ML19345H058
| ML19345H058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1981 |
| From: | Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8104300332 | |
| Download: ML19345H058 (2) | |
Text
..
n z
9 ci UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p
00cxtreo 1
h/
(.y b y 8 L > e v $' q, f (
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!911SSION usvoc
.g a
7 f
APR 2 91981
- Z 3
l-APR*2 01981 * -
g cmesof mesecrewy ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ff h['
E v.s.maue mmauem c h Before Administrative Judges:
4 5
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman 4
l Dr. Walter H. Jordan tu g
g Dr. William E. Martin q
NVED APR gOIS9/
}
In the Matter of Docket Nos.
~
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, l
i (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
April 28,1981 2
ORDER RELATIVE-TO PGE'S E
FUTURE PLAN FOR PEBBLE SPRINGS l
i Before the Licensing Board proceeds further in this matter, we l
call to the attention of the parties and in particular PGE a recent l
item in Nucleonics Week. In Volume 22, No.13, on April 2,1981, 1 r Nucleanics reported the following in pertinent part:
Cancellation of some proposed nuclear plants could improve ij the near-term financial situation of some utilities, says -
a newly released report by the Securities Research Division l!
of Merrill Lynch. The report, " Utility Nuclear Power Plants--The Outlook for the '80s," lists 18 plants as can-didates for cancellation, and explains how three utilities could benefit from cancellations of some plants.
Portland General Electric would benefit from cancel?ation of Pebble Springs-1 and 2, in'which it owns majority shares, because the company " appears to have some ' wait-and-see' room" in its reserve margin. The project lacks a con-i struction pennit and, as a result of a November Oregon l
referendum, in which voters banned construction of new
?
L gd S
/
6
- * * " ?" * - -
. nuclear plants in the state, also lacks a site. Merrill Lynch believes PGE has capacity enough to allow for an
" orderly study of alternatives," whether these be selection of a new site, a court challenge of the refer-endum, or permanent cancellation. With a new site, PGE could likely transfer about 97% of the dollars already spent, the report estimates.
The ar.ticle does not explain who instigated or sponsored the report.
If the utilities mentioned in the report were responsible for its development, then we believe it is particularly appropriate for this Board to inquire what impact, if any, the conclusions in the report may have on the future planning of the Pebble Springs facility?
l Even if PGE was not involved in sponsoring the report, have the con-clusions affected the future planning for Pebble Springs?
It is this 28th day of April,1981 1
ORDERED That PGE respond to this inquiry as soon as practicable. The other i
parties will then have the opportunity to respond to the utility l
statements.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
l L
dr~ul Jam h
Eliza$eth S. Bowers, Chairman H
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 1
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 28th day of April 1981 l
-..