- An option for Unit 1 that has been proposed by a number of opponents of Seabrook is a conversion of the unit to some form of fossil fuel burning. The Unit 2 study team, based on direction by the Joint Owners in February 1986, had a study prepared for Unit 2 to evaluate the conversion option for Unit 2. That study looked at the utilization of oil or gas as the fuel coal was not evaluated as an option due to delivery, storage, fly ash disposal, scrubber sludge disposal and environmental problems. The Unit 2 conversion study was an "order of magnitude" study completed in a restricted time frame on a limited budget. Based on that study, I used the background and underlying data to prepare an "order of magnitude" estimate for the conversion of Unit 1. I want to stress that this can not be considered an engineering estimate in any context. This estimate was prepared for the sole purpose of having some sense of the time frame and costs involved for such a proposal. We are frequently asked about the possibility of a conversion and we need some figures for response. Again, please note that all basic numbers and figures were prepared for Unit 2. I have converted those numbers to Unit 1 based on the stage of completion of the non-nuclear portion of the unit. Attachment 1 shows a preliminary layout for conversion of Unit 2 I assume for this purpose that a similar layout could be effected for Unit 1 with the following exceptions: Demolition of Unit 2 containment, nuclear related structures and turbine generator building would be required to make room for the boilers and stacks for Unit 1. -2 3. ASSUMPTIONS Attachment 2 shows the basic assumptions underlying the Unit 2 study. I used the same assumptions for this analysis of Unit 1. Attachment 3 shows the cost to convert estimate for Unit 2. This shows a cash estimate of $1.8 billion for oil/gas with or without a topping turbine -- a 96 month schedule and a net output of 1,520 MW with a topping turbine. (a) (b) (c) (d) I assumed that the new facilities required for Unit 1 (tanks, boilers, stacks, topping turbine hall) would be the same -- cost $826 million cash cost. Demolition (net) costs will be $16 million. I assumed modifications to existing facilities would amount to $50 to $100 million. Other cash costs assumed: Based on this preliminary "order of magnitude" estimate, I conclude that: "Conversion of Unit 1 to a dual-fired oil/gas facility (with a topping 11/21/86 OIL/GAS CONVERSION Pycpose:__Development of the scope requirements for conversion of Seabrook Unit "1 to an Oil or Gas fired power plant in order to develop an order of magnitude estimate. General_Assumptions: Utilization of Unit Systems. Turbine Generator and Secondary This assumption established the following heat balance requirements for the boilers: Steam output from Nuclear Steam Supply Systems 15,140,000 pounds Steam Input to Turbine Generator Unit II's circulation water system will handle Thermal Load. Allows utilization of existing system Control Building and Non-Essential Building used as design Diesel Generator, Warehouses and other construction facilities west of Unit 11 were demolished This assumption was made to allow room for Boiler Buildings and Tank Farm O No changes to Unit II's niechanical equipment required. Time frame of study did not allow for detailed evaluation of systems. O Steam Plant was ments. sized to satisfy aforemention steam require This assumption was made in order to utilize Unit II's systems as design where O Oil supply line is routed from Newington Station were barge unloading facilities exist Gas supply line is routed from Boston Time frame of the study did not allow for detailed Investigation into source of Natural Gas. |