ML19257F211
| ML19257F211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 10/28/1981 |
| From: | PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257F212 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-811028, NUDOCS 8111020105 | |
| Download: ML19257F211 (33) | |
Text
_ _ - _
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 t
.s 9.3 ALTERNATIVE SITES 9.
3.1 BACKGROUND
The site selection and review process for these two nuclear units began in 1970 with consideration of a large number of sites of diverse geographical and environmental characteristics. A systematic review and screening of those sites culminated in the original application in this proceeding, which was docketed in September 1974, and proposed the Skagit site in northwestern Washington, west of the Cascade Mountains (Ref 1).
This siting process formed the basis for the NRC Staff's conclusion in the May 1975 Final Environmental Statement in this docket that the overall impacts of constr uction and operation of these units at the Skagit site could not be significantly reduced by any alternative choice of site within the Pacific Northwest region (Ref 2). In July 1979, based upon additional analysis, the Staf f concluded that the Hanford site would be preferable to Skagit.
,~ During the course of the evidentiary hearings on this docket, it became evident that, as a matter of prudent
( business judgment, another site should be selected for these units if the Project goals were to be achieved on a 3
timely basis. Accordingly, in July 1980, it was decided to change the proposed site to a site on the Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington (Ref 3). The _.
Hanford Reservation is located on the Columbia River in southcentral Washington, east of the Cascade Mountains.
Upon being advised of this relocation, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the Board), in its order of August 27, 1980, ruled that: "This proceeding shall be deemed to have been concluded insof ar as the Skagit Site is concerned and no further evidentiary hearings thereon are contemplated" (Ref 4). Subsequently, on September 26, 1980, the Application (the General Information volume) was amended to reflect the change in the location of the proposed site (Ref 5).
Thus the site review continued, building upon the record developed to date in the proceeding. Additional details of this review are set forth in the following sections.
m
\
'/ .-
9.3-1 Amendment 3
'7 %
( )
i u aL
(
)
I S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 t
l 9.3.1.1 Previous Consideration of Alternative Sites -
During the extensive evidentiary hearings that were held in' this proceeding prior to the relocation of the preposed site, the sub]ect of alternative sites was explored in considerable detail. In the original Skagit Nuclear Power Project Environmental Report (Ref 6), the process that was followed in selecting the Skagit site was described and a detailed comparison between this site and two alternative sites (Ryderwood and Goshen) in western Washington was presented. The views of the NRC Staff on this subject were presented in the original Final Environmental Statement (Ref 7) and at the evidentiary hearings, first in August 1975, and most recently in July 1979 (Ref 8). In their July 1979 testimony, the Staff presented a comprehensive comparison of the Skagit site with three alternative sites west of the Cascade Mountains - Goshen, Ryderwood and Cherry Point - and two alternative sites east of the Cascade Mountains - Pebble Springs and Hanford.
With respect to the region west of the Cascades, the Staff concluded that Cherry Point, Skagit, Ryderwood, and Goshen
" adequately represent the range of environmental alterna-tives available and are among the best that can reasonably be found in the siting areas west of the Cascades" and that of these four sites, Skagit is the "best choice" (Ref 9).
Figure 9.3-1 shows the location of these sites. However, 3 the Staff then observed that the Hanford area in southcentral Washington and the Pebble Springs area in northcentral Oregon (both east of the Cascades) " offer some advantages over Skagit in terms of potential environmental _.
effects of constructing and operating a nuclear power plant" (Ref 10). Accordingly, the Staff presented a comparison between the Skagit, Hanford and Pebble Springs sites, having first found that "the Hanford and Pebble Springs sites are among the best that could reasonably be found in the mid- and upper-Columbia" (Ref 11). In comparing the Hanford site with the Skagit site, the Staff concluded that, as to aquatic ecology, Hanford is
" comparable" to Skagit (Ref 12) as to terrestrial ecology, Hanford is " comparable" to Skagit (Ref 13) and as to socioeconomic criteria, Hanford is " clearly preferable" to Skagit (Ref 14).
On an overall basis, the Staff found Hanford " preferable" to Skagit, with the degree of preference dependent upon the weight given to the socioeconomic factors (Ref 15). The Staf f's corclusions as to the Pebble Springs site were similar: comparable to Skagit on aquatic and terrestrial impacts and preferable on socioeconomic factors, with l
s 9.3-2 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 1
's overall preferrbility dependent upon the weight given to the latter (Ref 16) .
9.3.3.2 The Ralocation frrr Skagit te Han:%rd The decision to l' ave the Skagit site resulted primarily from two factors: First, in November 1979, the County Commissioners of Skagit County refused to extend the Rezone Agreement (permitting use of the Skagit site for the Project) beyond the December 31, 1979, deadline for com-mencement of construction specified in that agreement (Ref 17). Second, in October 1979, the United States Geological Survey changed its previously favorable evalua-tion of the Skagit site (Ref 17). In view of these adverse developments and the long period of time necessary to respond to geological concerns, it was concluded that it would be possible to bring the two nuclear units on line earlier at a site on the Hanford Reservation than at the Skagit site (Ref 3).
Selection of the Hanford Reservation as the best area to which to move the Project was heavily influenced by the factors noted by the NRC Staff in reaching its favorable evaluation of the Hanford area. The Hanford area had also
,) been classified as a preferred area in eariter siting
. ./ studies. 3 Additionally, a later study (Ref 18) , as described below, provided confirmation that the Hanford area is a good location for the Skagit units. The description of that _.
study which follows and the analyses presented in regard to the Hanford site should not be construed as starting a new site selection process for these units; this would ignore the record developed in this proceeding to date. The NRC Staff has determined that the Hanford area is preferable to the Skagit site. The data in the study confirm that conclusion.
The results of this study have been presented in a way which compares the Hanford area to other sites as suggested by Regulatory Guides 4.2, Revison 2, and 4.7, Revision 1; Environmental Standard Review Plans, Section c.2; and the proposed rule on Alternative Site Reviews, 45 Federal Register 24168 (April 9, 1980).
The relocation of the Skagit units to the Hanford site is the culmination of a twelve-year process, not the beginning of a new process. The description of the siting study which follows should not be construed as such a beginning.
i
's 9.3-3 Amendment 3
, S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 l
\
9.3.1.3 The RSP Site Selection Study -
~s
)
In 1978, the four investor-owned utilities involved in Skacit and two other investor-owned utilities organized a Regional Siting Program (RSP) to identify nuclear and coal power plant sites within the Pacific Northwest for possible future use. While RSP's first major siting effort was a nuclear site selection study for the four Skagit participants, its purpose was not for relocation of these two nuclear units. The study began in April 1979 and was completed in June 1980. The results of this study (the RSP Study) were presented in Reference 18.
A key objective of the RSP Study was to identify nuclear power plant sites for which the Federal and State licensing process and construction could be completed in time for commercial operation of the first unit during 1990. To meet th.s objective, siting criteria were specifically chosen to identify those sites having the least potential for licensing delays. A second important objective was to select sites with sufficient water resources and land to accommodate four light water reactor units of 1250 MWe each.
The result of this studv was the identification of thirteen candidate sites within 'the geographic region of interest,
the states of Oregon and Washington. The thirteen candi- 3 date sites included three sites on the Hanford Reservation, which consistently ranked in the top grouping.
9.3.2 RSP STUDY SITE SELECTION PROCESS The RSP Study began with the development of siting criteria based on project requirements and Federal and State regula-tions. The process involved severs' nFsses or levels, as shown in Figure 9.3-2. As indicated, _pecific criteria were developed for each level. The criteria applied at each level are identified in Figure 9.3-3 and explained in
, detail in the RSP Study.
9.3.2.1 Recion of Interest As indicated in Figure 9.3-2, the first phase was to select the Region of Interest (ROI). The objective of this phase was to delineate ar. area (the ROI) that would be large enough to encompass several candidate resource areas (CRAs). The ROI was selected by applying criteria to the "'
6 j
9.3-4 Amendment 3 4
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 i
i 1
' <s '
geographic area that encompasses the service areas of the participating utilities, most of the power pool region to which the utilities belong, and the major load centers consisting of Seattle-Tacoma in Washington and Portland in Oregon. The delineation of the ROI was also based or an NRC siting workshop recommendation (Ref 19) that the ROI be large enough to encompass at least three environmentally and geographically distinct resource areas of several hundred square miles each and each containing at least two potentially licensable candidate sites. The ROI selected consisted of the states of Washington and Oregon.
9.3.2.2 Candidate Resource Areas The second phase was to select Candidate Resource Areas (CRAs). Several preliminary CRAs were delineated by screening the ROI against exclusionary criteria developed specifically for this phase. These preliminary CRAs met relatively conservative geological, environmental, and economic criteria and were likely to contain several potential sites. The five final CRAs are shown on Figure 9.3-4 (along with the thirteen final candidata sites). The final CRAs were:
/
- a. Lower Columbia River Candidate Resource Area. The
,I CRA along the Coluncia River north of Vancouver, 3 Washington, to south of Longview extends north and east within the State of Washington.
- b. Mid-Columbia River Candidate Resource Area. The -
CRA along the Colunbia River between White Salmon, Washington, and Umatilla, Oregon, includes por-tions of the states of Washington and Oregon,
- c. Upper Columbia River - Hanford Reach. The CRA along the Columbia River between Richland, Washington, and Priest Rapids Dam within the State of Washington.
- d. Lower Snake River. The CRA along the Snake River between Ice Harbor and Lower Granite Dams within the State of Washington.
- e. Pend Oreille River. The CRA along the Pend Oreille River between Newport and Cusick, Washington, within the State of Washington.
s 9.3-5 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 f
9.3.2.3 Candidate Sites y The third phase was to select candidate _;tes. The CRAs were examined for potential sites by acplying environ-mental, geotechnical and socioeconomic criteria developed specifically for this phase. In addition, several sites that had been identified in earlier siting studies and existing sites were screened against these critera.
Site-specific criteria were used to review the potential sites identified in this phase. The potential sites that survived the preliminary screening at this stage of the siting process were visited by a team of geologists, environmental scientists and orofessional engineers to verify and update certain site-specific data. Candidate sites were then selected from among the potential sites within the candidate resource areas.
Table 9.3-1 lists thirteen candidate sites which were selected as potentially licensable and are among the best that could be found in the Region of Interest that comply with the criteria established for the RSP Study.
9.3.2.4 Site Comcarisons 3
The ob"ective of this final phase was to compare the potentially licensable candidate sites in terms of their relative suitability for meeting project goals and Federal and State licensing requirements. The sites were compared __
by rating them against criteria and by ranking them in terms of their relative ratings.
Rating f actors were developed by rr 7iewing the criteria that had been used in eerlier phauts to determine which could be used to compare the sites. Several detailed economic criteria were also developed to deal with site-specific factors. The following factors were found to provide a basis for comparing the sites:
Tectonic setting GEOTECFNICAL FACTORS Local geologic structure Ability to date local structure Demography ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Land use Sociceconomics Cultural resources Aesthetics J
9.3-6 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 i
i,
, Aquatic ecology / water ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS quality (cont.)
Terrestrial ecology Engineering / Economic ECONOMIC FACTORS evaleations Each rating factor was adjusted to a common scale that ranged from 1 to 5. A rating of five indicated that a site was excellent for development with respect to meeting project goals and regulatory requirements; a rating of 1 indicated that a site was marginal for development with respect to that factor.
In order to rank the candidate sites, the separate ratings obtained for a site must be combined into a single, compos-ite rating for that site. The single, composite rating must reflect the relative contributions cf the separate.
ratings for geotechnical, environmental and economic criteria since some rating criteria can be considered to be more important than others. If, for example, a rating of 5 (excellent) were obtained with one criterion and a 2 (poor) with a second, a ecmposite rating of 3.5 (fair to good) would not reflect the probable greater relative importance of one criterion over another. By assigning weights on a scale of 0 to 1.0 (in proportion to the perceived relative importance of a factor) to each rating criterion, the
( , relative importance of separate rating criteria would be 3 reflected in a composite rating.
Some of the rating criteria can be considered to be more important than others; a modified Delphi approach was used to .etermine the relative " weight" of each rating criterion
in _erms of its perceived proportional contribution to the licensability of the site. An overall rating could thereby be obtained for each site by multiplying each rating -
criterion by its weight and summing these products. The composite ratings were then used to rank the sites on the same scale of 1 to 5 when 5 reflects a judgment that a site is excellent and 1, that a site is marginal.
The relative rankings of the sites could have been sensi-tive to the weights assigned to each rating criterion (geotechnical, environmental or economic) . The sensitivity of the rankings to the relative importance assigned the rating criteria was therefore examined by assigning several sets of weightings to the rating criteria. This process chowed whether a greater emphasis on one or another factor (geotechnical, environmental or economic) would result in a different set of suitability rankings for the candidate sites. This sensitivity analysis was conducted to study m the suitablility rankings of the candidate sites to h
9.3-7 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 4
determine if site quality was vulnerable to the weight assigned to either geotechnical, environmental or economic.
)
The results of the candidate site comparisons for the geotechnical, environmental snd economic criteria are sur arized below. The relative suitability of the pcten-tially licensable candidate sites is presented in terns of their ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most suitable.
9.3.2.4.1 Geotechnical Ratings The geotechnical ratings for each of the candidate sites are presented below. They were developed from an assess-ment of the tectonic setting, local geologic structurr and ability to date local structure at each site.
Group A Site Rating Eltopia 24a 4 Hanford 23 4 Hanford 22-1 & 22-2 4 Pebble Springs South 44 4 3 'N Centerville 49a 4
)
s Group B Rock Creek 45a 3 Tucannon 31a 3 -
Magallon 30b 3 Group C Scotia 3 2.5 Cusick 1 2.5 Group D Johnson Creek 52b 2 Lyons Road 52c 2 The sites in Group A are essentially similar. They are ranked in order of decreasing ability to date local struc-tures. The sites in Group B are distinguished from those
- in the first group only because slightly less information is available. Among these sites, Rock Creek appears to possess characteristics most favorable for dating and is consequently ranked slightly higher than the others. (No s s
s 9.3-8 Amendment 3
S/ENP-ER 10/28/81 I
t i
- 's order of ranking is implied for the remaining sites in Group B or sites in Groups C and D.) The sites in Group C differ from Groups A and B primarily because of the com-plexity of local structure in these areas and the limited means available to date structura.
Sites in Group D differ from the sites in the other groups because of their location relative to a region of recent tectonism. They are also located in an area of complex structure where the distribution of datable materials is apparently limited.
9.3.2.4.2 Environmental Ratings The environmental ratings for each candidate site are presented in Table 9.3-2.
This table provides individual ratings for each environ-mental criterion considered and does not at this stage combine the environmental ratings into a single composite rating for each site.
As was described previously, the separate ratings for each site were combined to reflect the perceived relative j j importance of the criteria by arsigning a weighting value
,/ to each criterion, multiplying the weighting value and the 3 rating to obtain a weighted rating, then summing the weighted ratings to obtain an overall candidate-site rating.
The weighting factors used to assess the influence of each criterion on the relative rankings of the sites are pre-sented in Table 9.3-3. Weighting f actor A reflects the relative importance of the criteria as determined by the project team. The demography / land-use criterion was assigned the highest weighting (.35 of 1.00), socioeconem-ics/ aesthetics / cultural resources (.30 of 1.00), aquatic ecology (.20 of 1.0C) and terrestrial ecology (.15 of 1.00). Weighting factor B assigned equal weights to each criterion and factora C, D, E, and F each assigned more than half of the proportional weights to one criterion. In this way, the influence of each criterion on the relative rankings of the candidate sites and on the range of composite ratings could be determined.
Sensitivity analyses were conducted as described above to develop a set of composite environmental ratings by apply-ing the weighting factors from Table 9.3-3 to the ratings shown in Table 9.3-2. The results of the sensitivity s-9.3-9 Amendment 3
i S/HNp-ER 10/28/81 analysis for environmental factors are presented in Table -
9.3-4. h The sensitivity analyses indicate that none of the candi-date sites has a composite rating below 3.0 (fair) under a r. , _ . ' _... ix i_r.;ing sc. emes anc ceveral are t vt above 4.0 (good) . The widest range of values was obtained under weighting Code E when demography / land use had the greatest weighting; the least range of values was obtained when terrestrial ecology was assigned the greatest relative weighting under weighting Code C. The project team selec-ted weighting Code A to provide the environmental portion of each site's final composite rating.
Sin sites remain among the top-ranked candidate sites under most environmental rating schames (Hanford 22-1, Hanford 22-2, Eltopia 24a, Magallon 30b, Pebble Springs South 44, Rock Creek 45a).
9.3.2.4.3 Economic Ratings The economic factors used to define the rating criteria with which to assess differential costs associated with site development, construction, and operation of the power plant and associated transportation and transmission 3 systems including the following:
Site development Geology, seismology and foundations Transportation access Water supply
t Cooling-water system
- Tranmission system Property availability -
Labor force and construction impact mitigation Engineering estimates of differential costs were used to determine the economic ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 represents the lowest and 1 the highest possible differen-
- ial cust.
The weighting factor assigned to each criterion indicated i its relative importance with respect to the ideal best and conditionally acceptable sites. Weightings in the engineering / economic criteria group, for example, were established by using monetary cost estimates related to i' each criterion at each site. Differences between the highest and lowest cost estimates for a particular criterion were determined. The sum of these maximum cost differences for all criteria within the engineering /
9.3-10 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81
_s economic criteria group was the total differential cost represented by the cost differences within that criterion.
Economic ratings of candidate sites are presented in Table 9.3-5 for each factor. 2ne bottom row of figures in the tat:e recretent the cc:aposite rating f or each candidate site. These values are calculated by multiplying each engineering criterion rating by the respective economic weighting factor (percent) indicated in the first column.
The product of each site rating and weighting factor is summed vertically for each site to develop the composite rating shown in the bottom row.
The major criteria affecting tne differential costs of the candidate sites was due to transmission wheeling costs, transmission loss, and transmission-system-development costs which accounted for almost 70% of differential costs.
The differential costs of site development accounted for 11% of differential costs; no other individual criteria contributed more than 6%.
The location of the candidate sites within the Bonneville Power Administration wheeling zones was the primary deter-minant in affecting differential costs; and therefore the relative economic ratings of the sites. T?e sites closest to the Seattle-Tacoma / Portland corridor load centers, Johnson Creek (52b) and Lyons Road (52c), have the highest 3
, economic rankings and the sites farthest from the load
~~
centers and with greatest transmission-system-development costs, Cusick 1 and Scotia 3, have the lowest economic rankings.
9.3.2.4.4 Composite Ratings of Candidate Sites During this final phase of the site rating process the geotechnical, environmental and economic ratings for each site were combined to provide a single composite rating which indicates the complete suitability of tbe site for satisfying the objectives of the study.
Initially, as shown in Table 9.3-6, environmental and geotechnical ratings were combined as a measure of site '
licensability. Five different combination rating schemes were utilized to develop a combined rating sensitivity trend shown graphically in Figure 9.3-5. As indicated in Figure 9.3-5, the sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the relative ordering of the sites is not revised when subject to considerable changes in the relative importance of geotechnical and environmental ratings. There are no reversals of the relative rankings within this range of v
9.3-11 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 l' weighting factors, and Hanford site: 22-1 and 22-2, Pebble Springs South 44, Eltopia 24a, Hanford 23, and Centerville S 49a remain among the top throughout the range of combined environmental /geotechnical ratings.
The tecond and final composite ranking cnalysis, consisted of combining the environmental, geotechnical and economic ratings into a single rating of site suitability.
As shown in Table 9.3-7, environmental, geotechnical and economic ratings were combined utilizing three different combination schemes, to develop a combined rating sensi-tivity trend shown graphically in Figure 9.3-6. As indicated in Figure 9.3-6, the sensitivity analysis segre-gates the candidate sites into two groups. All of the candidate sites are potentially licensable and six appear to be relatively more suitable than others. These six sites are in two candidate resource areas: Hanford 22-1, Hanford 22-2, Hanford 23 and the Eltopia 24a are in the candidate resource area along the Hanford Reach north of Richland, Washington, and Pebble Springs South 44 and the Centerville site 49a are in the candidate resource area along the Columbia River east of the Dalles in Oregon and Washington respectively. Although Figure 9.3-6 indicates a slight spread in numerical ratings of these six sites, the differences are sufficiently small as to be considered of minor significance.
'S s
}
9.3.3 THE PROPOSED SITE The RSP Study, which was completed in June 1980, confirmed -
that the Hanford Reservation is the preferred area for the relocated Skagit Project. It was recognized that field studies would be required to confirm the suitability and licensability of a specific site on the Reservation. The general vicinity of the Hanford 22-1 site appeared to be the most promising. The necessary field studies proceeded during the remainder of 1980 and into 1981. As a result of these additional studies, in March 1981 the decision was made to select a specific site several miles southwest of the Hanford 22-1 site as the final choice.
Several reasons - in addition to the factors confirmed by the RSP Study - for preferring a site on the Hanford Reservation are discussed below.
h J
i 9.3-12 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 9.3.3.1 Licensing and operatino Experience (m.,.
In the past decade, Washington Public Power Supply System Units 1, 2 and 4 have been licensed at the Hanford Reservation. These anits and thc- Fast Flux ; cst Facility j are presently under construction / operation. In addition, the Hanford Reservation has successfully accommodated I
plutonium production reactors, fuel f abrication plants and spent fuel reprocessing plants. As a result of these efforts and of scientific studies at the Reservation over
- the past several decades, the environmental, socioeconomic i and geotechnical setting is well known. This extensive j data base for the Reservation offers a strong foundation i for future licensing efforts. Moreover, considerable experience-in operating nuclear reactors has been gained,
{ without adversely impacting the health or environment of j the surrounding communities.
?
9.3.3.2 An Experienced and Supportive Community i
The Tri-Cities communities are well acquainted with and
- actively support nuclear power. Local governmental authori-j ties actively support the development of nuclear power on j c the Hanford Reservation. Governor Ray, former Governor of i ( Washington, has stated that any new nuclear power plants in 3 the State of Washington should be located on the Hanford Reservation (Ref 20).
j The communities adjacent to the Hanford Reservation contain
- a work force trained and experienced in the construction '
and operation of nuclear reactors. As noted, several nuclear construction projects are currently underway on the Reservation. The S/HNP will utili:e the labor force leaving the existing construction programs. Such timing, I
to the extent feasible, would help reduce potential negative impacts to the communities providing the work force for current construction.
I 1 9.3.3.4 Federal Controls and Programs i
4 The Hanford sites are located within the central portion of the 570-square-mile uninhabited Hanford Reservation.
Federal control of this Reservation will insure that these sites will remain remote from populated areas.
, The Federal Government may site a nuclear waste repository i ~
at Hanford. Such a development would be independent of the l i i V 1,
9.3-13 Amendment 3 i
i
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 nuclear power plant program. However, if a repository were 'N built, the proximity to it of Hanford Reservation reactor sites would eliminate the possibility of public exposure to -
nuclear wastes being transported from the nuclear power plants to the repository. This croximity of recository and reactor units woula also reduce transportation costs and the possibility for accidents.
To summarize, the Banford Reservation provides a set of circumstances uniquely favorable to the development of nuclear power. The adjacent community houses highly trained and experienced personnel who can provide the engineering management and construction skills necessary for nuclear power development. The community is well acquainted with nuclear power and, as a result, is suppor-tive of the nuclear option. Support for nuclear power plant siting at the Hanford Reservation is also apparent at 3 the State level. Perhaps most important, an ability to license and safely accommodate nuclear facilities has been successfully and repeatedly demonstrated at the Hanford area.
9.3.4
SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SITES As discussed in Section 9.3.1.1, the previous siting studies and reviews identified and compared the Cherry Point, Skagit, Ryderwood and Goshen sites. The RSP Study identified and compared the Hanford 22-1, Hanford 22-2, Eltopia 24a, Magallon 30b, Pebble Springs South 44 and Rock Creek 45a alternative sites. A comparison of the above _.
alternative sites, including the proposed S/HNP Site location, is summarized in Table 9.3-8. The table i illustrates that there are no obviously superior sites to ,
the proposed site.
J
)
~
9.3-14 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 i
References for Section 9.3
- 1. Ezhibit 1, Application, September 1974.
- 2. Final Environmental Statement related to tne construction of Sksgit Nuclear Power Project Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-522 and 50-523, May 1975.
- 3. Letter from Applicants' attorneys to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, July 16, 1980.
- 4. ASLB Order Rc Schedule and Eelated Matters, August 27, 1980, paragraph 4 (d) .
- 5. Application Amendment 5, September 26, 1980.
- 6. Exhibit 4, Environmental Report, September 1974, Section 9.2.
- 7. Final Environmental Statement, May 1975, fol. Tr.
2913.
- 8. Leech, et al., fol. Tr. 4124; Leech, et al., fol. Tr.
12,542.
f ,
- 9. Leech, et al., fol. Tr. 12,542, p.15.
~
- 10. Id., p. 16.
- 11. Id., p. 42.
- 12. Id., p. 70.
- 13. Id., p. 76.
- 14. Id., p. 89 - 91.
- 15. Id., p. 92, 110.
- 16. Id., p. 92.
- 17. ASLB Order Re Conference of Janaury 22, 1980:
Background, Purpose and Results, March 6, 1980, paragraph 13.
- 18. Nuclear Power Plant Siting Program, 1990 Unit, Site Selection Study, June 1980, Regional Siting Program.
- 19. The MITRE Corporation, Workshop on Alternative Site Rulenaking, Summary Report for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, MITRE Technical Report MTR-79 WOO 112, 1979.
J 9.3-15 Amendment 3
S/ENP-ER 10/28/81
- 20. Skagit Nuclear Pcwer Project, Atomic Safety and s Licensing Board Proceedings, Transcript pages 15, 159- 3 160.
J s
/
9.3- 16 Amendment 3
, S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 1
I
,. g TABLE 9.3-1 Site Site Name Number General Location Johrson Creek 52b North of Vancouver, WA Lyons Road 52c North of Vancouver, WA Centerville 49a S.W. of Goldendale, WA Rock Creek 45a West of Roosevelt, WA Pebble Springs S. 44 South of Pebble Springs Units 1 & 2 Site Arlington, OR Hanford 22-1 22-1 Hanford Reservation N.W.
of Richland, WA Hanford 22-2 22-2 Hanford Reservation N.W.
of Richland, WA 3 Hanford 23 23 Hanford Reservation N.W.
of Richland, WA
, Eltopia 24a N.E. of Richland, WA, in Franklin County Magallon 30b South side Snake River N.E. of Lower Monumental Dam, WA .
Tucannon 31a South side Snake River N.E. of Starbuck, WA Cusick West and North of Cusick, 1 WA Scotia 3 South and West of Newport, WA These sites are shown on Figure 9.3-4.
5 k
l Amendment 3
.I
. . , . _ _ _ . _ , . . .. .. . w. . , ,m._ .. _ _ . _ _
e TMu f 9.1-2 l nt/ lit PntrAL MT!'as tv C#4'If Att Sf753 44 l Pe44,le 4%e 52h 52c
! 3 22-1 22-2 23 24a 30b lie !4= Ime ht* 49a .htra n l yevim !
Cusick Sutta Itsif cu d it.wif ts J H.w.f tr l Elttqla Kwiallcn *B s:mra n m ut h Creek Cen'.er ville Creek h uwt f
Ter r est r i al Fis;1resy 4.0 4.0 1. 7 3.7 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.8 4.7 4.7 Arrant it h u leny 4.3 4.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 1.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 2.4 4.3 3 twe gt ese 'y/t.m=1 t!w 3.8 3.9 4.9 4.9 4.2 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.4 2.8 2.0 Se ita vev elem/ Pest het ics/ 2.4 2.7 4.5 4.2 3.6 3. 9 3.0 2.5 1.2 2.7 2.4 3. 7 3.7 Cult ur al Pe= ste me
. . - - . . - _ _ - - - . - - . . - . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ . . ._ . . _ - . . . . - _ - = -
negemite hwireretel patirsi 1.5 3.6 4.3 4.3 3.8 3.9 4.0 1.7 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.4 tn weightirvi ren'ttu A (Tat.l e 9. 3-2) %
'~~~
g
?f a
t'l 92 P
- 1 fo U V L o
[a s e to U M tt N 03 W H h
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 4
f
. m i l I i 1 l
m e e q
$ C. 0 -
fn. 0 c
s E
l c : 9 9 9 5
3
- B w a -
6 -
g w :
U . . .
e 4
L '
h F-E .
- 3. . c c c c
,; e rc c c s
.l. l ; . } 9 ,, I E
&!mIilN t HONNMNmH 3
s
- ni cos 2 yo 4 7 1 9 0 7
- 51P .
3 3 4 3 3 3 ri 9k
_ ne
. bhe 3 4 9 0 2 s
. 2or .
5JC 3 3 3 3 3 3
_ =
_ l
_ i v 7 7 8 0 0 2 r ,
e 3 3 3 3
- t 4 4 an
. 9e
. 4C
. k h e
_ ace 8 9 9 0 1 4 5or .
. 4pC 3 3 3 4 4 3
_ S G
N s
_ I T leg nh
_ A tit F br u 1 1 0 2 3 t
_ 4 epo .
_ 1 4 PsS 4 4 4 4 4 3 A
- T N i
_ E u
_ M n N n
_ O R
a 7 6 4 9 2 1aco o.
_ I V 3T 3 3 3 3 4 3 N
- E n
_ 4 F o
- O l l
3
_ S e 9 E bg 0 0 0 1 3, e S 0a
. E Y 3 M 4 4 4 4 4 3 T
L P A A
N
. T A a Y ip T o I
V at 4l 9 9 9 6 0 8
_ I 2F 3 3 3 3 4 3
, T I
S d
_ N r ..
E o
_ S f n 8 7 5 6 9 s F 3 a
- O 2H 3 3 3 3 3 3
S T d
. L r
_. _ o S .
2f F - n 3 1 9 9 4 1 P 2 a 2l F 4 4 3 3 4 4 d
. or
. 1f
- r 3 2 0 9 5 3
. - 2 e 2H 4 4 4 3 4 4
. 4 a
_ i t
o 6 7 8 0 8 3
. c 3S 3 3 3 4 3 3 k
c i
- . . . . - ~ ~ . . -
,m -,
r p 1
77e!E 9. 3-5 Df;INIUJ%4U ta PUC PATIMF OF (.APOIIW!T SI'NS fu ss vnic 44 WU#it irwg M ble 45a 52b 57c Factor 1 3 22-1 22-2 23 24a 30 5 11a Springs Ik ok 49s Jc*visen t v ns (Per mnt ! Cusick SnAls Hanfor d flanfor d Hanfcto Eltryta %vgellen D E:arry.n Smt h Creek Cent erville Creek Sk =vi Site Develeg e t !! 3.6 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 1.5 2.8 4.2 3.6 4.4 3.7 4.0 Geology, seismicwgy 6 1.5 1.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 4 hrwhtims Tr ans5= w t at i<n 3 4.3 3.9 4.3 4.5 2.4 3.6 2.7 3.7 4.3 3.9 4.2 1.5 1.%
Auwss Water Stqply 6 4.2 2.9 4.1 4.4 3.7 2.8 4.0 4.5 2.6 3.1 1.5 1.7 2.4 3 Or>lirwrMater System 2 2.8 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5 4.%
Tr armrni ssim 68 1.5 1.6 3.4 3.2 3. 3 1.3 2.1 1.9 3.4 3.4 4.2 4.5 4.5 UI Syst en N N
Prcserty Avellebili t y 1 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.1 4.3 4.3 3.7 4.0 3.8 1.8 1.5 g y
IA n w Pbr m s cmst r ut- 3 1.5 1,5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5 4.5 M
tim f agve t Mi t igat im y Cteg m ite Rating 100 2.0 2.1 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.4 2.4 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 b
J m
U H
P o a' s O
U to
& (n ta
- H I
i I
I TFJt2 9. 3-6 CT R INFI) f2fAH 9MPCAL GLPR}UICAL PATIME AND PISt3L*ls UF SI?CITIVIM AWYSEE ,
a 44 Pettle 45a 52b 52, 1 3 22-1 22-2 23 24a 30b 31a Spr irns Rrk 49a J9mstn Lyc er, Cusick Sn d ia fixif or d its Im d timif < n d Eltqq a PLvjall<n Tra rv ri Stu rt h Creek Ceit er ville Creek R wl !
"A* Wight =1 (Tst les 9. 3-2, 9. )- 3) 3.5 1.6 4.3 4.3 3.8 3. 9 4.0 4.1 3.8 3.7
- 3. 7 3. 3 3.4 Envin'arvetal Rat J rq (e)
CeteJanical Patify (9) 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 *
- .w - = _ = l G r'd t r=1 Rat irn 2.80 2.83 4.09 4.09 3.94 3.97 3. 30 3.21 4.01 3.24 3.91 2.39 2.42 W ightirq: . le 4 7g 3
C(rd irwl Patirq 2.93 2.94 4.12 4.12 3.92 3% 3.40 3.28 4.04 3.32 3.68 2.52 2. %
Wight i rq: 4e + .fq t/3 Ord irw-10at iry 3.00 3.05 4.15 4.15 3.99 3.95 3.50 3.35 4.05 3.40 3.05 2.65 2.7J h WiW:t irq: . 5e * . 'ig g
1 Card'irial Ratiry 3.10 3.16 4.18 4.18 3.89 3.94 3.60 3.42 4.06 3.48 3.82 2.78 2.64 M
W i Wit ing: .6e * .49 y C rfrirw=1 Ratiry 3.20 3.27 4.21 4.21 3.96 3.93 3. 70 3.49 4.07 3.56 3.79 2.91 2.*a Wightity: . 7e + . 3g I
a
<D U H b o d N to N U M rt N u)
W H
\ ..
e
._._4
/
'! Ant T 9. 3- 7 0 4IN51) fW} $4 PMNTA[gG17fTQNICAL/BIMNjC RAT [73 E d4 Pett le 45a $25 ??e 1 3 22-1 22-2 23 24e 30b 31a Spr iruss R rk 49a J>csm 1. < ms Cusick Stral a Henf or d Ranfor d flanfend Elttpla Mylallm TutanrW O Srmt h Cff*k Centef95Ile Creek h WW1
'A' Wight -t (Tat las 9.3-2. 9.3-3) 3.5 3. 6 4.3 4.3 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.4 Dwirerrwetal Rat irm; (e) witer+cical Rat irva (9) 2.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3. 0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 20
~1 147 f F Tnic Rat itv) ($1 2.0 2.) 3. 7 3.5 3.5 3. 5 2.4 2.4 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 O r4> ire! Rating 2.45 2.50 3.90 3.80 3.70 3.75 2.90 2.85 3.70 3.35 3.90 3.25 1. 30 Wair#>t i ry: . 20e + . 309 + . 50$
O rd>i el patity 2.63 2.M 3.98 3.92 3.78 3.85 3.10 3.03 3.82 3.33 3.90 2.95 3.02 f.f3 Wi rg.t i ry: .2Be e .429 + . 305 N b
d4 nydi wi Ratify 2.81 2.82 4.06 4.04 3.06 3.95 3.30 3. 2) 3.94 3.31 3.90 2.65 J 74 N Weight i rup . 36e * .541 + .10$ I trl A1 e
L3
$1 P U O m N U M rt m N
W W H
6
.. _. . . .. . ~ . - _-
r t_e.3-9 9% ,e i ef $
amwarrve s m wner oie S i te p e*6 t e3 F actof f 'II noe. haetit erv i v o. te nd >t. arat er ==e steff site axess ttettes 6 ten. re ter e (*cimut.atw r t's. _ a tece. Neelev seie, wr= g *reas. =arrt, Ne et e r d esca S e ' qt t ee
- n. stagit siten tal e,,,,, ,,,, 3, go,e ,,,e ,,,,,,,
e,,feratie ae' action of esegte
- keget 2.5 4 6 9 1c.5 4 12 2.5 8 12 2 4 12 ga.g
- 2. It's r- =r er l eqn 939t.en 4 2.5 6 9 9 3 9 3 5 9 1 3 6 71.9 with tehole
- cringe see nenfeed con _
Py ).r eww! 3 4 5 1.5 9 1.5 9 2 8 10.S 4 4 9 78.9 c l a i.A meaf s e 4 tw e f er ebt e to Cherry Pv;tet 9.5 2.5 4 9 4 3 12 3 4 6 3 1 A 47.0 Enagit Goctechefeel F eltone.ctal Eneineer ino end Femic emputte of Site I4I
_ (CM-'9 f t e) (C-efm i t e l Pveluetten, therne t t e t %t eI ew t og e m em ifte ** W e
- 9. PSP Site 9 M4Pfore 22-I #e'el'* Of odditIDael pr e f er at'le gaote'hnical field A:o to cre - ee vie = let to elee- M Reef.e4 22-1 4 4.3 1.7 II felt, to tien nf e speelfte le% f er ee site ***efel ellee ,Z, Manfeto 22-2 4 4.1 3.3 11.8 and foe e.cu,ite south w at cf the
=sefe.d 22.i este e.
} Q, h nford 23 4 ?8 3.3 11.) e es t 9er- the final ehelee. g,j st 6 et y etera na 4 3* 3.5 11.4 Pet +1e 9rt inge So. 44 4 4.1 3.4 11.5 centereille 49, 4 3.7 3. 9 11.4 T-C. Skeqit 1mafoto thsc la s t Prejeg Fr e f er at'le Ci*petable Ctaref eble Preferat 1 Ase to incteese4 distance frem local omlogteel struct ot e, d.evees,4 Afsteace to t wtior f or ce, sad increted v
eeeves etw* ter set ve lte eces ider et teme.
p __.._ __ ____._. _._
P' J
- fu U O N
ft PJ (4 "
N 03 H
(.
( -. )
TABI,E 9.3-8 Sheet 2 of 2 i
l (1) liigh values imply preferable characteristics. i (2) a) Bechtel Power Corporation, Thermal Power Plant Siting Study, Puget Sound Power ;
& Light Company, 1970.
b) Puget Sound Power & Light Company, Environmental Report, Skagit Nuclear Project Units 1 and 2, 1974.
c) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Environmental Statement, Skagit 3
Nuclear Project Units 1 and 2, NUREG-75/055, 1975, tn d) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Testimony of Gordon W. Jacobsen, Alternative $
Si tes - Cherry Poi nt Itating, June 25, 1976. y a
c) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, NRC Staff Supplemental Testimony on $
Alternative Site Comparison, P. Leech, A. Dvorak, II . LeFevre, T. Wintets, E.
Stall, and R. Eastvedt, July 2, 1979.
(3) Regional Siting Program, Nuclear Power Plant Siting Program, 1990 Unit, Site Selection Study, 1900.
(4) These totals do not appear in RSP study, but are provided here as a basis-for comparienn.
8 R t' a
ft b
00 N
L*) CO H
M
(
eN t *
-y e **
I % E:.
TM 2 --
6Ll
= {
i (
< 5.
l ! *I <e a
- e. ,r
- a : :
- 7 4
4 =
s a -
. -v
=m - ,.,
E
.t E
E ,
i E 5
'_; z5 27 eu E '
- 7 -o II [m 00 ?
i C: :~ ~
t i if z -
n !: s 5:
I l
- Mi g*
I two
, a~ s i, a
4
<Z
)
l z
g y -~~'y '%
%s
..___.___._---_-f
, . ' a_.._-.-------
e
.{ !
P t
- b. % ) . , ,
y
')M[ r '.\
r
- j A C[,
~
j s - '(
1 4 s
- s. or , itt %-
} N '-
t '
s
~
! !. { '
)
k ss
\
d ,
4:
I
-p=:-
a(
,-- /*
i q .
' .,/ %v m
/ \
}q.Q J y
-\
~ j' {
/ 3
\ .
\
. . . y, . ,
< c. -
l -p.. s > i.,7 ,.
~
?
\-v
=
a
.m. -
J ,Y: 4 ,
} -
. .., ~ > _
d#$ /. e <
~
1_
N ';.'.i
, A, .,
, . _; g_ - ,
/ I 3 \ .
s ,
s s
..*g - . " * *
, ~- ese l
, . ' _2
,./ ~ , , ,e'+
m ., "'** (
, y- i,,,,, ._
, a
. C, _
, .=
5 6 q - = ,
} 3a -
(
.'4y, i x .. a .-
~=
(
. .. *** \ .
2 *
- I
'. i j d i
. 3
< p/ \"%,d t l
. l e.
's C , %
S [ ys 1 ;.Ny*
.s e
!c cr.
6 I \.
- az y, .. . - s , .
- .O a f 't, 5 ~'
s ,p
/**~ W N r *i,'? j p+ .
~~ 3 % i
%}S&)p y-
. n ,s s h d
. y , A_g 2(:
s 'k--1"V r y 43's
'~
= {A'
, M. si x
4
.,q
. . ' ,s av-m s. k..y% .
wh *b';-W '
[E 2, v f '
s $[
r p,
," S p 7 r,gP d a E> ,
t
...,~'~'-.. -
7 '
Qw g
ge
=tg gf :
- %. '(
~
b' .g z w u #-@r'*wi z
- ~
- l. E ",1f
- i E
)--.y
, ** O# #*8 s
- 7s
< %E e.< >g ', <F'-7 We> 1 ,
y, 1 /- ,'),.
,,,r 1 a w' , j )ffA y } r
=
- ~~~~~~~~'~~~~ 1 ,
y 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 1, .
1 PACIFIC NORTHWEST C
N- l J CRITERIA o
V REGION OF INTEREST
\\
CRATER!A ,
4 '.
~
+
t, 4
CANDIDATE
-\ . RESOURCE AREAS A
( ; u U/ l j CAITERIA p l I
~
S l
000000 IN II iiiii *eiif I N IIf, CRITERfA ,
i l xx l
xxx xxxx lll xx x1 CANDIDATE SITES
[ SITE COMPARISONS k PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHi COMPANY a SKAGIT I H ANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l
4
^
. SCHEMATIC OF SITING PROCESS FIGURE 9 3-2 Amendment 3
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 I -
i .
PACIFIC PDTENTIAL CRITERIA
'^\ N O RTHWEST
- SITES e Topography e incornpatible Land Use e Demography
- '"*8*"d* "" " "'
CRITE RI A
- *e a e s'.U.
e Service Areas . Transminion Access e Power-Poot Plannmg e Transportation Access C Considerations e Socioeconomms e load Centers e Sensitive Agustic Area:
1r e NRC Recommendations e Sensitive Terrestrel Areas I
- NRC PRCPOSED THRESHOLD REGION OF CRITERIA INTEREST -
CRITERIA e Water Use e Threatened / Endangered Speces a Dedceted Lands e Spwnmg Grounds / Nursery Areas e Population Centen e Weter Duahty a Water Sources e Dedcated Lands C e Pumpmg Head e Wer.sndt
. Vibratory Ground Motion
. Unia. e Ecosystems e Capable Fauttmg e Popu'ation Density o e Volcane Ettects U e Satery Consioerations CAN DID ATE R ESO U R,CE CANDIDATE AREAS CRITERIA SITE CDMPARISDN CRITERIA Ie e Topography Tectonic Settmo e Flood Potental e Local Geo:ogic Structure e incompatible Land Use a Abihty to Date Local Structure
-- e Demography e Demography e Manmace Geotechrncei
- Land Use Hazards e Socioeconomes e- Geolopc and Sa :.4it e Cultural Resources
- Conditions e Aesthetes e Foundation Conditions . . Agustic Ecoiogy! Water Dushti -
e Transmission Access . Terrestnal Eco:ogy
. Transportation Access
' e Engmeermg/Econornic Evaluations s Socioeconomics Site Development e Air Quainty/ Meteorology Geology, seismology, Foundations e Sensitive Aouetc Areas Transportation Access e Sensitive Terrestrial Areas Water Supply Coolino-Weter System p Transmoon System Property Avetlability 1
SITE Labor Force / Construction impact itiWson l COMPARt3DNS 1
PUGET SOUND POWEA & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PAOJECT ENVIRCNMENTAL REPORT m SITE SELECTION PROCESS FIGUAE 9 3-3 Amendment 3 i
i
S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 i
3 O. y s
e N 0 WASHINGTON -
l' SEATT LE
, })
SPO K ANE 8 9 F 23 30b T" 22' 2 F24a
\
sr#*
O
- 4l 49s 31, \
52b 44 45a 22-1 W LA WALLA Q W goda A 6
52c ( CO 2 1
D ETON PORTLAND U
x.
i v f t SITE LEGEND p k 1 CUSICK D 3 SCOTIA 221 H ANFOAD EUGENE $ 22 2 HANFORD , ,
23 HANFORD i OREGON 24a E LTOPI A 30b MAGALLON I 31a TUCANNON
, 44 PEBBLE SPRINGS SOUT H
, 45a ROCK CREEK I 49a CENTERVILLE E2b JOHNSON CREEK 52c LYONS ROAD l
i I
O MEDFORD 1
i, MIL E S PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY o 50 oo SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT I
33 ,go ,5; ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
- tLOVETE AS i
i
'U ) FfNAL CANDIDATE RESOURCE AREAS AREAS AND CANDIDATE SITES O CANDIDATE SITES FIGURE 9 3-4 _
Amendment 3
i l S/HNP-ER 10/28/81 l 4.5 -
1 i m
_ 1,22-2 HANFORD T _
- - 44 PEBBLE SPRING 4.0 - j SOUT et I 2 -
i ; 24a ELTOPIA
- 23 HANFORD
, 49a CENTERVILLE j 30b MAGA. LON 45a ROCK CREEK 3.5 21e TUCANNON 3 SCOTIA
$ 1 CUSICK 5
4 cc 3.0 -
5 b JOHf SON REEK
- e -
3 2.5 -
I
\._, 2.0 -
1.5 -
i i i 6 i a 1
ENVIRONME NT AL 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 l GEOTECHNICAL 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
, PROPORTIONAL WEIGHTINGS (From Table 9.3-5)
I 1
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SKAGIT / HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT j _ SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL /
1 (d 4 GEOTECHNICAL RATINGS FIGURE 9.3-5 Amendment 3
i S/HNP-Ed 10/28/81 4.5 -
4
~
\
22-1 HANFORD i 22-2 HkhWORO
~
$ d L SPRINGS
-- a p_ - SOUTH
- 49a CENTERVILLE 23 HANFORu
- { _ _
3.5 -
0 2 -
_ dh ROCK CREEK 30t, MAGALLON
( 31a TUCANNON m
U 3.0 -
3 25 h 3 SCOTIA 1 CuSiCK 5
WJ 52c LYONS ROAD 7 52b JOHNSON CREEK 2.5
~
2.0 -
1.5 -
1 1 I L ENVIRONMENTAL 0.20 0.28 0.36 j GEOTECHNICAL 0.30 0.42 0.54 g ECONOMIC 0.50 0.30 0.10 j PROPORTIONAL WElGHTINGS (From Table 9.3-6) i
- PUGET SolfND POWER & LIGHT CCMPANY 1
SKAGIT I H ANFORD NUCLEAR PROsECT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l
i SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF m, COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL /
Q GEOTECHNICAL/ ECONOMIC RATINGS FIGURE 9 3-6 Amendr.ent 3
~~
, ~ ~
S/ENP-ASC/r1 12/2yar- -
! Harold Lefevre Frank Spangenberg - NESCO nuclear power plant program. sowever, if a repository were l built, the proximity to it of Nanford Reservation reactor sites would eliminate the possibility of public exposure _ to nuclear wastes being transported from the nuclear power plants to the repository. This- proximi ty of repository and reactor units would also reduce transpor-tation oosts and
, the possibility for accidents.
To summarize, the Banford Reservation"provides a set of circumstances uniquely favorable to the development of nuclear power. The adjacent community houses highly trained and experienced personnel who can provide the engineering management and construction skills necessary P for nuclear power development. The community is well
- acquainted with nuclear power and, as a result, is supper- -
f tive of the nuclear option. Support for nuclear power 3 plant siting at the Banford Reservation is also apparent at the State level. Perhaps most important, en ability to license and safely accommodate nuclear facilities has been successfully and repeatedly demonstrated at the Hanford j stem.
9.3.4 8tEOtARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SITES As discuss,ed in Section 9,3.1.1, the previous siting studies and reviews identified and compared the Cherry Point, Skagit, Ryderwood and Goshen sites west of the Cascades and found that these sites
- adequately represent the range of environmental alternatives available and are
among the best that can reasonably be found in the siting -
areas west of the Cascades" (Ref 9) . The RSP Study identified 13 potentially licensable sites and found that six sites east of the Cascades appear to be relatively more i suitable than others. These six sites are the Hanford 22-i 1, Banford 22-2, Manford 23, Eltopia 24a, Pebble Springs l South 44 and Centerville 49a. 4 The following 10 sstes adequately represent the range of
, environmental alternatives available and are among the best l that can be reasonably found in the siting areas east and west of the Cascades. These sites constitute the slate of f
j alternative sites for the S/HNP Sites
- 1. Cherry Point
- 2. skagit
- 3. Ryderwood
. 1
- 4. Goshen
- 5. Hanford 22-1
- 6. Banford 22-2
- 7. Banford 23
- 8. Eltopia 24a 9.3-14 Amendrent i
l, . . . _ . . . . . . ~;. -
I '
S/NNP-ASC/ER 12/21/81 t
- 3. ?ebble Springs south 44
, 10. Canter-/ illa 49a i
A sparison of these 10 alternative sites, including the 4 pro sed S/BMP Site location, is susEsarised in Table 9.3-8.
. The table illustrates tnat thiere are no obviously superior sities to the proposed site.
t 4
e v
.s 1
A I
i .4 2 4 m.,
~<
_ - - --_ . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . . _ .. _._.. ._ _