ML20126K835
| ML20126K835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1980 |
| From: | Hastings W PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Bowers E, Jordan W, Martin W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126K834 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105220070 | |
| Download: ML20126K835 (35) | |
Text
. , -
Exhibit 1 O James W. Durham C d neum Portland General Electric Ccopiny vice eresicent and cenerat counsei l
legalDecartment Senior Assistant GeneralCounset Alvin Alexanderson
/
Warren Hastings Ass 4stant GeneralCounset Doland A. Johnson Ronald W. Johnson Da!!as A Marckx Steven F. McCarret Fe b rua ry 15, 1980 Elizabeth S. Bowers Esq. , Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. William E. Martin Senior Ecologist Battelle Memorial Institute Columbus, OH 43201 In the Matter of PORTLAND CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2)
Docket Nos. 50-514 & 50-515
Dear Members of the Board:
j For the information of the Licensing Board, the Regulatory Staff and the parties, we are enclosing a copy of Portland General Electric Company's (PCE) recent statement to the press concerning the Pebble Springs project.
We have concluded that the Pebble Springs plant cannot be completed in time to meet energy requirements in the late 1980s. However, the project is not being abandoned.
It is PCE's intent to continue State and Federal licensing activities for Pebble Springs. At the December 19, 1979 ASLB conference in Portland, we pr'oposed bifurcation of the proceeding into environmental and safety issues. We reiterate our earlier request for a hearing to close the
. record on. site suitability issues as soon as reasonably possible and for I the Board to issue a partial decision on these matters. A hearing date l vhich had been tentatively set for May 15 of this year remains appropriate L
810 5 22 A 60'd 1300 Willameits Center 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Portland. Oregon 97204
Portland General Electric Company L
Members of the Board Februa ry 15, 1980 Pace two for this end. We would propose to resume the proceeding on safety and any other remaining issues as soon as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff is ready to proceed.
Within the next several weeks, we will provide copies of the updated load forecasts and estimated resources of the Pebble Springs project participants.
Sincerely,
/s/ W. Hastings Warren lastings Senior Assistant General Counsel VH/DRS/4sa8A7 Enclosure km- c: Mr. Lynn Frank Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.,,,
Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet Frank Josselson, Esq.
Ms. Bernice Ireland '
Kathleen H. Shea, Esq. -
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
L .
g , , - - -- w - ,m,. m,,r,n, - w a,w,e- - , r-~n----+ ,s nn----- - .-an-- .-
A 4'
. i l s . '
~ l
-
- February 7, 1980 10:00 a.m.
Robert H. Short, President.
Portland General Electric Company ks STATEMENT Portland General Electric Company is continually reviewing its customers needs for electric energy and our generating resources from which we supply that energy. Our planning must be done years in advance because of the long periods of time required to license and construct generating facilities.
Our energy requirement forecasts show that our customers will need an additional 300,000 kilowatts of electrical energy in the late 1980's. This estimate is confirmed by independent forecasts conducted by the state of Oregon. We have relied upon the Pebble Springs nuclear plant to mect that requirement. We have now concluded that the Pebble Springs plant cannot be completed in time to meet the late 1980's energy requirements. We must turn to other alternatives.
Alternatives that are being seriously studied are the construc-tion of a second coal plant at Boardman and a partnership in coal projects being considered by Washington Water Power. A coal plant could be licensed and constructed in sufficient time to meet our l -
l customers' requirements in the late 1980's. We are also evaluating l
the role that other options can play in meeting our energy require-ments; for example, additional amounts of conservation would help.
We are also evaluating a new hydroelectric facility, co-generation options, and other alternative resources. It may be several months before our plans are completed, but we would hope to have a much clearer picture in 60 days.
(, However, a decision has been made to reschedule the Pebble Springs project so that we may concentrate on projects necessary m 'jS '
. . - - - . _ - . - . - - ~
- Page 2.
b to treet our energy requirements for the late 1980's. This does not mean that the Pebble Springs project is being abandoned -- .
it is not. We are merely rescheduling its role'in meeting our energy demands for the 1990's. It will be studied an reviewed in the months ahead.
+
f e-1 4
V e
L .
~- -.v. ., -n, , - - - - ...,...n, - . , -.-u ~ , - ,..--na . - . , - . .- . , - . - .
$. .
- 6. ' p%.
, . ,,44V,'* 'f.(
~.t '.l s * >' , . . f" di'i .
, ' ,e.......J<'
- I
. : , f [d"iN[. s w , .h.,
gv.* ~.
- i E'e
?; . ...4. Q. g IJyp,.
. ,u
.a .
,'I'.t. .e . , p .
. . . > . .. . . , , , o.r
,. m. . :, .n.
- . ,g e, ;s ; , e
- f. 40.
- y . *
"e.,,.'<, . - .f. ,. 'I ;/ 85{,"e
- .jg ,M '
. '. ;)..' . 'J.T, ' . , i , * , ; , , , .3 , p , '
, .y . 4 + l%, ,
- f. p,)' r. e- , . , ,
g*; i " ,.s',V.r(b.1,j
,;f .., j.bl,, r,f,.,...O.. ,n , h.g.<. e.. /. . .g '. .E:<g., y,,y.g
- s.
c
. . .44/ ; .,.k,.; ',",'5,, <e.;.
- - 4 '~ 3
.e .. . g ,. .G- d G,.i, ,, .t g -.
$ ;< ;g .
.d/
- f I' +./ ?
- * ' ., .',',A .ng gsfr d ' .<.b M
- r, . '.",, k,j ,,/ $. ; . ', .' ky ? , ., '.W S'$?$i?Y?)/:' .10.%g[
i
? *^i ' #',,%4'; ': ff 6.**,W?'?,h;'e$$(,b,9
,'t/ .
Tjk , , ., . !<(, - ' $
c9 p ,. 3%iiC ;f, yiMi, f'*I'$y?.>fQ,Y' G% M 1 ..g... Fi)s..W.s,,....F'N,'y., 3.iT r. y t @ ~8 ' q'i '.. 'e A.D ' d.S. ?
- 5.y .q
.e p 2
w
(' 5. -- ,me, u.. $ g y ,a n t a .1 , Il 4o ( i L l 1 .v Q j. 4 73 > Q;. ;an h..fA,4 ,. m g m p ; ;:: 3;:p 9 v 4....a p;,p. . [tgg m.
q, , . m %, 9 ,. , A, h , yW.
e um . &, , nTree,w!ran n n. . .
ew .,,%
me ..m wc.<ggg%w:m.gdv 3 s
1 I i
. .xm .ca . w. .m Securities Research Division March 12,1981
~_. c ! r ., L,'
Exhibit 2 Utility Nuclear Power Plants-The Outlook For the 80's
& Some improvement is taking place . . .
It may surprise you where I
I i
Doris A. Kelley industry Specialist (212)637 8159 l
l M10/ 763
' I .1'
>, , ..c . .
. _ - . = _ _ .
4 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Incorporated (MLPF&S) trades for its own account as an odd-lot dealer, market maker, block positioner and/or arbitrageur, and it may have either a long or a short position in these securities which may be partially or completely hedged.
MLPF&S,- for the accounts of its directors, elected officers, employees and employee benefit pmgrams may have an interest in the common stock of these companies.
Note: At the time of publication of this report, the NRC released word that Sourthem Company's Joseph M. Farley nuclear plant would receive a full y power operating license.
U - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - -
l l
l Sinca our las t rzport on the nation's investnr -ng nuclear power planta pitns for 16 nuclear power plan ts have been cancelled, and construction on
)) many nuclear units has either ceased temporarily or lessened substantially.
Nevertheless, four nuclear units that did not have low power or commercial operating licenses a year ago now have them. We estimate that four to eight nuclear units are nearing completion and could be in commercial operation by this time next year.
In our opinion, 'several additional plant cancellations are likely by the end of 1981. About 18 units appear to us to be possible candidates for cancellations.
Clearly, either through cancellation w successful start-up, the investor owned el ec tric power industry has begun to shed the nuclear construction load. The number of physical nuclear projecta that are being built is decreasing.
Changes in and reversals on major nuclear issues are the only certainties and the investment merits of various utility stocks will continue to be e ff ected as a result. We do not believe that investors and utilities will return to nuclear power on the basis of a single occurence or at one time. Instead, we believe that individual u tility companies will determine their own power needs and chart a corresponding course of action on nuclear power.
We believe that investors may be able to find profitable opportunities in a select group of utility shares whose nuclear involvement may have caused concern in the pas t .
Some utilities have fundamentals that could change subs tantially nuclear power in the intermediate tem because of general changes in their position. For some utiliti es , those changes could be sp pearheaded wer.
by expected favorable shifts in Federal regulation of nuclear h
FI Other utilities are completing long standing nuclear projects and may soon have a new asset in ra te base. Still other utilities may, through cancellation of or deferral of nuclear plant contruction obtain flexibility, which could allow a company to wait until some of i ts energy needs could be deteruined with greater accuracy.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Some Changes The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should be composed of five members--
currently it has four.
President Reagan will be selecting the fif th member, who will automatically become the chairman of the Commission. A Reagan appointee is assumed to share the President's desi re to continue development of nuclear power.
Specifically, we believe that the new chairman may seek to reduce the regulatory NRC.
tangles that sometimes develop withj n the various divisions of the In addition, in the future the two-two split on issues is not likely to occur as it did sporadically in the past. Although we expect strict safety s tandards to continue to be the foundation for NRC actions, greater effort toward expediting day-to-day matters may improve Commission responsiveness to th e in dus try 's n eeds .
We believe .that the " national mood" will determine nuclear power's long term status. In addition, we believe that the NRC's first action, under its new -
Reaga n appointed chairman will be to detemine the status of those plants
). nearing completion. Getting completed plants on line is a decisive move and would complemen t President Reaga n 's attitude toward other domestic issues.
Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 1
j If the NRC ccts as we expsct it to, than plants that are basically complete l could have operating or low.' power licenses within the next several months. '
The following plants could receive such licenses:
Company Nuclear Unit Pacific Gas & Electric Diablo Canyon #1 Diablo Canyon #2 Southem California Edison San Onofre #2 Commonwealth Edison La Salle #1 General Public Utilities Three Mile Island #1 (Metropolitan Edison)
The current uncertainties of the nuclear power industry make it better to be winding down rather than starting up a nuclear project.
If more favorable NRC regulatory procedures for eventual licensing of newly constructed plants are implemented, then, in our opinion, plants nearing completion in the near-to-intemediate term are in a good position. Plants that are currently at least 80-to-855 complete appeal to us because we assume that they could be completed in 17-to-19 months (maximum). Such plants could conceivably be in a rate base, producing power and earning revenue, by late 1983. Units that are more than 80-to-855 complete could be on stream sooner.
Much of an investor's concern about nuclear plant inves tment focuses on the ever-lengthening time to build a plant (see Appendix) and to put it in rate base. By concentrating on utility companies with projects nearly complete the wait for a return can be projected with much greater accuracy. Indeed, where regulatory procedures permit, a company may be able to prefile a rate case that would include the new unit in its rate base. Such a filing might stipulate that when the unit becomes commercial, the rates in question would become effective autcmatically. Such filings might be particulary appropriate in states that do not allow use of a projected rate base or a future test year.
Following is a list of the utilities and the units fitting the above descrip tion:
Company Nuclear Unit Cincinnati G & E Wm. H. Zimmer # 1 Commonwealth Edison La Salle #2 Long Island Lighting Shoreham Middle South Utilities Grand Gulf #1 Waterford #3 South Carolina E & G Virgil C. Summer #1 Texas Utilities Comanche Peak #1 2 / Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants
Cencallation--in the leng run it may not ba the bsst choice; hownver, for some u tili ti et , it could ba a valuable option.
I We believe that the option to cancel a nuclear project is valuable to some utiliti es .
Obviously cancellation or a deferral is not a cure for most utility companies. In many instances, a decision to cancel could virtually eliminate a massive capital spending program. The benefits of lowering spending needs are evident. A utility that could derive the most benefit from a cancellation probably displays. one or more of the following characteristics:
- able to identify an alternative means of meeting projected demand (in addition to changing to a coal-fired plant, some utilities may find a decline in projected demand means postponing construction for several years)
- has the dollar involvement in the cancelled unit at tolerable levels (Wiich means that the probability of recoupment is reasonably high) -
- has projects that are not yet under construction and are thus easily cancelled, or has projects that are less than 20% complete.
Canpany Nuclear Uni _t_ Comment Illinois Power Co.
- Clinton #2 Dollar involvement very (NOT CANCELLED) low, service area load growth moderate. Believe g company is in position to cancel and .would realize benefits from doing 30.
Boston Edison Co.
- Pilgrim #2 Both NES & $SE experi-(NOT CANCELLED) encing decline in load growth rates. Each has a tolerable level of dollar l
involvement. BSE's funda-mental position likely to be improved should pro-ject be cancelled.
l Portland General Electric ' Pebble Spring #1 & 2 PGN appears to have some (NOT CANCELLED) wait-and-see room in its reserve margin. Regional Skagit #1 power legislation in (NOT CANCELLED) place could aid company's eventual plans for future power generation. Much of dollar involvement could be transferred to new construction project.
- For a further description of these units, see nuclear plant tables in this report.
Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 3
___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ._ _ __ = _ _ _ _ _
Whr.t abcut those nuclear projects that do not fall into any of tha preceding catagories?
A case-by-case appraisal must be made for each project. The only general measure that can be used for them, is consideration of the total cost of an alternative. If the alternat'ive is not available as soon or sooner and I at a cost lower completion than what remians to be spent on the unfinished unit, then the of the nuclear unit may be preferable. State regulation is of tremendous importance in such instances. Without regulatory commitment to the project's eventual completion, the cost and delay could exceed all projections.
We said earlier that we believe, that the " national mood" will contribute the most to the long-tem status of nuclear power. The investment implications are anything but clear. It is possible that what the public wants and what is needed may not be the same.
We suggest, therefore, that a close monitoring of the " national mood" as well as selec tive use of those electric power shares whose characteristics may place them in a position of strength may help an investor weather uncertainties of investment in nuclear power.
NUCLEAR PLANT INFORMATION TABLES The following tables should aid the utility investor in assessing a company's present or future nuclear position. The data are presented as a snapshot of conditions at a moment in time . Most of the column headings are self explanatory; explanations for the others follcu. Dollars Invested and Cost Per JM are best used as minimum figures below which, costs will not fall. The data are as of September 30, 1980, unless year end data were available.
Under the colunri headed State and Operating Utility, we first list the state in which the plant is located and then the lead (operating) utility of the nuclear power plant (s). A lead utility generally has the responsibility for fuel procurement and not is necessarily the company with the largest percentage of ownership. If the lead utility is a subsidiary, we list the parent company below in parentheses. We do not include those nuclear power plants that are majority owned by public agencies.
The tem Licensed Operable Nuclear Power Plant refers primarily to nuclear units that are capable of producing power and that have loaded fuel. A unit could be operable and have a license, but might not operate because of an NRC res triction. There are four such plants:
Indian Point #1 down since 1974 Consolidated Edison Humboldt Bay down since 1976 Three Mile Island #1 Pacific Gas & Electric down since 1978 General Public Utilities Three Mile Island #2 down since 1979 General Public Utilities We note that at any time other operable units may be temporarily under NRC operating restrictions for various reasons or that a unit could be down at the behest of the operator. Those units are not included in the above list.
Years of Commercial Operation for the operating nuclear units represent the years in which the various state regulatory bodies accepted those units as ,
used or useful for rate making.
4 / Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants
~ , _ _ , _ _.
a .
Wo lict percent 2ga of ownership folloyed by the corres ponding util1*,y company's stock symbol in the column marked Company and Others Percent g Ownership.
FF. we list "muni" In cases where next ownership is shared with to' the indicated percentages.
municipal power agencies, If owners include Co-operative Agencies, we list "co-op(s)" and, in a few cases, " Pow Auth" to show that a Power Authority has ownership in a unit.
Our about Ccraments
- past uniton Operating Nuclear Plants are intentionally general and speak performance. Because our crystal ball is no better than yours, any discussion of a unit's future availability will hinge only on whether er not there are " generic fixes" looming in a unit's future.
" Generic fixes," as we call them, are, in oversimplified terminology, repairs or alterations that must be made and that a ffect a number of nuclear power plants.
lifetime of' These would be the plants conditions a ffec ted. that cannot be allowed to exist over the Issues." The NRC calls them " Unresolved Safety mention: variousIn our opinion, only one generic fix has become common enough to denting. steam generator problems including tube leaks, corrosion and There are other problems such as turbine blade' cracks (which also occur in fessil fuel plants) and seismic restraint requirements. We mentioned tubing problems because the amount of unit downtime required to make temporary or persanent repairs plus considerable check-and-test time can be worrisome to shareholders, and the cost could effect earnings modestly. We include a brief explanation of tube integrity problems in the Appendix. Generally, the cost of repairing steam generator tubing is capitalized, and replacement power costs are handled under a company's fuel adjustment clause, (if there is one) or by deferred fuel cost accounting.
g The Nuclear Power Plant Planned g Under Cons truction column is self-explanatory. Some units listed are complete or will soon be completed.
Completed plants cannot be classified as operable until at least a low p'ower license is received and fuel is loaded.
Notations included in the column headed Permit:
C - NRC construction permit granted.
LWA - NRC has given limited work authorization for the unit, i.e.
preparation of the construction site may commence 0 - The constructing utility company has placed an order for a nuclear unit with a chosen reactor supplier.
The Planned completion of Year of Completion is usually the company's scheduled year for the plant. Dates for commercial operation of a unit can only be estimated because of current licensing uncertainties. Many of the dates have been deferred and more deferrals are likely. Estimates for periods beyond the-late 1980's, have only limited use, given current regulatory uncertainties.
The column headed Comments for Plants Under Construc tion includes factual material, and our analysis of the unit's current or prospective status.
b Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 5
Licensee Operabla Stata and Operstans fr. of Company &
Bueleer Power tru 1 t t v P1 ant cameretal Others 1 Owes t i en ALaaana Ouneesa t a_
Comment Alatnes Fener Co. Jameph M. Farley at (3euthern Campeay Subsidiary) 1977 429
- 1005 This Westingnouse unit working wet!.
Major three Mlle taland required audifloations eosplete.
Jeeepn M. Farley #2 629
- 100s untt #2 reees,ed gne seeend Lau peuer 1beense to operste since TM1 en 10/23/80. The unit is not espected to reach full power capattttty until early aesond half 1981 r AA1154 ariseen Pe!!a Seresse Ca.
AAg Ae&&$
Artanees reser & Llant Ca. Ano et
( A M8edle South Susandaary) 850 m 1975 1005 ANO #2 teather mit displaye enJor generle 1980 prontees. Operating records nave seen 912 N 1001 resseetable. We enjer enditteettens espeeted at this Stee. Walt #2's offleal year of operetten la 1980 ohen Lhe unit usa accepted in rate base.
CAtaf0as1A Pastfle Gas & Eleetric Co. thannelet key 65 W 196) 1005 This unit has been lasellte sinos 1976 due to reguistory requirement for selsste taprovements. To meet todays requirements sould require more sener then the unit has time to earn hans.
In light of the indefinite shutdoim the California Puolle Utilities Coastsalon removed this unit free rate base in 12/79.
3eutners California Ednaen Ca. San Onofre #1 1968 801 set til m Unit doun since Apet! 1980 beesuse of 201 300 correstee of tubes la the steam-genereter Most reeent estimate for Sta return to servlee la sonettee durtag 4 the second quarter 1981 Operating I uttistsee he,e deesdod ta e,entuotty replace the tubing.
M AM Putile 3erence Co. et Col. Fort St. Train 1979 tocs P3s 330 m This to the only nian-teeperature, gas.
ecoled power reactor supplying toenerstal as the nation. This prototype unit, built by General atoele. has mae many prostems in its development.
PSA obtained owneran1p of unit at 731 of design capacity in Jan. 1979; tecnnical proatens prevented increasing espacity. The primary butiger has coepensated P38 for the noen capsetty. PSA continued efforta to bring unit up te designed leven.
- AC deelston on unit's operations at iOCs or design e..aett, e. es.d in 1961
)
U til.e. Nuclear Pwr. Plants
a .
l Es t . l tweleer Power Plant Dni tore Cett Planned fr. Company 8 ottFVDC Plaanad Per C.n. Or_ u,nder
.a m m ofes..et Comuner.etal Ot i
O_here.n. e In .
~ ,.,_see,
.n e m
Pole Verde di C $l.444 19 8 ) 29.11 ALP 8657 1.270 m Unit #1 le 148 complete and has much 79 .1 Co-op 692 prestee for meeting the 190) er an early 15.8 ELPA 154 1984 completion sehedule. Units et Pale ferve of C $ 1.4 44 1964 10.7 P,8, 279 end #3 may las their schedules, for 1.270 Ped 15.8 3CE 366 reasons Doyend the sampanies centre 1.
Pete verse #1 We would and one year to each of those C 41.444 1986 6,270 m units' eenstruetton sehedules.
Pale Veree 84 0 m/n 39.11 alp 1988 ) $ t.800 Caneelled July 1979, approngestely $1.8 own spent
- i. gm '*a
(*
,. 4 J, a c'a. ** az' rir u r h' a - 4 r .. i 800 In"n'.a
. se
,, s %.g a y i9eo ret
,ai 1,270 pef
. . u,,,
,,90 )
- t...
32.,3 3.e . L. 00 in it s.
not aus d to ,ses i,,e.e ee order, thetoes.o.ne r,e. en L.
was
- 3.3 uv? 100 anyers.aScos. east to AIP anareholders wee 5d p/s.
17.2 munt ( el 80'l Stette Cagen #1 C 1981 10D$ PCC 1,00S m Dlatte il le sempleted and #7 le apprestestany
$110 988 eomplete. Intereeners hate sucsessfully 81,950 deleted lleensing efforta. At this point il Beatle Canyon #2 C 1982 001 PCC
, 1,045 pad appeses as If many of the evallable opportunttles for intervention have been es%eusied and Licensing for the first unit could eone later thle year, or early 1982. We espect the second unit to follou swLftly.
5 Sea Onofre #2 C $1.a90 1961 76.68 3Cf 1,100 pet Unit #2 is 961 comelete at 10/80, we be!!ese 1981 201 3!0 le a likely start up tarset.
3.46 Munt(s) 81.000 SCE 477 *:00 San Onofre #3 C 81,490 198 ) 74.61 SCE 78 thent(s) Unit #1 was 681 eaaplete at 10/80. We hellete the 1.100 ped f
, 201 3DO tareeted start.up achedule is 114ely to be met.
1.48 Munt(s)I much of reestred pere 1% Asther1As should be in
) place, became it shares same alte se unit #7, therefore unit f) m mete smoot%1y through its l'seensing period.
.,,e eL me..n.fvi t
1 l
h I
l Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 7 l
, . - . . - - - - - - - - ' - - - " ~ - ~
f s Licensee Operst13 17. tf Stats and Operating tueleer Pourr Company 4 Vil1Ity Ceeperint! Oters 5 PIeat tveret t on (w..ran i e Co ..t C0amEC73 CUT sertheast Villittee Connectient fannee 1968 tot nu aelatleely loes record of restable
$7% W 13 #C operation. Ne major sodif10ations es*
9.5 UIL poe t e d .
9.5 sat
- 22. Othere
- Millatone #1 1971 1001 #9 660 red Seth units operating ulthout M111stene #2 1975 1001 NU major dif fleuttles. Tusing prettens 130 se# alowed my remedial settons.
FLCA1De flertaa Power Corp. Crystal Rieor d) 1977 405 FDP 825 Per to Co-op W1L has evidenced some tube correalon.
however ledtestions are that prettee is manageable. The unacneduled outages esperienced in 1980 not caused by any alngle recurring problem.
Flertaa Power & Light Co. Turkey Point #J 1972 1005 FPL 693 W Both units have substantial pretiens Turacy Point et l with staae generetor tubing. Se far 1973 1001 FPL 693 Pas = l campany plans to replace tubes la unit j 8* starting Octoser 1981 Replacement
[ for unit #3's tuning would follew in Octs >er 1962.
St. Luste #1 1976 1001 FPL 802 W Ceneral operating record has been good.
Same corrosion was detected W efforts to lower the rata of eurroeten appear to be successful.
GgDICIA Georgia Power Co. Ofwin 1. Hetch #1 (3euthern Ce. Subsidiary) 1975 50S *.0 7 06
- 50 Co-Ops Indientions are that unit seattattitty Edwin I. Msteh #2 1979 SOS 50 has been everage er netter. No thronte 790 Pef 50 Co-Opa problems to hi ,Altsht for either unit.
3kLis015 Csemenwealth Ed. Dresden #1 1960 1001 Cvt 207 foi Dresden Unit al shut sown Octoter 1978 for major equipment upgrading.
Eatimatah are that thia 20 year old ([t' unit aar not return to service untti 1985 86.
Dressen #2 1979 79e Ptf 100 CVE Dresden #3 1971 130 CM 79e red Quas Cities fl 1972 75 ChiE
?89 ptf Dresden #2 and f). Quad Cataea #1 and Quad Cattea #2 25 1EL 82 and t>otn Zion unita have undergone 1972 75* 0st 769 ees the planned NRC modifications, and 25 ftL normal operation espeeted.
Zion el '973 1.0eo Pts 100t (wr
!!on 02 1974 %001 Cdt inine a Power Co.
C 1
8 / Util . Nuclear Pwr. Plant:)
_ _ = _-. __~ _ - - -
4 ta l . Dellere Dealear Power print Coat P1 seed Tr. Ceepony a uteFUDC Plassied Dr Under Per 4f Commeretil Othzre 5
_ C ena t rue t t en g Inentee L Osera t t en Ownecent e (af t t tone) g 9 nt11 stone #3 1,11e m C $2,260 1946 ett Wu 12.25 pts 4 461 117 Construetten proceede en schedule and projoeted year er eempletten
).95 PuH l'9
}.71 UIL 10 appears possible sasuming adequate ,
I 4.05 43E 10 financial resources. Wort 341 I 2.51 C77 osselste. NU is offering 8.71 I 19 points of Sta share for sale.
8.75 eunta. 4 64 Other st Lan6e #2 C S t .372 1983 100s rPL 8 6 t0 Set set the one,any has tenun ne,ots.tgon, to sell approsimetely Ist of St.
Lucle #2 to vernous so. ops and samt.
c a polities. Thus far the ente stane4 sereement covers 68 of the unit, de.
alsnoted to go to the etty of Orlando.
Were la atinut 675 nemplete.
alean W. Westle #1 C $2.004 1985 S0.7sso 3 188.5 1,100 m 49 3 Co-epa worn preeeeds on Vestle fI which ta 110.5 about !?S eoeptete. We believe alets u. Testle #2 however, that the mejor thrust is C 88,140 1987 90.7 L 79.1 1.100 sef toward the aveeessrun operetton of
- 69. ) Co-ops 47.9 Farley f 7. whleh received a low power 11eense in 1940 and therefore sostle #1 eny las the 1985 ochedule.
Westle #2 la as along, e in our o,inten sueject to penettle deferral.
Le salle #1 C 3 9 68 1982 tool CWE l.079 sef Construetton for Unit #1 ta 998 complete.
O 4t.e63 Fuel toed oculd be conandered imeinent.
Lamuneretal operation any eenne sooner than indlea t ed. In our opinion. for the nest 2 or ao La Salle et C 4 968 1982 1001 CWE f.078 m years a scent deal of sumphaats will be place 4 en hath Lass 11e unnta, einee ther ere se elese to Srstowood #1 ensplettan. Following these unite in order of C St.165 1995 1001 CWE eampletion we believe stil bet Syron #1 1,120 sef 8 986 (715 eoeplete), Syron 82 (175 complete).
Breneweed #2 C S t, t65 9986 Scaldweed fI MOS eamplete). Brandwood #2 1001 CWE (ses complete).
pyren e t C 84.001 198 ) 1001 CWE 1,120 fed
$l.700 8 pron #2 C 81.081 198a 1001 cwt t.t?O sas Carrell County it 0 una 1993 751 CWE 1,120 m 8 70.4 Carrell County unite 14 2 whteh estat only on 12.51 ItL 0- ersvina boards have heen placed on the hack burner 12.51 IPW 0 for the nest 6 or so years. The company la not Carro!! Courty #2 0 p ot l994 I
t.170 ets seestna construction peretts and has considerable
' flenability ar4 new dollar lavolva;mnt, in our opinion. thta could allow continued deferral or caneelle t lon.
I Citaten fl C S t .221 1964 801 IPC 81.0e5 950 *ed
, Citaton di is 711 compeeta. Total coat estimate 706 Co-op 761 recently re tm*4 and completten schedule estende4 Citaten f? C MM l'888 1001 B PC .fL Clinton f? fleae than ?$ complete) is takine a teet 950 m seat to it. In our optalon cancellation la pos.st%It however eurrentle the unit to en in. rici te .rerrai.
I l
l 0
Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 9
. , , , - v . m... . . _ . . _ , - , - - . . . - . .
. - ~
e s Liesemed Operella Tr. of Compary 4 State and Operating susteer Power
- Commereial others 1 Ut.t i t t y Plant Oserstlen h a***'s Caement 18914SA Berthens led &ena P.S.
P.S. lastens 50W4 3ese tiestrie Lasht Duane arnead 1975 701 IEL. mit perfomnee we noen utgef.etwy.
4 Power Ca. 138 ftf 30 Co-ops 545541 Ramas C&B Co.
Lau132ame Golf States Oulitles *
(
Lestelans Power & Light Co.
(Mtedie South Uulattes Subandaary)
Meist Centrs! Maine Peuer Manne tankee 1972 388 CTP Thla unit has had a good operating 875 les 15 pts record. Continual upgradtng has seen 47 others performed.
mea TLAAD testinere ces Calverts Cittfs el 1975 1001 scr Performance has been good for both Be5 red units. No major modificattens re.
Calverta Cliffa #2 1977 1005 80t quired.
845 ped Ma&&&CNU3ETTS besten Edison Co. Pilgrie el 1977 1005 IL*.1 Unit Performance appresening the 65% pet industry norm and ne apparent difficulties of a major nature.
/
10 / Utile Nuclear Pwre Plants
5 Dollars fusiter Power Plant Cast Planned Tr. Company 4 w/arvet yltaned Or Unser Ptr of Canneretal Oth+rs 1 Investen C ons t ruc tlan Peceit L Or*e s t t en 0.***c a n 19 (Millinae) C ose** t
. y ~, e ,, C ,,., ,,,, ,00, N, , ,,,
6a4 ses C.n.t,_ t , .n n. , te. b, .. a , nee ,.p _ ,9,,.
pending safety review of pile delving methods.
Work is 0-te 55 semplete. If construction la resumed, an estension of the pe.utt to construct must be ohtained. Interveners have already lined up to protest. In our opinion the units future la in noubt, nortle pill f t C 81, $18 1946 1, t 30 stf In August 1979, the NRC ordered safety related 835 PIN 8 783 P!n construction work stopped. In May 1960. the enc 17 Co-op 152 co.op allowed a step.by-step resumptien of thle vert.
nortie N!!! fr C $1,$18 1967 Unit it la 205 and unit #2 is snout 65 complete.
l.lN ses Estimate eenstruction seule return to full foree by 1st Omarter 1981 1980 appears to have been a year of major nuclear operations changes, effeete4 by FIN, in an effort to satiary NRC quartes. In our opinion attppaRe in eampletion senedule for both unita is !! Italy.
melf Crees it C 01,464 198a 41.$$ act 3 s i9 Unit ts 685 complete. Cost and completten 1,150 tes 41.5 KLT 406 schedules recently revised. Earlier menetistions 17.0 Co.op 169 to set! 171 to local oo.eps have been f ampered by i
regulatory stipulattens that are not consuelve te finallaation of the original plan. Should the compantas not be able te selve that proales, we believe the unita completion senedule may have to be altered. &n a4ditional 98 points ownership is also up for sale.
asser Pend il C 81.839 1986 70 C3U B 738 934 pad 30 Co-op(e) River Bend it believed to te no moas than 2$$
316 complete. Construetten wort has not alueys proceeded at mastnum levels due to various a
problems in the past, Regulation and financing diffleulttee secount for our te1&er that this un1L any not eone close to the planned year of completion.
r esver send #2 C N /M N/M 1001 C3U $ 70.5 Second unit on hold with very little wort completed 934 etf (lees than SS). In our opinion caneellation of 2nd unit may be an option under consideration.
Expoet deetalon in second half of 1965.
tKeerfore #3 C 61.200 1463 1001 M30 41,196 worn is 411 complete. Completten schedule deferred 1.16% peg by one year af ter construction slow down resulted frase financine diffleuttles. Some anti nuo settwitt may surfsoe es operating 11eense is sought, nevertheless, the 11gnt can be seen at the end of the tunnel.
Pilsena #7 0 N/* N/M 591 RSE 4 i80 thsit utthout construction permit. In our opinien
- 1. tSO ped 11 NE3 47 eeneellation is hignt y probatte.
10 (12 othee 91 utillties) e.-
l Util. Nuclear Pwr, Plants / 11
e a Licensed Opermits Tr. of State tad Operating - sweleer Pomer Coopsay 4 Uti l it v Comaneretal others 1 Plant Operetton (hmershis Loenig ma$sacuuserts Sortheast UL11111ee
.. s.gia.4 a2.t ria 3,at isn.ee ..e i, i 175 m 305 .cs imee . e. is the tion.e sidesi i 315Nu operat ing eemmereten nueneer power 9 5 BSE plant. The availability seer tae mits 9 5 CTF 21 years haa Deen consleerstly higher 1.5 Piel thaa average. Over this 41ms the unit 17.5 Othere has apparently remained La step ettn changing technology, Macu1GMI Ca.emre Peuer Co. Sig Rock Point 1961 4001 CHT.
- 6) ptf Onit operations generally successful.
eurrently even for refueling.
Falisadas 1971 1001 CMS 740 m This unit was one of first to have steam generator tune preeless, aos was the first to try the realeeeing method for retarding tube correstem. That plus other remedlee ear asseunt far favoratie performance union lessens the Detroit Edisen Co. need for tube repteaseent at this Llee.
l Indians & n$th6en Clee. Co. Demeld C. Cook #1 1975 laserneen slee. Pau. Co. 1001 atP Both units have generstly operates 1.054 m Sunendiary) Demand C. Cook #2 uneventrelly.
1976 1001 1EP 1,100 lef MS NMA rther. ,t.t.. . eCo. t.c. le ,,,, ,00. . ,
$45 ses
.., th,ee _ ,t. .e ..eeage or at.,
Protrie 2 eland il 1973 recores of operation. and have no ap.
1005 Nr.P parent operating difficulties 530 m Protrie Islead ik ?tfe 1001 4*.7 530 set M1331333PPI pussissippa Feuer & Lt. Co.
(Middle South Ut114tles Substelary) l l
nl350gni unten Electrie Co.
rEW NAAPSN!Rg P.S. Co. meu Naapantre I
12 / Utilo Nuclear Pwr. Plants i
- . -. ~ - . . .. .
- f. ,
Ea t . Dollare renneer reser Fasnt Cset Planned fr. Compose & utarUDC tiennes or sneer per of fois rrtal Othere 5 fn este4 c ema t rue t t en g L Neretton rh.necant o tat t i t ean) comment 0 men it/M ts mom,ea, sue #1 . n
. - , n,s u.U. .. , soth U,o.ite
.re. uneented 12/80 primarily for servlee f4 ,
b [* m/n t
"* ut Othe4 *
'75s ist 29 #U 6 ses d .r.wth r.._e. , hts 4,.e , d.e s,on ana the in ut.d delaars to e ruo,.,ed e,.
nunta,a5, 9 a.f among the lowest in our evever. Fernal roguest o ef.s s Other. for r.c pe.ent yet to so=, we ..peet c.uo..ie 12 Othere treatment.
utdised it C $ t.739 1964 52s per 100$ CMS The twin Midland unita are somewhat unteue in their
- 3) 300 almost Stamese like contruetton features. Sogn Midland if C 51.739 198) 1001 CMS units are 581 complete. It is anticipated that the 806 set ahared facilities will allow fuel load. pre.op.
testing and perhaps eventual start-up to oseur within a few months of each other. Masimia shar$r.g of feellities La a key design feature. Completion schedule is agressive.alippage is pesetble.
Earles Fema #2 C $ 1,6 36 198) SOS DTE $ 897 1,09) fef Construetten 75$ eamplete. Project continues to 20 Co-opa 18 6 enee forweed. Howe.or. eenotetten schedule temet optimistle atten diffleulty W4th obtaining varloas posits required during eenstruction phase.
c.__ : #2 O NAI N/M 1005 DTE Unita enneelled Maren 24, 1980 Capeet tha i,
hr3 r.g Q
c nn,,,
I L
L,
. J.. .editionai enar..s, to re it reo. eane.li.ttion.
utL1 be esistively small. Seeovery of invested Creemunes f) n/M N/M touf 07E 1,264 per dollars included in aprtl 1980 rate fillne. Co.
sens fin year reconry period. Final deetaten espected April 1981 M!chtsan Commise6an has favorsele record for hanelleg staller request.
Crone Cult il C $1,545 1982 81.51 nsU si,a?) nsu worn elone to 90s ceaplete for unit it. The Msu 1,250 eed 12.5 Co-op 210 Co-op efforts are peleartly focused on Grand Culf unit Cetne Culf #2 C 41,069 one therefore the second unit (2)$ complete) la 1986 87.88 M30 295 MSU 1,2$0 saf toutna a baowseat to the M3u waterford #3 unit in 12.5 Co-op at Co-oo Leutstana (see proceeding page) which is 815 complete. Dispite MSU finanetal dif fleuttles Grand Culf fl looms penetsing. 31tppass for construct 1an reasona not likely to push post early
'8) for the Grand Culf unit it in our opinion.
Cellaway #1 C 6t,371 1981 icos utp 4 9M t.190 W Callower it receivina a!! the attention as it is 701 ecuplete and may co=e within a year of its j completion schedule. The second unit la less '
C411avey #2 $1,496 1,150 W C 1988 1001 UCP 8 90 than 11 complete and in our opinion a ripe j candidate for indefinite 4eferral or aaneellatio=,
Senereon #1 C 1981) 155 rnH(f) 8 644 Construction continues, unit #1 la 401 and unit #2 1.19e red 41.54) Ft1
)
( 7.5 UIL is 75 eneplete. 40ditional pleeps are being '
- 0.0 NES 97 offered for sale by PNH. however we see no sentroom #2 C 1985 a.5 NU 58 lame 11ste tainees. In our optanon. it la 1.194 Pet 15.5 ten 91 possible that work rensantng cou!1 proareas enre othere sanothly than earlier as the units opponente coe.
elone to erheunttre many of the formal intervenv>
proce s ses . If so. only finanetal hurones remann.
(O Piet stil be recueing sta Seabroot f eagtruetlan for Seahroow la manned by Yankee e.nerente from SOS to )SS ever a 13 stante, the snee concern that aaneaed and contir..*s sonth pertes beginnine January 198 6 to operste the four f ades plants. wMen have lepressive operating reeerds.
D 4e W
l Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 13
- s. 6 Liesnee3 Domen13 Tr. of Comanny 4 Stats and operating fueleer Power Comuneretal others i Vtility Pl ant Oseretion Ownershls C e ent
- EW J883E7 Jersey Central Peu. 4 Lt. Oyster Creet 1969 1005 GPU Dyster Creens. general availability has been good. Addit (onal (Genersk Pus 11e Ut111ttes 650 as Susandlery) TM1 modifts.t&ons and refueline senedvied for spring 1989 Pus 11e Servlee E4C aslam #1 1977 4 35 Pt.C Dur6pg the last 3 montns of 1980 eartous endifleations and a 1090 mm 6 4) PE refueltag were performed at Sales. The unite etasulative
? 17E avalistility record as Delow average. Newever, the 1980
? Dtw performance was we!! above industry more and may alsnal that some pro 61eas have been remedled.
Sales f2 1981 all PEG Unit received law power 11eenae April 1980. fuel was leaded 1.11S as (Mi. Est.) 4) FI S/80 bl/ hold.up en the full power license appears to be
? ATT. emergency preparedness plane reestred by EAC. The states 7 DEW of Delaware e new Jersey require assistanee in developing
. .6 theirs and the Co. any be called upea for that seatstance.
NgW TORE Conselndated Edlaen ladina Point il 1962 1005 ED Indian Petnt it ima snut down late 197a originally because of a 26$ su need to upgrade its emergency eore emoling syetes. Sines thee the esponditures that, would be needed to bring this unit inte compliance with todeye broader and changing safety regulations are eonandered pronibitive. Last estiastoa were that more than
$300 million eight te needed, however Con Ed betteves it would only tie econamassa to upgrade at less than $200 million. In retruary 1980, the company deelded to decommission this vast la process that would not began untti aarly La the 2 tat century).
The unit was removed from rate base la May 1979. La a rete (11&ng made April 1980 the company requesta recoupment of some
$4) a111 ton net invested in Indian Point il to be saortised ever a 15 year period.
Indian Point #2 1973 1001 ED Andtan Posnt #2 eurrently in cold shutdown as a reault of ST) ans piping ecrosion which led to a buildup of water at the tese of the containment . An OetnDer 1980. Susp. pump failure contributed to the mater Dulldup. Con Ed esposta Le spend 410 elliton to replace the plDing. Currentir the autage la espected to last untti april (a!!ppage we believe is peas 1 Die). It le felt that the containment vessel did not [
suffer damage. Local autherttles have alle ed nes!!gence on ttie part of 40 The mRC has levned punitive fines. In our (-
spanion thta mit is lately to asume pecekees of a politisal nature more than technical.
Long taland Lighting
- a. i.,. St.Le sac l
N6 agers Mohawa mine Mlle Pelat #1 1969 1001 40 mjor pro 6 tees in untt's operating hLatory.
wo =
14 / Utile Nuclear Pwr. Plants
e-tat. Delltes swlear Power Plant Cist Planned fr. Company 4 Pleaned er 9meer w/arVDC P;r af Ceuunerett! Others i Investeg C onstruet t en g L Coere t t en f wwee n t s (M t i t iond g D
4h
- rep, 2 moor #9Ag N v t'* R/le-f f tool CPU w
f6 s 394 v Unit eenee a
1940 i d re.,u14,lled sov..r, es e te-eerta.nt
. <he n resp es. pan seas.d eeral .f arveC for this unit .ad included in a pending rate case la a request for eeocupement of these invested dollars. We leek for a final by second guarter.
nese Crees #1 C $946 til Ptc 1,047 m some 241 of this project is complete. that figure 82.011 $$ att $1.101 ttc refleets the status of required feettitles that 6).) ATr would be ehered try tooth units. During the neer Nepe Crees #2 C 1949 95$ Plc I j
to latermediate ters, PtG's resourses may be 4,047 es deeeted to sweeessful completica of Salem #2 (see 5 ATE , prevleus page). Over the long ters, we believe unit f1 er of Nepe Creek will be completed with some s11ppage in the schedule. We see not optistatie on the future of Note Creek #2.
9 shorenas C $2.60) 190) 1005 LIL 8Se av 81.530.0 Work about 65$ complete. Schedule slipped by over 12 months but this somewest nas11 unit speears to have a good anot at a 198) eospletion. We esteet some allopage in the senedule due to rework for unit's sentainment vessel design.
James pogt il 3 N/M % N/M 30$ LfL
), $0 %. fp l f * * $0 NCg OgLIL Jamesport 1&2 as nuclear units have been eeneelled Q
Jamespect #2 p- t e L. . w t.
4 E.M$ NCE because N6w Yort State's $1 ting Soerd refused to C h/M N/M 501 LIL tasue atte approval.
- 1. tSc aw 50 NGE eyeeg #1 0 m/M m/M 501 uCE 8 40 NGt
- new York Slate's Siting Board dtamissed the 1.2f*w f,
(( j. l 9')
L1L ] p)B L1L applicotter, for these unita in Detocer 1979. No g
pyeeg #2'g f.,
0' ( n /M g, ., h/ alternatives were proposed. Despite efforts to N /M 60$.NCE appeal this setten. we believe this project La 1.250 m 50 LIL permaner.tly cancelled.
Esne mile Point f.' C 8*.222 t966 til NMK $ 190 Unit approutmately IS$ complete construction 1.000 m 18 WCE 18 2 wort-level reduced to }01 during this vinter.
to #C3 140 The status of kine Mile Point #2 is, we believe.
10 LIL 196 a consttlee one. In our opinion nothine, is a given 9 Clet 97 and the plant's future could be altered in a ntmber of ways. Soma possittlttes arei eeneellation.
eoversion to coat, ecepletion as planned.or freese the project and put en hold.
__ __ - -<~- - . .
t
.f ,
A* *p Y
, fe
Itate and Operstag Lloonsed tperable fr. cf sveteer h Campany 4 Utili t y Ceemere111 Plaat Opere t lan Othsra 5 M arshio cas ent NEW t0at (Cent.)
Asches ter Cet Retort t. Cinna 1970 470 W n!01 Successful operating record.
mostle Caa0LIBA Caro 1&na Peeer & Lt. temswiek #1 421 per 1911 1005 Unita have a generally moventret trunswiem #2 1975 operating record.
821 pad 1001 Dee Posee Co.
1st111am iteou&re #1 1941 1.140 80f 1001 Me0utre et reeelved a ' sero
- peser a
11eense en January 23. 1941. Fuel has toen leaded and preliminary testing started. A low power lleense 1p espeeted during the seeend guarter, and full power should be achieved this year.
ONIO
, C&asamenta 048 Cleveland flee. Ille.
CAttD .
felees totaen CAPCD Devia tesse #1 1977 906 mt 46.65 ftD Unit everalt operating record as St.4 CVI without enjer blestanes. However the 1980 year aan enfer modifloation ease to the unit vnten resulted in an eutage of avven months. Nort refueling seneduled 1982.
l chie idi. Co.
CatCD 1
4 1
1 i
i 1
l i
l l
l i
16 / Util . Nuclear Pwr. Plan t.s 1 5
i
t s l Ea t &
Darleer Power P1st.t Cost Detlace Pisaned 17 Compaat 4 m/ATUDC Planned Or Onese Psr Cana trurtlam af Comnece141 Others i I A stsd Perett L JD~e t t en Owa+e** t r' E t t=s) Comunen_t steri w 1, ige . C Nm Nm 20s ecs 8 37.0 33 C#U 38.0 Storiang wu unulled Jan. 23. 1980, l l
72 test 22.0 when the row fort State Siting Doare revowet 17 C888 f 7.8 en eer!1er certificate of approval. Aeguistory eensideretton for eseovement of these essenses currently ongoing. Under study by the State regulators La aloe the peeelblility of shersng sene eesta between este parert and sharenetters.
The possibility of the latter could serve ta 11stt investment appeal of ut!!! ties in the State of New fort.
Shearen Maerte il C $2.222 1985 900 per 1001 CPL 8 831 Unit it about 355 complete and Unit #2 less than 58 semplet e. No were yet on unita #3 8 de. he Sheares Neerts 82 C 81,412 1988 1005 CPL compen, w111 saaresalvele pursue completion of the
$ 295 900 8es first two units however, spending for units 3 4 4 will stop fee the nest three years and a st:rsy is Shearen Norris dj C $1.300 1998 1001 CFL $ 53 now underway to review their future. Our guess ta 900 pas that cancellation is likely.
snencen anecta de C $1.300 1992 900 m 1001 CPL 8 87 Willeam necutre #2 C 8 668 1987 83 1005 DUE t.140 m 8 900 McCuts s #2 la 901 semplete one sound recesse en
{
operating lleense somewhat quicker than noGuire #1 I sasisming many of the needed permits obtained by }
its sistee unit will help shorten tta process I somewhat, thans L. teretne il 0 Nm l8/M 1005 Dull 1.300 saf 1 No construction permit, ne meterials esmettaent thenne L. Perstne #2 0 N/n Nm t001 QUE $ It MTu and virtually no dollace being apont. We eenstder 8,200 sef tee Pertine projeet a fatat gleam in the eye.
There is almost net %1ng to eeneel and very 3tttle Themse L. Pereine f 3 0 N/'e N/M at rLak.
t00$ Dtat I,200 ped j ten. N. 14 amer #1 C 8t,262 1982 40.1 CIN
% Sie 8eg $ M3 Ur.it was appresteately 90.to-951 complete. Eowever 4 28.5 AFP 250 31.5 DPL PB0 this does not refleet smee rework test was required within the pasnt. Hae4 to esy if thne will asuse eoepletion slippene. Unit still eensidered a near to intermediate-term start-up possibility.
Perry #1 C $1.400 11.11 CVI 1984 $ 997 Perry one 641 complete and unit two is 403 1.205 #ef 13.7 000 99 (t) complete. Ownership enances effected between M.2 Otc 271 CVI & GEC. Now that the CAPCQ eampanisa have 20.0 TD 15 9 canes 11ed several projects the outtoet for terry of C $1.820 1985 24.5 CYI successful completion of both units appears 1,205 pas 180 stronaer. howevee some a!!ppage la posalbte. j 13 7 DQU 91 (t) 41.8 OEC 249 20.0 TD tae Davis Boese #2 LWA N/M N/M 205 ftD 16 906 per $ on January 23. 1980 the CAPCO Group cancelled these f.'
(.
6 n
l 24.5 CTI 13.7 D00 '
41.0 CEC {,
20
.11 (t)
'30 four units. Eseh CAPC0 eenpany will seet roooupeent of dollars invested through inetuston in regular rete requesta. Thus for CVI has Devia tese, #3 LWa N/M N/M 205 TD received persiaston to amortise its esponditwas .
4 8 906 per over a 10 year period. An DEC rate destat$s just 2e.5 cvt to received also permits steller recoupment.
13.7 D00 E (t) TD has made a request and a final na due se, (
41.8 OEC 15 april 1989 We espect a!! the remaining rmest trte #1 0 mm Nm 41.88 CEC in Chlo La reeelve the same treatment as CVI and 1.267 pas OEC. Dou has flies a request in Pennsylvents one 20.0 TD espects a deelston in Feb. 1941. While the esteone i
, f is $ CY1 $ 80 OEC for the recoupment laeue is uncertain we note that 13.7 000
- 22 TFD the Administrative Law Judse for the Ps. P. .C.
- * */8 C VI eecommende reeovpment be a!! owed. In neitne=
grie #2 0 N/M NM a1.85 ott 15 000 (t) state will chareholders be allowed to earm a 1.2t 7 tes P0.0 TD return en those dollars duenna the aeortisatsen 2e.5 Cf1 perlo4. It is not posalble to deterstne the level 13.7 00U 1 of seditional cancellstion charaes if any tra t ma y
. rise one. .ii .eocunte .re .eitie4 aeceue.ent of adentional montes would require another request.
. aerem t,nen esom se, e.t. not eveiiabie rr= the e-p.nv.
I C
Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 17
- - ~ ~
y.
s I: .
J' p- Lleensed Deere113 Tr. af Campany &
- absts and Operating Euclear Power Cosmooretal other $
Mnlite Flant Omeret t en Ownerento g
{'
j MLANEBIA F.3. Oklahoma 3
(Central & Southwest Subsidasry)
OAECON Portland Generen Eles. Trojas 1976 67.51 PGN i
e The Trojan nuclear unit has esperienced Laproved ave 11ab10 3.130 W 30.0 MUN! ainee 1973 wnen 1%e unit bagan to esperience presenged dE
?.% PPW for various reasons. The unit's resistance to earthquaseo a mejor concern, and design sodification have been initta3 Espect the asilt down in April 1981 for refueling and m entenance wort. Some tube oracks evleent, however proe4 does not appear to be spreading. Outlook for units per f ormonee . Laproving.
PEN #3fLt&N AA Deenrtment of Emergy Shippta6 Met (Duqueene Light Co.) 1958 mit was Nue Parts DOE This was a prototype unit whose output is avs11stle to 03 60 m sown for nue Generator DQU Original unit up in 19571 new core installed in 1977.
refit &
this is a D.C.E. unit being run by Duquesne Light Co.
brougnt boek in 1977 Dueusene Llght Co. $sacer falley dl CAPCD 1976 af.!! DQU Un1L was down most of 1980 (from 11/79 Le 11/801 far warnGX SS2 N $2.31 CEC stC reeutred modifications refueling. and generst aminteN limit availablilty has been below average. Latest work amp enable aces leprovement.
Metropellten f.dison Ca.
Three Mile island di 1974 1001 CPU TMl fl currently under an apC order restricting its operatl (Genere1 Fubtle Utilities 400 W Subsidiary) Fuel is loaded. The request for the manits return to se*elC e
mRC tasued an eccer restricting the operatton will reern the NRC Coastssion an Feeruary 1981. Alle the of both these units.
- proceedina may move slowly, in our opinion the prospects f(
approval to restart are good; and we believe the unit could on line in 1981 e
Three Mlle Island #2 1978 100$ cru Three mile Island #2 had the well pub 11 stand sealdent in R 90 6
- 1979. Status: Most of the plant has been escontaminated. I refers to the aust11ary building and the fuel hatefling bull The reactor building is the diffleult tass facing the cany To date there have been four manned entries into the coast (
building. The purpose was mainly to te aske radiatten surc visual damage saaesaments and photographie deemntatten.
Ultimately the building's interger and its equipment are E decontaminated and then the damaged fuel and reactor interC to be removed. The current target for when this tev1d 14E place is August 1985, however, that date is sensiceaed optistatic. Today, the ball parb estimate for decontantnaC cos t is 81 billion. Our guess at the units future...posstG that auch of the unit could becoes a soures of replacement perte to the industry. The mark.up on the egulpeent could h.endaone eunaidering it was originally purchased in the lat 1970's.
Pennsylvania Power & Light I
I I
l 18 / Util. Nuclear Pwr e Plants l
_L _--_ -- - - - - - -- - -
~ - . . _
g f.a t. I puoleer Power Flint Planned Or Uncee. tatt Planned Tr Do11tra Pr Comeent 4 lavested cans trur tlan Aq of CannereL31 Othere 5 L _ Opeestite Cunecenir w/AFUDC
("Illleas t go ,n t 38asu Fee il LN 1,130 saf A/M 1991 4tt est i 16% c*R .
81see Fee g2 M Co-opa Currently ell worts enlawed under iO4 fo=epe tasa weg 1, t50 m 1991 Authertsatten* has been eoepleted.s "kletted work Without a The company continues to saareasteen profeet and eentinues tusile Dut14 St. We believein their efforts to even.
CSA vill, while wettina for the all eteer on Sleen Fos, devote constners6ta attention to att interests in the snee promising South Tenas unita (See $ Late of Temas).
at eureent levela until permit status enan Some asterials cosmattmante have been nede. Postle sprang it 0 1,260 go, N/M Wit 471 PCs 29 PPW $ 125
$6 in the Noveehoe sleettons Oregonlans passed a 20 PSD tenene seeing #2 0 4 Co-oes 10 referendue that would prontMt the eenatruction 1,260 per m/M wm of new nuetear plants in their state. Techsteally s 11.7 aspenning home. therefore Peo0Le Sprinas is a putt without The beLng the asia ones utilities involved have many options
- Captors posa&ble alternative siting inelpling Hanford, kasnington . Cons! der pereenent eeneellation of the project er
- Be41n a court enallenge of the Oregon referendum. In our opiaten PCE, as operator of this unit, has espeelty enough to allow for en orderly study of Sta is altercettvee.
possible that elese Should a newapent to 975 of dollace site De on found it Febene Spelnas eeund be transferred. T virtustly wipe out the deltar saposure.hisPattle seuld Springa leeks sa if it awald quietly fade awey.
toe er 1palley #7 C
&S2 W #et i966 13.Tl DQU A vellante 41.9 CCC $ 108 (t) 24.0 cvs 352 Beaver Valter WP about tot comples. Financing 20.01 ftp tis problems, reduced construction levels. and lower 146 load growth in unit's roreeast completion any continue to esuse sinppass senedule.
9 4
f sanguphanna #1 C 1,050 per 1982 905 PPL 10 co-op Construction onepletion. proceeds towards scheduled Fear of respeett vely. Units are 871 anJ 551 complete ei. a $1.773 PFL i,i C- The Co. has announced concern that ..e deters -, caus. ai sp,..e in unit.
_ ,, e)l e pietion.
. 030 ,e, ..e > .0s m.
30 ....,4 l
)
Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 19 .
I .
Licensed Opereale fr. of Company a State end Operating [ualear Power ConnerT111 Ottera 5 Utillt y Plant Opere t t og hero
- i p connect PfJut3fLIAA1A (Cen't 3 Ptilade!#nta Eles. Posen Bottom #2 1974 4 38 Pt avellatility good for both Peaen 1.065 W 43 PEC sottcm #2 & #3 The modificattena, 7 ATE required since TMI have been ande vitt 7 DEW sinimal disruptions to plant ope ra tions .
Peach lettee #3 1974 4 31 Pt 1.065 Ped 63 PEG 7 ATE 7 DEW 1st008 33 LAND uss En61and tiestrie 878tae SOUTII CAAOLima Caro 11as Power & L16ht W.S. Actinsee #2 1971 1001 The Rostason un1L has displayed a 700 W respectacle operating record.
l Dee Poeer Co. Ononee #1 1973 100$ Sarating hastery for sai three Coone.
487 W units has been guerage. The W$C required modifiestions plus sees tube Deenee #2 1974 1C05 sleeving were perfereed in suecesalon 887 W for each of these sister witte during 1980.
Deenee f3 1974 tool 487 m a
i I
sewth Caro 1&na EAG i
itJ LS f nausten Lignties 4 Power Co.
1Mowaten ladustries SuD aldlar y 1 r
f 20 / Utile Nuclear Pwr. Plants
A _
d tat.
senleer power Plant Colltes Cast Planned Tr . Campany 4 Pleened er emner Pir w/arVDC er Commercial Cthzra f c annte.ne taan M L Onees t t en Owaereate Invested i (nttttoai) gg C
namesen at C g.066 ser 61.600 1985 1005 Pr Limerten as to 601 eenplete and unit et is 261
$1.60c. complete seeerding to N8C esta. As construction oontinues. espeet many Asaves to be raised including, the senerst econcel a vestilste of building the unsta, the ovatie illstr and source foe oeottne water and populatt n donalty versus plant teention. In our opintoe Limerset it could j Limertee #2 C esperianos s11ppage in its completion schedule.
t,06S m $1.000 1987 1001 FC asp any ;b a
l e0 f' O ,
BM M/M NM N/R 70$ NES
& 31 I
- *h 22 ethere
& w $ 0 Unita cancelled 12/17/79. NE3 now recovering tts investment our five years bestaning 1960 The unamorttaed portions were not permitted in este base.
Casawns.d4 C t.le9 sep 41.700 1944 255 DOE 75 Co-oos Cataves it le 705 emmelete and #2 la 18$ oneplete.
Catawee.s2 the sale of 75 percent interut in unit it was C 81.200 8949 4 440 DUI 1,1a3 per 255 Dut t,320 stunt (s) effected 2/6/81. and we have edju sted *0011ers TS aunital & Co-op laneted* to verleet thte nie. No eenstrueegan problems evident and only unit #2 ooneerns us relative ta its estistatte aceptation schedule.
t;e believe sempany effortp in the near ters will beo directed temerd othse cut nuclear units (n cuire 88, & d2 see North Carolinal. By year *end er serir 1962 DUK espects to have sold its remaining 258 interest in Catawba unit it to a group er munitsh howewr . ) (DUE will antil be the builder Cne,eeee- # 9 - C SM NM 1.160 pere 100$ DUK The Cherokee unita #1 through #3 are not Cheeeeee.f 2 ; 8 440 aggresalvelF beinA pursued. #1 is 155 eamplete and C s/st NM t,260 setw 1001 DUK f t has heeminneal worn begun. Both scheeuled years for construction have bun pushed been autet.antia117. We hold little hope for units Neess, f 3 4 planned for the 1990's C BM FM
}.260 8ef* 100$ DUK $ On Penruary 28, 1981 DUt announced the indefinite deferral of all three Cherokee nuetaar units. The primary reason given was the financing diffleultise assoaisted with the projects continued construetten. While this announeement is not a sanes 11ation. Our opinion all three units face this 30as161114y. Sewe wort was done on and mejor materiale commitaants were ande for units il & 82, Some contractual o411gattena are also outstanding. Lin85 #1 haa eletually no da11ere work wea invented.
started. nor materials eomettted and no Irsst .c. Summee il C st,tet 1962 66.63 3CC 3001et* 8 549 33.3 Pwe. 27 4 the Sammer unit is 971 complete and assuntag no Auth. more than general wrap-up problems the unit could loed fuel in Nov er De.3 1961, and be onne, in 1982. This will be scG*a inet major senerating addition until the and of this doesde. allss Creekad t 0 49.5$0 t, ISO #een 1989 1005 HOU $ 340 This unit la en drawing boaed. Area's load Arowth cound support building of a plant. however the eenpeny is considerina changing this unit free nueleep to osal.
, eute TIsas.Proj. #t C 61.040 1964 30.81 Mau t,250 stew as.0 cunt (s) t so, teses unit il la $91 complete and unit it is 29.2 CSA 8 542 pou 271 complete. Construct 8an worn in 1960 was ise.4 eunnsi vetuntartly suspended so that treesularities in au Csn to.e oor. previous), , error.ed oovid he evaiu.ied.
- ,,t,e,,,, , ..a. .,rej. n C i,se ourin. sni. . p.n. ion ih. n.C r d addiiionai 30.as e.e.
nau ,ei ai.0
,<.., e,i I p
i..s,,en.
- e. e wm ena andn , .n i ned n Nou i t e.,.i..a. pen.ii r.
w..e d . ,-to u ~. are m. .
> et ..i ie.. t,ye.e end. .<,o.
co.,1etion .iipp. e in..oth units .. osse. i =ei r. Utile Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 21
I . Licensed Operabli Tr. af Company & Stats and Operating Cuslaar Power Commercit! Others 1 Uti ll t v Plant opsre t t en owners ni o Cemeent TT.24.1 (Con't) Teams Utllittee Co. VT.3Morf Centes! Verwent P.S. Corp. vereont Tankee 1972 31.31 CPUs This smaller unit continues to reeos Sie W 20.0 NES average ava11a6111ty. 17.9 CFWR 12.0 N'J 4.0 CTP 4.0 PNH 10.6 co-opa e others f j ACin 14 virginia tiestrie & Power Co. Surry #1 1972 1001 unit down 9/60 for replacement of ite 622 W steam generator one some turbine Diades. Latinated return to service 9/6 %. Unit refueling to be eene In the past the evert 11 avaliablitty reeerd for ALL VtPCO nuetear aleuttaneously, units has been belev average la part because of generle defeeta in the unita. Major shaages la operations peraennel. Sneludlag the highest levels, have eserred. Many aggress &te etapa have been taken towned shanging the peat laage cf having
- tad luck' in nueleer mit performenee. la aur opinnen this portands a grestar likelihood for laproved unit performente in the future.
Surry #2 1973 1001 steam generstar eselseed as well as < 822 W fueling and etner modificattens made during a 17 month outage ended 8/60. Avaitaallity has been poor because of the need for this work. North Anna #1 1976 1001 Two year old unit has an good 907 W avallability record, he asjor vara called for. Berth Anna 62 1980 1001 Construction of tala unit was oceploi 907 W July 1979. As a result of the analoent at TM1, the operating 11eena was delayed. On August 20.1940 this unit received the first full power license granted by the N7!C aLage ite , self laposed moraterle in respond t the TM1 #2 aooldent. Unit currently . full power and perferes satisfactory Mahn tsCTS Puget Smand Power & Light w!3 Cons!m unasonale tieetrie Co. Point Beach il 1970 1001 The steam generator tubing in Point l 497 W 8esen it will be re-aleeved (Lat, et 811 million) instead of replaced (T.g cost st6.5 e111 ton). As bees up. Wm will purensee replacesent generator [ ahould re-eleeving not worn. Inanj effort to slow Lube corroalcm. t he i unit la llanted to Sol of full powed This repair wors la to De done Det
'0/81 and 1/62.
Point Beach d2 1972 1001 Point Beach #2 appears to have had i s97 W tube corrosion arrested. and there no current plans for as jor tube re Apparently early deteetion and chan, in water cheelstry helped eensiders ei.eenaan Pu 11e Servle. L e wo un.e i97 e i .21 v rs rew.unee contin.,ea t. op.rais at a I sis W .i.0 w Pl. nevei or a.alla iiit, that la hish.a 37.s .e , th.n .vera.e. l l l l l l 22 / Util. Nuclear Pure Plants
e . Es t . Detters Etel*er Pe=er Plaat fast Plannes 17 Cameene 4 m/ art'pc PRInnes or une;r For et r,.e.ecelat Otmece 5 inven C onstrue t ien P.,e t t L Os.,. i e , 0 ...tp rwit ,ted n.,) Co==*at C o.n.h. .. C 8 ,,, ,,8, 8, . , $ , . 1,130 m 8.1 eo-ops 6.2 sanita) 81.191 fro 199 Otners commnehe unit #1 is 865 comelete and unit #2 is 501 samplete. Comenen. Peak d2 C 9?? 1984 85.11 in Construction prooteding normally. 1, tSO m 8.1 op-ops mac, andtriestions not espected to cause 6.: u.i construetten eelays. We believe an upward revisten in oo.t .sti-te is :=eir. North Anna d) C 82.198 1989 1001 Vit t 400 tot e North Anna d) is 71 complete and in a Noveeter 1980 annomeesent, VEL announced plans to conslete at hy 198 9 Currently ennstruction work and dollar essenditures are not at mastmus levels. Do11 ara earnerwed for this unit in 1981 total about $56 et111on. flana are that 1981 will he the year anslaus construetton will begin. Korth it gWaq f ** N/M 1001 vfl 165 90 l y [~* - - North Anna 84 was cancelled Noveeher 1984 in d requ& resents. Campeng resporise
,ian, to projected se else in 40,a i loa,8i ror resou,.ent er its investeent ever a ten year period. We asy hear from regulators by Septeneer 1981 3kas16 f t 0 N/M N/M 1,288 m Leestion for this two unit project not troown now e01 PSD $ 1 37 91 PCM 104 that resident opposition to or141nal alte is betna 201 PPW honored. The dollare spent so far have been for
?!
10% WP ongineering, leAal and hardware proeurement, and 31 asst di 39 appear to be transferestle to e great artent. 0 N/M N/M 1,788 m trrorts to obtain a construetion permit will not be made until a new site is seeured. Shareholders espesure terwed minimal for project dollars. Maten 4 s. m0 r A/ft
- R/M t f 62.5% UPC ==
9 pe# ' 5 *
$ 10 .8 Caneelled try three eonstructing utallties February J )m b'b
- l um t8.4 WP$- ' 5.7 79. 1980. Regulatory autherttles allowed the
{11 . 1wPt. *
- 6.1 enepanies to esponse their portion of the $16.9 syn spent on Haven over a three year period. During that period the unamortised balance can be included in este base. Medtwo steed coal plants or no, ,pp % #
- esaservation will he suhettuted in the 1990's.
4 **
, 0 .,
b3.
'o ,I
- h. L- i f. (
C , In 8/78 the Pubite Ser iseued en order prohi.viceiun,Coontsalon of Wisconsin m 8.. o-struenon er a second unit at the Haven ente, untl! uncertainties reaordlna nucteer teste storsas and disposal can be dealt with. The dollars invested are eurrently beina recovered ovee a 1 year amortisation period beginning in 1980. D Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants / 23
f a PWR Steam Ge'.erator Tube Integrity In pressurised water reactors, the primary coolant wat,er which is radioactive extracts heat by ciretlating through the reactor core and is kept under press ure sufficient enough to prevent boiling. This high-pressure water passes through tubes around which a secondary coolant (also water, but not radioactive) is circulating under somewhat lower pressure. This secondary water system boils and produces steam and drives the turbine generators. The assembly in which the heat transfer takes place is the Steam Generator. The tubes within it are an integral part of the primary coolant boundary keeping the radioactive primary coolant away from the environment. ms aveman d
.- 1 w
.. u
..- r q1,-
4;, o =-
~
f - ,.
, - - ^
I ml ; I b. CONTAINMENT ,' .
, I w k STRUCTURE g 0 },f j% .u.
N "'E k" CONTROL RODS [ / i aj, f u PRESSURE p. G L STEAM LINE .<'
'..' l VESSEL g -
[;\ E .... , , 1 A \ " ,' S N % ,2
., E R , ,
y A A '
d* Mi![<-
& + 0 , .e . . MT :.;.... ., u $
p O Ptyd 7Tigt
,r y .y p-7, R y
t(, a: ( j kiQf.
.1 :::
TUR8INE GENERATOR 9 W j:: m m {.
% ,n,.,; w' ..'
E;:i? i l.
.. 2 PUMP 3, g 4 , ,,, , i . ,,
El k o 7. m w . +..v, 6 , ,,; g} ( } [(. . t -; (: 7:<c- , 5,;-4
~ ~ "
[ : - g g . g l 6 w 1- 7mm r m m m mr ' i j;: R:l fi:;;;s$49df;,W CONDENSER N 2 :..h;.$,. C00 LING
; ; :. ',..[Q f, f [:/
.,. . .. tr.r' WATER )
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Cooling Cycles. i 1 Note: Radioactivity in a primary coolant system is not that high - should be considered low level. h 1 24 / Util. Nuclear Pwr. Plants
m , . AYERAGE DURATION FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION The duration for nuclear power plants construction is def*ned as the elapsed time from actual ground breaking until the plant is considered ready for fuel loading. This does not include an average duration of six (6) months for power ascension to conrnercial operations. PUBLIC [ PLANTREADY } / COMMERCIAL
/ANNOUNCEMENTff /FOR FUEL LORDING i OPERATION /
CONSTRUCTION UTILITT PLANNING PERMIT REVIEW A CONSTRUCTION , POWER ASCENSION , M 24 MONTHS 24 MONTHS 102.7 MONTHS CT 1978 6 MONTHS O S. - B w 8 l; s ~. _ _ _ . _ - _ . - - _
t. Exhibit'3 THE OREGONIAN, FRLDAY MAY a 1981 PGE denies killin~g, e power plant plansf Sy STEVE JEMfeNG , wanted to know what's golog on,".said er the orseenisa um Clare Miles, a U.S. Nuciear Regulatory Portland General Electric Co. offl. Comm!as!on spokeswoman, when que-cials said Thursday they are not shelv- ried by The Associated. Presa."The ing plans for their long delayed Pebble study may have led them to believe PGE Springs nuclear power plant despite re- has plans to cancel. I just think the tbnt reports that it would not be cost board wants to get an explanation." tIfective. Steve Olson, an account executive r;. PGE officials made the announce- with Merrill Lynch in Portland, said the sent in response to a letter from the firm's researchers inund that Pebble U.S. Atomic Safety and Licensing Springs construction costs "have be-Board, the agency that issues permits come prohibith e, for nuclear power plant construction.
" compared to hydro and other gen-
'l Elizabeth Bowers, the board's chalt: eration methods, it (nuclear i;ower) is
%oman, told PGE to explain its inten- an awfully expensive way to make elec-tttin after publication of an analysis by gMerrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith tricity," Olson said. " Pebble Spr!ngr loc., which said the company would does Indeed look like it's going to be
'seve money by abandoning its plans to shelved. We've heard rumors that PGE is trying to sell the reactor."
Fu!!d the twin. reactor plant in North. C,entrej Oregon. Among the equipment PGE already
" The board's April 28 order to PGE had bought for the plant was the first of his made pub!!c by. nuclear power"probably op- lts two reactors.
would Babcock like to sell the reac-said' PGE genent Lloyd Marbet, an latervenor in tor," but the market for U.S made ge licensing hearings before the board. reactors was not good. ' r PGE and lu partn'ers already have Ir;. vested about $250 million in legalO!and son reiterated what has become a
;)@gineering work, land, equipment and common complaint.by PGE executives, 5ther costs in its eight year battle to that the cost of !! censing procedures -
Baln !! censing for Pebble Springs. not construction costs - has severely limited nuclear power plant develop-
> "We've got time - we don't have to ment, g
make a decision immediately," said Bill A ballot measure passed by Oregon
@k, a PGE pub!!c information offi, voters last Nov. 4 bens construction in cer. "Our official position is that we see Owgon of any new nuclear plants un-no reason why we can't get the (Atomic 1(as the voters approve beforehand.
Safety and Licensing Board) to finish Babcock acknowledged that the ballot the last phase of the licensing proce- measure would jeopardize construction dure." of Pebble Springs even !! federal!!cens-Another PGE spokesman said "98 Ing were granted. Nicent" of the licensing procedure had Olson srJd PGE's investinent in Peb-peen completed, and that the company ble Springs may be a justification for Fas committed to finishing the remaln- " continuing with the licensing process-13 "2 preent." "They've got a lot of the grand-0 A recent Merrill Lynch report listed w rk d,"Oh sM 11 proposed nuclear plants as candi. Babcock decHned cement on de dates for cancellation, saying PGE could Merrill Lynch report, saying PGE ans. t efit from dropping Pebble Springs, lysts hadfot . (c of the 18. licensing hearing, a'ithough Oabcock
- r. "When the (Atomic Safety and LI- said he expected a semon to be sened-c'ensing Board) saw this story, they Just uled before the end of sum vr.
i. l
l 48, Statesman.journot, Salem, Ote., Thursday, May 7 WI-
.. _ . n ,.. .~ ...-. n __ _ _ _
.~p;P; ,
7'
. ;wr . % , =
. . . . ..n.mnl yew ut;m PGE must decide on o-ahead .
J or N-a ant licensinc procedures: - - M , .. w i,. <,.s.. By J0llN ilAY ES referendum or permanent cancelation, said the snady. !
.,y siniesman Jouman nepene' With a nm site, PGE probably could transfer about 97 r.;s. w a .
Portland General Electric Co. has been ordered by percent of the money already spent,it said. PCE and the other utility partners in the Pebble the Atomic Safety end Licensing Board to explain wheth. er it still wishes to proceed with licensing hearings for the Springs project already have spent about $250 million on licensmg hearings, acquisition of a 10.004 acre site, gngi-
;, Pebble Springs nuclear power plants.
> Board chairwoman Elizabeth Bowers, in an April 28 neering design and purchase of a Babcock & Wilcox reac-u a order, told PGE to explain its intentions followmg pub. tor and other equipment. ~ -
lication of a Wall Street analysis showing that PGE could The nuclear project was granted a state license in
!!US, but the license was overturned by the Oregon Su- ,,
benefit by abandoning the proposal for two nuclea r plants j *M preme Court in a case brought by Marbet in 1977 Since , at Arlington in north central 0regon. '
;* ' " " 7 The board's order was made public Wednesday by then, the plants have been in legal limbo because of state ' Lloyd Marbet, an intervenor in the federal licensmg moratorium laws and the latest anti-nuckr referen ' TNC dum.
heanngs before the board, part of the Nuclear Regula. Bowers < ould not be reached Wednes( ay for comment
' tory Comm:ssion. ' ainut the board's order to PGE, but Cla c Miles,an NRC,,
PGE officials said the utility has no plans to can-
- cet or relocate the Pebble Sprngs project and wishes press aide, said,"When the board saw the story, they just -
warted to know what's going on. The stuty may have led .
' to proceed with the federal hearings even though con. them to believe PGE has some p!ans to cancel. I just
- _,,
~ struction of the plant is now banned under Oregon law. tM,w the tuard wants to get an explanation." ;.
r7, s The Pebble Sprmgs proiect, started by PGE in 1973, PGE denied Wednesday it is ready to abandon the -
"l'.Q, sparked one of the longest runnmg regulatory proceed. Pebble Springs project. "That's Merrill Lynch's opinion, ,,""A, ings in Oregon history. Construction of the plants, orig,. not ours " said Bruce Landrey, spokesman for the utili-
!. ._U nally planned for operation in 1980,is now illegal because ggyg
/
of a referendum passed by Oregon voters last No. fY-
"They're correct, we've got some wait-and see roomi vember. and we are looking at attematives. But we've gone 98 i
- In her order, Bowers cited the findmgs of a study percent ef the way thmugh this regulatory process during by the Secunties Research Division of Mern!I Lynch the last eight years and we should go the last 2 percent,"
l Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. which lists 18 proposed nu- he said.
, clear plants as candidates for cancelation and explains Landrey acknowledged that Oregon law would pro-how PGE could benefit,from dropping the Pebble Springs hibit construction of the plants, but he said PGE is in-l terested in finishing the portion of the NRC proceedings to i licensmg proceedings. ! The report, first pubhshed in Nucleonics Week, says gain a ruling that the Arlington site is suitable for cony.
PGE " appears to have some wait and-see room" in its struction of a nuclear plant, generating capacity, and it mentions the Oregon anti-nu-The Oregnn referendum may prohibit constructiort now, said Landrey, "but it doesn't mean we can't do it
^ clear referendum. w- w Mernll Lynch believes PGE has suffh ient capacity to in a few years." Landrey said PGE officially has the allow for an " orderly study of alternadves," whether first Pebble Springs plant scheduled for operation in the T'-
these be selection of a new site, a court ca.allenge of the early 1990s. . I". ' Y[ t i I M*T ,q,.,,,,,,.,, ~ L _. . ~
- ~ - - - - - - - -
,o ,s g ,,,n,,,,.
~ '
.~
Exhibit 5
- m. - arm ,
E Portlairl Genom! Eledric Ccmpany kl MG
...r.~=n \.3-+ r-September 30, 1980 Febble Springs Nuclear Plant Dockets 50-514 50-515 Honorable John F. Ahearne, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Dr. Ahearne:
The purpose of this letter is to express Portland General Electric Company's desire to proceed with construction licensing of the Pebble Springs Nuc1 car Plant.. We have been unable to com 'ince your Staff to commit the necessary resources to move ahead with our application in even the most limited fashion. The Pebble Springs licensing proceeding has been ongoing for over six years. Prior to the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), NRC Staff review and hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board were moving towards completion. Since the n!I accident, further safety review and licensing proceedings have been in abeyance pending the formulation of a licensing policy by the h7C to appropriately reficct the lessons learned from the accident for pending Construction Permit applications. Although NUREC-0718 is a step in this direction, it appears to us that (ID' Commission approval of a complete policy state =ent for Construction Permit' applications may be months away. Pending completion of this policy sta tement , we believe a partial initial decision on environ-mental and site suitability issues could now be entered where the hear-Ing record is complete. We also believe several other environmental and site suitability issues are amenabic to resolution in the near-term and we seek to complete and close the record on these issues. Moving forward towards completion of these latter category of issues involves a limited commitment of staff resources. These issues are:
- a. Alterna tive sites. The h7C Staf f has completed their alternative site review and issued it in the form of a final Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement in April of 1980. This review needs to be addressed in he a ring s .
- b. Environmental ef fects of the uranium f uel cycle, inclui-ing coal vs. nuclear health effects. Although the record b was substantially complete in 1978, it may be in need of further updating.
. -~ ,
. b b O OY Honorable John F. Ahearne September 30, 1980
.Page 2
- c. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. NRC Staff analysis has been completed and only needs to be considered in future ;
hearings to complete the record. d.. Accident Considerations under NEPA. In accordance with the Commission's Statement of Interim Policy dated June 13,1980, an NRC Staff determination is needed to ascertain if any "special circumstances" exist for Pebble Springs that would warrant reconsideration of accidents at the Construction Permit stage of review. We appreciate the manpower difficulties the NRC is experiencing and kos. recognize that greater priority should be properly afforded to near-term Operating License applicants. Consistent with this situation, we have endeavored to close out only those environmental and site suitability issues currently pending in our proceeding which do not induce a signi- ' ficant commitment of staff resources and which would not fall within the purview of the Commission's THI licensing policy for Construction Permit applications. We believe this is a reasonable, efficient and prudent course to pursue. However, your Staff has been unwilling to (,__ provide even the most minimum of resources necessary to support the completion of hearings on the foregoing matters. , I respectfully request that you ask your Staff to give due consideration to the Pebble Springs application and to provide the support needed to go forward with final stages of hearings on the remaining environmental and site suitability matters identified herein. ng Sincerely,
/s/ W. J. Lindblad W. J. Lindblad Vice President
- Enginee ring-Cons t ruc tion
,.,p/' '
WJL/DRS/41ef0A6 c: Mr. Lynn Frank, Director State of Oregon Department of Energy Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. William E. Martin (,, Bernard H. Bordenick, Esq. Frank Ostrander, Jr., Esq. Lloyd K. Marbet T) V P [ Bf 7[ O J C> 2_, T C> L T D '
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-514 COMPANY, et al. ) 50-515
)
(Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,) Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SSRVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Response to Board's Order of April 28, 1981 have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 14th day of May, 1981. Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. William E. Martin Richard S. Salzman, Esq. Senior Ecologist Atomic Safety and Licensing Battelle Memorial Institute Appeal Board Columbus, Ohio 43201 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Walter H. Jordan Washington, DC 20555 881 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. i Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Counsel for NRC Staff ! Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Appeal Board Commission l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
. - . . . . . ~ __ .
<ns i 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Docketing and Service Section Frank Josselson : Office of the Secretary William L. Hallmark I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory R.' Elaine Hallmark Commission 8th Floor Washington, DC 20555 One S. W. Columbia Portland, Oregon- 97258 i Frank Ostrander, Esq. ' Ass.1stant Attorney General J. Carl Freedman State of Oregon Forelaws on Board 500~ Pacific Building' Box 553 '
- 520 S. W. Yamhill Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 Portland, Oregon 97204 .
Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet Forelaws on Board 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road
, Boring, Oregon 97009
/ _-
fraW Warren Hastinfs Of Attorneys for Applicants . O s 6 erevra---~,,m,, ar-e,m ,v v -,,,w-w es,,,ww--m--- -n--- .-wn. su . . ~ , - - = ~ . < - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -}}