ML20098C691

From kanterella
Revision as of 01:23, 1 May 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Affidavit of DW Connor Re Need for Proposed Units.Based on West Group Forecast Projection of Energy Loads & Capacities, Probable Need for Units 3 & 5 Greater than Yr Ago
ML20098C691
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Satsop
Issue date: 05/14/1976
From: Connor D
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:
Shared Package
ML20093C821 List: ... further results
References
CON-WPPSS-023A, CON-WPPSS-23A, FOIA-84-603 NUDOCS 8409270125
Download: ML20098C691 (4)
v • d • e


Text

.

~ ' *

. ENCLOSURE A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY ) Doclict Nos. STN 50-508

) STN 50-509 SYSTEM

-) -

(WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5) )

AFFIDAVIT OF DONALD W. CONNOR *-

- I, Donald W.' Connor, being duly sworn do depose and state that:

I am the member of the staff of the Division of, Environmental Impact Studies, V

(formerly Environmental Statement Project) Argonne National Laboratory

! responsible for analyzing the need for the power which the proposed WNP-3 and 5 facility would produce. My duties and professional qualifications are incorporated into the transcript of this proceeding following page 182. In additio[, I submitted prepared testimony entitled Supplemental Testimony Regarding Need for the Proposed Units, which was received into evidence following page 191.

Since the evidentiary hearings of June 24-26, 1975, a number of changes

=. -have occurred in the expectations of the utilities of the Pacific Northwest region. These are reflected in the most recent regional forecast, the West Group Forecast, dated March 1,1976, prepared by the Loads and Resources-

~

t  !

i l

i 84092{0125840824 PDR

! HEN 84603 ., .

9*

  • I r' 1 L

LI Fore-Subc mmittes of the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee.

~

cast average (energy) loads have been reduced from the 1975 Forecast by about two percent for the middle 1980's when WNP-3 and WNP-6 are expected to begin commercial operation. However, the net schedule slippage of scheduled new generating plants has reduced the projected average (energy) generating capacity to a greater degree so that energy deficits (under worst-case water conditions) are now projected for each operating year through 1986-1987, as shown'on line 10 of the attached Table of the Forecast entitled: " West Group Forecast - Estimated Loads and Resources - July 1976 - June 1987." The changes in projected average loads and generating capacities are shown in the following table:

1 Surplus or (Deficit) of Projected Average Generating Capacity Over Projected' Average Load - Excluding Reserves (Average MWE) 1975 1976 Forecast F_orecast 1980-81 (1562) (1,966)

(2073) (2,0.58) 1981-82 (499) (2,125)

, 1982-83 ,

i 1983-84 388 (685) -

1984-85 1,077 (525) 1985-86 1,634 (31) does not appear 15

'1986 */

As indicated in S 8.2.1 of the NRC Staff's Final Environmental State-ment, the Staff considers the West Group Forecast to be a reasonably accurate projection of energy loads and capacities for the Pacific Northwest . .

i

. 1

. 1 I

I .,

-l

, _~

b

~ With better water conditions, it may be that no actual shortages will occur.

The probability (based on the historical stream flow records) that projected average capacity will be adequate for projected firm loads in each year through 1986-87 is given on line 15 of the attached table. For most of the years prior to the projected 1983-84 operation, the estimated probability is less than 90 percent

' and must be judged to be inadequate. [90 percent would be equivalent to the

  • "one loss of load in 10 years" reserve criterion used in most of the U.S. if onl'?'

a brief shortage were likely. However, in the Pacific Northwest a hydro defi-clency is likely to persist for weeks or months so that a reasonable equivalence t

would require 96-98 percent.] ,

- The staff concludes that the probable need for WNP-3 and WNP-5 appears even greater today than it did a year ago. .

\ ETwr idl Ch,%g

- D'aindd W. Connor Subscribed and swo: n before me 5 - this w% day of wm _ . 1976 Q

Ocmdi_ a ~s' .>%}

Nothy Public '

My Commission expires:cir.,i 19%.

04' e

r I

b '

-s p

  • ~~ ~ ~ * .

. . , , . . . . .,, , , w -

f VEST GROUP FORECAST - ESTIMATED LOADS AND RESOURCES JULY 1976 - JUNE 1987 Sheet I of 2 Figures are meravatts. 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 23,136 24,626 26,108 27,476 28,917 30,245 31,658 33,081 34,608 36,200 37,896

1. Total Area Peak Load (January) 27,056 28,535 31,788 34,105 35,150 36,314 37,694 41,620 41,769 44,146 45,561
2. Total Peak Resources 1/ (2,776) (3,201) (3,655) (4,121) (4 ,627) (5,142) (5,698) (6,285) (6.922) (7.240) (7 .57 9)
3. Reserve Requirements 30,523 31,17 2 31,996 35,335 34,847 36,906 37,982 4 Peak Resources 24,280 23,334 28,13,3 29,984 1,144 708 2,025 2,508 1,606 927 338 2,254 239 706 86
5. Peak Surplus (over Total Load) 14,953 15,883 16,902 17,722 18,623, 19,418 20,205 21,134 22;027 22,959 23,943
6. Total July-June Energy Load 14,666 14,938 15,105 15,859 16,657 17,360 18,140 20,449 21,502 22,928 23,958
7. Total Energy Resources 1/
8.
  • Reserve Requirements (334) (346) (356) (369) (387) (361) (397) (404) (416) (436) (462:

14,332 14,592 14,749 15,490 16,270 16,999 17,743 20,045 21,086 22,492 23,496

9. Energy Resources
10. Energy Surplus (over Total Load) (621) (1,291) (2,153) (2,232) (2,353) (2,419) (2,522) (1,089) (941) (467) (447:

- Peak 1,054 1,085 1,162 1,213 1 ,2 57 1,219 1,170 1,179 1,189 1,198 1,209

11. Area Interruptible Load 1,146 1,181 1,224 1,184 1,131 1,142 1,151 1,161 - 1,172

- Energy 1,019 1,047 (Included in Lines 1 and 6)

12. Fossil-Thernal & Miscellaneous Resources - Peak .

554 592 598 592 592 592 592 592 584 584

- Energy 519 (Not Included Above) 2/

Prtbability of Meeting Total Energy Load in All Periods of: 3/ 79.4 82.4 90.2 91.4 88.E

13. Year Shown

-% 97.0 87.2 80.2 82.2 77.0 76.6

-% 97.0 84.2 69.4 59.0 45.8 36.8 31.0 27.2 24.6 23.0 21.E 14 Years,1976 Through Year Shown Probability of Meeting Finn Energy Load in All Periods of: 3/ 89.2 91.2 97.6 95.8

-% 100.0 91.4 87.6 89.8 88.4 85.6 9 4 . '.

15. Year Shown 74.6 67.2 58.0 54.0 49.2 47.1 46.6 44.8
16. Years,1976 Through Year Shown -% 100.0 91.4 81.2

~1/

Resources include hydro; small fossil-fuel plants: Hanford-NPR through October 1977; Centralia; Trojan; West Group portion of Jim Bridger units; Colstrip #1 and #2 (50%), #3 and #4 (70%); WPPSS Nuclear #1, #2, 43, #4, #5; Boardman Coal; Skagit #1 and #2; Pebble Springs #1; and net contractual imports / exports with utilities outside the area. 1tanford is not included as a peak resource. Estimated amounts for scheduled maintenance (energy only), hydro realization factor (peak only) and incremental losses have been deducted. All existing thermal units and future thermal units und'e r 500 megawatts (peak and energy) are included in amounts as submitted by respective project owners. The energy availability of all future thernal units 500 weg'awat ts or larger has been included as 60% the first full year and 757. thereaf ter.

J/ The encrgy renawatts tabulated in line 12 reflect the amounts of energy available from existing fossil and gas turbine installations shic$ may be considered availabic as reserve energy resources. Thesc xwounts are in addition to those included as firm energy resources in line 7.

J/ Based on . r e load and rce.nurce data an other ' tabulations herein, m ent that there is no consideration of energy reserve requirements or realization factor.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20098C691&oldid=2781214"