ML19270F032
| ML19270F032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1978 |
| From: | Brenner L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901110188 | |
| Download: ML19270F032 (8) | |
Text
.
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM 12/20/78 U!!ITED STATES OF AMERICA flVCLEAP. REGULATORY COPMISSIO!1 BEFORE Tite ATOMIC SAFETY AND _LICP:SIflG APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of p
- 1 [
g PUBLIC SERVICE COMPA!iY OF
)
Docket fios. 50-443 d#
f1EW HA!iPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 G
and 2)
)
h Ijd
-6 flRC STAFF RESP 0flSE TO SAPL M9TIOil TO REOPEf!
w m
P.ECORD O'l fit!AtlCI AL QUALIFICATIO!!S By motion dated flovember 30, 1978, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League
("SAPL") filed before this Appeal Board a " Motion to Reopen Record on Financial Qualifications." The NRC Staff opposes the notion because it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Appeal Board.
In addition it is premature for the appropriate Comission entity to take any action.
SAPL's motion argues that the financial qualifications of the lead permitee, Public Service Company of flew Hampshire (PSCO) must now be exanined to consider the likelihood that Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) will in the future not be allowed in the rate base by New Hampshire, and to further consider now whether PSCO would be financially qualified absent the continued allowance of CWIP.
As the Comission has stated, "[t]he financial qualifications inquiry here appears to have been the most searching examination of this question in 7901110IN
, the history of commercial power reactor licensing."
CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 12 (January 6,1978).
The Licensing Board's initial decision found PSCO financially qualified.
3 NRC 857, 867-68, 916-17 (1976).
This finding was affirmed by the majority decirion of this Appeal Board, ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33, 73-82 (1977), and was again affirmed by the Commission in CLI-78-1, supra, at 8-23.
The Commission's decision, as the final agency action, was reviewed and upheld by the United States Court of Appeals.
New Enqland Coalition on fluclear Pollution v. U.S. NRC, 582 F.2d 87, 92-93 (1st Cir.1978).
Having preec(ied to final decision of this Appeal Board, and indeed beyond that through two further layers of appellate review, the financial qualifications issue may not be reopened in this proceeding by the Appeal Board.
10 CFR 22./17(a); Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach, Unit 2), ALAB-86, 5 NRC 376 (1972); Consumers Power Co. (Midland, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-283, 2 NRC 11,13-14 (see n.16 at 14) (1975).
Houston Lichtino and Power Co.
(South Texas, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-381, 5 NRC 582, 590-91 (1977).
As pointed out in South Texas, supra at 591, enforcement of the termination of jurisdiction embodied in 52.717(a) (and the sound under-lying principle that there must be an end to litigation sometime) does not have the effect of precluding the early adjudicatory con-sideration of developments subsequent to the construction permit
4 t
- ~
i proceeding which have a possible bearing upun the continuation or modi-fication of the oermit.
Ilowever, the mechanism for such an early adjudi-cation would be a show cause proceeding.
f.nd, the determination to initiate show cause proceedings is initially the province of the Staff, subject to the direction of the Commission.
This is particularly true t
I with respect to the issue of financial aualifications in this proceedina.
t i
The NRC Staff, as the delegate of the Commission in the absence of juris-diction by an NP.C adjudicatory Coard, is charged by the Conanission's regulatory scheme with the responsibility for monitoring information regarding financial arrangements and status of funds of licensees.
See Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 50, %IV.
In this proceeding, the Conmission has specifically directed the Staff to report to the Commission on its findings and proposed course of action regarding changes in financial planning of PSCO as a result of orders entered in the future by the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission.
CLI-78-1, supra _, a t 23. This ex-press reservation of continuing regulatory scrutiny by the Comission over the financial qualifications of PSCO was ratified by the First Circuit's decision on review, supra _, 582 F.2d a t 93, n. 9.
If and when there is a change in the regulatory orders of the New Hanpshire PUC which gives rise to changes in PSCO's financial planning regarding CWIP, the Staff will report to the Commission pursuant to CLI-78-1.
It is impossibly prenature for the Staff to analyze the questions posed by SAPL's motion at this time. As has been recognized by the Appeal Board
_4_
and Commission decisions, the reasonable assurance test involves examina-tion of many factors in combination to determine whether PSCO has a reasonable financing plan in the light of relevant circumstances--the presence or absence of allowance of CWIP by New Hampshire cannot be viewed in a vacuum.
There is nothing in the discussions of CWIP in the decisions in this case that finds that inclusion of CWIP in the rate base is a necessary ingredient to the findino that PSCO has satisfied the requisite reasonable assurance standard.
Cf.
Kansas Gas and Electric Co. (Wolf Creek, Unit 1),
ALAB-462, 7 fiRC 320, 333-34 (March 9,1978) for an example where the as-sumed unavailability of CWIP by an Appeal Board did not prevent a finding that the applicant satisfied the financial qualifications standard enunciated in CLI-78-1, sugra_.
It is true that the anticipation of the allowance of CWIP was a ritical factor in PSCO's financinq plan as reflected in the Commissic n's decision, CLI-78-1, supra, at 23.
- However, thisdnesnotmeanthatifandwhenCWIPisdisallowed,1 PSCO's reasonable financing plan cannot be adapted to rely on alternatives to CWIP.1 If U The precise extent of any disallowment would obviously be a material factor in the Staff's analysis.
SAPL's motion relies on Governor Gallen's and the flew Hampshire legislature's opposition to CWIP, but this does not mean that the Governor and other New Hampshire officials would not take actions that would facilitate PSCO's implementing alternatives to CWIP to finance Seabrook.
(See the attached article excerpted from the Decceber 15, 1978 edition of the Wall Street Journal).
SAPL does not suggest how the Staff could now consider the actions that would be taken by flew Hampshire officials as alternatives to CWIP in the future circumstance of CWIP beino disallowed.
. CWIP is disallowed by flew Hampshire, the Staff will examine the financing plan proposed by PSCO in response to that change and report to tt Commission.
SAPL's motion should be denied because the Appeal Board lacks jurisdictio.
to grant it.
Moreover, it is premature even for the appropriate Conmission entity (which in our view is the Staff) to consider the issues urged by SAPL's motion.
P,espectfully suhmitted, 01 MGLb b #
E Lawrence Brenner Counsel for flPC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 20th day of December,1978
4 i n, S.!_. 4 8 Seabmok & clear Plant is Hein a Puded JY Lg SluiOTS 1ElNeiv Ikin,nsitire il e
~ ~
/'
I) ' Mi retir.t.t C. la s,'il M4f/ Re p ir of 1 tir W A l L F T R 6 A T.19t'P N 41.
M ANCHESTI:!L N 11. - In v L.it alt ars b be an ale.bt f.tre. Sr w 11 un: hire 1"gN t-T h? hiest !.wo cans." P N cf Nex M * ' "A d',eII. abl', s y m n d o wh La tive Inters are wrk:r. yn t!y to m 0;e ihrnp.m pmLb is e utddy nalmtrf M c i d on:/ I R Lu,h Lt.My Nlb P'
sure that the Sntrmk na !cir porct r..n ter m cate:1 m :ructon ur k ta pre.;tes tLer s mrre s s.ty. 'dr. G d' n t., b< t a i Ja tinues c)t n if Gran!!c St et" resid.'nt' stdl or C,lP. ley : mg hst.lLv.151 of New t h it b sn' it on r a.thw:r e tE ; O'. li' n, v t-are farced ta f+t p trt of the FM).
Ila mie re, wA the l i w on of the iWs 1L b. mu " th it coa ~ : unr, ion indeed, se phn teing m n serious con state's 1%bLc l'1 / O
'<.a.
- L d as det
- of th> Pt't elbre ever, U.e lm J Wue si& ration ca!h for ricct!inty U sers. In of inach as 4., to te + lal G !?"ily Ldh n cd 1 p.., a law b i ' - h re P 'ii P fort. to Iel.d mm.ev to PutJ;c Rnice Co of N P M'W V'"U M d O'I"Jia/ P kt AM f avarms b.~.M an ! q,
Ne w Harr.p'.hirn ILe piiroe im M 'r <,f
!Lo of
. rmt ; ef b : Mw h n e M t dit it.
( T 'P
?.f r. (;.
,o w?i t-
- :i '
O V.,
. as to r.o.0 x e1 iM rm m b:.
tar:v i mt in Wh. L nit em e i m cont:merr d R 3 b:li.an nach ar p+xered 12 " ', c.~m.p my i m in re nl a fM ajt..r natr.'e fchrm pl.n r f his o n. P.R of ger. erd u (.! itp.a.
No inf ter whkh pl.ui is adopted. stat, Q,u
. nt d u y to mur tip f r:. e o.1
%w 11(mpaire su.
.' ed a s'
'ae le.iierx inclahn rne otLer than Gnt.
- a in M. Om dtf bih m as nach ter I l~ m.1
- t.'t r. G oPn.
! t'a t,
Mb' Elr ct liugh
.I. G dien, ar e Trea ha tho right. Ihs abs uv P w : 9 Lrt tha ran
'A C
' L t M
- bi -
word th tt the st ite supports em:struct on of WU h (../e ll'.h.
(cs i t ")Vo Velecl II.e the DJ"ledt f.vi,dy at; j th tt 1{ w;M [p fj.
..t r. ( f,.e $ n, ts v o.. e-to su i w,i a gyyjyggj g;w,g
~
t i,s, 4
n.t'ireu ! anchaw. Tras skw r.f suppcrt. state g.
png;nj g%n eg,;
g, ggy y,,.i. g y ass uy. r, vin d at Cry investner.t i,,, p
. g g,4 g, ~,
.u v 16' M t v v 'ym M C, d
c:
u JJr!!V b' th"yT. i.t j + f l ' l',' W. ' 'i., 11 p. l'1 (On m nin:IV cor.f&nEr in P.F.. r,f New H un8 I. e' p f t @>.f m ): II)C h, b.
Ma# a-t
'r no e
n s,. t r r.
L:s Milie ta)3 ?:e % ; ' O.b;. I to t'.. !c J la-n:l" t h m K.
Ib'
("l indy a
Cainp?l;;u Pledge tc..
Cn d
'A n cre
'w *tJ tha Thmn >n in the eiert: ; carn' goi c ir ! P,' e, H i Tt;s cor.fi L ner md m N wen.bar u ch
, Are o,. A on. r, m se nAr r ',,
o
+- ;r
!!? elm tion of Mr. (Nk n. w ho defr..!ed m-cvi!P
. a. L1 I. to F.
'or< 'o.
re!'mg *1'S ; My t i t vk a '. l.
< i r u m bent M.11rin. Th e< en J r.
on the e U; b.
P :,
,1 %
H:
- .re Dwy Ire.e e I its q nr:-r;y '
I'
.a f'rJ.e t) d> aa tv WHL.tn el ct:r 'v i d!
wn'.l' ytickofrL ecaa t w:h c"nts a share In m G r. :c,
1.
n e 11
+
mbarge to pay for ro rtr uctm rif tl e na-cu r i.u !
W. r 19 ru pw.s un;.rew in that a F.
?
rs e
GP ;! nt cc mp: Mrd. P r:q., s w;' ! ; r t ', that, m we m ' m' rr!y to be p n d i!, to sue a ca. P s. of w Huas.ur wy w,,ru e, ih.. c n m r,,o x or n.,.c
%! wrs.
forPC I to t IVe plt!h far a [ub'l.' ('lI" ring ITre h;' / t't I..Jrs 01 :t ph l'y ?.. t i D ) Ir
'*l'rmn t }ddW rF!MI '"s p 5 r [
.'.e x.
of two rm "
comn, shar,, Atop t'ilt.
ws kel sett by th Pd.ty r.1 t',
'PFC that ta.; anfs et n I e ' way N c ).~
.u e r
wid. the IHMial sm;ation in dwbt. P.S o'
accr Y,0. m 1 Galb n : taf fer cays G., Dct C J.
NcW I I.t :; j ikre
!" cnoi !;t l'8 a cash bi.1 Talhr. a.
I'. i i f *, w !! i n - h:, ; ;i u In the rn" int;n:e, P S c.f Na l!!<" > tre th3I f oi:.p r.
Of f e?;.ils r., cede woull b..
de' w:c! j ny w h.q' cr 'b y s
- { s ;y,yr ls h.ty. / 3 cail (bix jir. B r1 QN..,
is t'.tVI Oh!V af the Uill.',' c3n c! ear the (Alt}uok (Le plin }i or. r, s 3,"
.d the t i.tl ten _ )
ths '"my.My has to tr
'nF'
.Ii n.4 s for the nu!c ir f.W *.
nm. a ratru t.sua c ! M P S. of 'se x H an.i the en ! of tMs mmah. It L:is a
.:i. n Ytdrrd V. far 1" ! !'i*e. I Ltdhulg Gas &
shi*e ini N'r (L"y Met o it 1:, O e s..! ;; T1 hne I f f TP:l;!, hat I a ! dreLIV die shi
.AQ E'ectric L"cht Co. p 4 el ta Ja1. 3 a sp.
?I wut has t n d ost to la n < ub traw H int!hv. of that. Thm, it t i as q4:4 c13! Sh.l f t !. I. b/ T5 h l ' #3n t in de ri k Wh"the r Ir 2 a L j ; ' pa: ' ' ! la'..:1
!!'Q s'i'lrt of Iti C tSh Lefds a e' f a; lb, a f f t to Ir.ctnite it s hrMm In the >c +I.ro ik proj-Einharrai
'M ae ' f r. I',
. in his c Tl s tys.i prob:4 m that coahl r e ri a
!rts Ile fin a'.C h'rs 3!O per5 J i ! d !b.lt !!.' h?a
lp t'Ct to C 87 f r9t:1IT. 'lle M (5:
's ha',r! ts i eti) ca'P;t$
t p: @ t < eu'] t esait ia ci ".str ction trin.,
^
ad (3 p'nts Seabrmk and it th!"W up Prel O!!hty s tid [h t! P3 Of New H.unp>h:re's errene us i:n p rr.n en Le a r; i ; ;
b:ch hattrdf P.S of New thm; Wie owns W of P.c nac%r praccf. wh;rh is looted m Ps CAM!al TrSort l'run of Se lbr9 k. O. 'r c-tion, which !mn in July 1:G wasLdicd twice by the Nur: car Reu!n ry W'rmn son in dur ub s over whether the frihtis water cmling system and na& tr1.evr Peter allig System W:C!d r:#et fc bral : tin-D*h DWV
~
E"'.S of New !!imrsh:re s ud that 1
0 P
M VJl
) k 1
j str ucti m con'. urs. the pre g t udlto e.'n-4
~'
p:, '.nl m the early 1
.w: s ci i <
ch str!rity to Ne% MahTshite aVI p.:rb rdl nsxha cos.
O P^'
q
UillTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIMISSIGil BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AllD LICENSIliG A_PPEAL 00ARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAi4Y OF
)
Docket Mos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSH I RE, e_t. _a_l_.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
and 2)
)
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SAPL MOTI0il TO RE0 PEN RECORD Oil FIT!ANCI AL QUALIFICATI0ilS" in the above-captioned proceedir.q have been served on the following by deposit in the United States rail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the iluclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 20th day of Decc,Tber, 1978:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairrran*
Joseph F. Tubridy, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 4100 Cathedral Avenue, N.W.
Appeal Board Washington, D. C.
20016 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Wasnington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Ihrvin M. Mann
- Atonic Safety and Licensing Dr. John H. Buck
- Board Panel Atcmic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissica Appeal Board Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. liuclear Regulatory Commission liashington, D. C.
20555 Dr. Ernest 0. Salo Professor of Fisheries Research Michael C. Farrar, Esq.*
Institute Atomic Safety and Licensing College of Fisheries Appeal Board University of Washington U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Ivan W. Smith, Esq.*
1107 West Knapp Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
. Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Varin P. Sheldon, Esq.
O'fleill, Backus, Spielman, Little Sheldon, liarmon & Roisman 116 Lowell Street 102515th Street, fl.W.
Manchester, flew llampshire 03101 Sth Floor Washington, D.C.
20005 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
John A. Ri tsher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Ropes & Gray Board Panel
- 225 Franklin Street U.S. fluclear Psegulatory Commission Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Washington, D.C. ~ 20555 florman Ross, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 30 Francis Street Appeal Board
- Brookline, Massachusetts 02146 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Docketing and Service Section*
Of Tice of Attorney General Of fice of 'he Secretary S tate !!ouse Anriex U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission Room 208 Washington, D.C. j 20555 Concord, llew Hampshire 03301 Laurie Burt, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Connonwealth of Massachusetts Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 U),%L PM Lawrence Brenner Counsel for NRC Staff
.