ML18127A499

Response to Letter of 11/9/1976, Forwarding Amendment No. 9 to Environmental Report

ML18127A499
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	01/06/1977
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML18127A499 (22)

Text

DOCKET NUMBER 50-389 FILE NUMBER ENVIRO

.FROM: FPL, Miami, Fla.

33101 R.E. Uhrig DATE OF DOCUMENT 1-6 77 TO: H. Denton DATE RECEIVED 1 10 77 NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED 3 signed 38 CC CINOTORIZEO S UNCLASSIFIED INPUT FORM PROP BETTE R ISIORIGINAL OCOPY DEscRIPTIDN Ltr trans the fo].1o~ng:

NOTE: Ltr notarized 1-6-77.

~ ~.

ENGLosURE AMDT 89 to ER for St, Lucie Unit"'2 consists of info in response to our 11 9 76 1tr & revised & addi pages to the ER.. ~ ~

(41 cys enc1 rec'd)

(11P)

, (2P)

PLANT NAME:

St Lucie Unit 2 SAFETY DHL FOR ACTION/INFORMATION ASSIGNED AD:

N PROJECT MANAGER LIC ASST R

CT MANA E

~

LC AST NTERNAL D ISTRI BUTION I

SYSTEMS 'SAFETY S

SAFE ra~ r PLANT SYSTEMS'C PDR

-I-&-E HEINEMAN

.".SCHROEDER ENGINEERING HACARRY TEDESCO

\\

OELD GOSSICK & STAFF IPPOLITO MIPC ERNST BALLARD CASE KNIGHT SIHMEIL PAMLICK HANAUER HARLESS OPERATING REACTORS STELLO SPANGLER SITE TECH PROJECT MANAGEMENT OPERATING TECH REACTOR SAFE GAMHILL L STEPP BOYD EISENHUT ROSS P0 COLLINS HULMAN NOVAK HOUSTON PETERSON ROSZTOCZY CHECK SITE ANALYSIS MELTZ VOLLMER HELTEMES SKOVHOLT BUNCH J

COLLINS AT & I SALTZMAN KREGER RUTBERG CONTROL NUMBER EXTERNALDISTRIBUTION LPDR-Ft.

erce, a

NAT LAB 0

TIC:

NSIC:

258 ULR KSON ORI REG V,IE LA PDR SLB:-

CONSULTANTS:

ACRS CYS HOLDING/

NRC FORM 195 I2-76)

NRC FORM 195 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY~MMISSION

<2-75)

N+RC DISTRIBUTION FoR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL

OkiX'1/P

'C'C-6-l VV-OX-l IGLOO

.s.l"i,imailf

~iasiU.H.2 fs n5 l196

~ H 0;) 8C bassalia 6

S dissU oiossJ.lP rn%

HH oo ei'; TPl.'A 8V-0-Xl zsss o0 oassnqavz ssi n3ai

%o a9aiassno

....;!3 ssl0 ns assed Ibba 8 boafvsx 8 mal (b'oem loss~

ago l4)

ga ivnllnR osage assail xsam

.... VV-8"l bezivs:1nss

'0I: TOZ (9Jl)

(~s S)

S 0 'ss 3 9i ops 8

~ 48

~ ssg 'y

P. O. BOX 013100, MIAMI, FL 33101 FLORIDAPOWER & LIGHTCOMPANY January 6,

1977 L-77-6 gggU)g(IIry D()oker. %If

.~og7gI>

h~Le~

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:

Harold R. Denton, Director Division of Safety and Environmental Analysis U.

S. Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 10 lp

Dear Mr. Denton:

Re:

St. Lucie Plant Unit No.

2 Environmental Report Amendment No.

9 Docket No. 50-389 Enclosed for your review are forty-one (41) copies, plus three (3) signed originals of Amendment No.

9 to the St. Lucie Unit No.

2 Environmental Report.

This infor-mation is submitted in response to W.

H. Regan, Jr.'s letter of November 9, 1976, which requested additional information relating to need for power matters, as well as an amendment of the St. Lucie 2 Environmental Report, to reflect this additional information.

The information submitted in response tothis request is herewith attached.

Very truly yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President i

REU/MV/hlc Enclosure cc:

Robert Lowenstein, Esq.

258 PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

I J

ir

" *A p>>

N r~

/

~ II y

li 9 h

t P

ll 1

, SYM'8 OP PXQRXOA

)

)

SS COUNT% OP MM

)

t

Rehrt, 3, Uhricfp h~<ng fizat 6u3.y auoznp 60Peeaa anG EIELyGII

%hah ho ~s a VLco Pzco94enh ef Plor9Aa Po~scr 6 X9cIM, CcmpEInyp t.hcI AppX'Icenh hcIz'Gin~

%hELt. ho bEIo c~<acLL"aiR the Rezcg'eking 6eeemcInC~

Chat

@ho sCEItomanha va8o 9n this cvi6 6ocumonh are hzua ERn6 cerz'cIct to th~~ boat ef hia lmo";>3.c@cgop Lnfozmahion EIn8 bc'.QCp anIR thaII: hcI

<EI RLs@hor<"G@

Ce mcIcutcI I%a 6ocm~cInC en,boha2.8 oP. aaM App2.Acme.

Scbaczikcd an6 crsorn Co be2oro IIIIc chary e,

n

@n or t.e coen,ty ok D~~G p StGCQ ef P3,oz'$Q~~ 'TARYPUsuc sTATE oF FLQRIQA AT LARGE MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES NOV, QO I919 ppgr COEIugfgggeg tEIig@gggg II,'4OIIEDTHRU4EHERAL,INS,,UNpEp/RJplt$

0 r,rsrr' 11 f E

W I.

11 E

1 r

1 rr r

~i r

>r I

rr 4

0

• 1 q

I II,

r'I,

':g <<f 1

P, 1 ),0 "1 lr er

'I f'

~ '

.r

'j"Ar~', 'r~'PI>gr~ V"i~~'!~P',,',~'l"'.i i'V~";:<<."if r

~r ()PyAlg('j'(V)g~ ~ qP'Qrr, '.fQ ~+1 "g"~'P yi; r

rr 1

i Qy

~ Tt,l IgfQg t)06)(et ~

(.~p;g of Documellt p;~pggqg DOQN,H Hg+

ATTACHMENT A gegniatOry DOCket Fiick Current and expected feasibility of importing large, continuous blocks of power from other utilities.

'urchases of firm or unit power are being considered, although Florida Power' 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 f&m 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'as 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 11 percent.

The 1974 summer peak of 7235 K< 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 national 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, energy 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 service 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 (Kiplinger, 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% 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.'eal per capita personal income and the Florida employment,'xpressed 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 0.1 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 un'its 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 MN 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.

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.

He understand that the FPC, in

general, recommends reserve generation of 20% as a minimum requirement.

5.

Current estimates of St. Lucie 2 capital cost, fuel cost, and annual operating 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 OPEfQTING 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 COST OF 1st CORE

$ 61 Million

$397 Million

$715 Yii11 ion.

0 8

M COSTS FUEL COSTS HEAT RATES

.2. 16 mills/kwh 1.06 mills/kwh

$.65/10'tu

$3.23/10'tu 10,970 Btu/kwh 9,400 Btu/kwh 4.70 mills/kwh.

$1.87/106 Btu 9800 Btu/kwh 8.

Identify the economic advantage of buildincr at Hutchinson 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 di.'fferential cost between constructing the proposed facility at Hutchinson 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 an appropriate infla-tion factor applied would be reasonable.

~

~

at MA@/ MLI 11/,17/76

.'EVISED TABLE 8.1 PAST,AND PROJECTED POPULATION OF FLORIDA POWER

& LIGHT SERVICE AREA l

I '

FPL Service Area:

].960' 1970 1980 Brevard Broward Charlotte Collier Columbia Dade DeSoto Flagler Indian River Lee Manatee Martin Okeechobee'alm Beach Pu tnam

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 16,"900 6., 4,00

. 228,100..

32,200

~

76,900 54,900 30, 000 39,300 15,000 125';300

/

2/219/ 100 230,000 620,100 27,600 38,000.

25/300 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 I

3, 360,300 272, 100

.,1/090/400 56,500

': 84> 600 31,600 1',580,500

" 22,200 9/300

'5/400 200/200 150<600

.'6,500 21>800 581; 300

'49,800'-

'00,200 171<700 50>600

~

84<600 22<300

'249>600 E

5.,O51,800.

Source:

University ef 'Florida, Division of Population

. ~-

Studies, Bureau of Economic and Business

Research, August 19 76..

0 I'

I ~

DJK/JMA 11/l7/76 REVISED.

TABLE 8.2 FLORIDA POWER

& LIGHT COMPANY

'SUMMER PEAK LOADS'APABILITIES AND RESERVES

~, (Capability is'Summer Peak Capability)

%r One Hour Peak Load Year'et (MW) 1969 4329 1970 5031 1971 5496

'972 6243 1973 6894 1974 7235 1975 7076 1976 7598 Forecast Low -~Hi h 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 8927 With St.. Lucie Unit No.

2 MW)

Reserve Without St. Lucie Unit No.

2 (MW) 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 7950-8230 8350-8880 8780-9540 9210-10200 9640-10860 10060-11500 10470-12120 10870-12710 11250-13270 10224 2274-1994 10999 2649-2119 10999 2219-1459 10999 1789-799 10999 1359-139 12257

, 2197-757 13834.

3 13834 2

13834 28.6-24.2 31.7-23.9 25.3-15.3 19.4-7.8 14.1-1.3 21.8-6.6 32.1-14.1 27.3-8.8 23.0- 4.3 4: 6-8. 3

5. 0-7. 9

5. 1-7. 4

4. 9-6. 9

4. 6. 5 4.4-5.9 4.1-5.4 3.8-4.,9 3.5-4;4 364-1714 2562-912 964-1124 2162-322 584-564 1782-(238) revised Generation

Schedule, Table 8.7, during. 1982 and available for the summer Notes:

(1) Capability and reserves are based on dated ll/16/76.

(2)

St.. Lucie scheduled.to be.

~ in service peak of 1983.

24.5-7.5 19.9-2.5 15.8-(1.8)

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 RESIDENTIAL 'OMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL

'974 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 1.16

1. 10 1.02

.98

.97

.98

.98 1.00 7.544

7. 738 7.395 7.029 6.708 6.244

':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',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

~

'I ~

REVISED TABLE 8.5

. DJK

'0 "11/8/76'LORXDA POWER

& LIGHT COMPANY RESULTS OF LOAD CURTAXLMENT"ate Load Curtailment Period Number of Customers.

Amount of Load:.'.:

Curtailed kw 12/16/68 5':00 7:00 p.m.

~ 7/7/69 4:00 7:00 p.m..'

7/8/69.

'4:00. ':00 p.m.

7/9/69 4:00 7:00 p.m..

1/8/70.. ':00. 00 p.m.'

1/9/70 .

6:30 '-10;.30 a.m."

1/9/70' 5:00 9:00 p.m.

'1/10/70',:,

7:00 -10:30 a.m.

'/10/70

, ':00 9:.00 p.m.

J 2/4/70 ',5:30 9:00 p.m.

J 7/15/70

', 4:45

. 7:00. p.m.:,

7/16/70 4:30 7:00 p;m.

i 7/27/70> ':00. ':00 p.m.

7/28/70 4:30.-.7:00 p.m.

7/31/70 12: OON-10: 00"p. m;.

8/3/70 3:00 - 7:00 p.m.

8/4/70 4:00 7:00 p.m.

8/5/70 4:00

':00 p.m.'/2/70

':00.'- 7:00.p.m.

9/3/70....'4:00 7:00 p.m.

1/20/71' 5:00

, 9:00 p.m.

~

I 4/29/71

", 4:00'- 8:00 p.m.

4/30/71 4:00 8:00 p.m.

6/16/71 4:00 7:00 p.m.

8/18/71 3:00 7:00 p.m.

II 155

15,688 46 58'7 281

.204

.337 254 215 182

.. 106 98

-.119

~

118

'211 349

'08 317 257

",137 467 703

498, 572 684 87,240 86,210:

77,'980

"., 151,680 131, 080 161,290.

148('910

".131,410 122,660...

~',82, 699 (Voluntary).

-'2,603 (Voluntar'y)

'.87,616.(Voluntary)

.- ".. 79,665

'73;592 J

C 112, 237 (Voluntary) 80,422 (Voluntary) 104,452 (Voluntary) 105, 570. '-(Voluntary).-

90 072.(Voluntary) 175,272 202(110".,"

'49, 37,2, (Volunt,ary)

~

162,082 (Voluntary) 245,788'

,(continued)

REVXSED TABLE 8.5 4

'DJK ",

11/8/76 FLORlDA PONER

'& LXGHT COMPANY RESULTS. OF LOAD CURTAXLNENT--.

D'ate Load Curtailment Period Number of Customers Amount of Load Curtailed kH 7/3/72'"

7/5/72 7/28/72'/29/72 9/7/72

'9/14/72 9/15/72

'9/18/72

.-'9/19/72

.'9/25/729/26/72

. 9/27/72

5/28/73,

.'5%29/73 1974 1975 00 p.m; 00 p.m.

00 p.m.

00 p.m.

~

I 00 p.m.

00 p.m.

00 p.m.

00 p.m.

00 p.m.

00 p.m.

00 p.m..

00 p.m.

C 4

00 8.

4:00-,

8:

4:00 8:

3:30 8:

3:30'- 8:

4 00'- 8.

3:00 -:7:

3 30-7 4

00 -'8 2;.00.-8:

00 p.m.

00 p.m.

NONE NONE 4:00 -'" 8:

400-8 4:00 8:

4:00 - 8:

444'77 609 321

. 692 671 683

~

678 692 668 682 704 85

" '-',. 267 0

9 0

140',002 -".;

"., 180, 871 '=

'28,357

....'.. 87 728..(Voluntary) 242,079 256 I 170

. ':;.. 263,760 266;142

='*: 263,977 241;032 275 734 262-546.

l 57,350 (Holiday),

229/650

'H

DJK

~ 11/15/76 '-.

REVXSED TABLE 8.6 SOUTHEASTERN ELECTRXC RELXABXLXTYCOUNCXL

-FLORXDA SUBREGXON Estimated Ca abilit'eak

. Hour Period Load (MN)

Total Capability (MN)

With St. Lucie Unit.No.

2 (MW) 8 Peak Reserve

~

Without St. Lucie Unit No.

2 (MW) 0 Peak 1976 Su~er 76/77 Winter 14875 14347 19349 22922 1977 Summer 15893.

77/78 Winter 15277 1978 Summer 16893 78/79 Winter 16330.

22153' 23954 22934 24488 197 9 Summer 79/80 Hinter 17994 17435 24224 25495 19 81 Summer 81/82 Winter, 19 82

. Summer 82/83 Winter ";

20484 19964 21856 21282 1983 83/84 1984 84/85 Summer Winter 23245 22672 Summer 24696 Winter 24191 1980 Summer

. 19187 80/81 Hinter 18570 24444 25626 25237 28508 27414 28665 8544 42.8 5558 25.4 7383 ':

34.7 27732 4487 29123 6451 19.3 28.5 29255

~

, '559 18.5'1030 6839

. 28.3 7724

- 4756 6563.::.

3685 5631 3757 6019 38.7

21. 8 30.8

15. 9

24. 8

15. 2

24. 9 1985 s5/s6 Summer., 26287 Winter

'5627 31378 33234 5091 7607

19. 4

29. 7 4289 6787

16. 3

26. 5 Source:

SERC Florida Subregion Coordinated Bulk Pover 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.

C

~

~

i

~

~

REVISED TABLE 8.7 NET SlMKR CAPABILITY AND UNIT ADDITIONS

. DJK/11-16-.76 -.

Year Unit Additions Net Summer Capability

>R Fuel Nuclear Steam Fossil gas S team Turbine S stem Ca abilit (MW Total 1969 1970,:

1971 1972

'973 Turkey Pt.

3

'anford 5

666, 379

Nuclear, 666 Fossil 4846 4846':..'.

- 4846 5225 5604 27 4873 1359 1359 6584 7629 471".

~

5317::"-.-

.915:

.'=

5761 1974 1975 1976 Turkey Pt.

4 Ft. Myers GT Miami 8 (retired)

Cutler 3 (retired) 666 672'5 43 Nuclear 1332 Fossil 1332 I

Fossil Fossil a

5652 5652 5564 2031 2031 2031

.9015 9015

'-8927 1977 1978 1979-St. Lucie 1 Manatee 1*

Putnam 1

& 2 Manatee 2

802. '

775 484 77.5 Nuclear

'134'Fossil Fossil Fossil 2134 2134

~

10999 6834 2031 10999 6059

'2031 10224 a r

~

6834':

2031 1980 2134 6834

. 2031 10999 1981

,1982 r

1983 1984 1985 St.'ucie 2

Martin 2 (3) 775 802'75 Fossil Nuclear Fossil 2134 2134 2936.

2936 2936 6834 2031 8092 2031 8867..

2031'867

'2031 8867:...

- 2031 r

10999

12257, 13834

'3834 13834 (1) Capability of generating units re-evaluated based on demonstrated continuous.capabilities.

(2) 483 MM cold standby, off line prior to summer of 1977, on line'for summer of 1982 (Cutler Units 4, 5,

& 6; Riviera Units 1

& 2; and Palatka Units 1

& 2).

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

t~

1 H