ML19326D132
| ML19326D132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1977 |
| From: | Gundersen W FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326D119 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006060686 | |
| Download: ML19326D132 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. - . _ _ - . m I \ . > V e . LNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CmMISSION IN THE MATTER OF CONSUMER'S POWER COMPANY (MIDLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS NOS.1 and 2) DOCKET NOS. 50-329 and 50-330 TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. GUNDERSEN My name is Walter J. Gundersen; I presently reside at 1702 Greenbrier Circle in Reston, Virginia. I am employed by the Federal Power Consnission and serve as Assistant to the Chief, Division of Power Supply and Reliability. My assignments normally involve the analysis of generation expansion plans and operating practices of interconnected power systems. A statement of my qualifications is attached herewith, (see attachment #1). The purpose of this testimony is to submit the results of my investi-gation which evaluated the impact on reliability of electric service with and s without the Midland Nuclear Units Nos.1 and 2.
$4mmarv -
It would be imprudent to delay the completion of the Midland Nuclear units. Analyses of the Michigan Electric Coordinated System (MECS) suggest the strong probability of an electric power deficiency in the early 1980's, even with the Midland Nuclear Units in service on schedule. Little or no help can be expected from neighboring power systcms. Eiscussion Investigation of the adequacy of reserve margin involved the review and analysis of the following documents: a) The 1975 Annual Power Statements submitted by Detroit Edison Company and Consumers Power Company to the FPC; (FPC Form 12). I 8006060 T
4 2-b) Volume I f the April 1976 Report to the FPC pursuant to Docket R-362, Order 383-3 by the Bulk Power members of the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement (ECAR); of which the MECS companies are members. c) Testimony of Mr. Sidney E. Feld of NRC staff in the matter of Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 on Need for Facility. d) Testimony of Mr. Gordon L. Heins of Consu=ers Power Compat., in the matter of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 7. e) Consumers Power Company's Environmental Report Supplement (Section 1). f) Computer printouts of Loss of Load Probability studies for the MECS with and without Midland Units Nos. I and 2. The reliability of a power system is largely dependent upon its bulk power supply facilities, generation and transmission. Basic criteria for reliable power system operation is satisfied if bulk power supply facilities meet the demand requirements (measured in megawatts or kilowatts) and energy requirements (measured in megawatt or kilowatt-hours) placed upon them most of the time. Absolute or perfect reliability can be approached but can never be achieved because of equipment failure, human error and natural phenomeca. Bulk power supply facilities are usually designed to satisfy a demand requirement rather than an energy requirement. Demand is the rate of use of energy. It represents the electricity that must be produced and delivered at the very instant it is requested by the consumer. To supply the consumer's require-ments for electricity, the demand must be projected in advance so that the responsible entity can plan and install generation and transmission facilities to satisfy the demand.
3 Power systems plan to provide the uninterrupted service that consumers have come to expect and rely upon. To do this, these systems must have or be able to obtain more generating capacity than the anticipated peak demand. This excess capacity is called the reserve or reserve margin. When this excess capacity is expressed as a percentage of the peak demand, it is called percent reserve. Reserves are used to provide for various contingencies, such as the following:
- 1. To replace generating capacity of units out of service for scheduled maintenance.
- 2. To replace generating capacity that has been forced out of service due to a failure.
- 3. To replace capacity additions that have been delayed beyond scheduled in-service dates.
- 4. To replace capacity for units whose capacity may be limited due to environmental restrictions or fuel shortages.
- 5. Load demand exceeds that forecast.
There is no constant percent reserve margin, that applied to each system will assure its reliability. The magnitude of a systen's reserve depends upon the nature of the system, charact' eristics of the load and the quality of service desired. There are several techniques used by electric utilities in determining the size of generation reserves. One method is to plan to have a capacity to provide a percent reserve equal to or in excess of some accepted standard. The Federal Power Coaxnission has found that most power systems require a reserve of between 15% and 25% of the peak load experienced. Power systems which have a high ratio of hydro generation with no energy limitations may be very reliable with less than 157. reserve margins, while other power systems with annual load factors
'4 ~
4 - exceeding 70% or containing generating unit sizes in excess of 5% of the total system capacity may require reserve margins in excess of 25% for the same level of reliability. Level of reliability, then, is the basis of all determinations of required reserve margin. To obtain the level of reliability for a given power system, probability algorithms are applied to the five contingency exposures listed previously. Several probability methods are employed by various systems, all methods are mathematically valid and yield the same basic results. That is, a probability of not being able to meet a projected load at a given point in time. The results of the FPC Loss of Load Proability program, which evaluated the combired systems of Detroit Edison and Consumers Power Company, strongly suggest the need for the Midland units. This is confirmed by a review of the Loss of Load Probability (LOLP) versus Reserve Margin characteristic of the Michigan Electric Coordinated Systen as set forth in Attachments 2,3 and 4. These characteristic curves were developed from a series of computations of various peak load and capability configurations to obtain the sensitivity to load or capacity changes. Referring to the Attachments, it will be observed th'at the " knee" of the curve is close to the one day in ten year LOLP. This is consistent with the findings of the characteristic curves of most power systems. It is because of this basic characteristic that the one day in ten year LOLP is used as a criteria. For example, a one percent change in reserve margin (337. to 327.) will increase the LOLP only 0.02 hours per week whereas a one percent change (16% to 15%) will increase the LOLP 0.45 hours per week. That is an LOLP exposure 22.5 timus greater.
Most power systems in the United States and Canada accept as prudent desig'n criteria on LOLP of one day in ten years; whether the power sys-tem is Investor Owned, Municipal Owned. Federal Power Authority, or State Power Authority. This criteria has been widely adopted in that it has withstood the scrutiny of experts and, moreover, has been supported empirically. With Midland Unit #2 in service as scheduled for the summer peak Lt 1981, the MECS projected reserve margin 1 is 19.5%. If Unit #2 is delayed beyond the summer 1981, the projected reserve margin will be 14.2%. From the curves on attachment #2 and #3, it will be observed that delaying Midland Unic #2 will increase the LOLP exposure in 1981 from 1.26 hours / week to 3.40 hours / week; a 170% increase. Moreover, this places the projected reserve margin on the steeper portion of the characteristic curve where relatively small changes in the rate of load growth can seriously Lmpact on the reliability of service. No prudent management or regulatory agency should tolerate such an exposure. MECS can expect little or no help from neighboring interconnected systems in the 1980's. This is confirmed by examining the projected load and capacity data submitted to the Federal Power Commission by the bulk power members of the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement (ECAR) in response to iPC Order No. 383-3, dated April 1976. These data indicate that the available reserve margin for ECAR decreased dramatically froo 30.2% in 1976, to 20.0% in 1980; to 18.7% in 1981, and to 18.2% ir 1982. Deterioration to a reserve level of only 13.6% is projected for the summer of 1985. 1/ Table 1 (page 5) of NRC Staff Sidney E. Feld testimony
6-The impact of such a declining reserve margin can be assessed more readily by considering a recent event in the MECS area: on January 11, 1977, MECS and the neighboring systems were forced to curtail loads because of high generator forced outages. At this time, MECS had a peak load of 9,851 MW which would have be en about 10,060 MW had load curtailment not been implemented. MEC's current installed capacity is 14,389 MW of which 4,558 MW was unavailable. During the load curtailment, MECS was purchasing 710 MW of emergency power from Ontario and 400 MW of short term power from AEP. It should be stressed that this need for emergency power in addition to load curtailment eccurred during a period when MECS was enjoying the relative high installed reserve margin of 43%. In summary, it is understandable that one who will not be held accountable for the consequences would more readily accept higher risk of inadequate capa-city. Howeve'r, it would be irresponsibic for the Michigan Electric Coordinated System to plan for a projected reserve margin of lass than 20% when such plans would result in a loss of load probability (LOLP) exposure located on the steeper portion of the LOLP characteristic curve. Iforeover, one should recognize i that is is always possible to delay a construction s:hedule in the event that the rate of load growth is less than initially foreca st. There is lictie (if any) l such flexibility when the rate of load growth exceeds the forecast. Flexibility is essential to any prudant expansion plan since aceut ate forecasts are extremely rara. )
~
l
- e Attachment #1 Professional Qualifications of Walter J. Gundersen Bureau of Power Federal Power Commission My name is Walter J. Cundersen, presently residing at 1702 Greenbrier Circle in Reston, Virginia. I serve as the Assistant to the Chief, Division of Power Supply and Reliability in the Federal Power Commission. I graduated from the University of Bridgeport in June 1957 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering. I also completed graduate level courses in Power Systems Analysis at Columbia University in 1965 and courses in Economic Operation and Control of Power Systems at the General Electric Power System Engineering School in Schenectady, New York in 1966. I served in the System Operations Division of the Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation: advancing from Junior Engineer in 1957 to Superintendent - Systems Operations in May 1968. I served in that capacity uncti July 1971 when I joined the Federal Power Commission as Head, Section of Reliability Analysis. I accepted a position as Manager, Power Pooling Economics with the Potomac Electric Power Company in October 1972 and served in that capacity until rejoining the Federal Power Commission in May 1976. In addition to the responsibilities set forth above, I also served on various industry work groups, committees, and task forces as follows: Chairman - Load & Capacity Cemnittee -- Canada-US Eastern Interconnection Committee 1968 and 1969. Member - Spinning Reserve & Load Relief Subcommittee - NPCC 1969-1971. Member - IEEE System Operations Subcommittee - 1969 to Present. Member - IEEE Load Forecasting Working Group - 1969 to Present. Member - IEEE Uniform Rating of Generating Equipment Task Force - 1969 to Present. Member - Operating Committee of New York Power Pool - 1969-1971. Member - Operating Comnittee of P.J.M. - 1972-1976. Member - Operating Arrangements Committee of P.J.M. - 1972-1976. Chairman - Operating Arrangements Committee of P.J.M. - 1975. l
*l
ae g -
. e. e e
.. _ 4 ,0 _ _ . . ~ - _ _ : Attachmenc # 2
; , i , i .. ; ,
LOSIS j Oli IhQ JRDBABILI1Y versus ' RESERVE. MARGIN ._ j . l g , ! ! . - g .. y_...._...,l__.__ Mi chia:an Ele'c.tyic.'Cgg.rd.N1at.p.d._'Svs ee - I 1 * ; i *: ' r F .
-f.With Midland.). ! -
l- -! -
-i i p-.- 1
- -! l H E.4 _ _. . L l
4 t . ! t I *
.I. t j j !. ;. ..' . . _ .
- .;y . p. ,. . . ,I .
- I
'_. 3,4.
l ' l l-I . I
- l '
I 'p -* ; -l- i
.. .p .L_. .. . . .. . y . ..I __L.-
j l g , . :' ', i p h-2
.I f.
i
} .
...,..g..
r
. .I i_. _
l. i' ,__ _ . 7, . x....gl......__... _...__'.._9.
- 1. .
.. Ag. _ _ . . . . . . . . . . .
+
-l. . ?
! . . :_ . g . - .
L....
.. [ . _* ' -
L - 2,g ;.a_.....,_.L.. { ..l.. '
. 1 i
a. I*:
- r. . :. ._'
i 1 : * (. , , ..!: j .~.:,
- j. . .._ ; . . , .;_ -l.-t_.. . ._ .1' . , . .___ _ ._ __. i _2. . lu ,
; l.i y
r _- . . . _ l l j.. g_,4_. ___-___.-..__.J._ ._.._.._.._!___.i -
. t
- i. el., ' . .
l . f . - ._ j. 4.i .[..
. L . j.
.M i : I a I - ,-
2 ew 44_. 1 3- I e
- a. i
- __. : . : . 3r j '
- . L 6
}
; _Ap p. 1 L.
o; I i ' I: 9 m.
-2. 2 3
- l-i i L--
I -- p - -,- j ----------- l t g o ,
.t , , p_.,_._
e i:. . 1 i
- r g . . . _ . . _ _.
o-c'- 1 i i.
! l .
i . t _ j. . i . ; l i. [ ..-...
-l t .
. j l. .}....1- e g' J - '-
_A-1.8 * - - - - L.-- ' ~' 2 i 4 _ _ j.. 3
.4 ;
J: ,. g4-_
.u:.
- c. i~ .1.g, a
..-.t._. ;
e i r r t- -
; g 3 l
; l l l
_.7._..t..
.g j .
i 1.,4 . . , . . .. . . _ - . J .. _ _ .:._._ ' _.
, i t _ .._i
..{'...._.
l * , t (
. . < Jl i.. _y . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . '___. -i i i i I
..m
-l . . . ..
, 1' ; .
t
,'-- 1,0
.; [ .. . , . ;
i . . . . _ _ _ . ._.'. _.
. _ . j . _ _ :._ ._. 1 t ~
' .-- _.. ._ lt
, . . ,8 .-_ _ _
i : i j l - _.._ _ .r.,- ',-- ' t
, _ _ . 3* .... _..
.6 ( ;
' .-- 7 _ - .
.--__u. _--. ; .. _. f ,
l
.7
.j .
.L ._._i.: _d_.. _ y' .
l .
, ~
' l -t- .II '
c .. . ,4 . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ One day,in ten years, -! i l i .' i- _. . . _ j l .' . g_ . .
. . . . } .q .
...,g . . . _ . . ..m_
. f i
. .a . . . _ . _ . _.
J ....E f l 41 q .!. -_._ p , , _ L .. . ;.. . ; i _ _ __ _. _ _ _ _ _ ._ - ._, _ . y
- ~ ~
._ o _ U + o 12. io to 24 28 32 36 40 48 44 52 Reserve Margin as a 7. of Peak Load D
i
. a. .
. g . . . ._ _ - Attachment #.3 -
i l Loss. f L,oad:.Erobability versus Keserve Margin ,
. i , . &
- higar. Electric Coori.r.tated Syste=a.
3.6 H i . C Vithout Midland ) -
; . ! I i
. ._ 3g . .. _ .._ .. .
- I -,
' i i.. . ;
. ... ....y .
r . - .- - ! , I
. I - ..:
, ._ y t,.
i '
- 4. ._.. [ ; -.. .L
~ [ . ... . _ L_ _ l
~ .1..-....,.;... :
-[
- . . . } _.a-7
. .I -
- I I
i _. h -2_ . . . .' I I t-r- -] - - - - -
-l ,' -- z ; j., ...
. , , [
1.0- - - - - -- --- -- - - - - - - - -
' i. ..{
.l i
' I
. . , . 1 ;.} . .ki ; _ . .
.l i
g9 _ . . . - f _ - - - . . _ - . . _ - i i * ; !
.- l e
l l
. . . . g.
r f t l
.. g,6- .-..'..---.._ ... ~ ,... .__..--
jh:"-[
' ! l --
b ; -
, . ._...f... .'
.. y;,- .- w- -- ' :[ . . . - -
! i ' i
. i l : a. 1: . i.
! i e g
t
.x . 2.2
- I ,
i 1 3- ,
.1. l 4 r
, ,Ip & . .g L- LO - - - - ' - - - - - - - ,
- f. . .'
#-~ !. !.
, j t .I . l I
i i . .- .i.
- u. ' i ,
L
.3 1. . 13. . . _1 .
* * , r i , a i
.. . . . ' - - ; p =: . - l -
- f._ ._
l L _.::.. .: ' _......L. . r l l
- l r- _ ._;l: -
~ ;-
_. 1_,. 6- - - - - - - a.i !
,' . . .l . - . .
l ,
] ' . ,:.Ei? , _ , ' , _, _. g[ . .._. . '._j
-l 4 ; .. ._
+ - - - - - - - --
- i-- t. . .
- -- - ,i
. 1.4 -
.- :l '
h ! i .-
; ' .. . ... .L . :
.L i i , .j .
i ; !
. ~ 1. 2 ,
. ; . . .. . _. g . . 4. .. . ._ y , _ _ j ~_ , _,
^
i 4., - 7 s .. 1. c..
, L .. :
i _.
. . .~
i
. . _. L in,* -._. :i:l_ .. ._ t -l I,
1
,,.....F.'...-..-'[
L ~. *.;._ .l __s , i j i h' "- O- -Ei- - ._ .: .._. - _] 1
~ r: I I : t. : .; ;: r . t I
*d
-One day in ten year g - I j
. .}=: :=. .u .: .. .
.r ._+- ,
.l_.=.._---.:----
t (j . l ! - :_
=n~.--- :). .
.l
' i
_r : :::=:-
- ,l [ ,
I
- j. .. . 1 - -' = t-- : ..7. _ . . , . c t
, / . . .! .
,2 .
; iq -
__ f
. _ . .:r . . j -. .l i
- f.
I
- y -; - _ - - . . , . ._...:
0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 Reserve Margin as a ". of Peak Load
, ae a Attachment # 4 4.0 - - - ~
-r-- - - -~~--- - - -- ~ ~ - -
I LOSS OF LOAD. PROBASILITT versus RESERVE MARGIN i l . l . I ' i Michigan Electric Coordinaced Systems j , 3.8 - - - -
- - - - - -~~--:----- ' - - - - - - - ~ * -
, , - '--^ +4' i ! !
.p....
i . . . .j . . . . _ f .;. J' ; , ..; :.j . . .a.
-- { t {.: .
l.. . 3.6! l , , l f ft - -- , t gN bmd-- - -
- --;hl '44 t , ,
i - r r t r- . i .: , 3.4 --
, al.a. . . . .c..du g l j i
_ q. . _ __. ,= : . . . . a l - a . c..b
- 3. 2 !-
] .
.' ._.L.
8 L_ l . . ..q....
._ .. .. . .. K .2... ;-]
1 ;'. .ag . _ gg;
! . a.. . .
3 . 0 i- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - ~
,a , ; ---
... -g ... .j:. . . ' . . .r.
a . . _ ~ . .t_.. .. t
' I ~~
2.8e u
=
h l -
, ::_ . l
~ ..g. ' ' j'. l 2
;r l l a I i
. I i
" l- '
- -j- p-2.6l o
- = 1 ,' .
4 i- -
. ..: :. : s. - .
. .J
- q; . -- J e i ,
i ' 8
' : --:: h. a: . . . .. .
2.4' ' i i i , i , -i j Off.-jiiE 1 ...:..,._..'. l _,;__,_-- 3 _- .TJ ii . ,_ . _
.; , . l.
a 2.2 i
- - L A- -
[ ,
- " . : . . :: , .- 4:c-.=rp: :=':_=fi. -
. .r
- d. , j . , i 1 ,
- 7 .. . .
q. a .... , . . , . -.. ._....-f_t...: c- m:-!:. . q r* ; b. . --- h": ,:::, 4' .- - 2.0"
- J. .
. .. , ' ^ , '
r '
- q - _.~. .
I
; .. , .g.._.....__ , ,
i i , Jr._-.::4: 5,r.: - 18- . , = = : : ; . .- =.-- - .
..4....
..- .l ..
- . : . ._.-: =. .:I;: :.: . . .
p _ . . . . l 3
,, f,7!. _ ....p..'_-**~T..'-*_. . . . . .
. . t a . g .. g. ;;. . .. g. .
t> -- - .+ - -- .4-
. - I- p, * : *--* 1-- :t c :l? ' . , , . ,
. L,. = F_.- ,:. , , ,-}_- , -
1.4' - - - - '. -
- - . - - - - - - - .+
3. I j "6 ~ ~. : .. . .:* .. -
..*..1 ....1,'.
- j . .
t - _ l g.'* L i i i . : I- '
'l l
1*2 - :\ is t. l.- l .
- -( .
, +
3 , p , ,,, ,,. - - - - - . ...4 . _ . JJ 1. 0 i-- - - - - j
' l - r :[.- ::. : -
- . \ 1 := _ ; . :.
1 7 r u:g.-~:- 't : p. _ . ,_ i
. . . [ .. _;, _ . g. A - '
N\ i .- ; t. - j . .:r . . :. :=..
. . . .=._.
. :2
, g
-{.-
.8'- - - - - - - -- '
i I d i
- j ' : ::tI . . li t v'
r
--- .i_-- l.' ' I".. . . . . .'.i h .
}
l 7
. 6 l, (-
--------.r---
j _. . . . _. f . .h.*
-=
- o. '
1-*
~
f l ' l ' ' - - - I5 d*: : .- .
.4 - -- -
3
. , i
.. . .t.
. ' . - ' ;.. "L :- . ;-
One day in ten years 3 l' i
' -~~I-~-'-
i -
' I ~ ' '- f t
' l '
.2 - .-- - . . _i .__....;_
t
.l'.....g......, i ,
.Y.-_,_ j ;_ _ w __ -
7 J 0 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 Reserve Margin as a *. of Peak Load
-}}