ML19296D130

Requests Separation of Issues Per Amend 40 to License Application & Expedition of Issuance of Decision Re Ownership Transfers by United Illuminating Co

ML19296D130
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/25/1980
From:	Ritsher J ROPES & GRAY
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8002290376
Download: ML19296D130 (2)

Text

e. ~ * ,

ROPES & GRAY -

225 FRAN KLIN STREET BOSTON 0218 0 ae.t accar ss ACPG A ALO A a=rac;or e7 423 6:03 r e r . +. v a e c = waosie February 25, 1930 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Directorate of Licensing Office of Regulation Washincton. D. C. 200h5 Attention: Director Re: Request for Partial Transfer of Construction ^

Permits - Docket Mos. 50 h43 and 50-444

Dear Sir:

This letter is being sent on behalf of The United Illuminating Company, one of the licensees under the above construction permits, for the purpose of requesting expedition of the issuance of a decision by the Director with respect to the transfers by United Illuminating as proposed in Amendment No. 40 to the License Appli-cation.

On May 14, 1979, the several licensees filed Amendment No.

40 to the License Application in the above dockets, requesting various modifications in the Construction Permits to reflect a proposed reallocation of ownership interests. These included two transfers by United Illuminating to other licensees, 2.5%

to Central Maine Power Company and 1.064695 to Montaup Electric Company. The supporting material as to the latter was filed with Amendment No. 40 and the supporting material as to the former was supplied by Supplement No. 1 to Amendment No. 40, dated June 1, 1979 The balance of the material in Amendment No. 40 and its supplements relates to reallocations of interests between Public Service Company of New Hampshire and other utilities, which are entirely separate from the transfers proposed by United Illumin-ating.

We respectfully request that the Director segregate the two transactions and proceed to a decision with respect to the trans-fers proposed by United Illuminating. In support of this request we would point out that the transfer to Central Maine could be consummated promptly after favorable action by the Director be-cause no further regulatory approvals are required, although the f 0

8 0 0 2 2 9 05F7G2

Ropts & GRAY United States Nuclear -

Regulatory Commission February 25, 1980 transfer to Montaup would still need to await favorable action in Massachusetti. Nevertheless, consummation of the transaction with Central Maine would represent a significant advance for the long-range capital planning of both companies. The construction budget for the project anticipates expenditures (excluding Allow-ance for Funds Used During Construction) of approximately $375 million during each of the years 1980 and 1981. cr this amount United Illuminating must presently raise 201, one-eighth of which will ultimately be reimbursed by Central Maine. However, fron a long-ranr;e caoital planning per3pective it would be better if each company could raise its requirements as needed by the project rather than as arbitrarily influenced by a delayed regulatory approval. Obviously, in today's market it makes little sense for United Illuminating to raise excess amounts by issuance of long-term securities, if a significant portion of the project being paid fcr by those funds is to be sold in the near future. This is particularly true where "no-call" provisions may affect United Illuminating's ability to refund those securities. Consequently, UI must increase its short-term borrowings far beyond its usual requirements, at historically high interest rates. In addition, to the extent that AFUDC accruals differ for the two utilities it is more appropriate that each company capitalise its own financing costs.

'de are not aware of any reason for holding back on a decision on United Illuminating's proposed transfers other than the fact that they are included in an amendment which describes some other unrelated transfers of interests in the same project as to which there are some open issues. Therefore, we would respectfully request that the Director separate the two issues and proceed to issue a decision as to the United Illuminating transfers. If there is further information which is needed, please do not hesi-tate to contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours, Jo .A. Ritsher JAR:vnl cc: Edwin J. Reece, Esq.