ML19290C367
| ML19290C367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000502, 05000503 |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0051, NUREG-51, NUREG-75-092, NUDOCS 8001100795 | |
| Download: ML19290C367 (38) | |
Text
gg{eg y soggi. no. 21o nunEs*is g
Evaluation Itepori n..i.,,%A"Ya";
related to construction of officegf N c
.r Koshkonong Nuclear Plant ke m
.sm so so2 Units 1 and 2 s n so-soa Wisconsin Electric Power Company July 1976 Wisconsin Powerand Light Company Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Madison Gas and Electric Company Supplement No.2 V
001100
Available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price: Printed Copy $4.00; Microfiche $2.25
NUREG-0051 SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 3
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION AND MADIS0N GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY K0SHK0NONG NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. STN 50-502 AND STN 50-503 Available from Technical Informatior: Service Springfield, Virginia 22161
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND GENERAL DISCUSSION........
1-1 1.1 Introduction.
1-1 1.8 Outstanding Issues....
1-1 2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS.....
2-1 2.1.3 Population and Population Distribution.
2-1 2.4.1 Hydrologic Descr iption.......
2-1 2.5.1 Geology..........
2-1 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS. AND COMPONENTS....
3-1 3.7 Seismic Design..........
3-1 3.8.1 Reactor Containment...
3-1 3.11 Environmental Design of Electrical Equipment..
3-1 6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES.
6-1 6.2.1 Containment Functional Design........
6-1 6.3.2 System Design.....
6-1 7.0 INSTRUMENT ATION AND CONTROLS.....
7-1 7.3.1 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for ESF..
7-1 7.8.1 Environmental Quali fications............
7-1 10.0 STEAM AND POWER CONVERSION SYSTEM..........
10-1 10.4 Circulating Water System........................
10-1
- 11. 0 RADI 0ACT I VE WAST E MANAGEMENT......................................
11-1 11.1 Summa ry Description.........
11-1 13.0 CONDUCT OF OPE RATIONS..............
13-1 13.1 Organizational Structure of Applicant................
13-1 15.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSES............................................
15-1 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 15.4 Anticipated Transients Without Scram..........................
15-1 17.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE.
17-1 17.2 Wisconsi n Electric Power Company (WE)......................
17-1 17.5 Impl emen ta tion........
17-1 18.0 REVIEW BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE cd REACTOR SAFEGUARDS...
18-1 20.0 FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS.....
20-1 20.1 Introduction......
20-1 20.2 Construction Costs.
20-1 20.3 Sources of Funds....
20-2 20.3.1 Wisconsin Electric Power Company......
20-2 20-5 20.3.2 Wisconsin Power and Light Company...
20.3.3 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.......
20-5 20.3.4 Madison Gas and Electric Company.
20-8 20.4 Conclusion.
20-8 11
APPENDICES APPENDIX A CHRON0 LOGY OF RADIOLOGICAL REVIEW (Continued)...
A-1 APPENDIX E ACRS LETTER, " REPORT ON KOSHK0NONG NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2,"
MAY 12, 1976.............
E-1 111
LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE 20.3-1 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY SOURCES OF FUNDS....
20-3 T ABLE 20.3-2 WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY SOURCES OF FUNDS...............................
20-6 TABLE 20.3-3 WI5CONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION SOURCES OF FUNDS.............
20-9 TABLE 20.3-4 MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY SOURCES OF FUNDS.............................
20-11
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND GENERAL DISCUSSION 1.1 Introduction Since publication of Supplement Number I to the Safety Evaluation Report, an addi-tional meeting has been held with representatives of the applicant, additional cornitments have been made by the applicant regarding plant design, the staff has completed its review in certain areas, and the staff and the applicant have met with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. The chronology of these activities is listed in Appendix A to this supplement. Those few items identified in Supplement Number 1 as requiring further attention by either the staff or the applicant now have been resolved, or the current status is such that no additional ef fort is required at this time.
The purpose of this supplemental report is to indicate the resolution or the current status of these remaining items, to complete or correct certain statements mede in the Safety Evaluation Report, and to address the results of the meeting with the Advisory Cornittee on Rear. tor Safeguards. Upon publication of this supplemental report, the staff safety review is completed for this stage of the licensing process.
1.8 Outstanding Issues The Safety Evaluation Report for the Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2, contained a listing in Section 1.8 of the items that remained outstanding as a result of the staff review of the application and a number of items for which the staf f had not completed its review. Supplement Number 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report reported the then current status of those matters li?ted in Section 1.8, indicating that most of the items from the original listing had been satisfactorily resolved. The following listing, numbered as in Supplement Number 1, indicates the present status of those matters listed in Supplement Number 1 as being then not resolved. Additional discussion is provided in the appropriate section; of this supplement.
Matters for which additional information was required at the time Supplement Number 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report was prepared:
(11) Submittal of a failure mode and effects analysis for the engineered safety features actuation system (Section 7.3.1)-Resolved.
(16) Liquid and gaseous radwaste systems to meet the dose design objectives required by Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50 (Section ll.1)-Resolved 1-1
(19) Quality assurance program (Sections 17.2 and 17.5)-Unresolved pending further review and inspection at time program is fully implemented.
Matters for which the staff review was not corrplete at the time Supplement Number 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report was issued:
(3) Analysis of Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS), as presented in WCAP-8330 (Section 15.4)-Staff review complete; implementation underway.
Matters on which the staff and the applicant did not agree at the time Supplement Number 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report was published:
(2) Environmental qualification of the balance-of-plant equipment in accordance with IEEE Standard 323,1974 (Sections 3.11 and 7.8.1)-Resolved.
(9) Proposed shift crew staffing for two-unit operation is not in accord with the staff position (Section 13.1)-Resolved.
1-2
2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTIC 5 2.1.3 Fopulation and Population Distributton The Safety Evaluation Peport, on page 2-4, states that the combined peak daily attendance at all recreational activities within the Low Population Zone is estimated to be about 360 persons. Amendment 12 to the Koshkonong Site Addendum revised the estimated peak daily attendance at the Jellystone Campground, one of the.ecreational facilities within the Low Population Zone, to 950 persons, thus changing the combined peak daily a ttendance at all recreational activities within the Low Population Zone from 360 to 1175 persons. The staff has performed an additional evacuation analysis taking into account this revised population figure and we find that it does not af fect our previous conclusions regarding the acceptability of the site, as presented in Section 2.l.4 of the Safety Evaluation Report.
2.4.1 Hydrologic Descriotion On page 2-15 of the Safety Evaluation Report, the word "Jonesville" cn line 13 should be "Janesville."
2.5.1 Geology The Safety Evaluation Report states that additional information regarding age of faulting in the Koshkonong area would be submitted in a later amendment. This infonnation was sutmitte1 in /cendment 11 to the Koshkonong Site Addendum.
Low-level aerial reconnaissance and a field reconnaissance of the Janesville fault area were made, but without revealing geomorphic evidence of the fault or any fault exposure or other surface expression. The applicant contacted geolo-gists knowledgeable of the geology in southern Wisconsin, regarding faulting in the area. The consensus of opinion among those geologists contacted is that the age of last movement on the Janesville fault occurred prior to Cretaceous time, or more than 136 million years before present. This is in agreement with the staff evaluation previously presented in Section 2.5.1.1 of the Safety Evaluation Report.
2-1
3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, AND COMPONENTS 3.7 Seismic Design This section of the Safety Evaluation Report discusses the seismic design input values proposed by the applicant and those values the staff considered appropriate as of the time the report was issued.
As discussed in Section 2.5.2 of Supplement Number 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report, the staff and the applicant now have resolved the differences in the input values to be used. We have detennined that appropriate acceleration values to be used in the plant design are 0.2g for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake and 0.069 for the Operating Basis Earthquake.
This matter, therefore, is resolved.
3.8.1 Reactor Containment The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report stated originally that the reactor contain-ment would be designed in accordance with the criteria of the then Proposed Standard Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments, ACI-359, April 1973 edition. ine staff Safety Evaluation Report notes the acceptability of contain-ment design to these criteria.
This proposed code subsequently was adopted as an industry standard in January 1975, and Amendment 9 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report documented this change. Accordingly, the second paragraph on page 3-11 of the Safety Evaluation Report is mcdified to read as follows:
"This structure will be designed in accordance with the design criteria as outlined in the Article CC-3000 of the Code for Concrete Reactor Vessels and Containments, ACI-ASME 359, January 1975 edition."
3.11 Environmental Design of Electrical Equipment As discussed in Supplement Number I to the Safety Evaluation Report, the matter of qualification of balance-of-plant equipment to the criteria of IEEE Standard 323, 1974, had not been completely resolved.
3-1
following discussions at a further meeting between the staff and the applicant, the applicant forwarded a letter on April 22, 1976, corsnitting to specific changes to the wording in the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. With this clarification of wording, the staff now is satisfied that the qualification of balance-of-plant equipment will be performed in accordance with IEEE Standard 323, 1974. We therefore consider this matter to be resolved.
3-2
6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES 6.2.1 fontainment Functional Design In Amendment 10 to the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, the applicant reported a change in the calculated peak pressure within containment from 40.9 to 41.7 pounds per square inch, gauge (psig). In the same amendment, the applicant aise reported a change in the containment design internal pressure from 45 to 48 psig. Accordingly, the numbers shown in the Safety Fvaluation Report for the containnent design pressure and the calculated peak pressure are changed to 48 psig and 41.7 psig respectively.
The new design pressure provides a margin in excess of 15% above the calculated peak pressure, which more than meets the staff criterion of 10% margin and it is, therefore, acceptable.
6.3.2
System Design
The Safety Evaluation Report states that each of the three accumulator tanks will have a minimum borated water volume of 925 cubic feet. During the course of the analysis performed to demonstrate acceptability of the emergency core cooling systen to meet the criteria of Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, the minimum contained water volume of each accumulator tank was changed to 1000 cubic feet.
The Safety Evaluation Report thus should be changed to indicate 1000 cubic feet per tank.
6-1
7.0 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS 7.3.1 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for ESF The reactor vendor, West:nghouse Electric Corporation, has now submitted a topical report WCAP-8584, " Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of the Engineering Safeguards Actuation System," which is applicable to the Koshkonong-Wisconsin Utilities Project units. The report will be reviewed by the staff and such further effort as may be required will be handled on a generic basis between the staf f and Westinghouse.
It is understood that this topical report will adequately represent the final design of the Koshkonong engineered safety features systems. Should additional dnalysis be required because of features unique to the final design of the Koshkonong units, then the applicant will be required to submit this additional information for our review and approval prior to finalization of the design.
This matter will be addressed further durir.g our review of the operating license application. For now, however, it is considered to be resolved.
7.8.1 Environmental Qualifications As stated in Section 3.11 of this supplement, the applicant now has made commit-ments, satisfactory to the staff, to qualify balance-of-plant equipment in ac-cordance w.h IEEE Standard 323, 1974. This matter, therefore, is resolved.
7-1
10.0 STEAM AND POWER CONVERSION SYSTEM 10.4 Circulating Water System The Safety Evaluation Report states that the circulating water system will deliver approximately 524,100 gallons per minute of cooling water to the main condenser. The system will provide this approximate total flow; however, only about 504,600 gallons per minute are to the main condenser. The balance, about 19,500 gallons per minute, is flow to the turbine plant component cooling water system.
r 10-1
11.0 RADIOALTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT 11.1 Sumary Description The Safety Evaluation Report stated that the capability of the liquid and gaseous radioactive waste treatment systems to meet the dose design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Pai c 50 would be evaluated in a Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report.
In a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, dated September 18, 1975, the applicant chose to comply with the September 4,1975 Annex to Appendix I.
This Annex permits an applicant the option of dispensing with the cost-benefit analysis required by Paragraph II.D of Appendix I, if the proposed or installed radwaste systems and equipment satisfy the Guides on Design Objectives for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Poer Reactors proposed by the Regulatory Staff in the Rulemaking Proceeding on tppendix I (Docket RM 50-2).
Detailed descripticas of the radwaste management systems proposed for the Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, will be presented in the Draf t Environ-mental Statement (DES), scheduled to be issued by the Regulatory Staff in July of 1976. The DES will also contain a detailed analysis of the radwaste manage-ment systems based on the Staff's model of the proposed systems. However, our evaluation shows these systems to be capable of keeping levels of radioactive material in liquid and gaseous effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonable achievable" in accordance with 10 CFR Parc 50.34a, Paragraph II. A.
II.B. and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, and the alternative to Paragraph II.D of Appendix I as provided in the Annex to Apperidix 1.
We therefore find the radwaste management systems for the Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, to be acceptable, 11-1
13.0 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS 13.1 Organizational Structure of Applicant The Safety Evaluation Report pointed out a disagreement between the applicant and the staf f regarding the total number of licensed operators and the type of license held to be provided per shif t for two-unit operation.
Following an additional meeting between the staff and the applicant, the applicant by letter dated April 22, 1976, has agreed to provide two licensed senior reactor operators per shif t for two-unit operation. Further, the applicant has agreed to train and license a sufficient number of operators to satisfy the staff's requirement for minimum shif t crew staffing for two-unit operation. We find this comitment to be acceptable at this stage of our review. However, we have agreed to consider this matter further with the applicant during our review for an operating lice /ise.
For now, we find the applicant's comitment's to be acceptable, and we consider this matter to be resolved.
13-1
15.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSES 15.4 Anticipated Transients Without Scram Supplement Number 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report stated that the matter of resolution of anticipated transients without scram was under staff review and that a program was being developed for implementing the staff requirements in this regard.
The staff now has completed its review. A letter has been forwarded to the reactor vendor for the Koshkonong units, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, dated April 7,1976, advising the vendor of the staf f requirements for implementa-tion of the program. Another letter is to be forwarded to the applicant in the near future, advising the applicant of staff actions and requesting submission to the staff by June 30,1977, of:
(1) Additional analyses and justification of the Westinghouse analysis model, and (2) Based on these analyses, identification of the design changes needed to assure that the limits specified in WASH-1270, " Anticipated Transients Without Scram for Water-Cooled Power Reactors," will not be violated follow-ing an anticipated transient without scram.
The applicant has stated that it will be feasible to incorporate changes in plant design likely to be required by the staff's implementation program. Final evaluation of this matter will have to await submittal of the necessary informa-tion by the applicant.
In the view of the staff, any changes necessary to meet the limits specified in WASH-1270 can be incorporated in the design of the Koshkonong units prior to completion of construction. We will review this matter further following the submittal by the applicant and again during our review of the operating license application. For now, however, we consider this matter to be resolved.
15-1
17.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 17.2 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WE)
As reported in Supplerent Number 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report, the applicant has modified its organization such that quality assurance activities are now under control of the Senior Vice President of Wisconsin Electric Power Company, rather than under the Executive Vice President as was the case at the time the Safety Evaluation Report was prepared. The description of the applicant's quality assurance program therefore should be revised to indicate the responsi-bilities and authn-ities under the modified organization.
Our understanding of this corporatt reorganization is that the change further separates responsibility for quality assurance from the coste and schedule responsibility for plant construction. The staff evaluation of the change must await receipt of an amendment to the Preliminary Safety Analysis I.eport describing the changed responsibilities.
17.5 Implementation As noted in Supplement Number 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report, the ongoing qualit.y assurance program is acceptable to the staff. The program has not been completely implemented as yet due to restrictions on expenditure of funds imposed by the Public Service Comission of Wisconsin. Final staff approval of the program implementation must await audit of the full implementation following removal of the restrictions on fund expenditures. Those portions of the program that have been implemented to date, however, are acceptable to the staff.
17-1
4
18.0 REVIEW BY THE ACVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS The application received further consideration by a Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on May 5,1976, and by the full Conunittee on May 7,1976, during its 193rd meeting. As a result of these meetings, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, on May 12, 1976, issued a " Report on Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2."
This report is appended as Appendix E.
The Committee noted that the staff now has accepted the analysis submitted by the applicant to demonstrate compliance with Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 for the emergency core cooling system for the Koshkonong units. The Committee indicated its concurrence with this staff acceptance, but reconnended aggressive pursuit of possible improvements in the reliability and function of the emergency core coaling system. Both the staff and the applicant are aware of the Committee's continuing desire for improvement in this area. Such improvements as are devel-oped quite likely will be done generically. Should it appear that improvements would have a significant effect on the reliability and functioning of the emer-gency core cooling systen, these improvements will be incorporated in the Koshkonong units where practicable and necessary. This matter will receive continuing attention during the plant construction phase and will be reviewed again in detail during toe review for an operating license.
The Committee also indicated its concurrence with the selection of 0.06g and 0.29 as the appropriate acceleration values to be used for design of the Koshkonong plant for the Operating Basis Earthquake and the Safe Shutdown Earthquake, respectively. The Conmittee noted that the acceleration value for the Operating Basis Earthquake was selected on the basis of economics, end it urged the staff to develop general criteria for determination of acce; :o.e values for the Operating Basis Earthquake. This effort is ur.derway Ly che staff and the Com-mittee will be informed of the results.
The Committee noted that implementation of the program to mitigate the consequences of anticipated transients without scram is underway and it requested to be kept in f o rmed. This matter is addressed in Section 15.4 of this supplement. Upon final resolution of this matter, a report will be forwarded to the Conmittee advising them of actions that have been or will be taken.
The Committee also noted that full implementation of the quality assurance program remains to be accomplished. This matter is addressed in Section 17.0 of this supplement.
18-1
The Corraittee reiterated the recommendation expressed in its January 15, 1976, interim report (Appendix C to Supplement Number 1) regarding design features to reduce the possibility and consequences of sabotage. This recommendation is addressed in Section 18.0 of Supplement Number 1.
Finally, the Committee reconinenced that the staff and the applicant deal in timely fashion with those generic problems relating to large water reactors which the Committee discussed in its Status Report Number 4 dated April 16, 1976. These matters are being addressed on a generic basis by the staff and the nuclear industry. At such time as improved system designs are available that offer substantial additional protection to the public health and safety, such improvements will be backfitted to the Kushkonong units where practicable and necessary.
18-2
20.0 FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS 20.1 Introduction Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and Madison Gas and Electric Company have applied for construction pennits for the Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations relating to tne determination of an applicant's financial qualifications appear in Paragrarn 50.33(f) and Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 50.
In accordance with these regulations, there must be reasonable assurance that the applicants can obtain the necessary funds to cover estimated construction costs and related fuel cycle costs. This reasonable assurance standard, however, must be viewed in the light of the extended period of time from the start of construction to the commercial operation date. The earliest date for commercial operation is estimated to be February 1,1983 for Unit 1 and July 1, 1984 for Unit 2.
Consequently, one must necessarily make certain assumptions about future conditions. Two basic assumptions we have made in our analysis are that there will be rational regulatory policies with respect to the setting of rates and that viable capital markets will exist. The former assumption implies that rates will be set to at least cover the cost of service, including the cost of capital; the latter assumption implies that capital will be available at some price.
20.2 Construction Costs The most recent estimate of the total cost of Koshkonong Units 1 and 2 was provided on April 19, 1976 in response to a Staff request for additional financial informa-tion. These costs may be sumarized as follows:
Total nuclear production plant costs
$1,203,050,000 Transmission, distribution and general plant Oosts 44,140,000 Nuclear fuel inventory cost for first core 112,817,000 Allowance for funds used during construction (AFDC) 204,939,000
$1,564,946,000 20-1
The total estimated costs, including AFDC, to be borne by each applicant are as follows:
Amount Percentage (000)
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
$932,879 59.6 Wisconsin Power and Light Compary 294,953 18.8 Wisconsin Public Servi:e Corporation 245,333 15.7 Madison Gas and Electric Company 91,781 5.9
$1,564,946 100.0 The estimated cost of the nuclear production plant has been reviewed by comparing it with the cost projected by the Energy Research and Development Administration *s Concept costing model. Using an escalation rate of 6 percent per year for site labor, materials, and purchased equipment, the model projected the cost of the nuclear production plant, excluding AFDC, to be $1,217 million, compared with the applicants' estimate of $1,203 million. It should be noted that the appli-cants' estimate includes contingency allowances of $21.5 million and $16 million for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively. Consequently, we have determined that it is reasonable to use the applicants' estimate i.1 our analysis of their financial qualifications to undertake the proposed project.
20.3 Sources of Funds.
20.3.1 Wisconsin Electric Power _rog ay Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the lead applicant, supplies electricity, gas, and steam in Wisconsin and upper Michigan. Operating revenues in 1975 were
$506.6 million and net income was $49.0 million. Invested capital at December 31, c
1975 amounted to $988.5 million and consisted of 46.6 percent long-term debt, 10.6 percent preferred stock, and 42.8 percent cocinon equity. The return on corinon equity in 1975 was 10.0 percent, while the resulting pretax ccverage of total interest charges was 4.13 times. The first mortgage bonds are rated double-A by both Moody's and Standard and Poor's.
The funds to finance Wisconsin Electric Power Company's ownership share in Koshkonong Units 1 and 2 will come from internally-generated funds, external sales of debt and equity securities, and short-term borrowings. Available funds from these sources in 1975, af ter debt retirements of $5.2 million, totaled
$119.0 million. The internally-generated funds of $87.7 million represented 85.2 percent of 1975 construction expenditures (including nuclear fuel).
At our request, Wisconsin Electric Power Company supplied a projected sources of funds statement for the 1976 f period, with underlying assumptions, demonstrating how the requisite funds might ae raised, lhese statistics are presented in Table 20.3-1.
We have reviewed the projections and find them within the zone of reasonableness, 20-2
TABLE 20.3-1 Applicant: Wisconsin Electric Power Company Nuclear Plant: Koshkonong Sources of Funds for System-Wide Construction Expenditures During Period of Construction of Subject Nuclear Power PTant (millions of dollars)
Construction Years of Subject Nuclear Plant 1975 1976 1977 197R 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Security I: sues and Other Funds Corrinon Stock 1.0 2.0 42.0 2.0 92.0 62.0 122.0 2.0 57.0 2.0 Preferred Stock 35.0 35.0 55.0 70.0 Long Term Debt 60.0 150.0 165.0 125.0 155.0 150.0 60.0 Notes Payable 12.0 (43.0) 55.0 12.0 17.0 9.0 8.0 12.0 5.0 (5.0)
Contributions from Parent - Net (Not Applicable)
Other Funds (Not Applicable)
Total 13.0 54.0 97.0 199.0 274.0 251.0 285.0 234.0 62.0 57.0 Internal Funds U
Net Income 56.2 61.9 63.8 74.3 77.0 96.2 107.1 131.6 136.7 148.2 d,
Less:
Preferred Dividends 7.1 10.4 10.4 13.7 13.7 19.0 19.0 25.6 25.6 25.6 Common Dividends 32.1 33.5 36.4 39.6 43.3 50.2 57.1 69.0 72.1 79.6 Retained Earnings 17.0 18.0 17.0 21.0 20.0 27.0 31.0 37.0 39.0 43.0 Deferred Taxes 17.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 24.0 27.0 28.0 31.0 34.0 Invest. Tax Cr. - Deferred 6.0 6.0
'0 3.0 5.0 12.0 2.0 9.0 19.0 13.0 Depreciation and Amort.
45.0 46.0 43.0 50.3 53.0 64.0 67.0 75.0 89.0 99.0 Less AFOC (2.0)
(11.0)
(24.0)
(29.0)
(37.0)
(47.0)
(32.0)
(9.0)
Total 85.0 85.0 81.0 80.0 72.0 98.0 90.0 102.0 146.0 180.0 Total Funds 98.0 139.0 178.0 279.0 346.0 349.0 375.0 336.0 208.0 237.0 Construction Expenditures
- Nuclear Power Plants 7.2 11.0 33.0 43.9 109.0 145.1 195.8 218.4 116.6 119.3 Other 85.5 86.2 142.1 222.3 226.9 188.8 175.6 105.4 89.7 96.9 Total Const. Expenditures 92.7 97.2 175.1 266.2 335.9 333.9 371.4 323.8 206.3 216.2 Subject Nuclear Plant 6.9 8.5 32.1 42.2 99.6 135.0 181.1 192.5 73.3 15.7
- Exclusive of AFOC (allowance for funds used during construction)
TABLE 20.3-1 (Continued)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ASSUMPTIONS A.
The rate of return on connon stock equity used was 12 percent.
B.
The incremental dividend rate on new issues of preferred stock is 9-1/2 percent.
C.
1.
The growth rate for kilowatt hour sales for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company system is 4.4 percent from 1975 thrcugh 1980, and 4.1 percent from 1981 through 1984.
2.
Expenses are expected to increase at approximately 6 percent per year for increases in materials and labor with revenues growing at an appropriate rate to provide the assumed return on common equity.
D.
The assumed common stock market to book ratio for the projected common stock offering is 1.0.
E.
The common stock dividend payout ratio will vary in the range of 65 percent to 68 percent.
F.
The target capital structure for Wisconsin Electric Power Company is 48 percent to 50 percent long-term debt,10 percent to 13 percent preferred stock and 38 percent to 41 percent common equity.
G.
Fixed charge coverage on the SEC method ranges between 2.64 and 3.98 times during the period of construction. Interest coverage as defined by the indenture ranges between 2.91 and 5.53 times during the period of construction.
H.
1.
The incremental long-term interest rate assumption is 9 percent.
2.
The assumed short-tenn interest rate over the period of construction is 8 percent.
20-4
20.3.2 Wisconsin Power and Light Company Wisconsin Power and Light Company supplies electricity, gas, and water to central and southern Wisconsin. Operating revenues in 1975 were $196.6 million and net income was
$21.1 million. Invested capital at December 31, 1975 amounted to $427.6 million and consisted of 44.3 percent long-term debt,17.5 percent preferred stock, and 38.2 per-cent conrion equity. The return on cocrion equity in 1975 was 10.3 percent, while re-sulting pretax coverages of long-term interest and total interest charges were 4.59 times and 3.68 times, respectively. The first mortgage bonds are rated double-A by both Moody's and Standard and Poor's.
The funds to finance Wisconsin Power and Light Company's ownership share in Koshkonong Units 1 and 2 will come from internally-generated funds, external sales of debt and equity securities, and short-term borrowings. Available funds from these sources in 1975, af;er debt refinancing and sinking fund requirements of $24.6 million, totaled
$57.9 million. The internally-generated funds of $36.8 million represented 63.6 per-cent of 1975 construction expenditures (including nuclear fuel).
At our request, Wisconsin Power and Light Company supplied a projected sources of funds statement for the 1976-84 period, with underlying assumptions, demonstrating how the requisite funds might be raised. These statistics are presented in Table 20.3-2.
We have reviewed the projections and find them within the zone of reasonableness.
20.3.3 Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Wisconsin Public Service Corporation supplies electricity and gas in northern Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan. Operating reventes in 1975 were $219.9 million and net income was $23.5 million. Invested capital at December 31, 1975 amounted to
$431.4 million and consisted of 47.7 percent long-term debt,15.3 percent preferred stock, and 37.0 percent common equity. The return on common equity in 1975 was 11.9 percent, while resulting pretax coverages of long-term interest and total interest charges were 4.59 times and 4.19 times, respectively. The first mortgage bonds are rated double-A by Moody's and single-A by Standard and Poor's.
The funds to finance Wisconsin Public Service Corporation's ownership share in Koshkonong Units 1 and 2 will come from internally-generated funds, external sales of debt and equity securities, and short-term borrowings. Available funds from these sources in 1975, after debt refinancing and sinking fund requirements of $9.8 million, totaled $44.8 million. The internally-generated funds of $38.2 million represented 79.4 percent of 1975 construction expenditures (including nuclear fuel).
20-5
TABLE 20.3-2 Applicant: Wisconsin Power and Light Company Nuclear Plant: Koshkonong Sources of Funds for System-Wide Construction Expenditures During Period of Construction of Subject Nuclear Power Plant (millions of dollars)
Construction Years of Subject Nuclear Power Plant Security Issues and 1976 1977 1978 1979 191 Tf82-1983 1984 1980 Other Funds Common Stock
$25.0
$25.0
$38.0
$40.0
$21.0 Preferred Stock 25.0 25.0 Long Term Debt 4.3 35.0 (5.0) 50.0 54.0 57.2 54.8 (13.6)
Notes Payable (3.0)
(3.2)
(10.8)
(19.1) 11.1 15.4 (14.6)
(13.5)
(29.8)
Contributions from Parent - Net Other s (Sinking)
.1)
)
.)
. )
Internal Funds Net income 30.3 31.4 32.4 34.4 39.5 47.1 54.6 57.9 58.6 s
Less:
Jn Preferred Dividends 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 8.1 10.6 10.6 10.6 Common Dividends 17.1 18.3 18.8 19.5 23.5 27.5 31.5 34.0 34.5 Retained Earnings 7.6 7.5 8.0 9.3 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.3 13.5 Deferred Taxes Invest. Tax Cred. - Deferred 3.6 2.7 3.1 1.9 5.8
.6 10.2 5.6 4.9 Depreciation and Amort.
30.4 30.6 37.8 38.8 39.1 41.0 43.4 50.5 72.9 Less: AFDC
.8 3.4
.7 2.0 10.0 16.6 23.2 10.9 2.8 Total 40.8 37.4 48.2 48.0 45.4 36.5 42.9
$8.T B36.T Total Funds
$65.0
$67.1
$55.3
$75.7
$170.3
$170.4
$99.8
$50.1
$40.2 Construction Expenditures
- Nuclear Power Plants
$ 2.8
$10.5
$13.8
$32.5
$44.0
$59.0
$62.7
$23.9
$ 5.1 Other 62.2 56.6 41.5 43.2 126.3 111.4 37.1 26.2 35.1 Total Construction Expenses
$65.0 T6TT S55.3 IT5 7
$170.3
$170.4
$99.8 NT F40 7 Subject Nuclear Plant 528
$10.5
$13.8
$32.5
$44.0
$59.0
$62.7
$23.9
$ 5.1
- Exclusive of AFDC (allowance for funds used during construction)
TABLE 20.3-2 (Continued)
WISCONSIN POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ASSUMPTIONS A.
The rate of return on average common stock equity used was 14 percent.
B.
The incremental dividend rate on new issues of preferred stock is 10-1/2 percent.
C.
1.
The growth rate for kilowatt hour sales for Wisconsin Power and Light Company is 5.5 percent for 1976, 9.1 percent for 1977, 7.7 percent for 1978, 6.8 percent for 1979 and 6.5 percent thereaf ter.
2.
Expenses are expected to increase at approximately 6 percent per year for increases in materials and labor with revenues growing at an appropriate rate to provide the assumed return on common equity.
D.
The assumed common stock market to book ratio for the projected common stock offerings is 1.0.
E.
The common stock ilvidend payout ratio will vary in the range of 65 percent to 75 percent.
F.
The tarqet :apital structure for Wisconsin Power and Light Company is 50 per-cent long-term debt,10 percent to 15 percent preferred stock and 35 percent to 40 percent common equity.
G.
The indenture interest coverage assuming a 40 percent common equity capital structure and 14 percent return on common equity would approximate 3.7 times.
H.
1.
The incremental long-term interest rate assumption is 10.5 percent.
2.
The assumed short-term interest rate over the period of construction is 8 percent.
20-7
At our request, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation supplied a projected sources of funds statement for the 1976-84 period, with underlying assumptions, demonstrating how the requisite funds might be raised. These statistics are presented in Table 20.3-3.
We have reviewed the projections and find them within the zone of reasonableness.
20.3.4 Madison Cas and Electric Company Madison Gas and Electric Company furnishes electric and gas service in the City of Madison, Wisconsin, and surrounding areas. Operating revenues in 1975 were $74.6 million and net income was $8.0 million. Invested capital at December 31, 1975 amounted to $194 million and cor.sisted of 54.1 percent long-tenn debt,14.1 percent preferred stock, and 31.8 percent common equity. The return on common equity in 1975 was 10.0 percent, while resulting pretax coverages of long-term interest and total interest charges were 2.98 times and 2.53 times, respectively. The first mortgage bonds are rated double-A by Moody's and single-A by Standard and Poor's.
The funds to finance Madison Gas and Electric Company's ownership share in Koshkonong Units 1 and 2 will come from internally-generated funds, external sales cf debt and equity securities, and short-term borrowings. Avaliable funds from these sources in 1975, af ter debt refinancing of $41.3 million, totaled $39.1 million. The internally-generated funds of $16.2 million represented 50.2 percent of 1975 construction expen-ditures (including nuclear fuel).
At our request, Madison Gas and Electric Company supplied a projected sources of funds statement for the 1976-84 period, with underlying assumptions, demonstrating how the requisite funds might be raised. These statistics are presented in Table 20.3-4.
We have reviewed the projections and find them within the zone of reasonableness.
20.4 Conclusion We have reviewed the financial inforration in the application, and amendments thereto, and conclude that there is reasonable assurance that the applicants can raise the nec-essary funds to design and construct the Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Our conclusion is based upon an assessment that the financing projections submitted by the applicants constitute reasonable financing plans. We do not consider these projections to be a forecast of what will necessarily occur. They need only demonstrate one possi-ble way by which the planned construction program, including the subject facility, might reasonably be financed. It is to be expected that financing plans will change from time to time to accommodate changing conditions. The financing being proposed is in accord with general industry practices and the assumptions being used, although not susceptible to precise measurement against absolute criteria, are in line with what one might expect under the postulated conditions. If the financing projections can be 20-8
TA8LE 20.3-3 Applicant: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Nuclear Plant: Koshkonong Sources of Funds for System-Wide Construction Expenditures During Period of Construction of Subject Nuclear Power Plant (millions of dollars)
Construction Years of Subject Nuclear Power Plant 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1934 Security Issues and Other Funds Comon Stock
$16.5
$15.0
$20.0
$25.0
$20.0
$20.0 Preferred Stock 14.2 11.^
(.8) 19.2
(.8)
(.8)
Long-Term Debt 9.6 (1.4) 20.9 21.6 21.5 46.8 39.0 (1.0) 39.0 30.0 Notes Payable (7.4)
(6.0)
.2 (9.7) 17.4 9.7 2.4 32.4 6.8 (5.4)
Contributions from Parent-Net Other Funds Total 2.2 9.1 21.1 26.9 73.1 95.7 60.6 50.6 45.0 43.8 Internal Funds Net Income (Not Available) ro Less:
?
Preferred Dividends (Not Available)
Common Dividends (Not Available)
Retained Earnings 4.7 5.4 6.3 6.8 7.7 8.7 9.8 10.5 10.9 11.6 Deferred Taxes (Included in Depreciation)
Invest. Tax Cred.-Deferred 3.7 2.9 1.3 2.1 3.9 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Depreciation and Amort.
29.9 29.8 30.5 32.3 33.7 35.2 36.7 38.2 39.7 41.2 Other 5.4
(.6) 1.5
.5 47.0 49.5 SC7 SH 55.8 Total 43.7 37.5 39.6 TT 7 45 3 TOTAL FUNDS
$TS V
$E-6
$6D 7
$M 6
$1TB T
$137.7
$1TD T
$1DTI
$9 H
$9E6 Construction Expenditures
- Nuclear Power Plants
$10.0
$ 8.2
$17.6
$19.2
$36.5
$49.5
$62.9
$80.7
$76.8
$77.3 Other 35.9 38.4 43.1 49.4 81.9 93.2 47.2 21.6 21.8 22.3 Total Const. Expenses
$45.9
$46.6
$60.7
$68.6
$118.4
$142.7
$110.1 3102.3
$98.6
$99.6 Subject Nuclear Plant
$B
$ 2.3
$ 8.0
$11.5
$ 27.2
$ 36.9
$ 49.4
$ 52.6
$20.0 5 4.3
- Exclusive of AFDC (allowance for funds used during construction)
TABLE 20.3-3 (Continued)
WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION ASSUMPTIONS A.
The rate of return on conraon stock equity used was 11.5 percent.
B.
The incremental dividend rate on new issues of preferred stock is 10 percent.
C.
1.
The incremental long-term interest rate assumption is 10 percent.
2.
The assumed short-term interest rate over the period of construction is 8 percent.
D.
The assumed comon stock dividend payout ratio is 70 percent.
E.
The target capital structure is 35 percent to 40 percent common equity, 12 percent to 15 percent preferred equity, 45 percent to 50 percent long-tem debt, and 0 percent to 5 percent short-term debt.
F.
The pretax fixed charge coverage ranges between 3.41 times and 4.33 times during the period of construction.
G.
It is assumed that current security prices will continue during the period of construction.
H.
It is assumed that any rate relief granted during the period of construction will provide a fair rate of return on construction work in progress.
Consequently, no provision is made for Allowance For Funds Used During Construction.
20-10
TABLE 20.3-4 Applicant: Madison Gas & Elec. Co.
Nuclear Plant: Voshkonen3 Sources of Funds for System-Wide Construction Enenditures During Period of Construction of Subject Nuclear Power Plant (millions of dollarsJ Construction Years of Subject Nuclear Power Plant 1976 1977 1978 Tp79 1980 1981 T9T2 1983 1984 Security Issues and Other Funds Connon Stock
$ 7.7
$ 8.6 Preferred Stock 5.0 5.0 10.0 Long-Term Debt 20.0 20.0 20.0 Notes Payable 4.1 (2.9)
(2.2)
- 5. 8 8.6 (1.5)
.6 (10.2)
Contributions from Parent-Net To 8
(
Internal Funds Net Income 11.0 12.9 13.9 15.3 16.1 17.3 18.3 18.8 19.3 y
?
Less:
Preferred Dividends (2.8)
(3.2)
( 3.1 )
(3.4)
(3.6)
(4.1)
(4.5)
(4.3)
(4.1)
Common Dividends (4.9)
(5.7)
(6.6)
(7.4)
(7.8)
(8.2)
(8.6)
(9.0)
(9.4)
Retained Earnings 3.3 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.8 Deferred Taxes (a)
Invest. Tax Cred.-Deferred (b) 2.6 2.0 4.3 1.3 1.8 1.4 1.5 5.8 5.9 Depreciation and Amort. (a) 13.6 14.7 16.5 18.0 19.5 21.0 22.5 25.8 30.7 Less: AFDC
[.6)
{ll)
_[. 4 )
J.7)
(1.2)
(1 3)
( 1_. 0 )
(.4)
Total 18.9 19.6 24.6 23.8 25.3 L6.2 17.4 J, t.. I 42.0 TOTAL FUNDS
$34.8
$15 T
$29 I
$3T!7
$U.T
$47 4
$4T.~6
$32.7
${7_
Construction Expenditures
- Nuclear Power Plants
.9
$ 3.5
$ 4.5
$10.7
$14.5
$19.5
$20.7 5 7.9
$ 1.7 Other 33.9 31.9 24.8 20.5 28.6 22.9 22.9 24.3 25.0 Total Const. Expenses
$34.8
$35.4
$29.3
$ 3T.2
$433
$42.4
$43.6
$322
$26.7 Subject Nuclear Plant
.9
$ 3.5
$ T.T
$1_Q
$M
$TT.T
$202 573
$U
- Exclusive of AFDC (allowance for fur.ds used during construction)
(a) As prescribed by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, deferred taxes are recorded as additional depreciation.
(b) Amounts a.re " net" (deferred less amounts restored to income).
characterized as reasonable, we believe that the reasonable assurance standard has been satisfied. Accordingly, we find the applicants financially qualified to carry out the activities for which this permit is sought.
20-13
APPENDIX A CHRONOLOGY OF RADICLOGICAL REVIEW (Continued)
April 14, 1976 Supplement Number 1 to Safety Evaluation Report Issued.
April 20,1976 Meeting with applicant to discuss open items pertaining to contrcl room staf fing and environmental qualification of balance-of-plant equipment.
April 22, 1976 Letter from applicant with cocinitments regarding control room staf fing and environmental qualification of balance-of-plant equipment.
May 5, 1976 Meeting with ACRS Subcocinittee.
May 7, 1976 Meeting with ACRS.
May 12,1976 ACRS report issued.
A-1
APPENDIX E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20556 May 12,1976 Honorable Marcus A. Ibwden Chairman U. S. Nuclear Ibgulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
REPORT CN KOSHKCNONG NUCLEAR PIANT, UNITS 1 AND 2
Dear Mr. Ibwden:
During its 193rd meeting, May 6-8, 1976, the Advisory Comittee on Ibactor Safeguards completed its review of the application of the Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Wisconsin Ibwer and Light Company, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and Madison Gas and Electric Company (the Applicants) for a permit to construct the Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, thits 1 and 2.
We site was visited on October 17, 1975. %e application had been previously reviewed at the Comittee's 188th meeting, January 8-10,1976, and at Subcomittee meetings in Pt. Atkinson, Wisconsin on October 17,1975 and Washington, DC on December 3,1975 and May 5,1976. We Comittee issued an Interim Report dated January 15, 1976. During its review, the Comittee had the benefit of discussions with representatives and consultants of the Applicants, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Stone and Webster Corporation, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) Staff, and of the documents listed.
%e application to build the Koshkonong Nuclear Plant is a part of the Wisconsin Utilities Project (WUP), for licenses to construct one cr more standardized nuclear power plants at one or more sites in Wisconsin, using the duplicate plant option, Appendix N to 10 CFR Part 50. We Comittee is restricting its current review to Koshkonong Units 1 and 2 since the schedule for the other plants is not well specified, and it may be appropriate to incorporate design changes in the plans for the future plants.
Se Applicants used the October 1975 Westinghouse emergency core cooling system (ECCS) model as approved by the NRC Staff to demonstrate compliance with Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50. he limiting peaking factor at full powsr is 2.18.
We Applicants have comitted to install an Axial Ibwer E-1
Ilonorable Marcus A. Ibw3en May 12,1976 Distribution 2nitoring System or otherwise to demonstrate the capability to manage core power distribution within the limiting peaking factor envelope.
We NRC Staff considers this resolution of the ECCS evaluation adequate for purposes of issuance of a construction permit. We Ocmittee concurs with this conclusion; however, the Comittee recomends aggressive pursuit of possible improvements in the reliability and function of the ECCS for Koshkonong thits 1 and 2.
%e Applicants and the NRC Staff have agreed that horizontal ground accel-erations of 0.2g and 0.06g are appropriate design vans for the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and operating basis earthquake (@E), respectively.
We Comittee concurs with these values for the Koshkonong Plant. %e Ap-plicants selected the NE on the basis of econmics, holding that the minimum value of the @E is not safety related. %e NRC Staff required the Applicants as a part of their econmic evaluation to denonstrate that an earthquake equivalent to the CBE would have a reasonably long return inter-val. Applying a probabilistic analysis to historic data of the tectonic province, the Applicants estimated a return interval of 1,000 years. %e NBC Staff accepted this as a reasonable period. In this regard, the Comittee urges the NRC Staff to develop general criteria for the determination of an acceptable W E.
%e Ommittee wishes to be kept informed.
W e NRC Staff has completed its evaluation of the liquid and gaseous radio-active waste treat 2nent systems and has concluded that these systems are capable of meeting the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CPR Part 50.
%o outstanding issues remain to be resolved prior to the NRC Staff recomendation for issuance of a construction permit:
(1) h e NRC Staff's review of the Westinghouse Analysis of Anticipated Transients Without Scram (A'IWS), WCAP-8330, will be completed in the next few weeks and the final implementation plan for the Koshkonong Plant is under develognent. We Applicants have stated that it will be feasible to arw= Mate changes in plant design likely to be required by the implementation program. We Committee wishes to be kept informed.
E-2
Honorable Marcus A. Ibwden May 12,1976 (2)
%e implementation of the quality assurance program will remain an outstanding issue until the restrictions imposed by the Public Service Comission of Wisconsin on fund expenditures are removed. We Comittee recomends that this issue be resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC Staff.
We Comittee believes that the Applicants and the NIC Staff should review the Koshkonong Plant for design features that could significantly reduce the possibility and consequences of sabotage, and that such features should be incorporated into the plant design where practicable. We Ctanittee wishes to be kept informed.
Generic problems relating to large water reactors are discussed in the Comittee's April 16, 1976 Status Report Number 4.
Wese problems should be dealt with in a timely fashion by the NRC Staff art the Applicants.
%e Advisory Comittee on Ibactor Safeguards believes that the items mentioned above and those of the Comittee's letter of January 15, 1976, can be resolved during construction and that, if due consideration is given to the foregoing, the Koshkonoleg Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 can be constructed with reasonable assurance that they can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely yours, Dade W. Moeller Chairman Ibferences 1.
Koshkonong Nuclear Plant Ubits 1 and 2, Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (August 1974) with Amendments 1 through 10.
2.
Koshkonong Nuclear Plant PSAR Site Addendum (August 1974) with Amendments 1 through 10.
3.
Safety Evaluation Beport NURm-75/092 re'ated to construction of the Koshkonong Nuclear Plant Urtits 1 and 2, October 1975, 4.
Safety Evaluation Peport NUREG-005) (Supplement to NUREG 75/092) related to construction of Koshko ang Nuclear Plant, Ubits 1 and 2, April 1976 E-3
.