ML20058L292
| ML20058L292 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1972 |
| From: | Phillips T FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION |
| To: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9105140437 | |
| Download: ML20058L292 (6) | |
Text
'
pek,1-y - e File Cy;
' h(.
FEDERAL POWEF COMMISSION
/
f, WASHINGTON, D.C.
20426
{'s ~
January 25, 1972
, _c) bl5l~D iWE.
.h Mr. Roger S. Boyd Assistant Director N
for Boiling Water Reactors N
'3 Division of Reactor Licensing U. S. Atomic Energy Cornission 50 263 Washington, D. C.
20545
Dear Mr. Boyd:
This is in respoase to your letter of November 4,1971 requesting the comments of the Federal Power Cornission on the " Appendix D, Section E.3" statement filed by the Northern States Power Company in connection with its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.
The enclosed staff report prepared by the Commission's Bureau of Power, sets forth specific information relative to the projected load and power supply conditions for the Applicant and for the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool, a subregional planning and coordination organization of which the Applicant is a member. The report illustrates the need for the continued operation of the 545-megawatt Monticello unit for the projected 1971-72 winter and the following 1972 su=mer peak load conditions.
Very truly yours, s
/ AQ g
T. A. >hillips Chief, Bureau of Power Enclosure Staff Report on the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
_\\
f fg '
u.rz a
s m
4 3
C J;,
i?72 ~~ Ci-
-Q 1t I.
't
/s
'o r
\\
0 ~1,!
L;
/
91051404 7 720125 U
i Reh!-*e~
Fila Cy; i
1-2f-72(
se:m:. :
Federal Power Commission Eureau of Power
..cport on the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant On Novembcr 4, 1971, the Assistant Director for Boiling Water Reactors, Division of henctor ticc asing. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission foruarded to the Federal Po.cer Comission a copy of Northern States Power Company's October 15, 1971, statement together with supporting information for con-tinued operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant at full rated electrical capacity of 545 nagawatts. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, AEC Docket No. 50-263, is noa operating under operating License No. DPR-22 at full rated power. The Applicant's statement was submitted in accordance with paragraph 3, Sectico E, Appendix D, 10 CFR, Part 50.
These comments by the Eureau of Power analyze the needs for power to meet projected demands on the Northern States Power Company's system and the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool during the 1971-72 vinter peak load and the 1972 summer peak load periods. We understand that the environ-mental aspects of this plant are currently undergoing supplemental analysis and that the AEC wishes to. consider such factors as:
the effect of shut-down of the facility operation upon the public interest, particularly "the power needs to be served by the facility; the availability of alternative sources, if any, to meet those needs on a timely basis; and the shutdown costs to the licensee cnd to consumers." Thus our comments are directed to these points in a review of the need for the facility as concerns the adequacy and reliability of both the Applicant's electrical system and the Upper Mississippi Valley Pouer Pool of which the Applicant is a member.
This revice is in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Guidelines of the President's Council on Environmental Quality dated April 23, l'71.
In prcparing this report, the Bureau of Power staff has analyzed the supplemental testimony of Mr. A. V. Dienhart, Vice President-Engineering, Northern States Power Company as contained in the Company's application; the Monthly Power State ents submitted to this Comission by the Applicant; and related reports nede in response to the Commission's April 1970 State-nent of Policy on Adequacy and Reliability of Electric Service (Order 383-2).
Need for the Pacilities The following tabulations show the projected loads to be served by the Northern States Power Company and the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool and the relationship of the Monticell,o Nuclear Generating Plant to their available reserve margins at the tim?s of the 1971-72 winter and 1972 summer penhs. 'Jhcsc are the initial service periods of the neu unit, but its life is expected to be some 35 years, and it is e::pected to constitute a pro-portionate part of the Applicant's total generating capacity throughout that period. Shcrefore, it vill be depended upon to supply pewer to meet future demands over a period of many years beyond the initia) service needs discussed in this report.
- D i
-r re
\\
e t 1 1
1971-72 Winter Peak Load Period Nort hern States Upper !!ississippi IWe t Corpany Valley Pever Pool
}Ji th t be Mont icoli n Plant (5f 5 M?)
Net Dependable Capacity - Megawatts Peah load - Megawatts 3,470 6,410 3,076 5,663 Reserve Margin - Megara c t s 394 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 747 12.8 13.2 Comany's Stated r eserve Margin Needs - Megaustts 369 680 (For 12 Percent of Feak Load)
Plant Capacity (54 5 '!!) as Percent of Necded Reserve 148.0 60.1 Wi the :t the Mnntice]Io P]co:
Het Dependable Capacity - :'egnvatts Peak Load - l'egavatts 2,925 5,P65 Reserve Margin - Megawatts 3,076 5,663
-151 Reserve Margin - Perecnt of Peak Load 202 Capacity Deficiency - Megavatts
-4.9 3.6 of Rescrve 520 478 1972 Sumer Pesh Load Pe.riod.
No.
ern States Upper Mississippi Power Company Vallev Power Pool With the Monticello Plant (5!.5 M?)
Net Dependable Capacity - Megawatts Peah Load - Megawatts 4,123 6,879 Reserve Margin - Megawatts 3,681 6,186 442 Reserve Margin - Perc'ent of Peak Load 693 12.0 11.2 Cor.pany's Stated Reserve Margin Needs - Megawatts 442 (For 12 Percent of Peak Load) 742 Plant Capacity (545111) as Percent of Needed Reserve 123 73.5 Capacity Deficiency - Megawatts of Reserve 49
}Jithout the Monticello Plant Net Dependable Ccpacity - Megawatts Peak Lead - Megnratts 3,578 6,334 Reserve Margin - Megauctts 3,681 6,186
-103 148 keserve Margiu - Percent of Peak Load
-2.8 Cn;>acity Dcficiency - Meccwat ts of Reserve 2.4 545 594 El
(
r
(
l 3-The Applicant states that the Pool's desired reserve of 12 percent of peak load is requirca to provide reliable ciectric service to its customers. The 598-regr. rat.t unit of the Allen S. King Generating Plant is the largest on the Applicant's system. The Applicant 's c::pected system reserver during the 1971-72 vinter peah load period uith the 545-raegmtatt Monticello Plant in service are estimated to be 394 megawatts or 12.S percent of peak load.
If the unit should be shut down and its capacity lost as a result of suspension of the operating license, the Applicant's system generating capacity would be 151 megawatts or 4.9 percent less than projected peah load.
The Monticello Nuclear Plant constitutes 148 percent of the Applicant's expected system reserves at the tine of the 971-72 vinter pech.
The ccpacity on the Applicant's rystem at the time of the 1972 summer peak will be increased by 325 megawatts of new gas turbine peaking capacity and approximately 328 megawatts of additional power purchases.
Reserves are estincted to total 442 megawatts or 12.0 percent of the 1972 su: ;cr peah load with the Monticello Plant in service. Without this plant in service, generating capacity would be 103 megawatts or 2.6 pcreent less than the projected 1972 summer peak load.
Analysis of the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool, in which the Applicant is a member, indicates expected reserves of 747 megauatts or 13.2 percent of the 1971-72 vinter peak load with the Monticelle Unit in operation. Without the Monticello Uni;, the Pool's reserves are 202 mega-watts, or 3.6 percent of peak loud.
The Pool's expected reserves at the time of the 1972 susmer peak total 693 megawatts or 11.2 percent of peak load with the Monticello Unit in operation.,These reserves are reduced to 148 megawatts or 2.4 percent of peak load if operation of the unit is susper'ed.
The Northern States Power Corapany's system represents about 50 per-cent of the capacity and about 50 percent of the load of the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool. As the largest single sys*cm of the Pool, the reserve margin of the Applicaut's systcm is reflected directly in that of the Pool and the effect of the Applicant's reserve margin is felt throughout the Pool. Hence, suspension of the commercial operation of the Monticello Plant would impose negative reserve margins at both peak periods considered on the Applicant's system and reduce the Pool's reserves to 3.6 and 2.4 percent respectivcly for the 1971-72 winter and 1972 summer peak periods.
The Northern States Power Company had scheduled 325 megawatts of peaking capacity and the 530-meccuatt Prairie 1sinnd Nuclear Unit No. I for co=aercial service in May 1972. Construction delays and design changes, to meet environmental considerations have delayed both of these addit wns.
The Applicant has purchased all available surplus power in the Upper i
l l
t
s
(
/
i.
I
, Mississippi Valley po.ect Pool and is negotiating firm power purchases of 236 megawatts from cutside the Pool.
'letal purchases for 1972 vill be about 500 megawatte, and are included in the Applicant's estimated system net dependable capacity for the 1972 summer peak.
Transmission Facilities Present transmission facilities from the plant were completed by July 1970. Transmission circuits of 345, 230 and 115 kilovolts connect
.the Mor.ticello Plant to the Applicant's interconnected transmission grid.
Af ter consideration of the environmental impacts of alternate routes, two single routes were selected for the 345 kilovolt transmission lines to substations located about thirty miles from the Plant. Construction utilizes steel touer construction near the plant and substations and wood pole con-struction for the most part uhere the lines pass throuph rural and agri-cultural lands. Selective c1 caring vas used by retaining existing trees and ground cover on the right-of-ways where adequate clearance and safe operation of the lines were not jeopardized.
Alternates to the Proposed Facilities There are no known alternate additions of ge,nerating capacity which could be substituted for the Monticello Plant within the time available.
No significant amounts of surplus power are available in adjacent areas for firn purchase by the Applicant.
Since most of the neighboring systems are dependent for much of their reserves upon other operatit.g nuclear units which are subject to Ng"A review, this capacity may not be available to their respective cuner's systems. TLe Applicant possibly could reactivate some retired fossil-fueled capacity to partially make up for Monticello, but these retired generating plants have no fuel stochs, and severe logistic problens are foreseen in the purchase and transportatien of the fossil fuels and reactivacion of the retired capacity. Although, the Applicant has based costs of meeting energy recuirements to the extent possible with existing generatien, the problens associated with reactivation of the retired capacity are great, and involve activation of Ictired capacity, deferment of maintenance, and installation of new air pollution control cquipment. The shutdown of the Monticello Plant would result in a deficiency of generating capacity to meet the projected dystem loads to the extent that it appears load reduction measures might be necessary during pech load periods.
k e
L r
k e
i -
Concl u e.i onn The laureau of Power stali concludes that the suspension of operation of the Monticello Nuclear Cencrating Plant, if the f orecasted loads obtain in the two pcriods rmalyzed, would result in tl e Northern States Power Company having less generating capacity than load, and thus be dependent upon the remaining resourecs of the Upper Mississippi Valley Power Pool to satisfy its customer's needs.
In this event the Pool capacity wit.h which to meet contingencies is indicated to be only 202 megawatts (3.6 percent of peak den.and) for the 1971-72 winter and 148 megavatts (2.4 percent of peak demand) for the 1972 summer. These indicated small reserve margins reprer ent the Peal'r only generating capacity to provide for contingencies such as loss of capacity due to forced outages of generating equipment, occurrence of loads higher than those forecast, operating margins required to fulfill obligations to parties -ants in the interconnected t:ystems, and operating uargine to provide for flexibility in the allacation of load to generating resources beccuse of abnc.rmal power syrtem conditions. Since the generating resources of the Northern States Power Company include fossil fuel steam electric generat.ing units with ratings of 240 megavatts, 180 megawatts, and 163 megawatts, and the Dairyland Power Cooperative (another Pool member) Genoa No. 3 unit is rated 346 megawatts, it is evident that
?
in the absence of the Monticello nuclear unit at the time of the forecasted peak demands, the forced outage of any one of these four large units would, jeopardize the adequacy and reliability of electric service throughout the Pool area by causing a condition of less availabic generating than existing load deman'.
The Applicant states it made a power production simulation study covering the twelve month period November 1971-October 1972 inclusive, 7
assuming the non-availability of this unit. and based upon the as;umption that all energy would be furnished by i'ts remaining p,eneration to the extent possible and ass.umed purchases from outside sources when required.
The Applicant states that its added e :penses so computed would be about
$20,000,000 for the one year period. Without eny supporting analysis from the applicant, w have no basis for analysis or further coment on this estimate.
s December 20, 1971
?
6 w
-