|
---|
Category:GENERAL EXTERNAL TECHNICAL REPORTS
MONTHYEARML20211M2981999-08-0606 August 1999 Rev 1 to CPSES Fuel Storage Licensing Rept, CPSES Credit for Soluble Boron & Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity, Consisting of Revised Title Page and 4-1 ML20210J9391999-06-30030 June 1999 CPSES Commitment Matl Change Evaluation Rept 0003,for 970802-990630 ML20205R5701999-04-14014 April 1999 Rev 6 to ER-ME-067, TU Electric Engineering Rept,Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Sys ML20151Q1211998-08-14014 August 1998 Rev 0 to Control of Hazard Barriers ML20199J5391998-02-0202 February 1998 CPSES Commitment Matl Change Evaluation Rept 0002 for 960202-970801 ML20198Q7181997-10-24024 October 1997 Rev 5 to ER-ME-067, Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Systems ML20137D3601997-03-20020 March 1997 Engineering Self-Assessment Rept ML20129F6991996-10-25025 October 1996 Justification for SPC 1986 LBLOCA Evaluation Model W/Interim Adjustment for Non-Physical Behavior ML20100F2761996-02-13013 February 1996 Rev 0 of Engineering Rept, Resolution of NRC GL 95-07 'Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power- Operated Gate Valves.' ML20116M4021996-02-0101 February 1996 Commitment Matl Change Evaluation Rept 0001 for 941101- 960201 ML20095K5411995-12-18018 December 1995 Nonproprietary Small Break LOCA Analysis Methodology ML20094P7971995-11-22022 November 1995 Rev 0 to CPSES Risk-Based IST Program Risk Ranking Determination Study ML20094P7821995-11-22022 November 1995 CPSES Risk-Based IST Program Risk Ranking Determination Study Summary Rept ML20094P4231995-09-29029 September 1995 Pyrolysis Gas Chromatography Analysis of 10 Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Samples ML20085N2911995-06-21021 June 1995 Individual Plant Exam of External Events for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities TXX-9432, Rev 0 to CPSES Fuel Storage Licensing Rept,Cpses Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity1994-12-0909 December 1994 Rev 0 to CPSES Fuel Storage Licensing Rept,Cpses Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity ML20097A3821994-08-19019 August 1994 Individual Plant Exam of External Events,Seismic,Cpses ML20069M8761994-06-10010 June 1994 Engineering Rept Evaluation of Unit 1 & Unit 2 Thermo-Lag Configurations ML20064M6081994-03-21021 March 1994 Engineering Rept Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Sys ML20059F5431993-10-0505 October 1993 Engineering Rept, Evaluation of Fir Endurance Test Results Related to Cable Functionality in 1-1/2 & 2 Inch Conduits ML18010B0841993-05-0505 May 1993 NRC Licensing Submittal Review of Licensing Conditions Imposed by NUREG-1216. ML20127K8121993-01-19019 January 1993 Rev 0,to Evaluation of Unit 2 Thermo-Lag Configurations ML20126G2121992-12-23023 December 1992 Rev 2 to ER-ME-067, Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Systems ML20126C0421992-12-18018 December 1992 Suppl 6 to Human Factors Control Room Design Review of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ML20126A3621992-12-15015 December 1992 Rev 3 to Receipt,Dispensing,Quality & Insp Requirements for Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Matls ML18010A9521992-11-30030 November 1992 NRC Licensing Submittal Review of Licensing Conditions Imposed by NUREG-1216. ML20116C9511992-10-27027 October 1992 Individual Plant Exam Submittal:Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Vol II:Back-End Analysis ML20115D2241992-09-29029 September 1992 Rev 1 to HI-92880, Criticality SE of Comanche Peak Fuel Storage Facilities W/Fuel of 5% Enrichment ML20127C8291992-09-0808 September 1992 Rev 1 to Interim Engineering Rept, Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Sys ML20114B8051992-09-0101 September 1992 Suppl 5 to Human Factors Control Room Design Review of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ML20114C6101992-08-31031 August 1992 Individual Plant Exam Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Vol 1:Front-End Analysis ML20105A7821992-08-14014 August 1992 Engineering Rept on Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fireproofing Coating Thicknesses Required for 1 & 2 Hour Fire Ratings for Various Structural Steel Members Used by Texas Utils Svcs,Inc ML20105A8471992-08-0606 August 1992 Rev 0 to Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 2 Engineering Bwip Check Valve 2AF-0083 Failure Investigation ML20116C9621992-07-16016 July 1992 Review of IPE Level 2 Draft Repts for Cpses ML20078H1581992-06-19019 June 1992 CPSES Thermo-Lag Barrier Applications Thermo-Lag Fire Test Conduit & J-Box Test Assemblies. Preliminary Test Results ML20095H2411992-04-13013 April 1992 Validation Efforts for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit 2 ML20094P3371992-03-26026 March 1992 Control Room Simulator 10CFR55 Certification Initial Rept TXX-9200, RHR Line Summary Rept1992-03-23023 March 1992 RHR Line Summary Rept ML20086E3861991-10-31031 October 1991 Pressurizer Surge Line Transient Justification ML20079D0481991-06-21021 June 1991 Engineering Rept, Testing & Analysis of Commercial-Grade Swing Arms in Borg-Warner Check Valves, June 1991 ML20077E0271991-05-31031 May 1991 Methodology for Reactor Core Response to Steamline Break Events ML20217C4601991-05-31031 May 1991 Reactivity Anomaly Events Methodology ML20073Q8291991-05-17017 May 1991 Small Break LOCA Analysis Methodology ML20084V1401991-03-31031 March 1991 Safety Evaluation for Operation of Comanche Peak Unit 1 W/ Positive Moderator Temp Coefficient ML20079D0571991-03-31031 March 1991 Final Rept on Analysis of Check Valve Swing Arms, Mar 1991 ML20066F4331991-01-31031 January 1991 Draft Analysis of Flow Stratification in Surge Line of Comanche Peak Reactor ML20066L0691990-12-31031 December 1990 Large Break LOCA Analysis Methodology ML20066B2391990-12-31031 December 1990 Control Rod Worth Analysis ML20067B1291990-12-24024 December 1990 Suppl 1 to TUE-1 DNB Correlation ML20062D9041990-11-12012 November 1990 Unit One Loose Parts Monitoring Sys Special Rept 1999-08-06
[Table view] Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20217E8021999-10-0707 October 1999 CPSES Unit 1 Cycle 8 Colr ML20217G4151999-09-30030 September 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1999 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20212F7671999-09-24024 September 1999 SER Granting Relief Request C-4 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(i) for Unit 2,during First 10-year ISI Interval & Relief Requests B-15,B-16 & B-17 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(i) ML20216J5701999-09-16016 September 1999 Rev 2 to CPSES Unit 2 Cycle 5 Colr TXX-9920, Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1999 for Cpses.With1999-08-31031 August 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1999 for Cpses.With ML20211M2981999-08-0606 August 1999 Rev 1 to CPSES Fuel Storage Licensing Rept, CPSES Credit for Soluble Boron & Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity, Consisting of Revised Title Page and 4-1 ML20210U4081999-07-31031 July 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for July 1999 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20210D8321999-07-23023 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting Relief Requests Re Use of 1998 Edition of Subsections IWE & Iwl of ASME Code for Containment Insp ML20209H7661999-07-15015 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting GL 95-07, Pressure Locking & Thermal Binding of Safety-Related Power-Operated Gate Valves, for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20209H2721999-07-0909 July 1999 2RF04 Containment ISI Summary Rept First Interval,First Period,First Outage ML20209H2631999-07-0909 July 1999 2RF04 ISI Summary Rept First Interval,Second Period,Second Outage ML20209G7501999-07-0808 July 1999 SER Finding That Licensee Individual Plant Exam of External Events Complete with Regard to Info Requested by Suppl 4 to GL 88-20 & That IPEEE Results Reasonable Given Design, Operation & History of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ML20196L0191999-07-0808 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Granting Request Relief B-6 (Rev 2),B-7 (Rev2),B-12,B-13,B-14 & C-9,pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(i).Technical Ltr Rept Also Encl ML20210J9391999-06-30030 June 1999 CPSES Commitment Matl Change Evaluation Rept 0003,for 970802-990630 ML20209G0801999-06-30030 June 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for June 1999 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20196J0621999-06-29029 June 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Changes to Emergency Plan Re Licenses NPF-87 & NPF-89 Respectively ML20195G5141999-05-31031 May 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for May 1999 for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,Units 1 & 2.With ML20216E0711999-05-21021 May 1999 1999 Graded Exercise - Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ML20206Q0091999-05-14014 May 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting GL 92-08, Thermo-Lag 330-1 Fire Barriers, Dtd 921217,for Comanche Peak Electric Station,Unit 1 ML20206H2061999-05-0606 May 1999 SER Accepting Exemption to App K Re Leading Edge Flowmeter for Plant,Units 1 & 2 ML20196L2241999-04-30030 April 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1999 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20205R5701999-04-14014 April 1999 Rev 6 to ER-ME-067, TU Electric Engineering Rept,Evaluation of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Sys ML18016A9011999-04-12012 April 1999 Part 21 Rept Re Defect in Component of DSRV-16-4,Enterprise DG Sys.Caused by Potential Problem with Connecting Rod Assemblies Built Since 1986,that Have Been Converted to Use Prestressed Fasteners.Affected Rods Should Be Inspected ML20205J7831999-04-0101 April 1999 Rev 0 to ERX-99-001, CPSES Unit 2 Cycle 5 Colr ML20205N3101999-03-31031 March 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Mar 1999 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20204H6371999-02-28028 February 1999 Monthly Operating Repts for Feb 1999 for Comanche Peak Units 1 & 2 ML20205N1481999-02-28028 February 1999 Corrected Monthly Operating Rept for Feb 1999 for CPSES, Units 1 & 2 ML20203A4881999-02-0303 February 1999 Safety Evaluation Granting Requests for Relief B-3 - B-6,C-2 & C-3 for Plant,Unit 2 ML20210J9201999-02-0101 February 1999 CPSES 10CFR50.59 Evaluation Summary Rept 0008,for 970802- 990201 ML20202D0101999-01-27027 January 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting First 10-yr Interval ISI Program Plan Requests for Relief B-9,B-10 & B-11 for CPSES, Unit 1 ML20199E9961998-12-31031 December 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Dec 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20207D6091998-12-31031 December 1998 1998 Annual Operating Rept for Cpses,Units 1 & 2. with ML20197K2371998-11-30030 November 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Nov 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20195F3161998-10-31031 October 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Oct 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20154M8841998-09-30030 September 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Sept 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20154B5741998-09-30030 September 1998 Safety Evaluation Re Licensee Response to GL 96-05, Periodic Verification of Design-Basis Capability of Safety- Related Motor-Operated Valves. Licensee Has Established Acceptable Program ML20151W0361998-08-31031 August 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Aug 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2. with ML20151Q1211998-08-14014 August 1998 Rev 0 to Control of Hazard Barriers ML20237C4061998-08-14014 August 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Request to Implement Risk Informed IST Program ML20237C6721998-07-31031 July 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for July 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20236V3121998-07-29029 July 1998 Final Part 21 Rept Re Enterprise DSR-4 & DSRV-4 Edgs.Short Term Instability Was Found During post-installation Testing & Setup as Part of Design mod/post-work Testing Process. Different Methods Were Developed to Correct Problem ML20236R0711998-06-30030 June 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for June 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20249B2581998-05-31031 May 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for May 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20248A1671998-05-22022 May 1998 Interim Part 21 Re Enterprise DSR-4 & DSRV-4 Emergency diesel.Post-installation Testing Revealed,High Em/Rfi Levels Affected New Controllers,Whereas Original Controllers Were unaffected.Follow-up Will Be Provided No Later than 980731 ML20247G3241998-04-30030 April 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Apr 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20216B8661998-04-0101 April 1998 Rev 0 to ERX-98-001, CPSES Unit 1 Cycle 7 Colr ML20216J3061998-03-31031 March 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Mar 1998 for Cpses,Units 1 & 2 ML20216J1861998-02-28028 February 1998 Monthly Operating Repts for Feb 1998 for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ML20197A6951998-02-24024 February 1998 Inservice Insp Summary Rept,First Interval,Second Period, First Outage ML20199J5391998-02-0202 February 1998 CPSES Commitment Matl Change Evaluation Rept 0002 for 960202-970801 1999-09-30
[Table view] |
Text
. . ...-.... ._ _ . _ . - . - - .- . - - - . . . . _ . .. -
.
1 t
'
-
.
4 J
4 4
i EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY
> STUDY OF AN INTERCONNECTION WITH ,
i UTILITIES IN EASTERN NEW MEXICO OR TEXAS
.
i h
'
1
-l
!
!
I j SEPTEMBER 1979
i
, l
'
i i
!
i ,
1 i
i I
,
l 1
l
,
,
,
i S'IONE & WEBSTER MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. )
f i
.
i ,
4
>
.
8005280f$
IV-6
.
.
C. Capital Costs - DC Transmission The generation and transmission system operated by El Paso Electric Company is connected to and synchronized with the utilities who comprise the Western Systecs Coordinating Council (WSCC). The large region embraced by the WSCC is shown in Exhibits 5 and 6. The members of the WSCC, including those in the Arizona-New Mexico region, have a generating capability of about 98,000 MW representing roughly 17% of the total electric generating capability in the contiguous United States. This generation is totally interconnected but operates asynchronously with respect to the electric systems located generally east of the 105th meridian. See Exhibit 6.
Beginning in 1956-1957, the electric utilities operating on both sides of the 105th meridian conducted a series of tests in which the existing transmission ties connecting east and west closed. These tests were continued in 1962, 1963 and 1967. The tests indicated that the existing, low voltage transmission lines would be subject to large inadvertent power flows and were not siz J for this duty. The utilities located at the boundary between east and we : also experienced unaeaeptable line loadings and voltage control prob lems . Based on these tests, the AC transmission lines connecting WSCC with the rest of the United States have been aperated since 1968 in a normally open condition. In 1976, however, a small, 100 MW tie was energized between east and west at Stegall, Nebraska. This interconnectien, =ede through back-to-back, AC-DC converters, operates asynchronously; i.e., scheduled power flows are achieved but the AC systems in cast and west are isolated from cne another and can operate without being synchronized. The AC-DC-AC converter at Stegall effectively blocks the inadvertent power flows that would occur on an AC line.
The absence of strong transmission ties between WSCC and .he utility systems east of the 105th meridian has resulted from the natural evolution of the utilities along this meridian. The zone is marked by a small population, vast stretches of arid land, and small electric loads which could be served from east or west without building high voltage transmission lines over the
'
l l
i
!
.
IV-7
.
long distances involved. Both the utilities and the Federal Covernment, however, have had a continuing interest in the technical and economic benefia.s that might be realized by stronger interconnections between east and west.
References 1 through 9, shown in the Bibliography, indicate the scope and findings of past and on going studies addressed to increasing the interconnection capacity between eas't and west. In general, these large scale studies have shown that alternating current (AC) interconnections be tween east and west were technically feasible provided that:
- 1. The tie lines were of sufficient rating (greater than 1500 MW) so that both scheduled capacity transactions and large, inadvertent power flows could be handlec, and
- 2. The tie lines were of sufficient length (1000-2000 miles) so that they could be terminated in regions where the existing AC transmission networks could be used both to collect and to distribute the several gigawatts of power that would flow on these large east - est interconnec tions .
The economic feasibility of large scale, east-west tie lines has not been resolved by the* studies to date, and remains an outstanding issue which
- 0) The feasibility of an the Department of Energy is again stu ;y *ng.
interconnection with any member of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is also uncertain due to Docket 14 issued by the Texas Public Utilities Commission which effectively precludes any ties between ERCOT and a utility, like EPEC, that is selling electric power in interstate commerce.
Nevertheless, we have proceeded with this study of' an interconne : tion of modest rating under the assumption that regulatory constraints could be lif ted or modified.
The 200-400MW interconnections stufdied herein are less than 30" of the rating suggested by other studies for a feasible AC interconnection between WSCC and the utilities to the east of the 10Sch meridian. For this reason, we have deferred any analysis of an AC interconnection and proceeded instead to use direct current (DC) technology.
sr .
.
IV-9
.
A DC line linking El Paso to the utilities in eastern New Mexico or Texas would permit controlled power deliveries between east and west even ,
l though the two AC systems were not synchronized. The converter valves at each end of the line would block inadvertent power flows due to the failure of generation or transmission components in east or west. The DC line we have considered here would have a nominal- length of 300 miles reaching east from El Paso, Texas, into the service territory of Southwestern Public Service Cocpany (SPS), Texas Elec tric Service Company (TESCO) or West Texas Utilities Co=pany (WTU). Exhibit 8 shows the radius that would be swept by the 300-mile-long line.
A bipolar DC line with AC-DC converter terminals at each end and no intermediate taps was evaluated. Exhibit 13 shows the capital cost estimates
'
for the alternative lines rated 200 MR and 400 MW ..nd for two alternative
,
in-service da te s, 1983 or 1990. The same infor=ation is sum =arized in Table 13.
.
Table 13 Capital Cost Esticates for a 300-Mile DC Interconnection
--EPEC Investment - S Millions--
Plans IA, IB Plans IIA. 113 (1983) (1990)
Circuit Rating 200 MW 400 MW 200 MW 400 MW DC Terminals (Two) S40.0 S 60.0 $ 64.3 S 96.6 Miscellaneous AC Improvements 3.6 6.0 5.8 9.7 Bipolar DC Line 23.0 39.0 36.9 62.6 Allowance for Funds Used during Construction 7.3 11.3 11.7 16.6 TOTAL $73.9 S116.3 S118.7 S185.5
_
Investment in Dollars Per Rated kW S370 S291 $594 S464
.
.
IV-9
'
Table 13 shcws that a 200 MW DC interconnection ecmpleted in 1983 would cost an estimated $73.9 million including escalation, rights-of-way and interest capitalized. Said another way, the 1983 capital costs for a 300 mile DC line would be about $370/kW if rated 200 MW and $291/kW at a rating of 400 MW. Clearly, there are economies of scale in the DC systen with the 400 MW line exhibiting a lower per-unit cost than the 200 MW circuit. It is also apparent that the interconnection costs are significant and would offset part of any savings that might be realized by purchasing capacity and entegy in Texas.
D. Fixed Charges For this study we compared plans on the basis of revenue requirements. One component of the revenue requirements calculation is the annual ownership cost associated with any invest =ent in utility plant. The annual ownership costs are defined as those expenses which arise solely from the ownership of property, and ,hich generally continue from month to month or year to year regardless of whether the plant is in use or idle. Ownership costs, also called fixed charges, were defined for this study to include:
e Book Depreciation e Ad Valorem Taxes e Property Insurance e Cost of Money e Income Taxes
.
> :
I
.
-
l l
l
,
l
, - .. - - y
.
Exhibits 14, 15 and 16 present both the assumptions and the results of our fixed charge calculations for nuclear generation, coal-fired generation and transmission plant, respectively. The fixed charges in the three exhibits are expressed as percentages applicable to the incremen al capital costs outlined in Subsections A-C above. For this report, it was convenient to express the fixed charge percentages as present worth values su==ed over selected periods, and these are summarized in Table 14.
Table 14 Present Worth of Annual Fixed Charges Stated as a Percent of Initial Investment (Cost of Monev @ 12.0%)
---Present Worth Period-Years--- '
Plant 10 30 35 Nuclear Generation 100.85 133.94 N/A Coal-Fired Generation 105.67 135.20 N/A Transmission 104.20 134.74 135.87 Note that kxhibits 14, 15 and 16 all reflect a cost of money equal to 12.0%,
and this figure was used throughout the study as the discount rate.
1 l
4 l
l e
e