ML19340A362

Responds to Dr Muller 720911 Request for Comments on Des. Facility Electric Power Output Needed to Implement Util & State of Fl Sys Generation Expansion Programs for Meeting Projected Loads & to Provide Reserve Power for Peak Periods

ML19340A362
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	12/01/1972
From:	Phillips T FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
To:	Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8003250654
Download: ML19340A362 (9)

Text

________ - _

S AEC L'7IBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCXET MF lIAL (TEMPORARY FORM) CONTROL NO: 6976

A

• FILz ENVIRO rROM: DATE OF DOC:

DATE REC'D LTR MEMO RPI OrrdER Fcderal Power Corrission Washington, D. C. 20426 ,

. a. Whillins 12-1-72 12-1-72 X 20 ORIG CC CCER SEh? AEC FL3 X v r. vu ller 1 SiE ned 1 SENI LOCAL PDR X j

d.SS: Q/ PROP IA70 Ih707 NO CYS REC'D f DOCXET 50: I 2 ,

50-302 DESCRIP2 ION:

INCLOSURES: -

Ltr re our 9-ll-72. . . . . furnishing ec=::lents on Draft Enviro Statement for the Crystal .  ;

River Nuclear Unit No. 3..... l M01_ Hem 0Ve ACKiiDMED0iD FIANT NAMES: Crystal River Unit 3 l

FOR ACTION /INFORMATION 12-1 72 AB BUTLER (L) SCHW"!NCER(L)

W/ Copias SCEMEL(L) KNIGETON(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies CLARK (L) STOLZ(L)

W/ Ccpics ZID%NN(L) YOUNGBICOD(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copics W/ Copies COLLER(L) VASSALIO(L)' CEIT;-;0OD(M1)

W/ Copies y SEGAN(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copics W/4Popies KNIEL(L) E. DE! EON . DICi2R(E)

W/ Copies W/ Copics W/ Copies

. W/ Copies IIEEPJ!AL DISTRIBUTION REG FILE j TECH mVIEW VOLIEER

1. AEC FDR EaDRIB y HARLESS WADE E DEIRON 000, ROOM P-506A SCHROEDER SHAFER F&M GRIMES F&M BROWN E

1. MUETZING/ STAFF MACCARY GAh2 ELL SMILEY CASE LANGE(2) KASTHER HUSSBAUMER f . WILLIAMS E GIAMBUSSO PAWLICKI " f E. GOULBOURNE L M

BOYD-L(BWR) SHA0 A/TIUD SPAEGLER LIC ASST. BRAITPAN y DEYOUNG-L(PWR) KNUTH SKOVHOLT-L lERVICE L SALTZPAN STELID ENVIRO P. COLLTES MASON L MORE MULLER- y SCHWENCER WIISON L PLANS HOUSTON DICKER MAIGRET L REG OPR MCDONALD TEDESCO KNIGETOI! SMITH L DU3E f FILS & REGION (2) IONG YCUUGELCOD GEARIN L FORRIS LAINAS PROJ L'J; E .

STELLE DIGGS L INFO W BENAROYA REGE Tr.1TS 153 L

L C. MILES NN l

EXTERNAL DTSTRI?iTI' TON en c _

h 1-IDCAL PDR c m tal 91ver, Fla

{ 1-DTIE(A m mATHY w (1)65dddit)-NATIONAL LAB'S

" " " '> 2 5 0 Q 1-NSIC(BUCHANAN))

. 1ASLB-YORE /SAYRE 4,,

1-R. CARROLL-OC, GT-E22"T J.-R. CATLIN, E-256-GT PNWL l-PDR-SAN /LA/NY l-GERALD TmOUCHE [

100DWARD[H. ST. ' BROOKHAVEN NAT. LAB 16-CYS ACRS HOLDING 1-CONSULANT'S l-AGMED(WALTER KOESTER, NEWMARK/BLUME/AGABIAN Pm C 427, GT) 1-RDaar&ME%.~R-Y&N -

, A yg. . .

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 December 1, 1972 m aza v arrua m I~ 4 (s x r

y1 -

50-302 Mr. Daniel R. Muller 6ssistant Director for 6 ,g Q 8 J. f._J Environmental Projects. -

Directorate .of Licensing 8-~

DEC 1. 1972, y -

-U. S. Atomic Energy Commission 81 {,y Q s 1 i . Washington, D. C. 20545- s.:.ai J b um suma

Dear Mr. Muller:

'o) P W

f This is'in reference to your letter dated September 11, 1972,

. requesting comments on the AEC Draft Environmental Statement related to the proposed continuation of the Provisional Construction Permit CPPR-51 and the issuance of an operating license to the Florida Power Corporation for the Crystal River Nuclear Unit No. 3, Docket No. 50-302.

Pursuant to' the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the April 23, 1971, Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality, these comments review the naed for the facilities as concerns the adequacy and reliability of the affected bulk power systems and matters related thereto.

In preparing these comments, the Federal Power Commission's' Bureau of Pow [ staff has ' considered the AEC Draft Detailed Statement; the Applicant's  ;

Envird. mental Report and Supplement thereto; related reports made'in '

' response to the.' Commission's Statement .of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Order No. 383-2); and' the staff's analysis of these documents together with related information from other FPC reports. The staff bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk power facility upon long term considerations as well'as the load supply-situation for the- l critical load period .ininediat' e ly following the availability. of the facility..

. Need for' the Facility The Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River Generating Unit No. 3 is an 825 megawatt pressurized-water reactor type. The Crystal River site.

' already contains the. 387-megawatt fossil-fueled steam generating Unit No.1 and the.510-megawatt fossil-fueled steam generating Unit No. 2.

i

- o s

7 I ..

s

-6576 g-

m a

i-Mr. Daniel R. Muller Crystal. River Unit Nc.'3,; originally scheduled for commercial operation in! April-1972, was delavad and 'is- presently scheduled for- commercial service lin-October 1974. It is expected to be.cvailable in time to-assist in meeting the.1974-75Lwinter and;.9',5 summer peak loads. The Florida Power Corporation has been forced ~ toitake temporary measures for supplying the expected demand during the sunner of 1973 due to the thirty-month delay in- the 825 megawatt

. . Crystal River unit .These measures included:the purchase of 200 megawatts of Lgas turbine capacity ~ and the purchase from neighboring t tilities of ' n a -

additional 350 megawatts of capacity.

The Applicant'is one of-seven interconnected systems 1Ioperating throughout. the State of: Florida belonging 'to the Florida Su1 region of the -

Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC). In this laterconnected system network, a; capacity problem that affects one utility will affcet the entire-Subregion's electric power supply. The Florida utilities state that they operate on the concept of helping their neighbor whenever possible, however each utility is responsible for protecting its own system before that of its neighbor.

The current generation expansion program of large generating units

'for the Florida Subregion for ' completion during the years 1972 through

, 1975 is tabulated below:

1 I

1/ The_other systems are: Florida Power and Light Company, Tampa l

-Electric Company,nJacksonville-Electric Authority,~0rlando Utilities Commission, City of Tallahassee and the City of Lakeland. -

i l

i e

s 4

, . m - a

4 3

%. - m

- Mr. . Daniel JR. Muller GENERATION EXPANSION PROGRAM - FLORIDA SUB-REGION Estimated Commercial' Capability In-Service Date- Station Type 77 (MR)

December 1972 2/ Turkey Pt. No. 3 N- 725 March 1973. Turkey Pt. No. 4 -N 725 January 1973 - Sanford No. 5 F -398 February 1973 Big Bend No. 2 F 400 June-1973 Indian River No. 3 F 325 Octcber.1974 Crystal River No. 3 N 825 May 1974 Anclote No. 1 F 515 May;1975 Hutchinsen Island N 850 No. 1 May 1975 Port Manatee F 825 March 1975. Big Bend No. 3 F 400

-June 1975 Northside No. 3 F 550 April 1975 Anclote No. 2 F 515 1/ F-Fossil, N-Nuclear.

2/ Currently in operation and~is. expected to attain 520 MW in November 1972.

The Applicant's and the Florida Subregion's systems normally experience succeedingly greater summer and winter peaks such that there is only negligible seasonal diversity.- Since exposure to the su=mer peaks is generally of greater- duration than that of the winter peaks, the summer peak load periods are considered the more hazardous peak periods. The following tabulation shows the_ electric ' system loads to be -served by the Applicant and by the systems of the Florida Subregion of SERC, including the Applicant, and the relationship of the electric output of the Crystal River Unit No. 3 to the available reserve capacities on the~ Applicant's and Florida Sab-region's systems at the time of the 1974-75 winter and the succeeding ~ 1975 summer peak : load. period. These are the anticipated initial service periods of the new unit, but the life ofithe unit is expected to be some 30 years or more, and it is expected to constitute a significant part of the Applicant's total 1 generating : cap 9 city throughout that period. Therefore, the unit -will

~

be depended upon to supply power to meet future demands over a period' of many' years beyond_the initial service needs' discussed.in.this report.

s

.w. . s

. a. ,

-.4,-

-Mr. Daniel' R. Muller FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION PEAK LOAD - SUPPLY SITUATION 1974-75 1975 Winter Peak Summer Peak Conditions With Crystal River Unit.No. 3

.(825 Megawatts)

Net Total Capability - Megawatts 4,032 4,492 1/

Net Peak Load Megawatts 3,090 3,130 Reserve Margin -~ Megawatts 942 1,362 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 30.5 43.5 Conditions Without Crystal River Unit No. 3 Net Total Capability - Megawatts 3,207 3,667 1/

Net Peak Load - Megawatts 3,090 3,130 Reserve Margic - Megawatts 117 537 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 3.8 17.2 Reserve Margin Needs - Based on 25 Percent Criterion - Megawatts 773 783 Reserve Margin Deficiency - Based on 25 Percent

. Criterion - Megawatts 656 246 i

1/ Includes Anclote No. 2, 515 Megawatts. Reduced by 55 megawatts retired capacity.  !

j 4

- w

j--

s Mr. Daniel R. MullerL The Southeastern. Electric Reliability Council (SERC) in which the D Applicant and the Florida Systems are members, reports reserve margins of-30.0 and 25.9 percent of peak load for the 1974-75' winter and 1975 summer periods respectively; however, a large portion of these' reserves are vested

~in large'new generating units not yet in operation. The Council's main function"is :the farthering of bulk power system reliability in the SERC area through coordination of the member's expansion plane. Although regional reserves. cay often be helpful in the event of contingencies normally experienced on interconnected power systems, these reserve _ are not a reliable substitute for firm power, base-load capacity within the member's system. In this particular case, the limited interconnection capacity between- Florida and adjoining areas would prohibit large power.

transfers even if surplus. capacity were available. In order to provide adequate reserves for the' region, a proportionate reserve should be maintained by each system, based on its own load.

Transmission Facilities The transmission line additions necessary as a result of the con-struction of Crystal . River Unit No. 3, are- two 500-kilovolt lines 53 and j- 72 miles long emanating from the Crystal River Plant switchyard and-

}- terminating at the Centr il Florida Substation and the' Lake Tarpon Sub-station respectively. ' The 500-kilovolt lines will utilize the vacant sect.# af the right-of-way adjacent to the existing 230-kilovolt double circuic lines constructed for Crystal River Units Nos. 1 and 2.

The Applicant states the existing right-of-way and tower structures were carefully selected to minimize their resulting impact on the environ-ment.

Alternates to the Proposed Facilities and Costs

. The Applicant, in determining the need for additional generation to meet its projected demands, considered a number of alternatives including location, type (base-load and peaking), fuel -(nuclear, coal, oil or gas),_

. the purchase of power, environmental effects and economics. The final decision rested between a base-load nuclear-fueled plant and a base-load fossil-fired plant. Economics and environmental considerations led to Ethe _ selection of the nuclear-fueled plant over the fossil-fired plant, i

L s

[,

s Mr. Daniel R. Muller

~

The availability of Crystal River Unit No. 3 for winter 1974-75 would provide the. Applicant with an expected system reserve margf n of 942

~

megawatts or 30.5 percent of peak load. However, any delay which results in the unavailability of Crystal River Unit No. 3 for the 1974-75 winter peak load period would_ reduce system reserves to_117 megawatts or 3.8 percent' of peak load. . The Applicant's 1975 summer peak load situation improves with the availability of the 515 megawatt fossil-fired Anclote U'it n No. 2' scheduled for commercial operation in April 1975. With the availability of Crystal _ River Unit No. 3 for. the ' summer of 1975, the Applicant would have an expected system reserve margin of 1,362 megawatts or 43.5 percent of peak load. Without the Crystal River unit, system reserves would be reduced to 537 megawatts or 17.2 percent of peak load, and forecasts based on this condition indicate a reserve margin deficiency of 656 and 246 megawatts for the 1974-75 winter and 1975 summer peak periods

-respectively _ in relation to a minimum reserve margin criterion of 25 percent of peak load. Any delay or outage resulting in the unavailability of either of the' scheduled Anclote Units would increase the severity of the effect on system reserves.

With respect to the total Florida Subregion, the availability of Crystal: River _ Unit No. 3 for the 1974-75 winter and 1975 summer peak load periods would provide a reserve margin of 22.1 and 32.'1 percent of peak load, respectively. Should delays make the unit unavailable for the 1974-75 winter and 1975 summer peak load periods, the Florida systems

. forecast a reserve margin of 16.3 and 26.7 percent of peak load, respectively, a reserve deficiency of 1,247 megawatts for the 1974-75 winter peak period based .on a minimmn reserve margin criterion of 25 percent of peak load.

The adequacy _ and reliability of the Florida systems in 1974 and 1975 are not only dependent 'upon the timely commercial operation of Crystal River.Unic No. 3 but also on the timely operation of all the units in the

. Florida Systems' current construction program. Current information indicates that delays are being experienced in bringing many large units into commercial operation and this trend may continue for some time.

The reserve margins indicated in the foregoing tabulations and text are gross in that they' include all of the capacity available not only for meeting expected loads but that which may be out of service due to scheduled

~

{ maintenance -or forced outages and any that might be needed. to meet unforeseen demands due .to errors in load . forecasting and exceptional weather.

~

1_

t

v

-5.

- Mr.: Daniel R. Muller >

FLORIDA ' SUBREGION OF SERC PEAK' LOAD - SUPPLY SITUATION 1974-75 1975-

-Winter Peak . Summer Peak Conditions With Crystal River Unit No. 3-(825 Megawatts)

Net Total Capability - Megawatts

- 17,477 20,258 Net Peak Load _- Megawatts 14,319 '15,337

' Reserve Margin - Megawatts 3,158 4,921 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 22.1 32.1 Reserve Margin Needs -~ Based on 25 Percent Criterion - Megawatts 3,580 3,834 Reserve Margin Deficiency - Based on 25 Percent Criterion - Megawatts 422 --

Conditions Without Crystal River Unit No. 3 Net Total Capability.- Megawatts 16,652 19,433 Net Peak Load - Megawatts 14,319 15,337 Reserve Margin - Megawatts 2,333 4,096 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 16.3 26.7 Reserve Margin Needs - Based on 25 Percent Criterion - Megawatts 3,580 3,834, Reserve Margin Deficiency - Based on 25 Percent criterion. Megawatts 1,247 --

~The' staff of the Bureau of Power is of the opinion that peninsular Florida, due to its . lack of adequate transmission capability with adjoining states, its generating unit types and sizes and minimal seasonal diversity,

- needs reserves of about 25 percent' of peak load. Except for the Florida' Subregion's 26.7 percent reserve for the. summer of'1975, this minimum reserve margin. criterion of 25 percent of peak load is not- present on the Applicant's or the Florida Subregion's systems without Crystal River Unit No. 3 being available~, even with all other existing and sch'eduled generating l

. capacity'available as. scheduled.

f f

Mr. Daniel R. Muller The Applicant discussed only in general terms alternative sources of power generation and their associated costs and benefits. The Bureau of Power staff's studies have shown that no practical sources of purchased power are available in the magnitude necessary to replace Crystal River Unit No. 3.

Conclusions The staff of the Bureau of Power concludes that the electric. power output represented by the Crystal River Unit No. 3 is needed to implement the Applicant's and the Florida systems' generation expansion programs for meeting projected loads and to provide some reason measure of reserve margin capacity for the 1974-75 winter and 1975 su r peak periods.

Very truly yours, 1

. i s Chief, Bureau of Power t

c