ML20235D604
Text
...
% coantsPONDExC:
S H AW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWB RIDG E 18 00 M STRECT,N.W.
WA $ HINGTON, O C 20036
"'Tf.'J,'c"4?;..
OU!J"*:,I!""'"'
f***3****
tct: l '.':*7?:'*"
2 *:.t>.'Nl.u.,
- !,",0; !"t
",J'c.
'at ' '.".:r """
' c 's c *"' < "
- u
- :a'*' ;:"ut*L s..
- e~ C,"o"lE!
st":?."I'."J.'t".""
T"!;."."$JJ t.*/.','f., ^. ",ll"&' " ' "-
"'?.? c"IfM".
- c,"'"at.ti;**"
i:L",'J '.."..'ffv".'"n*
' t';:::'/."*/25,"
- .*!.".*/. " '!A*?. "'" *' '"'
" " ' * ~ * " ' " ' ' "
rr,t".'*Tr. ! "'"*'* *
"!!!"'..". "?A*'"'
':ff.ifA*"*".cc....
YJ".'. ', '/."."'!!o o..
t';,:'."e171.'?.".
T!J3"t.!?""' l-l
! :'!.',.t.. l.'.^a!.t."-
n'. ';5t?;'c".
c.
ao e
?"Om ETER
.9 June 9, 1977
........,.....c g.
0913 7$
Elizabeth S.
Sowers, Esquire h
ph Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
Washington, D.C.
20555 N
1 In the Matter of Potomac Electric Power Company (Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-448 and 50-449
?
Dear Mrs. Bowers:
I enclose copy of an announcement, issued today by Potomac Elec'tric Power Company, of the indefinite deferr?.1 of Unit 1 of the' Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station.
This action, along with other adjustments in the construction schedule for fossil generating units, reflects further re-visions to the Company's load forecasts.
It is Applicant's view that this change in the Company's planned schedule for the Douglas Point plant does not require, nor suggest the need for, any alteration to the schedule recently adopted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Public Service Commission of Maryland for the resump-i
[
tion of joint hearings in this proceeding.
That schedule calls for the filing of additional testimony. on June 24 and the commencement of hearings on July 5, 1977.
As stated in the announcement, the Company will retain the Douglas Point site for the eventual construction of a nuclear power plant.
Applicant therefore continues to seek a determination of site suitability by the NRC and the PSC.
Fop-80 5sy 8709250200 870922 l
PDR FOIA g, Q, MCCREA87-554 PDR
~
4 SHAW, P1TTNAN, POTTS & TA. dBRIDGE Mrs. BcNers Page Two June 9, 1977 As Applicant noted in its motion of February 16, 1977, to i
l resume the hearing, and as the prehearing conference of May 10, 1977, served to affirm, there are few issues remaining to be heard in order to complete the record on the environmental and site-related safety matters on which Applicant has sought an early decision.
The Public Service i
Commission has in the past expressed its i'nterest in con-cluding the site-related portion of this proceeding.
See Tr. 2042.
In spite of the indefinite deferral of the plant, we believe that conclusion of this phase of the proceeding by the Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board is sanctioned expressly by the NRC's regulations on early site reviews.
See 42 Fed. Reg. 22882 (May 5, 197.7).
A similar letter has been sent to Commissioner Barnes of the Public Service Commission of Maryland.
Sincerely, Thomas A. Baxter Counsel for Applicant TAB:sml Enclosure cc:
Mr. Glenn O. Bright Dr. Richard r. Cole Michael Darr Barnes, Esquire Teresa M.
Bay, Esquire Geof frey P. Gitner, Esquire
' Edward F.
Lawson, Esgire Frederick S. Fish'er, Esquire John K. Keane, Jr., Esquire Philip J.'Mause, Esquire Frederick L. Kelly, Esquire Robert A. Vanderhye, Esquire A.
Kevin Fahey, Esquire Mr. Frank J. Wasowicz Secretary, U.S.N.R.C.
~E'(f.\\Qoy ;
S H AW, PITTM AN, POTTs & TROWB RIDG E 1800M STRECT.N.W WASHINGTON, D. C 20036 ess "'**
18021 33' di00
.i[825,$.*.*NI..
MINmT*Ih.*/,m
- !!"a.'I' l *?t*!.'o ' "g*?."' * *
- meco.,c-
!!."" ? !"t;"C'e.
- a~i*c"of f"""
tacal **= o**= 6 e. o.o Jr?.'"J "an?.L..
- !!!!'e* '""ttf
?.'.ti::.*. "Un'J.
On?c"if,u". "
5S"V.? e' ::",M" tcts.
t.itt.* " ".'!!?t* " '"-
- * * *
- 3 t = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~n t**::,".~i::"::.,?
- 3"t *?, r'.i.'!*'"
- ~*"'***~
3'?. */.'..'t?".t"'"* '"-
',;iai', %"?,t"T
,itJ"',?Jft?"
- ' t".'!,',ta r "*'.".*s".
- so-~ ~ s~ =o~
':ti.L?!!"c".a.
=*:.", 't.":.? fo....a
- "i'.%*a".*t!,.
%22L"o'd.C."'"?.
1.;.:.*!.' t :.S.."!.'."-
m ^.ff?;.cb June 9, 1977 M Ns*,
- * ' " * - " = " - * ' -
.9
/
c "Y
T Michael Darr Barne's, Esquire
.h b [ g \\ g'
- g Commissioner Public Service Commission of Maryland y
301 West Preston Street
/
N Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Ys In the Matter of the Application of Potomac Electric Power Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Construction of Two Nuclear Powered Electric Generating Units in the Vicinity of Douglas Point, Charles County, Maryland, Etc.
Case _Jo._ 6603
Dear Commissioner Barnes:
I enclose copy of an announcement, issued today by Potomac Electric Power Company, of the indefinite deferral of Unit 1 of the Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station.
This action, along with other adjustments in the construction schedule for fossil generating units, reflects further re-visions to the Company's load forecasts.
It is Applicant-s view that this change in the Company's planned schedule for the Douglas Point plant does no't require, nor suggest the need for, any alteration to the schedule rece.tly adopted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Public Service Commission of Maryland for the resump-tion of joint hearings in this proceeding.
That schedule calls for the filing of additional testimony on June 24 and the commencement of hearings' on July 5, 1977.
As stated in the announcement, the Company will retain the Douglas Point site for the eventual construction of a nuclear power plant.
Applicant therefore continues to seek a determination of site suitability by the NRC and the PSC.
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &
3WSKIDGE Commissioner Barnes Page Two June 9, 1977 As Applicant noted in its motion of February 16, 1977, to resume the hearing, and as the prehearing conference.of May 10, 1977, served to affirm, there are few issues remaining to be heard in order to complete the record on the environmental and site-related' safety matters on which i
Applicant has sought an early decision.
The Public Service Commission has in the past expressed its interest in con-cluding the site-related portion of this proceeding.
See Tr. 2042.
In spite of the indefinite deferral of the pTant, we believe chat conclusion of this phase of the proceeding by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is sanctioned expressly by the NRC's regulations on early site reviews.
See 42 Fed. Reg. 22882 (May 5, 1977).
A similar letter has been sent to Mrs. Bowers, Chairman of the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Sincerely, Thomas A. Baxter Counsel for Applicant TAB:sml Enclosure cc:
Teresa M.
Bay, Esquire Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esquire Mr. Glenn O. Bright, Dr. Richard F. Cole Geoffrey P. Gitner, Esquire Edward F. Lawson, Esquire Frederick S. Fisher, Esquire John K. Keane, Jr.,
Esquire Philip J. Mause, Esquire Frederick L.
Kelly, Esquire Robert A. Vanderhye, Esquire A. Kevin Fahey, Esquire Mr. Frank J. Wasowicz Secretary, U.S.N.R.C.
4
/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - " - - - - - - ' ' '
~ - ~ ~
..e.
~..
pepco 19o0 Penasesma # venue, N W.. Wash.ngton. D. C. 20006 Potomac Electric Powor Company 4
Corect:Hal Strowbe g
Direcot of Communicahons p
/
y Tele;none Area Code (202) 872 2335 A
s s-g sy
=
/
FOR I M DJATE R.ELEASE y
JtmE 9, 1977 PEPCO, BG&E JOIN TO SUILD DICXERSON UNIT Potoctac Electric Power Co. announced today that it has agreed with Balticore Cas & Electric Co. to enter into a joint venture for the completion and operation of a fourth generating unit ac' PEPCO's Dickerson station in Montgomery County, Maryland.
The 800-mecawatt coal-fired Unit-4 at Dickerson, previously scheduled for completion in 1983, now is planned for operation in 1985 with the two utility companics sharing construction and operating costs as well as electric output from the unit on an equal basis.
The anticipated total cost of the unit is $650 million.
PEPCO Board Chairman and President W. Reid Thmpson said that the joint ownership and operation of the Dickersun unit fits into a revised generating plan for PEPCO, resulting from continuing evaluation of future demand for electric power in the Ro hinCton metrop611 tan area.
"Ve expect that electric demand will grow even more slowly than we had previously anticipated," Thompson said, " principally because the expected impact of energy conservation ef forts by our customers will be intens tfied by the administration's national energy plan proposals."
-more-
PEPCO Release Add 1 4
Thompson stated that at the end of 1976 PEPCO was expecting annual sales and peak load growth in a range of 3 percent to 5 percent during the next decade.
"In light of recent developments, we now expect that grow-h will be at the low end of the range, averaging about 3 percent annually during the next 10 years,"
l l
he said.
In addition to the Dickerson deferral, Thompson announced changed plans for two other plants.
The 600-megawatt oil-fired Unit-4 of the Chalk Point station in southern Prince George's County will be completed in 1982 instead of 1981, and the company's plans for a nuclear generating station at Douglas Point in Charles County, Maryland, will be def erred indefinitely.
Thompson added that experience in demand and energy use during the next several years will determ'ine PEDCO's timing of its need for a nuclear plant.
"We believe that President Carter's emphasis on additional energy conser-vation, including special programs for federal buildings, will have substantial impact on demand for electricity," Thompson stated, pointing out that the federal government is PEPCO's largest customer, accounting for about 20 percent of its annual sales.
He noted that congressional passage of conservation-oriented legislation appears likely, with such programs as increased home insulation also affecting electric use.
The anticipated net result will allow us to shift new power plant construction. to later years than we had planned,"
Thompson said.
"We will continue to retain flexibility in our construction planning "
Thompson continued, " enabling us to keep pace with changing demand patterns while
~
maintaining sufficient generating reserves." He noted that today's announcement reflects the continuation of PEPCO's response to changing growth trends which commenced in 1974, shortly af ter the Middle East oil embargo.
-mo re-
PEFC3 Release Add 2 From the mid-1950's to the early 1970's the company had grown at a rate well above the national average, doubling its sales and peak load every 6-1/2 to 7 years.
However, the PEPCO area led the nation in energy conservation in 1974 with a resultant sharp' decline in sales which only turned slightly upward in 1975 and 1976.
1 PEPCO's chief executive said the changes announced today will reduce the company's construction requirements during the 1977-79 period from $590 million to $440 million. The utility anticipates a total construction budget of about
$775 million for the five years from 1977-61.
Thompson declared that the Douglas Point site will be retained for the i
eventual const ruction of a nuclear power plant.
"We agree with the administra-
{
tion that nuclear power is essential to the solution of the nation's energy problems," he said, "and we expect to build a nuclear plant at Doug'las Point when the needs of our system require it."
Be.cause of the delay in construction of a nuclear plant, it is expected j
that certain purchased equipment as well as engineering and design work will become obsolute due to changes in technology and in regulatory requirements.
J l
Certain of the historical expenditures relate to the plant site and associated f
\\
environmental studies and analyses. These will be retained for use in schieving l
a Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Maryland Public Service Commission site
)
1 suitability determinat. ion which will help assure the future licensability of j
Douglas Point for nuclear projects.
l Thompson stated that PEPCO has invested about S35 million to date in the Douglas Point plant and that there are, in addition, potential termination costs of a maximum of $30 million.
"However," he e=phasir.ed, "we anticipate that there l
will be no net cost or loss in connection with this profect, since the total l
of expenditures to date and possible termination charges are more than offset by the company's favorable purchase of nuclear fuel supplies."
1 00$
1 1