ML18192A272
| ML18192A272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1975 |
| From: | Stout J US Federal Power Commission, Bureau of Power |
| To: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18192A272 (18) | |
Text
.1 NRC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)
F I LE.
Enviro e era ower onm ss o
Washington, D.CD James J, Stout DATE OF DOC 6-3-75 DATE R EC'D 7-9-75 LTR TWX RPT OTHE R TO:
Mr. William H. Regan ORIG 1-signed CC OTHER SENTNRC PDR SENT LOCALPDR XXX CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO XXXX INPUT NO CYS REC'D 2
- DOCK, 0'T/-
50-528
- 529, and 530 DESCR IPTION:
Lt:r furn comments on the DES concerning palo Verde Nuclear Plant
~. ~ ~.
ENCLOSURES:
~ACKNOWI, DGZQ PLANT NAME: palo verde l-3
. 0 XGT @Kg)0+
i~
FOR ACTION/INFORMAT N
JGB BUTLER (L)
W/ Copies CLARK (L)
~W/ Copies
&ARR (L)
W/fCopies KNI EL (L)
W/ Copies SCHWENCER (L)
W/ Copies STOLZ (L)
, W/ Copies VASSALLO (L)
W/ Copies PURPLE (L)
W/ Copies ZIEMANN(L)
W/ Copies DICKER (E)
W/ Copies KNIGHTON (E)
W/ Copies YOUNGBLOOD (E)
W/ Copies EGAN (E)
W/ICopies LEAR'(L)
W/ Copies SPIES W/ Copies LPM W/
opies G FILE TECH REVIEW R
SCHROEDER GC, ROOM P-506A E MACCARY OSSICK/STAFF KNIGHT CASE PAWLICKI G IAMBUSSO SHAO BOYD STE LLO MOORE(L)
HOUSTON DEYOUNG (L)
NOVAK SKOVHOLT (L)
ROSS GOLLER (L) (Ltr)
IPPOLITO P.'COLLINS jEDESCO D
ISE WJ.COLLINS EG OPR LAINAS FILE 5 REGION (2)
BENAROYA
~ MIPC VOLLMER INTERNALDISTR I BUTION DENTON LIC ASST WRIMES R. DIGGS (L) vCiAMMILL H. GEAR IN (L) vfCASTNER E. GOULBOURNE (L) vSALLARD P. KREUTZER (E)
SPANGLER J. LEE (L)
M. RU,3HBROOK(L)
ENVIRO S. REED (E)
MULLER M. SERVICE (L)
DICKER S. SHEPPARD (L)
KNIGHTON M. SLATER (E)
YOUNGBLOOD H. SMITH (L)
GAN S.'EETS (L)
ROJECT LDR G
Wl LLIAMS(E)
XS A'. WILSON (L)
ARLESS
~ INGRAM (L)
V M. DUNCAN EXTERNALDISTRIBUTION A/T IND
~
BRAITMAN SALTZMAN ME LTZ PLANS MCDONALD CHAPMAN.
DUBE (Ltr).
E. COUP.E PETERSON HARTFIELD (2)
KLECKER EISENHUT WIGGINTON Ul LOCALPDR 0 TIC (ABERNATHY)45)~) NATIONALLABS V
XNSIC (BUCHANAN) 1 W. PENNINGTON, Rrn E-201 GT 1 ASLB 1
CONSULTANTS 1 Newton Anderson NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBA BIAN ACRS HOLDING/SENT.
1 P D R-SAN/LA/NY 1 BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 G. U LR I KSON 0 R N L
I 1'I C
I l
y
~
~
~
."."V.F"< gf,'.".a~>.
9~)";.~7 Ci<S'I C
C~, lf, q ~,,gF
(,Py C
0 V
"p >v(
c)
f@$ ~
g~@orX FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DoC.
20426 FPe Cy" IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. William H. Regan Chief, Environmental Projects Branch g.
Division of Reactor Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 ucgg~
'~
JUN g Ig7g 19'I<
11
< <GIIAIO<">
C~l ~IoII
Dear Mr. Regan:
PQ This is in response
.to your letter dated April 14, 1975, requesting comments on the NRC Draft Environmental Statement related to the proposed issuance of.a construction, permit to the Arizona Public Service
- Company, et al. for the construction of the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 (Docket:Nos.
STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN '50-530), located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
'The proposed Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3
are scheduled for commercial operation in May 1981, November
- 1982, and May 1984, respectively.
The Palo Verde plant will be owned by the following six el'ectric utilities:
Arizona, Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Tucson Gas and Electric 'Company, El-Paso: Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico and,Arizona Electric 'Cooperative, Inc.
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is Project Manager and Operating Agent.
These comments, by the Federal Power 'Commission's Bureau of Power staff are made in compliance..with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the August 1, 1973, Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality, and are directed to the need for the capacity represented by the proposed units and'atters related thereto.
In preparing these
- comments, the Bureau of Power staff has con-sidered the Draft,Environmental Statement; the Applicant's Environ-mental Report; related reports made in accordance with the Commission's Statement of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Docket No. R-362);
and the staff's analysis of these documents together with information from other FPC reports.
The staff generally bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk power facility upon.long-tenn considerations as well as upon the load-supply situation for the peak load period immediately following the availability of,the new facility.
Each proposed unit is expected to have a useful life of 30 years or.more; during that:period, each unit will contribute signifi-cantly to the reliability and adequacy of electric power supply in the service area of the owner utilities.
The owners are members of'he Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC), which coordinates the
i'
~
~
(
~
(
4 J
~
planning of the members'ulk power systems in 14 western states to promote the reliability of the interconnected bulk power supply net-woxk.
Because of its large geographical.size, WSCC is divided into foux sub-regions:
the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP), the Rocky Mountain Power Area, the New Mexico Power Pool, and the Pacific Southwest Power Area, A map of the WSCC area, showing the sub-region boundaries, is attached.
Each area is characterized by (among other things) different growth x'ates of population and industry, and different concentrations of natuxal resources.
Two of the six owners, the Public, Service Company of New Mexico and El Paso Electric Company, are members of the New Mexico Power Pool.
The other four are members of the Pacific Southwest Power Area, Subgroup C.
Table 1 shows the actual and forecast summer peak loads from 1973 through 1978 for each of the owners.
The forecast loads were projected independently by each of the utili.ties and reported yearly to the Federal Power 'Commission in FPC'orm 12, "Power System Statement."
The peak loads of each of the owners were added to obtain the total summer peak loads shown in Table 1.
The peak load thus computed fox 1974 was 11.1 percent greater than the peak load in 1973.
The pro-jected increases in peak load, over each preceding year, are 9.9
- percent, 8'
- pexcent, 10' pexcent and 8'
percent for 1975;
- 1976, 1977, and 1978, respectively.
The average annual growth rate for the years 1973 through 1978 is 9'
percent.
1 Table 2 shows that by assuming an annual growth rate of 9.9 percent for 1979 through 1984 the peak loads for the owners as a
group would be 11,150 megawatts in 1981, 13,467 megawatts in 1983, and 14,800 megawatts in 1984.
Tables. 3 through 5 show, for the owner utilities,as a group, projected capabilities; peak loads; the resultant'reserve margins for the 1981,
- 1983, and 1984 summer peak periods; and the effect of the capacity of the Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 on the xeserve margins.
~
/h ~,'
'I
>>/
r A
4,-
~r C
h
/
~ h
>>I C
~ '4
/
I
'/
/
~
/ />>~ >>A
~ II I
Fh"
- ~
llf/ -
/'
h ~
Ig "I
ro 4/>>4>>.>>
'+'>>>>>>>>>>
I=
- ~
C I
I
~, \\ 4
~ 4
/>> Fll F C
>>>>/ 4'"
- /
I 4
Table 1:
Palo Verde Owner Utilities Actual and Pro'ected Summer Peak Loads
~Me awaits
'zona Public Service Co.
cson Gas and Electric Co.
Salt River Project Public Service Co. of New Mexico El Paso Electric Company Arizona Electric Power Coop, Total 15778 741 1,454 533 618 117 5,241 20012 799 1,698 545 638 132 5,824
/
/
25166 835 1,922 604 664 210 6,401 1976 2/
2,367 913 2,070 653 704 249 6,956 1977 2/
2,570 1,010 2,259 715 760 395 7,709 1978 2/
2,809 1, 134 2,427 779 794 7/7/9 8,392 Percentage Increase Over Preceding Year ll,1 9'
8.7 10.8 8.9 1/ FPC Form No.
12 dated May 1, 1974.
2/ FPC Form No.
12 dated May 1, 1975.
N
~N N ~
NN NN I
N NN NN N
l,
Table 2:
Palo Verde Owner Utilities Pro ected Summer Peak Load for 1979-1984 9.9 Percent Annual Growth Rate 1/
1978 1989 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Annual I
- 9. 9'
.,9 9. 9 9. 9 9. 9 9. 9 Summer Peak Load
(~Me awatts) 8,392 9i223 10,146 11,150 120254 13,467 14,800 1/ Annual Growth Rate of 9.9 percent was computed by averaging the actual and estimated, percentage increases in peak load fox'he years 1973 through 1978 (Table 1).
F pi U,
4I C
~-
C I
L r
Table 3
1981 Summer Peak Load-Su 1
Situation With Palo Verde Unit 1 1 270 Me awatts Total for System 6 Owners Total Peak Capability - Megawatts Peak Load - Megawatts 120206 1/
11,150 2/
Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 1,056 9.5 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 1,672 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts Without Palo Verde Unit 1 616 Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load
-214
-1.9 Desired Reserve Margin (Based. on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 1,672 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 1,886 1/ Data Source:
WSCC's response to PPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3) dated April 1, 1975.
2/ See Table 2.
il I
C 4 ~
t P
r I
lt
~
~ 'able 4
1983 Summer Peak Load-Su 1
Situation With Palo Verde Units 1 and 2
2 540 Me awatts Total for System Total Peak Capability - Megawatts Peak Load - Megawatts 13,826 1/
13)467 J2 Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 359 2.7 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 20020 1,661 With Only Palo Verde Unit 1 1 270 Me awatts Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load
-911
-6' Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts Without Palo Verde Units 1 and 2
2,020 20931 Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load
-2) 181
-16. 2 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 2,020 4,201 1/ Data Source:
WSCC's response to FPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3) dated April 1, 1975.
2/ See Table 2'.
0
~
~
C 4,
4
~"
t ah 4
444 444 4
4 4"
~
'j 4
~fAa 4
a rha ah,
~f, 4
~
~"
'C all
~
4 4
h 4
4-4 4..
~
4 4
Table 5
1984 Summer Peak Load-Su 1
Situation With Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3
3 810 Me awatts Total for System 6 Owners Total Peak Capability - Megawatts Peak Load - Megawatts 15,096 1/
14,800 2/
Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Margin << Percent of Peak Load 296 2 ~ 0 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 2,220 1,924 With Only Pal'o Verde Units 1 and 2
2 540 Me awatts Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load
-974
-6.6 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 2i220 30194 With Only Palo Verde Unit 1 1 270 Me awatts Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load
-2,244 15 ~ 2 Desired Reserve Max'gin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts Without Palo Verde Units 1
2 and 3
2,220 4,464 Reserve Margin - Megawatts Reserve Max'gin - Percent of Peak Load
-3,514 27 ~ 7 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 20220 5,734 1/'ata Source:
WSCC's response to FPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3) dated April 1, 1975.
2/ See Table 2.
C
>>L h h
4 L, k.
~
eh I
C
'C L>>
~ ~ kg e
~
=
"~
e A kjl C;
C
~ j
~
- h>> k
~.
IL <<c>>~>>
~ ~
<>e 4
4 4
I ~
~ 4=
=
~
444,-
41 e'
~I" e'
~
~ ~44r Ch 4
E P
I>>-
C I'4 4
I '>>l>>
4 I'
r 4
~ '
J
~
I-F ~
~
4,
~
~
4
~
P f
"~
~ 4
~
4 4
4 I
rl
~
e
~ =
I P
~ -
I
~ U 4
4 F
I, 4
4
.1
(.-
(
r>>,
, \\
4 9,
- 4
>>R 4 4
~4't 4
Q
~
4,.
4 e
~
~
4
. >>4 ', 'I!
41 e
1 eh&4I
~
4
~