ML20127J301

Forwards Info Needed to Augment Environ Impact Review of Plant

ML20127J301
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	11/03/1972
From:	Ward E NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:	Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9211190267
Download: ML20127J301 (5)

Text

-

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY November 3, 1972 E'~"'""-'

Tile Cy.'

I g~g,h y cfb ~nt c

Mr Daniel R Maller 2

Accictant Director for Environmental Projects gj NOV6 1972. $ '

j'_ a Directorate of Licensing i

ji

.. c)f U S Atonic Energy Con =ission M

/-

Washington, DC 20545

Dear Mr Muller:

MONTICELLO INCLEAR GENERATING PLANT E-5979 AEC Docket Ihtnber 50-263 Enclosed are three signed originals and 40 conforced copies of information needed to augment your environnental impact review of the Monticello Plant.

This infornation is in response to your letter dated September 28, 1972.

Yours very truly, L OX E C Ward, Director Engineering Vice Presidential Staff Enclosure

[h twm 2

UMCC

\\

c7jNOV2 1972-E5 k?

E if f2/

y, t.o.:, u

~_

9211190267 721103 PDR ADOCK 05000263 (jf.G()

i P

PDR

a ne-He~

Filo Cy.

//*03 73-UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGT C0!EISSION i

NORTHERN STATES POER 00tFALT Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Docket No. 50-263 IfFORMATION PERTATNTNG TO THE E!!VTR0fMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW Northern States Power Company, a corporation organized under the l

laws of the State of Minnesota, hereby submits this information pertaining to the Monticello Environmental In: pact Review as requested by Mr Daniel R Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects, Directorate of Licensing, U S Atomic Energy Cor: mission.

NORTHERN STATES POWER 00MPAhT Dy Arthur V Dienhart Vice President - Engineering On this day of f.4

,'*/

, 1972, before me, a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared Arthur V Dienhart, Vice President - Engineering, and being first duly sworn acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this document in behalf of Northern States Power Company, that he knows the contents thereof and that to the best of his knowledge,'information and belief, the statements made in it are true and that it is not interposed for delay.

/

/

n

f. -('. !.f

(,5',,v is/ _

l/

~

[JohnJSmith

/W m "' '

Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota M7 (T ". ! n' '

C

'jg p ~!; ; li am:n J nvin v:

w,..y pe.o nene.n c un:v, '/

c'*

- O p', ' ">

b.. -U \\ -

My Covmenon Ixi'es March 3, In c H

e

,/

..th l

i i

A

\\

REQUESTED INFORMATION lEIDED 10 AUG' INT MONTICELIO ENVIR0!WINTAL STATDSNT IN RESPOISE TO COURT ORDER OF July 28, 1972 MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT E-5979 AEC Docket !Nmber 50-263 The information provided herein, applicable to the Monticello lhele,ar Generating Plant environmental impact review, is in response to a letter dated September 28,-1972 from Mr Daniel R Muller, Assistant Director of Environmental Projects, Directorate-of Licensing, U S Atomic Energy Commission to Mr Arthur V Dienhart, Vice President -

Engineering, Northern States Power Company.

Responses to all seven items. listed in referenced letter are as follove 1(a)

If a decision had been made to build a coal-fired power plant in early 1970 to replace the Monticello Ibclear GeneratinE Plant under construction at that time, the -.

design baeis for the rate of releano of pollutants up the stack would have reflected these three factors:

1) In the pact NSP has equipped its plants with the best available particulate control equiptent.

A large fossil plant would have been similarly equipped, probably utilizing electrostatic precipitators.

2) Sulfur oxide emission control would have been y

limited to the sulfur content of the fuel. A large fossil plant would probably have been designed to barn low sulfur western coal.

3) Because of the lack of positive regulatory

. guidelines and available technology, nitrogen oxide emission control vould not have been a design factor.

1 (b)

Replacement of the Monticello lhelear Genersting Plant with a similarly sised fossil' plant in early 1970 would have cost NSP an estimated 270 million dollars. This total plant cost includes estimated. reactor. plant-equipment and construction losses; nuclear fuel penalties; costs to dismantle those portions of the nuclear plant not necessary to the fossil plant; differential costs to purchase power during the interim period; and costs of 4'

additional equipment, materials and construction activity needed to build the fossil plant.

m

__um.

_-__1_mm__

.-__.____.__.__-_.___u__-.._-__-___.__-_.__L._

___ ~ _ _. - _. _. _ - _ _ _. - _. _..

I

!4 t

2-I 1 (c)

The annual operating and maintenance cost for such a fossil plant is estimated at 2t tillion dollars.

This 2

figure includes payroll, maintenance expenses and j

general supplies.

1 j

1 (d)

The estimated annual fuel costs for the foscil plant vould be 15 million dollars.

i

]

2 In early 1970 the percent annual increase in demand forecasted through 1976 was:

i 1971 over 1970 81/4%

1972 over 1971 81/4T 1973 over 1972 81/4%

l 1974 over 1973 83/4%

1975 over 1974 81/21 1976 over 1975 81/4%

3 The escalation of construction costs occurring during the 18-month period January 1,1970 to July 1,1971 is estimated at 19%.

The estinate assumes that the entire cost of tho project is delayed for the 18-month period.

j 4

The reserve requirement for NSP in early 1970 vns 12%.

In early 1970 the estimated annual fuel, operating and maintenance costs for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant for a typical year after startup was about 8 million dollars. A cost breakdown is estimated as follows:

s Payroll

$1,000,000 i

Miscellaneous Supplies i

i

& Maintenance Materials 1,000,000 Annual Fuel Costs 6,000,000 -

6 Based on the 1970 MARCA R-362 Report to the FPC and adjustments to _ these figures resulting from projected i

l delays in the construction of certain generating plants underway at that time, surpluses;vhich possibly would have been available for purchase on a committed basis to replace the Monticello capacity vere:

1970 (Power was Purchased) 1971 42 Me I

1972

-203 Mu*

i f

, u.

1973

-772 Mu*

l 1974

-186 th*

l 1975

-273 1&*

1976 23 Mu a

i

• Negative value indicates MARCA pool below its reserve requirement for designated amount.

7 Scheduled additions to the generating capacity of NSP as i

of early 1970 veret i

i Estimated In-Service Date Type of Plant Carineity May 1, 1970 Key City Peaking 70 !Ge November,1, 1970 Monticello luclear 533 IWe i

May 1, 1970 Inver Hilla Peaking 313 !Ge October 1,1972 Prairie Island IMelear l

Unit #1 530 !Ge May 1, 1974 Prairie Island Nuclear Unit #2 530 !Go 1975 (Additional Peaking) 200 ige 1976 Sherburne County Fossil i

Unit #1 680 1Ge 1977 Sherburne County Fossil Unit #2 6801Ge I

4 a

9 4

i

-.,r e

.