ML20033C915

Statement of Matl Fact as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue,Re Summary Disposition of Contention 25

ML20033C915
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	11/18/1981
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:
Shared Package
ML20033C907	List: ML20033C906 ML20033C913 ML20033C915 ML20033C923 ML20033C928 ML20033C933
References
NUDOCS 8112040490
Download: ML20033C915 (10)

Text

y.

I 11/18/81 UNITED STATES OF AISRICA NUCLEAR RIOUIATORY COIDESSION BEFORE THE ATO(IC SAFETY AMD LICENSIE BOMID In the Matter of l

l Docket Nos. 50-4 5 APPLICATICE OF TEKAS IFFILITIES l

aM So-M6 l

GEEERATING C(3tPANY, ET AL. FOR AN l

OPERATIM LICENE FOR CG4ANCHE l

l PEAK STEM EI2CTRIC STATION l

UNITS fl AED #2 (CPSES)

]

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE ARE GENUINE ISSUES TO BE HEARD 1.

All of the Applicants with the exception of BiPA must depend on rate increases to assure their ability to pay their respective shares of the costs associated with the operaticn and decoc:missioning of Ccnanche Peak.

2.

The following items in the Staff's Statement of Material Facts As to Ubich There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, attached to its Motion for Summary Disposition, are questionable, erronecas, or no longer valid, as demonstrated below:

2, 5, 6, 8, 9, lo, and 11 -- Applicants' and NRC Staff's interpretation of the laws and regulations of the State of' Texas and the Texas Public Utility Commission is skewed, thus distorting the bases for the Staff's conclusion that there are no genuine issues as to any fact material to this contention, that there are no factual issues requiring adjudication upon a _ hearing, and that the Staff

. is entitled, to a decision in its favor, granting summary disposition of Contention 25, as a matter of law.

3 -- There is a question not addressed by Stiaff as to whether or not the member cities of BiPA have the' authority and ability to pull out of Comanche Peak altogether, as the City of Austin voted to doon11/3/31regardingtheSouthTexasNuclearProject.

4 -- According to sworn testimony in the 1980 DP&L rate hearings, the capacity factors of 50, 60 and To p'ercent cited by Staff are not accurnte.

8112040490 811118 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G

PDR

?

? ^

2. (continued):

4 -- The assumption that the first year of commercial operation will be 1983 for Unit 1 and l@ for Unit 2 is no longer valid. This also messna that the Applicants' estimate of the first 7 years of operating costs is no longer valid.

2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,10, and 11 -- It is obvious that the NBC Staff has L,

relied primarily,'if not entirely, upon the financial information submitted by the Applicants. Although it is stated in ib.3 5 that " Applicants plan to recover all costs of operation through revenues derived from customers in system-wide sales of electricity"

^

and item 8 states that " Applicants have indicated that they believe they will be able to recover deccumissioning costs in the rate i

process," there is no indication that the Staff has made any attempt to independently investigate rate hearing documents or data which have direct bearing on Applicants' ability to carry i

out their plans and beliefs.

l 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 -- According to sworn testimony in rate hearings l

of the three primary Applicants (Dallas Power & Light, Teians Power

& Light, and Texas Electric Service Co.), including the sworn testimony of the Treasurers of DP&L, TP&L and TESCO, the financial condition of the three ccupanies has been deteriorating for the j

past several years and is continuing to deteriorate.

l 8, 9,10, and 11 -- As demonstrated herein, at least one of the primary Applicants has not made_even a minimal effort to plan in advance for financing decocnissioning and nuclear vaste disposal costs, has instead opposed CASE's efforts to see that such costs are planned for in advance and included as subjects in rate hearings, and in fact doesn't even vant to talk about such costs in rate hearings.

8, 9,10, and 11 -- At least one of the primary Applicants, as well as the regulatory authorities in rate hearings have not, and will not, see that costs such as deccamissioning and nuclear waste disposal are planned for and included as subjectsin rate hearings and decisions absent a specific order to Applicants frca the Ucard.

To summarize, CASE questions Staff's item 3 and Staff's items 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are erroneous or no longer valid.

3 Lack of candor on the part of at least one of the primary Applicants may damage its future ability to obtain rate increases. -. - _

d

!+. There is no basis to assume that c'. ties with original jurisdiction or the Texas Public Utili. Gcannission will rubberstamp whatever rate increases Applicants request.

5 There are other indications of financial problems which have not yet been examined _.

6.

A vicious circle of inflated' demand figures, which produces overcapacity, which generates inadequate revenues due to lack of need, which produces more rate increases, which causes more energy conservation because of in-creased costa of electricity, which decreases revenues even further, which necessitates more and more rate increases, ad infinitum -- coupled with the double-barrelled effect of very high construction,:osts with Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) in the rate base plus high fuel costs f.te to con-tinued use of natural gas resulting in more and higher rate increases --

is creating a situation which will lead to financial disaster for ratepayers, stockholders, and utilities.

7 CASE expects TESCO and DPE (followed shortly by TP&L) to file for rate increases as soon as the hearings on our Contention 25 ara completed, and

~~

that testimony in those rate hearings will further document CASE's Contention.

l 8.

Staff's statements that: Applicanta have provided a reasonable financing plan in light of relevant circumstances to operate, shutdown (if necessary),

l decommission and maintain the Comanche Peak facility in a safe condition; Applicants have reasonable assurance under 10 CFR 50 33(f) of obtaining necessary funds to operate Comanche Peak; and Applicants are financially qualified to operate and safely decommission Comanche Peak...are not sub-stantiated by the documents and sworn testimony presented herein or the real-world situation.

9 An accurate review of the Applicants' financial qualificatione demonstrates that there is abundant basis in fact which supports Contention 25 ls l

10. Unless the information and documents contained herein and the sworn testimony of the Treasurers of DPE, TP&L and TESCO is ignored completely, it is obirious that the financial qualifications of the Applicants to operate I

and decommission Ccananche Peak Kny is at a minimum very questionable.

Certainly the information and c

• P'.ae presented herein is sufficient grounds for denying the NRC Staffd ']; /61 Motion for Eummary Disposition of Contention 25 (Financia' Q. i '

nti.ons ).

11. CASE believes that sworn cruse-examiration testimony of the Treasurers of l

DPE, TPE and TESCO and othe-witness [s in these hearings will further

-3

s J

subst;ttiate and support CASE's Contention 25 Respectfully submitted, s.) duanita Ellis, President.

CASE (CitizensAssociationforSoundEnergy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/9469446 21k/9hl.1211, work,usuallyTuesdays and Fridays only b

e 9

e 6

4

,--,--,-,n._.,-

.g CASE ATTACEMENT A BACKGROUND IN10RMATION REGARDING TEXAS RATE _WARINGS:

CASE has participated in all of the Dallas Power & Light Company rate bearings since 1974. These were Docket 3460, filed September 1980 Docket 2572, 1979 Docket 1526, 1978 1975-76 (no docket number)

The 1975-76 rate hearings were held only before the City of Dallas and

~

therefore there is no docket number for them. The Texas Public Utility Commission did not go into existence until about September of 1975 (not positive of the exact date). All of the rate hearings after the 1975-76 hearings were held both before the City of Dallas and the PUC. CASE participated in the 1975-76 hearings joined with several other groups; however, thereafter we were separate from other intervenors.

CASE has most of the information from all of these hearings, including transcripts of most of them.

The rate hearings in Texas were designed to operate a little differently from what they are in most States. Cities have the option of retaining control over the rates of electric ut.tlities; any party in tlfe proceedings has the right to appeal the decision to the 50. However, because of the peculiar wording of another part of the law, due to the stringent time

(

constraints involved and the fact that PP&L, TP&L and TESCO all serve some (seven or so in the case of DP&L) customers in unincorporated areas over which the PUC has jurisdiction, usually hearings are held in the cities retaining original jurisdiction and hearings are also held before the PUC l

within a brief time span, sometimes no longer than a week.

(For example, in the 1979 hearings, CASE filed its interrogatories in Dallas and Austin at the same time.) All of this is brought about because DP&L, TIEL and TESCO file for rate increases in the cities served at the same time they file for rate increases before the PUC. As soon as they file, the clock starts running, so to speak, since under Texas law a decision must be reached within a specified period of time. Although the system isn't working as it was envisioned by the writers of the Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) and the effectiveness of the ci' ties has been reduced somewhat because of it, the cities still have and exercise the right of retaining original jurisdiction and act as intervenors in rate hearings before the PUC as well.

t S

_v-.-,

CASE ATTACFREtIT B - Page 1 N. cj Public Utility Commission

% g.:/

C

/

of Texas George M. Cowden enairman H. M. Rollins Commissioner Garrett Morris C&einiT.;65;&.~.a*

I, flartha M. Bartow, certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Supplemental Response of Applicant To Requests For Information Submitted By Parties, signed by G. A. Engelland and received June 22, 1979, and of the Dallas Power & Light Company Response To CASE First Request For Information Question No.18 (Additional Response), from Public Utility Commission Docket No. 2572.

X ISSUED UNDER ftY HAND AND SEAL on this the

/3 ~

day of November,1981.

W SEAL

. m e-

.9 Martha M. Bartow' Director.of Records Services l

l l

l l

l An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

CASE ATTA01EIENT B - Pace 2

,.. py,. p.,..

I

..h l

(

BEFORE TIIE j^;

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS h

REs PETITION OF X

OALL?.S POWf.R & LIGHT COMPANY 1

DOC 2T M-2572 y

TO SET RATES I

j I

E SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF APPLICANT d

.ji TO REOUESTS FOR INFORMATION l

SUBMI'1"I'ED BY PARTIES

)

I h

Comes now, Dallas Power & Light Company, dir p l i c a n t, and files 3

the following nupplemental response to reqc.its for ir. formation q

submitted by parties.

l Respectfully submitted,

\\

l Dy lf, (,4 w -lte '<..

A; G.

A. Engj!11and j

.d~

q Attorney for Applicant s

1 CERTIFICATE OF SER_VICE 5

I hereby cortify that a true and correct cop 9 of Applicant's Supplemental Responce to kequests for Information attached hereto j

has been served, either by hand delivery or certified mail, return 1

ieceipt requested, on the following persons on this the 2 -

of June, 1979.

t, glf s

Mr. George Schalles Id Assistant General Counsel

%O k

{

Public Utility Commission of Ter.au V 4 Suite 400N

't2 M

l i

7800 Shoal Creek Doulevard h

}\\

,M Austin, Texas 78757 s

c Mrs. Jtanita Ellis

[

[

Citi:: ens Association for Soend Energy 1

1426 South Polk 1

Dallas, Texas 75224

.8 h

Ms. Sheila O'Connor Dallas Legal Services Foundation, Inc.

l 810 Main Etreet, Suite 320 Dallas, Texas 75202

'N a

v l-4 I

W 3

(

.a

,{

5 v

F **e0 t ene o m - we my w

F

a 1

CASE ATTACFl!ENT 3 - Page 3

~

e O

2 9

A

.* y r

Mr. Thomts Z. James Hearing Examiner City of Dallas City Hall, Room 7.'. South 1500 Marilla

~

Q:

Dh11as, Texas 75201 m

(

M s".

Peggy Wells Dobbins

'S t. Regis Pe.per Company 150 East. 42nti Street I'

Now York, Ne w York **10017

,j 4

('! [(

f;, } <us. (.

+

C c.

A.

Engellknd f

k

,I Jf

't.-

I'

{3,

~

~

+

t.

1 D

d

• 1 e

s.a l

c.5

,t

,a

\\

.Td-dT

~b e

1 i

r F-2-

,T '

.it

'Y s

.,i

.-.1

,. q r

1 a - - x -4 t

, - my, -. - c

CASE ATTACS E T 3 - Page 4

-n

.e.-.--

~

t'a ge ' f I

.'dl s

'9 DALLAS POWER 4: LIG1(T COhiPANY

.-Q a

l91 Response te CASE First Request for Informahon

, TM.

Question No. 18._(Additional Respon sc.8 O,

~

.E

.4 2

,,f As outlined in Sec' tion 6. F of the CPSES/ER(OLS) previousely furnished the cost for decommissioning Comanche Peak is currently estimated to

'lQ be $18.4 million (in 1981 dollars). This < ont is not included in the current estimates for the i onstruction s ont of the comanche Peak Steam

- }rj Electric Station. The cost of decommissioning will be recovered through l- (

the deprectation cha rgce, which, when apuroveel, will c ommence when the

~

j unit is placed in service anil as with any other fai elity dedicated tra public service, will be paid for by the ratepayers who re. cive the benefit from

...1 l.g

'such facilities. The general plans for decomrr.ingioning Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station are as outlined in Section 'i. 8.

Since derbmmis-

'q sioning will not occur until after the year 2020, specific plans a re not te

('d presentlpTvsilabley It is, however, expected that decomminstoning plans will follow the best.available and accepted technology and methods at the

.,j) time of d.ecommissioning. The CPSES/ER(OLS) was. prepared untfer the

, direction 'of Texas Utilities Generating Company ( EtJCCO), acting a.. agent Q

=

for'the owners of the olant. Inquiries egncerning. the Atomic Industrial Fo' rum 1

l.k~ y stu ly entitled "An Engineering Evaluation of Nuc! car Power Reactor l

Decommi1rsinning Alternatives" may be directed to the Atomic Indur trial I

w9 Forum, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Wa shington, D. C.

0014, 3

1 l

l 3

n u

6 1

4 9

,' q 4

1. j

'J d

y 1.k h

)

t.'

.I y,,

x.

l p

y i

4

CASE ATTACEMENT C - Page 1 Nm Public Utility Commission Q3f of Texas George M. Cowden Chairman H. M. Rollins Commissioner Garrett Morns Commissioner I, Martha M. Bartow, certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Direct Testimony and Exhibits 1 through 4 and Affidavit of David E. Kelch for Texas Electric Service Company, May,1980, from Public Utility Commission Docket No. 3250.

Tb.

ISSUED UNDER HY HAND AND SEAL on this the /3 day of November,1981.

hd-SOL Martha M. Bartow Director of Records Services An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer 7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard

• Suite 400N

• Austin. Texas 78757

• 512/4584100

_ _ _ _ _