ML20058L241
| ML20058L241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1972 |
| From: | Phillips T FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION |
| To: | Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9105130410 | |
| Download: ML20058L241 (6) | |
Text
di o
~
k k
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 50-263 WASHINGTON. D.C.
20426 IN REPLY REFER TO:
NR-ER 7 4L F1
[ l lh, Mr. Daniel R. Muller p
3 g
Assistant Director for Environmental g
7 w a h_
Projects gj
> h.3Qh h Directorate of Licensing QM U. S. Atomic Energy Conrnission l T t_.. i w __j 9 '" 5 7 R
Washington, D. C.
20545 6-4 a
".2 C m
Dear Mr. Muller:
g y
N C'
This is in reference to your letter of May 26, 1972, requesting comments on the AEC " Draft Environmental Statement for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant of the Northern States Power Company, Docket No.
50-263" dated May 1972.
The Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant was placed in commercial service on June 30, 1971, and has been operating at 545 megawatts under the Provisional Operating License No. DPR-22, issued to the Northern States Power Company on January 19, 1971.
The Federal Power Commission's Eureau of Power has commented on the need for the continued operation of the Monticello unit in a letter dated January 25, 1972, and those comments were included by reference in the AEC Draft Environmental Statement.
Since submission of those comments, the Applicant has submitted Supplement 1, dated April 4,1972 to the Environmental Report for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, which provides additional data on the Applicant's system and the Mid-Continent Area Reliability Council (MARCA) system of which the Applicant is a member.
The Bureau of Power staff's analysis of the 1972 summer peak for the Applicant's system and that of the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool, the subregional pool of MARCA which includes the Applicant's system as made in the January 25, 1972 letter is still valid, and was confirmed by a subsequent analysis contained in FPC News Release No. 18209, dated April 21, 1972. The forecasted electric generating capability and load data for the Applicant's system during the 1972-1976 period is in agree-ment with the MARCA's April 1, 1972 submission to the Commission under FPC Order No. 383-2 (Statement of Policy on the Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service).
The comments which follow are based upon the Applicant's submissions to the Atomic Energy Conmission, the AEC Draft Environmental Statement and other information availabic to the Federal Power Commission and its h05130410720707 ADOCK 05000263 CF q.-.
V / 6
=
.s.
I s !
Mr. Daniel R. Muller I
l Bureau of Power staff, including Power System Statements and Regional i
Reliability Council reports made in accordance with FPC Order 383-2.
{
The staff of the Bureau of Power generally bases its evaluation of the r
need for a specific bulk power system facility upon the load-supply situation for the critical peak load period immediately following the i
availability of the facility. However, the useful lives of such facilities are generally 30 years or longer, and they will continue to serve.the utility's needs during their service lives.
The additional comments are made by the Bureau of Power's staff in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act'of 1969,.and the l
Guidelines of the President's Council on Environmental Quality dated 5
April 23, 1971. They are directed to a further review of the need for j
the facilities as concerns the adequacy and reliability of the affected j
electric bulk power systems, and matters related thereto.
l The Need for the Facilities
+
The Applicant has illustrated its continuing need for the output of l
the Monticello unit through its forecasted load requirements.in the years 1972 to 1976, the first five full years of projected commercial operation
-l of the unit. Table X-1, page X-3, of the Draft Environmental Statement shows the annual growth of load at the summer peak during the period 1962 i
to 1971 which resolves to an annual rate of growth of 8.1 percent. The forecasted peak demand and generating capability for the Applicant's system for the period 1972 to 1976 contained in Table X-1 agree with the l
projections contained in the MARCA ten-year regional forecast.
The predicted reserve margin data for 1972-1976 for the Applicant's i
system, the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool in which the Applicant is one of the twelve member electric utilities and rural electric l
i cooperatives, and the MARCA region are shown in the fellowing tabulations, l
i f
i i
I I
i t
I
~.
i i
Mr. Daniel R. Muller i
i Northern States Pcuer Company System l
Monticello Operative (545 }W)
Monticello Shutdown Reserve Reserve Needed Reserve Percent Margin Reserve Percent Margin Reserve Margin of Peak Deficiency Margin of Peak Deficiency
, Year (1W)
(1W)
Load
(?W)
(IH)
Load (FW)
I 1972 441 441 12.0 0
-104 545 1973 478 364 9.1 114
-181 659 1974 650 1/
558 12.9 92
. 13 0.03 637 1975 705 335 7.1 370
-210 915 1976 763 527 10.4 236
-18 781 i
1/ MARCA Reserve Criterion increased from 12 to 15 percent of peak load because of changing system conditions and their effects on outage probability.
Upper Mississippi Vallev Power Pool Monticello Operative (545 FW)
Monticello Shutdown i
Reserve Reserve Needed Reserve Percent Margin Reserve Percent Margin Reserve Margin of Peak Deficiency Margin of Peak Deficiency Year (FW)
(FW)
Load (FW)
(FW)
Load (FW) 1972 775 778 12.4 233 3.7 342 1973 838 780 11.5 58 235 3.5 603 1974 1,095 1/
970 13.3 125 425 5.8 670 i
1975 1,180 864 11.0 316 319 4.1 861 1976 1,269 1,015 12.0 254 470 5.6 799 1/ MARCA Reserve Criterion increased from 12 to 15 percent of peak load.
i i
5 i
u
\\
l t
I i
f I
-l 1
- l Mr. Daniel R. Muller l
i Mid-Continent Area Reliability Coordination Acreement f
Monticello Operative (545 FW)
Monticello Shutdown i
Reserve Reserve Needed Reserve Percent Margin Reserve Percent }brgin Reserve Margin of Peak Deficiency Margin of Peak Deficiency Year (MJ)
(FH)
Load (MJ)
(FW)
Load (FW) i 1972 1,560 1,919 14.8 1,374 10.6 186 1973 1,689 2,982 21.2 2,437 17.3 8
1974 2,277 1/ 2,702 17.8 2.,157 14.2 120 1975 2,452 2,113 12.9 339 1,568 9.6 884 1976 2,636 2,466 14.0 170 1,921 10.9 715 l
1/ MARCA Reserve Criterion increased from 12 to 15 percent of peak load.
The Applicant states that th'e reserve margin criterion used on its system is that prescribed by MARCA, the regional council, which is currently l
t 12 percent of the annual peak load. The regional council plans to increase the reserve margin criterion to 14-15 percent of annual peak load in 1974 because of reliability considerations and outage probabilities affecting the individual systems and the participating power pools within the region.
The staff of the Bureau of Power has utilized for its analysis a criterion
[
of 12 percent for the years 1972 and 1973 and a criterion of 15 percent for the year 1974 and beyond.
The tabular data for the Northern States Power Company, the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool and the Mid-Continent Areas Reliability Council region show the effects of the 545 megawatts of capacity of the Monticello unit. On the Applicant's system, the Monticello unit will make up essentially all of the system's reserves during the 1972-1976 period. After 1972, the Applicant's system will not meet the reserve criterion and deficiencies of reserve capacity exist each year with the Monticello unit and future scheduled capacity in operation. The future-scheduled capacity includes two new 530-megawatt nuclear units, Prairie Island Unit No. 1 in the summer of 1973 and Prairie Island Unit No. 2 in I
the summer of 1974. In anticipation of possible delays in meeting these scheduled dctes, the Applicant has planned gas-turbine peaking capacity of 267 megawatts in 1973 and 136 megawatts in 1974.
I i
I l
L i
i i
c t
w 5-Mr. Daniel R. Muller i
The Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool has estimated reserves of 11.5 to 13.3 percent of peak load during the 1972-1976 period with the Monticello unit in operation. Loss of this unit reduces these reserves to a range of 3.5 to 5.8 percent of peak load.
i Based upon the projected load growth and reserve margin criteria, j
the adequacy and reliability of electric service on the Applicant's system in the 1972-1976 period, as well as that of the pool of which it is a
}
part, is dependent not only upon the continued operation of the Monticello unit, but also upon the timely commercial operation of other nuclear units i
under construction. Any delay of these planned units in meeting their scheduled commercial operating dates will reduce the planned reserve margins of the systems and the pool involved, and reduce the ability of the MARCA region systems to withstand normally encountered daily operating contingencies.
i Transmission Facilities i
e The Monticello unit is integrated into the Applicant's bulk power system by two 345-kilovolt lines each thirty miles long, serving the Coon Creek and Parkers Lake Substatic e.
Both substations are located
.on the 345-kilov,1t tran.cmission loop serving the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.
The Applicant considered an alternate route for the two 345-kilovolt lines sharing a single right-of-way. However, the chosen plan using separate rights-of-way for these lines provides improved reliability.
The overhead lines are supported by _ double-circuited steel towers near the plant and on wood poles for the remainder of the routes.
The routes j
pass through rural and agricultural lands and avoid municipalities, parks, recreational and natural areas.
Selective clearing and minimal disturbance of vegetation on the rights-of-way have been utilized to preserve the i
natural appearance of the terrain. Brush control using hand-sprayed USDI-approved chemicals is employed on the rigi ts-of-way.
The Applicant considered placing the lines underground as an alternative r
to the overhead lines, however, costs were prohibitive.
Recent cost studies
[
indicated that underground transmission costs range from 18 to 19 times the cost of overhead transmission in rural areas.
The staff of the Bureau of Power agrees that, with the present state-of-the art, the undergrounding of extra high voltage transmission lines imposes a severe technical and i
economic burden.
f I
[
i I
1
. Mr. Danici R. Muller Alternatives and Costs The Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is completed and has been in commercial operation since June 30, 1971. The alternatives to be considered in this instance are those which could serve as alternative sources of power if a shutdown of Monticello should be ordered. Such alternatives are limited to firm power purchases outside the MARCA regional area since regional planned reserves are gen rally less than the minimum criterion necessary for meeting the stated reliability standard. At this time purchases from outside the region might be exceedingly difficult or impossible to arrange because of similar deficiencies in generating capability in many other areas.
The Applicant reported plant costs of $111 million and stated that an additional $3 million will be spent on a planned radwaste system.
Plant costs resolve to $209 per kilowatt. Fuel costs are estimated to be about 1.6 mills per kilowatt hour. If shutdown were required and if replacement energy were available, the minimum costs of such, based upon coal as a fuel, are estimated to be 3.2 mills per kilowatt hour.
The staff of the Bureau of Power finds these costs to be within the range of similar costs reported by the utility industry.
Conclusions The staff of the Bureau of Power concludes that the electric power output of the Menticello Kuclear Generating Plant is needed to meet the Applicant's projected loads and to provide its reserve margin capacity in accordance with its stated criteria during the 1972-1976 period.
Very truly yours, k
V "iT A. :.n Aips Chief, Bureau of Power I