i i t I I f
! . l i i
] P
+
V f i e l 6 i
-- r, , - - - G - ,
3 b TABLE 3 GASEOUS RELEASES TO THE ENVIRONMENT
't ' "'
Annual Time To Equil. Amount Isotope
- Halflife Release 95% Equil. Quantity In 40 Yrs.
o (Years) (Caries) (Years) (Curies) (Curies) < Kr-83m 2.12E-04' l.5E+0 9.16E-04 4.59E-04 4.59E-04 Kr-85m 5.02E-04 6.4E+0 2.17E-03 4.64E-03 4.64E-03 Kr-85 1.08E+01 4.0E+2 4.67E+01 6.23E+03 6.23E+03 Kr-87 1.44E-04 4.8E+0 6.22E-04 9.97E-04 9.97E-04 Kr-88 3.19E-04 1.3E+1 1.38E-03 5.98E-03 5.98E-03 Kr-89 6.05E-06 4.6E-1 2.61E-05 4.02E-06 4.02E-06 Xe-131m 3.23E-02 2.4E+1 1.40E-01 1.12E+00 1.12E+00 , Xe-133m 6.19E-03 3.6E+0 2.68E-02 3.21E-02 3.21E-02 !
~~
Xc-133 1.44E-02 2.8E+2 6.22E-02 5.82E+00 5.82E+00 Xe-135m 2.97E-05" 1.2E+0 1.28E-04 5.14E-05 5.14E-05 Xc-135 1.04E-03 1.5E+1 4.49E-03 2.25E-02 2.25E-02 I Xe-137 7.42E-0'6i 8.2E-1 3.21E-05 8.7 8 E-06 8.87E-06
"'c-138 3.33E-05' 4.0E+0 1.44E-04 1.92E-04 1.92E-04 I-131 2.20E 1.4E-2 9.59E-02 4.44E-04 4.44E-04 I-133 2.32E 2.2E-2 1.00E-02 7.36E-05 7.36E-05 Co-53 1.95E-01 2.8E-3 8.43E-01 7.88E-04 7.88E-04 Co-60 5.26E+00 1.2E-3 2.27E+01 9.llE-03 9.llE-03
^ Mn-54 8.30E-01 8.0E-4 3.59E+00 9.58E-04 9.58E-04 Fe-59 1.25E-01' 2.8E-4 5.40E-01 5.05E-05 5.05E-05 Sr-89 1.44E-01 6.0E-5 6.22E-01 1.25E-05 1.25E-05 Sr-90 2.77E+01 1.0E-5 1.20E+02 4.00E-04 2.53E-04 i Cs-134 2.05E+00 8.0E-8 8.86E+00 2.37E-07 2.37E-07 Cs-137 3.00E+01 1.4E-3 1.30E+02- 6.06E-02 3.66F-02
, C-14 5.73E+03 1.6E+1 2.48E+04 1.32E+05 6.38E+02
- Ar-41 2.09E-04 5.0E+1 9.03E-04 1.51E-02 1.51E-02 l H-3 1.23E+01 1.2E+3 5.32E+01 2.13E+04 1.91E+04 I l
s.rrows indicate parent-daughter relationships ; I I. r t e e L _1_ .
_ _ .._mm . . _ _ _ _
.a
,b i
i O b
" )
- ' : .... '. :. , . -- ^: ; l;; .
F .bi
;_ ; .!; ' _n m : . ;j : J._ _;_
*J
._ n.l h._ 1L C :.I d j lf!
- ;t:
7
- l: !' .' :!:
l
.I i .i.
- ..;. . , j :.
; l: :
.t . :
, . I:
. ..l. ..
.j. ..
. . . . . 6 q: .
.{: M. .
j I -
.: 5 .. ,
h "h. .n .] :. i: .f.
. t
.l. . . !! !
( ih ' { 3{i
.l.
l:[ j j :3. .
- q. = =
a=u. =p= g. 1 qi - m i; 3 l
=
i I! $ l: .
_. _..p ._. __. _ . _ . ._. . . . .
.q . . . ._ j __ ._ p_. _ . . . _.
;_ _;.p _
._y.=._. q .-- _ . . ._..
_q.g 9 . ir ' --- -
-- !? .. 1. .l. .!. 1 l. .T . T. . l
- .. . l . .1 = 1:
.h.. .....' m._ ...:U.
....l . . p .-
r: :
;,.. l:.
.4 q.
.. t - .[.
~t-
. : tu
$ 'h-. 'I {:-
i di l;& E{~E EjE friiE: !j{ -{E - 1x =ij;= -- cr[= h h". . riij-5; =i% ,dd lie ! N ( o
. .=h.:r "- '.'. . { r.n ..=. f .. .=. t :_* .- c.i,r... my. =. =.{."
y t . . . , _ . . ..
..l...
v - .I.... = "r = =_. =. l .: =-
._t.=... . .q :.7. ;
.c.. . . l, . . . . .r. . . .
.m > ..-- -
.__.g.-
unj r. . -(p .g. . ....j.... . . . -=-=.
-4 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
....l-...
,e
=..l.=._ n. . .}. . . _7=. h.,. . .: . . n. u r =. ..f.-. . - =. h... . " . .: h.- . .n -
. =. f. . ..= =_. ..__. .{.r.
=%..
.n.r T. y . .:. l
= t---- - r - = p,=: . u n ----
xxi= - a =_. .a =s_ . . .t = . _ . _ . --t 2 u-~ni..t=. - J=: :: - EE- nt==._f=_-- !
,__ rr
_ _ . _ _ . = h =._.
. .. _- -. ._:.! ___ = . _ _ _ . , _ - .
=___[____....__ _ . -
g.___ . %' _._ r g ._____a...______ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ m: -_- ::r .* _. . . m.t. =. =. p. .n. =. j =. . .j n. _r1.r__.-= __._f._=___=.-.j.__ . . ,.. . ... ._ . . . . . . .. ___.I~.__..{i. o .. . =.-. _ E. r <
.==.7- r- .= c1= c=r. . r 4= - r c z4 = ---- r nrt= ; _. .. J=1== , _ . i L -
_- :l=-L_- =1 rd_- == =:nn. == nut: aut = r- t ==t= nn- =:= =1= trC =tn.; =t=
- E Y 2 F..__
7_.-_~]_b
._ _w ~.b_t._-_r "___ h_E ___ __C5 i.i_t. [r_l[._C CI ._.i___..,._ .Z f =.~;.
. .- _. __ T_. 3. ___.3_~__l
. . - . t. __ _. =. . _. 6_ ;E.5..[ .. 5 21 -- -
__ p . u . i ._ rn. _ _ , _ . --- p . __ cc_ . . , __,_._,_,t--- _ 4- - --t--- e, f=. _ _ _. . C e7 =* = l __ .i__ . ;- = _ ___5._ : :t _.w___. .__ . =t _i_. _. =T _. _ __ t--- > !> n :=__.:r =i- --- r--- .
- =_ .+- ~ ____. __7.__.- r__ .
=. _
o$ T. h.. .C =._.. Ct
"- l_ IC Ei" Et Z -~-Y C b._ .n-. -M: : =:i = ~~~E~ b__ _,i c =_ . - _
' 2ib,. k....:.tr E~
m "- I f n en ,@23=_
- s f._ ... i- r .1-+.__._. ___.irr
.._k._....__.._._.
nl *L=-. - un r;:
=j=._ .-
~
._I___. , _ ._.... .
rr.t=
-- + - - -
= = t .=_.
..4_.
=j n _.r._ .t4r.. . ..
C
~ ;
. _ . . . _ _=. _ ,1 - _n.-- .:- pc. q. F.=NWnir~id_. .E d. _
._- +
e __,..-...y__ ._ . .
~ ;d= b._E+ .._.-
g ._ .__._ - _ . . _ _ . - .
"* m ~E~ lElT C d:3I:El r:2 F. 1E E-~ . -- E i-E.l2 .i_ _ .". _. _.,_......_.__....__{=... _. ". .. ._ .
" C-m 7, =_ . . =.
. _ _._:j,
_nt.=.. _ _ . .'_f_=_.....'...........,_..
=_. _ ._._ ;.r_. . r_=.._.
.n. . jr_ .
x.x t' =..=t= .._.,. n :g=. . . _ . _ _ . _ _;uq== x.j = = _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ .. n.2 {= nn[=.__. . . _ - _ I t 9
- .:* ' - - , ,I 9
y c- r* uJ ---!x=_d' e _ r-- l ._ =t =t= [m . r ! _ n- ~
- r --l=:- - =:it = t r. t - . = r ~
nbn i 1. . . .i ..;nciar
- r a -- 1 --
mt= *
= I:- l= =r[: =: * -O (
.W.
- 2. __. .. _. ... _ _ . . , _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ , _ . . _
.... _=..!. d. . ,_. =..____r.. =. ._ t a x . = { .r._rx. {=. . . : -. _._}. n_n.___ l xE
$ ._....._.._.........._j_:........
r._g_ - . _
=__ .{_r_:j _. r._ _~ r
._x_ :]._..l=..o._..
. =___12_/ p l=.=...},.
_ h_.:. P u -""-~ ~4- -- t-- nn!= =;= .._.4___ ~ _f ._
- uo L = b2 _- r _ = .-} = r t ---l = 1 := r _1: +- -- k' =. r u'l == ...r =* r - :_!ux _=I _=__. =1=
___ n [=_ _ 1
-p 5
4 o k u N. h. . _.. . . . .b.
. .. b kb. di
. bbb. b_.5 t . b.'. ' b_.--U k. c-1. _ .b b. . . b_ -.b_. . . i. b.b._
_ . . . !_.b. f.h. k
. g$. i._5f, _ . b._ _b.*-' _. b. . . .,
N - :ni; 7 =jr . 7 l . .c = = =:= m i n.". =1= u
- -inr und= nn4r:
- .h .inx 2. , : :- -
.r : t :~- mtr - n -- m!: n: ~.:t:nj n l:.: =r - nl'=c{c..:t= t-I r
Se _ _ . -
=__t M ;
.d .. _ _ . _ ._
. g . ._ . _ _ . ...
.3 l{g[-_ 'C51# 3;t ._ C C- 2.#- 5: E CifE
.t.._. ., _ 7~~2-M i... _ . . _J n:nu c i= ==
29 1
'= un4 : = t:.:
_: -E" CIri2- Ci[F-...... ri!-_ . _... . . . .YZ n :7- .=1 = =: = =t= W p - :!: - -7tr: :
=ic- } 1: : : .
=l= T . h. =
- . = l:- 7dr- nn r cr- '
i
. c'- = .:. .l; .!
.. . _: . 4; :t- :':. - :r :tr :t l..
Z . -}r j. :+ - - --
';. 1 . l d. :t: nj = J
;: b. - .
". :l ;
l 1:
.l:::.\:::
-!: d..:
N r
- u: :. : :1: . . 1. t: ;t: t
- {: -l- :i: . l
- 1
- t-
. .'!: j.: : h.
j: -
- u:
i i
- 'ih- :! i!! .
C* h! 1 [h , lI ]! hi . j 1
- t
' - :l. __
. n_4l :r- :._ 1 = =
l '
'll: l :f: 3: .,
1: :l: ,. m
..;l. :1:
- li - ,
j:.
? 1: :
. --"h. .:
].:. :l: 1 .
%g 7
100% 50%
a k i A y pSCl! COMMENT (Section 3, Item 4) Discuss the amount of spent fuel storage capability planned for Haven 1, and present the economic basis for that selection. Discuss the potential ~ for offsite storage, and the maximum and average expected quantity of spent fuel on site. RESP 0NSE The Haven Nuclear Plant will be designed with sufficient spent fuel storage , e capacity to accommodate all of the spent fuel produced during approximately 30 years of plant operation. It is not expected that it will be necessary 3 to_use this amount of storage at the reactor site. However, provision for
, such " lifetime" storage capacity can,be done at the conceitual design stage with very minimal cost impact. The concrete spent fuel storage pool will be sized to house sufficient storage racks to accommodate approximately 1,700 a
spent fuel assemblies. If during the early 1980's it is apparent that the t Federal Government has moved ahead with away-from-reactor storage capacity, the number of racks to be provided can be easily modified to provide for a - 1 lesser number of fuel storage positions. The spent fuel storage racks could be purchased as needed so that expenditures for 30-year storage capacity could be partially deferred until the precise forecasts of need are available. i The Federal Government has committed to provide for away-from-reactor storage i of spent fuel by the mid-to-late 1980's. We believe this storage capacity will ; be piovided eventually, but would anticipate that the initial government facilities would first receive fuel from older operating reactors. Thus, it would be ; prudent to maintain a flexible spent fuel storage capability at the Haven plant. - E The maximum quantity of spent fuel which could be stored at the Haven site ' b would Le the maximum design capacity of the Haven spent fuel pool or 1,723 spent fuel assemblies. The average expected quantity of ' spent fuel on site
a 2- I might be on the order of 270 fuel assemblies which represents the approximate number of assemblies discharged over a five-year period. t ( I
.i 1 PSCW COMiiENT (Section 3, Item 5) : Section 3.9.4.3. Describe the utility policy regarding the purchase and installa- l tion of devices used to correct television interference problems. , l RESP 0flSE Section 3.9.4.1 of the Environmental Report states that any television problems ( will be corrected on an individual basis. Television interference problems along. ( Applicants' transmission line rights-of-way have been virtually non-existent. In the event of interference which can be attributed to transmission lines, the television antenna is replaced or relocated. [ 1 e 5 d
)
1 i e L f [ i i t i k i l ! I > i,
- i f
- l. _
PSCW COMMENT (Section 3, Item 6) ; Transmission network and route analysis for Haven Unit 1 is presently not available. When is that information schedule to be made available? The application cannot be considered complete without this information.
RESPONSE
Transmission line and transmission corridor information will be provided in Amendment 12 to the Environmental Report which is scheduled to be submitted in December 1978. This transmission system includes four transmission lines on three corrdors. 14ith a single unit at Haven, depending on results of system
. stability studies presently in progress, it may be possible to reduce the number of lines to three; however, the proposed and alternative transmission corridors would remain the same.
e 4
PSCW C0f41ENT (Section 3, Item 7) Which radioactive r91 eases occur on a batch basis 'a nd which occur on a continuous basis? RESP 0flSE , A summary description of releases is provided in Appendix A of the Environmental Report. Releases can be categorized as follows: i I. LIQUIDS A. Continuous Releases (via cooling system discharge)
- 1. Steam generator blowdown i
- 2. Air ejector drains -
- 3. Turbine plant samples
- 4. . Turbine plant leakage to sumps B. Batch Releases (via cooling system discharge)
- 1. Waste Test Tank discharge (Processed liquids from reactor plant sinks, spent resin flush, and reactor plant leakage to sumps)
- 2. Boron Test Tank discharge (Processed liquid from boron recovery system)
- 3. Laundry Waste Distillate Test Tank discharge (Processed liquids from laboratory wastes, contaminated laundry drains, and contaminated shower drains) ,
( II. GASES - A. Continuous Releases (~ -
- 1. Via Turbine Building Roof Exhausters I
- a. Turbine building ventilation exhaust l
- b. Turbine steam leaks ~
- 2. Via Turbine Building Vent P
- a. Main condenser air ejector
- b. Turbine steam seal discharge
- 3. Via Fuel Building Vent
- a. Fuel building ventilation exhaust .
- 4. Via Reactor Plant Vent
- a. Auxiliary building ventilation exhaust
- b. Waste Disposal building exhaust a
- c. Process gas receiver effluent
- d. Reactor plant aerated vent system c
B. Batch Release
- 1. Via Fuel Building Vent
- a. , Containment purge exhaust ,
- 2. Via Reactor Plant Vent
- a. Miscellaneous relief valve discharges
- b. Charcoal bed adsorber purge connection e
( e e M a
PSCW COMMENT (Section 3, Item 8) What vendor has the initial fuel contract for Haven? Are there any additional contracts for the acquisition of fuel for the lifetime of the plant? If so, provide copies. Are any such contracts currently being negotiated? If so, with whom? Describe tentative terms.
RESPONSE
Fuel procurement for the Haven Nuclear Plant involves several different phases. These include purchase of uranium concentrates, conversion of the U 038 to UF6 enrichment of tha UF6 , and fabrication of completed fuel assemblies. A letter of intent was placed with Westinghouse Electric Corporation in March 1974 for
,. the fabrication of up to six re'gions of fuel for what is now the Haven plant.
The Westinghouse letter of intent is Exhibit 4 in the Koshkonong proceeding Docket No. CA-5491. There have been no active negotiations regarding this fuel . fabrication commitment since early 1975 and none are expected prior to a CPCN decision. There have been no payments made to Westinghouse under the fabrication letter of intent and none are expected. There are no termination charges associated with the fuel fabrication commitment. i On June 3,1974, Joint Applicants entered into a contract for enrichment services. ( to be provided by the U. 5. Atomic Energy Commission (subsequently the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and now the Department of Energy (DOE)) for a 900 MW nuclear reactor. The enrichment contract is included in Exhibit 79 in tne Koshkonong proceeding Docket No. CA-5491. It was necessary to enter into a binding contract with the AEC at that time in order to assure the availability of enrichment services in the early 1980i s. Uranium concentrates which are-being supplied by Getty Oil Company will be used for the Point Beach and Kewaunee plants and are no longer. committed to the j i l
Itaven fluclear Plant. There are currently no negotiations being conducted for U303 for llaven. Similarly, there are no current negotiations regarding conversion services. e D 9
. I
j PSCW COMMENT (Section 3, Item 9) ,
- Are there any contracts for storing spent fuel from other reactors at Haven? If .
so, provide copies. Are any such contracts currently being negotiated. If so, ! with whom? Describe tentative terms, t I 1 RESPONSE There are no contracts for storing spent fuel from other reactors at Haven nor l l l . are any such contracts being considered. Y Z 1 L 2 [ I i ' l: b (
+
O i ! ! r t [ f . t i t k t i i ! I l f I- , . t t
- ~.. - . _ _ . . _ _ _ . e ..
i . . PSCW COMMENT (Section 4, Item 1) PSC 111.43 requires a number of maps providing transmission information. These maps do not appear to be in the Environmental f.eport. . RESPONSE The overlay maps required under PSC 111.43 are not included in the Environmental Report, but are being submitted as part of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) application. The attached Table 4-1 shows the overlay i maps previously submitted as part of the CPCN application on August 30, 1978, 4 and the map overlays to be submitted in December 1978. The locations of the . proposed and alternate transmission additions and alternate transmission corridors will be prese'nted on Figures 3.9-1, 10.9-1 and 10.9-3 in Amendment 12 of the Environmental Report. 5 I I I
- O f
e i
.e
o TABLE 4-1 HAVEN NUCLEAR PLANT TABULATION OF OVERLAY MAP SUBMITTAL PURSUAtlT TO - CHAPTER PSC 111.43(3) 0F THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE County Map Q 9 Code Requirement cp *p o S (a) Proposed Alternative Rou'tes ** ** ** ** ** ** Proposed Routes * * * * ** (b) Glacial Geology * * * * ** (A Topography ( General Soil Associations * * * * ** Overlay soil Map * * * * ** Suitability Rating-Onsite Sewage Disposal * * * * **
-Urban Development * ** - -Erodibility Estimate Water Resources and Wetlands ** ** ** ** **
(e) Vegetative Cover * * * * * * * * ** Wildlife Habitate ** ** ** ** ** (f) Generalized Existing Land Use * * * * ** ** ** (g) Proposed Land Use (h) Land in Public Ownership ** ** ** (2) (i) Areas of Residential Concentration ** ** * * * * ** (j)ActiveMinesandQuarries (k) Soil Productivities * * * * ** Productivity Rating-Field Crops * * * * **
-Canning Crops * **
-Truck Crops
( * * * * **
-Livestock * * * * **
-Hardwoods * * * **
-Conifers ** ** ** ** **
(1) Radio / Television Towers, VORTAC, Airports ** ** * * * * ** (m) Wild Rivers, Scenic Rivers, Scenic Roads ** ** * * * * ' ** (n) Historical Sites ** ** ** ** ** (0) Valuable Natural Areas (p) Existing Corridors ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Overhead Transmission Network ** ** * * * * ** (q) Population Density (1) Only maps of proposed routes and existing transmission line corridors are being submitted since the transmission line project only involves a restringing of an existing 138 kV line. . (2) To be submitted at a later date if required, previously exempted. O Maps previously submitted with CPCN application, August 1978.
** Maps being submitted in Occcmber 1978.
i l L _
PSCW C0l"J4ENT (Section 4, Item 2) How will the estimates of construction impacts change given the change for a two-unit site to a one-unit site?
RESPONSE
See the response to PSCW Comment (Section 3, Item 2). e 4 t n i i l' f4 i I l
. . !?
i: t :
!i,
. I
t PSCW COMMENT (Section 4, Item 3) ; l What is the estimated rail traffic due to construction? . l 1 RESPONSE t i ! It has been estimated that, for a two-unit facility, rail traffic during the [ i construction years 1982 - 1988 will total approximately 3,000 rail cars. The ( estimated annual freight traffic is as follows: ; i i Year Cars [
?
1982 314 : 1983 486 l 1984 714 . i 1985 771 ,
! .. . 1986 514 l 1987 171 :
1988 28 l a I After construction is ccmpleted and during the normal operation of the Haven f Nuclear Plant, rail service would still be desired for possible transportation of nuclear fuel and miscellaneous materials and supplies. The traffic expected ! would probably not exceed 25 to 30 cars per year. l t t k i I I
! r l
I l r t i i , t 5 a l
. 7 r , m - w -- , , - -- .,-- r, --
,.-,-y -,.1-- . . , , - , . . , . . -..m ,, y
l
?
[ PSCW COMMENT (Section 5, Item 1) , i i ' Many of the impacts addressed in the Environmental Report would also be occurring in roughly the same geographical area for Edgewater 5. Detail the expected r impacts in as many areas as possible that would coincide and speculate as to the cumulative impacts of both projects; for example, community services, schools, : workers in the area, traffic, noise, etc. l i
RESPONSE
The construction schedules for Edgewater 5 and the Haven Nuc' lear Plant overlap. Both plants would also be drawing their construction workforces from the same i h geographic area.' However, examination of the schedules for construction activities and construction workforce requirements for both plants tabulated below reveals j I
' that there is. enough offset so that cumulative impacts in the years where overlap t occurs would be less than the peak year impacts described for the Haven Nuclear f l Plant.
Yearly Workforce Requirements 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 i
*
- 530 530 530 0 0 0 0 0 0 i Edgewatpr 5 120 260 840 1460 2200 2200 2100 1480 470 140 Havenll> {
Cumulatiye , Total NA NA 790 1370 1990 2200 2200 2100 1480 470 140 l I
*less than 530 l Year In Which Activities Begin !
t o.ctiviti es Edgewater 5 Haven Nuclear Plant i Clearing & Site Prep. March 1979 October 1980 i i Plant Structures July 1979 August 1982 345 kV Switchyard Not Applicable January 1983
- Cooling Tower Not Applicable December 1983 (if applicable) !
I Connercial Operation of Unit April 1983 June 1987 [ l Note (1): Haven workforce estimate based on two-unit plant with Unit 2 operation ! 18-24 months following Unit 1 - f l l [ r ! l
-el
- PSCW C0ffEflT (Section 8, Item 1)
! With respect to the workforce and the anticipated relocation 'of this workforce - , f Section 8.2-2, paragraph 3, appears to contradict Section 8.1-4, paragraph 3, from the bottom. Which is correct, or is the difference due to peak workforce . vs. total workforce? ,
RESPONSE
Section 8.1.4 of the Environmental Report does not address construction workforce I effects; however, page 8.1-4 states that approximately 1700 jobs will be filled : by workers from the local region commuting up to 75. miles one way from the site. - Since the peak workforce is estimated to be 2200 workers and 1700 are from the i-local region, 500 workers are assumed to relocate from outside the local region. Page 8.2-2, paragraph 3, discusses relocation and references the 500 workers , assumed to relocate for the two-unit plant construction schedule. J I 4 f' ' s . i f s i i i 4-
f. PSCW COMMENT (Section 8, Item 2)
- Section 8.2-5: Will traffic be disrupted on highways LS and/or A? How much of each is in plant boundaries?
RESP 0flSE As shown in Figure 2.1-2 and 2.1-3 of the Environmental Report, approximately ? 6,400 feet of County Highway LS and 500 feet of County Highway A are within the ; site boundary. As stated in Section 8.2.4, these highways will remain open to public travel. For emergent f planning purposes, arrangements will be made with appropriate authorities to barricade these highways at the site boundary in the s event of an , incident requiring the initiation of the emergency plan. , e 1 i t e [ D I L
o.
** e
- PSCW COMMEf!T (Section 8, Item 3)'
What is the availability of rental property in the area? ,
RESPONSE
The availability of rental property in the nine county area surrounding the Haven Nuclear Plant site is presented in Section 8.2.2 of the Environmental Report. The data presented show that there were approximately 10,000 vacant, available rental units for rent in the nine county area in 1975, based on an overall vacancy rate of approximately 2.0 percent. In August of 1978, the Sheboygan Press ran a series of articles on availability of rental housing in Sheboygan, in which the vacancy rate was stated as being 2.4 percent in the Sheboygan area. This confirms the applicability of the 1975 data presented in the Environmental Report to the present conditions. If development of the Village of Kohler proceeds as projected in its recently adopted master plan, a sizeable number of apartments and multi-family units would be constructed over the same time period as construction of the Haven ; Nuclear Plant. This could serve to add to the number of available rental units in Sheboygan County. i t e e t
3 . - . j
. , r i PSCW COMMENT (52ction 8, Item 4)
Under the most extreme case of. relocation; would the existing sewage system ! and water . supply be adequate? What facilities are presently available. ! RESPONSE ! The anticipated effects on public facilities and services are discussed in I 1 .
. Section 8.2.2 of the Environmental Report. In the most extreme case of f 4
relocation, all 500 construction workers from outside the local region might , j locate in Sheboygan County, based on the pattern of available housing uni'ts. ! i ! , They would still be located in a dispersed pattern in communities throughout the-county and would utilize' existing housing already provided with municipal e or individual sewer or water systems. This would also be the case for those l workers renting mobile homes or mobile home space. Even if all 500 relocating J workers utilized mobile home space in one mobile home park or found rental i units in one apartment complex, the owners or developers would have had to I provide adequate sewer and water facilities to obtain necessary building and/or ,
- e construction permits. }
L i l ' r f i I- a f i i i e h l-w_ __ - .
4 .
. . ... i i
2 PSCW COMMENT (Section 9, Item 1)_ , t Section 9.3 states that Wood and Koshkonong are thd most favorable sites. Why has Haven chosen?
RESPONSE
Section 9.3 of the Environmental Report reflects evaluations of site-plant alternatives which were performed in 1974 for two nuclear units proposed for i _ operation in 1981-1982. As stated in Section 9.3.3, the Haven site required an extended construction schedule due to more extensive site preparation and excavation for structural foundations than either Wood or Koshkonong and
?
thus could not be used for the 1981-1982 units. The Koshkonang site was then proposed for the 1981-1982 units. In November 1976, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stated that in its opinion the Koshkonong site was unacceptable for the proposed facility and 4 advised the Applicants to consider relocating the proposed units to an alternative site. In subsequent discussions with the DNR, the Haven site was identified as the preferred alternative. The DNR, in.a letter to the Applicants dated January 16, 1977, stated that the DNR "has on file most of the relevant information - s 7 that would be required to make an evaluation of a nuclear plant at Haven, including an evaluation of the once-through cooling option". In consideration of the indicated DNR position, the Applicants proposed the relocation to the Haven site and amended the application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 1977. , t 1 e g * -e r - m-~ --,,9
i ,' , pSCW COMMENT (Section 10, Item 11 The entire section appears to be written for two units. Will this be revised? Will the design parameters for the intake and discharge be revised to one unit, or will the capability for two be retained? If so, what is the incremental cost of retaining and constructing the two-unit capability assuming a second nuclear unit is not constructed? In evaluating environmental impacts, it is not clear how information developed for two units can be adjusted for one, e.g. the cooling tower plume and fogging data. Which of the data supplied is suitable for halving, and what adjustments must be made to other data to be accurate for one unit?
RESPONSE
The entire Environmental Report, including Section 10, is based on two nuclear units. As noted in the response to PSCW Comment (Section 3, Item 2), the environmental- impacts of two units should be conservatively evaluated against the benefits of a single unit. The Applicants have no estimates of the cost of retaining a two-unit capability. There are no plans for retaining the capability of adding a second unit at some future time. 1 e ! I k c 1 1 t 1 .
) . l PSCW COMMENT (Section 10, Item 2) ~ Table 10.1-1. It is not clear. from the summary of radionuclides discharged to ' water why a difference should exist between the alternate cooling systems as l summarized in section 1.5. Please explain. ,
RESPONSE
[ Item 1.5 of Table 10.1-1 is a summary of calculated doses .via liquid pathways l for the various alternative cooling systems. While the total quantity of the radionuclides released -is the same for each of the alternatives, the discharge - concentrations with closed-cycle cooling are greater than for once-through ]i . i 3 , cooling. Since the calculated dose is a function of concentration, the dose ; i for once-through cooling alternatives is less than that for closed-cycle cooling alterndtives. l j f I i I f
- 3 .
i [ I i t i 6 s l r
- f. -
PSCW COMMEllT (Section 10, Item 3) Table 10.1-1. Explain the source of the factor 29 in part 1.1.1. RESP 0flSE , The factor of 29 is the ratio of the once-through cooling system intake flow to the closed-cycle cooling system intake flow for the alternatives presently described in Section 10 of the Environmental Report. O e D f r O 9
e ,. }'
,' ,- (,
F PSCW COMMENT (Section 10, Item 4) . Table 10.1-2. Complete the table with respect to natural and mechanical draft , cooling towers. Define the term Relative Performance Cost. State all assumptions regarding energy consumption and cost.
RESPONSE
Table 10.1-2 was completed with respect to natural and mechanical draft cooling towers in Amendment 10 to the Environmental Report which was issued in March i 1978. The tcrm Relative Performance Cost relates to the incremental capability penalty l and replacement energy cost incurred because of the higher condenser back pressure associated with closed-cycle cooling. Also, in the case of mechanical t' draft towers, operation of the fan motors requires an energy penalty to be included in the comparative evaluation. All assumptions regarding energy consumption and cost will be provided in a December amendment to the Environmental Report. A comparison of one-unit closed-cycle and once-through cooling alternatives will be provided by April !j 1979 in an Environmental Report supplement. l^
- O t~
f I, - 1 l
. .c . .
\
l
- PSCW COMMENT (Section 10, Item 5) !
Part 10.9. Transmission alternatives - which amendment will they be furnished in? What is present expectation of filing date? Application will not be
- complete until all information is in.
RESP 0flSE i Transmission line and transmission corridor information will be provided in : i Amendment 12 to the Environmental . Report t hich is scheduled to be submitted in December 1978. This transmission system includer four transmission lines - on three corridors. Depending on results of system stability studies which presently are in progress, it may be possible to reduce the number of lines f to three; however, the proposed and alternative transmission corridors would . remain the same. 1 t
. ie ti ii 7-l
{ 1 I li j i .'t a Ih if l ! l ! ( -
!i n
.,t
'r I
e I.
,.n, , - . ~ ,., - ~.n. . , , - - , -- ,. , .,,., , - - . - , . ~ . - . .
fl e, . 7
- o. ,-
w PSCW COMMENT (Section 11. Item 11 In section 11.1, please. explain the use of a 20.5 percent annual fixed charge i rate for the Haven Nuclear Plant. ! L RESPONSE ; i- ! Table 9.2-55 lists the factors used in making levelized annual cost comparisons i of various alternatives. The 20.5% fixed charge rate for nuclear units is based upon use of a Wisconsin Electric revenue requirements computer program which' has been provided to the PSCW staff. Besides accounting for costs of > i capital, investment tax credit, property and liability insurance, ad valorem , { and income taxes, and depreciation rates the 20.5% fixed charge rate includes ,
, an allowance 'for pre-inservice costs in excess of an assumed 4% interest
! during construction amount included in plant capital costs. The 4% interest ! during construction rate is a weighted approximation of the amount of interest i during construction which may be capitalized under current PSCW accounting
; practice. '
k I _' e b l f
~ ,
L i l
. I i
_ . . . . _ , - _ - _. . . . _ , - _ _ _ ._ . _ , - . . - -__ __}}