ML20049A113
| ML20049A113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000363 |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1978 |
| From: | Finfrock I JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7809070047 | |
| Download: ML20049A113 (87) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. e Jersey Central Power & Ught Company n 4
* -b,#g
' f {'
Madison Avenue at Punch Bcwi Road Mornstown. New Jersey 07960 i f (201)455 8200* August 31, 1978 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 U. S. tiuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn.: Mr. S. A. Varga, Chief Re: Forked River Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-363 Request for Extension of Completion Dates for Construction Permit No. CPPR-96 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 and 50.55 (b) of the Commission's Regulations, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation, hereby re-quests that the Nuclear Regulatory' Commission extend 1977 the estima-and ted earliest and latest completion dates of April 4, October 4, 1978 for the Forked River nuclear generating station as set forth in Construction Permit CPPR-96 to February 1, 1983 and February 1, 1985, respectively. This is the first request for an extension of the completion dates in the Forked River Construction Permit issued by the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission on July 10, 1973, although the staff of the Commission has here-tofore been periodically advised of the developments that were delaying the construction of the station. This request is made against the background of the following facts:
- 1. Following the Arab oil embargo which began in late 1973, Jersey Central and its affiliates (as well as a large number of other electric utilities) began to experience severe financial constraints on their construction programs.
Early in 1974, these dif ficulties were compounded by a series of developments in the capital markets, such as the omission of a regular quarterly dividend on its common stock by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., rapid increases in interest rates for both long-term and short-term debt instruments, the , j inability of securities underwriters to market successfully the securities of some electric utilities, and, in the case of Jersey Central, an unsuccessful effort to sell in May 1974 ~~~~ proposed new issue of preferred stock. g1 q$$0]00 { _f ou kh y
Mr. S. A. Varga August 31, 1978
- 2. As a result of these developments, Jersey Central found it necessary to reduce substantially its construction budget for the years 1974-1976, as well as to make substantial ~
cuts in its operations and maintenance budget, including the discharge of employees. These reductions were made in three steps in 1974, namely (a) in the original 1974-1976 budget pre-pared in January 1974; (b) in the revised budget prepared in June 1974 and (c) in the further revised budget prepared in September 1974.
- 3. The original budget for 1974-1976 was prepared in January 1974, shortly after the Arab oil embargo, before the full impact of the embargo and related matters could be appreciated. That budget reflected some reduction in the pre-embargo budget prepared approximately a year earlier, with the consequence that the scheduled commercial in-service date for As the financing pro-Forked River was postponed to May 1979.
blems increased, further postponements became necessary. The problems being experienced by Jersey Central and their causes, as well as the actions being taken by Jersey Central in response thereto were set forth in a report, dated June 21, 1974, by Jersey Central to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners of the State of New Jersey ("NJBPU"), which was made a matter of public record in proceedings before the NJBPU (Appendix FR-1). As that report and its attachments set forth, one of the conse-quences of the actions which Jersey Central was forced to take at that time was to postpone the start of work on new construc-tion packages at Forked River, to curtail work on existing con-struction packages, to reduce manning levels by the construction manager, and to reduce the level of effort by the architect-engineer. The net result of these changes was to reduce by ap-proximately 20% the forecasted construction expenditures for the project of approximately $234 million contained in the original 1974-1976 construction budget which provided for total construc-tion expenditures of $954 million during the three years. With these actions and assuming that new construction packages could be started in 1975 (and that financing capability for new con-struction would exist at that time), the consequence was to delay the estimated commercial in-service date of Forked River to May 1980. (In connection with these matters, see page 2 of i the attachment to Appendix FR-1.)
- 4. Notwithstanding f avorable interim rate action by the NJBPU in May, 1974, the financial constraints experienced by Jersey Central (and by other electric utilities) grew more severe. Jersey Central submitted to the NJBPU a supplemental re-port, dated July 8, 1974 (Appendix FR-2), reporting on develop-ments since the June 21, 1974 report, to which was annexed a newspaper story reporting on the concerns expressed by White House Economic Counselor Kenneth Rush and Treasury Secretary l
William Simon with respect to the problems generally being ex-perienced by the electric utility industry. That July 8, 1974 ). l. report also referred to Jersey Central's efforts at that time to
Mr. S. A. Varga August 31, 1978 i ef fect during the summer of 1974 a private placement of the to sell in 1974. May preferred stock issue which it had not been able ' (These private placement efforts subsequently proved to be un-successful.)
- 5. By September, 1974, the continued financial deter-ioration being experienced by Jersey Central forced another This was the subject of major cut in its construction budget.1974, to the NJBPU ( Appendix another report, dated September forth, 9, while the original construction FR-3). As therein set budget for 1974-1976 involved expenditures of $954 million and the June 1974 revision reduced expenditures for that period to
$721 million, the September 1974 revision reduced this to $445 One conse-million or less than half of the original budget.
quence of this budget revision was to reschedule the commercial in-service date for Forked River to 1982.
- 6. The constraints experienced by Jersey Central in 1974 in the financing of construction continued during 1975; Jersey Central was able to complete the sale of some bonds and preferred stock in 1975, but the proceeds had to be largely_de-voted to_Igpayment_of the sTcirt-term debt incurred Th- l97T. As a consequence, Jersey Central was not able to initiate during
~
^
1975 any new construction packages relating to Forked River and the activities previously undertaken had to be kept at a reduced level. Even with this constraint, Jersey Central's expenditures on the Forked River project in 1975 amounted to $23.3 million, plus a $25.5 million liability for the turbine-generator.
- 7. On March 29, 1976, the Director of the Division of Marine Services of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (" NJDEP") advised Jersey Central that a Coastal Area Facility Review Act ("CAFRA") permit would be required for the Forked River prior to any further construction activity at site. This requirement could have resulted in a delay, of a year or more beyond January, 1977, in the start of new construc-tion activities as well as a possible need to revise or supple-ment some of the work already done. Jersey Central believed that the position of the Director of the Division of Marine Services was not correct and, on April 21, 1976, requested that the NFDEP Commissioner reverse the Director's determination or conductForked a River plenary hearing on the question as to whether or not was exempt from the permit requirements of CAFRA. Jersey Central's claim that a CAFRA permit was not required was assigned to a While these proceed-hearing of ficer by the NJDEP Commissioner.
ings were pending, Jersey Central reevaluated the construction schedule, assuming for the purpose that the NJDEP decision would be favorable and would be issued early enough in 1976 to permit manning levels by the architect-engineer and construction manager that would support start of new construction packages by January 1977. Even on the basis of these assumptions, Jersey Central s
August 31, 1978 Mr. S. A. Varga concluded that the commercial inservice date for Forked River should be rescheduled from May 1982 to May 1983, as a result of j (1) an increase in the estimated construction craft manhours to complete the project based on the experience of other nuclear projects, and (2) the possible inability of Jersey Central to finance the increase in the construction craft manhours while at the same time maintaining the May, 1982 in-service date.
- 8. On October 26, 1976, the NJDEP Hearing Officer issued his recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law (Appendix FR-4), to the effect that Jersey Central was entitled to a determination by the NJDEP Commissioner that the Forked River project is exempt from the permit requirements of CAFRA.
In December 1976, the NJDEP Commissioner adopted these recommen-dations. However, the possibility up to this time of an unf avor-able decision with the attendant possible need for_ des.ign and retrofitting changes prevented Jersey Central, the architect-- -
' engineer, and the cd5struction manager from increasing manning levels to support major new construction activities before mid-1977. Af ter receipt of the favorable decision, manning levels substantial work on site were increased and, in July 1977, facilities was in progress. JCP& L had received a Water Diversion Permit from the state of Newinto Jersey. However, the plan to dis-an on-site borrow pit proved charge
_in dewatering effluentthereby delaying excavation until receipt of the fautsible, Federal NPDES Discharge Permit for construction-relatedinactivi-ties. An application for an NPDES permit was filed and, September 1977, the NPDES permit was received, but the permit was not effour-month additional fective untildelay late October. in the startTheof net result was excavation on an Forked River.
- 9. As a result of the delay in the start of construc-tion resulting from the CAFRA review, and the delay in the start of excavation associated with the NPDES permit requirement, the in-service date for Forked River was revised from May, 1983 to December, 1983. This is currently the scheduled in-service date for the project, of which the NRC has been notified.
This request for an extension of completionin dates for the pro-Forked River was necessitated by construction delays ject w!lich_were beyond the control of_ the Applicant the most The most recent significant of which nave been outlined above. GPU Load and Capacity Forecast (Appendix FR-5) evidences the and cur-need to have Forked River in service by December 1983, rent reviews indicate that this target date is attainable; hence, our request for a revised earliest completion date of
o . Mr. S. A. Varga August 31, 1978 February 1, 1983. However, experience dictates that a reasonable
~
incorporated into nuclear A wage for uncertainties should bewhich is the basis for our selec - plant construct-ton srhEdtrres, 1985. tion of the estimated latect completion date of February 1, Since the requested extension of the completion dates in the construction permit involves no significant hazards con-siderations, it is respectfully requested that the Commission dispense with the notice and publication requirements as per-mitted under Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Your prompt and favorable consideration of this request will be appreciated. Very truly yours,
,' , /*i !& #<
5:571 5 Ivan R. Finfyock, Jr. Vice President IRF:ss enc. 1 t
FORKED RIVER PLANT CANCELLATION On Thursday, November 6,1980, the management of GPU recommended cancellation of the Forked River Nuclear Plant to the GPU Directors. GPU Chairman William Kuhns said,
- Financing limitations, environmental and regulatory delays and uncertainties, coupled with an anticipated high rate of inflation, made continuation of the project imprudent." Construction of Forked River began in 1973 but due to various financial delays ( 1974 oil embargo and TMI-2),
is only 5% completed. The newly formed GPU Huclear Group, which would have taken over the project from Jersey Central Power and Light, met on Friday, November 14, 1980, and accepted the cancellation plans for the Forked River plant. GPU Nuclear is now preparing a formal application to NRC for the termination of the Forked River license. 6
) , . .
~
O PSEG . \ Public Service Ekctric and Gas Company 80 Park Plaza Newar k, 'N .J. 07101 Phone 201/430-7000 j December 29, 1981 si -
/t %
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CECElygg q U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ch 7920 Norfolk Avenue ,
- DEC3 0198> ._
Bethesda, Maryland 20014 { C c.2: j
% e._inr % ',
E?ps u 'l
Dear Mr. Denton:
/~/
?-l HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION N 8 NO. 2 UNIT DOCKET NO. 50-355 CPPR-121 -
WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION On November 4, 1974, construction permit number CPPR-121 was issued to Public Service Electric and Gas Company and Atlantic City Electric Company for Hope Creek Unit 2. On December 23, 1981, the Board of Directors of Public Service resolved to abandon the construction of this unit. A copy of this resolution is attached for your information. Pursuant to the provisions of'this resolution, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, on its own behalf and on behalf of Atlantic City Electric Company, hereby withdraws its application for licenses for Hope Creek Unit 2. Respectfully submitted, PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AN GAS COMPANY
~ '
T. J. Martin Vice President - Engineering and Construction
' Sworn to and subscribed )
4h before me this0N day ) 300 1 of December, 1981. ) l l l l
. . .. .- OcJw- -
l NOTARY PUBUC 0F NEW SEY
/t 4 My Commission Expires A;n!!S,1984 The Eneray People -
1 - 9 9 1 1 m , =- - ;~ ^: ,8 1 1 2 22 g g
s.. ,* . l l l l PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS December 23,1981 WHEREAS, two 1,067 megawatt nuclear fueled electric generating units (Hope Creek Unit I and Hope Creek Unit 2) presently scheduled for commercial operation in 1986 and 1989, respectively, are under construction in Lower Alloways , Creek Township, New Jersey, pursuant to construction permits issued by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and this Company has a general contract effective January 9,1974 with Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) for such - purpose, and this Company and Bechtel, as agent for this Company, have entered into various other contracts associated with Hope Creek Units 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, this Company has an agreement dated April 28,1977 with Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE), providing for the participation of ACE in the costs and output of Hope Creek Units ! and 2 on the basis of an undivided interest of 95% for this Company and 5% for ACE, and under said agreement with
. ACE this Company has the responsibility and authority for the units' design and construction and the determination of the timing and nature of a!! obligationsin connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the two units were conceived and designed together so as to take advantage of economies of scale at a time when this Company's electric peak demand was growing at an annual rate about 7.5%, as compared with the current projected annual rate of peak load growth of approximately 1.3%, and it is 0
1 + e e t *
- - l
now apparent that the capacity from Hope Creek Unit 2 is not needed to meet load by 1990, and anticipated fuel savings from operation of Hope Creek Uni,t 2 beginning in.1989 would require the expenditure of large amounts of capital beginning in 1984; and WHEREAS, this Company has invested approximately $1.5 billion, including .
~ ~ ~
$265, million of allowance for funds used dyring construction (AFDC), in Hope ~
Creek Units I and 2, of which approximately $335 million, including $50 million of AFDC, is allocable to Hope Creek Unit 2; and WHEREAS, if Hope Creek Unit 2 should be abandoned, this Company would expect to transfer a portion of the costs allocable to Hope Creek Unit 2 to Hope Creek Unit I as necessary therefor and to recover the balance of such costs, plus net cancellation and close out costs and nuclear fuel costs, all amounting to approximately $172 million af ter the Federal income tax effect, over a period of approximately 12 or 15 years through this Company's rates commencing July 1, 1982, and to exclude the unrecovered portion from rate base during that period,in accordance with a stipulation between counsel for this Company and the Department of Public Advocate of New Jersey, a copy of which was presented to this meeting and ordered to be, filed with the records of this meeting; and ' WHEREAS, the management of this Company has advised this Board that in its' judgment it is in the best interest of this Company to abandon Hope Creek Unit 2, to terminate the aforesaid contract with Bechtelinsofar as it relates to the completion of Unit 2, to terminate the various other contracts relating to Unit 2 w i e
~
L - _
u except insof ar as they are necessary for the continued construction of Hope Creek Unit i or are advantageous to retain other than for the completion of Hope Creek Unit 2, and to give notice of such termination to Bechtel before January 1,1982, and this Board concurs in such judgment of the management: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the project of this Company for the construction of Hope Creek Unit 2, and all rights of this Company therein, be and they hereby are abandoned, and that prior to January 1,1982 this Company give notice to (1) Bechtel Power' Corporation of the termination of the aforesaid contract with Bechtelinsofar as it relates to the construction of Hope Creek Unit 2, (2) the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the abandonment of Hope Creek 2 and withdrawal of this Company's applications for licenses with respect thereto, and (3) Atlantic City Electric Company of the abandonment of , Hope Creek Unit 2; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of this Company be and they hereby are authorized and directed to take such other and further action as in their _ judgment may be necessary or advisable to effectuate the abandonment of Hope Creek Unit 2, the notification of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Atlantic City Electric Company with respect thereto, and the termination of the aforesaid
. contract with Bechtel insofar as it relates to the completion of Unit 2 and the contracts relating to Unit 2 except insofar as they are necessary for the continued construction of Hope Creek Unit I or are advantageous to retain other than for the 0
9 O' i Ol e
- -. * ; . ~ , -
. 4-completion of Unit 2, and to execute and deliver such notices and other written
~
instruments and documents as they shall deem necessary or appropriate for such purposes. 1 I hereby certify that the foregoing Is a true copy of resolutions duly adopted by the Board of' Directors of Public Service Electric and Gas Company at a meeting held on December 23,1981. I(.( c Assistant Secretary e F e e e i s t e s k I l 4 9 $ & O 6 D6
j
~
I Washington Public Power Supply System l P.O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Hichland Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 February 1,1982 G0-1-82-0041 Docket flos: 50-509 50-513 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U. S. tiuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
Subject:
TERMINATION OF SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECTS 4 AND 5 (WNP-4 and WNP-5) On January 22, 1982, the Washington Public Power Supply System Board of Directors adoptyd a resolution terminating the Supply System's Nuclear Projects Nos. 4 and 5. Construction work on these two (2) projects essentially was halted by the Supply System in July 1981, with the intent that an extended construction delay would continue until June 30, 1983. We advised the staff of this construction deferral by letter to Mr. H. R. Denton dated October 26, 1981. Those projects were under construction pursuant to Construction Permits CPPR-174 and CPPR-155, respectively. At the time that work was halted,
-WNP-4 was 24% complete and WNP-5 was 16% complete.
The Supply System has developed a plan for termination of these projects which contemplates two phases. Phase One involves efforts to sell the plants intact to a new owner. The Supply System will maintain the plant structures and equipment in a licensable condition at least through Phase One and possibly thereafter, and will comply with the conditions of the Construction Permits and the requirements of flRC regulations. We intend by and during these efforts to retain the Construction Permits. We are willing to meet with your staff to brief it on details of the efforts contemplated. Phase Two of the termination plan will commence only after the Supply System determines, subject to the rights of the Participants and Pacific Power and Light (10% owner of WNP-5), that it is no longer prudent to expect that the projects can be sold in their entirety within a reasonable time and without unreasonable expense. No definite time period has been set for completion of the first phase and initiation of the second. a , a ' y gw a
e . , . W. J. Dircks Page 2 February 1,1982 WNP-4/5 Termination In Phase Two, plant equipment and materials will be sold or otherwise disposed of in a prudent manner, in accordance with applicable contractual and legal procedures. With regard to WNP-4, the application for an Operating License for WNP-1 and WNP-4, including the FSAR, FER and General Information Document, was submitted to the NRC on November 25, 1981. Because we intended at that time to resume construction of WNP-4 following the extended delay, the application addressed both WNP-1 and WNP-4. Recent events dictate that the application address only WNP-1 now and until further notice. Very truly yours,
~%
R. L. Ferguton Managing Director , GCS/sm ,p . .
=
cc: HR Denton NRC V Stello NRC i EG Adensam NRC A Schwencer NRC RH Engelken NRC Region V NS Reynolds D&L C M
. 1 i
~
4 __.. J
.r ...
- .. s.,
c . ( . pa %
- e **
UNITED STATES 8b % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ e$ WASHINGTON D C. 20555
%,,,,,# GCT : 1379 Docket Nos: 50-416 and 50-417 Mr. N. L. Stampley, Vice President Production and Engineering Mississippi Powr & Light Company .
P. O. Box 1640 Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Dear Mr. Stampley:
SUBJECT:
' EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATES (GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)
In response to your letters dated April 28, 1978, August 31, 1979 anif September 25, 1979_ requesting an. extension of the construction completion dates for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued an Order extending those dates. In lieu of the earliest and latest construction completion dates of April 1,1979 and October 1,1979, respectively, the earliest and latest construction completion dates of Construction Permit No. CPPR-118 have been extended to September 1,1980 and March 1,1982,~ respectively. In lieu of the earliest and latest constructi'on completion dates of October 1,1980 and April 1,1981, respectively, the earliest and latest completion dates of Construc-tion Pennit No. CPPR-119 have. been extended to April 1,1983 and October 1,1984, respectively. Copies of the Order, the staff evaluation, environmental impact appraisal and negative declaration are enclosed for your information. Tha Order has been forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Sincerely,
& j, f 0 sw Rbbert L. B'aer, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
- 1. Order Extending Construction
. Completion Dates
- 2. Evaluation of Request for Extension- .,
- 3. Environmental Impact Appraisal ~,# -
- 4. Negative Dsclaration [ 1. ' .
cc: 7WM MO See next page N . y
'u
.(
5 007 ac i;;3
'Ir. N. L. Stampley cc: Mr. Robert B. McGehee, Attorney Wisc, Carter, Child, Steen &
Caraway P. 0. Box 651 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq. i ~ Conner, Moore & Corber 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. W shington, D. C. 20006 Mr. Adrian Zaccaria, Project Engineer , Grand Gulf fluclear Station l Bechtel Power Corporation . Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760 1 l Coordinator l Suite 400, Watkins Building ' ~ 510 George Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201-Office of the Governor State of Mississippi ' Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Mr. William Matt Ross, President Claiborne County Board of Supervisors Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office ATTN: . EIS Coordinator 345 Courtland Street, N. W. Atlanta,-Georga 30308 e s O t
~ ..-
~
- WMD 9
e 4
1 (
. . ( .
MISSISSIPPI P0kER t, LIGHT C0fPANY MIDDLE SOUTil ENERGY , INC.
' DOCKET NOS. 50-416 AND '50-417 Q, ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION C0fPLETION DATES -
Mississippi Power & Light Company and Middle South Energy, Inc. are the ' holders of Construction Pennits Nos. CPPR-ll8 and CPPR-119 issued by the Atomic Energy Comission* on September 4,1974 for the construction of the ~ Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, presently under construction at the site of Middle South Energy, Inc. in Claiborne County, Mississippi. By letters dated April 28, 1978, August 31, 1979 and September 25, 1979, Mississippi. Power & Light Company, on behalf of itself and as agent for Middle South Energy, Inc., requested an extension of the construction completion dates
- for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. The extension was requested because construction had been delayed due to, among other things, (1) later than expected receipt of a Limited Work Authorization, (2) adverse weather' con-ditions, (3) a labor strike, (4) a number of design modifications, (5) lower than expected bulk comodity installation rates and (6) financial and power generation requirements.
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 seti. forth in a staff evalua, tion of the request
- Effective January 20, 1975, the Atomic Energy Comission became the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and Permits in effect on that day were continued under the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
~
p,
.s s .. /
L73 [u r]D'
,, / , -
C L-
(
.o . .
for extension. The preparation of an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant -impact attributable to the Order other than that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the Grand Gu Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 published in August 1973. An Environmental Impact Appraisal and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this action. For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Mississippi Power
& Light Company's letters dated April 28, 1978, August 31, 1973 and September 25, 1979 requesting an extension of the construction compl'etion dates, and (2) the staff's related evaluation, environmental impact appraisal and negative declara-tion all of which are available for public inspection at the Commission's~ Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20555 and at the Claiborne County Courthouse, Port Gibson, Mississippi 39150.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the earliest and latest construction completion dates are extended for CPPR-ll8 from April 1,1979 and October 1,1979, respec-tively, to September 1,1980 and March 1,1982, respectively; and for CPPR-119 from October 1,1980 and April 1,1981, respectively, to April 1,1983 and October 1,1984, respectively. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dom nic B. Vassallo, Acting Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: October 30, 1979 l
. '. l 4
9
i
. .. ( .
EVALUATION OF RE00(_ST FOR EXTENSION OF , CONSTRUCTION PERMITS N':5. CPPR-ll8 AMD CPPR-119 FOR THE GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AMD 2 DOCKET N05. 50-416 AND 50-417 I ntroduction , By letters dated April 28, 1978, August 31, 1979 and September 25, 1979, Mississippi Power & Light Company, on behalf of itself and as an agent for Middle South Energy, Inc., requested an extension of the construction completion dates for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Mississippi Power & Light Company stated that the construction schedules have been revised for various reasons resulting in total construction delays of approximately 17 and 30 months for Units 1 and 2, respectiv'ely. The earliest and 1atest construction completion dates requested for Unit 1 are from April 1,1979 and October 1,1979, respectively, to September 1,1980 and March 1,1982, respectively; and for Unit 2 from October 1,1980 and April 1,1981, respectively, to April 1,1983 and October 1, ,1984, respectively. Discussion Mississippi Poter & Light Company attributes the delay for Unit 1 to (1) later than expected receipt of a Limited Work Authorization, (2) adverse weather condi-tions, (3) a labor strike, (4) a number of design modifications and (5) lower than expected bulk commodity installation rates. The delay for Unit 2 is attributed to financial and power generation requirements in addition to those factors that contributed to the delay of Unit 1. Details of the factors contributing to the approximately 17-month delay for Unit 1 are as follows: (1) Mississippi Power & Light' Company had originally expected to receive in early April 1974 a Limited Work Authorization which would allow certain construction activities to be performed prior to the issuance of the construction pemit. However, the Limited Work Authorization was not issued until May 3,1974. Consequently, Mississippi Power & Light Company attributes one month of the total delay to this factor. (2 ) Unusually hea'vy rainfall froni the summer of 1974 to early spring of 1975 severely impaired the movement and efficiency of heavy equipment. Mississippi Poner & Light Company attributes three months of the total delay to this factor. (3 ) During July and August 1975, a labor strike virtually halted all construction progress. Mississippi Power & Light Company attributes two months of the < total delay to this factor.
/
- /
/ /- /
~f .
O 8.,
( \ i
-?-
(4) During 1975 and 1976, a number of design modifications, including codifi- 5[ cations 'to the drywell wall, suppression pool and reactor pressure vessel - pedestal and modifications due to our review of the suppression poul swell phenomenon, severely impacted construction progress. Mississippi Power & Light Company attributes three months of the total delay to this factor. , (5) Lower than expected rate of installation of bulk commodities (concrete, large and small pipe, conduit and cable trays, wire and cable) was expe-rienced due ,to lack of the proper level of skilled labor, late completion of the structures into which the commodities were to be installed and late delivery of some commodities to the jobsite. Mississippi Power & Light Company attributes eight months of the total delay to this factor. Details of the factors contributing to the approximately 30-month delay for Unit 2 are as follows: (1) In mid-1975, Middle South Utilities, Inc. announced its decision to delay l l the construction of Unit 2 due to such factors as inflation, cost and availability of capital, cost of accommodating environmental requirements, l reappraisal cf electric load growth and the impact of price elasticity
- and conservation upon energy usage. Mississippi Power & Light Company attributes 24 months of the total delay to this factor.
]
(2) In late 1976, it was realized that the construction schedule for Unit 2, I like that for Unit 1, was optimistic. Since it was felt that the lessons learned on Unit 1 would offset some of the potential slippage on Unit 2, Mississippi Power & Light Company attributes six months of the to;al delay to this factor. The requested 18-month intervals between the earliest and latest construction completion dates for both units are based upon uncertainties associated with the construction and licensing schedules. Mississippi Power & Light Company estimates the uncertainties associated with meeting its overall construction schedules to be six months. Mississippi Power & Light Company estimates the uncertainties associated'with the licensing schedules, considering such factors as lead plant containment loads, Three Mile Island impacts and review manpower availability, to be 12 months. , S w F
, e e
- o
, t . t 4
Conclusions Based on our review of Mississippi Power & Light Company's request, we cbnclude that the factors discussed,above are reasonable and constitute good cause for delay. Based on our evaluation of the causes for delay, we conclude that the , requested extensions are for reasonable periods of time. As a result of our revien of the Final Safety Analysis Report to date and con-sidering the nature of the delays, we have identified no area of significant safety considerations in connection with the extension of the construction completion dates for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Therefore, we find that (1) this actio'n does not involve a significant hazards consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the extension of the construction comple-tion dates; (3) the issuance of this order for the extension of a permit for the construction of the facilities will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the hcalth and safety of the public; and (4) good cause exists for ths issuance of an Order extending the completion dates. The preparation of an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no significant impact attributable to the Order other
~
than that which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 published in August 1973. An Environmental Impact Appraisal and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this action. Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the earliest and latest completion dates for the construction of the Giand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, as set forth in CPPR-ll8, to September 1,1980 and March 1,1982.respectively; and of Unit 2, as set forth in CPPR-119, to April 1,1983 and October 1,1984 respectively, is reasonable and should be author zed.
~
l % C-Thomas C. Houghton, Pro l ject Manager i Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management f & Y. /.S.-t.ny Robert L. Baer, Chief
. Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2
, Division of Project Management Dated: October 30, 1979 .
.- d
. e e e
7b:i91FUV
. . t e,
flEGATIVE DECLARATION -{ SUPPORTING ORDER FOR EXTEllSION OF CONSTRUCTION C0f4PLETION DATES - C0ilSTRUCTION PERMITS NOS. CPPR-ll8 AND CPPR-119 ,. GRAhD GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-416 AND 50-417 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (The Commission) has reviewed
- the ORDER relating to extension of construction permits CPPR-118 and CPPR-119 for Grand Gulf Nuc1 car Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Claiborne County, Mississippi. The construction permits are issued to the Mississippi Power
& Light Company. The ORDER would authorize extension of the earliest and latest construction completion dates of Units 1 and 2 as follows:
Unit 1: From April 1,1979 and October 1,1979, to September 1,1980 and March 1, 1982. , Unit 2: From October 1,1980 and April 1,1981, to April 1,1983 and October 1, 1984. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, the Comission's Divisic . Site Safety and Environmental' Analysis has prepared an environmental impact appraisal (EIA) for the ORDER. The Commissien has conclu'ded that an environmental impact statement for this action is not warranted, because there will be no significant adverse environmental impacts affecting the quality of the human environment attributable to the proposed action in addition to those evaluated in the Commission's Final Environmental ~ Statement for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 issued in August 1973, and currently experienced at that site. No significant e
7590-01
. ( .
_g_ adverse incremental or cumulative impacts are expected to occur by - - extending the construction completion dates. A negative declaration is therefore appropriate. , The environmental impact appraisal is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C., and at the local public document room located in the Claiborne County Courthouse, Port Gibson, Mississippi, 39150. A copy of the EIA may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis. Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 30th day of October 1979. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hr C(W/C$YZ .d Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis e N
,o 9
e e
I
. *.. t l ffgg d R'Cg)* g UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasHINGTO V. D. C. 20$55 r,, yl
.....f s, E'4VIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES FOR_ d CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 110S. CPPR-118 A!4D CPPR-119 GRAND Gut.F NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-416 AND 50-417 ENVIRONMEllTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL Description of the Proposed Action By letter dated August 31, 1979, and as updated by letter dated September r 25, 1979, Mississippi Power & Light Company filed a request with the Nuclea.
Regulatory Commission to extend the earliest and latest dates for completion
~ of construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 andproposed The action 2, as specified by the
- in Construction Permits CPPR-118 and CPPR-119. pennittee is the issuance of an Order providing for extension of the
' earliest and latest construction completion dates of Units 1 and 2 as follows:
Unit 1: From April 1,1979 and October 1,1979, to September 1,1980 and March 1, 1982. Unit 2: From October 1,1980 and April 1,1981, to April 1,1983 and October 1, 1984. The staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) relating to construction of Grand Gulf fluclear Station, Units 1 and 2, was published in August 1973. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action Constructionofth'eGrandGulfflucigarStationisapproximately82% At this stage of completion, most (Unit 1) and 13% (Unit 2) complet'e. of the impacts to land, water, and ecosystems have already occurred. Those that have not (e.g., impacts associated wit:i start-up operations) The are expected to be as predicted in the staff's August 1973 FES. remaining impacts of construction that can be expected as a result of the proposed action are principally those socioeconomic impacts associated with the construction labor force. The construction 1 abor force is In the staff's presently at its peak and totals about 4700 workers.2 August 1973 FES, the peak construction force was estimated to be 2600-workers. Based on this estimate, the FES discussed potential impacts l
@ lj I
('
- 1
, _3 .
of this labor force to the surrounding communities. At that time, the staffindicatedaconcernovertheregion'sabilitytoabsorbtheeducational,( medical, and traffic requirements associated with this labor force. The staff has contacted certain local officials in order to establish the , socioeconomic impacts that have occurred to date and that can be expected during the remaining period of construction. This environmental impact ' appraisal discusses the results of these staff contacts, and documents the staff conclusion that there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed extension of the construction permit completion dates. The staff has confirmed that traffic on U.S. Route 61 and on the county road connecting Route 61 wjth the site has increased considerably over that predicted in the FES. However*, traffic congestion is being mitigated by the addition of a manually controlled traffic light at the intersection of U. S. Route 61 and the county road to the plant site and by the use of Mississippi Power a Light security personnel to assist in traffic control. The Claiborne County Road and Bridge Project, referred to in the FES, 'is expected to be completed within the year and will provide an additional route for some commuters. Completion of this project will alleviate traffic congestion in the area. Although the traffic situation is viewed as a serious problem by the County Sheriff's Office, the impacts from this problem will not increase as a result of the proposed action given that 'the construction is now at its peak, and will be decreasing during the time of extension of the construction permits. Thus, the contribution of the construction force to traffic congestion and the overall traffic congestion that results from this project will be in sharp decline. The anticipated sgortage of medical facilities in Claiborne County has not materialized. A major addition and renovation of the Claiborne County Hospital was completed in 1977, and it is viewed as fully capable of handling the increased needs of the County. Two additional doctors have been attracted to the region and a third doctor may also relocate there. The Claiborne County hospital administrator believes that the improvements to the hospital and the location of new doctors in the area were due entirely'to the construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. Increased pressure on public sch' o ols has not materialized in the City of Vicksburg or in Claiborne County.5 The majority of construction workers have settled in Harren County and, given the current peak constructign force, the 1979-1980 school year is experiencing some overcrowding. The overcrowding is most pronounced at the elementary school level. One school has had to add approximately ten temporary classrooms. The Warren County School Board is presently letting a contract for a new school that should be available in about a year and a half. The Warren County High School is also overcrowded, with an enrollment of approximhtely 1900 in a facility designed to accommodate 1600 students. Facilities of e 8 . , G 6
, 1 . . , e ae the junior high school are also strair.ed, but the situation there is not viewed as serious. Superintendent Binks of the Warren County school system believes the system is meeting the needs of the students, but _,
that any additional student load, particularly at the elementary school . i level, would make the system unmanageable. The construction project - work force is reportedly presently at its peak, and the permittee's - latest construction manpower schedule projects that labor requirements . will be some 1200 less by January 1981, and will have declined another , 500 by Jangary 1982.7 Thus, judging from the remaining work to be completed.o extending the construction permit for Grand Gulf should not result in any substantial net flow of additional students to Warren County Schools during the current school year. Furthermore,.the student load attributed to the work force at Grand Gulf is expected to decline for the 1980-1981 school year. Accordingly, we find that the impacts on schools from the construction work during the period of construction permit extension will be insignificant given that the construction work force will begin to decline and continue to decline .over the next several years. , The requested extension of the earliest and latest completion dates to September 1,1980 and March 1,1982, for Unit 1 and April 1,1983 and October 1.1984 for Unit 2, are expected to shif t comunity impacts in time and extend the total time the region is subjected to these temporary
~
impacts. Tha staff believes that, since the project is already in the midst of its pa k manswer utilization, the communities surrounding the site have experienced the maximum level of socioeconomic impacts associated with constructiog of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station that were predicted in the 1973 FES. These impacts are not expected to worsen and will decrease with time because of reduction in the labor force. Thus, any further impacts resulting from the proposed action will be insignificant increments to those already expvienced. Finally, extension of the permits will not result in impacts which have not already been identified by the staff and may result in moderation of impacts compared to those associated with a more compressed construction schedule. Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis and the staff evaluation, it is concluded that there will be no significant incremental environmental
. impact attributable to the proposed extension of construction in addition to that alreadj predicted and evaluated in the Commission's FES issued in August 1973, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision of April 5,1974, and that Board's Initial Decision of August 30, 1974. Having reached this conclusion, the staff has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Dated: October 30, 1979 em G _M
( . (.
. .4 1.
Letter, L. F. Dal',e Mississippi Power a L'ght i Co., to J. F. Stolz,
][ .'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 31, 1979. - 2. Telephone conversation with Paul Holton, Environmental Project Manager, Mississippi Power & Light Co., October 5,1979. .
- 3. Telephone conversation with John Cupit, Deputy Sheriff of Claiborne County,' October 5, 1979.
- 4. Telephone conversation with E. P. Spencer, Hospital Administrator of Claiborne County, October 5, 1979.
- 5. Telephone conversation with Dr. Robert Cochrah, Vicksburg Board of Education, October 5, 1979.
- 6. Telephone conversation with Mr. Sharp Banks, Superintendent, Harren County Board of Education, October 5, 1979.
-7.
Telephone communication from Mr. Paul Holton, Mississippi Power & Light Company, Total Site Population Projections as of August 1979.
- 8. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Summary of August 21-22, 1979 Case Load Forecast Panel and Site Visit, Grand Gulf Huclear Station, September 12, 1979.
- 9. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,. Final Environmental Statement, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Section 4.4, August 1973.
. e
- 1
=
e r% 1 . -
_ - . - - . - . ~ . . - - . . - .
-\ 7 _.
s
. - i a v ;G n n t'c. ier.
SEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION in the Matter of NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, ET. AL. Docket STN 50-464 (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) f,- i
, REQUEST BY BADGER SAFE ENERGY
/ ALLI ANCE , INC. , FOR REVOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
- 1. Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.202, Badger Safe Energy Alliance, Inc. (BSEA), requests the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to institute a proceeding to revoke the const ruct ion permi t granted to the applicants in the above matter (the Tyrone Applicants) on December 23, 1977.
2.10 CFR 550.100 provides: "A . . . const ruction permi t may be revoked . . . for failure to construct ... a facility in accordance with the terms of the con-struction permit."
}. Attached as Exhibit A is an accurate copy of a news release issued by the Tyrone Applicants on July 24, 1979, stating their intention not to construct ,
Tyrone. (
- 4. Attached as Exhibit'B is an accurate copy of a letter f rom Arthur V. .
3ienbart to H.R. Denton requesting the Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to terminate further action in tnis docnet.
- 5. Attached as E..hibi t C is an accurate cocv of a letter from legal counsel to t.'e Tyrone \policants to the chai rmen of the Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board and 4tomic Saf ety and Licensing Acocal Board assigned to this docket requesting termination of 'urther action in inis doc 4et.
JA. Attached as i4nibit C-1 g ,an, accurate ecov of a memorandum issued ay ;he }p
%, cone Atomic 3afatv and L i c.*ns i n e.g S ca r J vitn resocct to 15e request of counsel
- 4
...e- ed to i- Saraarsch 5 this i!inc. /
[) A-i t nesuc W i (
.~
a .. '. .
%, onverience and necessity (~ei c .
Pactic Service comission. On March 6,1979, the wisconsin Pt.clic Ser ei .c Conunission denied the application by the Tyrone Applicants for such a certificate of public convenience and necessity. This decision of the Wisconsin Public . Sarvice townission was appealed by the Tyrone Applicants to a Visconsin court of competent jurisdiction. Attached as Exhibit 0 is an accurate copy of Notice of Motion and Motion filed with such court by legal counsel to the Tyrone Applicants requesting an order dismissiong such appeal on its merits with pre-judice. Attached as Exhibit E is an accurate copy of the order of such court dismissing such appeal on its merits with prejudice.
- 7. BSEA is a Wisconsin non-stock corporation forned for the purpose of opposing construction of Tyrone and associated transmission lines. Its members include persons wno live on or near the site of the proposed plant and who own land within the corridors of proposed transmission lines associated with the proposed plant. In addition BSEA's members include persons living within 50 miles of the si te of the proposed plant. The members of BSEA would be adversely affected A
dy construction of Tyrone, t/
~
/ f j; e,'
)ated: August 15. 1379 i ,
P. i cha rd Ihriq Attorney for Baccer Saf e Enere,y . Alliance, Inc. 875 Sunnit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 612-227 C171 A. i - I
e a
- t. Y l u.:
"o" " " " " * "
F R O M * ' * .,a # 3 414 NIC O L L(T MA L L. MINN t A Pua k. ? *
- FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
Beth Allen Communications Representative 612/330-7679 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 7-24-79 I TYRONE ENERGY PARK CANCELLED r r i Co-owners of the proposed Tyrone Energy Park today can-celled the 1,100-megawatt nuclear power plant planned for western Wisconsin. 5 "We believe that it will not be possible to license and build the project in time to meet the needs of our customers," said Don McCarthy, Northern States Power Co.-Minnesota board chairman and president. l McCarthy made his comments at a news conference today, after the project's co-owners voted to cancel the unit. Co-owners of the project and their participation are: NSP-Wisconsin Co.
~
I of Eau Claire, Wisc., 67.6 percent: Cooper ative Power Asss-clation of Edtna, Minn., 17.4 percent: DairyLand Power Cooperative of La Crosse, Wisc., 13 percent; and Lake Super tor Distr tet Power Co. of Ashland, Wisc two percent.
"The co-owners believe that Tyrone cannot be licensed in the 1990s and that other options must be pursued to insure an ade-quate supply of electricity," McCarthy said. Itc added that NdP-Wisconsin has proposed a o50-megawatt coal-fired plant to bc ic-
...more...
g _ l 2, r-- , ; -t s n CD % o v'
i . t l . i N cated in western Wisconsin. It is scheduled to be in se.vt i 1987. Dairyland Power Cooperative also is planning a 650-mego.at. 1 coal-fired unit in Wisconsin. Both projects are subject to regu-l latory approvals. The mein reason for the Tyrone cancellation is the March 6 l
) denial of the project by the Public Service Commission of Wiscon- [
sin. A month later, the co-owners filed an appeal of that order in Eau Claire County Circuit Court. "However, even with a suc-i cessful court appeal, the co-owners believe a 1986 in-service date could not be met," McCarthy s&id. The March accident at the Three Mlle Island nuclear plant in I Pennsylvanta was considered by the co-owners in making the dects ton.
" Generally, the accident has increased the uncertainties about the future of nuclear power," McCarthy said. "These uncertaintics 4
make it less likely that the Tyrone project could be licensed in a timely fashion."
'I McCarthy emphasized that the company is still committed to nuclear power and that "Tyrone represents the most econcmical and best method of meeting the needs of our customers.' There is no question in our minds that nuclear power plants are safe, de pe nd-l able and economical. However, if nuclear plants cannot be lleensed l tn a timely fashion, another option must be pursued," he Odded.
The pro)cct's co-owners share a total f inancial commitn.cnt estimated at $105 million for the project. NSP's estimated $d0 J million portion includes about 540 million spent to date on the y project and en additional 540 million commitment for contracted o equipment.
...mcre... !
- a. . ,
-. . . . l S
AS *nc Tyronc cencellition occurred in 1979, McCarthi
/
tt ts appropriate thtt a wrtte-off uC tne loss beytn in i v , > . five-year amortization plan is anticipated. McCar thy said the ' company will include Tyronc costs an future rate ftltngs.
"llowever, we do not contemplate any increases in the rates in 1979, desptte th.
paid by our Minnesota or Wisconsin customers Tyrone write-off," McCarthy said. He explained that rate cases, are not determined by one item of expense but upon the accumula-tion of E_1 costs. That accumulation currently is not sufficient to warrent a rate increase. NSP's last Minnesotc clectric rctc increase went into effect in June 1977.
"NSP is a highly regulated company in which the financial benefits of successful operation are passed on to customers in thetr electric rates. Consequently, it is appropriate to paus on Tyrone losses since they were incurred in good fatth throush prudent activities, " McCar thy said .
"Overall, the write-of f would amount to about S3.00 annually f or the typical Minnesota residential customer over the five-year pertod. of course, the ultimate effect on cu.tomer balls will be determined by the appropriate regulatory authnritics.
"In any event, we still don' t expect NSP's electric rates t .u increase, on average, any more than the general inflation este over the next five years, McCarthy said.
The Tyrone project began in 1973 when NSP announced plans tu The
- =nstruct a nuclear power plant at the Durand, Wisc., site.
r eceral Nuclear Regulatory Commtssion issued a cons truet ton pe rm .t llowever, the state permtt for for the project in Decemoer 1977 tne project was dented last March. _ o ,s o- a-
.LU L), Lr% s NOM 1 HERN 5YATE5 POWER COMPA N Y
. cu .. .. - u n . .
(
== = = ,v y ..,
July 26, 1979 NURC - 88 Nr H R Denturi, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U S iius.iear Regulatory Cousuinsion Washington, D C 20555
Subject:
TYRONE ENERGY PARX E-7470 Docket No. STN 50-484 Dear Mr Denton On July 24. 1979 Northern States Power Cormany announced a cecision by tr.e co-owners of Tyrone Energy Park to cancel the project. The co-cuncrs conchded that the consequences flowing from the denial of the project on Harcn b, I's79 oy the Wisconsin Public Service Connission would prevent the project fro:n beir.g placed in service on a schedule required by projected needs for power. A c c;:y of a news release explaining the cancellation is attached. in light of the decision to cancel the Tyrone Energy Park project, it is reouestec that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation tc.. inate further action in tnis dncket. % P Yours very truly , W /
/ Jusu . ,
.W3/i!aJ .
cc J E Arthur G Charnoff J P Madgett J G Xcupler K S Austin G L Koester 0 T McPhee J K Bryan T V Lennick N A Petrick Cn this 26th day of July,1979, before :ne a notiry public in and for sano Cot.n:/. grscnally appeared Arthur V Diennart, Vice President, and being first duly s.scrn icknowledgea that ne is autnorized to execute this docurrent on behalf of :.or .crn States Pwce Co.pany, a Jiscon>in corporation, that ne knows tne contents inarecf. and that to the best of his knowledge, inforcation, and belief, the statorer.ts ;. ace i i it are true and that it is not interposed for celay. hD,_ ju g- ', s
<WE M tuoert i .'essian
^-^ T
^\
=~ -
ROGERT E. HESSIA*;
=m:n, I
Notary P@lic, dennepin County, Minnesota 3 (~ N'tN"P. - .'
- t I % >fw. w .v-i., .. .., a , . .
My L:mmission E4aires May 15, 1983 *h - - - - - . - a ps)
- . . pr. FC L I
, c D'- D g c(cic4 M F-
i 1 i I e ! 4 .
. n 1. ; . . ;'C T' S & I R Q vv 6 A i G i
! 4 c c = s*.t c - - ansa =oto=. s c acose
#!r!.'.*7. ';*'*" ;?.'A ::".'b.-a. ...... .. *2.*31'L* *.'. . . O .* *.: " -- .................
L*.~.~..' *.*.".'i".1 . . :ll". 1 *c' J~ " - ;
;*. J.*.*7 - :;-* .a-g e,,g-,;;;
.a A* !** ".;.*.J
;;*,0.;;2.A. ; . . . . . - ..-.
c-..., - m . ,. c-0 2.I:'***.*.. - :".*.L'.*:'i't -
' +
it* a.;;::!:g* . = 3 r; 6 . - -.- -
- = , r ,s., ,;g; . ,. =
- ~. :*.' ~."l'.** * ---*;."t*.:
!*'w*
?*.".i..'.*
(
&~.? ." *'.*.*.'.". . *:~.".*t.c'::"::'
- ::::' .*.* ~.~!::*1'
- July 25, 1979
.'O .. ':L.'.:i:*~ ,
Richard S. 3alzman, Esquire Ivan W. Smith, Esquire , Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing ' Appeal Board Board
'J.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic..
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Northern States Power Company, et al. (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) Docket No. STN 50-484 Gentlemen: Please find enclosed a copy of a news release issued on July 24, 1979, Ly Northern States Power Company, which announces a decision by thm co-owners of Tyrone Energy Park to cancel that pro]ect. u a Pending before the Atomic Safety and *.icensing Board " this matter is the remand ordered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in ALAB-464, 7 N.R.C. 372 (1978). Also pending before C the Appeal Board in this docket is a proceeding to determ:ne the l consequences of radioactive radon gas releases attributable to L the m:ning and ulling of uranium fuel and to factor the res nt ; into tne NEPA cost. benefit analysis for the .uclear power faci *.- p ties in this and .- tumber of other dockets. See Philadelchia ( Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Pcwer Station, U.uts 2 and 3) , et al., A W -430, 7 N.R.C. 796 (1973): ALAB-509, [H 3 N.R.C. 679 (1973) ALAB-540 (April 25, 1979). - ll Il I c -d . gb . r C.
I . l I
.i; c:.- r d a . 5a . :mn , Esquire Ivan W. Smitn, Esquare j July 25, 1979 a Page Two In 11?ht of the decision to cancel the Tyrone Energy Park project, we respectfully request the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to terminate the further proceedings which it has ordered in this docket.
I Respectfully submitted, f; w , Thomas A. Baxter Counsel for Permittees TAB: 3ah Enclosure cc: Service List d 9 9 l I1
* ~. j g f
i
- -- - ____ - a e
t
,:.... J.' A ." C L OF Mita!CA
- LC1.~.ARV. .GULATCRY CC
- GISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AllD LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Richard S. Salma n , Chairman Michael C. Farrar Dr. W. Reed Johnson
)
'In 'the Matter of )
)
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, ET-AL. ) Docket No. STN 50-484 3 3 (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1) ) {
)
A MEMORANDUM July 26, 1979 We have been advised by counsel that the co-applicants have cancelled their plans to construct the Tyrone nuclear f acility and, accordingly, we have been requested to terminate proceedings involving the facility. In the absence of any objections, we shall enter an order to that effect in thirty days.N FOR THE APPEAL BOARD k k A%& C. Je g Bishop ' Secretary to the Appeal Board
*/ Copies of this Memorandum have been sent to the parties
~'
to the proceedings consolidated for hearing on the radon issue. See ALAB-540, 9 N RC (April 25, 1979). _ g [-If .- ~ MOB %c c'ee C -j_
; 7. k .L.
6 . l t
.a... . .-
e .; . . , -
...............e......e................e...............**.....=*.*.******
M hAJus aT ATL.a 6"A..e .Wbl . e masconsas. :or e s>r at as.n.
- .MI SUPE *ICA DISTRICT POWEA ODraf Ahr.
a a s a ne. san s urger st aoce. 03GPERATIVE PQhdEj MWIAy);AR, 4 M as.nc outa a s eos a at aan. T AIRTIAara FonsE2 CDOPERAT!"/E,
. m a as sa.. s e. .s..us s t e sse. .uw .. .
A . . J. s A/. ; .e.
#s. t a t aas.c r ..
vs. sd e6' ' * - * * *#U60 3%BLIC SurVICE .mtssions. Despwwtant. eeeeeee.eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..eee 8" l J 4 7..aese taae 'not.ce that .2n A.agwst
. 19'3. 4t .J ,w ..s.. .s . a. r .-
?.
ta= soemarable ;.cw.s J. Orwr..is Aescrve .'assa.t . a.s. a.a . . . . ..s s -- )t
.ucated an *.au claste County Court $e.se. i.au ~;4ars. = a m . C,c a . . .*
1
,et atsuper s wala move tae Court *or er. o r der d a am. s s t.H t ..e ..a. . . .
i
.a; tienens : roceeotros wath pre} Aac.r. .u m ant to bef.). ,*4.!. a .. . . . .
atatates. Um respandent ar.d/or any tnt.tvci.orm ua4. .ut su a ., ... l
.a any e.sa,etantaal r s%r.i, wy a Jasma ssal 'as * .. T xsu a.. . . - .
i
-?
. ,raceed order of a a .ea s s.41 as ttas t.c.1. 6 f
as L1.. . ". M .. .
'; @ m s.A. '. ;.Y , a...
1 4 3Y . 3 as...a.. .. t '. . s 3 i
.L* rey .. 4.*...
*' Jrssys er
. .L.i.... 2
. , 'as w t =..- .t ..
*.ata 301
% . 2 sr. . 4a..-..,... .,
.. .e r .Y..'.**
J.% w . #;tte.an. ;'atta . Tr..w.,
. , 1. strset. . .
e.a a.: .. e tor. . J... .. e 1 1 l l l l i A-% ' P0DR BRELa s =
.i
a-- - - -- -- - - - . _ - - - - - _ - - . _ _ i - .
,#, (
? . l l 1 l l r i
. s. : s..;* .i' .a .s . o
- .; v7M1 A> ' T AT11 r ML) *. A7 41 e Wa sconea r. ect por at tor..
;AM buPL32CF ;15TRi:: P enD C.m3 Ann' .
a Wa scons an cttpr et aor.. f '.. COOPtJtAT!YE POWED A55TIATICE. l a Ma nt.e oota as soc a a t ton. DAIRMAAD powts CDOPERAT*VE. OfCO CF DI5 MISSAL f s vi- a .s.x i.t wn. , Potationers. Case 20. 79 17
. .c.e.p:
*8e ,.,. '*$* a ry er l j
es. I ky . 197a PtltLIC Lt3Y1CE COct!15335 - 'Q n.simm .
' ';;*{*
.s.a.....................................................................
L f Tre Petitioners i.erein having moved *has ~)urt *or tr. 3rder dassassang thas appeal on its serats, rath pre:Maca, and the matter havang been cot ated f or neartag as requared by law and the
- o.rt r.avang beer. *ul;v acv. sed an the matter e
,Now. Therefore. It :s wereby Crdered that the above setton :n anJ ine same r.oreby .a caseissed on ats eerste, wat h pre;udace.
Cated this / tay of . 17). r By the Ocurt m ,. w a s J. en.r.es,r j Mf Car:uat .*' Moe G l e h
-e-
\..
, . j , ,.
In the Matter (, ' )
) 0,4 , . . .. r, < 5 '. w . r. M NOP TH[ P'. S~ AT[ L PC,!P COW !.'.Y , e t a l . )
(lyroneEnerg/ Park, Unit 1) ) OcDr & Pf vnr * * ' CON'.TFJ'!!07 PER"!T 6
' k.
Nor thern States Power Companyt e_t al. ("the co-owners") hold ruction Pemit No. CPPP-157 which authorizes the construction of a nuc lea r power reactor at the Tyrone Energy Park in Dunn County, Wisconsin. Construction Pemit No. CPPR-157 was issued on Decerter 27, 1977 and would otherwise expire on October 1,1985. On July 24, 1979, Northern States Power Company announced that the co-owner:, of the proposed Tyrone Unit I had voted to cancel the project. Northern States Power infomed the NRC of the intended cancellation and asked the l Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRP) to stop further action on the : Tyrone docket. The Atomic Safety an(1 [teensing Appeal Board granted the F company's request to tertninate reraining procedings involving the Tyrone - construction remit. In August 1979, the Badger Safe Energy Alliance t requested pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 that the Director of NP.D. revoke the Tyrone construction pemit. , 1 On June 16, 1980, the Director of NRR issued under 10 C.F.R. 2.202 an Order to Show Cause why the Tyrone construction pemit should not be revoked. 45 Fed. Reg. 4?.093 (June 23,1980). The co-owners of the Tyrone project b ['b consented to the entry of an order revoking the construction permit. However,
$jG*n'.)n?0^fi r
'"'" > I. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... ...... .. ....... . ... .. ...... .. ..... {
.. . . p i . .. . ..
{
.;. . .. .. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . g .....-.s<-.m _ ,
n,_, . , , OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ' uw e - w-*
i
; t'e 'i y tt Oc. *e 'se<.1.t Co: * . :r ar.d the Se m Lee:te is ' R .-
- 1
- Ccrrission as6 ed or. July 11,19P_ , tha t the f.:'.' de'e r the prost'.ed t w. :C " '
of the Tyrone cor.structict perrit and grar.t the Dabta Comissicr.:. a hearing if one was ne:essary to act ce the request for deferral. The DeFota Co rissior! based their requests on the alleged econcfric injury to Dakotan ratepayers that might flow fro- the cancellation of the Tyror.e project. The Dakota Ccrr-issions' requests were referred to the Corrr.ission for disposition. On Nc.t ner 3,1950, the Corr-ission denied the Dakota Co rissions' requests for deferral of revocation and for a hearing. See Northern States Power Co.
; (Tyrone Energy Park, Unit 1), CLI-80-36,12 NRC (1980). On November 13, ll 1980, the Dakota Comissions petitioned for reconsideration of the Commission's l Nove-ber 3rd decision. The Comission denied the petition for reconsideration , 1 3 ,
in its Order of December 24,198D. h III [u In light of (i) the Comission's denial of the Dakota Comission's
'[ i petition and (ii) the co-owners consent to entry of an order of revocation, it is hereby ordered that pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.202(d) and (e) Construction Permit No. CPPF.-157 is revoked.
This Order is effective upon issuance. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0HilSSION Darrell G. Ei/enhut Director Division of Licensino Effective Date: h vo -- . i .3 , 1981 Office of Nuclear Reacto_r Regulation , Bethesda , Maryland 1 e - A th I - o,..e, [ L B L i /DL :DL
.,s M A5 r,wTncer #T sco
. .)u.5erk.
....y1/y....
ce/LM ........ . .. . . . ........ . . .K. . . .<. . . ..h u)( I
..... t . . . ./
/P1 1/p... ./81 1/
/81 1/ /81
. g . .... . ....(
/81 p y ....
, .. '. ~ ,. . .. 6c-c;.:
OFF!CIAL RECORD COPY . ve -}}