ML20054D361
| ML20054D361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba, Harris, North Anna, Callaway, 05000000, 05000484, 05000516, 05000517 |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1982 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Bell N NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES (FORMERLY COALITION |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18017B573 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-91 NUDOCS 8204220629 | |
| Download: ML20054D361 (5) | |
Text
(Dil-ohs g'A REC u*
'o UNITED STATES e
E \\*~
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O *-
~.' E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9,
/
f March 5, 1982 Docket No. 50-344 Ms. Nina Bell Coalition for Safe Power - Suite 527 408 Southwest Second Avenue IN RESPONSE REFER Portland, OR 97204 TO FOIA-82-91
Dear Ms. Bell:
This is in reply to your letter dated February 1,1982, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, six categories of documents as defined in your letter.
With respect to category one of your request, there is no list of plants which have been " mothballed" or where the applicants have informally i
announced deferrals or cancellations.
However, items 2 ac.d 32 of Appendix A, contain pertinent information on this subject.
The documents listed on Appendix A also respond to the remaining categories of your request and a copy of each is enclosed.
This completes action on your request.
If you have any questions, please contact Frank W. Karas on (301)492-8133.
Sincerely, f
..G
, f,-
,/.
A Y M. felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated y
cb
?
RECMyyy S
m i ado 9198n 2 Ar=%=
s Cu
/
ru 8204220629 820305 PDR FDIA DELL 82-91 PDR
e Re:
F01A-82-91 Appendix A 1.
NUREG-0030 Vol. 5, Nos. 1, 2, and 3 " Nuclear Power Plants -
Construction Status Report, Data As of 9/30/81" 2.
NUREG-0871 Vol.1, No.1 " Summary Information Report Issue Date: January 1982" 3.
NUREG-0652 Vol.1, No. 2 " Facilities License Application Record, Data As of 9/30/81" 4.
2/11/80 Case 8005 "0 pinion and Order Vacating Certificate, Denying Application and Closing Proceeding", State of New York Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment CASE 80005 - Application by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation on behalf of itself, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and Niagara Mohawk Power Corpora-tion for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need to construct an 1150 MW standardized nuclear power plant in the Town of Sterling, Cayuga County, New York (29 pages) 5 7/30/79 Letter from the Jersey Central Power and Light Company (Finfrock) to NRC (Baer)
Subject:
Forked River Nuclear Station Docket Ho. 50-363, Construction Permit No. CPPR-96; NRC Accession No. 7908030503 (2 pages) 6 8/31/'8 Letter from the Jersey Central Power and Light Company (Finfrock) to NRC (Varga)
Subject:
Request for Extension of Completion Dates for Construction Permit No. CPPR-96; NRC Accession No. 782480099 (5 pages) 7.
Note: GPU Management Recommends Cancellation of the Forked River Nuclear Power Plant to GP0 Directors (1 page) 8 12/29/81 Letter from the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Martin) to NRC (Denton), Hope Creek Generating Station, No. 2 Unit, Docket No. 50-355 CPPR-121 Withdrawal of Application: NRC Accession No. 8112310271 (5 pages) 9 2/1/82 Letter from Washington Public Power Supply System (Ferguson) toNRC(Dircks)
Subject:
Termination of Supply System Nuclear Projects 4 and 5 (WNP-4 and WNP-5) (2 pages) 10 10/30/79 Letter from NRC (Baer) to Mississippi Power and Light Company (Stampley)
Subject:
Extension of Construction Completion Dates (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2) (13 pages) 11 8/15/79 Request for Proceeding from Bedger Safe Energy Alliance, Inc. (Ihrig) to NRC (Director NRR)
Subject:
Request for Revocation of Construction Permit, Docket No. STN 50-484, NRC Accession No.
7908240549 (11 pages) i
Re: F01A-82-91 Appendix A (Continued) 1 12.
7/24/79 Exhibit A - Northern States Power Company (NSP) Press Release "Tyrone Energy Park Cancelled (3 pages)
- 13. 7/26/79 Exhibit B - Letter from NSP (Dienhart) to NRC (Denton)
Subject:
Advise NRC of Announcement of Decision to Cancel the Project; NRC Accession No. 79080105 (1 page) 14.
7/25/79 Exhibit C - Letter from Shaw, Pittman, Potts, Trowbridge (Baxter) to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Salzmann)
Subject:
Transmitting News Release of 7/24/79; NRC Accession No.
7908240554 (2 pages) 15.
7/26/79 Exhibit C Memorandum from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Stating Intent to Enter an Order in Thirty Days Terminating Proceedings; NRC Accession No. 7908240558 (1 page) 16.
Exhibit D - (1 page)
- 17. Exhibit E - (1 page)
- 18. 2/3/81 Order Revoking Construction Permit; NRC Accession No.
8103090700 (2 pages) 19.
1/7/81 Memorandum from H. K. Shapar to H. R. Denton
Subject:
Revocation of Tyrone Construction Permit; Accession No. 8102090362 (1 page) 20.
12/24/80 Order; NRC Accession No. 8012300399 (3 pages) 21. Undated Letter from A. Schwencer to W. E. Ehrensperger; NRC Accession No. 8103090687 (2 pages) 22.
7/31/80 Letter from NRC (Sohinki) to Licensing and Appeal Boards Enclosing Copies of the Order Revoking the Applicants' Construction Permit (Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, et. al., Sterling Power Project Nuclear Unit No.1, Docket No. STN 50-485; NRC Accession Nos. 8008040128 (1 page), 8008040129 (3 pages)and 8008040132 (2 pages) 23, 5/14/79 Letter from NRC (Boyd) to Virginia Electric and Power Company (Proffitt)
Subject:
Order Extending Construction Completion Dates for North Anna Power Station Units 3 and 4; NRC Accession Nos. 7906011325 (3 pages), 7906011326 (2 pages), 7906011328 (5 pages),
7906011330 (2 pages), and 7906050112 (2 pages) l l
Re:
F01A-82-91 Appendix A (Continued) 24 1/16/81 Memorandum from NRC (Shapar) to Denton
Subject:
' Revocation of Jamesport Construction Permits; NRC Accession No. 8102050611 (1 page) 25 2/6/81 Letter from NRC (Eisenhut) to Long Island Lighting Company (Pollock)
Subject:
Revocation of Construction Permits for Jamesport Nuclear Power Station; Accession Nos. 8102250698 (3 pages)and 8102250707 (3 pages) 26.
8/26/81 Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) (Shorb) to NRC (Denton)
Subject:
Advising that NIPSCO Decided Not to Construct Bailly and Withdrawing Application of Extension of the Construction Permit for Bailly (2 pages) 27 9/16/81 Letter from NRC (Denton to Diane Linn and William B. Schultz
Subject:
Advising That No Action was Required on Request to Suspend or Revoke the Construction Permit for Bailly; NRC Accession No.
8109280203 (6 pages) 28 10/10/81 Memorandum from NRC (Edison) to Denton, et. al.,
Subject:
Advision of Union Electric Company's 10/9/81 Press Release Announcing Cancellation of Callaway Unit 2; NRC Accession No. 8110230088 (1 page) 29 12/16/81 Memorandum from NRC (Licitra) to Denton, et. al.
Subject:
Advision That Units 3 and 4 of Chearon Harris had been Cancelled; NRC Accession No. 8201210143 (1 page) 30 12/16/81 Preliminary Notification - PNO-II-81-115 - Cancellation of Units 3 and 4 of Shearon liarris; NRC Accession No. 8112230045 (1 page) 31.
6/1/81 Memorandum of Agreement INP0/NSAC-NRC signed by W. J. Dircks, E. P. Wilkinson, and E. L. Zabroski (3 pages) 32.
Facsimile Transmittal Request to Frank Karas from Ida Alexander re: Coalition for Safe Power (1 page) 33.
9/9/81 Memorandum from Robert H. Engelken to Edson G. Case
Subject:
Trojan Info Evaluation Report (1 page) 34.
1/81 Evaluation of Trojan Nuclear Plant by Portland General Electric Company (2 pages) 35.
6/26/81 Memo from Victor Stello, Jr., to Boyce Grier et. al.,
Subject:
Plant Specific Evaluation Reports Issued by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) (1 page)
Re:
F0!A-82-81
+
Appendix A (Continued) 36.
5/6/81 Memo from Norman C. Moseley to B. H. Grier et. al.
Subject:
INP0 Reports (1 page)-
37.
6/4/81 Letter from Darrell G. Eisenhut to All Plants with an Operating License or a Construction Permit
Subject:
Plant Specific Evaluation Reports Issued by the Institute.of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) (1 page)
=
1 i
f
T.
_e.
e Jersey Central Power & Light Company r
.. c.
7 j
h Vadecn lavenue at Punch Bowt Roaa Mctristeun New Jersey 07960 (201)455 4200 File: 2415.6 2421.1.1 July 30, 1979 Robert Baer, Branch Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
Forked River Nuclear Station Docket Number 50-363 Construction Permit No. CPPR-96
Dear Mr. Baer:
This will confirm our June 20, 1979 meeting to discuss the status of the construction program for Jersey Central Power & Light Company's (JCP&L)
Forked River Nuclear Station.
Specifically, we discussed the status of the construction program for the Sta tion immediately prior to the IMI-2 accident and the effects of the accident on the cash resources available to General Public Utilities Corporation (CPU) and its subsidiaries, including JCP&L, and their relationship to the Forked River construction program. As a result, we requested that the NRC defer temporarily any action on our August 31, 1978 request for an extension of the completion dates for the Station.
As we had discussed, a construction permit was issued for the Forked River Sta tion on July 10, 1973 and construc tion commenced immediately.
However, shortly thereaf ter construc tion work at the site was slowed down until early 1977. The reasons for such delay and the rationale for re-scheduling the in-service date to December, 1983, were described in my August 31, 1978 letter to Mr. S. A. Varga, as part of a request for an extension of the earliest and latest completion dates for the Station (Attachment 1, hereto.)
As of the date of the TMI-2 accident (Marc h 28, 197 9), engineering and construction work for the Forked River Station was proceeding on a schedule consistent with the December, 1983, in-service date.
Construction was 5.6%
complete, engineering was 47.27% complete and the major equipment connected with the nuclear steam supply system had been delivered to the site. JCP&L's total investment in the Station was approximately $350 million.
Following the 7MI-2 accident, and because of the enormous costs imposed on the companies in the GPU system, on April 3, 1979, CPU announced the suspension of work on major construction projects as well as other measures to reduce cash outlays. As a result, most engineering and all construction work on the Forked River Station has been deferred and all on-site equipment placed in storage.
O\\
V$o s
C
~\\ e
'h-
.-7-908030 80 7 A4 4
.cses Ce~ttst =>r *.. ;r's :ct~:am i a '.ts w :' ' t 2n- =. '.c. : : e < 5. r+ ~
Mr. Robert Baer Page 2 As we discussed at our June 20, 1979 meeting, JCP&L needs additional generating capacity presently to meet its base load requirements; by 1981 JCP&L will need additional capacity to meet its peak load requirements.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the CPU and JCP&L financial situation will preclude recommencement of construction at the Forked River Sta tion for some time. And, as we had explained during our meeting, CPU and JCP&L have not had suf ficient time either to evaluate f ully the financial implications of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities' recent rate decision, or to determine what further rate relief will be necessary to support the resumption of construc-tion activities at the Forked River site.
In any event, we did indicate that recommencement of construction probably would not occur for at least two years.
In the interim, JCP&L will explore other alternatives for meeting its near-term capacity requirements including the possiblity of purchasing additional capacity from sources located outside the CPU system. JCP&L also will investigate the feasibility of sharing with others the costs and owner-ship of the Forked River Station.
Importantly, we plan to continue the program implemented during the period of the initial delay in commencement of construction; tha t is, JCP&L will evaluate new NRC regulatory criteria and apply such criteria, where practicable and applicable, to the design of the Forked River Station.
Additionally, we plan to advise the NRC of any decision to recommence en-gineering and construction activities at the Forked River site and will at that time propose any new completion dates and provide supplemental justifi-cation for extension of such dates.
In view of the foregoing, we believe that it would be appropriate for the NRC to defer at this time any action on our August 31, 1978, request for an extension of the completion dates for the Station.
Very truly yours,
AbY af Ivan R. Fin ek, r.
Vice President 1