ML20079C853

Forwards Ofc of Consumer Advocate Second Set of Discovery Requests Re Facility Witnesses,Ts Laguardia & Gj Caine

ML20079C853
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/27/1991
From:	Holmes M NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:	Haffer E SHEEHAN, PHINNEY, BASS & GREEN, P.A.
References
NDFC-91-1, NUDOCS 9106260206
Download: ML20079C853 (4)

Text

(- _ - -

' s iff) '/lj e

Tile STATE OF NEW llAMPSlilitE

()B coxstvf R AIMsCE [- } ANSINTANT CONSlWE R AIMDCATL MICil ALL W llOL.ALS , yj Jtst pg w. gascy9;g

-- 4/

h .v k l % w c, % lu avc s OFFICE OF THE CONSUMElt ADVOCATE 8 0LD SUNCOOK It0AD CONCollD, N EW II A hil'SillllE 0D01 telK5 Q ',{k g , h g h gp ,

wa>m sm I h ,?

27 May 1991 Edward A. Haffer, Esq.

Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, PA { .g 1000 Elm Street P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03105-3701 RE: NDFC 91-1

Dear Mr. Haffer:

Attached you will find the office of the Consumer Advocate's second set of discovery requests ("OCA Set 2"), in the above styled docket. The attached discovery pertain to the following New Hampshire yankee witnesses:

1. Thomas S. LaGuardia (including cost study by TLG Engineering, Inc.)

2. Gary J. Caine l Please contact me or John Rohrbach, the OCA's economist (271-1175) should you have any questions whatsoever concerning the interpretation of the attached.

Sincerely, Michael W.

h tk $--

Holmes, Esq.

Enclosures CC: Service List hb t 9106260206 010527 f Df t ADOCK 05000443 I

.. P pg;;. ,

t

.______m._.__.._____ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . - - . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _

e o e

i I

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Office of the Consumer Advocate Data Requests, Set #2 The following data requests portain to the testimony and cost study of Thomas S. LaGuardia and TLG Engincoring, Inc.: I

\

1. Pleano calculate the unfunded liability (in 1991 and 2023 dollars) of Mr. LaGuardia's proposal if the following scenario materializos;  !

)

a. Low-level waste burial costs are 100% greater than that assumed by Mr. LaGuardia.

b. The Decommissioning Fund turns out to just keep I pace with the inflation forecast indicated by Mr.

Caine.

c. Labor rates per worker double during the Decommissioning period.  !

d. Seabrook Unit one ceases operation after 35 years. 1

2. If permanent on-site storage for all wasto is needed, would the DOE be responsible for funding storage of the hi-level portion?.If not,-would NHY then be responsible?

3. Please indicato at what rate the NRC believes low-level waste J disposal will grow over the next 45 years.

4. Please refer to page 23 0 20-22 of Mr. - LaGuardia's testimony.

Assuming that Mr. LaGuardia's instant testimony does not commit NHY .to a choice of decommissioning, when does NHY plan.

to indicato-to the NRC it's decommissioning choico?

5. Please refer . to page 11 0 20-24 and page 12 0 1-6 of Mr.

LaGuardia's testimony. Exactly what would be the " . . . cost impact on the decommissioning program envisioned for...

-Seab' rook Station" if the spent fuel was presumed 'to be transferred' to a dry storage system. What would the cost impact-be if the DOE increased the storage period to 10 years, and no " dry cask storage system" materialized?

l

,_r. , . . , . , _ . , - . . , , . , . _ . . . . . , . . _ _ _ _ . , . , , _ , , . , , , . , _ , , . _ _ _

1 RE: NDFC 91-1 Discovery Roquests to New Hampshiro Yankee '

OCA Set 2

6. Pleaso refer to page 21 of Mr. LaGuardia's testimony. Does Mr. l LaGuardia's statement 01-3 mean that NHY has committed to the DECON " scenario"?

7. Pleaso refer to page 15 0 19-22 of Mr. LaGuardia's testimony.

How sensitivo is the cost flowing from the " . . . activity l duration critical path. . ." to a doubling of the time required to dispose of the " ..the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS)..." - What would that cost bo?

I L

b f

4 y- 9 -c._.-s q y g.4wy- 9-.94.+p..y er9-;q ,p._y,Wg.p -99wm,.

5y9,i, ,9n qpgyy., 9_ y g g. y p- #, e%y ,, .f c - g...., , _ , - . - c- _

_iy..-vn,..g,,s.,.m.om.,o-e,-. **va+w v

RE: NDFC 91-1 Discovery Requests to New Hampshiro Yankee OCA Set 2 l l The following data requests pertain to the testimony of Gary Cainen j

1. Please refer to page 4 question 10 of Mr. Caine's testimony.

Has Mr. Caine considered whether the same forces driving i

" municipal bonds [to) higher real rates of return than.they have historically", would also drive prospectivo decommissioning costs to greater real ratos of return than expected in Mr. LaGuardia's testimony, in of fect negating tho higher real ratos of return expected by NHY.

2. pleaso refer to page 4 question 11 of Mr. Caine's testimony.

Why is cost inflation for decommissioning activities expected to be only .25 porcent?

3. Has Mr. Caine calculated the unfunded liability if the '

investment in Fund One and Fund Three just track inflation and Seabrook's operating life is 35 years? If so what is that-number. Please provide any sensitivity analysis computed by Mr. Caine with regard to those two parameters.

4. RSA 162 F-19 states that the decommissioning fund "shall not be subject to any federal or state taxos". Is Mr. Caino of the opinion that the fund may bo invested in -taxable securitics in light of RSA 162 F-19? Please explain, t

I i

l t

.. y +-,--w-,--+,~,-,rve.-m,~.,,2._,-,.~.-,~,.m..,-,,..,,.- -:_,.-._~_-~~--