ML20052H841
| ML20052H841 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop, Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1982 |
| From: | Jenny Murray NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052H839 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205240054 | |
| Download: ML20052H841 (4) | |
Text
. _ _____ _ _-.___--- ____ ____ _ _ __
' 'p $s' E
),,
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
<l WASH WGiON, D. C. 20555 g.....
March '9, 1982 2
NEMORANDUM FOR:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Jamrs P. Murray Director and Chief Counsel Rulemaking and Enforcement Division, OELD
SUBJECT:
2.206 REQUEST TO REVOKE CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECTS 4 & 5
- Attached is a petition filed under 10 CFR 2.206 by tne Coalition for Safe Power which requests issuance of an order to show cause why the construction permits for WPPSS Nuclear Project Units 4 and 5 should not be revoked. The Coalition believes that such action is appropriate, because WPPSS has decided to terminate the projects.
You should note that NRR currently has for action another petition filed by the Coalition that requests revocation of the WPPSS Unit 4 construction
. permit on the basis of an alleged material false statement.
Although you could grant the petition (and have granted.a similar petition to revoke the Tyrone construction permit), no compelling reasons require you to take such action at this time. WPPSS is apparently pursuing options to transfer the permits and has expressed a desire to retain the permits while it pursues a transfer or other termination options.
Even though WPPSS does not intend-to complete the project, you do not have to issue an order to show cause at this instant, because allowing the permits to remain in effect does not raise a." substantial health or safety issue." See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Nuclear-1), 7 NRC 429, 433 (1978). WPPSS' decision-to halt construction poses in itself no hazard to public
~ CONTACT: Stephen Burns x27268 F205240054 820419 PDR.ADDCK 05000509 O
r*
- L
-health and safety. */
In the absence of such hazards, you are well within your discret6n to permit WPPSS to pursue its various options.
Although the NRC has no interest in seeing that WPPSS salvages-its
~ investment in Units 4 & 5, there is no reason for us to obstruct WPPSS' efforts, particularly when no health and safety concerns are posed. You may deny, therefore, the 2.206 petition at this time.
Your denial would have to be coupled with a denial, if that is appropriate,'of the earlier l
2.206 petition on WPPSS Unit 4.
You could postpone any action on the petition until WPPSS' plans are firm. Thus, you would be able to grant the petition if it.became clear at some future date that WPPSS had no realistic expectation of transferring the permits and formal termination of the permits seemed appropriate.
Alternatively, you could deny the petition if WPPSS had a reasonable expectation of transferring the permits (subject, of course, to 10 CFR 50.80 and related procedural requirements) and no other reasons warranted revocation. However, it may take a year or more for a clear picture to emerge.
In the meantime, the petitioner might make repeated complaints for failure to act on the petition and even seek judicial review to compel action.
~ As part of your consideration of the petition, you could compel WPPSS under 10 CFR 50.54(f) to fomally explain its intentions and its reasons for retaining the' construction permits. A 50.54(f) letter would provide you'the same information that an answer to an order to show cause would, but the 50.54(f) letter, unlike an order to show cause, has no risk of throwing the staff into litigation.
I would be happy to discuss these various options with you and will assist your staff in developing an appropric+.e response to the 1
petition.
In the meantime, you should acknowledga receipt of the l
-*/
Arguably, if WPPSS is able to transfer the pemits to another utility, some questions might be raised about the adequacy of construction in light of the project's abandonment by WPPSS (e.g.,-
i if QA records were not preserved). Such questions go, however, to the issue of whether the permits should be transferred (and on what conditions) or Mether the facility has been constructed properly such that construction may continue or an operating license may be granted.
"Let the buyer beware" - i.e., the risk of such problems falls on any proposed transferee of the pemits, and you are not required to protect the transferee from such risks.
In all events, it appears from Attachment C to the Coalition's petition that WPPSS has taken steps to preserve plant equipment and records and Region V is monitoring WPPSS' activities in accordance with WPPSS' termination plans.
/
- petition. A draft acknowledgment letter to the petitioner and a draft Federal Register notice are enclosed for your use.
If these drafts are not changed, they need not be returned to me for fomal concurrence, but please assure that I receive a copy of the signed letters and that all other correspondence related to the petition receives my concurrence.
Please infom me whom your staff contact on this petition will be.
g.
J mes P. Murray
/
Director and Chief Counsel Rulemaking and Enforcement Division, OELD cc:
D. Eisenhut, NRR R.Engelken, RV i
(-
).' '.
" ~ *
.7
\\
t UNITED STATES OF AliERICA T !
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/'
j BEFORE THE DIRECTOR In the Matter of
)
)
WAS!!INGTCN PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY
)
Docket Nos. 50-460 SYSTEM, et al.
)
50-509
)
Permit Nos. CPPR-174
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. 4 & 5)
)
" CPPR-155 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
.__._2..__.:_
.._ ___ _____ _________.
I 1.ereby certify that the Coaiition For Safe Power's "Show Cause Petition...Regarding Washington Public Power Suplly System Projects 4 & 5" has been served on persons listed below by depositing said petition in the U.S. Mail, with proper postage affixed, fisst class, on March 17, 1982 in Portland,0regon.
Ilarold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US NRC Washington D.C.
20555 Secretary of the Commission s';
US NRC Washington D.C.
20555 Robert Ferguson WPPSS 3000 Ceorge Washington Way T.O. Box 968 Richland, Wa.,99352
,-, s A)
Nina Bell Coalition For Safe Power Dated this 17th day of March 1982.
1
- 4
)
' ' ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR In the Matter of
)
)
5/3 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY
)
Docket Nos. 50-460 SYSTEM, et al.
)
50-509
)
Permit Nos. CPPR-174
~~ --
(WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. 4& 5)
)
'CPPR-155 SHOW CAUSE PETITION, BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206 (a) REGARDING WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECTS 4 & 5, MARCH, 1982 Introduction 1.
This petition is brought by the Coalition for Safe Power (hereinafter refered to as " Coalition") before the Director, Nu-clear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2.206 (a).
The petition alleges that the decision of the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
Board of Directors made on January 22, 1982 to terminate the projects 4 and 5 is basis upon which to revoke their respective construction permits.
Description of Petitioner s
2.
The Coalition is a non-profit citizens organization, founded in 1969 to work for safe energy.
Its work includes research and education.
The Coalition, through its officers and attorneys, has
_ - represetned its members before the Commission, as well as state agencies on questions of nuclear power safety and licensing and electric utility rates.
The Coalition has been granted full par-ty status in four proceedings before the Commission including the original application for construction permit for the Skagit Nuclear Projects, Units 1 and 2, application for construction permits of
\\
~ Pebble-Springs Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2, and two license w> w,
amendments for the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant.
The Coalition has also filed several Show cause petitions before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Authority 3.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206(a) the Coalition requests that the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to revoke the WPPSS ctnstruction permits Nos. CPPR-174 and CPPR-155 based'on the inability of WPPSS to' raise the necessary construction funds for the projects and the concurrent decision by the Board of Directors to terminate the plants.
Statement of Facts 4.
On May 29, 1981, the Managing Director of WPPSS, Robert Ferguson, asked the Board of Directors to slow construction on WNP-4 and 5 because of continuing problems in financing the pro-jects.
In his speech (Attachment A), Mr. Ferguson states:
Quite frankly, funding the five projects at this $23.8 billion estimated cost level pre-sents a very very difficult problem in today's financial market.
.j\\
Completing all five projects at this budget level will require that we raise something in excess of $3 billion this year, and quite frankly, this challenges us with one of the most difficult funding programs in the United States.
(pg. 2) 5.
On June.16, 1981 the WFPSS Board of, Direct 6ss boted to support the Managing Director's request for a one year morato-rium on the projects.
Cessation of construction occ'ured in.
j July 1981.
6.
By letter dated February 1, 1982, Mr. Robert Ferguson informed Mr.-William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Opera-tions, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' (Attachment B) that s
\\
.the WPPSS Board of Directors had, on January 22, 1982, adopted a resolution terminating projects 4 and 5.
7.
The NRC, in a letter from R.L. Tedesco, Assistant Direc-tor for Licensing, Division of Licensing to Mr. Ferguson, dated March 2, 1982, confirmed the intent of WPPSS to terminate the projects.
(Attachment C) 8.
It is common knowledge that the decision to " mothball" the projects was made due to lack of construction funds with which to complete their construction.
It is also common know-ledge that the ability of WPPSS to raise the necessary funds for controlled " termination" is in serious jeopardy.
Conclusions of Law 9.
42 U.S.C.
S2236(a) and 10 CFR 50.100 provide that a construc-tion permit may be revoked because of " conditions which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an origi-nal application..."
10.
42 U.S.C.. S2236 (a) and 10 CFR 50.100 also provide that a construction permit may be revoked "for failure to construct...
a facility in accordance with the termd of the construction per-mit..."
11.
Thus, the inability of WPPSS to construct the projects (see para. 4,5, and 8) and the unwaivering and unequivocal in-tent of WPPSS to abandon the projects (see para. 6 and 7) fufill the respective conditions of the Atomic Energy Act and Chapter 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth in paragraphs 9 and 10 above.
Relief Requested 12.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the Director, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(a), Order the Washington Public Power Supply
~
System to show cuase as to why Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-174 and CPPR-155, for Projects 4 and 5 respectively, should not be revoked.
Respectively submitted, o *3f Dated.this day, the W ina Bell
~
16th of March, 1982.
Coalition for Safe Power i
a.
9 1
e i
e a
I
+
e
~,.. -.. -
m
Attachecnt A AN INFORMATION SERVICE OF THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM June 12,1981
- N s
Vol.1 No. 5 4
... g.
,g
. g
.,e Ferguson recommends WNP-4/5 slowdown Saying the decision was " pure the need for power from these energy can be saved through hell" to make, Managing Director projects.
conservation.
Robert Ferguson has asked the Sup-In the next year alone, the Supply A recent energy forecast by the ply System board of directors to slow System would have to raise more Pacific Northwest Utilities Confer-down construction of units 4 and 5 than 53 billion to continue work on ence Committee projects a decline for ony year.
all five plants, far more than the in power demand in the region.
The Supply System has ever hau a Finally, the Washington Legislature Fergu/ recommendation came after son drew the bottom line on a borrow before.
mandated that an independent study propoied fiscal 1982 construction "The numbers as the appear are of the feasibility and need for WNP-budget of $23.9 billion for all five just too large to handie without the 4/5 be undertaken.
nuclear power plants.
total commitment and support of the "We have to put that question Ferguson's surprise announcement state and region," Fe guson said.
(need for power) to bed," Ferguson May 29 set in motion a series of He identified several recent events told a press conference in Richland, high level meetings throughout the that have created an atru<nhere of WA. last week.
region as board members and parti-
" uncertainty" both wid tne publ;;
At the same press conference, cipants discussed and debated the and on Wall Street.
Ferguson indicated he pinned his recommendation.
They include a recent donneville main hopes on gaining the needed Supply System Board President Power Administration ;tudy indicat-regional consensus from the legisla-Stanton Cain said the Ferguson ing a potentially Srge amount of tive study and from the new recommendation was just that and Regional Power Council.
jm that the final decisions rest with the "An endorsement of the council 88 Participants that are owners of the plus the study would go a long way two projects and with the board of lRSidO towards relieving the uncertainty dire ctors.
that surrounds the 4/5 issue," he On June 10 the Supply System was g ' fgff leXl O[ ~
said.
~ ~
scheduled to submit its detailed By law, the new regional council i
l analysis of the budget to the board's FergusOn s
,1 mustcome up withan ene,gypian l
Commmittee on Treasury, Finance, speech, Page-'3 for the Pacific Northwest in two j
and Audits.
yea s, but Ferguson expressed hope l
On the following day the commit-that the council would deal with the tee was scheduled to make its report 9 fn(eryfew with US issue sooner.
to either the Executive Committee or Speaking before a subcommittee 4/5 study l
the full board.
o! the u.5. House of Representatives The earliest that the board of.
- -. head, Page 4---
- last-week, BPA. Administrator-Peter.
directors could act on the slowdown Johnson urged that this study be would be at a special meeting of the completed in one year,"in view of board June 16, Cain said.
O full speed the risk to the region's power supply in making his recommendation, abead On WNP-2' and the extreme costs associated Ferguson repeated his belief that with the prospective moratorium."
WNP-4 and WNP-5 will be needed Page 2 Johnson pointed out that BPA has to provide the electric power a legal obligation under the regional
. eeded to ensure the economic power act to meet the region's well-being of the Pacific Northwest.
- Reactor parts electric power requirements.
But he said it would be extremely Meanwhile, Ferguson stated he is arr Ve al difficult to raise the money needed committed to continuing construc-to complete all five projects while Sa(sop, Page 7 tion of projects 1,2, and 3 as quickly people in the region are questioning and as economically as possible.
I D
Attcchm:nt B Pago 1 of 2 Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 960 3000GeorgeWashingtonWay Richland. Washington 99352 (509)372-5000 February 1,1982 G0-1-82-0041 Docket Nos:
50-509 50-513 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
Subject:
TERMINATION OF SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECTS 4 AND 5 (WNP-4andWNP-5)
On January 22,'1982, the Washington Public Power Supply System Board of Directors adopted 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 irtent 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.
al 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 NRC-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 i
j set for completion of the first phase and initiation of the second.
. -, o at i j c
o.
Pego 2 of 2 W. J. Dircks Page 2 February 1, 1982 WNP-4/5 Termination 4
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-i and WNP-4.
Recent events dictate that the application address only WNP-1 now and until further notice.
Very truly yours, "w
R. L. Ferguton Managing Director GCS/sm cc:
HR Denton NRC V Stello NRC EG Adensam NRC
'A Schwencer NRC RH Engelken NRC Region'..V
~
~ ^
NS Reynolds D&L
)
._-z-
- - - - ~.
o m
e
~
e l
l
ttcchuant C jg '
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g t 4,,g(
'- l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t
- (,,, #
MAR 0 21932 Docket Nos: 50-509-and 50-513 Mr. Robe $ L. Ferguson, Managing Director Washington Public Power Supply System P.O.' Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352
-- -Dea r-Mr.-Ferguson:- --
==
Subject:
Termination of Washington Nuclear. Projects 4 and 5 In your letter of February 1,1982, to Mr. W. J. Dircks, you discussed the Supply System's intent to maintain the structures and equipment at Washington Nuclear Project (WNP) Nos. 4 and 5 in a licensable ' condition at least through the period you have termed Phase One and to comply with all existing construction permit conditions and requirements.
Our preliminary assessment of this decision does not indicate that any additional near-term action other than that taken or, planned is necessary at this time on the part of the Supply System.
It is our understanding that the Supply System intends to carry out the management plan presented to the Region V Office on December 10, 1981, insofar as maintaining the plant equipment and records. The NRC Resident Inspectors and Re~gional Inspec-tors intend to conduct their activities (inspection surveillance, audit) on both units in accordance with this plan until such time as the Supply System announces termination of phase one.
The staff has ceased its review of the operating license (0L) application for WNP-4 as you requested.
We are continuing our acceptar.ce review of the WNP-1 OL applica-
~
- tion.-You should, amend the pindiWg ipplication for operating licenses for WNP-1~
~
and WNP-4 to reflect the present status of the WNP-4 project.
Because the staff expects to complete its acceptance review for WNP,jl only by mid-March 1982, it may be advisable for. you to await the outcome.of that review and amend your application to delete WNP-4 at that time.
We could then docket and notice the application for an operating license for WNP-1 only. Other aspects of the termination of WNP-4 and, WNP-5 could also be discussed at that time.
--- - Si nce rely,
Y0 8
s.
edesco, [ stant Director f,RobertL.
I for Licensing l
1 Division of Licensing a
..emo.
g =+.
+-
j '*
- 1. ' ' '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR In the Matter of
)
)
WASHINGTON PULnIC POWER SUPPLY
)
Docket Hos. 50-460 SYSTEM, et al.
)
50-509
)
Permit Nos. CPPR-174 (WPPSS Nuclear Projects Nos. 4& 5)
)
CPPR-155
~
CERTTFTCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the Coalition For Safe Power's "Show Cause Petition...Recarding Washincton Public Power Sup11y System Projects 4 & 5" has been served on persons listed below by depositinc said petition in the U.S. Mail, with proper postage affixed, fisst class, on March 17, 1982 in Portland,0regon.
Ilarold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation US NRC Washincton D.C.
20555 Secretary of the Commission US NRC Washington D.C.
20555 Robert Ferguson WPPSS 3000 Ceorce Washincton Way P.O. Box 968 Richland, Wa.,99352
~
- ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~
/
L.sdD o
Nina Bell Coalition For Safe Power Dated this 17th day of March 1982.
I UNITED STATES OF IdiERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE DIRECTOR In the Matter of
)
)
WAS!!INGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY
)
Docket Nos. 50-460 SYSTEM, et al.
)
50-509
~~ ~~
)
Permit Nos. CPPR-174 (WPPSS. Nuclear Projects Nos. 4 & 5)
)
CPPR-155 SI!OW CAUSE PETITION BROUGIIT PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206(a) REGARDING UASIIINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM PROJECTS 4 & 5, MARCil, 1982 Introduction l.
This petition is brought by the Coalition for Safe Power (hereinafter refered to as " Coalition") before the Director, Nu-clear Reactor Regulation pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Code of 5
Federal Regulations, Part 2.206(a).
The petition alleges that the decision of the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) 2 Board of Directors made on January 22, 1982 to terminate the projects 4 and 5 is basis upon which to revoke their respective construction permits.
Description of Petitioner 2.
The Coalition is a non-profit citizens organization, founded in 1969 to work for safe energy.
Its work includes research and cducation.
The Coalition, through its officers and attorneys, has represetned its members before the Commission, as well as state agencies on questions of nuclear power safety and licensing and electric utility rates.
The Coalition has been granted full par-ty-status in four proceedings before the Commission including the original application for construction permit for the Skagit Nuclear Projects, Units 1 and 2, application for construction permits of i
. Pebble Springs Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2, and two license 7
+c, k flM w g
--u-t 6V " 9 m-,
z..,,'
amendments for the Trojan Nuclear Pcwor Plant.
The Coalition has also filed several Show Cause petitions before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Authority 3.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206(a) the Coalition requests that the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 to revoke the WPPSS construction permits Nos. CPPR-174 and CPPR-155 based'on the inability of WPPSS to raise the necessary construction funds for the projects and the concurrent decision by the Board of Directors to terminate the plants.
Statement of Facts
- 4.
On May 29, 1981, the Managing Director of WPPSS, Robert Ferguson, asked the Board of Directors to slow construction on WNP-4 and 5 because of continuing problems in financing the pro-jects.
In his speech (Attachment A), Mr. Ferguson states:
Quite frankly, funding the five projects at this $23.8 billion estimated cost level pre-sents.a very very difficult problem in today's financial market.
Completing all'five projects at this budget level will require that we raise something in excess of $3. billion this year,.and quite frankly, this challenges us with one of the most' difficult funding programs in the United States.
(pg. 2) 5.
On June 16, 1981 the WPPSS Board of Direct 6ss boted to support the Managing Director's request for a_one year morato-rium on the projects.
Cessation of construction occured in July 1981.
6.
By letter dated February 1, 1982, Mr. Robert Ferguson informed Mr. William J.
Dircks, Executive Director for Opera-tions, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Attachment B) that L...
=
c.
the WPPSS Board of Directors had, on January 22, 1982, adopted a resolution terminating projects'4.and 5.
7.
.The NRC, in a' letter from R.L. Tedesco, Assistant Direc-
'ar for Licensing, Division of-Licensing to Mr. Ferguson, dated-March 2, 1982, confirmed the intent of WPPSS to terminate the projects.
(Attachment C) 8.
It is common knowledge that the decision to " mothball" the projects was made due to lack'of construction funds with which to complete their construction.
It is also common know-ledge that the ability of WPPSS to raise the necessary funds for controlled " termination" is in serious jeopardy.
Conclusions of Law 9.
42 U.S.C.
S2236 (a) and 10 CPR 50.100 provide that a construc-tion' permit may be revoked because of " conditions which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an origi-nal application..."
10.
42 U.S.C..S2236(a) and 10 CFR 50.100 also provide that a construction permit may be revoked "for failure to construct...
a facility in accordance with the terms of the construction per-mit..."
11.
Thus, the inability of WPPSS to construct the projects (see para.
4,5, and 8) and the'unwaivering and unequivocal in-tent of WPPSS to abandon the projects (see para. 6 and 7) fufill the respective conditions of the Atomic Energy Act and Chapter l
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth in paragraphs s
9 and 10 above.
l ReliefERequested l-l 12.
WilEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the Director, pursuant to' 10 CFR 2. 202 (a), Order'the Washington Public Power Supply-i.-.--..
System to show cuase as to why Construction Permits !!os. CPPR-174 and CPPR-155, for Projects 4 and 5 respectively, should not be revoked.
Respectively submitted,
. A m n ' 3 t' Dated this day, the
' W ina Bell 16th of March, 1982.
Coalition for Safe Power O
t a'
Attachment A AN INFORMATION SERVICE OF THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM June 12,1981 Vol. 1 No.5 Ferguson recommends WNP-4/5 slowdown saying the decmon was " pure the need for power from these energy can be saved through hell" to make, Managmg Director projects.
conserv ation.
Robert Ferguson has asked the Sup-In the next year alone, the Supply A recent energy forecast by the ply System board of directors to slow System wc,uld have to raise more Pacific Northwest Utilities Confer-down construction of units 4 and 5 than $3 billion to continue work on ence Committee projects a decline for ony year, all five plants, far mare than the in power demand in the region.
The/ recommendation came af ter Supply System has eser had to Finally, the Washington legislature Ferguion drew the bottom line on a borrow before.
mandated that an independeat study propokd fiscal 1982 construction "The numbers as they aapear are of the feasibility and need for W NP.
budget of $23.9 billion for all fise just too large to handle. uhout the 4/5 be undertaken.
nuclear power plants.
total cc smitment and support of the "We have to put that question Ferguson's surprise announcement stata an s region," Ferguson said.
(need for power) to bed," Ferguson May 29 set in motion a Series of He Lentified seseral recent events told a press conference in Richland, high level meetings throughout the tnat have created an atmosphere of WA, last week.
region as board members and parti-
" uncertainty" both with the public At the same press conference, cipants discussed and debated the and on Wall Street.
Ferguson indicated he pinned his recommendation.
They include a recent Bonneville main hopes on gaining the needed Supply System Board President Power Administration study indicat-regional consensus from the legisla-5tanton Cain said the Ferguson ing a potentially large amount of tive study and from the new recommendation was just that and Regional Power Council.
that the final decisions rest with the "An endorsement of the council 88 Participants that are owners of the plus the study would go a long way two projects and with the board of InSide towards relieving the uncertainty dire ctors.
that surrounds the 4/5 issue," he On June 10 the Supply System was g fgff teXl O[
5did' scheduled to submit its detailed By law, the new regional council analysis of the budget to the board's fergUSOn 5 must come up with an energy plan Commmittee on Treasury, Finance, Speech, Page 3 for the Pacific Northwest in two and Audits.
years, but Ferguson expressed hope On the following day the commit-that the council would deal with the tee was scheduled to make its report 9 Interviety tvith 4/5 issue sooner.
to either the becutive Committee or Speaking before a subcommittee the full board.
4/5 study of the u.5. House of Representatises The earliest that t e board of head, Page 4 last week, BPA Administrator Peter h
directors could act on the slowdown Johnson urged that this study be would be at a special meeting of the completed in one year,"in view of board June 16, Cain said.
9 FUllSpeed the,isu ie the,egien s power seppiy in making his recommendation' and the extreme costs associated ahead On WNP-2' Ferguson repeated his belief that with the prospective moratorium."
WNP-4 and WNP-5 will be needed Page 2 Johnson pointed out that BPA has to provide the electric power a legal obligation under the regional 1
. eeded to ensure the economic pow-act to meet the region's well-being of the Pacific Northwest.
G ReaCIOr parts electiic power requirements.
L But he said it would be extremely Meanwhile, Ferguson stated he is OII W M difficult to raise the money needed committed to continuing construc-to complete all fise projects while SalSOp, Page 7 tion d projects 1. 2, and 3 as quickly people in the region are questionins, and as sconomically as possible.
I
71 ;
Attcch=nt B Page 1 of 2 Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 Georgt 'NashingtonWay Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372-5000
&~
February 1, 1982 G0-1-82-0041 Docket Nos:
50-509 50-513 Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
Subject:
TERMINATION OF SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECTS 4 N4D 5 (WNP-4andWNP-5)
On January 22, 1982, the Washington Public Power Supply System Board of Directors adopted 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
!;r. 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 NRC--regulations. -We intend by and during these efforts to retain the Construction Pennits.
We are willing to meet with your st Y 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.
T~
7; j
c.p
Page 2 of 2 W. J. Dircks-Page 2 February 1, 1982 WNP-4/5 Termination 4,
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,
-w R. L. Fergu on Managing Director GCS/sm cc: HR Denton NRC V Stello NRC EG Adensam NRC
~A Schwencer NRC RH Engelken NRC_ Region' V_
NS Reynolds D&L
---.--,7-..~
6 9
e
~
m..
- Attcch=nt C UNITED STATES y $)3( p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
- W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- &'9%%....f!
MAR 0 21992 Docket Nos: 50-509 and 50-513 Mr. Robert L. Ferguson, Managing Director Washington Public Power Supply System P.O.' Box 968 Richlar.d, Washington 99352
Dear Mr. Ferguson:
Subject:
Termination of Washington Nuclear. Projects 4 and 5 In your letter of February 1,1982, to Mr. W. J. Dircks, you discussed the Supply System's intent to maintain the structures an'd equipment at Washington Nuclear Project (WNP) Nos. 4 and 5 in a licensable 'conditrion at least through the period you have termed Phase One and to comply with all. existing construction permit conditions and requirements.
Our preliminary assessment of this decision does not indicate that any additional near-term action other than that taken or.
planneg is necessary at this time on the part of the Supply System.
plan p,our understanding that the Supply System intends to carry out the renagemen It is.
resented to the Region V Office on December 10, 1981, insofar as maintaining the plant equipment and records. The NRC Resident Inspectors and Regional Inspec-tors intend to conduct their act,1vities (inspection surveillance, audit) on ceth units in accordance with this plan until such time as the Supply System announces termination of phase one.
The staff has ceased its review of the operating license (OL) application for WNP-4 as you requested.
We are continuing our acceptance review of the WNP-1 OL applica-tion. - You should, amend the pending application for operating licenses for WNP-1 and WNP-4 to reflect the present status of the WNP-4 project.
Because the staff expects to complete its acceptance review for WNP-1 only by mid-March 1982, it may be advisable for you to await the outcome.of that review and amend your application to delete WNP-4 at that time. We could then docket and notice the application for an operating license for WNP-1 only. Other aspects of the termination of WNP-4 and, WJP-5 could also be discussed at that time.
Sincerely,-
Y d
r, f, Robert L. h desco, [
stant Director for Licensing i
(
Division of Licensing f.
4
_ {l
>C j.
- m, s
g
~. _ _ -. _ _
1
~
~
1-I4 ^
p'V p
.k g$'IE$M_
m"v f
uG
~
z
^,-
p a.
\\
e^
L c
4 r
571f o
5 ttf t
f 66-5 c
5 e
?,
0
's' r
2 i
D e,
gtN s s
C.
e nR oR D
a n
n ef o
Do t
- deCn g
l c Ri o i Nh rf s
aFSa H O UW
</
b' u
7' n
p 3
R E
4 W
0 d 2 On7 2
P 9
1 E W.N 4 9
FAS C-0 S 8 G5 0
4 R 4 E 9 O
O )2 iw=
R m
F 7
,3 N2 D0 O 5 N (5 e
i I E A r
g l
I L
TT a
T l UR AS O g
O P
C
\\
ry g
\\
e W
g s
+
g
~
+
u.
1 n
9 s
1
,f j s
l
"'*t.,,
\\
y
,'g DISTRIBUTION J
f.
?
d)OCKET FILE
{k j
UNITE D S TM E s LBei4 Read ing g
[
NUCLE AR RF-but ATORY COMMISSION MDuncan f
hAs>W3 TON D C 20555 April 19, 1982 Docket Nos. 50-513 f
50-509 Docketing and Sorvice Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission SUBJEC T WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 4 and 5 (WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTFJi)
One 18 IKE signed onginals of the Fej1eral Register Notice identif ed below anvenvosed for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for puhhcatior, Additionai conformed copies i 12 ; of the Notice are anclosed for your use Notice of Receipt of Apphcation for Construction Permitisi arid Operating Licenseis)
Notice of Receipt of Partial Apphcation for Construction Permitt sj and Faahty Lic ensets) Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters Notice of Availabihty of Apphcant s Environmental Report Notice of Froposed Issuance of Amendment to Facihty Operating License Notice of Receipt of Apphcation for Facihty License (s). Notice of Availabihty of Apphcant s Environmental Report, and Notice of Consideration of issuance of Facihty License (s) and Notice of Opportunity for Heanng Notice of Availabihty of NRC Draft Final Environmental Statement Notice of Limited Work Authonzation Notice of Availabihty of Safety Evaluation Report L l Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit (s)
Notice of Iss ance of Facihty Operating License (s) or Amendment (s) f T Other Receipt of Petition Under 10 CFR 2,206 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation As Stated DL : LB /!4 MDuncan sonvue,
4/19/82 l
om _.
w ronu w e w
.-