ML20003B476
| ML20003B476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1981 |
| From: | Hukill H METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L1L-029, L1L-29, NUDOCS 8102120207 | |
| Download: ML20003B476 (19) | |
Text
.
Metropolitan Edison Company Post Office Box 480 g
Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 717 9444041 Writer's Direct Dial Number February 9,1981 LlL 029 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
R. W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Sir:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Additional Financial Information
References:
1.
Letter, Request for Financial Information, to R. C. Arnold from T. M. Novak, dated August 11, 1980 2.
Letter, Additional Financial Information, to T. M. Novak from H. D. Hukill, dated December 22, 1980 (TLL 670) 3.
Letter, Financial Information Request, to H. D. Hukill from R. W. Reid, dated December 17, 1980 4.
Letter, Additional Financial Information, to T. M. Novak from H. D. Hukill, dated January 13, 1981 (L1L 002) 5.
Letter, Additional Financial Information, to R. W. Reid from H. D. Hukill, dated October 27, 1980 (TLL 551)
By letter (Reference No. 3), you noted that certain information requested by i
Reference No. 1 had not been provided (i.e., responses to Item Nos. 3 through 9).
Please note that responses to Item Nos. 3 and 4 of Reference No. I were provided by Reference No. 2.
If any ' clarification of our responses is required, Responses to Item-Nos. 8 and 9 were provided by Reference please contact us.
No. 5 (Reference No. 5 relied on our October 15, 1979 letter Item Nos. 5 and 6).
Responses to Item Nos. 5 and 6 of Reference No. 1 are enclosed and, as noted by Reference No. 4, a response to Item No. 7 will be forwarded by the end of February t1981.
v,
^
)c)()
Sincerely, 1
7 E
S
,4
..[
'b. D dukill
[
Director, TMI-l HDH:LWH:Ima Attachment cc:
B. J. Snyder J. Peterson T. Novak H. Silver D. DiIanni
" " # ** 8 '"
810 2 12 0 $ """ "5 "
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company and Jersey Central Power & Light Company NRC Docket No. 50-289 Three Mile Island Unit No. 1 Restart Proceeding Response to the NRC Staff's Additional Financial Information request No. 5 and No. 6, dated August 11, 1980.
5.
Complete the attached form entitled, " Pro-Forma Statement of I
Sources and Uses of Funds", on an annual basis for each licensee and GPU, through the year of estimated completion of the cleanup activities of TMI-2.
Note that this state-
[
ment should encompass all necessary construction expenditures including capital expenditures relating to both TMI-1 and TMI-2.
Indicate the assumptions upon which the " Sources and Uses of Funds" statement is based.
These assumptions should include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: (a) rates of return on average common stock equity, (b) preferred stock dividend rates, (c) long and short-term debt interest rates, (d) market / book ratios for any projected issuances of common stock, (e) common stock dividend payout ratios, (f) target and year by year l
capital structure, and (g) resultant annual SEC3and inden-ture coverages on interest charges and preferred' dividend I
l coverages over the period.
Provide a brief. explanation of..
the basis for each assumption.
l 6.
Provideia list of all necessary generating: units, transmis.'~- r.
sion and distribution facilities and general" plant projects'-
"~
j i
2-to be constructed during the period of cleanup of TMI-2, showing the type of facility, net capacity of each generating unit, the estimated capital expenditures for each facility during each of the years involved, and the projected in-service date of each facility.
Response
f As indicated in our letter of January 13, 1981 to Mr.
T.
M. Novak, we are responding to the forecast data request in two parts.
The first portion, which is the complete response to request No. 5 for 1981 and 1982, is attached.
Within several weeks we will file the second portion of our fore-cast response which will be the years 1983 and beyond for request No. 5 and the full response for request No. 6.
1
-3,
4 e
d
- 4 4
-er w-
-n
., - - - ~ -
g
-,w--
>.w--
.-w-----
m e
General Public Utilities 1981-1982 Forecast Introduction The attached forecast is -- as is true of any forecast --
a result of its underlying assumptions.
We have tried to be ex-plicit in detailing our forecast assumptions and we believe these assumptions to be reasonable given today's knowledge of wnat might happen in the future.
There are, however, several forecast assumption areas that require further explanation.
Level of Construction Since the TMI-2 accident, the GPU companies have virtually eliminated new generating station construction programs and have reduced non-nuclear construction programs at existing f acilities.
This forecast assumes that a material increase in our construc-tion program will commence in 1982.
However, this increase --
which includes undertaking new project initiatives such as the Sayreville coal conversion, the Ontario Hydro Tie and major dis-tribution system improvements -- can and only will be possible given our other assumptions about other events such as the return to service and rate base of TMI-1, available credit for the com-panies, a project financing vehicle for the Ontario Hydro Pro-ject, adequate rate relief and the like.
The forecast assump-tions are interdependent so that if one of our assumptions changes (e.g. rate relief) then others (e.g. construction pro-grams) will change as well.
The 46% increase in construction expenditures from 1981 to 1982 (see Appendix A, S265 million l
to $388 million) will not take place if there is a materially adverse development relative to the assumptions that we have made.
Level of Base Rate Relief The major driving element in any utility's financial fore-l l
cast is the rate relief assumption.
In this' forecast we have elected to keep the rate relief assumption conservative by l
only applying f uture rate relief that is consistent with the rate making that we have experienced. since the accident.
We believe that our needs and fairness to our investors dictate l
a different: level of rate relief an'd. we are so requesting and i
l arguing in our. current rate cases.
The' level'of4 awards assumed i
in this.: forecast: merely reflects the; application: of :the rate-making 'that we. have experienced since'. the. accidentu
. Level-of: Expenditures at TMI-2 M) - i i
Our 1981-budget for TMI-2 has' been established at $60 million which is a minimum program, but one that complies with various regulatory agency directives since. the accident.
l l
2-( Attachment 1 is a portion of an exhibit in the current Pennsylvania rate proceeding which describes this level of spending.)
Our forecast continues this basic minimum level of spend-ing with a normal allowance for inflation.
The dif ference between this continued level of spending and the level of spending required to complete the clean-up and restoration of TMI-2 is assumed to be provided from some source (e.g.
government or industry) other than customer revenues.
To the extent that external funding is not available customer reve-nues would be required on a dollar for dollar basis.
This additional capital and funds requirement is not included in our forecast.
4 l
~
=
v-*
gD' #
e 9
a w
General Public Utilities 1981-1982 Forecast Major Assumptions I.
Costs and Construction 1981 and 1982.
Forecast Period TMI-l returns to full power 1/1/82.
TMI-2 out TMI Availability of service throughout the forecast period.
Substantial increase in construction Cons tru ction expenditures are included in the forecast for 1982.
The majority of the increases are in the Ontario Hydro Transmission tie and reinforcement of the distribution system.
In summary, the following construction is included:
New Generation - Forked River nuclear project is abandoned.
Jersey Central's Sayreville oil units are converted to coal at a cost of
$100 million.
Penelec (90%) and Jersey Central (10%) construct Seward-7 coal unit to go in service in 1989.
Major construction expenditures on Seward-7 begin in 1983.
Transmission - Jersey Central constructs the Ontario Hydro tie at a cost of $250 million and completes the LDV 500 KV system.
Project financing is assumed available for 70% of the Ontario Hydro project.
USDOE Deferral' - The USDOE deferral of $39 million.(JCu-S22 million, ME - $11 million, PN - $6 million) is assumed.to be paid in 1981.
The construction expenditurescaressummarized c/
on AppendixnA.-
Energy Costs
- 2 oil escalates 20% in 1981 and 12%
annually thereafter In recognition of the PaPUC's September 18, TMI-2 Costs 1980 order that, "The Metropolitan Edison Company cease and desist from using any operating revenue for uninsured clean-up and restoration costs" this forecast continues to reflect the reduced spending levels on the clean-up project.
Essentially, all of the deferred costs projected for 1981 and 1982 will be recovered through insurance proceeds.
The following schedule depicts the levels of spending for clean-up and O&M for the GPU System:
(S Millions)
Deferred Costs 1981 1982 Clean-up
$ 42
$ 45 Insurance Proceeds (41)
(44)
Net Deferred Cost 1
1 O&M Changed to Expense
$ 19
$ 18 L
l i
I l
l N
{ l? ' b l
General Public Utilities 1981&l982 Forecast Major Assumptions II.
Financing Assumptions Bonds 15.5%
New Capital Short-Te rm Debt 15.0%
JC's Project Financing 15.0%
The GPU System maintains the Revolving Short-Te rm Debt Credit Agreement (RCA) with the following limits:
JCP&L
$122 million Met-Ed Met-Ed retains its current credit limit formula:
deferred energy balance plus uranium pledge (S20 million) plus accounts receivable pledge (S20-24 million).
When TMI-l returns to service and rate base Met-Ed's credit limit re-verts back to its previous level of $105 million.
Penelec S116 million GPU Corp.
S 75 million System Total
$292 million No new shares are issued.
GPU Common Stock l
For financial forecasting purposes, we GPU Common Dividend have assumed no dividend payment through-out this period.
This assumption is not an indication of the prospective dividend f
policy which is reviewed quarterly by the GPU Board of Directors.
l i
l Subsidiary Dividends'.
1981-1982:-Penelec and JCP&L pay l
to GPU its earnings to GPU.
Capital Contributions 1981-1982: None except for retained to Subsidiaries earnings of subsidiaries.
l l
i
General Public Utilities 1981-1982 Forecast Major Assumptions III Ratemaking The energy clause assumption for Met-Ed Energy Clauses and Penelcc is intended to reflect our most recent ratemaking decisions which allow for an amortization of our existing deferred energy balance by the end of 1981 and energy clause f actors that keep the Pennsylvania subsidiaries current on energy costs in the future periods.
For Jersey Central, the assumption is that their de-ferred energy balance is amortized by the end of 1982 and they are also kept current on their energy costs.
Appendix B details the ratemaking for 1981 Base Revenues which reflects the assumed disposition of our current base rate cases for all three subsidiaries.
We believe that our assump-tions are consistent with the ratemaking that we have experienced since the TMI-2 accident in that the awards weshave assumed do not provide any revenue allowance for TMI-2 or TMI-l when they are not in ser-vice; provides no customer revenues to assist in the clean-up as either an expense or rate base allowance; and does not change the allowed or earned return on common equity to reflect higher risks.
In 1982, the level of base rate increases for all three companies have been determined as follows:
Ratemaking provides revenues sufficient to produce an earned return of approximately 14% on the prior' year? s common equity de-voted to rate base.; Excluded:>from rate base is the TMI-2 cle~an-up costs and, for Jersey Central,xthe unamortized:: Forked River investment ~.' rAlso ex'cluded. as an allowable rate making expense are the O&M costs for TMI-'2-that-we are charging against in come.
i L
7 Appendix A GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES GPU Construction Forecast S Millions Includes AFC 1981 1982 New Generation Forked River S
5 S
Sayreville Conversion (100% JC) - 1985 2
8 Seward #7 (90% PN, 10% JC) - 1989 1
2 2
Coal #1 - 1991 3
Other i
Total 8
$ 15 Existing Generation 97 135 Transmission Ontario Hydro Tie 3
41 LDV (Lower Delaware Valley) 11 1
Other 31-38 Distribu tion 85 119 Nuclear Fuel 22 31 General 8
8 Total
$265
$388 Payment on Re tentions-39 DOE Other 17 J-Total Construction SM VM ( A dj.r.
i-iY
~,
a t
i
-, ' " 1 l
Appendix B GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES Assumed Disposition of Current Base Rate Cases In 1981
($ Millions)
Last allowed ROE Amortization on "re cognized" Revenues for Rate Base the Forked Investmenk}
River Investment Base Revenue Increases Jersey Central II S27 Annual Award S
Ef fective Date March Met-Ed Annual Award S35 Effective Date May Penelec Annual Award
$40 Ef fective Date May i
(1)
Excludes all capital and operating costs associated with the following investments:
- TMI-l (until 1/1/82)
TMI-2
- De ferred TMI clean-up costs
- Unamortized Forked River investment (2)
Jersey Central interbn award of S60 million -in June 19807
~-
assumed to be retained.
l 1
~.
.m l
i Ceneral Public Utilities Corporation U. S. NUCLEAR RECULATORY C0!011SSION 9
i THRIE MILE ISIAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. I
~
RESTART PROCEEDINC - DOCKET No. 50-289 ATTACH"ENT FOR ITEM NO. 5 l
9 STATEMENT OF PRO FORMA SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS FOR PIANT I
PODIFICATIONS, CLEANUP ACTIVITIES, CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) i YEARS 1981 1982 i
EXTERNAL FUNCTIONS Cocunon Stock l
Preferred Stock Long-term debt 50 Notes payable III)
IT6)
Project Financing (Ontario flydro)
]
]
)
Contributions from j
parent-net l
Other funds (describe)gg) 29 (2)
Total External Funds
$2
$J INTERNALLY CENERATED CASH Net Income 52 150 i,
Less:
I preferred dividends g) g)
I' cocmon dividends Retained earnings T
I68 Deferred taxes
~T5 T)
Invest. tax cred. deferred 3)
T I
Depreciation and amort.
I57 T55 Y
Y i
Deferred Energy l
Change in working capital 3)
]) '
Less: AFDC (18)
(25 Total Internal Funds 260 432 J
TOTAL FUNDS
$g CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES ( }
TMI-2 Cleanup l
211-1 Modifications (4) 10 Other Construction Exp.
244 363 l
TOTAL
$g
$g 1
OTHER CAPITAL REOUIREVENTS Redemption of Maturing Bonds 10 22 Acquisition of Bonds
~
~
4 8
for Sinking Funds MiscellaneousReqge-(,
ments (detail) 6 47 TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
$3
' CAPITAL STRUCTURE ($ & 2) 1 Long-ters debt
$2097 52%
$2106 51%
510 13 504 12
- c,, Preferred stock..
~
~
- Common equity r r 1429 35 1537 37 TOTAL
$40b l00%
.$4147 10d:.
{
Short-tern Debe "
$138
. $ 64 f
'COVERACES i
interest-n-
Not Aeoliemble for Consolidated Preferred Stock i
1 Temporary investments 2
(
1981 Includes Payment of Accrued Constructfon Liabilities of $56 I
.million, of which DOE is $39 million.
3 Exclusive of AFDC Consisten't with data request No. 2 i
Debenture and Preferred Stock Sinking Funds and CPU's $39 million '
7t~
Tara Loan in 1982--
s h
Jersey Central Power & Light U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNI
- NO. I RESTART PROCEEDINC - DOCKET NO. 50-289 AT*ACHMENT FOR ITEM NO. 5 N
STATEMENT OF PRO FORMA S0titCES AND USES OF FUNDS FOR PLANT MODIFICATIONS, CLEANUP ACTIVITIES, CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE (MILLIONS OF DCLLARS)
/
1981 1982 YEARS EXTERNAL FUNCTIONS Common Stock Pref erred Stock 50 Long-term debt T
T5T)
Notes payable 30 Project Financing (Ontario Hydro)
Contributions f rom parent-net Other f unds (describe)g)
Total External Funds
$3
$2 INTERNALLY GENERATED CASH 30 71 Net Income Less:
preferred dividends (18)
(18)
M)
M) common dividends 7
7 Retained earnings Deferred taxes 26 (16)
Invest. tax cred. deferred 3) 7 T
T Depreciation and amort.
48 40 Deferred Energy 7
7 Change in working capital Less: AFDC (11)
(15)
M M
Total Internal Funds TOTAL FUNDS
$3 l
CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES l
M -2 Cleanup TMI-I Modifications (
7 7
Other Construction Exp.
120 193 L
ICTAL OTHER CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS j
Rederption of Matur19g 5
5 i
Sands Acquisition of Bonds 4
for Sinking Funds MiscellaneousRequg-ments (detail) 3
}
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
$12],
$19],
CAPITAL STRUCTURE ($ & %)
Long-term debt
$ 883 50%
$ 952 52%
Preferred stock 202 11 199 11 671 39 671 37 Common equity
,$ 17 % 100%_i$142 2 100%
1 TOTAL Short-term Debt S 67
$ 15 COVERACES Interest (6)-
1.76 2.45 t
1 l
Preferred Stock 1.09 1.52 1 Temporary Investments 2 1981 Includes Payment of Accrued Construction Lisbilities of $40 million, of which DCE is $22 million t
l 3 Exclusive.cf AFDC i
4 l
Consistent with data request No. 2 5 Debenture ani Prefdtred Stock Sinking Fund ~ r s
-6 j
Inputed: interest on Project Financing included
N Metropolitan Edison Company U. S. NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION THRIE MILE ISLAND Nt' CLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 RESTART PROCEEDING - DOCKET NO. 50-289 k
ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM NO. 5 STATEwENT OF PRO FORMA SOURCES AND U$ES OF Ft'NDS FOR PLANT MODIFICATIONS, CLEANUP ACTIVITIES, CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
YEARS 1981 1982 EXTERNAL FUNCTIONS Common Stock Preferred Stock Long-tera debt Notes payable 3) 3)
Contributions from pa rent-ne t Other funds (describe)gg)
Total External Funds
$3)
$3)
INTERNALLY CENERATED CASH Net Income 3)
J Lessi preferred dividends Q)
Q) common dividends Retained earnings TIT)
T Deferred taxes (11) 8 14 Invest. tax cred. deferred T
~IT Oepreciation and amort.
48 (3)
Deferred Energy I)
)
~TO
[II)
Change in working capital
~TE)
Less: AFDC
$1 86
- otal Internal Funds
~
$3 TOTAL FUNDS
$g CONSTRUCT!0N EXPENDITURES TMI-2 Cleanup TMI-l Modifications ( }
7 l
Other Construction Exp.
3 3
MTAL
$3
$3 OTHER CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS Redemption of Maturing 8
i Bonds Acquisition of Bonds f or Sinking Iunds 2
2 Miscellaneous Require-ments (detail) l TOTAL CAPITAL RIOUIREMENTS
$3
$,,$ l,l CAPITAL STRUCTURE ($ & %)
Long-term debt
$ 542 52%
$ $32 51.[ ~~
^-
Preferred stock 160 13 140 13 Cocanon equity 356 35 377 36 TOTAL
$10M 100:
$1049 1n0%
$ 44 3 39
[
--~
- - ~ - -
Short-term Debe
> + >
l COVERACES
~~
.93 2.'2
~
t Interest Preferred Stock :-
.83 1.39 4
1 Tevporary Investments
- 1981 Includes Payment of DCE Liability of $11 millica 3
Exclusive of AyDC Consistent with data request No. 2 5 Excludes $13 millions bor.ds.
p 1
%' N N %
Pennsylvania Electric Company U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. I v
N9 RESTART PROCEEDING - DOCKET NO. 50-289 ATTACHMENT FOR ITEM No. 5 Q
STATEMEN* OF PRO FORMA SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS FOR PLANT MODIFICATIONS, CLEANUP ACTIVITIES, CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
YEARS 1981 1982 EXTERNAL FUNCTIONS Coc: mon Stock Pref erred Stock Long-term debt Notes payable
]
]
Contributions from pa re nt-ne t Other funds (describe)II "Ti 3
Total External Funds
$2
$2 INTERNALLY CENERATED CASH Net Income 39 53 Less.
preferred dividends Q)
Q) coemon dividends (22)
(38)
Retained earnings 3
1 7
7 Deferred taxes Invest. tax cred. deferred 7
7 Depreciation and amort.
52
- 55 Deferred Energy 3
(3)
Change in working capital
~TT) 3-Less: AFDC (3)
(4)
Total Internal Funds T
~U TOTAL FUNDS
$3
$]
CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES ( }
011-2 Cleanup 7
TMI-1 Modifications Other Construction Exp.
84 99 TOTAL
$3
$3 4
OTHER CAPITAL REOUIREMENTS Redemption of Maturing i
Bonds 5
9 Acquisition of Sonds for Sinking Funds 2
2 MiscellaneousRegre-3 3
ments (detail)
TOTAL CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
$3 SM CAPITAL STRUCTURE ($ & %)~
~
$ 681 _5_4%-;'ys 669 53%
Long-term debt Preferred stock 168 13 165 13 i
Corumon equity 420 33 421 34
~
10TAL
$12H IM%
$125 5 100%
. ~:
'~ '
$2 Short-term Debt
$2 i
i COVFRACES Interest 2.13
..- 2.81 1.36
~ ' l.55
{
Preferred Stock s
1 Temporary Investments r
e,w 2 1981 Includes Payment of DOE Liability of $6 million' I-Exclusive of AFDC
-4 Consistent with data request No.~2-5 Debenture and Preferred Stock Sinking Fund ?
' for Met-Ed Exhibit No. J-7 Date Request No. 5 Docket No. R-80051196 Witness: H. E Dieckamp FUNDS EMPLOYED FOR TMI CLEAN UP In its September 18 order, the Commission directed that Met-Ed provide the folloaing information in this proceeding:
A.
Identification of the amounts disbursed for the
~
non-insured cleanup and restoration costs at TMI sinc'e~
the accident and the anticipated expenditures for 1981 through 1893.
l B.
Identification of the source of the revenues it has utilized for the cleanup at TMI since June 19, 1979, and the source intended to be utilized for clean up and restoration in 1981.
While we believe that all of these inquiries have been responded to in various places in this record, it is the purpose of this testimony to respond fully and directly to these questions.
Expenditures:
1979, 1980 and Projections.
'It is important to f
characterize the kinds of expenditures which have been and f
will be incurred at TMI-2:
l
[
First, there are those expenditures for activities i
required to address immediate concerns for public health and safety; maintain the shut down damaged reactor in a safe t
condition; and ef forts necessary to insure public and worker health and safety in the near term.
This category includes i
operation in compliance with the plant's technical specifi.
cations and many support activities that are common to any i
nuclear, facility, such as security, quality.assuranceuand-
-r :
i administrative functions.
Except forritems which reflect =the.
effect of the accident, these activities are:generallye l
I considered to be normal operations and maintenance.
These items, with minor exceptions, do not make any net progress on accomplishing a cleanup of the Unit 2 facility.
The I
exceptions arise f rom the inclusion of activities that are inherent in maintaining a viable organization for accomplishing the scope of activities in this category or to fulfill fundamental requirements of the TMI-2 NRC license, both of which may be required for safety, in the near term.
Second, these are those activities which we deemed to be necessary to fulfill our obligations in a responsible manner, e.g.,
those activities (which may be characterized as
" cleanup") important for reducing intermediate and long-term l
threat to public and worker safety and those activities i
necessary to comply with specific NRC requirements arising out of the accident.
Third, there are the expenditures to clean up from the
- accident, i.e.,
to decontaminate the site and remove the fuel-from the reactor.
Fourth, there are the further expenditures to clean up from the to reconstruct and relicense the plant.
This program was described in our letter of September 12r,c 1980 to NRC Chairman Ahearne (which was part of Exhibit E-25 in this proceeding a'nd which is Attachment 1 to this j
testimony).. 'The elements of 'the program are further m
elaborated ~in'Attachmenta2.
Since that. time, the NRC has:~
responded with a Statement of Policy dated September 26,: 9 0$.
and a letter dated January 12, 1981, which are Attachment 3..
- ~ -
-.. ~ -
The most recent response basically affirms the need to maintain the minimum program, consisting of both actions to maintain the plant in a safe condition and some progress toward clean up, that is the basis for.our planning.
In 1980, we estimated the first area of expenses as being in the range of $17 million.
With inflation, these costs will be in the range of $17 million to $20 million in 1981.
This level of costs assumes no fundamental change from the present condition of the plant, i.e.,
no forcing emergency.
With respect to the second area of costs, those directly related to clean up, in September of last year we reported to this Commission and to the NRC that we had reduced expenditures to an annual level of $7 million to $10 million.
This is in full compliance with the Commission's September 18 and 26 Orders.
There were no expenditures included for restoration.
The following chart summarizes these categories of expenditures since the accident and, as requested in the Commissions' Order, projects them forward through 1983:
Expenditures Compelled:
To Operate The Plant Expenditure Expenditures For And Protect Public For Necessary Further Cleanup Health and Safetva Clean Uo And Restoration 1979
$ 35
$ 15
$0 1980
$ 17
'$ 31:
$0 Projected.
1981
$ 20
$-10
$-0 1982
$ 21 S 11*
$0 1983
$ 22
$112*
$0 i
- Assumes no increase in cl'eanup activities over those plannned in 1981.
l The sbove categorization was not developed until the l
Commission entered its September 18 Order.
Amounts for 1979 and f
1980 are, therefore estimates of the amounts in these categories.
Because of the demands of the system of accounts and the provisions of our insurance policies, we have booked these i
expenditures somewhat dif ferently from the above categorizations.
On our books of accounts, the costs appear in this manner:
Charged To Operations And Maintenance r
1 Expense-Deferred Actual 1979
$3
$ 47-1980
$6
$ 42 Projected 19 fs1
$9
$ 21 1982
$10
$ 22 l
L I
l c
.m.
e A
e 4
% s
---,_,,,,..,~4,--,..,,
v,,,.. -
~, -
c~,
r,*~.. - -.. -
<m
- -. w.
,.-,,_.,..,m.-