ML19341B815
| ML19341B815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perkins  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1981 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Mcgarry J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102270666 | |
| Download: ML19341B815 (2) | |
Text
.
e' fc"%e, UNITE STATES
((,%, v y7 i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% @-.j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL
/
WASHINGTON, D C,20S$$
s.e
=/
s 4
February 2' 1981 J
- 7.,
) J '.-..
C-J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
3 u E**@ 3 Debevoise and Liberman k
- '.dM[. ~~
1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 s
y Re:
DUKE POWER COMPANY (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. STN 50-4 8 8, 50-489 and 50-490
Dear Mr. McGarry:
An article at page 16 of this morning's Wall Street Journal reports that the Duke Power Company has delayed indefinitely the completion of its Cherokee nucler-facility.
The article quotes an official of the company a.=
- tating that, notwithstanding its investment to date of S400 mil & ion in Units 1 and 2 of that facility, Duke Power has L_c decided whether it will complete either unit.
The of ficial is said to have observed that "[wle aren't beyond the point of no return on Cherokee".
Assuming its accuracy, this report raises a serious ques-tion as to Duke Power's present intentions with regard to its proposed Perkins facility (which was not mentioned in the arti-cle).
Specifically, if the company has now deferred indefinitely (and may elect to abandon enuirely) a facility which received limited work authori::ations in 1976 and construction permits in 1977, there is at least reason to doubt whether it is seriously considering moving forward with another facility which has not as yet obtained any construction authority.
This question is of obvious interest to the Perkins Appeal Board in light of the fact that the pending appeal from the Licensing Board's partial initial decision is now calendared for oral argument on April 1,1981 in Bethesda, Maryland.
Al-though the Appeal Board is prepared to hear the argument as scheduled should there be good cause to do so, it is most re-
'luctant to expend unnecessarily its time -- as well as the time and resources of 'de other parties to *le appeal.
227)g 4
J J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq. In the circumstances, the Appeal Board wishes to be promptly advised of the present status of Duke Power's plans. with regard co the Perkins facility.
In the event that the proposal to build
~
that f acility has not been formally abandoned but is in a state of indefinite suspension, the Board desires to be informed as to the reasons, if any, why the appeal should nonetheless be heard at this time.
Your response should take into account Potomac Electric Power Co. (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 anc 2), ALAB-277, 1 NRC 539 (1975).
Most particularly, it should address whether (assuming their affirmance en the pend-ing appeal) the factual findings made by the Licensing Board on the alternate site issua determined in the partial initial deci-sion would likely' retain their validity over an extended period
- of time.
See Douclas Point, 1 NRC at 547.
A decision on whether to proceed with the oral argument should be made by the Appeal Board no later than March 20.
Be-cause the other parties to the appeal must be provided with a
. reasonable opportunity to reply, your response should be filed and served no later than March 10. - The replies to it are to be filed and served on or before March 17.
Very truly yours, Q.
%A__3 7
C. Jea,n Bishop Secretary to the Appeal Board cc:
William L. Porter, Esq.
William G. Pfefferkorn, Esq.
Charles A. Barth, Esq.
+
.r-3 -- ee w+-m
-e-v en,o v,c.
w wn
-~
--