ML20040D443
| ML20040D443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1975 |
| From: | Butler W, Riehm P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040D425 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202010301 | |
| Download: ML20040D443 (2) | |
Text
j e
(
,m.
UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR RE"ULATURY COMMISSION e
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~
MAY I 3 1975 Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Ev'aluation of Request for Extension of Construction Completion Dates for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Summary On September 10, 1974,,the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) filed a request for an extension of completion dates _for the construction of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units' 1 and 2.
The requested extensions of the completion dates are, for Unit 1:
Earliest: April 1,1979 to October 1,19'/9 Latest:
October 1, 1979 to April 1, 1981 and, for Unit 2:
Earliest:
September 1, 1980 to March 1, 1981
(
latest:
March 1, 1981 to April 1, 1982 The principal _ factors identified by the applicant as contributors to the revision in schedule are as follows:
1.
High interest rates; 2.
Extremely tight credit; 3.
The severely depressed stock market; 4.
Uncertain economic conditions.
These factors can be attributed primarily to capital market conditions.
beyond the control of the applicant, which detrimentally affect its ability to externally finance the previously planned construction pro-gram. As a consequence, the staff believes that the announced reduction in this program is a prudent managerial decision which improves the applicant's financing flexibility by reducing the immediate' necessity to raise larg'c amounts of capital in a difficult and costly environment.,
Furthermore, the applicant has properly stipulated that these construction delays will cause no reduction in the quality assurance effort.
,40WTIO4 f
?
E%
/
I
?>.see hSSbOSRogg85232 2e PDy
- s e
=
gy 13 1975 The applicant has indicated that, if future economic developments permit a return to the construction schedule on which the present cons'truction completion dates are based, PEco would plan to readjust its qonstruction schedule accordingly.
We find that the delay factors indicat'ed in the applicant's September 10, 1974 request constitute good cause for granting the requested extensions.
The Regulatory staff finds that prior public notice of an order authorizing the requested extensions is not required since the action does not involve significant hazard considerations, and that good cause exists for the issuance of an order extending the earliest and latest completion of construction datc3 for the LGS as indicated..
Accordingly, issuance of an order extending the earliest and latest coupletion dates for construction of the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 as presently set forth in Construction Permit No. CPPR-106 to October 1,1979 and April 1,1981, and Unit 2, as set forth in Construction Permit No. CPPR-107 to March 1, 1981 and April 1, 1982, should be authorized. The order should be effcetive on the day of '
issuance.
7
(
Peter F. Riehm, Project Manager l.
Light Water. Reactors Branch 1-2 Division of Reactor Licen' sing i.!.
\\
\\
Walter R. Butler, Chie'f Light Water Reactors Branch 1-2 Division of Reactor Licensing 4
I t
4 0
e 0
umuu-)UuouJJ
-C -
~
~
y g
?
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOR'.,
~#..
cAsmNGTON,C, C. 20606
~
(
APR 2 41981 Docket No. 50-352 and 50-353 Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Vice President 8 General Counsel Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia,jPennsylvania 19101
Dear Mr. Bauer:
SUBJECT:
ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE'-
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION In response to your request of February'23,1981, the Nuclear Regu'latory Comission has issued an Order extending the construction completion date for the Limerick Cenerating Station. The latest completion date for Unit 1 has been extended to October 1,1985 and Unit 2 to October 1,1987.
[
A copy of the Order, the staff sa'fety evaluation, the negative declaration, and the environmental impact appraisal are enclosed-for your information.
s The Order and the negative declaiation have been transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
cerely y/
5 g.
A. Schwencer, Chic (
Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing l
Enclosures:
I 1.
Order Extending Canpletion Date 2..
Staff Safety Evaluation "
3.
Negative Declaration 4.
Environmental. Impact Appraisal "cc k/ enclosures:
l See next page
(
w l
Q)
}
--v s-Jv.)G W
~
. -+
Mr. Edwa'rd G. Bauer, Jr.
I g
Vice President & General Count 8 Philadelphia Elec'tric Company 2301 Market Street
(
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 1
7 cc: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Mr. Vincent Boyer Conner, Moore & Corber Senior Vice Presiden.:
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Nuclear Operations i
Washington, D. C.
20006 Philadelphia Eletctri.
Company 2301 Market Street..
Deputy Attorney General Philadelphia, Pennsy!vania 19101' Room 512, Main Capitol Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
.Karl Abraham Public Affairs Offici!r Mr. Robert W. Adler Assistant Attorney' General
. Region I OIE d
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bureau of Regulatory Counsel 631 Park Avenue 505 Executive House King of Prussia, PA ' 19806 P. 0. Box.2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Honorable' Lawrence Coughlin House of Representatives Congress of the United States Washington, D.. C.
20515 C
Roger B. Reynolds, Jr.', Esq.
324 Swede Street Norristown, Pennsylvania 19401-I Lawrence Sager, Esq.
Sager & Sager Associates 45 Righ Street 4
Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464
~
Joseph A. Smyth
}
Assistant County Solicitor County of Montgomery-1 I
l Courthouse, 1
Norristown, Pennsylvania 19404 Eugene J'. Bradley 3
Philadelphia Electric Comphny Associate General Counsel J
I 2301 Market Street
~
Philadelph,ia, Pennsylvania 19101 l
Mr. Jacque Durr h
Resident Reactor Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
P.
0.. Box 47 Sanatoga, Pennsy.lvania 19464 e
g w
-w----
w-w w
m,--
-m--
~-
.~ -
n 1
-L' PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC ' COMPANY LIHERICK GENERATING' STATION, UNITS 1 8'2 DOCKET N05. S0-352 8 50-353 ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATES Philadelphia El.ectric Company is the holsfer of Construction Permits CPPR-106 and CPPR-107 issued b'y'the Comission on June 19,1!!74. These permits authorize the construction of the Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2, presently under construction at the Company's site on the Schuylkill River, nea in Limerick Township, Montgomery County,' Pennsylvania.
On February 23, 1981, Philadelphia Electric Company filed a request pursuant l-to the Code of Federal Regulations. Title 10, Part 50, Section 50.55(b) for
~
[
an extension of the construction ' completion dates'for these units..
I l^
Philad,elphia Electric Company gave as reasons for the schedule change a reduction in their projected construction program by approximately 5750 million 1976-1980 and $270 million in the four-year pe'riod l
for the foer-year period 1978-1982 due to (1) reductions in electrical sales and peak load growth rates, (2) sluggish ' economic growth, (3). financial considerations, and (4) high interest This action involves no significant hazards consideration.
rates and' tight credit.
l Good cause has been shown for extension of the latest construction completion The date for Unit 1 to October 1,1985 and for Unit 2 to and October 1,1987.
bases for the extension of these dates is set forth in a staff evaluation, dated April 13, 1981.
i k)O(TZ$,_
' ~ r.ww m%f.:6.%
.~
l k
~
The preparation of an environmental impact statement for this parti-cular action is not warrar.ted because there will be no environmental in-pact attriNtable to the action authorized by the Order other than that which
[
has already been predicted and described ill the Comission's Final Environ-mental Stat. ament (Construction. Permit Stage) for the Limerick Generating Station Units 1 & 2 published iti November 1973. A negative declaration and an environmental impact appraisal have been prepared and are avail..-
able, as are the above stated documents, for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555 and at the Public Library,'Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
r s
It is HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE earliest and latest completion date for CPPR-106 be extended from:
April 1,1981 to October 1,1985
" and that the earliest and latest. completion date for CPPR-107 be extended from:
l-April 1,1982 to October 1,1987.-
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
& h [,s E. m,
Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing Date of, Issuance:
~
e a
m
.s m
e A SAFETY EVALUATION RELATED TO EXTENSION 0F CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DUTIES FOR THE 7-LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 & 2
\\
s
/
April 13,1981
~
ee.m W,c,v.,-.%
,/
'ocket Nos. 50-352
~
\\.
and 50-353 EyALUATION OF REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF' CONSTRUCTION ' COMPLETION DATES FOR THE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
~
Summary On February 23, 1981, the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) filed a request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(b) for an extension of completion dates for the extensions of the completion dates are, for the construction of the Limerick Generating Stati.on (LGS), Units 1 and 2.
The requested extensions of the latest completion dates are, for Unit 1 CPPR-106:
April 1,1981 to October 1,1985; and for Unit.2, CPPR-107:
April 1,1982 to October 1,'1987 The principal factors' identified by the applicant as contributors to the revision in schedule are as follows:
1.
Reductions in electrical sales and peak load growth rate,
~
2.
Sluggish economic growth, 3.
Financial considerations,
<4.
liigh interest rates and tight credit.
These factors can be attributed to market conditions beyond the control of the applicant and directly affects the applicant's ability to externally finance the previously planned construction program. As a cons ~equence, the staff believes that the announced reduction in this program is a prudent managerial decision. This action improves the applicant's financing Elexibility by reducing the'immediate necessity.to raise large amounts of capital in a difficult and costly environment.
~
We find that the delay factors ' indicated in the applicant's February 23, 1981 request constitutes -good cause for granting the requested extension.
e 6
6
='
e 9
5 m
em e
g
-(,
,.2-The staff finds that prior public notice of an order authorizing the requested extensions is not required since the action does not involve significant hazard considerations, and that good cause exists for.the issuance of an order extending the earliest and latest completion of construction dates for the LGS as indicated.
Conclusion j
Accordingly, issuance of an order extending the latest c wpletion dates for construction of the Limerick Generating Station Unit 1 as presently set forth in Construction Permit No. CPPR-106 to October 1,1985, and LTnit 2, as set forth in Construction Permit No. CPPR-107 and October 1,1987, should be authorized.
The order should be effective on the day of issuance.
. '. t... (::. ib....
G. D. Calkins, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 2 s.
Division of.L.icensing
^
- j. 3,t.w a. o.
A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing
~
April 13,1981 6
e e
e.
e e,p e
e
-.~
w-
.~
s NEGATIVE DECLARATION f-(
SUPPORTING:
EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION, PERJ41T NOS. CPPR-105 AND CPPR-107 EXPIRATIDH DATES FOR PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMERICK-GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 %D 3
~
DOCKET N05. 50-352 AND 50-353 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (th6 Comission) has reviewed the Philadelphia Electric Company's request to extend the expiration dates of the construction perdits for the Limerick Generating Station, Ur-its Hos.1 and 2 (CPPR-106 and CPPR-107) which'are located in Lit erick Township of Montgomery County in the State of Pennsylvania. The permittee requested l'~
(
an extension to the permits through October 1,1985 for CPPR-105 and through October 1,1987 for CPPR-107, to allow for completion of construction of the
' facilities.
The Comission's Division of. Licensing has prepared an environmental impact appraisal relative to these changes to CPPR-106 and CPPR-107. Based on'this
~
appraisal, the Comission has concluded that an environmental 1mpact state-ment for this.particular action it not warr' anted because there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to, the propo' sed action other than that which has already been described in the Comission's Final Environ-
-cental Statement (Construction Permit Stage) or' evaluated in the environmen-tal impact appraisal.
W 9
g g
e W
kh-
- f
j
._ u
\\
e e
~
2-j
-(.
~
The envircnmental impact appraisal.is available,for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, C.C. and at the Public Librhry, Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
Dated at BetheNa, Maryland, this 13 day of April,1981.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WLdWW4W-A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Div.ision of Licensing G
O 9
e 5
~
O Gum
/
o e
eum I
\\
9 e
e
a e m.
.w.
~
[
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL.
\\
BY THE DIVISION OF LICEN5ING SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS N05. CPPR-106 AND GPPR-107
~
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNIT 5 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-352 AND 50-353 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL Descriptior. of P'roposed Action By letter dated February 23, 1981, the permittee, Philadelphia Electric Co.,
(PECo), filedja reque.st with the Nuclear Regulatory Comisssion (NRC) to extend the completion dates specified in Construction Permits CPPR-106 and CPPR-107 for the Limerick Generating Station,' Units 1 and 2.
The action proposed is the issuance of an order providing for an extension of the latest completion date of Construction Pemit CPPR-106 from April 1,1981 to October,1985, and of CPPR-107 from April 1,1982 to October,1987. The NRC staff has reviewed the application and found that good cause has ~been shown for the requested extension of the completion date specified in Con-struction Pennits CPPR-106 and CPPR-107 for Limerick Generating Station,
, Units 1 and 2 (see attached Safety Evaluation by the NRC staff).
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action s
A.
Need for Plants The Limerick Cenerating Station Unit 1 is now scheduled for comercial operation in 1985 and Unit 2 in 1987. Examination of the most recent-information regarding resources and economics indicates that these plants are still needed.
In the time' frame of 1985 and 1987, the emphasis will be on reduced operating costs.
The overa.11 staff's conclusion that the plant should be constructed is unaffected by the extension of the construction permits.
B.
Community and Economic Impact
~
The Final Environmental Statement Construction Permit Stage (FES-CP) published in November 1973 for Limerick Units 1 and 2 includes an e
e e
e i,
9 s ee g\\g5uu' 5-
~
~
assessment of potential environmental, eccnomic, and comunity icpacts
~
f due to site preparation and plant construction.
In addition..the staff's review of the inspection reports prepared by the Office of Inspection i
and Enforcement as a result of periodic inspections at'the Limerick site and staff's discussions with individuals and local and state officials did not identify any adverse impacts on the envi'ronment or the surrounding comunity which were not anticipated and adequately discussed in the FES-CP or which were signficantly greater than those discussed in the FES-CP.
C.
Assessment of Impacts The only effects possibly resulting from the requested extensions would be those due to transposing the impacts in time or extending the total time the lodal community is subjected to temporary construction impacts..
This in the staff's ' view will not result in any significant additional impact. The staff concludes that environmental impacts associated with construction of the plant described in the FES-CP are not affected by' the proposed extension. Thus, no significant change in impact is expect-ed to result from the extension.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis and the NRC staff evaluation, it is concluded that the impacts attributable to the proposed action will be con-
~
fined to those already predicted and describ'ed in the Comission's FES CP issued in 1973.
Having made this conclusion, the Comission has further
(
concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appro-priate.
Dated: April 13,1981 S
e
_ g e
me e
e e
8 oo O
O J
i
~
.e.
ee.
-