ML17139A089
| ML17139A089 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1981 |
| From: | Toalston A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104150064 | |
| Download: ML17139A089 (20) | |
Text
Docket Nos. 50-387 50-388 APR I 01981 APA 9Tf tlEHORANDUH FOR:
B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch 1
~BRAE ESAEATOlg, I
COMMISSION
~o APAi31983~
8 FROM:
SUBJECT:
Argil L. Toalston. Acting Chief Utility Finance Branch REVIEH OF PFES FOR SUS(UEHANNA STEII ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1
AND 2 Based on my review of the captioned matter, I would suggest minor changes as shown on attached copies of pages 7-1, 7-2, 7-4, 9-1, 9-2.
Also, is a suggested rewrite of paragraph 8,6 on decommissioning and an associated additional reference No. 42 for the end of Chapter 8.
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
G. Gears S. Feld D. f)uller
- 8) 04) 5{QO Q
>/SI + L TOA1St08 Argil L. Toalston, Acting Chief Utility Finance Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
UI:B Reading
- 5. Toqlston Reading UFB File'ocket Fi.les~
- TERA, LPDR NRC PDR OFFICE)
SURNAME/
OATEN>
4/
P
/SI DE DMuller 4/
/81 NRC FORM 3I8 IIO/80)NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY o USGPO: 1980-329-824
V
~-F c
C-4. t
~,
~
- I II* ~ 44 4
I, t
~
~
~ F tv t
~
F r
~ ~
~
ttJF t' 4'=
J I
I t
4 A
I t
tt
~ JJ
~ I I
- ),
F'
7.
NEED FOR PLANT 7.1 RESUME et propre 9y e
electricity osts have led t a decline in growth of electrical energy e nation an in the PPAL ser ce area.
The PPKL service area demand for to grow at historical rates prior to the 1973 Arab oil embargo.
PP&L had r peak demand of 4970 MW, without UGI (Luzerne Electric Division of UGI from the 1973 forecast of 6600 W.
Construction has proceeded approxi-operation of Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 +e scheduled for the second quar-ed to sell a
and 1982 order to oil emba go and rfsin and pea demands in t power
<Hd not continu projected a 1980 win Corp.)
a 25% reducti mately on schedule ter of 1982 and the second quarter of 1983, respectively.
Since(1973, PPSL has agre 10'hare of both units to the Allegheny Electric Cooperative.
llhen the FES-.
P was issu d in June 1973 the applicant, ennsylvania Power I Light CoFN sched-uled the 5 squehanna Ste Electric Statio Units 1 and 2 to begin operation in 1981 and 1952, respecti ely.
In 197
, need for the pl nt was pro5ected to occur between 1978 the ed annual ener demand increase of 7.2%.
Since 1973, th 7.2 APPLICANT'S SERVICE AREA AND REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS The PPSL service region is shown in Figure 8.1 of the FES-CP.
The applicant supplies electric power to about 26,000 kmz in east central Pennsylvania (22% of the area of the state).
In 1973, the population of the service area was about 2.3 million (20% of the state total).
Ma)or cities served by PPLL include Allentown, Bethlehem, Harrisburg, Hazelton, Lancaster,
- Scranton, Nilkes-
- Barre, and Milliamsport.
Along with the following utilities, PPSL is a signee to the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM) Interconnection Agreement:
Public Service Electric and Gas Co.
(PS); Philadelphia Elec-tric Company (PE); Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BC); General Public Utility (GPU), which~~ ~.i consists of Jersey Central Power 1 Light Company (JC), Metropolitan Edison Company (ME), and Pennsylvania Electric Company (PN); Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO); Atlantic City Electric Company (AE); Delmarva Power 6 Light Company (DPL); and Luzerne Electric Divisio f
UGI Corporation (UGI).
These eleven companies, oper'ating their transmission and ge e
ion facilities as a single system with free-flowing ties between companies, nergy flow between companies nd use after-the-fact accou sng procedures.
The agreement with PJM requires that hi~ewer enerat~so o4 PPEL meet its capa ity obligation as a part of the PJM interconnection.
i PP 3763 a.LJ~W~~
. O m~
l 7.3 BENEFITS OF OPERATING T FLAP, i~
SSES-1 and 2 are Peing constructed for the purpose of assuring an adequate low cost supply ef P~.~~
electrical energy'Ter PPfiL and PJM service area needs.
At the operating license stage, consid-eration of alternatives involves only the decision as to whether the plant should operate or not.
This decision is based on a weighing of the benefits of operation against environmental impacts (including production costs).
Potential benefits of operating Susquehanna 1
and 2
include reliability, diversity, and economic advantage.
7.3.1 0 eration of the PJM Interchan e
e One of the most important concepts of the PJM interconnection is its e~phomic operation as a
single system with centralized dispatch of generation and free-flowing ~ between member companies.
Transmission lines connecting the various PJM companies provide for the transfer of energy from one company to another as required to meet the loads of each company.
This allows for the full utilization of the resources of. all companies to meet the customer loads of all companies most economically.
Coordination is not restricted to the generation phase; it is also implemented in capacity, maintenance, and transmission planning.
Central dispatch of all PJM generating units is accomplished by providing the Interconnection Office, located at Valley Forge, PA, with the necessary data, control equipment.
and computers to economically load all PJM units at levels needed to meet the PJM load.
The Interconnection Office, a central coordinating office, is connected to all company dispatch centers (i.e.,
7-1
7-2 applicant's Allentown 'Power Control Center) via voice, digital and analog computers.
and tele-typewriter circuits.
In order to meet a specific PJH load the Interconnection Office transmits to all companies the incremental cost, taken from the Combined loading schedule, needed to provide generation at the required level.
As the PJH load increases, higher incremental cost values are transmitted to the various companies and the level of generation is increased.
Each company will raise or lower generation on its units according to the PJM incremental cost signal regardless of its own load requirement.
Occasionally, due to unit operating constraints, transmission limitations, or reli lity con-siderations, units are operated at above the incremental cost level at either the company's or PJH's request, depending upon the circumstances.
Since some companies have a larger amount of less expensive generation, such as nuclear or coal-fired units, these companies may be generating at levels above their own load and as such may be supplying energy to other companies over the interconnected transmission lines.
To provide a
means of compensating for this exchange of energy between member companies.
an accounting pro-
- cedure, based on the split-savings principle, is used. $
The interchange accounting procedure used on PJH provides both the supplying companies (sellers) and the receiving companies (buyers) with a savings as a result of the energy transactions between them.
The billing for each transaction is halfway between the cost incurred by the supplying companies and the cost that would have been incurred by the receiving companies had they used their own higher-cost generation to meet their loads (split-savings principle).
7.3.2 Hinimization of Production Costs In order to compare the potential economic advantage of operating the Susquehanna
- station, the staff has studied the costs of Susquehanna-1 (nuclear) and the projected type/cost of replace-ment energy associated with the applicant's share of Susquehanna-1 in the first year of opera-tion of Unit 1.
The unit costs (mills/kWh) for fuel and operation and maintenance (05H) provided by the applicant are shown in Table 7.1; it should be noted that 75" of the replacement "energy would come from other members of the PJH interchange.
The net saving in fuel and OSM costs during the first year of operation of Susquehanna Unit 1 would be,575 million.
As a check on the reasonableness of this data, the staff has compared the applicant's data with two other analyses;'
- the results are provided in Table 7,2.
The analysis of conditions ~90 pre-sented in Reference 2 assumed that nuclear and coal fuel costs would escalate at a similar rate through the 1980s.
To the extent that this assumption holds true, the operation of the Susque-hanna units will continue to be economically favorable beyond the first year of operation.
If SSES is not operated, the cost to PPLL will be
$285 million per year in annualized construction cost payments.-'he cost of the nuclear operation~ is based upon a 70" capacity factor, which, in the staff's opinion, could be high during rare periods of low flow on the river unless a water storage facility is constructed.
Even at a 50" capacity factor, the operational cost of nuclear energy is still projected to be less expensive than the replacement sources available to PPtL and PJH.
Therefore, the staff concludes that economic considerations justify adding the Susquehanna facility in the scheduled time period.
7.3.3 Diversit of Suo 1
Source Regardless of the relative economic advantage of nuclear or coal, it is to the advantage of a public utility to have diverse sources of power available.
In the event of the unavailability of imported oil, major strikes, frozen coal piles, enrichment facility shortages, m regulatory uncertainties, a reliance upon one primary fuel, especially for baseload operation, could cause cutbacks in power to the grid.
Currently, all of PP6L's baseload units utilize coal or oil.
As noted in Table 7.1, no baseload nuclear is available to PPSL as replacement power.
With the Susquehanna nuclear station in operation, PPEL will be better prepared to meet unexpected changes in the supply of coal and oil.
The staff concludes that the Susquehanna facility should be operated even if the cost of nuclear baseload energy begins to exceed that of coal.
7.3.4 Reliabilit Anal sis 7.3.4.1 PP6L Projections Table 7.3 presents the applicant's historical winter peak load and energy between 1966 and 1977 and the projected winter peak load and energy sales between 1978 and 1990.
The growth rates for winter peak and energy sales for the period 1966 to 1977 were nd 6.8', respectively.
The rates of increase of peak load and energy sales through th roJected/period 1978 to 1990 are +g 2.7 and 3.1", respectively.
7-4 Table 7.2.
A Relative Comparison of Projected Cost by PPEL, Conrrenwealth
- Edison, and NRC (mills/kWh)
PPKL (in projected
$ 1980)
Nuclear 13 Coal 16 17 Oil 26 27 lfFc NRC
)
Mr@
(in projected
" 990)/
From Table 7.1, in 1980 dollars.
In 1977 dollars.
See Reference 1.
Low-sulfur oal without scrubbers.
Based on 990 s first year of operation.
See Reference 2.
Table 7.3.
Applicant's Peak Load and Energy Sales:
Past and Projecteda Year Historical Ener Sales kWh x 10 Increase Winter Peak HW
'ncrease 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Pro ected 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 10,157 10,967 12,081 13,531 14,683 15,685 17,013 18,865 18,963 19,113 20,354 20,926 21,650 22,400 23,400 24,350 25,251 26,110 26,919 27,673 28,379 29,069 29,754 30,439 31,124 8.0 10.1 12.0 8.5 6.8 8.5 10.9 0.5 0.8 6.5 0.3 3.5 3.5 4.5 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2,085 2,326 2,514 2,850 3,238 3,294 3,598 3,662 3,772 4,122 4,514 4,431 4,650 4,790 4,970 5,140 5,310 5,480 5,630 5,770 5,910 6,030 6,160
- 6,290 6,420
- 13. 3 8.1 13.4
- 13. 6 1.7 9.2 1.8 3.0 9.3 9.5
-1. 8 4.9 3.0 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.1
2.1 Source
ER-OL, Table 1.1-9.
9.
BEHEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 9.1 RESUHE The following sections suwmrize the economic, environmental, and social benefits and costs associated with the operation of Susquehanna Units 1 and 2.
Table 9.1 sumnarizes all benefits and costs of plant operation.
Reduced generating costs are presented for the expected energy demand situation.
The environmental costs are calculated for an assumed worst-case situation.
9.2 BEHEFITS
'I The direct benefits of the plant to the PJM interchange include the approximately 11.0 to 12.9 billion kWh of electrical power the plant will be able to produce on an annual basis (assuming a plant capacity factor of between 60Z and 70Z), the increase in system reliability brought about by the addition of 1890 HM of generating capacity to the PJH interchange and 210 HW to the Cooperative an.d the savinp of 5?5 nillion in production costs per unit per year (5 1950).
Sftahaudh dsccastonal low-flow conditions ause forced outaees J S4 ~
~A,+cvra5'wSdhawvw /~ )r'~~~
9.3 SOCIETAL COSTS No significant socioeconomic costs are expected from either station operation or station personnel and their families living in the area.
9.4 ECONOHIC COSTS The capital cost for completion of Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 is presently estimated to be
$1833 million.
Fuel and operation and maintenance costs for the first full year of operation of Unit 1 are estimated to be
$ 51 and
$22 million dollars, r sioning costs
~v'or the complete restoration of the site are estimated a
million own a ter 9.5 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS (0 1/76 The environmental costs of most land-use, water-use, and biological effects p 'eviously evaluated have not'increased or otherwise adversely changed.
The staff review of the water-intake struc-ture revealed that there may be an increase in fish kills due to impingement and entrainment.
Chemical usage will result in a maximum discharge of 1.4 x 10~ kg of chemicals per year into the Susquehanna River.
This discharge should not result in any adverse effects to the environment.
The heat discharge system will result in an average water consumption of 1.4 m>/s from evapora-tion and other uses.
A maximum of 3.4 x 10>> J/hr will be rejected from the reactors into the Susquehanna River as heat.
No adverse impacts are expected as a result of this discharge.
The design of the radioactive waste systems has been finalized.
Under normal operation, the station will be in conformance with Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 and discharge a total of 69 curies 9-1
Table 9.1.
Benefit-Cost Sugar Primary Impact and Population or Resource Affected Energy Capacity Reduced generating costs Operating:
Fuel Operation 6 maintenance Dscatnsissianing Unit Heasure Oirect Benefits kMh/yr gg 10s kw gg 10s
$/yr (/f/~~
Economic Costs 30-yr. levelized present worth in 1981 30-yr. level ized present worth Environmental Costs Magnitude of Impact 11,000 2,100 n4r Oeu About $~68=,906. ~
950,000,000 450,000,000 59,000,000
- l. Imp 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8.2 Fisheries 1.9 Natural water drainage 1.9.1 Flood control 1.9.2 Erosion control act on water Consumption (average)
Heat discharge to natural water body 1.2.1 Cooling capacity of water body 1.2.2 Aquatic biota 1.2.3 Migratory fish Chemical discharge to natural water body 1.3.1 People 1.3.2 Aquatic biota 1.3.3 Mater quality 1.3.4 Chemical discharge Radionuclide contamination of natural surface water body 1.4.1 All except tritium 1.4.2 Tritium Chemical contamination of groundwater 1.5.1 People 1.5.2 Plants Radionuclide contamination of groundwater 1.6.1 People 1.6.2 Plants and animals Raising/lowering of groundwater levels 1.7.1 People 1.7.2 Plants Effects on natural water body of intake structure and condenser cooling systems 1.8.1 Primary producers and consumers m>/s kg/yr Ci/yr per reactor Ci/yr per,reactor 1.4 3 4 x 1011 (maximum)
Minor, acceptable Minor, acceptable Not disce~nible 0
0 1,400,000 0'6 17.0 Not discernible Not discernible Not discernible Not discernible Chemical discharges discernible but most likely of acceptable concentration Minimal unless in-creased productivity caused by intake No damage Insignificant
8.6 DECOMMISSIONING Termination of a nuclear license is required at the end of facility life.
J Such termination requires decontamination of the facility so that the level of any residual radioactivity remaining at the site is low enough to allow either unrestricted use of the site for nuclear or nonnuclear purposes.
The objective of NRC regulatory policy in decommissioning nuclear facilities is to ensure that proper and explicit procedures are followed to mitigate any potential for adverse impact on public health and safety or on the environment.
Three alternative methods can be and have been used to decommission reactors.
42/
DECON means to remove immediately all radioactive materials down to levels that would permit the property to be released for unrestricted use.
SAFSTOR is defined as those activities required to place and maintain a radioactive facility in such condition that 1) the risk to safety is within acceptable bounds and 2) the facility can be safely stored for as long a time as desired and subsequently decontaminated to levels that would permit release of the facility for unrestricted use.
ENTONB means to encase and maintain property in a strong and structurally long-lived material to ensure retention until radioactivity decays to a level acceptable for releasing the facility for unrestricted use.
For a large
- BWR, DECON is estimated to cost
$43.6 million (in 1978 dollars);
SAFSTOR is estimated to cost
$59.9 million with a 30-yr. safe-storage period and
$55.6 million with a 100-yr. safe-storage period.
ENTOMB is estimated to cost
$35.0 million with the pressure vessel and its internals retained and
$41.7 million with the pressure vessel and internals removed; a
$40,000 annual maintenance and surveillance cost would be added in both cases.
Either ENTOMB option requires indefinite dedication of the site as a radioactive waste burial ground.
The security of the site could not be assured for thousands of years necessary for radioactive decay so this option will probably not be viable.
Although DECON is less costly than SAFSTOR, it results in slightly higher radiation exposures to the decommissioning workers and to the public.
The man-rem of occupational exposure is estimated at 1955 for DECON as compared to 442 for 30 year SAFSTOR and 1624 for ENTOMB (internals retained).
The man-rem exposure to the public is minimal for any of the alternatives:
10 for
- DECON, 2 for 30 year SAFSTOR or 5 for ENTOMB.
As can be seen, radiation doses to the public as a result of decommissioning activities should be very small and would come primarily from the transpor-tation of decommissioning waste to waste burial grounds.
Radiation doses to decommissioning workers should be a small fraction of the exposure they experience over the operating lifetime of the facility; these doses will usually be well within the occupational exposure limits imposed by regulatory requirements.
Decommissioning of nuclear facilities is not an imminent health and safety problem.
However, planning for decommissioning can have an impact on health and safety as well as cost.
Essential to such plannihg activity is'the decommissioning alternative to be used and timing.
Also to be considered are
- 1) acceptable residual, radioactivity levels for unrestricted use of the facility, 2) financial assurance that funds will be available for performing
required decommissioning activities at the end of the facility operation (including premature closure),
and 3) the facilitation of decommissioning.
Decommissioning of a nuclear facility generally has a positive environmental impact.
Compared to operational requirements, the commitment of resources for decommissioning is generally small.
The major environmental impact of decommissioning is the commitment of small amounts of land for the burial of waste.
This is in exchange for being able to reuse the facility and site for other nuclear or nonnuclear purposes.
Because the land has valuable resource capability, in many instances (such as at a reactor facility) the return of this land to the commercial or public sector is highly desirable.
References 42.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on decommission of nuclear facilities," NUREG-
- 0586, January 1981.
pe REGU P0 r>>
. pp
\\
e r,
p Cy
~O
~+*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 AFR ] p 1981 Docket No.
50-387 5 50-388 Dist:
ocket Files B. J.
Youngblood M. Rushbrook LBg1 C.'iles, PA Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission
SUBJECT:
PENNSYLI/ANIA POWER Imr LIGHT COMPANY - SUS(UEHANNA STEAII ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1
4tt 2 Two signed originals of the Federal Register Notice identified below are enclosed foryour transmittal to the Office ofthe Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies (1 2
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
0 Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
Cl Notice of Receipt of Partial Application forConstruction Permit(s) and Facility License(s): Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters.
CI Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report.
C3 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
C3 Notice of Receipt of Appiication for Facility License(s); Notice of Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for'earing.
0 Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
CI Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Q Notice of Availabilityof,Safety Evaluation Report.
0 Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
CI Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
G Other:
Enclosure:
As Stated Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation off'~
DL/LB(l DL/ L SURNAME~
OATE~
NRG FOAM 102 77'
-N
. ok-...BOY.
4 1
4/17 j8 od.
tl t)if'f pl
%l
pgl1 ra UNl li.0 STAlES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO"ii'>ISSION DOCKET NOS.
50-387 8 50-388 PEiiisSYi VAHIA Pv'yaER a LiGHT CGi'iPAHY ALLEGHEN'Y ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, IHC.
NOTICE Or AVAILABILITYOF SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR SUSQU-"MANNA STEAll ELECTP,IC STATION, UNITS 1
AND 2 7590-Ol Notice is hereby given that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has publisned iis Safety Evaluation Report on the proposed operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, to be located in Salem To>,nship, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
Notice of receipt of the application submitted by Pennsylvania Poorer E Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooper-ative, Inc. to operate the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1
and 2
was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 1978 (43 F.R. 35406).
The report is being referred to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and is being made available at the Commission's Public Document
- Room, 1717 M Street, N. W., Washington, DC
- 20555, and at the Osterhout'Free
- Library, Reference Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701 for inspection and copying.
The report (Document No.
NUREG-0776) can also be purchased, at current rates, from the National Technical Infor-mation Service, Department of Commerce, 5238 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
L4 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this f 7 ~~
day of 2'
irk/.
FOR TME NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
oungblo d, Chief Li en ing Branch No.
1 Division of Licenisng
r
~R RECy Cg~o p1~
0 0 Q
~w*w+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 Dist:
Docket Nos.
5 -387/388 LBgl B. J.
Youngblood M. Rushbrook C. Miles, PA Docket No.
50-387/388 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission MAR 3
'i981 PENNSYL'MANIA POllER & I.IGHT COMPANY - SUS(UEHANNA STEAI'I ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS,1 5 2 Two signed originals ofthe Federal Register Notice identifiedbelow are enclosed foryour transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies (12 ) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
0 Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s).
- 0 Notice of Receipt ofPartial Application forConstruction Permit(s) and FacilityLicense(s): Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters.
0 Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report.
0 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.
0 Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s);
Notice of Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice ofConsideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for;Heartng;-
0 Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.
0 Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
0 Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report.
0 Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).
0 Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).
)g Other:
Enclosure:
As Stated Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DL/L,Bg,l,,
r ok 3/ /
OFFK:E~
SURNAME~
DATE~
NRO FORM 102 7
79 B
bloo 3/3
%k II
)
J 1, "qf 1'
7590-01 PENNSYLVANIA PONER AND LIGHT'COMPANY-ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Ih!C.
SUSQUEHANNA STEAN ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1
AND 2 DOCKET NOS.
50-387 AND 50-388 ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.
~
are the holders of Construction Permit Nos; CPPR-101 and CPPR-102, issued by the Atomic Energy Commission* on November 2, 1973 for constriction of the Susquehanna I'team Electric Station.
This facility is presently under construction at a site in Northeastern Pennsylvania in the Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
On January 23, 1981, the applicants requested an extension of the latest completion dates because construction has been delayed by the following events:
1.
Changes in the scope of the project including increases in 0
the amount of material and engineering required resulting in part from the accident at Three tlile'sland Unit 2 and subsequent regulatory actions.
2.
Construction delays. and lower, than estimated productivity which resulted in delays in installation of material and equipment and delays in completion of systems required to support plant testing.
3.
Changes in plaht design.
4.
Delays in delivery of equipment and material.
5.
Shortages of certain highly skilled workers and similar construction related factors.
~*Effective January 19, 1975, the Atomic Energy Commission became the. Nuclear, t
Regulatory Commission and permits in effect on that day were continued under the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission'.
e
(
7590-01 This action involves no significant hazards consideration; good cause has been shown for the delays; and the requested extension is for a reasonable period, the bases for which are set forth in the staff's evaluation of the
'equest for extension.
The Commission has determined that this act~on will not result in any significant environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 5$.5(d)(4),
an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal, need not be prepared in connection with this action.
The NRC,staff evaluation of the request for extension of the construction permit is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
- Room, 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20555 and at the Osterhout Free Library', 71 South Franklin Street, Wi'lkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701.
. IT IS HEREBY-ORDERED.THAT the latest completion date for Coristruction Permit No. CPPR-101 'is extended from March 1, 1981 to December 31, 1982 and the latest completion date for Construction Permit No.
CPPR-102 is extended from September 1,
1982 to March 31, 1984.
OR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COfNISSION Date of Issuance:
p'EB 2 8 S'il Da e
G.
E en ut, irector Division of L 'censing Office of Nuclear Reactor.Regulation
0 tJ 0