ML19317G438
| ML19317G438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1971 |
| From: | Beverly Clayton, Rodgers J FLORIDA POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003130885 | |
| Download: ML19317G438 (55) | |
Text
ORISMAL FLORIDA POWER COP 20RATt0N Reguhtor',
Fite Cy.
~
STATEMENT TO
, f -/#/- M
,d THE U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY CO:011SSION
[
ON THE v
Dr.*"rBif f STAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT W3 bb.. e- %
PURSUANT TO t a' Y
ttsf.f0tT b
s TITLE 10 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS y
\\
g/
PART 50,' APPENDIX D, SECTION E EFFECTIVE SEPTEMEER 9,1971 DOCKET No. 50-302 This stctement is submit ad to the U.S. Atomic Energy Connission by Florida Power Corporation, the Applicant in the above proceeding, as required by Sec-tion E to Appendix D of Part 50, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, of the Rules and Regulations of t.he U.S. Atomic Energy Co=nission as published September 9,1971 in Vol. 36 of the Federal Register at Page 18071.
INTRODUCTION A construction permit CPPR-51 was graated to Florida Pouer Corporation for Crystal River Unit #3 on September 25, 1968 in Docket No. 50-302, and applica-tion was filed on February 1,1971 for an operating permit.
Commercial opera-tion of the nuclear facility is scheduled for September, 1973.
Florida Power Corporation is respectfully confident that this state ncnt and supporting f acts demonstrate clearly that the Construction Permit for Crystal River Unit #3 should not be suspended, in whole or in part, pending co:apletion of the National Environnental Policy Act environmcatal review by the Co;mnission.
Florida 8003130 W W 1/V70
4 l
2.
The continued construction of the Crystal River Unit #3 during the prospective environmental revi,a period uill not foreclose the subse-quent adoption of alternatives in the facility design that could result from the NEPA environmental review.
3.
The continued construction of Crystal River Unit #3 during the environmental review period is very much in the public interest., The power needs of the people of Florida af ter September,1973 are very dependent upon genera-tion by the Crystal River Unit #3, particularly since alternative sources of continuing capacity of this magnitude (825,000 kw net) within or with-out. the Company do not exist. Other means of production on an adequate and timely bcsis would be extremely costly initially, impose increased environmental costs, and are not in the public interest.
The cost of delays la the coa tructice of Cryotal River Uult #3 would be very seveie to the Company and to the people of Florida and therefore would not be in dhe public interest.
FACTUAL STATDENTS SUPPORTING CONCLUSIONS The following twelve key areas show the public interest necessity for the Commission to allow the continued construction of the Crystal River Unit #3 during the NEPA environmental review.
1.
Need for the Power frem Crystal River Unit #3
.w 3
A.
Customer Growth People are pouring into Florida at an unslowing pace with a fervor that reficcts their intense desire to live and work here.
It is this desire that is causing an estimated 3,000 new residents per week to move into Florida. For example:
/
(1) Florida is the fastest growing large state in the Nation, now 9th in size, having been 10th in 1960 and 20th in 1950.
(2)
The State permanent population has been increasing approximately 15,000 per month over the last ten years.
(3) Each year, uver 23 uillion Luurists visit Flucida. Disaey 'Jurld predictions call for ten million visitors to its facility in our Eastern Division territory.
(4) Florida Power Corporation added over 30,000 new customers last year.
B.
Electricity Use Per Customer The general increasing public affluence over the years is reflected.in a growing per customer use of electricity in the Florida Power 4
Corporation service area. This is projected to continue as shown below:
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION ANNUAL ELECTRICITY USE PER CUSTOMER CLASS IN MEGAWATT-IIOURS YEAR PESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
'0IRERS TOTAL 1960 1,115,401 561,82r 827,782 454,449 2,959,483 1965 1,803,163 1,019,706 1,190,612 804,582 4,818,263 1970 3,696,114 1,844,192 1,912,379 1,576,337 9,029,022 1971 4,154,712 2,149,226 2,064,658 1,796,139 10,164,735 1972 4,670,667 2,480,792 2,219,574 2,033,954 11,404,987 1973 5,244,593 2,812,853 2,381,284 2,289,781 12,723,511 1974 5,883,520 3,179,613 2,549,786 2,563,612 14,176,539 1975 6,592,617 3,588,623 2,725,082 2,855,474 15,761,796 1980 11,442,675 6,359,562 3,703,460 4,583,934 26,089,63 O
S G
s t
9 I
9 5
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
~ LONG RANGE L'H/ CUSTOMER PROJECTIONS YEAR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTIRAL 1960 4,488 17,693 884,382 1965 6,011 27,596 1,272,021 1970 9,415 40,952 1,532,355 1971 9,930 44,474 1,570,082 1972 10,470 48,359 1,596,816 1973 11,025 51,640
- 1,625,450 1974 11,600 54,992 1,655,705 1975 12,195 58,485 1,687,357 1980 15,545 77,836 1,861,035
APPENDIX - TABLE 2 DETAILS OF CAPACITY ADDITIONS EXHTt1T 1 BY UNIT THn0CGH_1930 FOR STATC OF FLORIDA FLORIDA SU3aEGION OF SERC In-Service Date Plant or Location Size MN(1)
Type StatusQ l
June, 1971 Port Everglades 444 12-Combustion Turbines C
2 June, 1971 A.3. Hopkins #1 80 Fossil Steam C
3 July, 1971 Turkey Point #3 725/693 Nuclear Steam C
4 Sept.,1971 Northside #2 300 Fossil Steam C
5 Ma r. 19 72 Turkcy Point #4 725/693 Nuclear Steam C
6 Apr. 1972 Sanferd #4 398/379 Fossil Steam C
7 May, 1972 Dartcw Plant #4 200 4-Combustion Turbines C
8 J une, 19 72 A.B. Hopkins #2 30 1-Combustion Turbine C
9 Jan.,1973 Sanford #5 398/379 Fossil Steam C
10 Feb., 1973 Big Band #2 437 Fossil Steam C
11 Sept.,1973 Crystal River #3 825 Nuclear Steam C
12 lby, 1973 Undetermined 200 4-Combustion Turbines TP 13 June,1973 Indian River #3-325 Fossil Steam C
14 Mar., 1974 Northside #3 550 Fossil Steam C
15 Apr., 1974 Anclote 41 515 Fossil Steam C
16 May, 1974 Hutchinson Is. #1 850/810 Nuclear Staam C
17
!by, 1974 Port Manatee #1 825/775 Fossil Steam C
18 June, 1974 Plant No. 3-#2 100 Fossil Steam TP 19 Mar., 1975 Big Bend #3 437 Fossil Steam C
20 Apr., 1975 Anclote #2 515 Fossil Steam C
21 May, 1975 Undeterminad 825/775 Fossil Steam TP 22 June, 1975 A.B. Hopkins #3 125 Fossil Steam TP 23 lby, 1976 Undetermined 850/810 Nuclear Steam TP 24 May, 1976 Undetermined 825/775 Fossil Steam TP 25 Mar., 1977 Undetermined 437 Fossil Steam TP 26 Apr., 1977 Undetermined 200 4-Combustion Turbines TP 27 May, 1977 Undetermined 825/775 Fossil Steam TP 28 bby, 1977 Uudetermined 825/775 Fossil Steam TP 29 May, 1977 Undetermined 100 2-Combustion Turbines TP 30 June, 1977 A.B. Hopkins #4 30 1-Combustion Turbine TP 31 J une, 1977 Plant No. 3-#3 150 Fossil Steam TP 32 Mar., 1978 Undetermined 800 Undeter-12ad TP 33 May, 1978 Undetermined 1240/1100 Fossil Steam TP 34 tby, 1978 Undeter:dned 825/775 Fossil Steam TP 35 Oct., 1978 Crystal River #4 825 Fossil Steam TP 36 Mar., 1979 Beacon Key #1 825 Nuclear Steam TP 37 May, 1979 Undetermined 1240/1110 Fossil Steam TP 38 May, 1979 Undetermined 825/775 Fossil Steam TP 39 June, 1979 A.B. Hopkins #5 230 Fossil Steau TP 40 Apr., 1980 Undetermined 200 4-Combustion Turbines TP 41 May, 1980 Undetermined 1240/1100 Fossil Steam TP (1) Sizes listed are nominal and should not be used to reconstruct capability data.
When two figures are shoun, the larger represents expected winter capability; the smaller figure = expected summer capability FROM:
FTD. PUD. COMM.
ORDER 383-2 (2) C - committed; TP - tentatively projected.
REPORT 4/1/71 7
m
SOU1HEAS1c_
IC RELIABILITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT 2
..UA SUSPECION u.
APTEI! DIX A - 1ABLE 3
' ESTIMATED CAPABILITY-INTER-SU8 REGION AL EXCHINGE - RESERVE Peak llour Net Total Load Reserve Period Load Capability Firm Power From (L[
Capability Responsibility (2)
Megawatts
% Peak j
IM Ki 1971 Summer 10,610 12,200 h0NE Same As Same As 1,620 15.3 71-72 Winter 11,120 13,190 Net Peak Load 2,070 18.6 1972 Summer 11,810 14,090 2,280 19.3 72-73 Winter 12,410 14,940 2,530 20.4 1973 Summer 13,160 16,250 3,090 23.5 73-74 Winter 13,830 16,730 2,900 21.0 1974 Summer 14,630 18,980 4,350 29.7 74-75 Winter 15,410 19,540 4,130 26.8 1975 Sumaer 16,260 20,820 4,560 28.0 75-76' Winter 17,060 21,440 4,380 25.7 1976 Summer 17,960 22,410 4,450 24.8 76-77 Winter 18,790 23,120 4,330 23.0 1977 Summer 19,770 24,860 5,090 25.8 77-78 Winter 20,610 25,680 5,070 24.6 1978 Summer 21,700 27,460 5,760 26.5 78-79 Winter 22,470 28,930 6,460 28.7 1979 Summer 23,710 31,250 7,540 31.8 79-80 Winter 24,380 23,440 8,060 32.0 1980 Summer 25,790 12,490 6,700 26.0 80-81 Winter 26,040 33,940 7,900 30.3 (1) No intra-subregional exchanges will be reported.
(2) Lead responsibility defined as forecast load less firm FROM: FED. PWR. COMM. ORDER purchases plus firm sales.
383-2 REPORT, 4/1/71 (3)
Summer - As of June 1 Winter - As of December 1
FLORIDA SUBREGION EXilIBIT 3 APPENDIX A - TABLE 3 ESTIMATED CAPABILITY-INTER-S'JBREGIONAL EXCHANGE - RESERVE i
Peak' Reserve I!our Net Total Load Without C.R. 3 Period Load Capability Firm Power from (1)
Capability Responsibility (2) 1p[
% Peak-1971 Summer 10,610 12,230 (3)
NONE Same As Same As 1620.
15.3 71-72 Winter 11,120 13,190 Net Peak Load 2070 18.6 1972 Summer
.11,810 14,090
~
2280 19.3 72-73 Winter 12,410 14,940 2530 20.4 1973 Summer 13,160 15,625*
2465
'18.7 73-74 Winter 13,830
'16,105*
2275 16.4 1974 Summer 14,633 18,355*
-3725 25.4 74-75 Winter 15,410
.18,915*
3505 22.8 1975 Summer 16,260 20,195*
3935 24.1
~
75-76 Winter 17,060 20,815*
3755 22.0
- o 1976 Summer 17,960 22,410 76-77 Winter 18,790 23,120 1977 Summer 19.770 24,860 77-78 Winter 20,610 25,680 1978 Summer 21,700 27,460 78-79 Winter 22,470 28,930 s
1979 Summer 23,710 31,250 79-80 Winter 24,380 32,440 1980 Summer 25,790 32,490 80-81 Winter 26,040 33,940 (1) No intra-subregional exchanges will be reported.
(2) Load responsibility defined as forecast load less firm
- Reduced by 625 MR:
purchases plus firm sales.
-825 MW C.R. 3
+200 Mw Peaking added in 1973 (3)
Summer - As of June 1 Winter - As of December 1
EXHIBIT 4 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION LOAD-CAPACITY FORECAST 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
Total Total Forecast Resources Reserve Margin Resources Peak Reserve Margin Minus C.R.3 Without C.R.3 Season MW NW NH HW MM S 1972 2,879 2,610 269 10.3 2,879 269 10.3 W 1972/73 2,929 2,750 179 6.5 2,929 179 6.5 S 1973 3,134 2,850 284 10.0 3,134 284 10.0 W 19/3/74 3,639 3,u40 399 J.9. /
2,764
-256
-6.4 S 1974 4,169 3,090 1,079 34.9 3,314-224 7.2 W 1974/75 4,169 3,360 809 24.1 3,314
-46
-1.4 S 1975 4,699 3,330 1,369 41.1 3,844 514 15.4 1)
Installed gross capacity plus purchases.
(Purchases in 72, 72/73, 73)
- 2) Gross 1 - hour forecast.
3&6) Margin for maintenance and emergencies.
4 4&7)
Reserve expressed as percent of forecast.
10
C.
Required Reserve Capacity Including Access to Other Generating Sources Peninsular Florida is supplied by seven major utilities--Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Power Corporation, Tampa Elec-tric Company, Orlando Utilities Commission, Jacksonville Electric Authority, City of Lakeland and City of Tallahassee--with a number of smaller municipal generating systems. Operating as an interconnected network, a capacity problem that affects one utility will affect the total State power supply. The utilities in the State operate on the concept of helping their neighbor whenever possible; however, in general, each utility is responsible for protecting its own system and its own load befo re tha t of its neighbor.
The State operating group files annual data through the South-eastern Electric Reliability Council to the Federal Power Con-mission under its Order No. 383-2.
The most recent filing, April 1971, listed the proposed generators, as shown in Exhibit 1.
Note that Crystal River Unit #3 was then indicated to be in service April,1973.
It is a significant number of large genera-tors following 1972, which must be placed into service in order to yield generating capacity required to serve the loads pro-jected within the State. A delay in any one of these units will have a serious effect upon the utility involved but also depend-ing upon-the size of the unit, a varying effect upon the State 11
0 as a whole. Exhibit 2 shows the peak hour load forecasts com-pared with the proposed net capab,ility for the same period of time, and the tabulation shows the amount of reserve which would esult provided all projects went through on tice. Although percent reserve is not an adequate single criterion for assess-ment, it is felt that a margin of from 20% to'25% is necessary to maintain a degree of peliability to the State, acceptable by the Federal Power Commission. Reserve margins below this level tend to result in a high degree of probability that customers will be curtailed during emergencies such as a loss of a generator during high load periods--particularly during the longer summer
. peak periods which persist for about four conths during the year.
Exhibit 3 shows the State's reserve picture if Crystal River Unit
- 3 is further delayed. The data is only carried through the winter of 1975/76. Note the dramatic impact upon the reserve in the winter of 1973/74. Keep in mind this tabulation assumes that all other planned generators are brought into service on time. The problems the utility faces today in permitting and licensing a site and constructing generating units render it highly improbable that all of these units will be brought in on time.
Exhibit 4 assumes a delay of Crystal River Unit #3, and predicts the impact on FPC from such an event. The important point here 12,
is that through at least tuo seasons there would be negative
~
reserve; i.e.,
customer loads would be curtailed through the peak periods, even with all other generators were operating.
The possibility of alleviating this situation by contracting purchases from neighboring utilities is considered nonexistent because of insufficient time for any company to install any kind of large unit with acceptable environmental cost-benefit approaching that of Cr.4 s1 River Unit #3. Because of the low level of State reserves (Exhibit 4) and the obvious situation existing now that any other utility will have the same licensing or permitting difficulty in starting up generators on an assured schedule. The reserve margin indicated in the sucmer of 1974, While not being n negetive figure, reprecent: On entrc=cly den-gerous and unacceptable mode of operation because of the long continuous duration of the daily peaks during the summer days (usually--hours).
If a delcy of Crystal River Unit #3 were effected, the situation might possibly be alleviated by the installation of peaking units, since they are reported to be available on a short lead time (12-14 months). There are three distinct disadvantages to this ap-procch:
(1) _ The Florida-Power Corporatica system has been planned for the use of certain essential amounts of peaking capacity; 13 t
d u
' but an over-expansion of this type of capacity would result in extremely high operating costs, since heat rates of these units are approximately 20% higher than the system average for-base load units.
(2)
The impact upon the environment due to operation of these units is calculated to be more detrimental than that of any
-base loaded unit--but particularly a nuclear fueled unit.
(3)
Florida Power's present construction program calls fc the outlay of expenditures--including those for Crystal River Unit #3--which are very taxing to the Company's ability to attract sdequate funds. To superimpose the cost of any adoitionai capacity during this period would seriously
. jeopardize the Company's financial integrity. Such an event would inevitably lead to higher cost of money.
In summary, the impact of any further delay of Crystal River Unit #3
- would place Florida Power Corporation, as well as the State, in an untenable mode of system operation, resulting in curtailment of cus-tomer loads during many of the peak periods and in emergencies.
Such an uncalled-for event would cause the Company to embark on an undesirable pattern of generation expansion which would result in higher investment and operating costs, and would have an excessive impact upon the environment of our State.
14
~
h-
sce-
~
j
-D.
Economics and Environment
- As discussed in paragraph C.(3) above, the only practicable alterna-tive for providing the very necessary electric power fron Crystal River Unit #3 is through the use of combustion gas peaking units.
Peaking unit installation would result in a total differential system fuel cost increase of $51,000,000 during 1973-1975 for the delay'in Crystal River Unit #3 schedule.
Despite favorable performance of peaking units, there are signifi-cant combustion product emissions to the atnosphere.
It is the considered judgrent of Florida Power Corporation that coniluued evasitoccion of Crys tai River Unit 93 for operation in September,1973 is the' better alternative for meeting the State's need for power than.any kind of peaking units. A nuclear plant design, a construction schedule, and a very large remote plant site provide assurance of incorporation of additional facilities as required by the NEPA environmental review.
Tremendous cost savings to the public,when comparing Crystal River Unit #3 to the peaking unit consideration with its associated greater environmental impact S
certainly support this judgment.
2.
Status f Construction and local Environc The Crystal River plant sit e presently houses two oil fired electric generating units with a total get;erating capacity of 897,000 kilowatte..
15 L
r.,
s Thesc. units were placed into conmercial operation in 1966 and 1969 res-pectively. All significant site developments such as land clearing and fuel delivery - cooling water canal excavation wcre accomplished for
. Crystal _ River Units #1 and #2. During the prospective review period only the following activities will take place:
A.
Site Clearing (In Addition to Crystal River #1 and #2)
No land clearing is cont.esplated in connection with the construction of Crystal River Unit #3.
3.
Excavation and D!.scharges
. Several shallow, small excavation: exist in the imnediate building i
nrec. These are being de-watered by continuous open sump pump operation. Effluent is treated, so as to be well below the esta-blished water quality standards, prior to discharge, to the receiving marsh lands.
It is expected that this activity will cease in January, 1972, assuming no construction stoppage.
~
C.
Crystal River Unit #3 Facility (1) Turbine Building
-Reinforced concrete foundation, berm-retaining walls and tur-bine-generator pedestal complete. Structural steel erection e
t 9
16' t
t w+
e-
m--
n-,,-
v gg-,+
,o-r--o w
m
,-, +
I approximately 20% complete. Size of building is 285' long, 162' wide and 115 ' high.
(2)
Control Compicx Building Reinforced concretc foundation, valls and intermediate floors complete. Size of building is 90' long, 70' wide and 92' high.
t (3) Auxiliary Building Reinforced concrete foundation, walls and intermediate floors approximately 60% complete. Structural work remaining is 40%
of reinforced concrete building and all (695 tons) structural i
steel erection. Size or building is 180' long, 200' wide and 114' high.
(4)
Reactor Building Reinforced cone'ete foundation and floor slab complete. Steel liner plate cy'.indrical portion complete. Containment reinforced concrete outer ualls and interior shield walls are approximately 15% complete. Therefore remaining work is 85% of walls nad entire roof dome liner plate stec1, concrete and 417 tons structural steel. Size of building is 150' in diameter and 190 ' high.
17
V 4
These structures contain the following amount 2 of material:
Already Placed To Be Placed Structural Concrete 57,000 yds.
40,000 yds.
Lean concrete Backfill 30,000 yds.
Cement Grout 30,000 yds.
Zone III thterial 20,000 yds.
30,000 yds.
(Limerock Fill)
Zone A 1hterial 10,000 yds.
(Limerock Fill)
Structural Reinforcing Steal 8,000 Tons 6,000 Tons Structural Steel 750 Tons 2,900 Tons Components aircady installed in these buildings include condenser shell, waste evaporator packages, heat exchangers, various tanks and several pump / motor sets. Installation of major mechanical, l
structural, electrical and architectural equipment and materials remains to be done.
Facilities construction is limited to buildings described above i-with no periphery construction presently underway. Overall con-struction is approxi
_y 37% complete.
All major equipment is on-site being stored awaiting installation.
D..
Power Transmission Transmission of electric power from Crystal River Unit #3 is accom-plished by-a singic line added to existing trans-13 L_
F
.miesion corride 3, thus making maximum' usage of evch land. Line construction activity is nearing completion at this time as follows:
(1) Transmission - 125 Miles of Line The 500 kv transmission project associated with this unit is 80% complete. Existing right-of-way was,purchaced and cleared several years ago in conjunction with the original Crystal River f
a proj ec t.
All materials needed have been purchased and delivered.
All contracts for tower foundations and line erection have been let. With the exception of one four-mile section, all werk is presently under construction.
l l
(2)
$00 KV Spbstation - Three All sites have been purchased. Clearing, filling, grading and necessary railroad spurs have been ccmpleted. All equipment has been purchased. These projects are 40% complete.
I I
3.
Future Site Modifications An important follow-up to paragraph 2.B. above are the requirements for future site modification during the prospective review period. It can be clearly seen belos that no long-term environmental effects will result from construction from now until December,1972. When this activity and 19
1 itsi ninimal environver.tal impact are weighed against the resulting enornous public benefit, which is discussed in depth ia this atatament, there is, in the respectful judgment of"the applicant, a very clear incentive to continue construction of Crystal River Unit #3 as a direct matter of the public interest. The construction activity until December,1972 is ac follows:
A.
Site Clearing i
No further site clearing work is plan..ed.
B.
Excavations (1) Excavations for the ' circulating water intake structure are scheduled to begin in November,1971. This excavation, roughly 200' x 100' x 40' deep,. will be de-watered by open sump pumping, Effluent will be discharged into an upland settling basin of a size and configuration such that the overflow will be within the established water quality standards before release into the marshlands.
Excavation for the circulating water outfall structure is scheduled te begin in May, 1972. This excavation, roughly 150' x 100' x 25' deep, will be de-watered as described above and ef fluent' will be treated in the race manner.
9 20
(2)
Excavation of the circulating water inlet canal extension is scheduled to begin February,1972 and be completed in Dececher, 1972. This is an uplsud extension of 600' x 200' x 17' deep to an existing canal from the Gulf of Mexico. Total material to be removed is approximately 125,000 cubic yards.
This material will be deposited on uplands, which are presently filled to an elevation of eight feet above mean low water.
t Excavation of the circulating water outfall canal extension is scheduled to begin in June,1972 and be completed in Dececher, 1972. This again is an upland extension of an existing canal to the Gulf. This extension is 600' x 125' x 10' deep with approximately 30,000 cubic yards of material to be removed.
Exchv.Liva and dispu=41 vf material will *oe accomplisited es described above.
Essentially all excavation will be accomplished behind an earthern plug, which will be left at the terminus of the existing canal, thereby eliminating any disturbance to the open water to the Gulf. The final removal of the earthern ylug will be ' accomplished behind an encircling silt curtain and all precautions will be taken to maintain the open water turbidity ucll below the established standards. No de-watering will be required in connection with this excavation.
21
C.
Crystal River Unit #3 Facility Additional plant buildings will be constructed during the prospec-tive review pericd.
D.
Tower Transmission During the pronpective review period the following work will be done:
t (1) Transnission Work remaining is completion of touer footings, erection of remaining towers and installation of inculators and conductors.
As mantioned above, tishi-vf-way clearing was completed pre-viously.
K (2) Substations Work remaining is installation of foundations, equipment. and conductors on the sites. Clearing, filling and grading is complete. The one substation at Crystal River is on the exist-ing plant site and another at Central Florida is an addition to an existing substation. At the new cubstation near Lake
{
Tarpon, the transformer foundation and. the transformer have aircady been installed.
O 22 a.
J
4.
Protection ~of Equipment and Facilities On-Site A most important consideration in hypothesizing a construction stoppage during the prospective review period is the impact on the ulti= ate ability of components, most of which are now on-site, to perform their function according to rigid specifications, once the plant is operational. The following is a breakdown of equipment and facilities now on-site:
i A.
Presently Constructed Facility Virtually no protection would be required for constructed facilities, except for re-bar dowel and anchor bolt wrappings, since present con-struction is primarily in the structural concrete phase.
B.
Components On-Site Approximately 75% of all major mechanical, electrical, heating, ven-tilating, piping, and structural equipment and materials have been received on-site and placed in short term storage. These include the following major categories:
Mechanical 1
(1) llcating, ventilating, air-handling, air conditioning and sheet metal ducts.
4 e
23 i
.y
-(2) Eleven' hundred pieces of shop-f abricated pipe.
-(3).Several hundred valves.
~(4)
Several dozen pump-motor packages.
(5)
Reactor vessel, two steam generators, pressurizer, control rod drive mechanisms and other nuclear-related equipment.
(6) Heat exchangers, tanks, condenser tubes.
(7) Turbine-generator electrical stator and rotor, high and low pressure turbine spindles, inner and outer spindle shells and all turbine-generator aunilicry equipment end piping.
(8) Overhead traveling cranes.
Electrical (1) Lighting fixtures and materials.
(2) 430, 4160 cad 6900 volt switchgear.
(3) Main step-up, station service and start-up transformers.
(4)_ Electrical penetration assemblies.
A
.\\
(5) - Bus _ d: et.
(6) Cable trays.
(7) Cable.
(8) Control panels and cabinets.
Structural (1) Structural steel, i
t (2) Reinforcing steel.
(3) Tendon conduits.
n Protection and in-storage maintenance of these components would con-sist of the following general activities:
i t
(1). - Nitrogen gas blan.ets en all heat exchangers, tanks ard transfor-t mers.
(2) Electrical space heaters and heat lamps on all motors.
(3) Lubrication and rotation of all pump / motor assemblies.
+
25
3 (4). Protection frem the elements for all mechanical and electrical equipment, including stainless steel piping and tanks, cable, cable trays', tendon cc.iduits, condenser tubes, and all other equipment requiring this protection. This has consisted mainly of tarpaulins erected over equipment and will be enpected to be replaced periodically.
Components to be Delivered The same type of protection outlined above will be required for the remaining 25% of components to be delivered under existing co=mitments.
The Quclity /.scurance activity during a hypothetical construction shut-doun for the prospective review period, although reduced somewhat, will have to continue to provide surveillance of all equipment on the site or to be delivered during the " hold" period. In addition, much of the equipment vill have to be repackaged to allow for long term storage.
Surveillance of vendors' shops will continue with added importance placed, and monies spent, on long term storage requirements.
All rotating equipment must continue to-be rotated and in storage in-spection procedures must continue.
There is a certain risk to be considered regarding long term storage of equipment in a high humidity, high temperature and saline atmosphere.
Some of our equipment must be stored in a controlled environment and
~ 26
additional buildings will certainly be necessary to meet the specifica-tion requirements. There are certain types of equipment that will require engineering justification for verification of the absence of long teon ef f ects due to long term exposure to the elements, i.e., exposed re-bar, certain synthetic materials, etc.
We would expect a loss of experienced and qual'ified construction per-sonnel. We will have to retrain our Quality Control personnel with accompanying loss of efficiency at their level.
The economic penalties involved would consist of the cost of men and equipment on-site full-time, but not productively engaged. The men o
are needed to handle deliveries, off-loading, placing of equipment and materials in-storage and in-storage maintenance. No penalty was taken for the anknown amount of deterioration, corrosion and aging that would be almost impossible to control, but yet would be harmful to equipment and material. This will be discussed further in Paragraph 5 below.
+
5.
Recovery of the Construction Labor Force A.
Local Socio-Economic Impact Florida Power Corporation is by far the largest single employer in the Citrus County (Crystal River) area. There are presently eleven 27 J
M
hundred people employed on this project, and a construction delay would result in the termination of over one thousand of these. This would bring about the abrupt removsl of $1,000,000 per month from the local area in wages alone. 'This being a rural area, there is little ques-4 tion but that all sectors of the economy, government and private, would be immediately and adversely affected.
s There being practically no other construction work in the area, hun-i dreds of families who have moved here with the prospect of several years continuous employment would be faced with the expense and dis-rupting situation associnted with relocating their place of resideace.
No doubt many of the terminated workers would find it necessary to apply for unemployment compensation. This also would further penalize our contractors, who have lost their anticipated profit and now find a
their operating costs increasing, since unemployment insurance rates are based on experience. Vorse yet, the families involved would then have incomes which would place them at the poverty level, another ad-verse effect on the community in general.
Locally purchased services and supplies would be interrupted. This is another significant local economic impact, since this is averaging
-over $125,000 per month.
B.
Restart of the Construction Activity At-the termination of a hypothetical ccnstruction shut-down during the 28-
prospective review period,the Company would face a significant challenge in obtaining, training and receiving efficient work output from a newly recruited work force. The practicalities of such an effort are that the Crystal River Unit #3 project is located in a rural area and at some distance from the construction labor markets. We have previously experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of workmen. This being the case, it can be reacily seen that a project shut-down of any significant duration (say core than three nonths) would put the Company in?a position of having to recruit an entirely new work force. The uncertainty of long term employment created by the impact of a regulatory agency ordered shut down would obviously affect the type and talent of workmen recruited for restarting the project.
. All of the personnel training and testing, particularly in the area of Quality Control and special processes, would be forfeited, and of neces-sity, repeated upon resumption of construction. This would cause delays 1
and added expense.
A delay of construction would also dictate a complete demobilization of all contractors and equipment involved in the project. In addition i
to the costs of this and subsequent re-mobilization, we can expect to
' lose all of the key supervisory and technical support personnel, including Quality Control inspectors.
Recruitment of conpetent people in these i
areas is extremely difficult and time consuming.
It often becomes a trial and error exercise, introducing further delay and cost to the
~
re-mobilization effort.
29
L C.
Schedule Delay With'all of the foregoing considerations, it is the Company'c judgment that a twelve month construction stopp.,ge would result in a total sche-dule deJay of at least iif teen and possibly as much as eighteen months.
Commercial operation could be expected to slip to December,1974 at the earliest or at worst, to March, 1975. Ove,rall economic impact analysis will be bar,cd on a 12 month construction stoppage in December, 1971 with an ultimate 18' month delay in the coc=ercial operating date.
D.
Economics Overall costs of a twelve month construction stoppaga are estimated in detail below:
(1)
Contractor demobilization and recobilization -
$ 42,000 (2)
Personnel retraining and retesting: labor force
$126,000 (3) Labor escalation
$1,750,000 (4) Additional on-site maintanance
$ 709,300' (5)
Total
$2,627,000 30
6.
Cooling Water Systen Alternatives Flexibility The Crystal River Unit #3 cooling system consists of a once through c stem f
intaking sea water from the open Gulf of Mexico and discharging watar back into the ope's Gulf through a system of open intake and diacharge canals.
The design is based upon a flow of 680,000 cpm through the condenser result-ing in av spproximate 17'F rise in the cooling water at the end of the plant diccharge canal. The cooling water system for Units #1 and #2 have the sama general features utilizing the same intake and discharge canals. Total flow for Units #1, #2 and #3 will be 1,262,000 gpm with an approximate not temparature rise of 15'F above inlet temperature. This design has received its certificacion from the State of Florida Departmaat of Pollution Control.
At present tne cooling water condenser and piping for Unit #3 are being installed. These extensive commitments, internal to the plant proper, pre-clude the possibility _ of redesign of the condenser system to effect a lower temperature condenser rise. Other cooling water design alternatives are nvailable external to the main plant facilities which can be incorporated in the discharge at any time during the construction period or added in the future.
Such alternatives include, but should not be limited to:
(1) dilution of the discharge waters; (2) open spray cooling; (3) cooling ponds; (4) cooling towers. These cencepts are essentially additive to the present cooling water system and can be constructed in the latter periods of construc-tion with a minimal initial cost penalty.
Dilution of - the discharge canal cooling water to reduce the total tempera-ture rise of Units #1, #2 and #3 can be accomplished by mixing intake und 31 i
discharge water along the discherge canal. This approach would require additional pumping facilities. These featuras can be added to the present plan: site with little or no disruption to the operation of Units #1 and #2 or die construction of Unit #3 in the future.
An open spray module cooling system can be installed in the dischargc canal.
The sprcy module system is designed around a floating, powered spray unit placed in the discharge canal as necessary to achieve the desired cooling effect. The number, size, and arrangement of modules is based upon the required haat load, flow rate, and other parameters. Adoption of the open spray system in combination with dilution is a possibility. Present and future construction activity would not preclude inclusion of the spray sya-tem into the design of the plant at any time.
Ccoling with open ponds, depending upon evcporation, radiation, and con-duction heat transfer, can be considered without seridusly affecting Unit #3 construction. The open pond cooling system does require e:: tensive open acreage. Such roon is available but would require cleaning of sur-rounding woodland. The effects of such land c1 caring and ficoding an environment must be feighed against possible advantages to this system.
An alternative is to inundate the adjacent salt marsh tidal area. In either case, present construction will not affect possible-future addition of such high environmental impact choices.
Cooling touers could be installed at some future time to provide a required heat transfer from the circulating water. Cooling towers would require 32
additional systems for pumping and piping equipment. The equipment pre-sently committed could be adapted to the cooling tower design. Natural draft and mechanical uet type salt unter cooling towers can be considered.
Fresh water cooling towers would probably be impractical now or in the future at this site because of the fresh water requirements for make-up water. Cooling towers can be incorporated into the plant design at a future date without serious effects on the cooling system now being con-structed. Any such cooling water system alternatives, while possibilities, each bear very serious operational penalties and environmental costs with-out cicar benefit.
The Cooling water alternative concepts indicated here are essentially add-on componcats to the present design. As such they can be installed at a future doce widi ainvr teattunge.uent vi pteneut fouilli.y de=1gu.
T't1=
greatly strengthens the justification for continued constructicn during the prospective environmental review period.
'7.
Chemical and Sanitary Unste System Alternatives Flexibility A.
Chemical Mastes Non-nuclear chemical waste sources from Crystal River Unit #3 are:
(1). Chemical cleaning of main steam and condensate lines.
(2)
Rageneration of the condensate polishing dcmineralizers.
b
.- 33
(3)
Regeneration of the mahe-up water treatment dcmineralizers.
(4)
Limo sof tener blow down.
(5) Floor drains.
While design of a collection and treatment system is not complete at this time,the design intent is as follows: Collect die above items (1)-(5) in an imperviously lined basin. The collection basin will also serve to collect the chemical wastes from the two existing fossil units on the Crystal River site. Regardless of the treatment required to adequately control liquid effluent emissions, continuance of construc-tion on this basis will not in any way affect the ability to install the necessary treatment facilities when the engineering evaluation is complete. The methods vaste disposal currently being investigated are:
(1) Chemical treatment involving settlement of non-dissolved solids and precipitation of dissolved chemicals. After adequate treat-ment the liquid would be directed to the circulating water dis-charge canal.
(2) Waste evaporation to atmosphere.
(3) -Distillation for plant re-use.
(4) Off-site disposal by contract with a waste disposal compan,r.
34'
Alternatives #2-4 result in no dischcrge to the surroundin0 vaters and therefore have essentially no impact on the environment. The
' minimum critcria of acceptability for Alternative #1 are set forth in Chapter 17-3, Rules of the Florida Department of Pollution Control, Florida-Administrative Code. The basic requirement of Chapter 17-3 is 90; removal of organte pollutants. In addition to the 90% removal i
requirement there are specified maximum concen,trations for certain chemicals which shall not be exceeded regardless of the degree of treatment required.
4 The above review of waste treatment alternatives fer Crystal River Flont clearly indicates there will be no penalty, as a result of con-tinued construction, to incorporate any of the above rentioned alter-natives into the plant desian at any point during construction.
B.
Sanitary Wastes.
The present sanitary waste disposal design for Crystal River Unit #3
'is as follows:
An extend 3d acration sewage treatment plant has been planned. This plant will treat the sanitary wastes from Unit #3 and the two existing fossil units on the Crystal River site. L Construction of the sewage plant'will be complete in ample time to service Unit #3. The design 4
currently indicates chlorination of the-treatment plant effluent and subsequent discharge to the' circulating water intake' canal. If at
+
35 j
any time in the future it is deemed necessary to go to additional treatment, any additioncl cycle can be added with virtually no re-design or reconctruction of the system presently scheduled to be installed.
C.
Miecellaneous Mon-Muclear Waste There are certain solid wastes generated in the processes discussed in Paragrephs A and B above that would not be subject to future adoption of facility design alternatives. The plan for disposal of each of the below listed itams is for of f-site disposal by firms contracted for solid waste disposal.
pon "acicar Colid Waste Sourecs (1)
Sludge from sewage treatment plant.
(2) Residues from possibic waste treatment schemes.
(3) Spent resin from both condensate polishing and make-up dcminera-lizers.
Roof and yard drains will ba collected in a yard drain cystem and discharged to the circulating water discharge canal. The resulting environmental inpact is virtually nil since the only source of the draining water is precipiration.
lu the event it snould ever be 36
determined necessary to prevent direct discharge of drainage water, the drain cystem could be routed to a holding basin. This form of addition to the drainage system could be accomplished with little
~
penalty due to continuing construction to completion of the present plant design.
8.
Radicactive Waste System Alternatives Ficxibility The radioactive liquid waste system has been designed to collect, ctore, and process, for disposal or re-use, all radioactive liquid wastes. The components of this system are tanks, pu=ps, domineralizers, evaporators, coolers, floor and equipment drains and sumps, valves, and piping. Liquid wastes will be released from the plant on a batch basis. Prior to release, ecch batch will be sampled to determine' the activity content. Based upon the activity analysis cud the flow ratcsfrom the nuclear service sca water system and the condenser circulating water system, a maximum flow rate for the batch discharge and setpoint for the activity monitor are established.
When the plant is operating with 1% failed fuel, tha average annual discharges are considerably less than 10CFR20 MPC limits.
i The-waste gas syrtem provides for the safe collection and storage of gases evolved from:the primary coolant in tanks and equipment. Volumetrically, 1
the principal gas Levolved is hydrogen. Radioactive - fission products, acti-vated' dissolved gases, etc. contribute an extrenely'scall fraction of the
~
total volume lib'arated. The weste gas system has been designed to provide a blanket of-inert nitrogen gas in shich to collect the gases evolved from 37-o
the princry coolant. The mi:cture of gases collected (nitrogen, hydrogen, and radioactive gaseous isotopes) is comprassed and stored in tankage for decay of ' the radioactive components prior Lc. recycle (as blanket gas) or di=posal to the atnor.phere. Compressed waste gases are sampicd shortly af ter coepiction of filling of a vaste gas dacay tank.
The analysis of this sample is the basis for determining whether the gas in the tank should be re-used or released to the environment.
If it is to be disposed to the
' environment, a minimum,of 90 days of decay time may be utilized prior to disposal. Disposal is done manually af ter sampling and analysis. The gas pcsses through charcoal and HEPA filters and through a path that is monitored twice. Uith the plant operating with 1% failed fuel, the average annual concentration at the site boundary due to the release of gases from the waste gas system is ' veveral orders of ragnitude less than the 10CFn20 MPC 11mita.
The solid waste pcching system provides the capability of processing four types of solid uastes:
(1) dry wastes including filters, rags, clothing, and equipment parts; (2) evaporator coacentrates; (3) spent resins; and (4) spent filter cartridges. Compressible dry wastes will be compacted into 55 sallon drums by a press. The evaporator concentrates will be solidified in 55 gallon drums.
Spent radioactive resins will be discharged from a spent resin storage tank directly into a truck mounted cask. The spent filter cartridges will be packaged in chielded 55 gallon d rums. Packaged containers will be surface monitored and stored accordingly for subsequent of f-site chipment. All containers will be Deparecent of Transportation.(DUT) cpproved and vill be shipped in accordance to DOT
- regulations to an AEC licensed burial ground.
38
~
The'above sumscrizes the total radwaste system as it is conte = plated today.
These systems have been fully designed and a11' equipment procured. Much of the equipment has been delivered and installed. The evaporators and nearly all of the tanks have been installed in chicided " caves" or "cata-combs" Ohich constitute the auxilinry building.
Any significant design and/or. cquipment changes vould be as difficult to make today as they would be a year or two from now. The only potential savings that might accrue today would be due to price escalations, but these are relatively insignificant When compared to total costs of modi-e fications.
9.
Environmental recourch Frograns A most important aspect of the Crystal River Unit 63 nuclear plant project is the Company's commitment to sponsor independent scientific investiga-a tion on-site in order to better evaluate the environmental impact of the plan t '. Such cetivities cust necessarily begin far in advance of plant i
operation and continue through the ccnstruction period into operation of -
the plant, i
Programs oof active significance are as follows:
.A.
Ecological Ef fects of Thereal Discharges on the !!arine Fnvironment Florida Departtent of Natural Resources. -Begutc Janucry 1, 1969.
Ao tal ' cos t ' to ' do te - $111,500.
1 V
--39 4e c,
y m
-~,
E -,
- e-,
,-, - w
-er~. -
-4+r
J B.
Ph tsical Aspects of Thernal Discharges 'to the Marine Environment University of South Florida Marine Science Institute. Begun May, 1970. Total cost to date - $128,000.
C.'
Radiologienl-Background Survey Off-Site Florida Division of _ Health. Begun March,1970. Total cost to date -
i
$45,000.
D.
On-Site Radiolceical Survey and Assessment of Radioactivity Propagation Thrcunh the Environment to Man University of Florida - Department of Environmental Engineering.
Begun August, 1970. Total cost to date - $83,000.
E.
Effect of Condenser Cooling Water Chlorination on the Marino Environnent University of Florida - Department of Environmental Engineering.
Begun April, 1971.. Total' cost to date
.$2,050.
F.
Crystal River Site Meteoro1or,v NUS Corporation. Begun April,1967. Total cost to date - $109,000.
40
There is active communication of research data which has been treated from the beginning as public information. The Company has accomplished a mean-ingful and rather cc plete distribution of research results through its Quarterly Environraental Statua Report for Crystal River Unit #3. Dis trib u-tion includes the Federal Government, State Governecnt, local agencies, con-servation groups, private persons, all Regulatory agencies and the Press.
In addition, a semi-annual conference is held at Crystal River where tne researchers present their findings to the Company and a battery of Regulc-tory cgency representatives. " Reports of all these activities are on file in the AEC.
The Company feels that it is adequately nceting its respcnsi-bility for carrying on active liaison with all agencies which have a role in pretceting the environment, as required by the U. S. Fish and Uildlife Service letter of February 12,19c8, terns of which were agreed to by the Applisant at its Constructica "ersit public hearias.
~
Results und conclucions to date of this research will be discussed in depth in the Environmental Icpact Report.
It is certainly fair to say that for the moment there are no obvious indications that the operation of Crystal River Unit #3 will cause a major environmental perturbation. With the excep-tion cf tha radiological discharges, Crystal River Units #1 and #2 have pro-vided the thermal and chemical input very similar to Crystal River Unit #3 so that research data to dato does give an immediate indication of the projected impact of Crystal River Unit #3.
Finally, the Conpany believes strongly that its environmental research pro-grams are making a t.eaningful contribution to the assessr..ent of the overall 41
environmental impact'of nucJear power plants in the United States. Particu-larly, the utilizatica of expertise from the State of Florida, including gra-duste students from the State uaiversities,is providing a 1 sng term invest-ment in people so that environmental prob 1ces in the future can be met more effectively.
10.
Liaison with Conservation Groups, Governmental Agencies and the Public Since 1967 when Florida Power ~ Corporation made its commitment to contract Crystal River Unit #3,there has been an ongoing liaison with a great tany groups, agencies and people. This activity has also involved a significant number of Florida Power Corporation personnel from the President on down.
i F
This co=municaticn has taken the form of speeches, briefings., conferences, syupovia and very frequent interchange via telephone and letter. The folicwing is a list of groups, agencies and people which have teen invol-ved. Please r.ote that the Environmental Impact Paport will address itself to documantation of this activity.
1 A.
Concervation Groups
' Conservation-70'c Florida Defenders of the Environment B.
Local and' State Acencies
~
Governor of Florida Florida Department of Natural Resources 42
f-Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commi:sion Florida. Department of Follution Control Florida Department of !!enith and Rehabilitative Services Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvenant Fund
- Florida Department of Transportatien Florida Public Service Comniscion Citrus County Commission Crystal' River Town Council Southwest Florida Water Manageuent District University of Florida (several Departments)
Florida State University Univorcity of South Florida (several Departmento)
Uaiversity of Miami
. Florida Technicel University l
l C.
Federal Ageacies U. S. Army. Corps. of Enginants U. S. Departnent of the Interior.
l U. S. Environmental Protection Agency I
U. S. Coast Cuard U. S.- Atomic Energy Commission U.. S. Lapartment of Labor U. S. Departncnt of Transportarion U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ~
National Marine Fisheries Service 43-
- h.
L.
2-
n
_7.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
~
Federal Water. Quality Administration U. S. Public Health Service U. S. Ceological Survey D.
. Private Individucls ~and Groups League of Women Voters Civic C1ths: Lions
?
(in several Rotary cities)
Hi - 12 Jaycecs Kiwanis Civitan Elementary cnd Secondary Schools
. Crystal River Power Squadron -
. C'.urches E.
Press-Various local newspapers-and radio and television-stations.
- Florida Power Corporation 'is confident that while it has an enormous invest-
. ment;in' these activitico,_ the benefits to the project, the general. public and the Company. have far exceeded the costs.
'l-44
-.7 g-a a
a i
i:
- 11. ' E:: amination of Total Crystal River Unit #3 Preicet Costs
~
Examination of the financial consequences to the total project cost was made' based on' the previously discussed hypothetical delay in construction of 12 months during the prospective NEPA environmental review period f
- starting December,1971 by the Commission ef fecting a delay in commercial -
operation of 18 months froin September,1973 to March,1975.
The following were taken into consideration:
A.
~ Additional construction inte <. :t costs.
B.
Additional insurance costs
'C.
Escalatien costs on deferred labor and material purchases.
D.
Engineering costa due to deferred coastruccion.
E.
Mobilization and demobilization costs of field forces.
F.
Labor and material costs due to receiving and storage during stoppage.
G.
Additional' interest charges on the nuclear fuel first core.
The analysis chovs that project costs will be as follows:
A.
Project estimate based on
. September,19 73 ope, ration -
$241,610,000
. Including fuel (1st Core)
($267,256,000)
- 1 45 4
B.-
Project estimate based on March,1975 operation.
$264,362,000
' Including fuel (1st Core);
($291,675,000)
C.
Increase in project cost
$ 22,752,000 Including fuel (1st Core)
( 24,420,000)
D.
In place work and committed costs as of December, 1971
$123,401,000 Including fuel (1st Core)
($150,714,000)
E.
In place and committed costs as of December,1972
$134,224,000 Includin'g fuel (1st Core)
($161,537,000)
The figures above arc inclusive in communicating project financial commit-ments to date and the expected penalties associated with a hypothetical t
delay of 18 conchs.
It is icportant to again note the penalty to the pub-licias shown above due to a construction stoppage, keeping in eind that continued construction during the prospective review pericd results in a very small environmental icpact and little loss of flexibility to incorpo-rate alternatives.
- 12. Consecuences to the Public and to Florida Power Corporation of Project Terninntion or Major Delay 1
D
~ 46 1
k d'
=
' A.
. Proj ect Termination This. statement has addresced itself to a reasonable delay in the con-struction of :tlu: Crystal River Unit #3 project. Florida Power Corpora-tion believes strongly 'that such a possible delay, if adjudged in the public interest, should be imposed by responsibla gcvernment. Florida Power Corporation believes strongly that government is responsible in
- its chargo to protect the public interest in the environment. In this respect, theCompanywishiestominimizeitsdiscussionoftermination of the Crys'tal River Unit #3 project. NEPA concepts allow that some cost to the environment vill result frcm a project such as Crystal River Unit #3. The benefits from reliable electric cervice justify some such cost.
Depending on the time of such a decision, the investment not to be recovered.would range between 161 and 267 million dollars. Perhaps some equipment could be sold for partial recovery, but this would be a small fraction of the total investment.
Such a decision would essentially eliminate a concept for power pro-duction in Florida and since fossil-fired steam electric stations are
~
greater in environacatal impact and associated means of control, then perhaps this concept is also in jeopardy. This vould leave the ; State and indeed all states,with no technological means to provide electric service
~
'to'the public..Th1s.must not.come to pass, since the U. S. economy and J
standards for:living as we know thea would be seriously threatened.
~
47
R ns B.
Project Delav -
Previous discussions have shown that a hypothetical delay resulting in an 18 month delay in commercial o' eration of Crystal River Unit #3 would p
result in a total penalty of $83,657,000. The penalty will be ulti-mately borne by the public. The consumer will also ultimately bear the-cost of additional environmental protection for Crystal River Unit
- 4 should it be required by the prospective NEFA environmental review.
That same consumer will also bear the cost of environnental protection at all other Florida Power Corporation plants and also those other industrics providing service and products to the consumer. This is why c >vernment and industry share a public trust of great importance in evaluating environmental cost-benefit.
In terms of'the earlier discussion, there is a very real threat to
'the electric reliability of Florida should Crystal River Unit #3 be delayed. ' There is also a severe impact by incorporation of alterna-3 tive peaking units. The Company, already burdened by severe economic pressurcs,' would be. dras tically af fected by such activitics.
E In concluding the statement,.it is.perhaps meaningful to further develop the analysin.of the impact of a construction delay on the arca around Crystal River. Pertincnt information follows:
-(l). If.a construction delay did occur, only a skeleton work force would be employed to maintain equipment presently on-site.
48-
.(2).The construction work force would leave the area as soon as suitable employment could be found elsewhere.
(3) Food and services purchased in.the Crystal River and Citrus County area would decrease considerably with the departure of-the construction work force.
(4) A drop in sales volume of retail establishments would necessi-tate reducing operating expenses which would mean releasing some employees.
(5)
A recent study prepared for Citrus County indicated that in March,1969, total civilian employment was 4,060.
Construc-tien et that time' ac unted fer 260. Precently, there are v..
1,100 men employed at Crystal River #3 plus other residential and comnercial construction workers in the area. Effective
' buying income per household in Citrus County increased from j
$5,392 in 1967 to $6,104 in 1969 or an increase of 11.3%.
Construction on Crystal River #3 began August,1968.
(6)
Payroll for 51 permanent Company Nuclear Plant staf f is pre-sently in excess of $600,000 annually. These ceployees are -
l presently at Crystal River, and would have te be reascigned and relocated.
49
A ii; y.
i' (7)- Local bank deposits would decrease reducing available capital for development. Construction payroll accounts are all carried in local banks. Bank deposits increased 30% from June 30, 1969 to June 30,1970 and 30.4% from June. 30,1970 co_ June-30, 1971.
Parallel increases occurred in' the Savings and Loan Institu-tions.
t I
i (8) Present residential projects in the construction stage may l
be stopped causing further unemployment. Those in the planning stage may be postponed. The number of dwelling units in Citrus t
l County increased from 4,512 in 1960 to 9,699 in 1970 per U. S.
Census.
Owner occupancy increased frca 52.7% to 65.0%.
(9) The payroll for the 1,100 man construction work force is approxi-l mately $250,000 per week. In May,1972, this force will increase to approximately 1300 men and the payroll should reach $295,000 l
per week. On an annual basis, this represents $13,000,000 and l-
$15,400,000 respectively. Pro rata share in the impact area is-
$5,500,000 and $6,500,000 respectively.
(Impact area - Crystal i
l River and Citrus County).
l.
(10) Of the 1,100 man force, 464 reside in Citrus County.
l l
(11) An average of. $125,000 per month is cpent for miscellaneous ser-vices and supplies in the impact area.
I 50
g..
V (12) ; West Coast Concrete, which employs 25 people and produces con-crete solely:for Florida Fower would shut down.
(13) Taxes associated with Crystal River Unit #3 would not be receivcd by Citrus County for the time of any stoppage plus recovery.
Future County projects are funded based on anticipation of future growth revenue.
i Crystal River and Citrus County have experienced a large growth during the last decade. Construction of Crystal River Units #1 and #2 had a peak work force of 720 and 600 respcetively. These peaks were of very short duration in deference to a sustained work force of an estimated 1300 nen who will be employed for cver a year. This work level is scheduled to commence about May, 1972. The construction force of Crystal River #3 constitutes better than. 20% of those employed in Citrus County and significantly affects an estimated 50% of the.
-remaining employees.
If an annual payroll of $5,000,000 (full work force vs. skeleton work force) were dropped from the Citrus County economy and $1,500,000 expended annually for miscellaneous supplies and services were ceased for a period of one year construction period, it is anticipated that the following would occur:
(1) There wculd be a cass rush for unemployment compensation by those layed off at the construction site plus the surplus en-I 51
V
.i' ployees who would no longer be required in retail business and feeder industries.
'(2)
The male member'of the affected household would seek employment elset:here and would relocate his family as soon thercaf ter as economically feasible.
(3)
The personal property taxes paid on Crystal River Unit #3 would bc pestponed for at least a year and would seriously hamper the budget of Citrus County causing cither a delay or complete revision.
(4) Due to prospective loss of customars, Florida Powcr Corporation forecasts a reduction of revenue estimated at $60,000 annually from direct sales -to customers plus on estimated $25,000 from sales to customers on REA lines.
(5)
Income for churches, Chamber of Commerce, civic service organi-zations, United Fund and other similarly related entities would derresse measurably.
(6)
The influx of business and government people te visit and -cot.-
duct business at Crystal River #3 would be terminated result-ing in.. loss <of business to motels and cating establishments.
52
(7) ' The economy would adjust to peepic buying only the essentials rather than the extras and luxuries that result from consis-tently large paychecks.
(8) Effective buying income per household uould decrease to a level of near $5,000, (9) Welfare costs would increase due to persons unenployed being unable to relocate elsewhere.
(10) Bonded indebtedness in Crystal-River for water and sewers could be affected by loss of planncd for revenue.
Thus a delay of one year in the construction of Crystal River #3 would severely hamper the economy of both Crystal River and Citrus County.
On a tempor,2ry basis, it would be equivalent to the condition that existed in Brevard County when a large segment of the space program l
was discontinued at Cape Kennedy. Almost every commercial establish-ment would feel a sizable effect on their. business and there would be a recession in the area which would last longer than the period of the delay.
The impact of ~ ceasing construction of Crystai niver Unit #3 for a period of 12 conths will incur fuel cost penalties in e:: cess of $51,000,000, resulting from the-deferred displacement of expensive fossil fuel with low cost nuclear fuel.
It will incur construction cost penalties including
)
/
53
mobilization costu, inflation costs, and the cost of alternative generating equipment in excess of $30,000,000. Thus there is a total project cost penalty of $83,657,000 from the 18 month hypothetical project delay during the prospec-tive NEPA review period by the Commission.
In addition, the investment of over
$30,000,000 in 500 kv transmission designed to accommodate the' electric genera-
- tion by Crystal River Unit #3 will be complete and incurring capital cost changes during the 18 month delay period. Far reaching socio-economic ef fects will be 4
felt in the local community. The assessment of these economic penaltics is based on assumptions that an alternative source of generaticn, with fuel to support it, is available at current market prices.
In fact, these are high risk assumptions. The cost and availability risk in a market environment prompted by an-industry-wide "Show Cause" condition, is enormous. This eco-nomic and energy supply risk could well generate penalties to the public far in excess of the minimal risk to the environment due to continued construction.
Since such continuation does not foreclose the opportunity to provide alterna-tive environmental protection schemes, Florida Power Corporation believes that the public interest requires the continued construction of Crystal River Unit #3.
4 4
e 54
4 IN WITUESS WHEREOF, the applicant has caused its nane to be hereunto signed by J. T. Rodgers, Asst. Vice President and Nuclear Project Manager, and its corporate seal to be hereunto
-affixed by Eetty M. Clayton, Asst. Secretary, thereunto duly authorized this lith day of October, 1971.
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION t
[Yd./ (AL./
BY t r-J. T. Rodgers, Asst.,,Vice President and Nuclear Project Manager ATTEST:
..?'
b (tll t.
Betty Mi Clayton,' Asst. Secretary (CORPORATE SEAL)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11t,r. day of October,1971.
Thelma R. Maxhimer, Notary Public Notary Puolic State of Florida at Large P,y Comission Expires July 9, ~197h.
(NOTARIAL SEAL)
.