ML19296A587
| ML19296A587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07002623 |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1979 |
| From: | Parker W DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906250057 | |
| Download: ML19296A587 (17) | |
Text
7
./
D i r K.8? PowKH COM PAN Y twi.a liru um.
' V2d N )Il li C li t'!f C ll.NTIlt !, T, C !i Alti.b f r V (' us;J4.s ni www o. r.w u n. s a.
May 7, 1979 9.,, s > r,
- ,.e...-
- .. o..
Mr. William J. Dircks, Director Office of Nuclear Material, Safety, and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissian Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Mr. Leland C. Rouse, Acting Chief Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle Branch
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station Docket No. 70 W '1 r
Dear Mr. Dircks:
In response to Mr. Rouse's letter of April 12, 1979 ny letter of April 23, 19 7 t>
transmitted responsea to questions 1 through 8.
After further discussion, with your staff a suppleuental response to questica number one (attached) as tele-copied to Mr.
B. S. Spitalny on May 1, 1979.
In order to provide you with a basis for the aforementioned supplemental response please find attached a copy of the pertinent output pr.ges of the probabilintic sleulati.on production costing model used to deternine the change in production costs caused by operating Oconee at half capacity and a note of explanation.
% r/
y truly yours, / f' N 'N d m _.. d.r 6 f M William O.
Parker, Jr! J GJP:scs Attachments
.s O, r.
D T s
1,smh i
i dQl nU+b, Y
7 00625 0M7
Supplementary P,esponse to Question 1: McGuire Nuclear Station Amendment to SNPI.-1773 Docket No. 70-2623 The following statement is in response to a condition implied in Question 1 to which the initial response was not addressed.
The original response to Question 1 pointed out that even though Oconee aas dispatched in a manner which placed it in a last-on, firs t-o f f, priority, the energy produced by the base-loaded units would not be changed appreciably from that of a normal dispatch because of the economic dispatch procedure employed in the determination.
The implication in Question 1 which was not addressed in the initial respense was that an economic dispatch should not be followed, but that Oconee would be arbitrarily d sp,atched above the base-loaded fossil units regardless of the relative production costs.
The production costing program used in the analysis, however, does not permit a dispatch other than an economic one, so to derive such an evaluation, it is necessary to synthesize the condition.
This has lieen done by assuming each of the Oconee units has a maximum capability ecual to half its actual rating, and then dispatching those units on an e conomic basis. This is a reasonably valid approximation of the specified condition in that it enables the base-loaded fossil units to operate at rated capability in base while the Oconee units are producing only half their capability.
Using the above approximation, it has been determined that the resulting production costs for the Duke system during the period June, 1979, through December, 1980, would increase by $158,558,000 when compared with the cost associated with the normal operation of Oconee. An aca_mional cost of $S5,785,000 for the necessary purchased capacty, would yield a total additional cost of $244,343,000.
In the response to Question 6, the additional cost, without any gene ration f rom Oconee, 1,s been determined to be $365,874,000
~
It is important to note that reducing the production at Oconee, by whatever maans, does not preclude the need for additional spent fuel storage, but merely delays the time when it will be required.
i.ence, au economic analysis would properly include the present.corths of the fixed charges on the investments required under the alternative plans. This is ignored in the above production cost figures.
DlIS:mac 4-27-79 r*
p J.>.>o s i 3>
Mr. William J. Dircks
?!ay 7, 1979 Attachment Enclosed are copies of the pertinent output pages of the probabilistic simulation production costing model used to de:ernine the change in production costs caused by operating Oconee at half capacity.
This data was the basis for the supplementary response to Question 1 by Duke Power Company dated April 27, 1979 and transmitted via teletype to the NRC/0NMSS on May 1, 1979.
In that response, it was assumed that the Oconee units were derated to half capacity fron June, 1979 through Dec-ember, 1980 and compared the results to a case with Oconee at rated capacity. The production cost increase was calculated as shown below:
PRODUCTION COSTS ($1000)
IIALF RATED YEAR CAPACITY CAPACITY DIFFERENCE 1979 788 302 732 156 56 146 1980 913 402 801 990 111 412 Total 167 558 This differs from the $158 558 000 given in the supplementary esponse because of a typographical error.
The correct figure is $167 558 000.
An additional cost would be incurred for the fira purchase capacity to replace Oconee for the nineteen month study period.
This cost, at the average cost of $3.50 per kW-month indicated in our response to Question 6, was calculated as follows:
$3.50 x 19 nonths = $85 785 000 430 00 kW x 3 units x kW-nonth The enclosed copies of the output demonstrate that the loss of base load capacity such as Oconee causes increased production on almost all the other units on the systen.
The more efficient fossil units produce no;e energy, but are not sufficient to replace all of the lost output of Occlee.
Each unit is then called upon to produce an additional increment of energy. The only exception is the pumped storage unit - - Jocassee.
The reduced output of Oconee reduces the economic advantage of operating the pumped storage unit.
It therefore operates at a lower capacity factor.
Mr. U1111am J. Dircks May 7, 1979 Attachment Page Two There are several items shown in the model output which raight require clarification:
Loss-of-Load llours is an index of reliability of the generation system.
EUE is Expected Unserved Energ;y, i. c. - - the energy that Duke would be unable to pro-vide without relying on our inter-connections.
Native System Load is the territorial load that is forcasted for the period.
Mills /kh"n refers to fuel cost.
Please note that the last two columns, expected hours on line and expected start ups are empirically determined and deserve less confidence.
In addition, the hours on line figure is in error whenever a unit is derated.
The 'init by unit data is shown on the first two sheets, while a station summary and the data for peakers is shown on the third sheet.
One of the peakers, Marshall 011, is not a separate unit - - but is in fact the top 100 Mh' available from Marshall Units 3 and 4 by supplemental firing with oil.