ML19330A350

First Set of Interrogatories Directed to NRC Re Financial Qualifications,Hearing Expectation & Witnesses Intended to Be Called

ML19330A350
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/08/1980
From:	Baker B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML19330A343	List: ML19330A342 ML19330A346 ML19330A350
References
NUDOCS 8007170171
Download: ML19330A350 (4)

Text

.,.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?GIISSION

,3EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING E0ARD In the Matter of $ DOCKET NUMBER Houston Lighting & Fower Co=nany s 50-466 (Allen's Creek Nuclear Generating 8 Station, Unit 1) $

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES FRCM FINANCIAL QUALIFICA-~

? IONS INTER?INORS TO NRC STAFF (?Q/S-1)

Preface Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.720 (h) (2) (ii). the Financial Quali-fications Intervenors propound the following Interrogatories to be answered by NRC persennel with knowledge of the facts.

Interrorator*r F0/S-1.1 SER Supple =ent No. 2, p. 20-1, states that "the earliest date for ce==ercial operation of the Allen's Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, is esti=ated to be March 1985." Applicant's answer to our Interrogatory FQ-1.2 (c) (i) stated tha: its =ost current cost esti=ates assu=ed that "co==ercial operation would co==ence in Nove=ber, 1987." In answer to FQ-3 5 (a) (propounded.by Doggett approxi=ately one =onth later) Applicant said it " plans to have ACNGS available to serve the peak load in the su==er of 1988."

(a) What is Staff's current projection for date of co==er-cial operation of A:NGS?

(b) -Does Staff believe the three years difference in esti-

=ated date of co==ercial operation recuires re-evaluation of its financial cualifications analysis in SER Supple =ent No. 2?

8007180ly

_ . . _ . . . _ _ _

• o,

~= ,

.=._. ,

2 What steps does Staff take to r.onitor and period'. call /

Q/S-1.1 (c) - '

re-evaluate Applicant's financial qualifications? n=

C..; '

Interrocatorv FO/S-1.2  :

l Applicant's reply to our Interrogatory 3,21 (propounded by 1 Doggett) raises several questions about the data upon which Sec. 20 based.

of SS Supplement No. 2 (March 1979) was (a)

Did Staff in its analysis of Appli: ant's fina cial qualifica-illion included tions asst =a that the construction costs estinate of 31.055 b or excluded interest, distributien, and general plant costs?

Does the knowledge that the 31.055 billien figure excluded these (b) other costs alter Staff's analysis?

'( c) Does Staff find cause for alars in the fact that less thantene year after publi a. tion of Sn supplement No. 2, Applicant's construction cos for ACNGS went up by 40% over the esti= ate provided in that Supplement.

estimate (d)

Tcen, before March 1979, was the last censtruction ecst provided to Staff? Ft.at was that estimate?

Does Staff have any responsibility to analyse constructien costs (e)

If so, where may this analysis be found?

er constructien ecst increases?

Interrogatory ?Q/S-1.3 Applicant's replies to our Interrogatories k l.4 and & l.5 indicate d with that Applicant has given little er no thought to the costs associate unexpected premature shutdown of the facility (a_ h Three Mile 'sland) or even to the inevitable ecs s of vaste storage and disposal.

Does Staff consider Applicant in any way responsible fer neeting (a) d safety?

these ecsts associated with protecting the public health an

3

?Q/S-1.3 (b) If so, what does Staff censider that responsibility to be? If not, where does Staff feel that such responsibility lies?

(c) Does Staff find that a consideratien of Applicant 's future ability to meet these costs should be a part of the financial qualificatiens inquiry?

If not, when and where should this matter be considered?

Inter egatery FO/S-1..i In Texas Public Utility Cc==issien Docket No. 2676 (EL&P rate case, Dr. Steven Sherwin hereinafter referred to as ?UC 2676)/ testified en behalf of FTA: concerning the effects of the Three Xils Island acciden en utility investment, to wit The events in Pennsylvania hve not only brought the physi cal risks to the fere with respect to nuclear plants, but have also provided a very forceful illustratien of the interrelatien between physical and ecenc=ic risks resulting from the high concentration of capital in relatively few plants. . . .

It has raised the cost of equity capital of ecopanies that are engaged in nuclear generation of power and it is unlikely that investors' concerns can be allayed in the foreseeable future. . ..

It will probably raise the cost of debt for these cc ;anies that are new engaged in nuclear generation, or are constructibg nuclear plants. ...

It has created an increased awareness that an accident causing the cutage cf a plant =ay necessitate the purchase of power frc= neigh-hering utilities at an increased level of ecsts that may not be auto-atically passed en to custc=ers. . . . (pre-filed testi=eny of Dr.

Sherwin, ?UC 2676, p. 27)

(a) Eas Staff done any analysis of these and other financial issues raised by the_TMI accident?

(b) Eas the NRC revised its financial qualifications require =ents since the TMI accident, either as a catter of natienal policy or in the speci-fic case of ACNGS? If so, what has been the result of that revised analysis?

If not, is such a review conte = plated in the future?

(c) Eas Staff detected any change in the availability of viable capital markets referred to en page 20-1 SIR Supple =ent No. 2 since publi-cation of same?

e.

4 Interrceaterv FC/5-1.5 31, 1979, far in advance Is Staff disturbed by the fact that as of Mar CVI? expen-of the granting of a Construction Permit by the NRC, Applicant's

(?UC 2676, ditures for Allen's Creek were in excess of 130 million of dollars?

the Please consider this question in light Schedule C-4, Page 1, Line 1) h Nuclear unpublished order cf the First Circuit Court of Appeals, quoted by t e Regulatory Cem=ission in its Seabcock Memorandum and Order ('!ublic Serv  ;

8-1, 7 NRC 1, Caetany of New Ha=rshire (Seabrock Station, Units 1 and 2) CLI-7 i.

18 (1975)):

We are unable to identify any other field of publicly regulated d private activity where sc=entous iecisions to ec==it funds are =a e ih on the strength of preliminary decisions by several agencies The risk of loss wh to c are open to reevaluation cnd redeternination. sent one.

the private investors is necessarily a real and always preto the public weal, Perhaps more importantand courts accepting less desirable and li=ited optiens or, ver countenancing a fait acec= li_ are foreboding.

Interreratory FC/S-1.6_

What position does Staff expect to take at the hearing with regard to 1;plicant's financial qualifications?

nterrecatcry FC/S-1.7 Oces staff expect to call any witnesses with regard to financial (a) the hearing?

qualificatiens at .

(b) Who will those witnesses be?

What testimony are those witnesses expected te give?

(c) documents and other sources of infor=atien are expected (d) What to be utiliced in such testimony?

FOR THE Z 2'C;GES July 8, 1980 h 3ryan StL. Baker

, I I

cc: All Parties

\