ML19347D349

Responds to NRC 810223 Request for Addl Info Re Util Plans for Facilities.Completion of Cherokee 1 & 2 Has Been Indefinitely Delayed.Commercial Operating Dates for Cherokee 3 & Perkins 1,2 & 3 Have Not Been Determined

ML19347D349
Person / Time
Site:	05000448, Perkins, Cherokee
Issue date:	03/12/1981
From:	Dail L DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8103170457
Download: ML19347D349 (2)

Text

/

DtJKE POWER COMPANY

^*""833' G10N10llAL OFFICES 37s.40 422 SOUTH CHURCH STREET CII AltLO'I'l'Is. N. C. 28242 March 12, 1981 Oarrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.g f 'h Washington, DC 20555 cyv h[I-, h, @ %

Re: Perkins Nuclear Station Cherokee Nuclear Station (b

Docket Nos:

50-488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493 D

..y Duke Files:

P81-1412.ll, PK-1412.ll, CK-1412.11

/;&)/g J'

/j$

~

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

N On February 23, 1981 you requested additional information regarding Duke Power Company's intentions and plans for the Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 and the Perkins Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3.

Our responses to your questions follow:

Question 1.

Do you maintain that 1990 and 1992 are now firm estimates of comerical operating dates for Cherokee Units 1 and 2 or do you expect continuing slippages in your estimated dates? (We note that since your application was filed on May 24, 1974 slippages in estimated comerical operating dates have exceed the elasped time for the estimates.)

Answer. On Tuesday, February 24, 1981 Duke's Board of Directors ordered l

an indefinite delay in the completion of Cherokee Nuclear Station Units I and 2.

The decision by the Board does not cancel the Cherokee Units, rather, the two units have been pushed into the indefinite future. Work will continue at a reduced level en Unit 1 but will be interrupted on l

Unit 2.

l This delay has been necessitated by our inability to finance construction on a reasonable basis due to continued rapid inflation, high interest rates, inadequate earnings, and the depressed value of Duke's stock compared to book value.

OOf Question 2.

Since July 27, 1979 have you estimated commerical operating S

dates for Cherokee Unit 3 and Perkins Units 1, 2, and 3? If so, what are the dates?

7g Answer. Commerical operating dates for Cherokee Unit 3 and Perkins Units 1, 2, and 3 have not been determined, although the need for additional generation capability is evident. The Company is committad to continuing construction programs as soon as sufficient funds can be wasonably obtained.

Cherokee Unit 3 and Perkins 1, 2, and 3 are still planneo but are currently unscheduled.

81032 709 9

March 12, 1981 Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Page Two Question 3.

In view of the increased spread in time between the first and the sixth unit operational dates, do you reaffirm that the Perkins units will be duplicates of the Cherokee units? If so, what are the order dates for the nuclear supply system for Cherokee, Unit 3 and Perkins Units 1, 2, and 3?

Answer. Duke confirms that the Perkins Units will be exact duplicates of the Cherokee units in so far as possible.

Duke's initial application for the six Cherokee and Perkins nuclear steam supply systems were based on the concept of standardization.

Even with the ongoing regulatory un-certainty concerning future designs, Duke still intends to build the six units as identical standardized units.

The Nuclear Steam Supply Systems for Cherokee Units 1 and 2 were contracted for on September 5, 1973. The contract included options for the third Cherokee unit and for the three units at Perkins which are still open.

Question 4.

In view of the delays in the Perkins schedule and Duke Power Company's announced intent to investigate other generating alternatives, does Duke Power Company consider it appropriate that any Commission resources be expended on the Perkins application during the next two years, or the next five years, except for resolution of pending appeals? If your reply is year, please provide justification.

Answer.

In view of the delays in the Perkins schedule Duke <ioes not consider it appropriate to expend Commission resources on tne Perkins application during the next two years except for resoultion of the pending licensing questions. The pending licensing questions are on alternative sites and site suitability. These have been thoroughly examined by the Licensing Board and are currently before the Appeals Board. The Appeals Board should hear the arguments and make their findings without delay.

We hope that this letter will assist the Commission in applying its resources to meet the most urgent licensing needs of Duke Power Company and other electric generating utilities.

Yours very truly, L. C. Dail, Vice-President i

Design Engineering Department DBB/pam

- -