ML18127A499

Response to Letter of 11/9/1976, Forwarding Amendment No. 9 to Environmental Report

ML18127A499
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	01/06/1977
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18127A499 (22)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY~MMISSION DOCKET NUMBER NRC FORM 195 50-389

<2-75)

FILE NUMBER N+RC DISTRIBUTION FoR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL ENVIRO TO: H. Denton .FROM: FPL, DATE OF DOCUMENT 1-6 77 Miami, Fla. 33101 R.E. Uhrig DATE RECEIVED 1 10 77 BETTE R CINOTORIZEO PROP INPUT FORM NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED ISIORIGINAL S UNCLASSIFIED OCOPY 3 signed 38 CC DEscRIPTIDN Ltr trans the fo].1o~ng: ENGLosURE AMDT 89 to ER for St, Lucie Unit"'2 consists of info in response to our 11 9 76 NOTE: Ltr notarized 1-6-77. . ~ ~ 1tr & revised & addi pages to the ER.. ~ ~

(41 cys enc1 rec'd)

(11P)

, (2P)

PLANT NAME: St Lucie Unit 2 SAFETY FOR ACTION/INFORMATION DHL ASSIGNED AD:

N R CT MANA E ~ PROJECT MANAGER LC AST LIC ASST NTERNAL D ISTRI BUTION I

SYSTEMS 'SAFETY PLANT SYSTEMS'C S SAFE ra~ r PDR HEINEMAN TEDESCO

-I-&-E .".SCHROEDER \ '

OELD GOSSICK & STAFF ENGINEERING IPPOLITO MIPC HACARRY ERNST CASE KNIGHT BALLARD HANAUER SIHMEIL OPERATING REACTORS SPANGLER HARLESS PAMLICK STELLO SITE TECH PROJECT MANAGEMENT REACTOR SAFE OPERATING TECH GAMHILL L BOYD ROSS EISENHUT STEPP P0 COLLINS NOVAK HULMAN HOUSTON ROSZTOCZY PETERSON CHECK SITE ANALYSIS MELTZ VOLLMER HELTEMES AT & I BUNCH SKOVHOLT SALTZMAN J COLLINS RUTBERG KREGER EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION CONTROL NUMBER LPDR- Ft. erce, a NAT LAB 0 TIC: REG V,IE ULR KSON ORI NSIC: LA PDR 258 SLB:- CONSULTANTS:

ACRS CYS HOLDING/

NRC FORM 195 I2-76)

OkiX'1/P

'C'C-6-l fs n5 l196 H

.s.l "i,imailf

~

IGLOO

~iasiU .H.2 VV-OX-l 0;) 8C bassalia 6 S dissU oiossJ .lP rn% HH oo ei'; TPl.'A  : ga ivnllnR osage assail xsam 8V-0-Xl zsss

....;!3 o0 oassnqavz ssi n3ai %o a9aiassno ssl0 ns assed Ibba 8 boafvsx 8 mal .... VV-8"l bezivs:1nss '0 I: TOZ (b'oem loss~ ago l4)

(9 Jl)

(~s S)

S 0 'ss 3 9i ops 8 ~ 48

~ ssg 'y

P. O. BOX 013100, MIAMI, FL 33101 gggU)g(IIry D()oker. %If FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

.~og7gI>

January 6, 1977 h~Le~

L-77-6 10 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation lp Attn: Harold R. Denton, Director Division of Safety and Environmental Analysis U. S. Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

Re: St. Lucie Plant Unit No. 2 Environmental Report Amendment No. 9 Docket No. 50-389 Enclosed for your review are forty-one (41) copies, plus three (3) signed originals of Amendment No. 9 to the St. Lucie Unit No. 2 Environmental Report. This infor-mation is submitted in response to W. H. Regan, Jr.'s letter of November 9, 1976, which requested additional information relating to need for power matters, as well as an amendment of the St. Lucie 2 Environmental Report, to reflect this additional information. The information submitted in response tothis request is herewith attached.

Very truly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President i

REU/MV/hlc Enclosure cc: Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

258 PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

" *A I p>>

J ir

/

II y

~ li 9 h

t P N

r~

ll 1

SYM'8 OP PXQRXOA )

) SS COUNT% OP t

MM )

Rehrt, 3, Uhricfp h~<ng fizat 6u3.y auoznp 60Peeaa anG EIELyGII

%hah ho ~s a VLco Pzco94enh ef Plor9Aa Po~scr 6 X9cIM, CcmpEInyp t.hcI AppX'Icenh hcIz'Gin~ .

%hELt. ho bEIo c~<acLL"aiR the Rezcg'eking 6eeemcInC~ Chat @ho sCEItomanha va8o 9n this cvi6 6ocumonh are hzua ERn6 cerz'cIct to th~~ boat ef hia lmo";>3.c@cgop Lnfozmahion EIn8 bc'.QCp anIR thaII: hcI <EI RLs@hor<"G@

Ce mcIcutcI I%a 6ocm~cInC en,boha2.8 oP. aaM App2.Acme.

Scbaczikcd an6 crsorn Co be2oro IIIIc chary e, n @n or t.e coen,ty ok

'TARY PUsuc sTATE oF FLQRIQA AT LARGE D~~G p StGCQ ef P3,oz'$Q~~

NOV, QO I 919 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES COEIugfgggeg tEIig@gggg II,'4OIIED THRU4EHERAL,INS,,UNpEp/RJplt$

ppgr

0 r,rsrr' 11 f E W I.

,, 11 E '

r 1

1 rr

>r I 0 r r rr *1 q I II, 1

4 P,

~i ;r'I, ':g <<f 1 ),0 "1 er 'I lr f'

~

.r

'j"Ar ~', 'r~'PI>gr~ V"i~~'!~P',,',~'l"'.i i'V~";:<<."if rr r

r

~r ()PyAlg('j'(V) g~ ~ qP'Qrr, '.fQ ~+1 "g" ~'P yi; 1

i Qy ~ Tt,l I gf Qg t)06)(et ~ ATTACHMENT A gegniatOry DOCket Fiick

(.~p;g of Documellt p;~pggqg DOQN,H Hg +

Current and expected feasibility of importing large, continuous blocks of power from other utilities.

of firm or unit power are being considered, 'urchases although Florida Power' Light Company (FPL) has not made use of these alternatives in the past. Purchases and sales of power are useful where large amounts can be pur-chased at prices lower than that generated by the most attractive alternative. Such power supply has not been in the past, and is not now, and is not expected by FPL to be available during the projected time frame of St.

Lucie Unit 2.

2. An update of Tables 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7 of the FES, including CY 1976 to date. (Attached)

3. Explanations of reasons for changes in the general trends of the data in those tables.

As a result of the "energy Crisis" of late 1973, customer consumption deviated from the previous forecast of May 1973.

In May 1974, a new peak load forecast was made lowering the 1973-1981 growth rate f&m 11.3% to 10.1%. This new fore-cast took into account patriotic appeals by government officials to conserve energy, decreased tourism, inflation, and concern about the threat of a serious recession.

was originally anticipated that the basic long-term growth It factors (population, customers, price, general economic conditions, etc.) .would still be present once the recession which the United States was -undergoing'as overcome. As a result, the load forecast, as mentioned:, 'was lowered only to 10.1 percent. Generation plans were developed to include a band of growth rates ranging from 7 to 11 percent.

The 1974 summer peak of 7235 K< represented only a 4.9%

increase over the 1973 summer peak a marked departure from the historical trend and from the forecast. By the second quarter of 1975, it had become apparent that several important economic and demographic changes had occurred which would materially affect our forecast of May 1974.

Surplus housing had caused a reduction in residential con-struction and kept unemployment in Florida above the national average. Real per capita income which steadily rose in Florida from 1966 to 1973, had decreased 3.3% as a result of record inflation rates. Based on economic infor-mation that was available at that time, in June of..1975, FPL updated .its peak load forecast to reflect an average annual growth rate of 7.'2% from 1974 through,1981.

One of the key inputs in the development of the 7.2% peak load growth forecast was the anticipated economic recovery starting in late 1975 or in early 1976-, which was being forecasted by most economists. This, however,has occurred slower than expected in both the United States and Florida.

In 1975, the peak load of 7076 MW represented a 2.2% de-crease from the previous year. This decline was, in part, due to a mild summer. However, this lag in economic re-covery was still affecting our load growth.

After quantifying the effects of the economy, appliance saturation, price of electricity, and considering forecasts of these variables for the next decade, a forecast of use per customer, energy sales, and peak demand was made in December of 1975. The peak demand forecast was revised to reflect an average annual growth rate of 6.6% for the period of 1975 to 1985. For generation planning purposes,

. a band of growth rates ranging from 4.4% to 7.7% was used.

In 1976, the summer peak of 7598 MW exceeded the 1975 summer peak by 7.4%. It is estimated that, Our mostcustomers will show a 3.0%.increase by year end,1976. average recent forecast employs a band of estimates for peak load and shows an annual average growth rate for peak load within the range of 4.4% to 6.1% during the period 1976 to 1985.

Population in the FPL service territory will continue to grow throughout the period 1976-1985. However, the rate of growth may be substantially less than in the past- To arrive at a population distribution, three independent pro-jections (Kiplinger, University of Florida, and First Re-search) were utilized. The average annual population growth rate is expected to be in the range of 2.5% to 3.1%. In the period 1965-1975, the average annual rate of increase was .

4.2 percent.

Historically, the number of FPL residential customers has grown at a rate faster than the population in general.

From 1965 to 1975, customers increased at an average annual rate of 6.2%. Residential customers, which currently are about 90% of total customers, have accounted for most of this increase. In 1950, there were 4.2 people for every FPL residential customer. By 1975, this ratio had dropped to 2.9, and is projected to be 2.5 by 1985. The shifting life style of Americans will result in a continuation of a household formation rate higher than the population growth rate. Contributing factors are second homes, the tendency of more people to remain single longer, and the high per-centage of retirees. All of these factors contribute to a smaller family size which will result in a household forma=

tion rate higher than the population growth rate. Therefore, over the period 1975 to 1985, the projected average annual growth rate for customers is placed at 4.2 percent. While representing a reduction from the 6.2 percent annual growth

from 1965 to 1975, FPL customer growth as forecasted, should exceed that of the United States as a whole, as has his-torically been the case.

The real. price of electricity (in constant dollars) is currently being projected to increase within a range of 0 to 2.9 percent. The average real price of electricity in FPL's service territory fell at an average annual rate of 4.6 percent from 1965 to 1972. However, from that time through 1975, the price has increased at, an average annual rate of 10.9 percent. This condition was, of course, set off by the oil embargo of 1973 and the inflationary cost, spiral that ensued.'eal per capita personal income and the Florida in the form of an economic index, is forecasted employment,'xpressed to increase at a rate of 1.9 to 3.7 percent annually. The upper bound was established from the historical 1965-1975 economic index which grew at an annual rate of 3.7 percent.

The lower bound was established from the historical 1970-1975 economic index which grew at only 1.9 percent.

Accompanying the rising incomes is an increase in energy-using equipment. This growth is most dramatically por-trayed by air conditioning. Approximately 47 percent of FPL's customers 'owned air conditioners in 1965, but by 1975, that number had.increased to approximately 82 percent.

This represents an average growth rate of 5.6 percent per year for that period. This increase in air conditioning saturation, the percentage of customers owning air condi-tioners, along with the less, dramatic rise in water heater saturation has had a significant impact on peak demand.

Over the period of 1975 to 1985, air conditioning saturation adjusted for appliance efficiency is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.1 to 0.8 percent, considerably less than the 5.6% experienced from 1965 to 1975.

The generation schedule has been modified to reflect our most recent forecast. St. Lucie Unit No. 2 is currently scheduled for late 1982 for service during the summer peak of 1983. This is the earliest year that it able. The Hartin un'its are=-now scheduled for in-service is avail-by the peak of 1982 (Unit 1) and 1983'(Unit, 2). Xn addition, seven older fossil units totaling 483 MN are scheduled to be placed on. cold standby beginning prior to the summer of 1977 for economy reasons, and are scheduled for reactivation by the summer of 1982. The capability of fossil steam generating units has been re-evaluated based on demonstrated continuous capabilities.

The FPC's and SERC's latest statements on the desirable reserve margin for FPL and the Florida subregion.

Neither the Federal Power Commission nor SERC have issued any general recommendation regarding the size of FPL's reserve generation. He understand that the FPC, in general, recommends reserve generation of 20% as a minimum requirement.

5. Current estimates of St. Lucie 2 capital cost, fuel cost, and annual operating costs.

See response to Item 7 below.

6. Current startup date for St. Lucie 2.

December, 1982.

7. Current estimates of the capital costs, fuel costs, and annual operating costs, for coal and oil power plants with the same startup dates, capacities, and annual generation as St. Lucie 2.

COMPARISON OF CAPITAL COSTS, ANNUAL OPEfQTING COSl'S, AND FUEL COSTS BETWEEN SL2, OIL-FIRED and COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS FOR 1983 OPERATION St. Lucie 2 Oil Fired Coal Fired w SO~

CAPITAL COSTS $ 725 Million $ 397 Million $ 715 Yii1 1 ion.

COST OF 1st CORE $ 61 Million 0 8 M COSTS .2. 16 mills/kwh 1.06 mills/kwh 4.70 mills/kwh .

FUEL COSTS $ .65/10'tu $ 3.23/10'tu $ 1.87/106 Btu HEAT RATES 10,970 Btu/kwh 9,400 Btu/kwh 9800 Btu/kwh

8. Identify the economic Island zn comparison toadvantage of buildincr at Hutchinson other similar coastal sites.

In Section 9.3 of the St. Lucie Unit No. 2 Environmental Report (Rev. 1, 10/2/73) the di.'fferential cost between constructing the proposed facility at Hutchinson Island and at a similar coastal site was estimated to be an additional $ 69.6 million. FPL believes that a current estimate utilizing this figure with an appropriate infla-tion factor applied would be reasonable.

at MA@/ MLI

~

~ 11/,17/76

.'EVISED TABLE 8.1 l

PAST,AND PROJECTED POPULATION OF I '

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT SERVICE AREA FPL Service Area: ].960' 1970 1980 Brevard 111,400 230,000 . 272, 100 Broward Charlotte 333, 900 12,600 620,100 27,600 '

.,1/090/400

':. 56,500 Collier 15,800 38,000. ': 84> 600 Columbia 31,600 Dade 20,100 935,000 25/300 1,267,800 1',580,500 .- * ..

DeSoto 11,700 13,100 " 22,200 Flagler 4, 600 4,500 9/300 Indian River 25,300 '36,000

'5/400 Lee 54,500 105,200. 200/200 Manatee 69,200 97,100 150<600 Martin 16,"900 28,000 .'6,500 Okeechobee'alm 6., 4,00 11,200 21>800 Beach . 228,100.. ;349, 000...:". 581; 300 Pu tnam 32,200 ~

36;400 '49,800'-

Sarasota, 76,900

'120,400. '00,200 Seminole 54,900 83,700 171<700 St. Johns 30, 000 31,000 50>600 St. Lucie 39,300 50/800 ~

84<600 Suwannee 15,000 15,600 22<300 Volusia.;: 125';300 169,500 '249>600 I

/ E TOTAL 2/219/ 100 3, 360,300 5.,O51,800.

Source: University ef 'Florida, Division of Population . ~-

Studies, Bureau of Economic and Business .

Research, August 19 76 ..

0 I'

I~

DJK/JMA 11/l7/76 REVISED.

TABLE 8.2 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

'SUMMER PEAK LOADS'APABILITIES AND RESERVES

~

, (Capability is'Summer Peak Capability)

%r Reserve One Hour With St.. Lucie Without St. Lucie Capability Unit Unit Year'et Peak Load (MW) Increase Net (MW) MW)

No. 2 (MW )

No. 2 1969 4329 14.3 4873 1970 5031 16. 2 5317 1971 , 5496 9.2 '761

'972 6243 13. 6 ~

6584 1973 6894 10. 4 7636 1974 7235 4.9 9015 1975 7076 (2. 2) 9015 1976 7598 7.4 8927 Forecast Low -~Hi h 1977 7950-8230 4: 6-8. 3 10224 2274-1994 28.6-24.2 1978 8350-8880 5. 0-7. 9 10999 - 2649-2119 31.7-23.9 1979 8780-9540 5. 1-7. 4 10999 2219-1459 25.3-15.3 1980 9210-10200 4. 9-6. 9  ! 10999 '. 1789- 799 19.4- 7.8 1981 9640-10860 4. 6. 5 10999 1359- 139 14.1- 1.3 1982 10060-11500 4.4-5.9 12257 , 2197- 757 21.8- 6.6 1983 10470-12120 4.1-5.4 13834. 3 364-1714 32.1-14.1 2562- 912 24.5- 7.5 1984 10870-12710 3.8-4.,9 13834 '

2 964-1124 27.3- 8.8 2162- 322 19.9- 2.5 1985 11250-13270 3.5-4;4 13834 584- 564 23.0- 4.3 1782-(238) 15.8-(1.8)

Notes: (1) Capability and reserves are based on revised Generation Schedule, Table 8.7, dated ll/16/76.

(2) St.. Lucie scheduled.to be. in service during. 1982 and available for the summer

~

peak of 1983.

REVISED TABLE 8.3 STATISTICS ON COST AND CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY (1965-1974)

AVERAGE COST TO CONSUMERS AVERAGE KILOWATT-HOURS PER CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR CUSTOMER THOUSANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL 'OMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL

'974 3. 10 3.04 1. 69 7.544 46.981 1,704.298 1973 2.54 2. 41 1. 25 7. 738 48. 055 1,858.577 1972 2.42 2. 30 1.16 7.395 45.293 1,825.199 1971 2.32 2.20 1. 10 7.029 42.612 1,738.885 1970 2.22 2. 08 1.02 6.708 40.505 1,691.610',664.777 1969 2.21 2. 06 .98 6.244 37.535 1968 2.25 2. 07 .97 ':708 35.039 1,587.582 1967 2.31 2. 11 .98 5.211 32.225 1,481.466 1966 2.34 2.13 .98 4.930 30.226 1,441.466 1965 2.39 2. 18 1.00 4.624 28.152 1,286.591 SOURCE: Federal Power Commission, STATISTICS OF PRIVATELY OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES 1974

. DJK

~ 'I ~

'0 ' " ' -

REVISED "11/8/76'LORXDA TABLE 8.5 POWER & LIGHT COMPANY RESULTS OF LOAD CURTAXLMENT"ate Load Curtailment Period Number Customers.

of Amount Curtailed kw of Load: .'.:

12/16/68 5':00 7:00 p.m. 155 '. 15,688 7/7/69 4:00 7:00 p.m..' 46 87,240

':00

~

7/8/69. '4:00. p.m. 58'7 86,210:

7/9/69 4:00 7:00 p.m.. 77,'980 1/8/70 ..

1/9/70 1/9/70'

. ':00. 00 6:30 '-10;.30 p.m.'

a.m."

281

.204

., 151,680 131, 080 5:00 9:00 p.m. .337 161,290.

7:00 -10:30 a.m. 148('910

, ':00 9:.00 p.m.

'1/10/70',:,

'/10/70 254 215 ".131,410

',5:30 J

2/4/70 9:00 p.m. 182 122,660...

J 7/15/70 ', 4:45 . 7:00. p.m.:,  ;.. 106 ~ ',82, 699 (Voluntary) .

i 7/16/70 7/27/70>

7/28/70

':00. ':00 4:30 7:00 p;m.

4:30 .-.7:00 p.m.

p.m.

~

98

.119 118 .- ".. 79,665 '

(Voluntar'y)

'.87,616 .(Voluntary)

-'2,603 7/31/70 12: OON-10: 00" p. m;. '211 '73;592J 8/3/70 3:00 - 7:00 p.m. 349 112, 237 (Voluntary) - - .

C 8/4/70 4:00 7:00 p.m. 80,422 (Voluntary)

':00

'08 8/5/70 4:00 317 104,452 (Voluntary)

. ':00.'- p.m.'/2/70 7:00.p.m. 257 " ' 105, 570. '-(Voluntary) .-

9/3/70 ....'4:00 7:00 p.m. ",137 90 072 .(Voluntary) 1/20/71' 5:00 , 9:00 p.m. 467 175,272 '

~ I

• 4/29/71 . ",

4:00'- 8:00 p.m. 703 202(110".," ".

4/30/71 . 4:00 8:00 p.m. 498, 37,2, (Volunt,ary)

'49,

~

6/16/71 4:00 7:00 p.m. 572 162,082 (Voluntary) 8/18/71 II 3:00 7:00 p.m. 684 245,788'

,(continued)

REVXSED 4 'DJK ",

11/8/76 TABLE 8.5 FLORlDA PONER '& LXGHT COMPANY RESULTS. OF LOAD CURTAXLNENT--.

Load Curtailment Number of Amount of Load D'ate Period Customers Curtailed kH 7/3/72'" 4:00 -'" 8: 00 p.m; 140',002 -".;

7/5/72 400-8 00 p.m.

444'77

"., 180, 871 '=

4:00 8: 00 p.m. 609 7/28/72'/29/72

. 4:00 - 8: 00 p.m.I

~

321 ....'.. 87

. '28,357 728..(Voluntary) 9/7/72 4 00 8. 00 p.m.  :. 692 242,079

'9/14/72 4:00-, 8: 00 p.m. 671 256 I 170 9/15/72 4:00 8: 00 p.m. 683 . ':;.. 263,760

'9/18/72 3:30 8: 00 p.m. ~

678 266;142 3:30'- 8: 00 p.m. ='*:

.-'9/19/72 692 263,977 ..

4 00'- 8. 00 p.m. 668 241;032 3:00 -:7: 00

.'9/25/729/26/72

. 9/27/72 3 30- 7 p.m..

00 p.m.

682 704 275 734 262-546.

C l

5/28/73, 4 00 -'8 00 p.m. 85 57,350 (Holiday),

.'5%29/73 2;.00.-8: 00 p.m. " '-',. 267 229/650 1974 NONE 9 0

'H 1975 NONE 0

DJK

~

11/15/76 '- .

REVXSED TABLE 8.6 SOUTHEASTERN ELECTRXC RELXABXLXTY COUNCXL

-FLORXDA SUBREGXON Estimated Ca abilit'eak Reserve

'. Total With St. Lucie ~ Without St. Lucie

. Hour Capability Unit .No. 2 Unit No. 2 Period Load (MN) (MN) (MW) 8 Peak (MW) 0 Peak 1976 Su~er 14875 19349 76/77 Winter 14347 22922 1977 Summer , 15893. 22153' 77/78 Winter 15277 23954 1978 Summer . 16893 22934 78/79 Winter 16330. 24488 197 9 Summer 17994 24224 79/80 Hinter 17435 25495 1980 Summer . 19187 " 24444 80/81 Hinter 18570 25626 19 81 Summer 20484 25237 81/82 Winter, 19964 28508 8544 42.8 7724 38.7 19 82 Summer 21856 27414 5558 25.4 4756 21. 8 82/83 Winter 21282 28665 7383 ': 34.7 6563.::. 30.8 1983 Summer 23245 27732 - . 4487 19.3 3685 15. 9 83/84 Winter 22672 29123 6451 28.5 5631 24. 8 1984 Summer 24696 29255 ~

, '559 3757 15. 2 84/85 Winter 24191 6839 28.3 6019 24. 9 18.5'1030 1985 Summer ., '5627 26287 31378 5091 19. 4 4289 16. 3 s5/s6 Winter 33234 7607 29. 7 6787 26. 5 Source: SERC Florida Subregion Coordinated Bulk Pover Supply Program 1976-1995 dated 4-1-76.

Data supplied above does not reflect the latest Load Forecasts and Generation Schedules of FPL and other Florida utilities.

C

~ ~

REVISED . DJK/11-16-.76 -.

i ~ ~

TABLE 8.7 NET SlMKR CAPABILITY AND UNIT ADDITIONS Net Summer S stem Ca abilit (MW Unit Capability Nuclear Fossil gas Year Additions >R Fuel Steam S team Turbine Total 1969 4846 27 4873 1970,: - 4846':..'. 471". ~ . 5317::"-.-

1971 - 4846 .915: .'= 5761 1972 5225 1359 6584

'973 Turkey Pt. 3 666, Nuclear, 666 5604 1359 7629 5 'anford 379 Fossil 1974 Turkey Pt. 4 666 Nuclear 1332 5652 2031 .9015 Ft. Myers GT 672'5 Fossil 1975 I 1332 5652 2031 9015 1976 Miami 8 Fossil 5564 2031 '-8927 (retired) a Cutler 3 43 Fossil (retired) 1977 St. Lucie 1 802. '

Nuclear . 6059 '2031 10224 ."

Manatee 1*

'134'Fossil 775 Putnam 1 & 2 484 Fossil r 6834':

a ~

1978 Manatee 2 77.5 Fossil ". " 2134 2031 10999 1979- 2134 ~

6834 2031 10999 1980 2134 6834 .

2031 10999 1981 2134 6834 "

2031 10999

,1982 r 775 Fossil 2134 8092 -- 2031 12257, .

1983 St.'ucie 2 802'75 Nuclear 2936. 8867 .. 13834 Martin 2 (3) Fossil 2031'867 1984 2936 " '2031 '3834 1985 2936 . 8867:...r - 2031 13834 (1) Capability of generating units re-evaluated based on demonstrated continuous .capabilities.

(2) 483 MM cold standby, off line prior to summer of 1977, on line'for summer of 1982 (Cutler Units 4, 5, & 6; Riviera Units 1 & 2; and Palatka Units 1 & 2) .

(3) Dependingon future requirements the in-service dates for the Martin units can be advanced or retarded.

t~

1 H