ML20137S711
| ML20137S711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1985 |
| From: | Jens W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | Saltzman J NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| References | |
| VP-85-0217, VP-85-217, NUDOCS 8512060296 | |
| Download: ML20137S711 (4) | |
Text
-
Wayne H.'Jens
?EC Cam WI ru,nu 8
Nuclear Operations December 4,1985 VP-85-0217 Mr. Jerome Saltzman Assistant Director State and Licensee Relations Office of State Programs U..S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Saltzman:
Reference:
Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPP-43
Subject:
Price-Anderson Act Guarantee of Payment of Deferred Premiums Enclosed is Detroit Edison's certified cash flow statement to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 140.21.
The statement was prepared in accordance with Regulatory Guide 9.4 and outlines the Company's financial obligation, as detailed under the Secondary Financial Protection of the Price-Anderson Act.
As you know, Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc., has an ownership interest in Fermi 2.
Therefore, we are also enclosing copies of the April 29 and May'28, 1976 memorandums, which constitute Wolverine's response to the Secondary Financial Protection requirements.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert
.Woolley at (313) 586-4211.
Sincerely, Enclosure k
cca Mr. P. M. Byron Mr. M. D. Lynch Mr. I..Dinitz f
8512060296 851204 p
g1
{
0
/
l 0
de-A
- 1 CERTIFICATE 1, Ronald W. Gresens, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of The Detroit Edison Company (" Company"), do hereby certify that the 1984 Actual financial data shown on the Company's 1985 Internal cash Flow Projection is derived from the company's consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1984 and that the 1985 Projection is the latest projection of the Company for the year ended December 31, 1985. The financial data is that of the Company only and does not include that of Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. (" Cooperative"), a joint owner of Fermi 2.
Under the Participation Agreement, as amended, Adjusted Participation Interests of the Conpany and the Cooperative in Fermi 2 will change over time with the Company's interest increasing and the Cooperative's interest decreasing. As of Septenber 30, 1985, the Adjusted Participation Interests of the Company and the Cooperative are 84.766% and 15.234%, respectively.
I M
Y Dated:
November 14, 1985 Ronald W. Gresens, Controller The Detroit Edison Conpany 9
A i
a
\\.
e e
THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY 1985 Internal Cash Flow Projection For Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Station (Thousands of Dollars) 1984 1985 Actual
-Projection
- Not Income After Taxes
$ 401,937
$ 430,333 (332,344)
(344,485)
Less: Dividends S 69,593
$ 85,848 Retained Earnings Adjustments:
$ 190,420
$ 218,007 (a)
Depreciation Amortization of Property Losses 12,231 12,231 Deferred Income Taxes and Investnant Tax credits 127,436 110,916 (a)
Allowance for Funds Used (293,686)
(246,331) (a)
During Construction S 36,401
$ 94,823 Total Adjustments Internal cash Flow
$ 105,994
$ 180,671
$ 26,498
$ 45,168 Average Quarterly Cash Flow Percentage Ownership in All Operating 0
(b)
Nuclear Units Maximum Total 0
(b) contingent Liability (a) In the 1985 projection, depreciation increased, deferred income taxes decreased and the allowance for funds used during construction decreased due primarily to the commercial operation of Belle River Unit Nos.1 and 2 on August 1,1984
~
and July 9, 1985, respectively.
(b) Fernd 2 is Detroit Edison's only nuclear unit and as of November 14, 1985 is not in commercial operation.
J.-14-85
/
=1
l
(<O
'O UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HURAL cLECTRIFICATION AoMINISTRATION WASHINGTOH. D.C. 303 50 April 29,.1976 o,,.c..,v,...o-.
..v,..vo l
SUBJECT:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Call re Price-Anderson Act TO:
David A. Hamil Administrator t
On this date Mr. Dinitz of NRC called me about the Price-Anderson Act. He said they had published a proposed rule on March 18 which might not have come to our attention. He said that in case of a uanjor accident, there could be an assessment against a nuclear plant in the range of $4 to $5 million, and he wondered how this migh:
, affect our borrowers. He was aware that our borrowers at present have no more than a minority interest in any major plants.
In discussion I mentioned that in case of necessity REA has authority
. '*to make an operating loan to a borrower, and that an amount of
$5 million was not large in comparison to our annual loan program.
He said that this backup would satisfy them with respect to the ability of an REA financed system to meet their assessment. He said he would send us a copy of their proposed rule for our commen'ts, and
~'
it would be helpful for us to mention our authority to make an operating loan.
~.., /
/* 4
, r,-
- DAVID H. ASKEG RD
- - i..-
Deputy Administrator 96 ccs dAE AAA LARC PSMESD i
. John Holt 3
1
/
^
t
'o
(
<D 0
May 20,1976 ivir.1 tra Dinitz, Indecmity Speclaust 2
Antitrust and Indemnity Group i.3 [ @ { ~
G t
r-g Nuclesr Reactor Regulation
(
1,.
J) L,
{JI i
Nuclear Regulatory Commbslon OCT l '.1982
=9 Washfugtou, D. C. 20555 Deat Mr. hinitz:
DOR 1HLM,.\\1lCHIGla.
'!l.ECTRIC PMcFRATIV' 1 wish to thnnit you for your telephoos call of April 29,1970, and thu ensuing letter pointing out the chanass to the Price'Andersen Act of 1957, which were enacted by Puhuc Law 94-197.
.Wu were aware of these changes and the fact that owners of nuclear reactors inay be charged retrospective premiums of up to $5 milUen in the unlikelt occurrence of a nuclear incident.
The Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration is authorized, pursuant to the RE Act, to make loans for auch retrospective premiums.
euurse, all of.our borrowers, to d' ate',* would be liable only for Of perecutages of these retrospective premiums since the borrower,s, usually own le's than a full portion of the reactor. The prs =.lums s
would not be Isrge with respect to the total nucIsar plant investment or the annual operating cost of a large nuclear reactor.
s lu your letter.you further asked our opinion as to the likelihood of i default on the premiums by one or more utilities. In our judgment the retrospective premium would be relatively small when compare.
to tho total utility responsibilities of conducting business. I cancot d
turuseu how any utility large pnough to )e involved in nuclear tiuuoration wouN fpygi$ paymput o{ ity yetrospective premiums.
Sissueruly, David 11. As:tesaard
- DAVID H. ASKEGAARD Deputy Admi.nistrator cc:
Official File-PPB
/ADM Reading-PSMESD Holt Reading-PPB OGC
.PSMESD: PPB:JWHolt:m1w:5/26/76 Ro typerl/H Conner
^
jff1.!.M
/