ML19221A832
| ML19221A832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-10.4.1, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-10.4.1, SRP-10.04.01, NUDOCS 7907090210 | |
| Download: ML19221A832 (5) | |
Text
Section 10.4.1 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 10.4.1 BENEFIT-COST BALANCE:
BENEFITS REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 11 Summary Cost-Benefit Analysis Environmental Reviews 3
Plant Description 4
Environmental Impacts of Construction 5
Environmental Impacts of Station Operation 8.4 Staf f Assessment of Need Standards and Guides None Other None REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmental Statement Sections 10.4.1 Benefit-Cost Balance: Benefits 0_ther Environmental Reviews 10.4.3 Benefit-Cost Balance: Summary I.
PUR'OSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staf f's identification and tabulation of the benefits resulting from proposed project construction and operation.
The scope of the review directed by this plan will include the plant average annual electrical energy generation (kWh),
the quantities of other products (e.g., steam) produced, and those benefits (e.g.,
'09 09,
10.4.1-1 7 9 07 0 90?V)
Feb,aary 1979 increased regional productivity, tax revenues, new or improved recreational facil-ities) identified in previous environmental reviews. Benefits will be identified for the applicant's proposed project and for any staff-recommended alternatives to mitigate predicted environmental impacts.
II.
REQUIRED DAT/, AND INFORMATION The following data will usually be required:
A.
The net electrical generating capacity of the proposed plant (from ESRP 3.2).
B.
The average annual preduction of other commercial products (from ESRP 3.2).
C.
Expected annual tax payments to local and to State governments (1) for the construction period and (2) during plant operation (from ESRPs 4.4.2 and 5.8.2).
D.
Incremental increase in regional productivity (1) during the construction period and (2) during the operation period (from ESRPs 4.4.2 and 5.8.2).
E.
Those nonmonetary benefits (e.g., new recreational facilities) identified by the revenues for ES Sections 4 and 5.
III.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The benefits considered by the reviewer will be based on the project as pro-posed by the applicant, including post-application modifications made in response to staff recommendations for measures to mitigate predicted environmental impacts.
Where staff recommendations have not been adopted by the applicant, the reviewer will identify and analyze benefits for the project as proposed by the applicant and as modified by the staff recommendations.
A.
The reviewer will obtain from Fs fection 3.2 the baseload generating capacity to be provided by the proposed plant, and will calculate the average annual electrical generation that will result f rom plant capacity factors of 70%,
109 2".sa 10.4.1-2
February 1979 60% and 50%.
The reviewer will also quantify other plant production benefits (e.g., steam production).
B.
The reviewer will identify and tabulate the other benefits of project construction and operation in consultation with the reviewers for ES Sections 3, 4, and 5.
During this process, the reviewer will identify those other benefits listed in the applicant's environmental report, and ensure that these potential benefits have been considered by the appropriate staf f reviewer (s). Typical of these benefits are State and local tax revenues, incremental increase in regional productivity, enhancement of recreational values, enhancement of esthetic values, environmental enhancement, and creation and improvement of local roads or other facilities. Intangible benefits (e.g., reduced dependerce on scarce fossil fuels) should also be considered.
These benefits will be quantified in monetary or other appropriate terms whenever possible and their significance will be determined on a political boun-dary or regional basis. When quantification of these benefits is not possible, the reviewer wiil make a qualitative assessment.
IV.
EVALUATION A.
The reviewer will ensure that all appropriate plant production benefits have been identified and quantified. The reviewer will also ensure that quantifi-cation of these benefits is correct and is consistent with the staff's findings in ES Section 8.4.
B.
For other benefits, the reviewer's evaluation will ensure that:
1.
All benefits have been identified and established.
2.
The quantification of each benefit is appropriate.
3.
The relative significance of each benefit has been established and is appropriate to the impact.
!09 245 10.4.1-3
February 1979 V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT The benefits of plant construction and operation will be summarized in tabular form similar to that shown i n Tabl e 10. 4.1-1.
Each benefit identified by the reviewer will be disc _3 sed in the text and presented in the table.
The reviewer will provide inputs to the following ES section-Saction 10.4.3.
The reviewer will provide inputs to the reviewer of ES Sec-tion 10.4.3 as reouired to conduct and present the final Denefit-cost balance for the proposed project.
VI.
REFERENCES None 9
mm 8 10.4.1-4
February 1979 TABLE 10.4.1-1 BENEFITS FROM THE PROPOSED FACILITY (EXAMPLE)
Capacity, MWe Average annual electrical energy generation 106 MWhr 70% capacity factor 60% capacity factor 50% capacity factor Other products Incremental increases in employment (a) Construction (b) Operaticn Property taxes paid during plant construction State, annual (millions of dollars)
County, annual (millions of dollars)
Other, annual (millions of dollars)
Property taxes paid during plant operation State, annual (millions of dollars)
County, annual (millions of dollars)
Other, annual (millions of dollars)
Other Benefits Recreational Transportation Esthetic
\\ 0 9
? /r ',
u 10.4.1-5