ML19206B000

Responds to Requesting Comments Re Partial Suspension of Facility Const During NEPA Review.Forwards AEC Rept Re Effects of Delay on Local Power Needs

ML19206B000
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	02/25/1972
From:	Phillips T FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
To:	Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7904210700
Download: ML19206B000 (6)

Text

'

rac==

e3n or occuuc~r:

e4 n accer,co Federal Power co nission

~

7,k - ?s. 1972 Fei-23, 17h.

Washington, D.C.

0425 u n.

%,,,0

,,,c,,.

q,

~

T.A. Phillips y

T O.

c a,q.,

g.

O TH LbL 1

1 81--ed & 1 cc Mr. Roger Boyd actio= =<cassear O

co~cu aneNe s O

oars *~swca u

=o crio= =<cissia, O cc~~c~r O

Ab**-

Posi CF F /.:.

ptLicOOL U

50-320 (C NIIO FILE)

,i $r"I[~dik*-37i'Ttr... furnishing l

"^" i a'c

• m

o^"

info on 5207 CAUSE & trans:

Schwencer 2-29-T2 3

4 ~+

m/9 rm for AcrTon g

k i

mm. au.

m m= -

j y Ccarnants of Possible Effects of 7eg File Cy

[ Delay in Coast of Three Mile Island wm Unit 2.....

OGC-IDa-P-506< A l

2 e~d i

DeYoung

}

(1 cy enc 1 rec'd) ri e!'-he~A="/t ? - Miam w

I Karas fj" i1 ' '

ma~ums.

31rc/Icyle r j*0. lc ij f*,t t', *,w*,*_*":

Wn -

r i

1 CT LOCAL PD1 RA*2TMU2G, PA.

DL u.s Arouc sNssov ccuutss' "

MAIL CONTROL FORM roa-**

uss

@ U.S. G Q W E R NME N T W Rt N TI N G Q F FIC E 197 f.42 4.gg 3 I k '8 t

c 7904210~700 A

~

So-3&c FEDERAL POWER CCMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C.

20426

~

February 25, 1972 m eu mm To P4R-ER

,,b[f%

a' Mr. Roger S. Boyd T

j'

'C"'@

fC

~

Assistant Director for Boiling

Q Water Reactors g'

Division of Reactor Licensing

'y

g U. S. Atomic Energy Commission

'W~'

h D-N-M'y L..

. _c.< g (?c

" - - ~

Washington, D. C.

20545

\\ Q:,

A.-

'/

Dear Mr. Boyd:

D/j gg This is in response to your le* er of Dece=ber 15, 1971, requesting the comments of the Federal Power '.anission on the state =2nt filed by Metropolitan Edison Ccapany, Tersey Central Power & Light Company.ad the Pennsylvania Electric Cocpany concerning partial suspension of the construction of the Three Mile Island nuclear Unit No. 2, dt.r'ng the on going NEPA review. We understand that the suspended constructien involves certain aspects of the off-site 500 kilovolt transmission lines associated with the generating plant.

The enclosed staff report prepared by the Cocnission's Bureau of Power evaluates the effects of delay in facility construction upon the pcwer needs to be served by the facility. These nee *ds were considered from the standpoint of both the General Public Utilities Svstem and the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection of which the Applicants are members. The report illustrates the need for the timely operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Unit No. 2 to serce the 1975 su==er peak load.

Very truly yours, IA.rn2.mps Chief, Bureau of Power Enclosure Staff report on the Three Mile Island Nuclear Unit No. 2 G3-'N 5 1018

f. /~

s FEDERAL POWE' CCMMISSION BUREAU OF PCMER

-J'-

Possible Effects.f Delay in Construction of Three Mile Island Nuclear Unit No. 2 aa AS 'S3,,5%

ws:

In his letter dated December 15, 1971, the Assistant Director for Boiling Water Reactors, Division of Reactor Licensing of t'. e U. S. Atomic Energy Co==ission, requested the cc==ents of the Fedsre' Power Co==ission on the effect of delay in construction of certain transmission facilities ascociated with the 830-=egawatt No. 2 unit of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station currently under construction by the Metropolitan Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Cc=pany, and the Pennsylvania Electric Company.

I We understand fro = earlier correspondence and environmental documents filed by the Applicant that the environmental aspects of this plant are currently undergoing supplemental analysis in which the AEC wishes to consider in addition to the effect of delay in facility operations upon the public interests, the power needs to be served by the facility; the availability of alternative sources, if any, to =eet those needs on a timely basis; and delay costs to the licensee and to consumers. Thus, our ce==ents are directed prt=arily to these points in a review of the effects of delay in construction of transsission facilities associated with No. 2 unit as concerns the adequa:y and reliiaility of the Applicants' electric systems and the syste=s of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection of which tne Applicants' syste=s are a part. This review is in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Guidelines of the President's Council on Environ = ental Quality dated April 23, 1971.

Iae Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, presently designed to include two st=ilar units, is located on Ihree Mile Island near the East Shore of the Susquehanna River in Londonderry township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

The site is about 10 miles southeast of Harrisburg and two =iles belcw the Borough of Middletern, Pennsylvania. Unit No. 1 is in the advanced stages of construction and is scheduled for Nove=ber 1973 operation. About 80 percent of the engineering work of Unit No. 2 has been completed and

$135 =illion of its total expected cost of $345 million has been ec== tted.

Unit No. 2 is scheduled for ccanercial service in May 1975.

In preparing this report, the staff of the Bureau of Power considered the Applicants' document "Three Mile Island Environ = ental Report--Operating License Stage" submitted to the AEC cn December 10, 1971; the document entitled " Statement of Reasons Why the Construction Per=its for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station--Units 1 and 2--Should not be Suspended Pending Cc=pletion of AIC's Environmental Review Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix D" datad October 19, 1971; related reports made in 63-24G

- response to the Co= mission's Statement of Policy on Adequacy and Reliability of Electric Service (Order No. 383-2); and the FPC staf f's independent analyses of these documents together with related information from other FPC reports.

The Need for the Facility The Three Mile Island Station is evned by the Applicants who, together with the New Jersey Power & Light Company, comprise the General Public Utilities System. This system in turn is part of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection which, with additional minor syste=s,

cocprises the entity known as the Mid-Atlantic Area Coordination Group, one of the nine reg.,nal electric reliability coordination councils of the Nation. The expansion of bulk power facilities of the PJM Interconnection, to prav4de for growta, are planned with close coordination among the par-t '.cipants, and the ope ations of these facilities are supervised by a system coordination and control center to optimize reilability and economy of service.

The load characteristics of the GPU system are similar to those of the PJM Interconnection, both of which experience their annual peak during the In judging the need fe; the power from the Three Mile sucmer season.

Island No. 2 unit, therefore, it is necessary to review '.he demand-supply situation during the s"--ar peaking season of 1975 for the GPU system as well as that of the PJM Interconnection.

The following tabulation shows the loads expected to be served by the GPU system and those for the PIM Interconnection during the su=ner peaking season of 1975. It also shows the effect of the capacity of Three Mile Island No. 2 unit on r.he expected reserve margin during this period.

This is the anticipated initial service period of this unit, the life of which is expected to be sene 35 yesrs. Thus, it is expected to constitute a proportionate part of the Applicants ' total generating capacity through-that period, therefore, it will be depended upon to supply power to out meet future demands e ter a period of many years beyond the initial service need discussed in r$1s repoet.

A Am t

L

's $

s

- Forecasted 197 5 Su==er Peak Situation GPU PJM Conditions Without Three Mile Island So. 2 Unit Net Dependable Capacity, dagawatts -1/

7,335 47,669 Net Peak Load, Megawatts 6,375 37,290 Reserve brgin, Megawatts 960 10,379 Reserve Margin, Percent of Peal Load 15.1 27.8 kopditions With Three Mile Island No. 2 Unit Net Dependable Capacity, Megawatts 8,165 48,499 Net Peak Load, Megawatts 6,375 37,290 Reserve !brgin, Megawatts 1,790 11,209 Reserve Margin, Percent of Peak Load 28.1 30.1 Applicants' Stated Reserve Margin Needa Based on 20 Percent Criterion, >Mgawatts 1,275 7,458 Three Mile Island No. 2 Unit Capability as Percent of Stated Needed Reserve 65.1 11.1 1/ Includes Three Mile Island No. 1 and all other new capacity presently scheduled for service before the su==er of 1975.

If the capacity of Three Mile Island No. 2 unit is not evailable as scheduled, the GPU syste= will enter the 1975 peaking season with only 960 megawatts of capacity in excess of expected Icad or a reserve of 15.1 percent. Systems of the PJM Interconnection presently estinate that for acequate reliability a reserve cargin of about 20 percent should be maintainea.

reserve =argin situation expected to prevail during the su==er peaking season of 1975 on the PJM Interconnection as a whole and as shown in the table appears to satisfy the Applicants' stated criteria.

This reserve margin, however, is predicated on the timely completion and in-service availability of a number of large nuclear generating units not yet la service. These include Ihree Mile Island No.1, Calvert Clif fs No.1, Salen No. I and Peach Botto= No. 2, scheduled for 1973; Calvert Cliffs No. 2, Peach Bottc= No. 3, and. Sale = No. 2 scheduled for 1974; and Newbold Island No. 1 and LL=erick No. I scheduled for 1975.

If any of these units are delayed in scheduled cc==ercial operation f or technical, regulatory, or other reasons, the reserve cargin shown in the table for the PJM Interconnection will be reduced correspondingly.

Incl'tding the two Three Mile Isla. d units, these ten nuclear electric generating units not yet in service constitute approxi=ately 21 percent n..

c

s

. (10,163 megawatts) of the 48,'+99 megawatts of pJM total capacity shown for 1975. In other words, the stated reserve capacities for 1975 are entirely vested in the nuclear units now nder construction, and delays have been the general rule with virtually a,ll large nuclear units to date.

Transmission Facilities The expansion of the bulk power transmission facilities which will integrate the output of the plant into the present network is planned to be in two stages. With Unit No. 1, three 230-kilovolt lines (two of 1.4 miles length and une of 4.t miles) are planned, and with Unit No. 2, three 500-kilovolt lines (6.1 miles, ll.1 miles and 67.3 miles in length) will be added. The 230-kilovole lines are ccepletely built and ready for service. Approxi=ately 15 miles of right-of-way for the 500-kilovolt lines has been obtained and work in this direction is continuing. Any delay in the completion of transmission facilities required to deliver the output of Unit No. 2 to the system network on schedule would lead to the reserve margin inadequacies presented in the foregoing section of th!9 repcrt.

Alternates to the Proocsed Facilities The ti=e remaining between the present and scheduled in-service date of the Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 precludes the addition of any known practical alternate base load generating capacity. Gas turbine peaking capacity might help alleviate the situation if this nuclear unit should be delayed, but such peaking capacity is not considered to be a practical solution to the base-load capacity needs covered by the above major nuclear generating capacity pregram. Gas turbine installations are usually designed to provide peaking capacity which is not desirable for base-load operation from the standpoints of either cost or reliability.

The opportunity to replace the capacity of the Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 by purchases of firm capacity from cc=panies in other regions does not appear to exist. The Applicants ss a standard practice avail thenselves of existing interconnections and arrangetants

u. e=ergency situations, but utilities in adjoining regional coincil areas (NPCC, ECAR, SERC) are faced with similar problems in providing firm capacity to fulfill their load responsibilities in this time period.

The partially accc=plished expansion of the bulk power transmission systen to accc==adate the. added capacity is in general accord with present state-of-the-art practices.

C_osts of Delav The contingency of a delay in transmission line construction or of a delay in the construction of No. 2 unit following noresl ec=pletion l~ 2hl[I

. and in-service sched tied operation of No.1 unit has not been studied by the Applicants. A c.st analysis, however, has been made of expected penalties in case of a stmultaneous delay of one year in the construction of both units. Based on this contingency, the Applicants estimate the costs of shutdown, standby, startup, escalation, contingencies, and added interest during construe' tion to be $58.7 million.

The lost nuclear generation resulting frem above esti=ated delay period, and using an 80 percent load factor for the nuclear units, is estimated by the Applicants to be 12,463,000,000 kilowatt hours. The additional costs to replace this energy frem fossil-fuel generation or purchases, if available, were estimated to be $103 tilion. The staff calculates this to be an added inc~e= ental cost of s.3 mills per kilowatt hour. This is within the range of similar costs reported to the Commission by other entities. Therefore, it is considered to be reasonable.

Roughly, one half of the S161.7 millien estimated as the cost of a year's simultaneous delay of Units No.1 and No. 2, can be reasonably assumed to be the cost of delaying construction of Unit No. 2 af ter Unit No. I has achieved in-service status, but it is not obvious as to the amounts which wot.ld be involved in penalties due to delay of the transmission facilities alone.

Conclusion In the light of the major nuclear capacity construction program now under way in the PIM area, and the attendant uncertainties, the staff con-siders that the 830 cegawatts of capacity represented by the Three Sule Island No. 2 unit are needed to assist in meeting the Applicants' future demands for power, particularly the 1975 su=cer peak loads, and to provide reasonable reserve margins for adequacy and reliability of electric service.

Prudent and responsible operations include provisions for loss of capacity due to forced outages of generating units, occurrence of loads higher than those forecast, operating =argins required to fulfill obligations to parti-cipants in the PJM Interconnection, and operating margins to provide fr.-

flexibility in the allacation of load to generating resources because of abnormal bulk power system conditions. A disruption of the nuclear generating capacity construction schedule involving any of the nuclear units, including either of the Three Mile Island units, could jeopardize these ob;cctives.

f

• e9

<3

.T,eA.sPhillips Chief, Bureau of Power February 3, 1972 E3-250

.