ML18192A272
| ML18192A272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1975 |
| From: | Stout J US Federal Power Commission, Bureau of Power |
| To: | Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18192A272 (18) | |
Text
.1 NRC DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL (TEMPORARY FORM)
F I LE.
Enviro e era ower onm ss o DATE OF DOC DATE R EC'D LTR TWX RPT OTHE R Washington, D.CD James J, Stout 6-3-75 7-9-75 TO: ORIG CC OTHER SENTNRC PDR XXX Mr. William H. Regan 1-signed SENT LOCAL PDR CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO INPUT NO CYS REC'D DOCK, XXXX 2 50-528 0'T/-
529, and 530 DESCR IPTION: ENCLOSURES:
Lt:r furn comments on the DES concerning palo Verde Nuclear Plant ~ . ~ ~ .
~ACKNOWI, DGZQ
. 0 XGT @Kg)0+ i~
PLANT NAME: palo verde l-3 FOR ACTION/INFORMAT N JGB BUTLER (L) SCHWENCER (L) ZIEMANN (L) EGAN (E)
W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/I Copies CLARK (L) STOLZ (L) DICKER (E) LEAR'(L)
~W/ Copies , W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies
&ARR (L) VASSALLO (L) KNIGHTON (E) SPIES W/f Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies KNI EL (L) PURPLE (L) YOUNGBLOOD (E) LPM W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ Copies W/ opies INTERNAL DISTR I BUTION G FILE TECH REVIEW DENTON LIC ASST A/T I ND ~
R SCHROEDER WRIMES R. DIGGS (L) BRAITMAN GC, ROOM P-506A E MACCARY vCiAMMILL H. GEAR IN (L) SALTZMAN ME LTZ OSSICK/STAFF KNIGHT vfCASTNER E. GOULBOURNE (L)
CASE PAWLICKI vSALLARD P. KREUTZER (E)
G I AMBUSSO SHAO SPANGLER J. LEE (L) PLANS BOYD . STE LLO M. RU,3HBROOK(L) MCDONALD MOORE(L) HOUSTON ENVI RO S. REED (E) CHAPMAN.
DEYOUNG (L) NOVAK MULLER M. SERVICE (L) DUBE (Ltr).
SKOVHOLT (L) ROSS DICKER S. SHEPPARD (L) E. COUP.E GOLLER (L) (Ltr) IPPOLITO KNIGHTON M. SLATER (E) PETERSON P.'COLLINS jEDESCO YOUNGBLOOD H. SMITH (L) HARTFIELD (2)
D ISE . WJ.COLLINS GAN S.'EETS (L) KLECKER EG OPR LAINAS ROJECT LDR G Wl LLIAMS (E) EISENHUT FILE 5 REGION (2) BENAROYA XS A'. WILSON (L) WIGGINTON
~
MIPC VOLLMER ARLESS ~ INGRAM (L)
V M. DUNCAN EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION LOCAL PDR Ul 0 TIC (ABERNATHY)
X NSIC (BUCHANAN) 45)~) 1 NATIONALLABS V W. PENNINGTON, Rrn E-201 GT 1
1 P D R-SAN/LA/NY BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 ASLB 1 CONSULTANTS 1 G. U LR I KSON 0 R N L 1 Newton Anderson NEWMARK/B LUME/AGBA BI AN ACRS HOLDING/SENT.
I C 1'I I
l y
,, ~ ~ ~ ." ."V.F "< gf,'.".a~>. 9~)";.~7 Ci<S'I C~, lf, q ~,,gF (,Py C C
0 V
"p >v( c)
f@$ ~ g~@orX FPe Cy" FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DoC. 20426 IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. William H. Regan uc gg~ '~ JUN g Ig7g Chief, Environmental Projects Branch . 19'I<
Division of Reactor Licensing g 11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission < <GIIAIO<">
Washington, D. C. 20555 C~l ~IoII
Dear Mr. Regan:
PQ This is in response .to your letter dated April 14, 1975, requesting comments on the NRC Draft Environmental Statement related to the proposed issuance of .a construction, permit to the Arizona Public Service Company, et al. for the construction of the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 (Docket:Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN '50-530), located in Maricopa County, Arizona. 'The proposed Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 are scheduled for commercial operation in May 1981, November 1982, and May 1984, respectively. The Palo Verde plant will be owned by the following six el'ectric utilities: Arizona, Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Tucson Gas and Electric 'Company, El- Paso: Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico and,Arizona Electric 'Cooperative, Inc. Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is Project Manager and Operating Agent.
These comments, by the Federal Power 'Commission's Bureau of Power staff are made in compliance..with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the August 1, 1973, Guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality, and are directed to the need for the capacity represented by the proposed units and'atters related thereto.
In preparing these comments, the Bureau of Power staff has con-sidered the Draft, Environmental Statement; the Applicant's Environ-mental Report; related reports made in accordance with the Commission's Statement of Policy on Reliability and Adequacy of Electric Service (Docket No. R-362); and the staff's analysis of these documents together with information from other FPC reports. The staff generally bases its evaluation of the need for a specific bulk power facility upon .long-tenn considerations as well as upon the load-supply situation for the peak load period immediately following the availability of, the new facility. Each proposed unit is expected to have a useful life of 30 years or .more; during that:period, each unit will contribute signifi-cantly to the reliability and adequacy of electric power supply in the service area of the owner utilities. The owners are members of'he Western Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC), which coordinates the
~ ~
i'
( ~
( 4 J ~
planning of the members'ulk power systems in 14 western states to promote the reliability of the interconnected bulk power supply net-woxk.
Because of its large geographical .size, WSCC is divided into foux sub-regions: the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP), the Rocky Mountain Power Area, the New Mexico Power Pool, and the Pacific Southwest Power Area, A map of the WSCC area, showing the sub-region boundaries, is attached.
Each area is characterized by (among other things) different growth x'ates of population and industry, and different concentrations of natuxal resources. Two of the six owners, the Public, Service Company of New Mexico and El Paso Electric Company, are members of the New Mexico Power Pool. The other four are members of the Pacific Southwest Power Area, Subgroup C.
Table 1 shows the actual and forecast summer peak loads from 1973 through 1978 for each of the owners. The forecast loads were projected independently by each of the utili.ties and reported yearly to the Federal Power 'Commission in FPC'orm 12, "Power System Statement."
The peak loads of each of the owners were added to obtain the total summer peak loads shown in Table 1. The peak load thus computed fox 1974 was 11.1 percent greater than the peak load in 1973. The pro-jected increases in peak load, over each preceding year, are 9.9 percent, 8 ' pexcent, 10 ' pexcent and 8 ' percent for 1975; 1976, 1977, and 1978, respectively. The average annual growth rate for the years 1973 through 1978 is 9 ' percent.
1 Table 2 shows that by assuming an annual growth rate of 9.9 percent for 1979 through 1984 the peak loads for the owners as a group would be 11,150 megawatts in 1981, 13,467 megawatts in 1983, and 14,800 megawatts in 1984. Tables. 3 through 5 show, for the owner utilities, as a group, projected capabilities; peak loads; the resultant'reserve margins for the 1981, 1983, and 1984 summer peak periods; and the effect of the capacity of the Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 on the xeserve margins.
~ . /h ~,'
'I
>>/
r>>.
A 4,-
~ r h C
~h
/
C
>>I
'/ I
- ~
llf/ - /'
I >>
Fh"
~ '4 / /
~ II
~ / />> ~ >>A h~
Ig ro 4/>>4>>.>>
I=
'+'>>>>>>>>>>
-~
"I C
I I
~, \4
/>> Fll F C
~ 4
>>>>/ 4'" */
I 4
Table 1: Palo Verde Owner Utilities Actual and Pro'ected Summer Peak Loads
~Me awaits
/ / 1976 2/ 1977 2/ 1978 2/
'zona Public Service Co. 15778 20012 25166 2,367 2,570 2,809 cson Gas and Electric Co. 741 799 835 913 1,010 1, 134 Salt River Project 1,454 1,698 1,922 2,070 2,259 2,427 Public Service Co. of New Mexico 533 545 604 653 715 779 El Paso Electric Company 618 638 664 704 760 794 Arizona Electric Power Coop, 117 132 210 249 395 7/7/9 Total 5,241 5,824 6,401 6,956 7,709 8,392 Percentage Increase Over Preceding Year ll,1 9 ' 8.7 10.8 8.9 1/ FPC Form No. 12 dated May 1, 1974.
2/ FPC Form No. 12 dated May 1, 1975.
N
~N
~
N NN NN I
N NN NN N
l,
Table 2: Palo Verde Owner Utilities Pro ected Summer Peak Load for 1979-1984 9.9 Percent Annual Growth Rate 1/
Summer Annual Peak Load I (~Me awatts) 1978 8,392 1989 9. 9' 9i223 1980 .,9 10,146 1981 9.9 11,150 1982 9.9 120254 1983 9.9 13,467 1984 9.9 14,800 1/ Annual Growth Rate of 9.9 percent was computed by averaging the actual and estimated, percentage increases in peak load fox'he years 1973 through 1978 (Table 1).
F pi U,
4I C
~-
C I
L r
Table 3 1981 Summer Peak Load-Su 1 Situation With Palo Verde Unit 1 Total for System 1 270 Me awatts 6 Owners Total Peak Capability - Megawatts 120206 1/
Peak Load - Megawatts 11,150 2/
Reserve Margin - Megawatts 1,056 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 9.5 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 1,672 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 616 Without Palo Verde Unit 1 Reserve Margin - Megawatts -214 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load -1.9 Desired Reserve Margin (Based. on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 1,672 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 1,886 1/ Data Source: WSCC's response to PPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3) dated April 1, 1975.
2/ See Table 2.
il I
C t
4~
r P
I l
t
~ ~
'able 4
1983 Summer Peak Load-Su 1 Situation With Palo Verde Units 1 and 2 Total for System 2 540 Me awatts Total Peak Capability - Megawatts 13,826 1/
Peak Load - Megawatts 13)467 J2 Reserve Margin - Megawatts 359 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 2.7 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 20020 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 1,661 With Only Palo Verde Unit 1 1 270 Me awatts Reserve Margin - Megawatts -911 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load -6 '
Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 2,020 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 20931 Without Palo Verde Units 1 and 2 Reserve Margin - Megawatts -2) 181 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load -16. 2 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 2,020 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 4,201 1/ Data Source: WSCC's response to FPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3) dated April 1, 1975.
2/ See Table 2'.
0 ~ ~
C 4,
4 4 444
~" t ah 444 4 4
4"
~ '
'j 4 ~fAa 4 a rha ah,
~" 'C all 4 ~
~ f, ~ 4 4 h 4 4-4 4.. ~
4 4
Table 5 1984 Summer Peak Load-Su 1 Situation With Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 Total for System 3 810 Me awatts 6 Owners Total Peak Capability - Megawatts 15,096 1/
Peak Load - Megawatts 14,800 2/
Reserve Margin - Megawatts 296 Reserve Margin << Percent of Peak Load 2~0 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 2,220 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 1,924 With Only Pal'o Verde Units 1 and 2 2 540 Me awatts Reserve Margin - Megawatts -974 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load -6.6 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 2i220 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 30194 With Only Palo Verde Unit 1 1 270 Me awatts Reserve Margin - Megawatts -2,244 Reserve Margin - Percent of Peak Load 15 ~ 2 Desired Reserve Max'gin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 2,220 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 4,464 Without Palo Verde Units 1 2 and 3 Reserve Margin - Megawatts -3,514 Reserve Max'gin - Percent of Peak Load 27 ~ 7 Desired Reserve Margin (Based on 15 Percent of Peak Load) - Megawatts 20220 Reserve Deficiency - Megawatts 5,734 1/'ata Source: WSCC's response to FPC Docket No. R-362 (Order 383-3) dated April 1, 1975.
2/ See Table 2.
C
>>L h h
~ eh I
4 L, k.
C 'C L>>
~
~ kg e =
~
"~
e A kjl C; C ~ j
~
- h>> k ~.
IL <<c>>~>> ~ ~ <>e 4 4 4
~ 4= = ~ 444,- 41 I ~
e' '* ~ I" e' ~ ~44r
! ~
I>>-
4 E
Ch P C I'4 4 J
~ I-F ~
~ 4, ~
r 4 ~ '
I '>>l>> ~ 4 4 I' P f "~
~
~= I
~ 4
>> ~ " - 4
' 4 4
P I rl ~
e
~ -
~ U I 4 4 F I, 4 4 \
(.- ( .1 4 ', 9, *4 r>>, '
>>R 4 4 ~ 4't 4 $ Q
~ 4, . 4 e
~ ~ >>
4
. >>4 41 ', 'I! e eh&4I 1 ~ ~
4