ML19209D262

Affidavit Attesting That Purpose of 790615 Testimony Was to Discuss Util long-range Const Schedules & Plans. Ascertains That No Changes Have Occurred in Util Willingness to Build Facility

ML19209D262
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	07/26/1979
From:	Owen W DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19209D259	List: ML19209D257 ML19209D262
References
NUDOCS 7910220192
Download: ML19209D262 (3)

Text

. _ .

. . s rd2.C COh*6VLE.vc l g

A 9

MD4 UNITL'D STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -I S[dQ v

In the Matter of )

)

Q e DUIG PCWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-488

) 50-489 ,

(Perkins Nuclear Station, ) 50 490 '

/

Units 1, 2 and 3) ) f

/

/

)

AFFIDAVIT OF W. H. OWEN /

W. H. Owen, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Con- -' )

i )

struction, Duke Power Company, having first been duly sworn, /

hereby states as follows:

On wNne 15, 1979, my testimony was filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) in Docket No. E-100 Sub 35.

The' purpose of this testimony was to discuss Duke's long-range construction schedules and plans, including the need for flexi-bility to accommodate changing demands, expanding regulatory restraints and increasing lead times for all types of generating capacity. In that testimony I indicated that no final com-mitments have been made for generation beyond the planned 1989 in-service date for Cherokee Unit 2, although the company's load forecast indicates that additional generating capacity will be required. My Exhibit 1 to that testi::eny reflected the operation of Perkins 1 or Cherokee 3 in the Summer of 1991, Cherokee 3 or Perkins 1 in the Summer of 1993, and Perkins 2 lill 020 7010220(72__

.~ .

D

.>p q%

u an 2.

s.

in 1995. I am informed that the intervenors in the Perkins proceedings (STN 50-488, 50-489 & 50-490) " moved to dismiss the Perkins proceedings based on recent decisions by Duke to postpone indefinitely the construction of Perkins Units 1, 2 and 3." This interpretation by the intervenors is incorrect .

Our interest in building Perkins has not changed. My testimony described the firm commitments already scheduled through 1989. Our current load forecast clearly identifies the need for additional generating capacity after 1989 and the NCUC Public Staff confirms this need. Duke continues to believe that nuclear power generatior. is superior to currently available alternatives and that the Perkins units remrin an important and viable option for the post-1989 period. Duke has already made a defini's financial commitment to Perkins considering sita acquisition, site hearings, licensing, and engineering efforts to date. Duke has already perfermed much work and expects to perform the necessary work to meet the planned commercial date for Perkins 1. Definite economic advantages accrue by building Perkins since Perkins is part of a six unit standardized approach.

Naturally if the load for Duke does not develop, or if financial constraints or political and regulatory activities preclude construction of Perkins, then Duke would not construct i 171 021-

o =

3.

Perkins. However, the Duke forecast shows Perkins 1 to be operational as early as 1991 and as late as 1993. The North Carolint. Utilities Commission Public Staff, in its report of June 1979, reflects Perkins 1 operational in the Summer of 1990, Cherokee 3 in the Summer of 1992, Perkins 2 in the e

C Summer of 1993, and Perkins 3 in the Summer of 1994. The e c

l North Carolina Utilities Commission's Order of December 1976 ( j

' i reflects Perkins 1 in the Summer of 1989, Cherokee 3 in the l

)

Summer of 1990, and Perkins 2 in the Summer of 1992.

2 The application for a construction permit has been pending D

for five years. Orderly business decisions require that Duk: ,

be assured of a construction permit. Duke's willingness to build Perkins has not changed.

W. H. Owen Subscribed and sworn to before me this ^'

O= day of July, 1979.

mmW \

I, - S ,

a Notary Publi'c My Commission expires: '

l-1 -74

\\1\ 322