ML18031A186
| ML18031A186 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1979 |
| From: | PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18031A185 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-790601, NUDOCS 7906040210 | |
| Download: ML18031A186 (23) | |
Text
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of Docket Nos.
50-387 50-388 PENNSYLVANIA POWER LIGHT COMPANY AMENDMENT NO. 12 APPLICATION OR CLASS 103 OPERATING LICENSES FOR THE SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS NO.
1 AND NO.
2 Applicant, Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company, hereby files Amendment No. 12 to its Operating License Application dated July 20, 1978.
This Amendment contains Revision No.
2 to the Susquehanna SES Environmental Report-Operating License Stage which provides updated information.
PENNSYLVANIA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY BY:
N.
W. Curtis Vice President-Engineering
& Construction Sworn to and subscribed before me this/goof May 1979.
I
~~c Notary Public
~ My Commission Expires: +~'~~~+P++
~(O veo6o4oM'
0 f>>
) -. 0~'>i
AMENDMENTS TO SUSQUEHANNA SES LICENSE APPLICATION AMENDMENT CONTENT Revision No.
1-FSAR Revision No.
2-FSAR Revision No.
3-FSAR Revision No. 1-ER-OL Revision No.
4-FSAR Revision No. 8-Security Plan Revision No.
S-FSAR Revision No.
6-FSAR Revision No.
7-FSAR 10 12 Revision No.
8-FSAR (Proprietary)
Revision No.
9-FSAR Revision No. 2-ER-OL
SUSQUEHANNA SES ER-OL ER REVISIONS The attached Revision 2; pages, tables and figures revise the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Environmental Report.
REMOVE VOLUME I ast Page of Table of Contents INSERT st Page of Table of Contents VOLUME II Last Page of Table of Contents
~.4-6 g.7-4 Last Page of Table of Contents
~2.4-6
&2.4-6a
&2.4-6b A.3-1
~ 3 2
~.4 4
~3 ~ 7 3 g3.7-4 Rev. 2, 5/79
SUSQUEHANNA SES-ER-OL REMOVE Last Page of Table of Contents
~ 1 1 8.1-2
~ 2 1 8.2-2 INSERT
~Last Page of Table of Contents 8.1-1
~.1-2 8.1-2a
~. 1-2b 8.2-2 able of Contents, Appendices Table of Contents, Appendices Appendix A, Page 18 TAB, Response to NRC Questions VOLUME IV Appendix A, Page 18 rontispiece
~B, Table of Contents Table of Contents B, Appendices Continued
~a le of Contents, Appendices
~AB, H ond Hill Low Flow Augmentation Reservoir Environmental Report Rev. 2, 5/79
SUSQUEHANN A SES-ER-OL SECTION T ITLE VOLUME APPED ICIESo o e o o o o o o e o o e o o o o o o o o e o e o o o e o o e o
~ o oIII Bl AN EVA UATCON OF THE COST OF S
. VICE IMPACT OF A
DE AY IN THE IN-SERVIC ATES OF SUSQUEHA NA SES (JANUARY 8) o
~
.III CURRENT L NG-RANGE FO CAST ENERGY SALES 6
PEAK LOAD 976-1990...................
III APPLICANT '
0 R ASTI N 6 MET HODOLOGY KN H SALES AND PE LOADS DECEMBER,. 1976
~ ~ III NATIONWIDE UE EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
TO FPC ORDE NO 46.......
~III SUSQU ANNA RIVER ATER ANALYSES
SUMMARY
...III EQ ATIONS AND ASSUMP ONS UTILIZED IN THE LCULATXOtf OF INDIVI AL AND POPULATION OSESTOMANo ~ eooooeooeeoeooeeooooooe
~ eeoeooo ENVIRONMENTAL TECH NICAL S
ECIFIC ATIONS III RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS.....,...................... III REV. 1, 1/79
~'
SUSQUEHANNA S ES-ER-OL SECTION TITLE VOLUME APP ENDXC'XES.............
III Bl B2 AN EVALUATIO'l OF THE COST OF SFR VICE IMPACT OF A DELAY IN THE IN-SERVICE DATES OF SUSQUEHANNA SES (JANUARY 1978) - - --
~
-.III CURRENT LONG-RANGE FORECAST ENERGY SALES 6
PEAK LOAD 1976-1990.
IXI APPLXCANT'S FORECASTING METHODOLO Y KNH SALES AND PEAK LOADS DECEMBER' 976
~ ~ III NATZONMIDE FUEL EMERGENCY RES PON SE TO FPC ORDER NO 496....
~ XII SVSQVEHANNA RIYER VJATER ANALYSES
SUMMARY
.. III EQUATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED IN THE CALCULATION OF XNDXVXDUAL AND POPULATION DOS ES TO MAN..........
XII ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS...... XII, RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS.............,...............III REY. 1, 1/79
0
~
S USQUEH ANN A SES-FR-OL site) and at Danville (about 31 miles
{49.9 km) downstream.
The Corps of. Engineers has compiled flood stage and discharge information for the Susquehanna River at Wilkes-Barre (Ref. 2.4-7).
These data are based on records of flood stages dating from 1891.
Data for the four most severe floods of record are presented in Table
- 2. 4-5, Hi.,toric Floods in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna SFS.
Table 2.4-5 also includes the stages and discharges for floods at the site and at Danville.
The flood frequency characteristics of the Susquehanna as measured at Danville are illustrated in "Figure 2. 4-6, Flood Discharge F requency.
The passage of Tropical Storm Agnes through Pennsylvania on June 22 and 23, 1972 resulted in record flood levels in the Susquehanna River Basin.
Flood crests exceeded the previous record flood level of 1936 at Wilkes-Barre by 7.5 feet (2. 3 m).'t
- Danville, a local maximum gage level. resulting from a 1904 ice jam was exceeded by 1.6 feet (0.5 m).
Peak discharge at Wilkes-Barre was an estimated 345,000 cfs (9,770 m~/sec) or a unit discharge of 34.5 cubic feet per second per square mile (cfsm)
(0.4 m~/sec/km~).
Accumulated runoff for the drainage area above Wilkes-Barre for the period of 0000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />, June 21, 1972 through 2200 hours0.0255 days <br />0.611 hours <br />0.00364 weeks <br />8.371e-4 months <br />, June 27, 1972 totaled 4.32 inches (11.0 cm)
(Ref.
2 4-13).
2 4.2 5
Low Flows Long term records from the USGS gaging stations at Da'nville and Wilkes-Barre provide the data base for the low flow frequency analyses presented in this Subsection.
Long duration low flow frequency analysis has been performed by the Pennsylvania Department of. Environmental Resources (DER).
The resulting curves for low flow durations of.
two to 60 months and recurrence intervals up to 100 years for Danville and Wilkes-Barre are provided in Figures 2.4-7, Low Flow Duration at Danville and 2.4-8, Low Flow Duration at Wilkes-Barre, respectively.
Tables 2.4-6 and 2.4-7, Magnitude and Frequency of Annual Low Flow of the Susquehanna River at Danville and Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
respectively, discuss the discharge for different recurrence intervals.
Tables
- 2. 4-8 and 2.4-9, Duration Table of Daily Flow of the Susquehanna River at Danville and Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
respectively indicate the river discharge
{Ref. 2.4-14).,
The most extended 'drought period occurred in the 1960's.
The lowest consecutive day flows for periods of 183 days and less have also occurred in +his period.
The mean monthly flows at Danville and Wilkes-Barre are provided in Table 2.4-10a, Mean Monthly Drought Year Flow Sequences.
Mean Daily Flows During 1964 Drought, Table 2.4-10h for these two stations'are provided for the four lowest flow months of this year.
REV 1, 1/79
O O
~
5lJS QU EH ANN A SES ER-OL A policy decision of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission regarding consumptive withdrawals during low flow periods provides that natural flows during droughts will not be diminished by future water users.
On September 30 1976, this policy decision was implemented as an Amendment to 18 CPR Part 803 (Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Subpart D Standards for Review, Section 803.61, Consumptive Uses of Water)
(Ref. 2.4-
- 15).
Compensation shall be required for consumptive uses of vater during periods of low flow.
The provisions of this regulat.ion apply to consumptive uses initiated since January 23, 1 971.
2.4. 2. 6 Sedimen tat ion Annual sediment yields in the region surrounding the site are spacially uniform.
Neasurements at Tovanda, Pa.
about 105 miles (169 km) above the station, indicate on annual sediment yield of 150 tons/sq mi (52. 5 metric tons/km~)
from a drainage area of 7797 sq mi (20,194 km~).
Annual yields at Danville, 11,220 sq mi (29,060 km~) drainage area are estimated to be 140 tons/sq mi (49.0 metric tons/km~)
(Ref. 2.4-8).
Daily sediment discharges at individual stations are highly variable.
The daily sediment discharge at Danville ranges from a high of 556,000 tons/day
{504,400 metric tons/day) to a lov of 18 tons/day (16.3 metric tons/day).
Water quality sampling at the site included measurement of total suspendod solids.
A range of values from 1. 6 mg/1 to 912. 6 mg/1 with an average value of 57.0 mg/1 was found These results are further reported in Subsection 2.4.3.
Grain size analysis was performed on water samples
.taken in 1974 using an automatic image analyzer.
The grain size determination vas performed on treated and untreated river vater samples.
The results for the untreated samples are reported in Table 2. 4-11, Sediment Grain Size, Distribution.
2.4.2 7.
Water Impoundments The Susquehanna River supplies all the water required for normal station operation.
A =even-acre (2.8 ha.)
spray pond is located onsite to supply water to'mergency heat dissipation systems The varmed water from the reactors is cooled via the pond's spray system and then recirculated through the emergency cooling syste ms.
This spray pond has a relatively impervious liner It is free-form in shape to conform to the natural topography of the area.
Embankments and ditches are provided to direct surface water 2
4 6
S U EH ANNA S ES-ER-OL
- 3. 3 STATION M ATER USE 3
3 1
GENERAL This section describes the Susquehanna SES water uses and their interrelationship with the environment.
Detailed descriptions of the use of water for transport of waste heat, chemical
- wastes, domestic and radioactive wastes within the station are in Sections 3
4 through 3
7 The environmental effects to the river are described in detail in Sections 5.1 through 5.4.
The facilities required to withdraw larqe quantities of water and return it to the river are described in Section 3 4.
The environmental effects of the water withdrawal and return are described in Section 5.1.
3 3
2 M ATER SOURCE AVAILABILITYAN~DUALITY The Susquehanna River supplies all the'station water requirements.
The river is heavily laden with iron rich, acid mine drainage and carries an average of 350 metric tons of iron past the station site daily.
The presence of iron impairs biological life and has reduced the recreational use of this river.
(Ref.
- 3. 3-1)
Rainfall upon the surface of the, spray pond is expected to compensate for most of the small evaporative loss from the pond durinq normal operation Mater from the cooling tower makeup lines can be diverted to the spray pond if additional river water make-up is required.
Figure 3.3-1, Mater Use Diagram, presents the station water use maximum flows for the major uses.
Table.3.3-1, Flows of Major
- Streams, shows the variation in flow with the separate system flows during station operation.
The average monthly calculated consumption of water during a
typical year is shown on Figure 3.3-2, Monthly Average Mater Demand and Availability.
Also shown for comparative purposes are the monthly average river flows, seven-day 10-year and historical low flows.
There will not be physical cause for a station outage due to insufficient water supply during a reoccurrence of the historical low flow condition.
3& 3 1
SUSQUEHANNA SES-ER
~33.
I Re ulator Constraint on llater
~su g~l The Susquehanna River Basin Commission may impose a restraint upon the consumptive use of the river water during periods of low river flow.
(See Subsection
- 2. 4. 2. 5).
To meet this requirement the Applicant may supply replacement water to the river from an augmentation reservoir or purchase augmentation water from another source such specificed low flow conditions.
The Applicant has pursued both alternatives since
- 1974, however, the additional water may not be available in either case in 1981 for Unit l operation.
The river water is used without,treatment other than coarse screening to supply cooling water makeup.
Table
- 3. 3-2, Summary of Susquehanna River Mater Analyses, shows the chemical composition of the river.
Other station uses require higher quality water.
This water is treated by clarification and filtration to remove suspended solids and iron.
The filtered water is used without further treatment to supply pump seals and for housekeepinq operations in the nonradioactive areas of the station and for fire protection.
The filtered water is further treated to provide a potable water supply for drinking and washing.
Also the filtered river water is given further treatment for removal of suspended and dissolved solids before being added to the reactor steam cycle Mater reclamation practices, as described in Section 3.'6, limit the demand for water and reduce the volume of liquid wastes generated in the treatment stages that supply water for all the station uses.
As shown on Figure 3.3-1, heat dissipation from the steam power cycle is the major consumptive use of water durinq normal operation.
This heat and the heat from minor friction and electrical losses require the evaporation of a mazimum of 28,700 qpm of water in the coolinq towers.
Other station needs require the withdrawal of an additional 10,400 gpm from the river, which is treated as described in Section 3 6, and returned to the river.
The station is also equipped with an emergency heat dissipation system.
The system is supplied with water from the spray pond on site.
The pond is initially filled with river water
- 3. 3-2
~
SUSQUEHANNA SES-ER-OL operating equipment for trash handling screens, motor control
- centers, screen wash strainers and a debris handling facility.
The substructure contains two water entrance chambers that house the travelling screens and two pump chambers.
The intake openinqs are formed by the floor and sides of the entrance chambers.
See Figure 3.4-4 for plan of substructure.
The top of the intake openings is formed by a inverted weir that extends one foot below the minimum river water level, elevation 484.0 ft, to intercept floating oil and debris.
The front of the intake is at the river bank with flared winq walls extending down the natural slope of the bank to provide for an even and gradual water approach velocity.
The intake flow velocity is perpendicular to, and considerably smaller than, the river velocity, which tends to move submergeD aquatic life and floating debris past the intake.
Figure 3.4-4 shows the average horizontal velocity of the water flowing from the river to the intake pumps.
Four nominal
- 33. 33% capacity intake pumps that have a capacity of 13,500 gpm (30 cfs) each are installed in the intake structure.
As shown on Figure 3. 3-2 and Table 3.3-1, 100% station load operation of both units can be supported with 39,100 gpm (87 cfs) intake flow under the least favorable (one
- 5) meteorological conditions.
The two water entrance chambers are each equipped with two automatically operated trash removal screens in series.
A bar screen is provided behind each of the inverted weir intake openings to prevent large deb"is from impeding operation of the automatic travelinq screen located downstream.
The bar screen trash rakes and traveling screens are operated automatically by differential pressure sensors or by a timer for periodic cleaning.
Water spray systems wash debris from the screens into a pit for disposal whenever the trash rake or traveling screens operate.
The bar screens consist of vertical 1
1/4 in. bars with a
1 in. opening between bars.
The traveling screens have 3/8 in.
mesh wire openinqs.
Stop log slots are provided in front and behind, the screens so that the provided stop logs may be lowered and the chamber dewatered for repair of the screens Another set of stop logs may be used to close the slot in the center wall for the purpose of dewaterinq one of the pump chambers.
The insertion of these.
barriers requires the effort of heavy portable equipment and a
several-man maintenance crew.
The scheduling of such an effort will normally be durinq a period of reduced station load when less water is required and design intake velocities are not exceeded.
- 3. 4-3
SUSQU EHANNA SES-ER-The velocity of water through both intake structure passages when three pumps are operating (the flow is 39,100 gpm) is as follows:
Through the entrance openings (i.e under inverted weir) is independent of river j.evel: 0.37 fps.
Through the clean bar screen openings at minimum river level 484 ft above msl: 0.58 fps.
Through the clean travelinq screen openings at the minimum river level 484 ft. above msl:
0.64 fps.
There is a potential, for increased velocities, since there is the capability to block off one of the passages Under the worst case anticipated, with three pumps operating at a
flow of 39, 100 gpm and with only one passage
- open, the inlet velocity would be 0.75 fps.
As noted elsewhere there is no need for four pump operation since three pumps will exceed the maximum station demand for water.
The insertion of stop logs is regulated by strict administrative procedures.
The amount of trash collected by the debris handling screen is estimated to be 150 ft~ per
- month, a quantity which would fill one dumpster.
The trash collected in the dumpster is disposed of as discussed in Section 3.7.
The type of trash collected is primarily sticks and leaves durinq periods of high debris.
This estimated amount of trash is based on the Applicant's Martin' Creek station, which is on the Delaware River and uses the same intake structure screeninq arranqements.
The intake structure is oriented with respect to the river flow direction so that silt and debris as well as fish and other biota are carried by the river flow past the entrance (see Figure 3.4-3) 3-4. 3 CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM Each circulatinq water system consists of a main condenser, circulating water
- pumps, piping and valves, a natural draft coolinq tower and a basin below the tower that acts as a
reservoir for the cooled circulating water.
3 4-4
S Q UEHA HHA S ES-E R-OL contractor.
The contractor is required by contract to dispose of the materials in a manner acceptable to the federal, state and local agencies.
3.7 2.2.3 Coolinq Tower.Basin Sediment Sediment from the coolinq tower basins is disposed of on-site in one of the existing erosion control ponds which were not needed after construction The estimate for the rate of accumulated sediment in the tower basins is 2,700, 000 lbs./year/tower At this rate, the tower basins are not expected to need cleaning for several years after station startup.
(Ref.
3 7-1).
3 7.2.2.0 Mater Treatment Solid Mastes As described in Section 3 3, the liquid water treatment wastes are filtered and the water recovered as cooling tower makeup Approximately ten cubic feet per day of a semi-solid filter cake is qenerated.
This cake is encapsulated in a disposable paper container and consists of: diatomaceous earth, river silt, gypsum and a small amount of aluminum hydroxide The disposal of this material is contracted to a disposal contractor who is required by contract to dispose of the material in full compliance with applicable state and federal regulations, (Ref 3 7-1).
3 7.2.3 Gaseous Mastes 3.7.2.3. l Diesel Generator Effluent Gaseous effluents are produced by the four emergency diesel qenerators (6500 hp each) serving Units 1 and 2.
Hach is fueled with No.
2 fuel oil and operated for a minimum of one-hour per month.
The gaseous effluent primarily consists of hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen.
A small amount of sulfur dioxide is produced but is negligible since a
low sulfur oil is used.
The following are the guantities of pollutant emissions from each of the emergency diesel generators:
3 w 7 3
t
~
SUSQUEHANNA SES-ER-OL Engine 4-cycle, 600 RPM,6500 Nominal Horsepover Brake Mean Effective Horsepover Brake Mean Effective Pressure (psi) 5700 200 Nitrogen Oxides-NO (ppm)
X Total Hydrocarbons HC (ppm) 2167 33 Carbon Monoxide CO (ppm)
Air Intake (cfm)
Exhaust Temperature (OF) 730 17 ~ 500 900-1000 3 7.2.3 2
Eme~r ency Diesel Fire Pump Effluent Gaseous effluents are produced by a diesel used during emergency situations to supply water to the fire protection system.
This engine is fueled vith No.
2 fuel oil and is operated by automatic controls for a minimum of 30 minutes per veek The primary constituents of the effluent are listed below vith the exception of sulfur dioxide which is considered negligible since a lov sulfur oil is used.
Pour-Cycle Engine (Nominal Horsepover)
Brake Mean Effective Horsepover Brake Mean Effective Pressure (psi)
Nitrogen Oxides NO (ppm)
X Total Hydrocarbons -
HC (ppm) 285ibl750 RPM 250 150 1,970 40 Carbon Monoxide CO (ppm)
Air Intake (cfm)
Exhaust Temperature (oF) 640 3,300 1, 100 3 7 3
REFERFNCES 3.7-1.
Water Quality Management Permit Application for the Susguehanna Steam Electric Station, Department of Environmental Resources, October 22, 1976.
3 7-4
SUSQUEHANN A SES-ER-OL ~
0 SECTION T ITLE VOLUME APP EN DIC'!ESo o o o o o o o o e o
~ o o o o o o o o o e o e o o o o o o o e o
~'o oIII B1 AN EVALUATION OF THE COST OF SFRVICE IMPACT OF A DELAY IN THE IN-SERVICE DATES OF SUSQUEHANNA SES (JANUARY 1978)....... III CURRENT LONG-RANGE FORECAST ENERGY SALES 6
PEAK LOAD 1976-1990.....................III B2 APPLICANT' FORECASTING>
METHODOLOGY KNH SALES AND PEAK LOADS DECEMBER, 1976....
~ III NATIONWIDE FUEL EMERGE VCY RES POiVSE TO FPC OR DER NO-496.....................
~III SUSQUEHANNA RIVER WATER ANALYSES
SUMMARY
III EQUATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED IN THE CALCUJ ATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION DOSES TO MAN oIII ENVIRONMENTAL TECH NICA L S PECIFIC ATIONS..
III RESPONSES TO NRC QUESTIONS............
...............III
~
0
QUEHANNA SES-ER-OL CHAPTER 8
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS OF STATION CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION Construction and operation of the Susquehanna SES affects both the social and economic conditions of residents of Luzerne and Columbia counties, Pennsylvania and to a lesser degree the entire nation.
This chapter assesses both the beneficial and adverse effects of operation of the Susquehanna SES and, where possible, places a monetary value upon them.
All monetary values are expressed in 198.,1 present worth dollar values unless otherwise noted.
Monetary values relevant to the Applicant were developed using an
- 11. 15% discount rate that reflects its average incremental cost of capital.
Monetary values relevant to the Cooperative were developed usinq a
9% discount rate that reflects its average incremental cost of capital.
The effects for which monetary values cannot be concisely stated are qualitatively described in a manner consistent with the underlying concepts of cost-benefit analysis.
- 8. 1 BENEFITS 8
1 1
PRIMARy BENEFITS The primary benefits resulting from operation of the Susquehanna SES are those inherent in the value of the generated electricity which will be delivered to the Applicant's and the Cooperative's customers.
(Ref. 8.1-1).
The true value of the energy to customers in terms of need,
- safety, convenience, etc. is difficult if not impossible to estimate, therefore, energy benefits are not monetized but are presented only in terms of killowatt-hours (KWH).
Table 8.1-1, Benefits frcm the Proposed Facility, provides a
summary of these and other expected benefits Susquehanna SES is a nominal 2100 MWe (net) two unit station.
Unit <<1 is scheduled for commercial operation in early 1981 and Unit <<2 in mid 1982.
The net averaqe annual energy generation of the station, calculated at a
70% capacity factor, is 12,877 million KWH.
The goal of the Applicant is to achieve an 80%
station capacity factor.
The enerqy delivered by the station is divided into four categories:
residential, ccmmercial, industrial and other.
System losses reduce the net annual energy delivered to customers to 10,603 million KWH for the Applicant and 1216.6 million KWH
- 8. 1-1
SUSQUEHANNA SES-E L
for the Cooperative.
The 1981 demand for electrical energy is distributed to the Applicant's customers and to the Cooperative members customers as, shovn on the following summary:
Ca t~eo~r Million KWH Cooperative
~A licant Members Industrial Commercial Residential Other 3965. 5 2640. 2 3477. 8 519. 5 60.8 97.3 1034.
1
- 24. 4 Total 10603. 0 1216.6 No sale of steam or other products or services from the station is currently anticipated.
The importance of Susquehanna SES in providing an adequate and
'eliable power supply for the Applicant, for the Cooperative and for the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) Interconnection is discussed in Section
- 1. 1.
That discussion describes load-capacity-reserve conditions at the time the station vas committed and also describes load-capacity-reserve conditions based on current projections.
While this information indicates that the-Applicant's currently projected capacity needs for the 1980~s are reduced substantially from forecasts made at the time of commitment, it also indicates that benefits from the Susquehanna SES capacity continue to be substantial.
For example, as noted.-
in Section
- 1. 1, System Demand and Reliability, the Applicant' operatinq costs if Susquehanna Unit 41 were delayed one year vill increase by an amount estimated to be in the range of
$ 35 million to
$ 105 million.
In 1983, operating costs without both Susquehanna Units are projected to increase in the range of* $ 70 million to
$ 285 million Also as detailed in Section
- 1. 1 and Appendix A, delays from current in-service schedules for the station are likely to add substantially to the Applicant's overall cost of service for the life of the station For example, if both units vere delayed one year, and if load growth were as low as the Very Lov load projection, the Applicant's cost of service was estimated to increase by about
$850 million ($130 million-1980 present worth) over the assumed station life.
Also, as previously discussed, operation of Susquehanna SES as planned provides a supplemental margin of service reliability for the Applicant's customers (and PJM),
and similarly benefits the Cooperative by providing a more reliable, economic and controllable source of pover than would otherwise be possible.
Furthermore, operation of Susquehanna SES vill provide
- 8. 1-2
SUSQUEHANNA SES-ER-OL TABLE OP CONTENTS APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE APPLICANT'S LONG RANGE PRODUCTION COST PROGRAM Bl CURRENT LONG RANGE FORECAST ENERGY SALES AN D PEAK LOAD 1976-1990 FOR EC ASTI NG MET HODOLOGY KW H SALES AN D PEAK LOAD PENNSYLVANIA POWER 6
LIGHT COMPANY DECEMBER 1976 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE NATION-WIDE FUEL EMERGENCY, ORDER NOi 096.
WATER ANALYSES
SUMMARY
1968-1976.
EQUATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED IN THE CALCULATION OF INDIVIDUALAND POPULATION DOS ES TO M AN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
RECAP OF CASES IN THIS SUSQUEHANNA EVALUATION On Schedule (Unit No.
1 11/80 Page Unit No. 2-5/82)
Reference Versus Annual Load Growth Rate PPGL PJM Cumulative Difference Present Worth Actual 6 10.5%
$ Millions Base Case 1 to 14' Yr. Delay 4.6%
Each Unit 4.7%
Carrying charges on plant investment Net energy costs OGM costs 690 (47) 274 213 (61)
(>)
903 159 1983/87 4.6%
No.
1 1983
- 4. 6 No.
2 1987 4.7 Carrying charges on plant investment Net energy costs OGM costs 2', 466 1,083 (230) 3,319 (62) 701 (150) 489 1980/87 - 4.6%
15 No.
1 On Schedule No.
2 1987 4.6 4.7 Carrying charges on plant investment Net energy costs OGM costs 1",699 743 (143) 2,299 94 440 (84) 450 1983/87 - 2.5%
16 No.
1 1983 2.5 No.
2 - 1987 2.5 Carrying charges on plant investment Net energy costs OGM costs.
2,466 727 (230) 2,963 (62) 479 (150) 267 One Yr. Delay 2.5%
16 1 Yr. Delay Each Unit 2.5 2.5 Carrying charges on plant investment Net energy costs OGM costs 690 238 (61) 867 (47) 184 (7) 130 Oil Escalated at 5%
vs 7%
1 Yr. Delay Each Unit 4.6 18 4.7 Carrying charges on plant investment Net energy costs OGM costs 690 (47) 217 166 (61)
(7)
~RE TZf