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'~II~I~~~~~g~~~sL~~~~~~k.IIEET~A e R 8 0 0 M R n 0 0 Q 0~~I~I Q~I~g I m'~~I~~~~~I~~I I 5 r>a R 1~D~~~~

Jd I>>"I" II eV'f I 4~f 1 II 1 gt~+h~~~C/k P pgula~o6 hockey<Fhe~ezr P.O.BOX 013100, MIAMI, FL 33101 gyral//g 0 FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY November 22, 1976 L-76-400 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 4 1 I J Jf I'I 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 Mill ion$397 Million COST OF 1st CORE$61 Million$715 t~iil1 ion 0 5 M COSTS FUEL COSTS HEAT RATES..2.16 mi 1 1 s/kv(h l.06 mi 1 1 s/kith$.65/10'tu$3.23/10'tu 10,970 Btu/kwh 9,400 Btu/kwh 4.70 mills/kwh$1.87/10'tu 9800 Btu/kwh 8.,Identify the economic advantage of building at EIutchinson Island zn 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 FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT SERVICE AREA I~FPL Service Area: 1960 1970 1980 Brevard Broward Charlotte Collier Columbia.Dade DeSoto Flagler Indian River Lee'anatee Martin Okeechobee'alm Beach Putnam Sarasota Seminole St.Johns St.Lucie Suwannee Volusia TOTAL 111,400 333, 900 12,600 15,800 20,100~935,000 11,700 4, 600 ,25,300 54,500., 69,200'6 900 6,400 228,100..32,200'6,900 54,900 30,000 39,300 15,000 125';300 i 2<219<100 230,000 620,100 27,600 38,000'5,300 1,267,800., 13,100 4,500 36,000 105,200 97,100 28,000 11,200 ,349/000..".36;400 120,400 83,700 31,000 50,800 15,600 169,500 3, 360, 300~'272, 100 1,090,400.56,500".84,600~-31, 600..1,580,500 22,200 9<300 55,400 200<200-150<600.66,500 21<800 581;300~...'..-.49,800'00,200 171,700 50<600 84<600 22,300 249,600 5., 051, 800'ource:

University ef Florida, Division of Population

.Studies, Bureau of Economic and Business.Research, August 1976.

REVISED TABLE 8.2 D JK/JMA 11/17/76 FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY SUMMER PEAK LOADS, CAPABILITIES AND RESERVES (Capability is Summer Peak Capability) 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 One Hour Peak Load Net (MW)4329 5031 5496 6243 6894 7235 7076 7598 Forecast Low-Hicih Increase 14.3 16.2 9.2 13.6.10.4 4.9 (2.2)7.4 Capability Net (MW)4873 5317'761 6584 7636 9015 9015 8.927 With St.Lucie Unit No.2 (MW)Reserve Without St.Lucie Unit No.2 (MW)1977 7950-8230 1978 8350-8880 9 8780-9540 0 9210-10200 1981 9640-10860 1982 10060-11500 1983 10470-12120 1984 10870-12710 1985 11250-13270

'4.6-8.3 5.0-7.9 5.1-7.4'4.9-6.'4.7-6.5 4.4-5.9 4.1-5.4 3.8-4..9 3.5-4;4 10224 10999 10999 10999 10999 12257 13834, 13834 13834 2274-1994 28.6-24.2 2649-2119 , 31.7-23.9 ,2219-1459

'5.3-15.3 1789-799 19.4-7.8 1359-139 14.1-1.3 2197-757 21.8-6.6 3364-1714'32.1-14.1 2964-1124 27,.3-8.8 2584-564'3.0-4.3 2562-912 2162-322 1782-(238) 24.5-7.5 19.9-2.5 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 CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR AVERAGE KILOWATT-HOURS PER CUSTOMER THOUSANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL RES IDENTIAL COMMERCIAL

'NDUSTRIAL 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 3.10 2.54 2.42 2.32 2.22 2.21 2.25 2.31 2.34 2.39 3.04 2.41 2.30 2.20 2.08 2.06 2.07 2.11 2.13 2.18 1.69 1.25 l.16 1.10 1.02.98.97.98.98 1.00 7.544 7.738 7.395 7.029 6.708 6.244 5.708 5.211 4.930 4.624 46.981 48.055 45.293 42.612 40.505 37.535 35.039 32.225 30.226 28.152 1,704.298 1,858.577 1,825.199 1,738.885 1,691.610 1,664.777 1,587.582 1,481.466 1,441.466 1,286.591 SOURCE: Federal Power Commission, STATISTICS OF PRIVATELY OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1974 REVXSED TABLE 8.5 FLORXDA POWER&LXGHT COMPANY RESULTS OF LOAD CURTAXLMENT

"ll/8/76 D'ate Load Curtailment Period Number of Customers Amount of Load..'urtailed kN 12/16/68 7/7/69 7/8/69.7/9/69 1/8/70 1/9/70 1/9/70 1/10/70',.

1/10/70'/4/70 7/15/7O 7/16/70 7/27/70 7/28/70 7/31/70 8/3/70 8/4/70 8/5/70 9/2/70 9/3/70 1/20/71 4/29/71 4/30/71 6/16/71 8/18/71 5:00-7:00 p.m.4:00-7:00 p.m.4:00-7:00 p.m.4:00-7:00 p.m.5 00-9 00 6:30-10:30 5:00-9:00 7:00-10:30 5:00-9:00 p m a.m.P~Fil a.m.p.m.3:00 4:00 4:00 4 00 4:00 5.00 4.00 4:00 4.00 3:00 7:00 p.m.7:00 p.m.8:00 p.m.7:00 p.m.7:00 p.m.9:00 p.m.8:00 p.m.8:00 p.m.7:00 p.m.7:00 p.m.5:30-9:00 p.m.4:45-7:00 p.m.=4:30-7:00 p;m.4:00-7:00 p.m.4:30-" 7:00 p.m.12:OON-10:00"p.m..

155 46 58 67 281 204.337 254 215 182.'.106 98 119 118 211 349 108 317 257 137 467 703 498.572 684 115e688 87,240 86,210 77,980 151,680 131,080'61,290 148;910 131,410 122,660..82,699 (Voluntary) 72,603 (Voluntary)

-'7,616.(Voluntary)

'..79,665'-173,592'12,237 (Voluntary) 80,422 (Voluntary) 104,452 (Voluntary) 105,570'-(Voluntary)

-: 90,072 (Voluntary);

.175,272 202,110 149,372 (Voluntary)

~1 162,082 (Voluntary) 245,788' (continued)

REVXSED TABLE 8.5 FLORlDA PONER&LXGHT COMPANY RESULTS OF LOAD CURTAXLHENT.

DJK ll/8/76 D'ate Load Cur tailment Period Number of Customers Amount of Load Curtailed kN 7/3/72" 7/5/72 7/28/72 7/29/72 9/7/72 9/14/72 9/15/72 9/18/72, 9/19/72 9/25/72 9/26/72 9/27/72 5/28/73, 5/29/73 4:00 4:00 4:00 4:00 4.00 4.00 4:00 3:30 3:30 4 00 3:00 3:30 4:00 2:00 8:00 8:00 8 00 8:00 8:00 8 00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00.7:00 7:00 8:00 8:00 p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m.p.m'.p.m.p.m.444 477 609 321 692 671 683 678 692 668 682 704 85 267 140',002"" 180,871 228,357..:

87,728.(Vo1untary)

P 242,079 256,170.'.263,760 266,142 263,977 241(032 275,734:-.'.262-546.57,350 (EIoliday) 229,650 1974 1975 NONE NONE 0 0 0.0*

DJK 11/15/76'EVISED TABLE 8.6 SOUTHEASTERN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL FLORIDA SUBREGION Estimated Capabilit 14875 14347 15893 15277 19 7 6 Summer 76/77 Winter 1977 77/78 1978 78/79 Summer Winter Summer.16893 Winter 16330.~'eak Hour Period Load (MW)Total Capability (MW)19349 22922 22153'3954 22934 24488 Reserve With St.Lucie~Without.St.Lucie Unit.No.2 Unit No.2 (MW)e Peak (MW)0 Peak 19 81 Summer 81/82 Winter 20484 19964 19 82 Summer 21856 82/83 Winter'21282 1983 Sum'mer 23245 83/84 Winter 22672 1984 Summer 84/85 Winter 24696 24191 1985 Summer..26287 85/86 Winter'5627 1979 Summer 17994 79/80 Winter 17435 1980 Summer 19187-80/Sl Winter 18570 24224 25495 24444 25626 25237 28508 27414 28665 27732 29123 29255 31030 31378 33234 8544 5558 7383 4487 6451 4559 6839 5091 7607 42.8 25.4 34.7 19.3 28.5 18.5'8.3 19.4 29.7 a 7724 4756~6563,:..3685 5631 3757 6019 4289 6787 38.7 21.8 30.8 15.9 24.8 15.2 24.9 16.3 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 Year Unit Additions Net Summer Capability I'fW Fuel Nuclear Steam Fossil Steam Gas~Turbine S stem Ca abilit (MW Total=1969 1970 1971 19 72 1973 1974 Turkey Pt.3 Sanford 5 Turkey Pt.4 Ft.Myers GT 666.379 666 672'uclear Fossil Nuclear Fossil 666 1332 4846 4846:-.'=

4846~5225 5604 5652 27 471.-.915;.1359 1359 2031 4873 5317.-"-5761 6584 7629 9015 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Miami 8 (retired)Cutler 3 (retired)St.Lucie 1 Manatee 1'utnam 1&2 Manatee 2 45 43 802~775.'484: 775 Fossil Fossil 1332 Nuclear Fossil 2134 Fossil Fossil"." 2134 2134 5652 5564 2031 2031 r 6059 2031.6834'2031 6834 2031 9015 8927 10224.=10999 10999 1980 1981 1982 Martin 1'3)1983St.'ucie 2 Martin 2 (3)775 802" 775 Fossil Nuclear Fossil 2134 2134 2134 2936, 6834 2031 6834 2031 8092-..2031 8867.~2031, 10999 10999 12257~13834'-1984 1985 2936'936 8867-'031 13834 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 t lt l'It tt