ML19241B239
| ML19241B239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1979 |
| From: | Sterrett D DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241B218 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907130264 | |
| Download: ML19241B239 (5) | |
Text
(g)>'~~
q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA eceyy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8mc AB 1979 ) 1.
J LH4 0 J/
In the matter of
)
W em a r s.
e-.+,
a so w.
)
5-*.
)
g p
DUKE POWER COMPANY
'=
)
(Amendment to Material License
)
Docket No.
70-2623 SNM-1773 for Oconee Nuclear
)
S tation Spent Fuel Transportation
)
and Storage at McGuire Nuclear
)
Station)
)
)
TESTIMONY OF D. H. STERRETT My name is Donald H.
Sterrett.
I am Manager of System Planning, Duke Power Company.
I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Duke University in 1944 Following graduation, until May. 1946, I served as a line officer in the U.
S. Navy, in the capacity cf Engineer Of ficer on a destroyer-escort.
In July, 1946, I was employed by the Duke Power Compan, in the Relay Department.
My responcibilities were pri=arily in power plant relaying, and included both the design of relay protection systems and field testing of installed facilities.
In December, 1949, I was transferred to the System Planning Department, where I participated in long-range planning studies which included pcwer. Ant s i t in g, transmiss ion.tudie s, and the economic evaluation of alternative plans.
In March, 1967, I was apoointed Production and Transmission Flanning Engineer; in May, 1974, Manager, Projects Planning; and, in March, 1977, Mana g e r, System Planning.
In my present capacity, =y respcasibilities include the planning of all generation, tran smis s ic a, and distribution facilities necessary to meet the future demand for electricity in the Duke service area.
b1h
' 2.Q Since 1969, I have been a member of the Syste olanning CcemiItee ef'tT.e Edison Electric Inst'tute (EEI), and am currently Vice Chairman of that co=mittee.
I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and for a number of years have served on the Systa., Planning Committee of the Power Engineering Society. At present, I am serving on the System Planning and Operations Task Force of the Electric Powcr Research 5jd i '? 4 7907130A6Y Institute (EPRI), and an the Technical Advisory Committee of the Southeastern Electric Re! Lability Council (SERC).
I am a registered professional engineer in North Carolina.
My testimony will relate to several contentions of the Natural Resources Defense Council which comes within my a rea o f resconsibility within.the Duke Power Company.
Contention 3:
Fa t!,qe_ to consider the followinz alterna.tives:
Ja: Oconee as a last-on, firs t-o f f clant.
This contentica implies that operation of the Oconee units shculd be changed from that of a base load plant to cyclic ape:ation, in which the units are placed in operation as the system load increases during the daily load cy;1e, and removed from service as the system load decreases.
The Oconee units are not designed for this mode of opera: ion, and are constrained by operating limits.
In addition to shortening the life of the turbine rotors because of the transient thermal connitions encounterec with cyclic operation, the build-up o f Xenon in the reactor core under these operating conditions has been well documented. A return to full load while the Xenon level is high cannot be accomplished.
From an operating standpoint, the physical constraints on the e nee u.
are such that the units could not follow the system load, should such 2n a::emp be m.de.
From about 207, capacity, a minimum load level, the Cconee units can be increased in loading 744 MN in an heur and a half, 1000 BM during the c. ext four hours, and 23; FM in three more hours.
This represents an increase in loading on the Cconee units o f 2003 FM in an eight and a hal f liour pe riod. or an average of about 2]6 >F per. :u r.
The system load will increase curing the morning periods at a rate of about SCO MW per hour. The Cconee units, therefore, would be unable to change with the system load, should such operation be attempted.
It should be pointed out, in addition, that operation in a cyc_ical manner would be very costly in terms of system production expense.
Cperating the C1d iC[
-3 Oconee unita in base yicids the lowest total system nroduction cost under econcmic dispatch, and operation in any other mode requires more energy to be produced from units burning coal, at a considerably higher fuel cost.
For example, if it is assumed the Oconee units operated in base, but at a level of half their capability instead of at full capability, the additional expense in the year 1980 alone would be $111,412,000.
The increase in cost resulting frem cyclical operation would be even greater.
Economic dispatch of a power system is~a complex procedure in which each generating unit is operated at that point on its load curve which, when combined with all the other units in operation on the system, will yield the lowest net total system production cost for that system load level.
It is not a matter of fully loading cne generating unit, then bringing :he next unit on line, but rather of opermcing each unit as a function of its incremental cost curve, recognicing its relationship with the other generating units a'nd the system load requirements.
Even during valley load periods, the number o f units on line, and their specific loading, are determined by incremental load-curves, by the physical constraints on the units themselves, and by the need to meet specific system load requirements. The concept of "last-on, first-o f f" generation dispatch is a simplistic approach which simply does not exist in the real world.
35-Cast of increawd curchai's -f,cwer due to Ocenae eutdem ;;
30eculatira.
The shutdown o f Oconee becomes expensive in terms of replacement power in two ways.
The energy not produced by Cconee would have to be replaced insofar as possible by e ergy produced from other genera:ing units un the :uxe
- system, which burn ei:her coal or oil; and, that energy which coulu not be provided from wi:hin the Duke system, would have to be purchased from scurces external to the Duke system.
The cost to produce the energy on the Duke system can be determined w.k J
s a considerable degree of certainty.
The average variable C&ll and fuel costs for Duse's base-load units have been calculated to be the following in 1979:
,,_ n C 1 /:
- f
t.
. Cost in $ /Mih Unit (s)
Variable 06M 1979 Avera2e Fuel Belews Ck. 1&2
.192 12.80 Marshall 1 & 2
.366 16.55 Marshall 3 & 4
.431 16.28 Allen 5 1.082 13.66 oconee 1, 2, 3
.525 4.44 The cost to purchase energy is speculative in the sense that Duke has no contract at present by which such energy could be purchased.
However, based on experience with short teen power purchases which have been made in the past, a reasonable estimate of the cost of purchased power can be made.
The probable cost of firm capacity would be between S3.25 and $3.75 per kW-month plus the cost of energy which would be no less than 20 mills per kWh.
Based on an average value of $3.50 per kW-month, the cost of a one year contract to replace the Oconee capacity would be $108,360,000. As suming a minimum energy cost equal to that of the Duke system fossil-fuel units, the total cost of purchased energy would be $257,514,000. The total cost of purchased power to replace Oconee for one year, therefore, would be $365,874,000.
Actually, in the light of the current status of units which have been removed from service for environ = ental or other regulatory reasons, and in view of the delayed start-up dates of units on neighboring systems, there is no assurance that firm power could be contracted for at any price.
Centention 5: Acolicant should be bound bv its full core discharze standard or demonstrate feost/ benefit) that this cacabilitr is more valuable than costs of shirment of f-site o f one core of scent fu e l.
Applicant's response to Interveaor's Contention 3 po nted out the very considerable impact of Oconee on che Duke system operating costs. Although full core discharge capability becomes extremely important should a shutdown of the entire Oconee plar.: be required for generic or other reasens, Applicant a.,
- c. c J!S i//
5 cites the cost of not operating an Oconee unit, a minimum of $163,000 per day, as a sound reason for keeping all the Oconee units in service for as much of the time as possible.
D.e cost of transporting the fuel to maintain full core discharge capability 1.3 insignificant when compared with the alternative of st,utting Oconee dc:m.
M9 43
, c.
I M
L 'd
'