|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20082F7881983-11-23023 November 1983 Withdrawal of OL Application.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20082F7771983-11-23023 November 1983 Motion for Order Approving Encl Withdrawal of Application & Terminating Proceeding ML20080L9431983-09-28028 September 1983 Second Request for Addl Extension Until 840115 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1. Portland General Electric Co Expects to Decide on Plant Termination by End of 1983.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G0731983-09-13013 September 1983 Request for Extension Until 831014 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Motion May Be Moot If Other Owners Concur W/Util Decision to Terminate Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071Q7201983-06-0303 June 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 830525 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.No Good Cause Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071M0781983-05-25025 May 1983 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Time Needed to Consider Implications of Final Northwest Conservation Electric Power Plan & Licensing Alternatives.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20023C4571983-05-12012 May 1983 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Supporting Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition Since Contention 1 No Longer Controversial Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023C3741983-05-12012 May 1983 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contention 1 ML20023C3691983-05-12012 May 1983 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Calculation of Demand for Electrical Energy Negating Need for Plant.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20023C6971983-05-12012 May 1983 Affidavit of DB Goldstein Supporting NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Need for Power.Four Forecasts for Energy Needs Refute Need for Power Justification Developed by Util.Prof Qualifications Encl ML20064N6681983-02-10010 February 1983 Motion to Suspend Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule Pending Adoption of Final Regional Energy Plan or Until Conclusion of Evidentiary Hearings on Need for Power. Applicant Appears Ready to Absorb Facility Costs ML20071A6671983-02-10010 February 1983 Certifies Svc of Intervenor Motion to Suspend Safety & Health Schedule on 830210 ML20070T0661983-02-0404 February 1983 Motion for Order Suspending Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule,Pending Adoption of Final Regional Power Plan & Further Order of Aslb.Suspension Would Be in Best Interest of All Concerned.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083N8101983-01-31031 January 1983 New Contentions Based on New Info in SER Suppl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20083N1991983-01-26026 January 1983 Notice of Appeal & Exceptions to ASLB 830118 Memorandum & Order.Memorandum & Order Fails to Recognize Yakima Indian Nation Sovereignty & Treaty Rights Which Are Supreme Law of Land.Affidavit of Svc Encl ML20028F1831983-01-25025 January 1983 Notification of Intent to File New Contentions Based on New Info in SER Suppl.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028E9701983-01-19019 January 1983 Reply to NRC & Applicant Response to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council,Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission & Coalition for Safe Power 821213 Motion to Clarify & Amend Certain Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20072A6731983-01-18018 January 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 830210 to File Answer to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Parties Attempting to Settle Matter by Informal Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028C9581983-01-0505 January 1983 Memorandum Supporting Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Applicants Misinterpreted 10CFR2.740(b)(1) Relevancy Std.Discovery Requests Are Relevant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028C9501983-01-0505 January 1983 Motion to Compel Applicants to Respond in Full to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 821201 Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents ML20028C3221983-01-0303 January 1983 Suppl to DOE 821126 Limited Appearance Statement.Doe Position Is That Hanford Site Is Not Open,Unclaimed Land as Defined in 1855 Treaty W/Yakima Indian Nation,Article Iii. ASLB Is Wrong Forum for Resolving Issue ML20070L5411982-12-27027 December 1982 Answer Opposing Yakima Indian Nation 821210 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Aslb Rejection of Contentions 7,8 & 9 Well Founded ML20070L4901982-12-27027 December 1982 Affidavit of Mv Stimac Supporting Applicant Answer to Yakima Indian Nation Motion for Reconsideration.Describes Plant Site & Location of Casements.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079J6021982-12-23023 December 1982 Response Supporting Intervenor 821213 Motion to Clarify & Amend Contentions 7 & 8.Quantification of Environ Impacts Not Practicable Due to Subjective Nature.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023B3081982-12-20020 December 1982 Response to 821201 Discovery Requests.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20079H3711982-12-13013 December 1982 Motion to Clarify & Amend Contentions 7 & 8.Contentions Should Be Reorganized to Facilitate Coordinated Evidentiary Presentations for Environ Matters ASLB Set Out as Contentions 4,7 & 8.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20070D1181982-12-10010 December 1982 Affidavit of R Jim Supporting Yakima Indian Nation Brief on Admissibility of Nation Reworded Proposed Contention 10 & Motion for Reconsideration.Nation Has Right to Pasture Horses & Gather Roots Even Though Us Holds Title to Land ML20070C9121982-12-10010 December 1982 Notice of Counsel New Law Firm Affiliation,As of 820901 ML20070C8181982-12-10010 December 1982 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Yakima Indian Nation Contentions 7,8 & 9.Nation Right to Enjoy Reservation Peacefully Given by 1855 Treaty Should Be Protected by ASLB ML20070C7981982-12-10010 December 1982 Brief Supporting Admissibility of Yakima Indian Nation Reworded Proposed Contention 10.Attempt to Terminate Reserved Rights of Yakima Indian Nation Violates Fifth Amend.Land Cannot Be Taken by Inverse Condemnation ML20070C7691982-12-10010 December 1982 Certifies Svc of Brief on Admissibility of Reworded Proposed Contention 10,motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order,R Jim Affidavit & Notice of Counsel Law Firm Change on 821210 ML20028B9251982-12-0101 December 1982 Brief Re Admissibility of Yaking Indian Nation Proposed Contention 10.Clarification Needed on Procedural Rule of Commission & Scope of Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028B8971982-12-0101 December 1982 Request for Production of Documents & Interrogatories,Per 10CFR2.740(b) & 10CFR2.741.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20028B2631982-11-26026 November 1982 Limited Appearance Statement.Hanford Site Is Not Part of Yakima Indian Nation Reservation Established by 1855 Treaty. Indian Privilege of Hunting,Gathering Roots & Berries & Grazing Animals Does Not Extend to Hanford Site ML20066K9761982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Alter Lead Party Designation Established for Contention 3 in ASLB 821102 Memorandum & Order.All Intervenors Concur That NRDC Should Be Designated Lead Party,Since NRDC Demonstrated Greatest Expertise on Issue ML20066L0101982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Amend Accepted Contention 3.Proposed Amends Would Conform Contention 3 to Earlier Admitted NRDC Contention on Which Contention 3 Is Partially Based.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023A8301982-10-15015 October 1982 Response to 820910 First Set of Production Requests. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20023A8141982-10-14014 October 1982 Response to Yakima Indian Nation 820930 Suppl to Petition to Intervene,Containing List of Contentions.Objects to Contentions 4-10.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027C1591982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to 820917 First Set of Interrogatories ML20063P4011982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820923 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820903 Memorandum & Order Denying Intervention.Applicants Will Not Oppose Appeal in Order to Maintain Schedule for Proceeding ML20071N3791982-10-0404 October 1982 Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20065H5481982-09-29029 September 1982 Applicant Response to Coalition for Safe Power 820910 First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20065H5451982-09-29029 September 1982 Supplement to Petition to Intervene,Consisting of Contentions & Bases for Contentions ML20065J1601982-09-28028 September 1982 Responds to Util 820917 First Set of Interrogatories. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20069F9491982-09-23023 September 1982 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene.Supporting Brief Encl ML20069F9541982-09-23023 September 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene or Alternatively, to Remand Petition to ASLB for Further Clarification on Question of Standing.Certificate of Svc & Exhibit Encl ML20137F8001982-09-17017 September 1982 Amended Subagreement 2 Between State of Wa Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council & NRC Re Protocol for Conduct of Joint Hearings on Facility Project ML20027B5661982-09-17017 September 1982 Response to First Set of Interrogatories.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20027B5631982-09-17017 September 1982 First Set of Interrogatories ML20027B5571982-09-15015 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821004 to Respond to Applicant Interrogatories.Counsel Was Unavailable When Interrogatories Arrived. Certificate of Svc Encl 1983-09-28
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20082F7771983-11-23023 November 1983 Motion for Order Approving Encl Withdrawal of Application & Terminating Proceeding ML20080L9431983-09-28028 September 1983 Second Request for Addl Extension Until 840115 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1. Portland General Electric Co Expects to Decide on Plant Termination by End of 1983.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20080G0731983-09-13013 September 1983 Request for Extension Until 831014 to Answer Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Motion May Be Moot If Other Owners Concur W/Util Decision to Terminate Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071Q7201983-06-0303 June 1983 Response Opposing Applicant 830525 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.No Good Cause Demonstrated.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20071M0781983-05-25025 May 1983 Request for Extension Until 830930 to Answer NRDC Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1.Time Needed to Consider Implications of Final Northwest Conservation Electric Power Plan & Licensing Alternatives.Certificates of Svc Encl ML20023C4571983-05-12012 May 1983 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Supporting Intervenor Motion for Summary Disposition Since Contention 1 No Longer Controversial Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20023C3741983-05-12012 May 1983 Statement of Matl Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue Re Contention 1 ML20023C3691983-05-12012 May 1983 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 1 Re Calculation of Demand for Electrical Energy Negating Need for Plant.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists ML20064N6681983-02-10010 February 1983 Motion to Suspend Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule Pending Adoption of Final Regional Energy Plan or Until Conclusion of Evidentiary Hearings on Need for Power. Applicant Appears Ready to Absorb Facility Costs ML20070T0661983-02-0404 February 1983 Motion for Order Suspending Health & Safety Prehearing Schedule,Pending Adoption of Final Regional Power Plan & Further Order of Aslb.Suspension Would Be in Best Interest of All Concerned.W/Certificate of Svc ML20083N1991983-01-26026 January 1983 Notice of Appeal & Exceptions to ASLB 830118 Memorandum & Order.Memorandum & Order Fails to Recognize Yakima Indian Nation Sovereignty & Treaty Rights Which Are Supreme Law of Land.Affidavit of Svc Encl ML20072A6731983-01-18018 January 1983 Motion for Extension of Time Until 830210 to File Answer to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Parties Attempting to Settle Matter by Informal Agreement.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20028C9581983-01-0505 January 1983 Memorandum Supporting Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 830105 Motion to Compel Discovery.Applicants Misinterpreted 10CFR2.740(b)(1) Relevancy Std.Discovery Requests Are Relevant.W/Certificate of Svc ML20028C9501983-01-0505 January 1983 Motion to Compel Applicants to Respond in Full to Natl Wildlife Federation/Or Environ Council 821201 Interrogatories & Request for Production of Documents ML20070L5411982-12-27027 December 1982 Answer Opposing Yakima Indian Nation 821210 Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 821029 Memorandum & Order Re Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Aslb Rejection of Contentions 7,8 & 9 Well Founded ML20066L0101982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Amend Accepted Contention 3.Proposed Amends Would Conform Contention 3 to Earlier Admitted NRDC Contention on Which Contention 3 Is Partially Based.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20066K9761982-11-22022 November 1982 Motion to Alter Lead Party Designation Established for Contention 3 in ASLB 821102 Memorandum & Order.All Intervenors Concur That NRDC Should Be Designated Lead Party,Since NRDC Demonstrated Greatest Expertise on Issue ML20063P4011982-10-0606 October 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820923 Notice of Appeal of ASLB 820903 Memorandum & Order Denying Intervention.Applicants Will Not Oppose Appeal in Order to Maintain Schedule for Proceeding ML20069F9541982-09-23023 September 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820908 Memorandum & Order Denying 820505 Petition to Intervene or Alternatively, to Remand Petition to ASLB for Further Clarification on Question of Standing.Certificate of Svc & Exhibit Encl ML20027B5571982-09-15015 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 821004 to Respond to Applicant Interrogatories.Counsel Was Unavailable When Interrogatories Arrived. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063M6211982-09-10010 September 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 820923 to File Responses to Applicant First Set of Interrogatories.Staff Will Be Absent from Ofc 820911-23.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence ML20063M2351982-09-0101 September 1982 Statement of Matl Fact as to Which There Is No Genuine Issue on Coalition for Safe Power Contention 26 ML20063M2291982-09-0101 September 1982 Motion for Summary Disposition of Coalition for Safe Power Contention 26.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists.Basis for Contention Was PSAR Section 3.10 Which Has Subsequently Been Amended.Related Correspondence ML20063A5051982-08-19019 August 1982 Motion for Leave to Reply to Applicant 820730 Response Opposing Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820716 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Question of Standing Raised.W/Certificate of Svc ML20062D5201982-08-0505 August 1982 Response to Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 820716 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene.Good Cause Shown for Contention 4.Other Factors Favor Admission of Contention 5.W/Certificate of Svc ML20058D5401982-07-21021 July 1982 Memorandum Supporting Appeal of ASLB 820706 Memorandum & Order.Contentions 3E & 5 Should Be Accepted as Litigatable Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20063H1141982-07-16016 July 1982 Motion for Admission of Second Suppl to Petition to Intervene ML20053D0651982-05-27027 May 1982 Motion for Extension of Time Until 820611 to Answer Coalition for Safe Power 820527 Amended Contentions. Washington co-counsel Has Not Received Contention & Document Is Lengthy.Certificate of Svc Encl ML20052D0561982-04-28028 April 1982 Response Opposing Deposition of MT Dana.Discovery Premature & Does Not Relate to Matters in Controversy.Reasonable Notice Not Given & Allowing Deposition Would Amount to Harassment.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence ML20054E1511982-04-20020 April 1982 Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Addl Contentions Since Portions of PSAR & Amend 5 to Application for Site Certificate/Environ Rept Received on 820416,4 Days Before Contentions Due ML20005B7061981-08-18018 August 1981 Motion,In Ltr Form,For Order That All Parties Fully Serve All Documents on Coalition for Safe Power & Forelaws on Board,Pending Renoticing & Rulings on Petitions to Intervene.Impractical to Gain Access to Documents at Lpdr ML19332A8871980-09-11011 September 1980 Statement Suggesting That Full Commission Review of Orders & Opinions Below Not Necessary Due to Mootness.Aslb 800827 Order Indicates Proceeding Has Terminated ML19321A6291980-07-16016 July 1980 Motion for Order Evidencing Current Status & Setting Schedule for Further Proceeding.Amend to Application Will Be Filed by 800930.Anticipated Schedule for Environ Rept & PSAR Amends May Be Filed on Same Date.W/Draft Order & Release ML19323J2211980-06-0404 June 1980 Reply Withdrawing 800508 Motion to Dismiss Application. Applicant Response to Motion & Mecca Affidavit Provided Detailed Info Re Applicant 800414 Rept.Progress Rept Must Be Filed by 800601 by Applicant.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19312E9291980-05-23023 May 1980 Reply in Opposition to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 800508 Motion to Dismiss Application W/Prejudice Due to Lack of Diligent Pursuit.Applicants Are Engaged in Extensive Program to Locate Suitable Site ML19310A2181980-05-0808 May 1980 Motion to Dismiss Application W/Prejudice.Applicants Took No Steps to Pursue Application Despite Opportunity Given at 800122 Conference to Address Pending Geology & Seismology Issues.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19323A9731980-04-17017 April 1980 Pleading in Lieu of Brief Amicus Curiae Re Untimely Petition of Three Indian Tribes.Urges Admittance of Tribes as Full Parties Except for Fully Addressed Issues Where Serious Gaps in Existing Record Must Be Shown.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296D5061980-02-22022 February 1980 Response in Opposition to Doi 800215 Motion for Extension Until 800414 to File Brief Amicus Curiae.Motion Filed at Last Day of Permitted Period.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296C8801980-02-15015 February 1980 Motion for Extension Until 800114 to File Brief Amicus Curiae Re Whether Indian Tribes Status Gives Sufficient Cause for Late Intervention.Nrc Does Not Object to Such Extension.Affidavit & Certificate of Svc Encl ML19296B1471980-02-0101 February 1980 Answer in Opposition to Skagitonians Against Nuclear Power 800122 Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories.Motion Untimely & Questions Re Seismic Profile Outside Scope of Proceedings.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260D5181980-01-21021 January 1980 Motion in Opposition to NRC 791102 Motion to Postpone Hearings on Geology & Seismology Issues.Proposed Evidence Twice Rejected as Inconclusive.Applicants Have Failed to Carry Burden of Proof Re Issues.W/Certificate of Svc ML19262C3001980-01-18018 January 1980 Motion to Compel Applicant Answers to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power Interrogatories Re San Juan Islands Seismic Profiles.Interpretation of Atomic Energy Act Holds Applicant Liable for Matl False Statements ML19257A3971979-12-12012 December 1979 Objection to Intervenor Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power Interrogatories Re Seismic Profiles of San Juan Islands.Western Geophysical Seismic Profiles Not Discovered by Util Until 1979.No False Statements Made ML19256F8401979-12-0505 December 1979 Reply to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 791109 Proposed Findings on Financial Qualifications.Intervenor Adopted short-term View Rather than long-term Considerations Re Inflation Rates & Market Ratios.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211A1121979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply to Skagitonians Concerned About Nuclear Power 791112 Proposed Findings of Fact.Fes & Fes Final Suppl Addressed Environ Impacts & Whole Population Issues Indiscriminately Certificate of Svc Encl ML19211A1071979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply to NRC 791005 Proposed Findings of Fact.Urges Board to Reject Recommendation 3 Contained in Finding 44,Pages 27-28. Condition Re Environ Evaluation Prior to Commencement of Const Activities Is Not Authorized by NEPA & NRC Rules ML19211A0881979-11-30030 November 1979 Reply in Opposition to Intervenor Forelaws on Board/Citizens for Safe Power Findings of Fact Re Alternative Sites & Postulated Accidents.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19262A7481979-11-20020 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Indian Tribes 791105 Supplemental Petition for ALAB-552 & ALAB-559 Review.Petitioner Failed to Raise Good Cause Re Alleged ASLB Misapplication of Late Intervention Factor.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19291B8911979-11-0909 November 1979 Pleading Re Applicants' Financial Qualifications.Total Cost of Project Exceeds Applicants' Figures.Certificate of Svc Encl ML19260B1681979-11-0808 November 1979 Response in Opposition to Skagitonions Concerned About Nuclear Power 791116 Motion to Direct Certification,Stay Proceedings & Review ASLB Actions.Detriment to Public Interest as Basis for Interlocutory Review Not Established 1983-09-28
[Table view] |
Text
.
.?,1 h ' 2 ' 1 (C/,
~ ut
. , /; . , .s AS
,'t
- .-41 p.
A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J.} \? .
Cl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ja \ st,r-}g
'f
- BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h Vff;\"> 'T Q4
-H j,,-
In the Matter of )
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NCS. STN 50-522 COMPANY, et al., ) 50-523
)
(Skagit Nuclear Power Project, )
Units 1 and 2) )
)
)
EE. FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS
- 1. Under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.33(f) and Appendix C, Applicants must demonstrate, with reasonable assurance, that they can obtain financing sufficient to cover the esti-
. mated construction cost of the project and its related fuel cycle costs.
- 2. Various estimates of the total project cost have appeared in this record. Based on Applicants' submissions to the NRC Staf f in May, 1978, a project cost figure of $2.57 billion (exclusive of interest charges) was evaluated by the Staff. SER Supplement 1, sect ions 20.2 et seg. Subsequently,
~
financial information supplied by Applicants a year later resulted in a cost estimate of $3.087 billion (exclusive of interest charges). Olson, Coberly, Pack and Coombs (Applicant panel) prefiled testimony fol. Tr. 14,886, Table 1.1; Gittleman (NRC Staff) prefiled testimony fol. Tr. 14,625, p. 2. Addi-tion to this figure of interes,t charges during the construc-
~1- )00 \57 7912140
tion period yield a total project cost estimate of approxi-mately S3.8 billion. Tr. 14,654-56. ,
- 3. When Applicants revised their cost estimate to
$3.087 billion, they also revised their project construction schedule to reflect LWA in. September, 1979, and initial commercial operation of the two units by September, 1986 and September, 1988. These schedule adjustments represent eighteen months extension of the milestone dates appearing in Applicants' submission of May, 1978. Applicant panel pre-filed testimony, fol. Tr. 14,886, Tables 1.1 and 1.2. In view of the fact that LWA was not granted in September, 1979, and that NRC has taken recent steps which will delay LWA in -
definitely, we find that Applicants' estimated project com-pletion dates are no longer valid, and that a mininum delay of nine months to two years beyond Applicants' estimates is to be expected.
- 4. SCANP witness Lazar's review of recent literature on nuclear project construction schedules identifies a high probability of further delay in completion of the project.
Lazar prefiled testimony, fol. Tr. 14,711, pp. 2-6. .,
A RAND Corporation study prepared for the Department of Energy
(" Cost Analysis of Light Water Reactor . Power Plants") pro-vides a regression an,alysis~model, which, as applied to the Skagit project, indi, cates a 107-month construction period, _
far in excess of the 72-month period, envisioned by Appli-cants. Fol. Tr. 14,711, p. 2. The General Accounting Office's evaluation of Tennessee Valley Authority's cost r
1Sb2 15B
and schedule estimates identifies a distinct trend towards lengthening construction periods, again well beyond the Applicants' estimate. Fol. Tr. 14,711, pp. 3-4. Finally, the Washington Public Power Supply System analyzed all nuclear power projects built or under construction in the United States. On the basis of this analysis, WPPSS.esti-mated a construction period of 100 months between first concrete and fuel load, and an additional lapse of six months between fuel load and commercial operation. Fol. Tr. 14,711, pp. 5-6. While each of these studies project construction periods considerably longer than that proposed by Applicants for the Skagit project, there is nothing in this record to substantiate Applicants' assumption that their project can 4
achieve commercial operation by September, 1986 and Septem-ber, 1988. We therefore find that Applicants' proposed completio,n dates are excessively opt.imistic, and that delays of up to four years or more beyond such dates can reasonably be expected.
- 5. Construction schedule revisions have been accompan-ied by escalated cost estimates throughout this proceeding.
FES Table 9.2; SER supplement 1, Sections 20.1 et seq.; -
Applicant panel fol. Tr. 14,886, Table 1-1. That future schedule revisions will, result _in,further cost estimate in- .
creases has been characterized as a matter of common know-
_ ledge. Lazar, fol..-Tre.14,711, pt-7.. The Boardsfinds'that modifications to Applicants' construction schedule will con-tinue to reflect escalations in total project costs.
15S2 159
- 6. Applicants' present ations and proje ct ions rega rding their financial ability to complete the project rely on a number of assumptions. Among the most pervasive of these is Puget's assumption (fol. Tr. 14,886, Table 2-2) that inflation will average seven percent, compounded annually throughout the construction period. Puget shows declining inflation rates (Table 2-2, item 3) between 1981 and 1986, encompassing the construction years during which the Appli-cants show the least financial coverage. See fol. Tr.
14,886, Tables 2-1, 2-6, 2-9, and 2-11. These tables reflect low levels of retained earnings and common equity, while they show high long-term debt, maturing bond obligations and issues of common and preferred stock, between the years 1982 and 1985. These projections demonstrate reduced financial flexibility, and a continuation of present double-digit inflation.through the mid-1980's would undermine Applicants' marginal ability to maintain an appropriate debt coverage ratio during these years. Lazar. fol. Tr. 14,711, pp. 7-10, 21-22; Olson, Tr. 14,909-11. Applicants have presented no evidence in support of the anticipated decrease in annual inflation, nor have-they allowed for any increase over the cost of construction ~ anticipated by Puget. Fol. Tr. 14,711,
- p. 21. By way of contrast, expected increases in the real ._
prices of oil and electricity over the next decade will tend
~
to maintain annual inflation at or near its present- level.
Tr. 14,789-90. We find that Applicarats have seriously
~4-1552 100
underestimated the p:cbable level of future inflation, the true costs of construction, and the time required for con-s tru ct ion, and therefore we cannot find that they have demonstrated financial qualifications or an ability to complete construction of the project under economic condi-tions likely to prevail in the 1980's.
- 7. In a similar vein, Applicants have assumed that long-term interest rates will remain in the 8.5-10.25 percent range during the construction period. Applicant panel, fol. Tr. 14,886, Tables 2.3, 2.7, 2.10,'2.12. Applicants themselves are aware that this projection is too low --
Portland General Electric, for example, in testimony before the Oregon Public Utility Commissioner, stated that its estimates of 10.5-11.0 percent interest obligations on mortgage debt securities was conservative and understated the actual yield to be provided by PGE. Lazar, fol. Tr. 14,711,
- p. 17; Tr. 14,856. In this proceeding, however, PGE pro-jected a long-term interest range of 8.6-10.5 percent.
Applicant panel, fol. Tr. 14,886, Table 2-7. Meanwhile, the prime lending rate in August, 1979 was 12.25 percent.
Gittleman, Tr. 14,658-59. .In view of the. considerable long-term debt element (between 49 and 56 percent) of Appli-cants' capital resources during the peak construction years (fol. Tr. 14,886, Tables.2-3, 2-7, 2-10, 2.-12 ) , any substan-tial increase over the optimistic costs of capital projected by Applicants will result in significant increases in the total project cost, and will place in serious doubt the ability of the Applicants to achieve rate relief or attract equity investment necessary to cover construction costs.
SCANP witness Lazar testified that conservatism and prudence would dictate that Applicants consider the high current cost of capital in their financial projections. Tr. 14,855.
Aside from personal convictions that economic c<nditions for utilities must improve, Applicants submitted nothing to this record that would indicate immediate or even middle term relief from the high interest rates prevailing today. We find that the f ailure to project capital costs in a manner consistent with recent experience results in an unduly low total project cost cost estimate and precludes a meaningful -
evaluation of Applicants' ability to meet a more realistic estimate of the cost of completing the project.
- 8. Applicants demonstrate a heavy reliance on common stock issues as a primary component of their external financing throughout the construction period. Fol. Tr.
14,886, Tables 2-1, 2-6, 2-9, 2-11. Their ability to issue common stock in the volume indicated in the source of funds tables relies on Applicant's postulated ability to maintain a f avorable ratio of market-to-book value - each assumes that this ratio will be greater than one 'during .'the years of construction. Fol. Tr. 14,886, Tables 2-3, 2-7, 2-10, 2-12. This assumption is without foundation; none of the
. applicants shows a year-end market-to-book ratio greater
~
l5b2 102
than .9 5 in 1978. Puget has not been above one since 1975, and they show a steady decline from 1977 on. Portland General Electric's market-to-book ratio dropped f rom 1.05 at the end of 1977 to .91 a year later, and Pacific showed almost as great a decline for the same period. Washington Water Power's ratio has not been as high as one since 1976.
Foll. Tr. 14,886, Tables 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9. The market value of Puget's common shares was 89% of book in August, 1979. Olson, Tr. 14,925. To issue common shares at an unf avorable market-to-book ratio would be to dilute the equity of present shareholders. Lazar, Tr. 14,862; Olson,
~
Tr. 14,926. If applicants are unable to maintain a market-to-book ratio of 1 or greater, the common stock revenue entries in the source of funds tables will be distorted, for the earnings available for common will decrease in propor-tion to " common dividends. See Tables 2-1, 2-3. The NRC staff witness stated that Applicants' presentations on financing through common stock issues rely substantially on assumptions that market conditions for utilities will improve. Gittleman, Tr. 14,670. The Board finds that such self-serving assumptions are inconsistent with both recent experience and the standard of conservatism in predicting
~
future conditions ~. We cannot find that Applicants have _
demonstrated ability to finance the project from sales of
- ~ - - - " * - ~ - - -
common shares. - '
1502 103
- 9. Exhioit 223, a Salomon 3rothers report on invest-r.e n t trends in the electric utility industry, cacts doubts on Applicants' ability to attract capital at reasonable levels of return. The twelve highest-yield utilities listed in the report all have nuclear generation facilities either operating or under construction; the higher the yield, the higher the perceived risk to the investor. Of the ten lowest-yield utilities, or those most attractive to inves-tors, only three are either operating or building nuclear proj e ct s. Lazar, Tr. 14,872-73. Exhibit 223 also ranks utilities by their market-to-book ratios on common stocks.
This list shows only 11 of the 100 largest utilities in the nation selling stocks above book value, and of these 11,
, four have nuclear projects under construction and none currently operate nuclear plants. Of the ten utilities with the lowest market-to-book ratios, eight are either operating or constructing nuclear projects. Lazar, Tr. 14,873-74. We find that investor confidence in nuclear-dependent utilities is low, and that applicants have underestimated their return obligations on preferred issues as well-as the marketability of their common stocks.
- 10. Applicants project retu rn-to-equity rates in the range of 13 to 14%. throughout the construction period.
Gittleman, Tr. 14,639; Applicant Panel Fol.- Tr. 14,886, Tables 2-2, 2-7, 2-10, 2-12. These rates are based, however, 15J2 iL4
on applicant's projections in the source of funds and input assumption tables. See Tables 2-1 through 2-12, follow ing Tr. 14,886. If Applicants f ail to realize the external financing resources outlined in these tables, they will need to generate additional internal revenues to meet the short-fall. A high rate of return to equity would increase internal cash flow (Gittleman, Tr. 14,639), but would also increase the cost of power from the project. Gittleman, Tr.
14,657; Lazar, Fol. Tr. 14,711, pp. 17-21; Tr. 14,854.
A return of 15 to 16% annually has been identified as more characteristic of Applicants' internal financing needs.
Lazar, Tr. 14,854. To maintain this high rate of return would result in 450-500% increases in present power rates by E
1990. Ibid. In view of findings 4 through 9 under the present heading, we find that applicants will be required to request significantly higher rates of return to equity than they presently project; as a result, Applicants ' ratepayers will be forced to bear the cost of construction to a much greater extent than is shown in Applicants' submissions.
~ ~
- 11. We have'seen the questionability of many of Appli-cants' assumptions and projections regarding their ability to build the proposed project. Findings 4 through 10, supra.
The NRC staf f's evaluation oT applicant's financial qualifi-cations appears not to have entailed review of the tenabi-s,. . - _ _
lity of any of appl'icants' cost and schedule estima~tes
~
1532 105
beyond a comparison with results f rom the staf f's CONCEPT model, nor has the NRC staf f evaluated independently any of Applicants' source of funds projections and their inherent assumptions. Gittleman, fol. Tr. 14,625, pp. 1-6; Tr.
14,669. The CONCEPT model has been criticized, and in some areas, abandoned, for its f ailure to predict accurately the cost and time commitments of nuclear plant construction.
Lazar, fol. Tr. 14,711, pp. 11-12. Rather than apply-ing a conservative approach to balance the bias of appli-cants, the CONCEPT model relies on the basic input of a minimum plant cost estimate at an hypothetically ideal
^
site, which is then adjusted for local and temporal condi-tions. In short, CONCEPT represents a "best possible" cost model used to evaluate Applicants' "best possible" estimate.
Lazar, fol. Tr. 14,711, p. 11. In view of our previous findings *regarding the quality of Applicants' projections and assumptions, we cannot afford evidentiary weight to any review of Applicants' submissions that fails to confront the question of their validity.
- 12. On the basis of the above findings, we mu st con-clude that the eventual total cost of the project will exceed the figures subm;itted by- Applicants, and we find that Applicants have failed to demonstrate, to any degree of assurance, their ability to finance construction of the proje ct. .. ._
1532 1o6
g.~~'.K N.
n.
.e < -ll UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\ Q.
g/-l .-
. (7 /
NUC" EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% Qg/
, p BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '- -
In the Matter of )
)
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ) DOCKET NOS. STN 50-522 COMPINY, et al., ) 50-523
)
)
(Skagt t Nuclear Power Proj0ct, )
Units 1 and 2) )
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of: 1ITIER TO V. DFALE and INTERVENOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT .ON FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS dated November 9, 1979, have been served on the following by depositing the same in thr. United States mail, postage prepaid,, on this 9th day of November, 1979.
Valentine B. Deale, Esq., Chairman Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 washington, D.C. 20036 Richard L. Black, Esq.
Dr. Frank F. Hooper, Member Counsel for NRC Staff Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory School of Natural Resources Commission University of Michigan Office of the Executive Legal Ann Arbor, MI. 48104 Director Washington, D, C. 20555 Gustave A. Linenberger, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing board Nich'olas D. Lewis,. Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Energy Facility Site Evaluation Commission Council Washington, D.C. 20555 820' East Fif th Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 Certificate - 1 1Eb2 107
Richard M. Sandvik, Esq., Russel W. Busch Assistant Attorney General Evergreen Legal Services Dep.tetment of Justice 520 Smith Tower 500 Pacific Building Seattle, Washington 98104 520 S. W. Yamhill Portland, Oregoa 97204 Thomas Moser Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Robe rt Lowenstein, Esq. Skagit County Courthouse Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Mt. Vernon, Washington 93273 Axelrad -
1023 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Warren Hastings Washington, D.C. 20036 Portland General Electric Co.
James W. Durham, Esq.
121 S.W. Salmon Street TB 13 Portland General Electric Co. Portland, Oregon 97204 121 S.W. Salmon Street
'TB 17 Portland, Oregon 97204 CFSP and FOB E. Stachon & L. Marbet 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road Boring, Oregon 97009 Canadian Consulate General Peter A. van Brakel Vice-Consul 412 Plaza 600 6th and Stewart Street Seattle, , Washington 98101 F. Theodore Thomsen Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen.
& Williams 1900 Washington Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Alan P. O' Kelly Paine, Lowe, Coffin, Herman
- ~
& O' Kelly ~
1400 Washington Trust Financial -
Center Spokane, Washingtoa , 99204 -
DATED. / -
G s, -' ~/ 7
_ j; . -
ROGER M. LEED.
~. -s
~ /* [
r- By % -
j '.
/,
na j'
.,/
Certificate - 2 '
/ /
N/
isu