ML19274G179

Requests Issuance of Initial Decision to Provide for CPs in Order That Planning & Scheduling of Resources Can Continue on Orderly Basis.Notes Application Is Second Oldest in NRC History

ML19274G179
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	07/02/1979
From:	Porter W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Bowers E, Desylva D, Jordan W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, MIAMI, UNIV. OF, CORAL GABLES, FL, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7908300352
Download: ML19274G179 (3)

Text

E TI g A 3ELtTED c MEspox

.. .. ng,Cs Due POWER Go>rmrr LEGAL DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 3318v GTTARLOTTE, N. G. 2e242 WILLIA 84 L ARRY PomTER (704 373 seas as sOCsatt orsegnab Counestk July 2, 1979 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - 4 Washington, D. C. 20555 t

& Q Dr. Walter H. Jordan c0 e,#U A 881 W. Outer Drive Il- Dgo%, 'C Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830  ; g Dr. Donald P. deSylva Q g egd# -5 Associate Professor of Marine Science

%gp#g 99 9 t

g Rosenstiel School of Marine and ",

Atomospheric Science {

University of Miami Miami, Florida 33149 Re: In the Matter of Duke Power Company Perkins Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-488, 50-489 and 50-490

Dear Chairman and Board Members:

Duke is cognizant of its obligation to keep the Board and parties advised of relevant developments and their impact on the licensing process and, accordingly, provides this information.

Duke has recently reviewed its long-range construction schedules and plans, including the need for flexibility to accommodate change in electric demands, expanding regulatory restraints and increasing lead time for all types of generating capacity.

As a result, Duke has announced a two-year postponement in the operation dates of Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2. The scheduled operations dates are now 1987 and 1987, respectively. The remaining four units of the six standardized units will be needed and are currently planned for operation in the period follow-ing Cherokee 1 and 2. We have not made a decision as to whether Cherokee 3 or Perkins 1 will be the next unit. Although final plans have not been made for generation additions beyond 1989, the Company's load forecast indicates that additional generating capacity will be required in the 1990's timeframe. This decision was based on the increasing difficulty in raising capital on reasonable terms, the political and regulatory uncertainties, and the reduction in forecasted annual peak load growth during the 1982-1994 period of from about 5.3% to about 4.8%.

2032 228 g9083 00 S@

. 3 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Donald P. deSylva Page 2 July 2, 1979 Duke believes that the present projections would result in generating reserve margins that could well be inadequate in the mid-1980's. It should be noted that the growth rate projected by Duke is a conservative one which places increaseo reliance upon conservation and load management. In the event that Duke's optimism is misplaced, the growth rate will obviously exceed the projections. Under such circumstances, Duke needs flexibility to provide for the amount of peak demar.d not controlled.

That Duke chooses to seek construction permits 10 years prior to operation and to proceed at a more flexible construction pace than previously announced should not detract from the basic point that the Perkins units will be needed. Our construction experience documents this need. Duke asserts that Cherokee Unit 3 and Perkins Units 1, 2 and 3 will be needed and the record of the North Carolina Utilities Commission supports this need. The Appeal Board in Duke's Catawba proceeding, ALAB 355, 4 NRC 397 (1976) recognized the ever lengthening period of time necessary to bring generating facilities on line. The need for flexibility has arisen because lead times, including the time for licensing, have grown much longer, thus requiring longer forecast periods with their inherent uncertainties. Problems with con-structing such units have increased, thereby making an extended construction schedule probable. Regulatory requirements are increasing at an enormous rate. All of these have combined to make it imperative that Duke not inflexibly hold to a specific date for a specific unit but that a range of commercial operation dates be maintained so that customers' requirements may be met on a timely basis.

Accordingly, Duke requests that this Board proceed to issue its initial decision which would provide for the issuance of the construction permits for Perkins Units 1, 2 and 3. The issuance of these permits would allow planning and scheduling of resources to continue on an orderly basis. It should be pointed out that this application has been pending for over five years and that it is the second longest proceeding in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's history.

If this Board has any questions, Duke would welcome the opportunity to respond.

Very truly yoprs

) >

( Y William L. Por+ r WLP/j f 2032 229

~ MD cuu ,~a:'uxnEXC2 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. Donald P. deSylva Page 3 July 2, 1979 cc: William A. Raney, Jr., Esquire Special Deputy Attorney General P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 William G. Pfefferkorn, Esquire P. O. Box 42 'g giI.,q, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102  ;-r, .O 7 " '/,%

Mrs. Mary Davis p* t%, S .j, Route 4 ...r y- \ ./

Box 261 . t ' d jy3, d, Mocksville, North Carolina 27028 p  %,u 9" .gg :{--

\ c ice . S /J Atomic Safety and Licensing ( ,.? 4 ' ptNggg" qs N /' '

Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M'

Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 2()3 m2 _?sa7II

-