ML20008G118

Response Transmitting Replies to ASLB 810428 Order Which Inquired Into Impact Conclusions in 810402 Nucleonics Week Rept Might Have on Future Plans.Replies Were Previously Submitted for Similar Requests.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20008G118
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	05/05/1981
From:	Porter W DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
NUDOCS 8107020289
Download: ML20008G118 (4)

Text

,. -

e

- - - --. - ~ . . . .

,, s s "' /g . -

. 3 CCCg 9,

..; IAAy1 *kMe  :

-m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '$' {t ee u s1 193; "

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

• • j' -

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA -. 4 In the Matter of ) '

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488

) 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station, ) 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) ,

)

RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S ORDER RELATIVE TO APPLICANT'S FUTURE PLANS FOR PEREINS In the Board's Order of /.pril 28, 1981, reference was made to a recent item in Nucleonics Week (Vol. 22, No. 13, April 2, 1981) ethich referenced a newly released report by the Securities Research Division of Merrill Lynch. This report, " Utility Nuclear Power Plants--The Outlock for the '80s," lists 18 plants as candi-dates for cancellation. Specific reference was made to Perkins Units 1, 2 and 3. The Board inquired as to the impact, if any, the conclusions in that report might have on the future plans of - --

the Perkins facility.

It is our understanding that the Board is inquiring as to the status of Perkins. This question was similarly proposed to Duke Power Company by the Appeal Board on February 25, 1981, and Duke responded on March 10, 1981. Additionally, the Director, Division of Licensing, requested a statement of Duke's intentions and plans 2 and 3 and perkins Units 1, 2 and 3. Our k for Cherokee Units 1, m$

response is dated March 12, 1981. Our responses address the basic' h, concerns of the Board and are attached for your information.

() -

8107020d$$

__g _

lpr o , of(.o t!- p ila.. ~ ~

r Duke is familiar with the Merrill Lynch report. Applicant was not responsible for the development of the report.

? !bi d %. S l..

William L. Porter fW ~

- Associate General Counsel

• Duke Power Company P. O. Box 03189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-4625 Of Counsel: .

J. Michael McGarry, III Debevoise & Liberman

- 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 i

May 5, 1981 t-b e

2, .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

BEFCRE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-458'

) 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station, ) 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Response to Licensing Board's Order Relative to Applicant's Future Plans for Perkins," dated May 5, 1981, in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 5th day of May, 1981:

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. Dr. Donald P. deSylva Chaircan Associate Professor of Marine Science Atomic Safety and Licensing Rosenstiel School of Marine AppeaT Soard '

and Atmospheric Science U.S. Nuc =3.r Regulatory University of Miami Commission Miami, Florida 33149 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Dr. John H.-Buck 681 Wes Outer Drive A:c=ic Safety and Licensing Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37S30 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

C6=m'iiii'6E ' ' '-^ Debevoise i Liberman Washington, D. C. 20555 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Charles A. Barth, Esq.

Appeal Board Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Legal Director Ccemission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Elizabeth S. Bowers William A. Raney, Jr., Esq.

Chairman Special Deputy A::orney General Atomic Safety and Licensing State of North Carolina Board Department of Justice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 629 Commission Raleigh, North Carclina 27601

- Washington, D. C. 20555

__ m__ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _._.______.._____.__-__.-______-__-._m- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

/

William G. Pfefferkorn, Esq. -

2124 Wachovia Building Winston-Salem, N. C. 27101 Mary Apperson Davis Route 4 Box 261 Mocksv111e, N. C. 27028 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,.D. c. 20555 Chase R. Stephens Docketing and Servic. Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Quentin Lawson, Esq.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Room S611 825 N. Capitol Stree, N.E.

Washington, D. C. 20426

$hf. $bs /

William L. Porter /p

~m

"b"  %-

. . - M#J4r._ _

DtIE Powza GoxPAxy LEGAL DE PARTME.N"I E O. Box 30180 CHARLOTTE. N. G. ass 42

.,u........u. .... .... ..

...:...: ....... ....... Earch 10, 1981 Es. C. Jean Bishop, Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulat ory Coc. mission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re. Perkins Nuclear Station Units 1, 2&3 Docket Nos. STN 50-488, 50-489 E 50-490

Dear Ms. Bishop:

On February 25, 1951, you requested tha Duke Power Company advise the Board of the present status of the Perkins facility. You desired a reply no later than March 10 so that the other parties could be advised and a decision regarding cral argu:nent , which is scheduled for April 1, 1951, could be made, i

The Perkins facilities are at the present t ime unscheduled ,

- - although the- need for additional generation capahilities in be 1990's is evident. The Company is coc=itted to continu-ing construction programs as soon as sufficien: funds can be reasonably obtained. In no way did the decision of the Duke l Board of Directors to delay completion of Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, cancel.the Perkins Station. Rather, l

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

In your letter you request the reasons why the Perkins appeal should be heard at this time in view of _ Potomac Electric l

Power Comcany (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-277, 1 NRC 539 (1975). In pouglas Point the Appeal i Board was faced with deciding if evidentiary hearings should proceed notwithstanding the Applicant's postponement of con- -

struction and operation for several years. Prehearing activities i

(kl ' '

E/ 'l

e

~

c.-

s:

, n:n

~. *

~ ~~

' i.L.:._ __

Es. C. Jean Bishop March 10, 1981 Page 2 were in progress when the Applicant's pgy ponement was made; evidentiary hearings had not yet begun.- Nevertheless, the Board agreed with the Applicant that there were good reasons to proceed with evidentiary hearings on site-related issues.

The instant appeal also involves site-related issues (viz., alternate sites); indeed, such are the sole subject of this appellate review. However, it should be noted that the Perkins appeal arises from a different procedural back-ground which provides additional justifications for proceeding.

This is not the beginning of a new application as is Douglas Point; rather, it is a continuation of a proceeding wherein evidentiary hearings have been held since 1975. Thus, the Appeal Board is not required to decide now if evidentiarv hearings involving immense commitments of ti=e and financial resources by all parties are to be held. Rather, the hearing to be held by the Appeal Board on April 1, 1931 is an appeal of an issue which has been exhaustively considered in two evidentiary hearings and thoroughly briefed. It does not have the same impact on litigants that evidentiary hearings would have. Yet, Douglas Point found that these type; -f hearings should proceed. Clearly, if evidentiary hearings I were determined to be appropriate, there is even greater reason to hear an appeal which has already been briefed by the parties.

i In the Licensing Scard's partial Initial Decision of October 27, 1975, the Board made a conclusion of law that."the i review of the application by the Staff has been adequate excep:

l for generic safety issues and alternate sites." (p. 56, L paragraph 155). Alternate sites and generic safety issues

! were considered in subsecuen: hearings held on January 29 through February 2, 1979. A further Partial Initial Decision was rendered on February 22, 1930. The decision addressed alternate sites only2/ Generic safety issues re=ain before the Licensing Board When viewed in light of the Perkins situation, Douglas l Poin: is directly applicable. Not only is the site-related nature of the issue similar, the criteria expressed in 1/ The Dcuglas Point SER and FES were not yet published.

The Perkins SER and FES were issued in March, 1977 and October,_1975. -

2/ There are also two outstanding motions before the Licensing l Board concerning Three Mile Island and the schedule adjus -

ment of the Applicant's need for the Perkins units.

• /

Ms. C. Jean Bishop March 10, 1981 page 3 Douglas point have been met in perkins. They have, in fact, been exceeded.

There is a high degree trat the findings will retain their validity. The passags cl time will not alter meteorology, seismology , geology and all the other criteria which are included in site suitability and alternative sites. These are essentially fixed. Further, it is in the best interest of the public and the litigan- to have these issues resolved inasmuch as conside' ration of alternatives is the linchpin of NEpA. It is also evident that none of the parties will be prejudiced by the Board's hearing and deter =ining these issues now. We are cognizant that there exists a possibility of issues being reopened in the future because of changing circumstances. However, the likelihood of the physical aspects of the perkins site materially changing over the next few years is remote.

It should also be noted that consideration of the appeal of the alternate site issue will not precipitate the issuance of the license. The appeal will settle a very important issue for all parties; however, outstanding matters still remain before the Licensing Board.

For all of the above reasons, it is proper that the Appeal Board proceed with the oral argument regarding alternate site issues as previously scheduled. There has been no action taken j

by the Applicant requiring the Appeal Board doing otherwise. - . . - - .

\

Very truly yours, j 0& $ h$

Willia = L. porter l

! WLp/fhb o, s gt t

t 1

ar

' z!:e i:

1.L .- L .b .-

UUKE PowEli COMPANY t ttt PK0 at. a s t a 70 8 P, O. t o t 32189

(;j;,N };}{,\ l, ( ll?]'l( *10S 373 8911 822 80Wf M Chue Cm stat ti C11 AltLom:. N. C. 2S242 .

March 12, 1981 Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: ' erkins Nuclear Station Cherokee Nuclear Station Docket Nos: 50-4S3, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493 Ouke Files: PB1-1412.ll, PK-1412.ll, CK-1412.ll

Dear Mr. Eisenhut:

On February 23, 1981 you recuested additional information regardinc Duke Power Company's intentions and plans for the Cherokee Nuclear Staticn Units I, 2 and l

3 and the Ferkins Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3. Our responses to your l questions follow:

Question 1. Do you maintain that 1990 and 1992 are now firm estimates cf c rnerical operating dates for Cherokee Units I and 2 ur do you expect l

continuing slippages in your estimated dates? (We note that since your

application was filed on May 24, 1974 slippages in estimated cornerical cperating dates have exceed the elasped time for the estimates.) . . -.- .

Answer. On Tuesday, February 24, 1951 Duke's Board of Directors ordered an incefinite delay in the completion of Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1 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 on Unit I but will be interrupted on Unit 2.

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

Ouestion 2. Since July 27, 1979 have you estimated commerical operating i cates for Cherokee Unit 3 and Perkins Units 1, 2, and 3? If so, wnat are l

the dates?

l

\

Answer. Commerical operating dates fer Cherokee Unit 3 and Ferkins Units l , t- ~\ --

i ,b '

> 1, 2, and 3 have not been determined, although the need for additional

!4' '

n generation capability is evident. The Company is committed to continuing l'p) / ' construction programs as soon as sufficient funds can be reasonably obtained.

i.s&

Cherokee Unit 3 and Perkins 1, 2, and 3 are still planned but are currently

' O' ' unscheduled. . . -. - - . ._. .

. - we... '

=~- .h e

March 12, 1981 Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Page Two e C e

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 i units will be duplicates of the Cherokee units? If so, what are the l 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 tne 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.

Ouestion 4. I'n 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 Comrission 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, l

l Answer. In view of the delays in the Perkins schedule Duke does not consider it appropriate to expend Comr.ission resources on the Perkins application during the next two years except for resoultion of the pending i

l licensing questions. The pending licensing questions are on alternative sites and site suitability. These have been thoroughly examined by the ,,,

( ,

l Licensing Board and are currently before the Appeals Board. The Appeals i Board should hear the arguments and it.ake their findings without delay.

l l

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

Yours very truly, U

.L. C. Dail, Vice-President Design Engineering Department D55/pam

- w r --,-ri --, -. - - - - - - - < , p- y- -i- , + -