-5)!L) 4 -~ A' -y frJ -7/, COMA NCHE PEAK S TEA M ELECTRIC STAT ION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT JUL VOLUME I •~i j ,:> U, COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - AMENDMENT 1 AEC QUESTIONS & APPLICANTS RESPONSES AEC Question A.1 What is the expected contribution to growth in electrical demand due to the construction of the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport? Is this effect considered in Table 1.1-1, (Section 1.1)? Response Refer to page 1.1-1. AEC Question A.2 Since peak hour demands in Tables 1.1-2 and 1.1-3 are presented as non-diversified demand, supply the appropriate diversity factors or diversified demand. Are peak hour demands given in Table 1.1-1 diversified? If not, supply diversity factors. Response Diversified demands are provided as follows: TIS Diversified Demands, MW 1971 17,149 1972 18,973 1973 20,138 1 2 Note: Above demands exclude interruptible load. Sufficient records are not available to determine diversified demands for ERCOT, or for TIS prior to 1971. Peak hour demands given in Table 1.1-1 for TUCS are diversified. 1/21/74 Amendment 2 Al- 1 9/28/73 Amendment I AEC Question A.3 Provide a complete description of TIS, include membership obligations, reserve requirements and any other implications. Provide similar information for ERCOT. (Section 1.0) Response Refer to page ii. AEC Question A.4 How is interruptible load handled during peak hours? If left on line, does it reduce the reserve margin? (Section l.l.lb) Response Refer to page 1.1-8. AEC Question A.5 What is the interconnection capacity planned for 1980-82? How much is needed for reliability? How much is left over? Describe TUCS ability to import major amounts of bulk power from 1973 to 1984. (Section 1.1.3) Response Refer to page 1.1-15. 1 2 AEC Question A.6 Provide dates and duration of any emergency load reductions and voltage reductions from 1963 to present. Response None occurred. 1/21/74 Amendment 2 Al-2 9/28/73 Amendment 1 COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR STEAM ELECTRIC STATION ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PREFACE In response to the requirements of Appendix D of 10CFR50, this Environmental Report is hereby submitted to the Atomic Energy Commission by Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUG) of Dallas, Texas, for the proposed Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, a two-unit nuclear fueled electric generation station to be located near Glen Rose, Texas.. Texas Utilities Generating Company is a corporate affiliate of the joint owners and is acting in behalf of the joint owners of the project in submission of this report, and will operate the proposed station as agent for the joint owners. The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) for the proposed plant will incorporate two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors (PWR) with a nominal rating of 1150 MWe each. Unit No. 1 is scheduled for commercial operation on January 1, 1980, with Unit No. 2 scheduled for January 1, 1982. The three joint owners, each with 33 1/3 percent ownership, are Dallas Power & Light Company (DPL), Texas Electric Service Company (TES), and Texas Power & Light Company (TPL). These owners are electric utility subsidiaries of Texas Utilities Company of Dallas, Texas. Other subsidiar- ies of Texas Utilities Company are Texas Utilities Generat- ing Company which will operate the proposed generating station (see above); Texas Utilities Services, Inc., which furnishes engineering, financial, fuel, and other services at cost to other affiliated companies; Texas Utilities Fuel Company, which acquires and transports fuel gas for the three electric utility subsidiaries for the generation of electric energy. Old Ocean Fuel Company and Bi-Stone Fuel Company are subsidiaries of, and provide fuel services for, TES and TPL respectively. The above named companies, each of which is incorporated under the laws of the State of Texas, comprise the Texas Utilities Company System (TUCS). i Each of the three electric utility subsidiaries is a cor- porate entity and each is responsible for providing adequate facilities to serve its own customers; however, planning for generation and major transmission facilities is carried out on a TUCS coordinated basis. Capabilities, demands and other data pertaining to justification for the subject fac- ility are reported on a TUCS consolidated basis in appropri- ate later sections of this report. DPL, TES and TPL are members of the Texas Interconnected System (TIS), a group of nine interconnected electric systems of which six are privately owned and three are public- ly owned. The members of the TIS are as follows: Central Power and Light Company City of Austin City-Public Service (San Antonio) Dallas Power & Light Company Houston Lighting & Power Company Lower Colorado River Authority Texas Electric Service Company Texas Power & Light Company West Texas Utilities Company There are no membership obligations. Each company is obligated to its own customers to provide reliable electric service. Nothing in the TIS Coordination Agreement can be construed as limiting or interfering with in any way the power or right of each member to control the use and operation of its own fac- ilities. Nothing in the Agreement can be construed to create an association, joint venture, trust or partnership or impose a trust or partnership duty, obligation or liability on any member of TIS. Reserve requirements are at least 15% above expected peak load. On the average, each company is expected to comply with this minimum reserve requirement. Each member of TIS is also a member of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which is one of nine regional relia- bility councils comprising the National Electric Reliability Council (NERC). ERCOT is comprised of 28 municipalities, 47 cooperatives, 8 investor-owned companies and one state agency. ERCOT is a voluntary association and there are no legal obli- gations on any member. Each member retains sole control of its own facilities and the use thereof. Nothing in the ERCOT agreement impairs the ability of or right of any member to take such actions or to fail to act, as it deems necessary or desir- able, with respect to the management, extension, construction, maintenance and operation of its own facilities, present 2 1/21/74 Amendment 2 ii 9/28/73 Amendment 1 Municipalities Austin Hearne Boerne Hemphill Brady Hondo Brenham La Grange Bryan Livingston Coleman Lockhart Crosbyton Luling Cuero New Braunfels Denton Robstown Garland San Antonio Giddings Schulenburg Goldthwaite Seguin Gonzales Tulia Greenville Weimar Cooperatives B - K Hamilton County Medina Bartlett Hill County Mid-South Belfalls Hunt-Collin Midwest Bluebonnet J-A-C Navarro County Brazos Jackson New Era Cap Rock Jasper-Newton Pedernales Comanche County Johnson County Robertson Deep East Texas Kaufman County Sam Houston Denton County Kimble County San Bernard De Witt County Lamar County San Patricio Dickens County Limestone South Texas Fannin County Lone Wolf Southwest Texas Farmers Magic Valley Stamford Fayette McCulloch Tri-County Grayson-Collin McLennan County Victoria County Guadalupe Valley Wise Investor-Owned Central Power & Light Company Community Public Service Company Dallas Power & Light Company Houston Lighting & Power Company Southwestern Electric Service Company Texas Electric Service Company Texas Power & Light Company West Texas Utilities Company State Agencies Lower Colorado River Authority iii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED 1.0-1 FACILITY 1.1 NEED FOR POWER 1.1-1 1.1.1 Load Characteristics 1.1-2 1.1.1.1 Load Forecasting 1.1-3 1.1.1.2 Energy Conservation 1.1-7 1.1.2 Power Supply 1.1-10 1.1.3 Capacity Requirement 1.1-12 1.1.4 Statement on Area Need 1.1-15 1.2 OTHER PRIMARY OBJECTIVES 1.2-1 1.3 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY 1.3-1 1/21/74 Amendment 2 9/28/73 Amendment 1 LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE 1.1-1 TUCS Peak-Hour Demand and Annual Energy 1.1-la TUCS Geographic Load Distribution Pattern ji 1.1-2 TIS Peak-Hour Demand and Annual Energy 1.1-3 ERCOT Peak-Hour Demand and Annual Energy 1.1-4 TUCS Generation Capacity Resources (MW), 1963-1984 1.1-5 TUCS Generation Capacity Resources Detail by Units, 1963 1.1-6 TUCS Generation Capacity Resources Detail of Capability Changes, 1963-1984 1.1-7 TUCS Monthly Demand and Energy Forecasts 1980 and 1982 1.1-8 TUCS Capabilities, Demands and Reserves by Companies, 1963-1984, with and without Comanche Peak 1.1-9 Projected ERCOT Capacity Resources, Peak- 2 Hour Demands, and Reserve Margins, with and without Comanche Peak 1.1-10 TUCS Electric Energy Sales by Customer Class 1963-1972 (Historical) 1.1-11 Industries Served by TUCS 1.1-12 Relative Proportions of TUCS Actual and Projected Fuel Use 1970-1982 1/21/74 Amendment 2 9/28/73 Amendment 1 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE TIS Service Area 1.1-2 TUCS Load Duration Curve, 1980 Operation 1.1-3 TUCS Load Duration Curve, 1982 Operation 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY The purpose of the proposed facility is to supply the following needs: 1. To provide additional generating capacity to meet the projected increases in demand and energy requirements of the three joint owners. 2. To assure an adequate reserve margin and to maintain reliability of the bulk power supply system of TUCS. 3. To initiate the timely utilization of nuclear fuel by the owners as part of their broad base of energy resources. 1.0-1 1.1 NEED FOR POWER The subject facility is a major and integral part of planned supply facilities for TUCS for both capacity and energy. The combined service area of the three joint owners covers approximately 75,000 square miles and has a population esti- mated at more than 3,700,000.