ML18127A500

Response to Letter of 11/9/1976 Requesting Additional Information Needed for Power Reevaluation, Forwards Information

ML18127A500
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	11/22/1976
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18127A500 (16)

Text

3 0 ~

' I ~ 0

~

~

I ~

I ~

~ ~ ~

4l

~

~

~

I I' ~ I ~ ~

~

~

I ' '

I ~

~ g ~

~ ~ sL

~ ~

~ ~ ~

~ k

.IIEET~

~

~

A

~ ~

I ~

I ~

eR 1

~

I Q ~ I ~ ~

~ D ~ ~

8 0

~ ~

I II

~

0

~

M R

n 0

0 g I 5r>

Q '

a 0 m R

~ ~

Jd I

>> "I " II I gt 4

eV 'f ~f 1 II 1

~ ~

~ + h

~ C

/

Pk

P. O. BOX 013100, MIAMI, FL 33101 gyral//g pgula~o6 hockey< Fhe 0 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY November 22, 1976 L-76-400

~ezr Office of Nuclear,'Reactor 'Regulation Attn: William H. Re'gan, Jr.', Chief Environmental Projects, Branch 53 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Regan:

Re: Request for. Additional Xnformation St. Luci Unit No. 2 (Docket No. 50-389)

Your letter of November 9, 1976, requested that Florida Power 6 Light Company provide additional information for the staff's need for power reevaluation. The information requested in items 1,3,4,5,6,7, and 8, is found in Attach-ment A. The information requested in item 2 is at'tached as revised Tables 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.6, and 8.7.

Yours very truly, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President REU/LLL/hlc Attachment cc: Harold F. Reis, Esq.

L~> &~a6 PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

>t 1

J~

Pl t l 1

4 I

J I'I Jf

ATTACHMENT A

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

Purchases of firm or*unit power are being considered, although Florida Power 6 Light Company (FPL) has not made use of these alternatives in the past,. Purchases and sales of power are useful where large amounts can be pur-chased at prices lower than that generated by the most attractive alternative. Such power supply has not been in the past, and is not now, and is not expected by FPL to be available during the projected time frame of St.

Lucie Unit 2.

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

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

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

In May 1974, a new peak load forecast was made lowering the 1973-1981 growth rate from 11.3% to 10.1%. This new fore-cast took into account patriotic appeals by government officials to conserve energy, decreased tourism, inflation, and concern about the threat of a serious recession. It, was originally anticipated that the basic long-term growth factors (population, customers, price, general economic conditions, etc.) would still be present once the recession which the United States was undergoing was overcome. As a result, the load forecast, as mentioned, was lowered only to 10.1 percent. Generation plans were developed to include a band of growth rates ranging from 7 to ll percent.

The 1974 summer peak of 7235 MW represented only a 4.9%

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

which would materially affect our forecast of May 1974.

Surplus housing had caused a reduction in residential con-struction and kept unemployment in Florida above the natl.onal average. Real per capita income which steadily rose in Florida from 1966 to 1973, had decreased 3.3% as a result of record inflation rates. Based on economic infor-mation that was available at that time, in June .of..1975, FPL updated -,its peak load forecast to reflect an average annual growth rate of 7.2% from 1974 through 1981.

One of the key inputs in the development of the 7.2% peak .

load growth forecast was the anticipated economic recovery starting in late 1975 or in early 1976, which was being forecasted by most economists. This, however, has occurred slower than expected in both the United States and Florida.

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

After quantifying the effects of the economy, appliance saturation, price of electricity, and considering forecasts of these variables for the next, decade, a forecast of use per customer,'nergy sales, and peak demand was made in December of 1975. The peak demand forecast was revised to reflect an average annual growth rate of 6.6% for the period of 1975 to 1985. For generation planning purposes, a band of growth rates ranging from 4.4% to 7.7% was used.

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

Population in the FPL'ervice territory will continue to grow throughout the period 1976-1985. However, the rate of growth may be substantially less than in the past. To arrive at a population distribution, three independent pro-jections (Eiplinger, University of Florida, and First Re-search) were utilized. The average annual population growth rate is expected to be in the range of 2.5-o- to 3.1%. In the period 1965-1975, the'average annual rate of increase was 4.2 percent.

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

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

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

The real price of. electricity (in constant dollars) is currently being projected to increase within a range of 0 to 2.9 percent. The average real price of electricity in FPL's service territory fell at an average .annual rate of 4.6 percent from 1965 to 1972. However, from that time through 1975, the price has increased at an average annual rate of 10.9 percent. This condition was, of course, set.

off by the oil embargo of 1973 and the inflationary cost spiral that ensued.

Real per capita personal income and the Florida employment, expressed in the form of an economic index, is forecasted to increase at a rate of 1.9 to 3.7 percent annually. The upper bound was established from the historical 1965-1975 economic index which grew at an annual rate of 3.7 percent..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. 'urrent estimates of St. Lucie 2 capital cost, fuel cost,,

and annual operate.ng costs.

See response to Item 7 below.

6. Current startup date for St. Lucie 2.

December, 1982.

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

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

CAPITAL COSTS $ 725 Million $ 397 Million $ 715 t~iil1 ion COST OF 1st CORE $ 61 Million 0 5 M COSTS ..2.16 mi 1 1 s/kv(h l. 06 mi 1 1 s/kith 4.70 mills/kwh FUEL COSTS $ .65/10'tu $ 3.23/10'tu $ 1.87/10'tu HEAT RATES 10,970 Btu/kwh 9,400 Btu/kwh 9800 Btu/kwh

8. ,Identify Island zn the economic advantage of building at EIutchinson comparison to other similar coastal sites.

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

4-

~

a7SB/D JK 11/17/76 .

REVISED TABLE 8:1 PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION OF I ~

FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT SERVICE AREA FPL Service Area: 1960 1970 1980 Brevard 111,400 230,000 ~

' 272, 100 Broward 333, 900 620,100 1,090,400 Charlotte 12,600 27,600 . 56,500 Collier 15,800 38,000'5,300

". 84,600 ~-

Columbia 20,100 ~

31, 600..

. Dade 935,000 1,267,800 ., 1,580,500 DeSoto 11,700 13,100 22,200 Flagler 4, 600 4,500 9<300 Indian River ,25,300 36,000 55,400 Lee 54,500 105,200 200<200

'anatee

., 69,200'6 97,100 - 150<600 .

Martin 900 28,000 66,500 6,400 11,200 21<800

,349/000 .. ".

Okeechobee'alm Beach 228,100.. 581; 300 Putnam 32,200 36;400 ~ ...'.. - . 49,800'00,200 Sarasota '6,900 120,400 Seminole 54,900 83,700 171,700 St. Johns 30,000 31,000 50< 600 St. Lucie 39,300 50,800 84<600 Suwannee 15,000 15,600 22,300 Volusia 125';300 169,500 249,600 i

TOTAL 2<219< 100 3, 360, 300 5., 051, 800'ource:

University ef Florida, Division of Population .

Studies, Bureau of Economic and Business .

Research, August 1976.

D JK/JMA 11/17/76 REVISED TABLE 8.2 FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY SUMMER PEAK LOADS, CAPABILITIES AND RESERVES (Capability is Summer Peak Capability)

Reserve One Hour With St. Lucie Without St. Lucie Peak Load Capability Unit No. 2 Unit No. 2 Net (MW) Increase Net (MW) (MW) (MW) 1969 4329 14. 3 4873 1970 5031 16. 2 5317 1971 5496 9.2 '761 1972 6243 13.6 . 6584 1973 6894 10. 4 7636 1974 7235 4.9 9015 1975 7076 (2. 2) 9015 1976 7598 7.4 8.927 Forecast Low - Hicih 1977 7950-8230 '4. 6-8. 3 10224 2274-1994 28.6-24.2 1978 8350-8880 5. 0-7. 9 10999 2649-2119 31.7-23.9 9 8780-9540 5. 1-7. 4 10999 ,2219-1459

,

'5.3-15.3 0 9210-10200 '

4.9-6.' 10999 1789- 799 19.4- 7.8 1981 9640-10860 4. 7-6. 5 10999 1359- 139 14.1- 1.3 1982 10060-11500 4.4-5.9 12257 2197- 757 21.8- 6.6 1983 10470-12120 4.1-5.4 13834, 3364-1714 '32.1-14.1 2562- 912 24.5- 7.5 1984 10870-12710 3.8-4..9 13834 2964-1124 27,.3- 8.8 2162- 322 19.9- 2.5 1985 11250-13270 3.5-4;4 13834 2584- 564 '3.0- 4.3 1782-(238) 15.8-(1.8:

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

(2)'t. Lucie scheduled.,to be in ser'vice during,1982 and available for the summer peak of 1983.

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

AVERAGE COST TO CONSUMERS AVERAGE KILOWATT-HOURS PER CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR CUSTOMER THOUSANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RES IDENTIAL COMMERCIAL 'NDUSTRIAL 1974 3. 10 3. 04 1. 69 7. 544 46. 981 1,704.298 1973 2. 54 2. 41 1.25 7.738 48. 055 1,858.577 1972 2.42 2. 30 l. 16 7.395 45.293 1,825.199 1971 2.32 2.20 1. 10 7.029 42.612 1,738.885 1970 2.22 2. 08 1.02 6.708 40.505 1,691.610 1969 2.21 2.06 .98 6.244 37.535 1,664.777 1968 2. 25 2. 07 .97 5.708 35.039 1,587.582 1967 2.31 2. 11 .98 5.211 32.225 1,481.466 1966 2.34 2.13 .98 4.930 30.226 1,441.466 1965 2.39 2. 18 1.00 4.624 28. 152 1,286.591 SOURCE: Federal Power Commission, STATISTICS OF PRIVATELY OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1974

REVXSED TABLE 8.5

"ll/8/76 FLORXDA POWER & LXGHT COMPANY RESULTS OF LOAD CURTAXLMENT Load Curtailment Number of Amount of D'ate Period Customers Load..'urtailed kN 12/16/68 5:00 7:00 p.m. 155 115e688 7/7/69 4:00 7:00 p.m. 46 87,240 7/8/69. 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 58 86,210 7/9/69 4:00 7:00 p.m. 67 77,980 1/8/70 5 00 9 00 p m 281 151,680 1/9/70 6:30 -10:30 a.m. 204 131,080'61,290 1/9/70 5:00 9:00 P Fil

~ .337 1/10/70',. 7:00 -10:30 a.m. 254 148;910 5:00 9:00 p.m. 215 131,410 1/10/70'/4/70 5:30 9:00 p.m. 182 122,660..

7/15/7O 4:45 7:00 p.m.= .'. 106 82,699 (Voluntary) 7/16/70 4:30 - 7:00 p;m. 98 72,603 (Voluntary) 7/27/70 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. 119 - '7,616 .(Voluntary) 7/28/70 4:30 -" 7:00 p.m. 118 '.. 79,665 '-

7/31/70 12:OON-10:00"p.m.. 211 173,592 8/3/70 3:00 7:00 p.m. 349 '12,237 (Voluntary) 8/4/70 4:00 7:00 p.m. 108 80,422 (Voluntary) 8/5/70 4:00 8:00 p.m. 317 104,452 (Voluntary) 9/2/70 4 00 7:00 p.m. 257 105,570 '-(Voluntary) -:

9/3/70 4:00 7:00 p.m. 137 90,072 (Voluntary); .

1/20/71 5.00 9:00 p.m. 467 175,272 4/29/71 4. 00 8:00 p.m. 703 202,110 4/30/71 4:00 8:00 p.m. 498 149,372 (Voluntary)

~ 1 6/16/71 4.00 7:00 p.m. .572 162,082 (Voluntary) 8/18/71 3:00 7:00 p.m. 684 245,788'

DJK ll/8/76 (continued) REVXSED TABLE 8.5 FLORlDA PONER & LXGHT COMPANY RESULTS OF LOAD CURTAXLHENT.

Load Cur tailment Number of Amount of Load D'ate Period Customers Curtailed kN 7/3/72" 4:00 8:00 p.m. 444 140',002 ""

7/5/72 4:00 8:00 p.m. 477 180,871 7/28/72 4:00 8 00 p.m. 609 228,357..:

7/29/72 4:00 8:00 p.m. 321 87,728 .(Vo1untary)

P 9/7/72 4.00 8:00 p.m. 692 242,079 9/14/72 4.00 8 00 p.m. 671 256,170 .

9/15/72 4:00 8:00 p.m. 683 '.263,760 9/18/72, 3:30 8:00 p.m. 678 266,142 9/19/72 3:30 8:00 p.m. 692 263,977 9/25/72 4 00 8:00 p. m. 668 241(032 9/26/72 3:00 .7:00 p.m. 682 275,734: -.'.

9/27/72 3:30 7:00 p. m'. 704 262-546.

5/28/73, 4:00 8:00 p.m. 85 57,350 (EIoliday) 5/29/73 2:00 8:00 p.m. 267 229,650 1974 NONE 0 0.

1975 NONE 0 0*

DJK 11/15/76

'EVISED TABLE 8.6 SOUTHEASTERN ELECTRIC RELIABILITYCOUNCIL FLORIDA SUBREGION Estimated Capabilit

~ 'eak Hour Total Capability With St. Lucie Unit .No. 2 Reserve

~ Without. St. Lucie Unit No. 2 Period Load (MW) (MW) (MW) e Peak (MW) 0 Peak 19 7 6 Summer 14875 19349 76/77 Winter 14347 22922 1977 Summer 15893 22153'3954 77/78 Winter 15277 1978 Summer . 16893 22934 78/79 Winter 16330. 24488 1979 Summer 17994 24224 79/80 Winter 17435 25495 1980 Summer 19187- 24444 80/Sl Winter 18570 25626 a

19 81 Summer 20484 25237 81/82 Winter 19964 28508 8544 42. 8 7724 38.7 19 82 Summer 21856 27414 5558 25.4 4756 ~

21.8 82/83 Winter '21282 28665 7383 34.7 6563,:.. 30. 8 1983 Sum'mer 23245 27732 4487 19. 3 3685 15.9 83/84 Winter 22672 29123 6451 28.5 5631 24.8 1984 Summer 24696 29255 4559 18. 3757 15. 2 84/85 Winter 24191 31030 6839 6019 24.9 5'8.

3 1985 Summer .. 26287 31378 5091 19. 4 4289 16. 3 85/86 Winter '5627 33234 7607 29. 7 6787 26. 5 Source: SERC Florida Subregion Coordinated Bulk Power Supply Program 1976-1995 dated 4-1-76.

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

TABLE 8.7 h'ET SERVER CAPABXLITX AND UNIT ADDITXONS Net Summer S stem Ca abilit (MW Unit Capability Nuclear Fossil Gas Year Additions I'fW Fuel Steam Steam ~

Turbine Total =

1969 4846 27 4873 1970 4846:-.'= 471 .- 5317.- "-

1971 4846 .915; . 5761 19 72 ~

5225 1359 6584 1973 Turkey Pt. 3 666 . 666 5604 1359 7629 Sanford 5 672'uclear 379 Fossil 1974 Turkey Pt. 4 666 Nuclear 1332 5652 2031 9015 Ft. Myers GT Fossil 1975 1332 5652 2031 9015 1976 Miami 8 45 Fossil 5564 2031 8927 (retired)

Cutler 3 43 Fossil r

(retired) 1977 St. Lucie 1 802 Nuclear 2134 6059 2031 . 10224 .=

Manatee 1 ~

775 Fossil 1 & 2

'utnam

. '484 Fossil 1978 Manatee 2  : 775 Fossil ". " 2134 6834' 2031 10999 1979 2134 6834 2031 10999 1980 2134 6834 2031 10999 1981 2134 6834 2031 10999 1982 Martin 1'3)

St.'ucie 775 Fossil 2134 8092 - .. 2031 12257 ~

1983 2 802" Nuclear 2936, 8867 . ~ 2031, 13834 '-

Martin 2 (3) 775 Fossil 1984 2936'936 8867

'031 13834 1985 8867.: .. ~

2031 13834 h

(1) Capability of generating units re-evaluated based on demonstrated continuous capabilities.

(2) 483?R cold standby, off line prior to summer of 1977, on line'for summer of 1982 (Cutler Units 4, 5, & 6; Riviera Units 3. & 2; and Palatka Units 1 & 2).

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

I I l '

lt t

It tt