ML19309G564
| ML19309G564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309G559 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005070152 | |
| Download: ML19309G564 (5) | |
Text
.
s e n s o70 /52 O
U mn STAFF EVALUATIO14 t'OR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERf4IT NO. CPPR-113 FOR THE MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT N0. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-423 INTRODUCTION On August 3,1979, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company acting for itself and the other owners of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 filed a request for an extension of the latest construction completion date for Construction Pemit CPPR-ll3 to December 1985.
DISCUSSION Construction Permit CPPR-ll3 was issued on August 9,1974 with the latest construction completion da' e of October 1,1979.
In the application for extension, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company requested that the latest completion date for Millstone, Unit 3 be extended to December 1985 with commercial operation scheduled for May 1986. The extension requested is required due to two deferrals of the in-service date of the plant.
The first of the deferrals occurred in December 1975 when the decision was made to move the in-service date of the plant from November 1979 to May 1987. Contributing to the first deferral was the unexpected rise in the price of uranium which began in late 1973. Westinghouse Electric Corporation notified the permit holders of Millstone, Unit No. 3 that the occurrence of the rise and uncertainty in the price of uranium concentrates excused them from the
l f'M " C 'F3 uranium contract they held between them. The permit holders brought suit against Westinghouse claiming the contract had been breached. Westinghouse's action was that in order to ensure an adequate initial fuel supply for Unit No. 3 the permit holders would have to seek alternative uranium supplies in a market where prices were already rising.
The market was aggravated by the entry of other utilities affected by the Westinghouse action, seeking to secure a large supply of uranium concentrates at one time.
The Westinghouse connitment was for delivery of uranium concentrates in the 1978-1982 period from $ 11.00-313.00 per pound. The Westinghouse uranium was expected to be a source of low-cost nuclear fuel for the years 1980 to 1984. Af ter Westinghouse refused to honor its uranium obliga-tions, estimated to be 2,770,000 pounds of uranium concentrates, the pemit holders did an evaluation to determine what uranium prices were likely to be in the ensuing years. Based on estimates made in 1975', it was believed that uranium concentrates could average $50.00 per pound for purchases made in 1975 for a unit goin'g into operation in 1980 and could average $65.00 per pound for pur-chases made in 1975 for delivery in the period 1980-1990.
It was later detemined that uranium could not be purchased on customary tems in 1975 for delivery in the 1980's. The Westinghouse position on uranium and the new estimates of uranium prices prompted a major re-evaluation of the schedule and cost estimate for Unit No. 3.
During this time period strikes occurred delaying the plant construction.
In May of 1975, a strike of carpenters, lasting three months, caused delays 'in areas of the turbine, auxiliary and control buildings, with emphasis on concrete founda-tions, walls and floor slabs. On October 1,1975, the boilemaker's union went
AE f 3 F02 on a strike. Although this strike had no inmediate effect on other crafts saployed at the site, it directly impacted erection of the steel containment liner, a critical path operation. The strike continued for nearly three months.
During November 1975, a work slowdown was put into effect at the site because of the probability of a delay in the schedule. Second and third shift activities at the site were essentially eliminated. Total project cost was estimated to be 5900 million for a May 1980 in-service date, a $92.5 million increase over a February 1975 estimate based on November 1979 in-service date. This increase was attributed to additional engineering costs due to new regulatory requirements and other changes in scope, increased owners' costs including property taxes, longer environmental studies and construction costs.
It was concluded that the in-service date would have to be established by capacity requirements and long-term financial and economic considerations. A review of these requirements resulted in the following determinations:
(1)
- Due to an unexpected decline in the demand for electricity beginning in 1973, NNEC0 had an excess of capacity over forecast requirements during the early 1980's.
(2)
Although the plant could have been deferred to 1984 based on load forecasts alone, other New England utilities needed additional nuclear base load capacity in the early 1980's. Several other utilities had expressed interest in purchasing portions of the plant with an in-service date of 1982.
I'k
'O,
(3 )
An in-service dat.' of 1982 reduced ownership on Millstone, Unit No. 3 and sale of its ownership interests in Pilgrim and Seabrook units would have the advantage of reducing financial requirements from 1976 through 1979 about $400 million in comparison with the currently authorized capital program.
(4 )
A postponement of the in-service date of Unit No. 3 would permit the owners to obtain uranium at a later date and possibly under more favorable c'onditions than those which existed in 1975.
Contributing to the second deferral from 1982 to 1986 was the reduction of construction programs for two owners of Unit No. 3.
This action was necessary since the two owners received only 39 percent of a requested rate increase.
in October 1977, the Board of Trustees voted to defer the in-service date of Unit 3 an additional four years from May 1982 to May 1986. This deferral had an immediate effect of reducing total project cash requirements by over $115 million for the 1978-1979 period. Between November 1977 and February 1978, approximately 850 workers were laid off at the construction site. During this period the permit holders deferred as many purchase orders as possible to delay equipment deliveries to meet the new in-service date and to delay payment on these orders.
In June 1979 rate increases granted to two owners were not sufficient to pennit an advancenent of the in-service date of Unit 3 from 1986 to 1984 without a reduc-tion of ownership interests. Therefore, the pennit holders are proceeding with an offer to other utilities to sell an estimated 10-15 percent ownership interest in Millstone, Unit 3.
l l
i
~0 The staff has reviewed the delaying factors presented by NNEC0 and concurs that these f actors have contributed to unexpected delays in plant construction.
CONCLUSION We have reviewed the information provided in NNECo's submittal and conclude that the factors discussed above are reasonable and constitute good cause for delay and that an extension of Construction Permit CPPR-ll3 for a reasonable length of time to December 1985 is justified.
Considering the nature of the delays, we have identified no areas of significant safety consideration in connection with the extension of the construction comple-tion date for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3.
The staff finds, that because the request is solely for more time to complete work already reviewed and approved, no significant hazards consideration is involved in granting the request and thus prior public notice of this action is not required. We also find that good cause exists for the issuance of an Order extending the construction completion date.
Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the latest construction completion date for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 as set forth in CPPR-113 to December 30, 1985 is reasonable and should be authorized.
8005070 7590-01 t;EGATIVE DECLARATIO'l SUPPORT!ilG EXTENSI0fl 0F C0tlSTRUCTIO!! PERMIT f:0. CPPR-113 EXPIRATI0ft DATE FOR THE MILLST0t;E tiUCLEAR POWER STATIC::, Ut:IT 3 DOCKET l10. 50-423 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has reviewed Northeast fluclear Energy Company's (permittee) request to extend the expiration date of the construction permit for the Millstone riuclear Power Station, Unit 3 (CPPR-il3) which is located in flew London County, Connecticut.
The permittee requested a six year, three month extension for the permit to December 1905, to allow for completion of construction of the plant.
The Commission's Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis has prepared an environmental impact appraisal relative to this change to CPPR-ll3. Based on this appraisal, the Commission has concluded that an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed action other than that which has already been described in the Final Environmental Statement related to construction of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3, dated February 1974.
r 7590-01.
The environmental impact appraisal is available for public inspection at tne Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, UW, Washington, DC, and at the Waterford Public Library, Rope Ferry Road, Route 155, 1aterford, Connecticut.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 2Gth day of March,1980.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CC FISSION
.c';zdf De aid E. Sells, Acting Chief Environmental Projects Branch 2 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis e
G 6'
\\
l
.-