chemical agents or further treatment of the discharge from either a chemical or thermal standpoint would not be precluded by the continuation of construction.

The only other potentially significant environmental effect resulting from plant discharges is from the water vapor released from the top of the 500 foot-high cooling tower. Ground fogging or icing is less likely with this natural-draft tower than with the shorter forced-draft type of cooling tower. The incremental addition of moisture to the watershed is very small when considered in terms of additional rainfall. A significant additional dollar cost would be incurred if a different cooling method were required as a result of the NEPA review.

An alternate routing of the transmission line right-of-way would not be precluded by the completion of the present clearing work but added dollar cost would result.

In summary, no alternatives would be foreclosed by continued construction from the standpoint of technical feasibility.

5.0 Costs of Delays

4

We have examined the PGE estimate of costs that might be incurred through suspension of the Trojan construction permit in whole or in part. If the permit were to be suspended in its entirety pending completion of the NEPA review, PGE has stated under oath that an increase in costs as a result of a 6-month delay would be about $16,200,000 to PGE alone. The AEC's Division of Construction has independently reviewed these delay costs and has concluded that the estimate by the applicant of the overall increase in costs associated with such a delay in the Trojan plant falls within the general range of what could be expected. These costs include suspension of physical site activities including the layoff and rehiring of the construction workers, field construction standby charges, engineering and home office work, contingencies and escalations on future work except hardware procurement. They also include taxes, insurance, owners staffing, administration, training and overhead, and interest. PGE also provided an independent Bechtel Corporation estimate of a portion of the above costs. An increased incremental cost of power associated with additional generating equipment, whose capital cost is $32,000,000, would also be incurred. PGE states that this additional equipment would be required to insure adequate replacement power for the 1974–75 period.

7

We also examined the costs of halting parts of the construction pending completion of the NEPA review. These costs, provided by PGE under oath and summarized below, do not include any of the above costs, but are based on the assumption that the halted work will be reactivated in such a manner as to permit completion of these parts along with the remainder of the facility with no significant overall delay.

4 See page 24 of the PGE Appendix D, Subsection E(3), Trojan show cause statement filed September 27, 1971.

5 See page 22 of PGE Trojan show cause statement of September 27, 1971.

• The need for power in the PGE customer area discussed in Section 6 of our Detailed Statement on Environmental Considerations issued November 15, 1970.

7 PGE letter of October 19, 1971 to P. A. Morris regarding Trojan show cause.

5.1 Suspend Work on all Transmission Lines for Six Months

The cost to delay construction activities on the transmission lines is estimated to be approximately $1,025,000 consisting of $150,000 increased cost related to clearing and $875,000 increased cost related to installation, taking into account shifting from summer work to winter work and the cost of accelerating construction to make up for the delay.

5.2 Suspend Work on the Intake Structure for Six Months

For the intake structure the approximate increase in cost due to delay is estimated to be on the order of $50,000. At present a cofferdam has been placed and excavation work started. Excavation must be completed during the low water period which extends only until early spring. Termination now would result in washing away of the cofferdam during spring high river flows, with resulting adverse environmental effects. It would be necessary to replace the cofferdam and reexcavate when work resumed.

5.3 Suspend Work on the Cooling Tower for Six Months

The impact of a 6-month delay on the cooling tower construction is difficult to determine accurately because the specialized veil forms necessary for the construction work, that are owned by the cooling tower contractor, have already been committed to several other projects after the scheduled completion of the Trojan plant cooling towers. However, assuming that scheduling problems could be resolved and the forms that are now going into use could be retained, the total cost of a 6-month delay is estimated to be $400,000.

6.0 Determination and Balancing of Factors

Pursuant to Section E of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, we have taken into consideration and balanced the following factors in making a determination whether to suspend the construction permit for the Trojan plant pending completion of the NEPA environmental review:

6.1 It is not likely that the construction activities to be conducted during the period that the NEPA review is being completed will give rise to an incremental impact on the environment that is substantial and unduly adverse. As discussed in Section 3.0, above, the environmental effects are those associated with construction rather than operation of the plant. The environmental costs of construction, those associated with the change of the site from its former undeveloped state already have been incurred. Redress of such environmental impact as might result from further construction could be achieved by removal of above-grade structures and reconstitution of the landscape.

6.2 Continued construction during the prospective NEPA review period would not foreclose subsequent adoption of alternatives to currently proposed design features from the standpoint of technical feasibility, although substantial additional dollar costs might be incurred as a result of ongoing construction activities if major structural modifications were required at the end of the NEPA review. As discussed in Section 4.0, above, flexibility in system performance specifications has been preserved in the area of treatment of radioactive wastes and installation of additional accident mitigating features should improvements in these areas prove necessary as a result of the

NEPA review. Additional reduction in temperature of the small amount of discharge of heated water from the cooling tower would not be precluded nor would a different type of chemical additive or additional treatment of these additives be precluded. A change in the type of cooling facility would be more difficult, involving substantial costs, but this would be technically feasible. We regard this eventuality as unlikely in view of the apparent minimal environmental impact and are supported in this judgment by the favorable comments from other Federal and State agencies.

6.3 The effects of suspension of the construction permit would be substantial. Increased construction and interest cost would result from stoppage and later resumption of construction. There also would be increased environmental impact in terms of loss of the cofferdam during high water in the spring and reexcavation for the intake structure. As discussed in Section 5.0, above, the cost of construction stoppage alone for 6 months has been estimated at about $16,200,000.

It has been estimated that an additional cash outlay of $38,000,000 will be made and an additional $23,000,000 committed (present commitments are for $138,000,000) in the next 8 months in the normal course of construction. Parts of this expenditure conceivably could influence a later decision whether to require major modification to the plant. However, as discussed previously, major modifications are not likely to be required based on present information. For example, it appears unlikely that the site would have to be abandoned as a result. of the NEPA review. We conclude that the large certain cost of delay (at least $16,000,000) outweighs the unlikely possibility that expenditures during the period of continued construction will affect substantially a subsequent decision regarding modification of the facility to reduce environmental impact.

As discussed in Section 5.0 above, stoppage of work on certain parts of the facility, such as right-of-way clearing and transmission facility construction, would involve substantial delay costs. We conclude that the incremental adverse environmental impact as described in Section 3.0 above is not sufficient to warrant suspension of work on the transmission facilities, intake structure or cooling tower.

After balancing the factors described above as to environmental impact of continued construction and the potential for foreclosure of alternatives as a result of further construction against the effect of delay costs, we conclude that the construction permit for the Trojan Nuclear Plant should not be suspended pending completion of the ongoing NEPA review.

Pending completion of the full NEPA review, the holders of Construction Permit No. CPPR-79 proceed with construction at their own risk. The discussion and findings herein do not preclude the AEC as a result of its ongoing NEPA environmental review from continuing, modifying, or terminating the construction permit or its appropriate conditioning to protect environmental values.

[36 F.R. 22020—Thursday, November 18, 1971]

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-344]

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. ET AL.

AT

DETERMINATION NOT ΤΟ SUSPEND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT PENDING COMPLETION OF NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The Portland General Electric Co., the city of Eugene, Oreg., and Pacific Power and Light Co. (the licensees) are the holders of Construction Permit No. CPPR-79 (the construction permit), issued by the Atomic Energy Commission on February 8, 1971. The construction permit authorizes the licensees to construct a pressurized water nuclear power reactor designated as the Trojan Nuclear Plant, at a site adjacent to the Columbia River in Columbia County, Oreg. The facility is designed for initial operation at approximately 3,423 megawatts (thermal).

In accordance with section E.3 of the Commission's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (Appendix D), the licensees have furnished to the Commission a written statement of reasons, with supporting factual submission, why the construction permit should not be suspended, in whole or in part, pending completion of the NEPA environmental review. This statement of reasons was furnished to the Commission on September 27, 1971.

The Director of Regulation has considered the licensees' submission in the light of the criteria set out in section E.2 of Appendix D, and has determined, after considering and balancing the criteria in section E.2 of Appendix D, that construction activities at the Trojan Nuclear Plant authorized pursuant to CPPR-79 should not be suspended pending completion of the NEPA environmental review.

Further details of this determination are set forth in a document entitled "Discussion and Findings by the Division of Reactor Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Relating to Consideration of Suspension Pending NEPA Environmental Review of the Construction Permit for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, AEC Docket No. 50–344, November 11, 1971."

Pending completion of the full NEPA review, the holders of Construction Permit No. CPPR-79 proceed with construction at their own risk. The determination herein and the discussion and findings hereinabove referred to do not preclude the Commission, as a result of its ongoing environmental review, from continuing, modifying or terminating the construction permit or from appropriately conditioning the permit to protect the environmental values.

Any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding, other than the licensees, may file a request for a hearing within thirty (30) days after publication of this determination in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Such a request shall set forth the matters, with reference to the factors. set out in section E.2 of Appendix D, alleged to warrant a determination other than that made by the Director of Regulation and shall set forth the factual basis for the request. If the Commission determines that the matters stated in such request warrant a hearing, a notice of hearing will be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

The licensees' statement of reasons, furnished pursuant to section E.3 of Appendix D, as to why the construction permit should not be suspended pending completion of the NEPA environmental review, and the document entitled "Discussion and Findings by the Division of Reactor Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Relating to Consideration of Suspension Pending NEPA Environmental Review of the Construction Permit for the Trojan Nuclear Plant, AEC Docket No. 50-344, November 11, 1971," are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C., and at the Columbia County Courthouse, Law Library, Circuit Courtroom, St. Helens, Oreg. 97501. Copies of the "Discussion and Findings" document may be obtained upon request addressed to the Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545, Attention: Director of Reactor Licensing.

Dated at Bethesda, Md., this 12th day of November 1971.
L. MANNING MUNTZING,
Director of Regulation.

[FR Doc. 71-16829 Filed 11–17–71; 8:49 am]

E. POINT BEACH

United States of America-Atomic Energy Commission

IN THE MATTER OF WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, WISCONSIN MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY (POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2) (Docket No. 50-301)

Order granting applicants' motion for authorization of initial fuel loading and sub-critical testing

The Applicants on June 14, 1971, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.730 and Section 50.57 (c) of the Commission's regulations, and the Notice of Hearing in this proceeding, moved this Board to authorize the Director of Regulation to make appropriate findings on matters specified in the Notice of Hearing and to issue an operating license authorizing initial fueling loading of the first core of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.

The Notice of Hearing in this proceeding authorizes this Board to receive and consider a motion, if made in writing, for an Order for an operating license authorizing fuel loading and low power testing, and