ML18046A483

Comments on DOE 810130 Ltr to Eisenhut Re Reliability & Cost Impact of Shutdown.Use of Capacity Factor Based on 1980 Performance Inappropriate.Unit Out of Svc for Refueling & Mod During CY80 Per NRC Requirements

ML18046A483
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	03/05/1981
From:	Heins G CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	Weiner R ENERGY, DEPT. OF, ECONOMIC REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION
References
NUDOCS 8103100469
Download: ML18046A483 (2)

Text

consumers Power Gordon L. Heins company Vice President System Operations

{;~mer.al .Of-fices: 1945 West Parnall Road, Jackson, Michigan 49201 * '(517) 788-1715 March 5, 1981 Economic Regulatory Administration Richard E Weiner, Director Division of PC'*rer Supply and Reliability EEA Washington, DC 20461

Dear Mr Weiner:

Your letter dated January 30, 1981, to Darrell G Eisenhut add.ressed the reliability and cost impact of a shutd.own to the Palisades Nuclear Plant.

After reviewing this let:ter, I feel it necessary to respond with the fol-lowing comments.

A. ~:he ar:.a.lysis of increased costs ti;:i the cmitomer due to a Palisades oFtEge :~s mj.sleadiiig nue to r:;.n i.n<J.1)proi)r:i.ate asswrrption. 'fi1e analyE.i~3 uses a capacity factor for the Palisade:;; unit based on i*:~s 1930 per--

formance to predict the effects of a Palisades outage over the ne:;~t tliree-cr1onth period. 'Ehis is not 8.ppropris.te since dur:Lng 198~J the Palisa;lef,; unit was out of ser-v:ice for r8fcieling, plnnt mocJif:i catL):-1s to sati sf'j" N'PC req_ui:rements, and tu::.* cine rcainte-nance. In P"-"edictiEg the pc-.:ri'ona.anr:;f: over the next three-*month period, the proper 8.prroac::-1 wou.ld. l:e . to use Palisades 1 expected capacity factor ove:c tbis t:i_me period which is currently 80 percent rather than. the l-15. 7 }X'.I'Cent m;ed in the analysis. Based on *the 80 percent capacity fa.ctc"r ~ the net replacement. power cost at CPCo' s current incremental costE; is over

• 350,000 a day; therefore, over a three-mo:nt~n reriod, thh: would result in increased c-:)nswners costs of approximately $30 million. It should be pc;j_rited_ out tl1at tl1ese liic:ceased costs -vrr:.:.-:J.ld te *cornc wainly O;r people living in one of the most severeJy depressed areas of the United States.

• B. 'l'he import capability listed in *die ta1)UJ_c:.tion for the M:i.chigan Electric Coordinated S~rstems (M!.<:CS) has D? ben:dng on the: amount of energy which is actually available to import. The o.vaiJ.:::ib:Llity of ';'Ower from other utilities is very unpredict<:.1:1le, especi.ally under peak load conditions when certain utilities may l)e either suffering capacity shortf2,lls or finding it necessary to r0pla.'ce extremely \;'Xp2nsi ye fuels *witb ymrchased power. In addition, i,:ransfer c;.,,pabilit.ies can be and a.re affected drn.stically by the ope:n1tions of other uU.J.:it.:i.es; tl.wrefore, import capabil:i. ty :i.s definitely not a fiGL~re to be added to available reserves.

Doinr; this is \"ery misleading and i if dep,c:ndP.il ixpon, col1ld lead to seriotH:> c.o:r:.sequencef;.

A!olt s '\o

2 C. Actual loads and unit forced outat;e rates rarely, if ever, occur pre-cisely at the predicted value. They just represent averages. When loads and unit forced outages are lower than predicted, there is an increase in reserve margin; however, when they are greater than pre-dicted, the reserve margin disappears very q_uickly. In light of this, I q_uestion the accuracy of the statement on page 2 of the analysis attached to your letter which states 11 * *

• the Palisades Plant should have no significant effect on the adeq_uacy or reliability of the MECS system during the 1980-81 winter period even without assistance from neighboring utilities. 11 CC Darrell G Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing NRC