ML20023A484

Recommends That Commission Not Review 820706 Directors Decision Denying Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 820205 Request for Order to Show Cause Why CP Should Not Be Suspended or Revoked Due to Lack of Financial Qualification

ML20023A484
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/30/1982
From:	Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20023A485	List: ML20023A484 ML20023B141 ML20023B145
References
FOIA-82-494, TASK-AINV, TASK-SE SECY-82-322, NUDOCS 8209010092
Download: ML20023A484 (4)

Text

>

July 30, 1982 SECY-82-322 Ei3bO.Giunv ! sus (Noistion \\/oie)

For:

The Commissioners From:

Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel

Subject:

REVIEW OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION ON 2.206 PETITION (PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW H AMPSisIRE)

Facility:

Seabrook Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Review Time Expires:

August 20, 1982 Discussion:

On February 5, 1982 the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) submitted a request for an order to show cause why the construction permits for Seabrook should not be suspended or revoked because of an alleged lack of financial qualifications on the part of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSC), lead applicant for the Seabrook plant.

SAPL in its request argued that PSC no longer has " reasonable assurance" that it can and will obtain the necessary funds to construct the Seabrook facility and that therefore it is COMTACT:

Rick Levi, OGC 4-1465

[

f,l i' O tjo90l $Y,I D 'F _2 .m...__.-

s s 2 no longer financially qualified within the meaning of 10 CPR 50.33 (f). 1/ On July 6, 1982 the Director denied SAPL's request. The Director noted that effective March 31, 1982 the Commission amended its regulations to eliminate the financial qualification requirements for utilities seeking construction permits. 47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982). The Director explained that the Commission had determined "that the financial condition of a utility, in and of itself, does not affect the quality of the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant in a manner which is direct enough to warrant the expenditure of the substantial amount of the Commission's resources necessary for its evaluation." Director's Decision at i 1/ To support its assertion that PSC will be unable to obtain the funds to build Seabrook, SAPL first alleged that, even though the New Hampshire Public Utility Commission (NHPUC) in January gave PSC the largest rate increash it has ever received, Standard and Poors lowered its ratings on PSC's second mortgage bonds from BBB to BB+, which ! below investment grada. SAPL maintained that the NRC's past decisions finding PSC to be financially qualified were based on the assumption that PSC could finance Seabrook from the revenues allowed it by the NHPUC, but this assumption, as shown by the drop in bond ratings, is invalid. As noted by NHPUC, PSC is presented not with a revenue problem but with a severe cash-flow problem derived from the need to pay for Seabrook construction. SAPL secondly argued that it can no longer be assumed that the NHPUC will allow rates designed to permit construction of 1 Unit 2. The NHPUC has stated that it would no longer authorize future financing for the construction of Unit'2 if PSC's bond rating reached the level which it is now at. Finally, SAPL alleged that for PSC to meet its cash requirements, it must issue new shares of common stock or second mortgage bonds, but given.ts current financial condition there is no reasonable assurance that either the stock or bonds can be sold. h

e s 4 3 1. The Director further stated, however, that the Commission would take appropriate action if financial constraints were directly connected to a particular public health and safety problem. The Director denied SAPL's request because SAPL raised no connection between financial qualifications and public health and safety. The Director also noted that inspections have revealed no degradation of quality assurance in construction, and a Construction Assessment Team is currently investigating the quality of construction at Seabrook to ensure that proper quality assurance programs are being followed. OGC agrees with the Director's decision. Since the Commission has eliminated the requirement of financial qualifications, and since SAPL presented no argument that there are health and safety problems connected with construction at Seabrook, the Director was correct in denying SAPL's request. Recommendation: That the Commission not review this matter. 1 /.'w) / %L Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Counsel

Enclosures:

(1) SAPL's petition (2) Director's Decision

1 0 4 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, August 13, 1982. Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, August 6, 1982, with an infor-mation copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected. DISTRIBUTION: Commissioners OGC OPE OCA OIA OPA SECY l l l l l I i 9

T s a P'\\ 7 - 1 s 3 .. ~ ~. _ _ g,. O e e. ~, + M.--g L e h 9 .j. <y* ) I i 4 9 e G

C '* 3, e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO: Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation RE. Construction Permits CPPR-135 CPPR-136 o o * * * * *************** IN THE MATTER OF ~ Public Service Company of Docket Nos. 50-443 New Hampshire, et al 50-444 (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) o o ******************* REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AT SEABROOK SHOULD NOT BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED This request for an Order to Show Cause is made on behalf of the Scacoast Anti-Pollution League, 5 Market Street, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 03801, an Intervenor in the above captioned. The relief requested is an order to Show Cause why the Seabrook construction permits should not be suspended or revoked because of lack of financial qualification on the part of Public Service Company of New Hampshire,. lead applicant for the Seabrook plant. ~ This request is based on the fact that PSNH no longer has a " reasonable financing plan in light of relevant circumstances" due to the following: 1. January 11, 1982 Order of the New Himpshire Public Utility Commission indicating no further financing authorization would be forthcoming for Unit 2 in light of present cir-cumstances.

• • • 00071-820205 t'

ADOCK 05000443 C PDR

s, 2. Reduction of the bond rating on PSNH as second mortgage bonds to below investment grade by Standard & P,oor's. 3. Imminent cash demands far in excess of funds available through operating income or, in light of items one and two above, available financing. INTRODUCTION The staff and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in Docket Numbers 50-443 and 50-444 found PSNH financially qualified to own and operate 50% of the Seabrook facility.1 By divided vote, the Atomic Safety and Licen' sing Appeal Board upheld the finding. The Commission also reviewed PSNH's fi-nancial qualification in Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), 7 NRC 1 (1978), at which time it established that the " reasonable assurance" requirement of 10 C.F.R. 55 0. 33 (f) required an Applicant to have a " reasonable financing plan in the light of relevant circumstances." 7 NRC at 18. In New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F 2d 87, the First Circuit affirmed. Notwithstanding these decisions, PSNH's financial condition continues to be appropriate for reexamination since, as noted, under ths Commission's Seabrook Decision, 7 NRC 1, PSNH must have a reasonable plan for financing the plant in the light of relevant, and hence a changing, circumstances. The First Circuit, in upholding the decision 1At the tire of the initial decisien, the total cost of the facilitf was estirated to be 1.545 billion. Tne ncst recent cost estirate, p:cvided by Dr. Richard Fcsen of ESPG, is 7.63 billion.

,' r 3-l o I that Public Service was financially qualified, specifically stated that "the NRC is not bound' by the [NRC's previous) decision should circumstances change in the future or should predictions not be borne out." 582 F. 2d at 93, note 9. d One reexamination of PSNH's financial qualifications has already occurred. In March, 1979 the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League requested a Show Cause Order on financial qualification grounds which was denied on November 16, 1979. In denying the request, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Denton relied primarily on the ability of PSNH to get rate relief, and thereby to attract investors to provide the necessary capital. In other words, Mr. Denton, as a " fundamental" assumption, relied on the " existence of a rational regulatory environment." (Decision, Slip Opinion at 18.) In light of the validity of this " fundamental underlying assumption" Mr. Denton was able to conclude that, as of November 1979, PSNH had a " reasonable financing plan" and denied the request. I. THE FINDING THAT A " RATIONAL REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT" - ASSURES FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION IS NO LONGER VALID. A fundamental premise of all decisions concluding that PSNH is financially qualified to build the Seabrook facility is this: The NHPUC has historically supported Seabrook, starting with its own Certificate of Site and Facility ~ issued in January 1974. - The NHPUC is constutionally required to permit rates designed to allow PENH to earn a fair rate of return, that is, a return necessary to attract capital for its operation and future needs.

c ~ .( = e e - The rates will therefore be sufficient to attract the necessary capital, although perhaps at higher cost. This tidy syllogism, however, is no longer valid; if it ever h was. The fact is that PSNH cannot earn revenues which the NHPUC l has allowed it to earn. Therefore, although the allowed return on equity may be entirely sufficient, the earnings are not, and it is PSNH that has to earn its revenues, not the NHPUC. In short, the assumption that the NEPUC can solve PSNH's problems, or is constitutionally required to, is without merit. In its recent rate decision, Docket'DR'-81-87, the NHPUC, in an exhaustive opinion and report, allowed PSNH rates designed to permit it to earn an additional 28.9 million dollars, against an original rate request for 35 million. The decision was viewed " positively" by PSNH, and SAPL is advised that PSNH has not applied for a rehearing as to the level of rates granted, a prerequisite to any appeal. ~ Notwithstanding the largest rate increase ever granted to PSNH, computed on an allowed rate of return on equity of 17%,. Standard and Poors on January 18, 1982, within a week of the Decision, lowered its rating on PSNH's second mortgage bonds from BSB to BB+, belcw l investment grade. 2In its January 11, 1982 rate decisien, the MiPUC allcwed PSSH a 17% return en equity, a::cng the highest ever allcwed to an electric utility in the United Sta'as.

= This event clearly establishes the fundamental fallacy in thm syllogism on which the NRC has previously relied to find the applicant financially qualified; namely, that an adequate rate of roturn assures a utility will be financially qualified, if the ragulatory agency has previously approved its construction projects. Tha NHPUC recognized this when it succinctly stated, at page 121: "This Company's problem is not rate of return but cash flow." The NRC, therefore, can no longer assume that an adequate rate of return, which PSNH has always been allowed, insures that an applicant will be financially qualified to safely construct and operate a nuclear plant. The fact is, as set forth in part 3 of ' this request, PSNH faces a cash crisis, which cannot be met by allowing it higher rates. II. THE NEPUC NO LONGER SUPPORTS SEABROOK II. Even if the syllogism discussed in part I were valid, it is no longer appropriate to assume that the NHPUC will allow rates designed to permit-the construction of Seabrook Unit II. The NHPUC states on pages 120 and 121: "The Company's financial position is caused by its commitment to the construction of Seabrook, and can therefore be improved only by changing this construction program. The Company has relied for its future health and success on one, and only one, alternative. As a result, few options are available to the Company for improving its financial position. All these options involve major changes in the Company's plans for Seabrook. The options include: selling additional shares of both units, modifying the Seabrook agreement and selling shares of only one of the uAits; delaying one or both of the units; cancelling one of the units. " 8 , - +.., s

,e _g-Furthermore, the NHPUC has backed up its statements with an appropriate order. It states on~page 122: "If during the next six months PSNH's bond rating is downrated from its present level of BB+(S.P.) or BBB (Moody's) the Commission will condition its financings that will prevent their use toward the construction of Seabrook II...If their rating drops again it will no longer be of investment grade. A BB+/BBB utility is unlikely to be able to raise the 1.3 billion over tne next five years. A lower ra utilitycouldneverraisethislevelofcapital."ged The event that the NHPUC said. would prevent it frem =*Wzing future financingr. for the construction of' Unit II has indeed occurred with the lowering by Standard and Poors of the rating on PSNH's second mortgage bonds, called General and Refunding Bonds, from BBB, to BB+. Therefore, by NEPUC Order there will be no regulatory approval for financing of construction for Unit II. Since PSNH cannot construct Unit,II without new financing, it is clear that PSNH no longer has "r'easonable assurance"'that it can and will obtain the necessary funds to construct the facility. It is therefore absolutely clear it is no longer financially qualified within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. 550.33(f). 3It ap7 the IEPUC inadvertently transposed the bcnd ratings for Standard and Poors and abody's, since it was Standard and Pocrs that had been B3B and was r@W to BB+, whereas the bbcdy rating has remained at BA, less than invest =ent grade. See the attached article fr==.the Wall l Street Jcurnal, January 18, 1982 discussing PCE's bcnd ratia.g, and the effect of the dec:Lsian of the IEPUC. l

.,a -7_ III. PSNH FACES A CASH CRISIS WHICH PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT IT HAS A " REASONABLE FINANCING PLAN IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES." In 1982, PSNH assumes the following financing: i PSNH ASSUMED FINACINGS (000's) 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Coman Stock 69,866 64,000 74,400 54,800 40,200 P:Gferred Stock 30,000 30,000 30,000 Icng-Term $2bt: i Te:m Note Rollover 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 l I Te:m Note Addition 25,000 I Eurodollar Rollover 28,000 Eurodollar Rollover 27,000 Eurebond 30,000 Barclay's Te:m Note 20,000 Banker's Acceptan 25,000 ~ G & R Financing 140,000 90,000 120,000 120,000 'ICIAL 174,866 309,000 244,400 254,800 210,200 50,000 Source: NHPUC Decisien, Page 104 ~ On information and belief, SAPL avers that the bulk of this 1982 i financing will be required within the first two quarters of 1982 since, PSNH will, within a mcnth, no longer'have the benefit of having all construction costs at Seabrook paid by the owners of the facility, while they rurchase approximately 15% of the facility from PSNH. During the past approximately 12 : 7nths, this has been the case, while the other owners have increased

.+ _g_ their ownership through a so-called " adjustment" period, at a time when PSNH's ownership share has been reduced to approximately 354. Since the Seabrook construction force is reported to be approximately 6,500 people, and since the average wage is reported to be S15 per hour, the payroll at Seabrook alone is 3.9 million dollars a week. At a 35% ownership level, PSNH will have'to, within the month, start paying payroll cost alone of approximately 1.3 million per week.' This amount of payroll costs at Seabrook amounts to 71 million dollars a year. In addition, PSNH has outstanding more than 23 million shares of common stock, with a dividend of $2.12 per share. Thus, the dividend r2quirements for 1982, even if no more stock is issued, is 49 million dollars. These, of course, represent major cash requirements, which cannot be met through AFUDC, but only'through revenues. The question, therefore, is whether these, and other cash requirements, can be met through PSNH's financing plan. As noted above, PSNH suggests 309 million will be needed during 1982. To meet this, PSNH plans to raise 64 million through new issues of common stock. At S14 a share, this represents nearly 4.6 million new shares to be issued this year. There is no assurance that PSNH can successfully market this many shares. Its stock, since the rate increase, has been below $14, far below book value.4 4In 1971, the year before the first applicatica for san < was filed with the I S UC, PS:U.'s stock sold : 6 x. S30.

t- _g_ d = PSNH must, today, issue new financing merely to meet its dividend obligations, since its total operating income for the 12 months ended June 30, 1981, was only 45.2 million. PSNH cannot issue first mortgage bonds, since its assets are fully mortgaged.' Thus, its most important financing vehicle in 1982 will be the issuance of its second mortgage bonds, called G & R financing. It plans to issue 140 million in 1982, of which most was to be placed in the first half. These bonds, however, are now rated below investment grade by both major rat'ing services. Hence, there is no reasonable assurance that these bonds can be sold. Therefore, in the light of relevant circumstances, PSNH has no reasonable financing plan for the present year, and should be found financially unqualified. CONCLUSION PSNH's lack of financial qualifications is shown not only by the foregoing, but also by the report of the NEPUC in DR-81-87: " Examination of PSNH forecasts and statements before this Commission yield the conclusion that the Company tends to overestimate its revenues and underestimate its costs with some regularity. Thus we must assume that the Company is actually worse eff than their . financial forecasts would indicate. Given the less f avorable future conditions that this-Commission expects and unforeseen events that may have a negative impact on PSNH, this Commission is forced to conclude the PSNH may indeed reach a point in the-near future where it will be unable to secure additional i financing and unable to meet current obligations." (Page 105) i I 4

= ' \\ i.

• e

~ For the reasons stated, the Director of Nucle'ar Reactor Regulation should immediately institute a proceeding to show ~ cause why the Seabrook construction permir.s should not be revoked or suspended due to the lack of financial qualification of the lead applicant, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, in the present circumstances. a r Respectfully submitted, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE By Its Attorneys, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. BACKUS BY; M obert A. Backus February 5, 1982 I j l l

ts:: w s-p,#,... m

_

=3 PS New Hampshire's Seabrook Fundi a Ta.bu% Bah '== == c G ?s Clouded byS&P's Cutin Bond Rati as ~K :~~h:. =,,_~- =- -.,,,,.~ mz. + e-.~. s.r e. -y,7..,, y e,-,. I saa#Ra,=rsar ef "ma wau. Sarse Jcmumaa. c.i i l .u m. m,3wei.e-,l l 8 .a a u. i. ' i l' l I' e n...m

x. a,v.u6r ro,.,s:. mam as es

=_: us ~s.riaa, car

==. a =w

m...

4 ga '; muc=.aa.u N.s. - Pene sem= - lll l l J Wl, lf) - 2::'.',a -=. -ca. a ye., u, --ms vreue=1 -,-. a =- ~~ a.. ns sezeuct== 2r,d2= = ntely m a- . m m m o.., ~,/ l lid a - 1.m m. ~. w = m u.c,iT - = = = = =.. E !c-2se as a n=n cf s:ch.- & Pocr: ". 1,,u%,.e 1 IlIl

t^::1!!N

l lr' P:::::

ig -a -ern. e.e : en meo = sc=e e es i - m- =, ~... a s w - er=:= = snee. . vl;llll l l l l i. a. u i .c a

ne 3ew a2.- ~.,, Peu c.!m,

~ .m- ~,. m _= - <--- --" wbe esr_er hs: et ud cr-l 1 1 II i 1' l - -c.4 -.r.c.a - wm a a ~ .a... . c. =v = u 5

dend P""- f. mee to sell p2:t of us e:e:-

UST E '418 %

llll*,^,",'*

r-i2. ". *: % %, ::- a .<c e ce se2 wet ;Ic: oc e e=.~- a e -[ l_ :., wgi414 %n _) Parv a~~ e=

2, =nur, ~~--~ ~ - y

.=s. .-- ~ m o, m eg2c zys - -,er e. .: m = e

e.::- .u 1 - - m.= =a. s w : != ee:. -- - e ee w a==x: cf c:n=e we un m rese. we e:m

j L, ::::::

9: - um >=-.um.m. a E:5 - M. [vo r---- r r!. u 5m at sest coc. defe br a exple cf :x=th, in:: crer ce . :2.T. w = c:e.e vara - 2.i. %es a b:r==. we ~7 sea twe." Mr. sam:= % ::: ::::: =. ":: ~: u* P- -- 55 . i;s:m.e r

• s:2=s ms t 2newed m.tuy

=2d-N R.::.: ::::: =. ll:: ; 0, n=. cue.es 229=s. _ -.,m vee.pr. e -e ".m, en 3m m: es se=, en _..ve==e:: cf P2n: se'!ce =*f 25s rence ecur 3 1,._ u, gg: .:rade. **-J & Poon. :=r - 5:::: 8 c=. u a.t.::m.::::. u%. a..* 2...i- .._.r c=e:._.ee y,.eam::. a e, - =s .;, - -,~-em w ere e, m%s. seected m r22se =su -- m sm = ag o es =u:e= of en m L.==: *-+ x=: cf

0 g i = -

+i

~

.g; g g

a

s==. r

.=,n2ed m cx3m cet3 ee as: vald be r2 :ed e==:n the ale of a ; o; g;

=s~ ~:g:s esa :::se-3.,-- _ ee %,e: - ed w.esoet..... ,.-..o.. + -555'- m ,.....:e 5,L.2= p:27.,,,PeSe Semce.hd to rabe . M.- Cr de. Y 231 ~' ' te==e.=xt.a ce S-san,=,.- rw.'.u

w m 5:5 '

. :::ndard & Pacts' also buered the rzi-s. a - w **. se.c es -= . n n... EE:-

be = Pene semees W cxt e u=he t==ie= *. <37 22= c'er

s::::'

":: ;;. 3l::.E:::::

s s.

sc=e% :::= eree-a 2:34.L,e=d toe.

-* :=r Tv-~ ee:::=er-a

'::::::::a:n :, ~,.. a g= ;=w-=m

-- - - a - -,

eer2=:. ::: _-sw.._.,, % m es: trSeammt.- -. -- -s

2

_f ".,.,:-ge.3.- - ::.,=.w., Mr. Sc :o af "'s r' -f & Pcofs =1 nw, u,m% cr e c:._v,===: m-r=en ey ee===.-s e=-- d re- ";;;;lll**W '.. tu. ga, g :,- ss = _ -.c

==. - 2. u v t. un de-= p===. 1 = =e:. 2.ce=,

=:::a n %~.72.: n.-

a ce c=u= c - s pece = =em. .,ect m ure+,e m=, s.,. 3 _,-.2 ~- ee===v= e. c.e2===u ee e= r 2-m:::=.~ - m s=

.m, cm ce New a2 me. =ey m c:emd r s

.e ,.=. c: = e d c e = e e=u==a,a=de.sem=. sa

Pen: u==s c:. a r _,

y..u.

x=ero====s sem e ae ee..*e

e2:: cw=s ce tree 3cle Is!2:xi d-,e maJcr band nung 2;-xy. f== seven1 yesn. Debt. Calendar Is Slim, E

a v. =s my. bs med Pe!2 Sem= cf New P.2. p-Ea= . :: n:2x=r ce se2euat =e_esr're2==r. r*rt.resc21 ed re -+--; taxe an.,J%. ITOringthe. Concern. 5=~ a

.ed.e e=n=

7 ts epeced e ecc.:n ts-which 2 sed 2 :e er237:epeed 2s befew

=+ i -am, hs teen a er=W- - bc=5es er 1:T"'-~ rnde. It mes ce "r===t-Over FedPo. h..ey' Rates EE. lre-Serve W New "1M C'% 'r g2ge txx:ds '32a. 23 bwen bTe--~- t E'. l* PnNi: Sem='=2r:ed utt4 50". ::c:=:: 2. grade. .~ - f,, we,. 3.,,,, y,,c===u-

. case, i.as- '

M: Uhe pk=:. two years 2;o it =ld 15". :n cber . N Se:T1= can't i.==e my =3cte.a-2 NEW TCF.K-Rem te serveu=e.:s =T "New W -' ::C::ies bec2=e 2 cm}ds't af. mcz pc tc=ds be--- * $=e c:n t be se-is *.*. e c..ad2 =2-tr*s ever Fede.si Reserve E=- ":':5rd the tex *bg. Eariier b.:: w--i the New c=nd by - O w t SI b,... - Sy=e= peky 2:d 5:ert:2 ra:es, c.fy 2 ed ,.e c==r.leted aw-es 2 Leady are b- 'a-t cf cc:,x: rate 2w mu:d:.pai eee: 3 .g3 . in- .e p 4-e:::::es t. >., cr. 9E ' 'dced !! m :r0 m ev-sl 7". b:er=: te. mortgag-d. Mr. Sec o =if.

es are r.deduled br c r: ;cis we-t.

a 3 -. -r-:i. of d:sts 2 cocM *-

ncre taas He safd be !crered rz:=g 2:21 r-y

+ t th.====* -w==,'- i

.

• sa;,.

.-= n.---.n.c a "ee n':dt:*y ; 2=: ./.cn 2: a--^ w 5 e

c. a e,,'c.n"",**c _,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,

-]E ."c .y. 3ru, a,ev. a.. 23 cf Be c".u. ._,f..Se > , y wu! =1:2;; to sea != w2y '== a* a="8 1.wa " "C*_*,..y, ., _,,g

-v - ~--_~

, ;gg p;.

.an "F ree-s -

7.=::: Se tr-M =:n sc:r be z;r; Uved nTm'**d* ~*"c' c'- 558 ' 'r-'i =' t==== =ar --I

• 3 :::

c===c%a, a,w. c., ca-rm. 2 01 the *-- " is. ped, cSer by ee Ecatme:1's Eane-Nres Pm;xml m. '-- E "'c'"-* "-""* ts tx:y::g = cr he i_,a::y ST. LOUIS-Ew c's 32: _' tares L-. 8M Dm'.Z".7g

• r C

_

",'e^wxr: 4 *n d-hy t=Ser ::=r. -@ 2:Be 2; reed is pr= :;le to %-.*re Fax:: e:s & '"**8'v"E*==a****.**==.e Mere 2=s E2 ::. Cape cir=% Ms. ne ~, e.'L*'",?.".'lT *~..a o,,,,,. H ",;m=re u==.- Edct Ear:15:=. ;;-.Ar-t cf P:t!k Ser.

- = v2= t t'h-!ved..

'"**'2"**-"- 9 5 .:: Ties. =4 "we we have e c===:e u seil . Scu=c's =u the ac:;::::== remmes 2-ale"*.".1*~~". 'l " t ::::2" ~ 2.1

b:O".e:= det ** *n

• -te te

,4:y s det:tYe 2; ec::e= 2:ri re;.12~ 7 2p-I' M*

=

-2=. ne.:= cf er L. pr::v21. rz:=ers & e sat,wns

~ e.% t m.- = 5

sAxamre r-,--- s u Se2euet is 2.=ers ef abou: s::2 -m-wxidace==e - '""* =:::: 7.,'1ll:l; 3

• ".c':edmd br -- 4-t:3 esrty 212:4 sta b20::-:rs 172 hast ~ "'"y. :le M:t
• --=

^=n=== c.=s w - c,: v e a.. 1=

.*he se~--.d seed: led br 12M. "W::3 the tc!dh: e:. :

v.s. e - TW 7".."-0*:D 2:7 aid. m tm P. cne % _ = =. <--m t -x .m:brau:er mies h,e barn::U. nha me,re.q; a.:-ru.a m::ar 4rmu a,1,,. 7-s_ .m. m

4 .'A -( k a 4* m e h 4&# g j rs 4 ,6 A l .,g .-g i 5 9 e N 9, {F g 4., g e~,- g ,I-4, s E 6 w 4 4 g y M O ee& i o i e i G

e' .o rin , -\\ ' #[..' g}g% UNITED STATES ~ l' 9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Fe wassmoTow. o. c.zosss ~f %,*****/ JUL 6 1982 Docket Hos. 50-443 50-444 Robert A. Backus, Esq. 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105

Dear Mr. Backus:

This letter is in response to your petition of February 5,1982, which made a request for action under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 of the Comission's-regul~ations. You requested that the Comission issue an Order to Shcw Cause why the Seabrook construction permits should not be suspended or revoked because of a lack of financial qualification on the part of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, lead applicant for the Seabrook plant. For the reasons stated in the enclosed " Director's Decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206", your request has been denied. A copy of this decision will be placed in the Comission's public document rooms at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the Exeter Public Library, Front Street, Exeter, New Hampshire, 03883. A copy will also be filed with the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c) of the Comission's regulations. ) As provided in 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c), this decision will become the final action of the Comission after 25 days unless the Comission determines to review this decision within that time. Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director ~ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

Director's Decision Federal Register Notice CC: Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. IPA ~

\\ 'WI)liam C. Tallman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Hampshire P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 John A. Ritse' r Esq. Ropes and Gray E. Tupper Kinder. Esq. 225 Franklin Street Assistant Attorney General Office of Attorney General Boston, Massachusetts 02110 20B State House Annex Mr. Bruce B, Beckley. Project Manager Concord. New Hampshire 03301 Public Service Company of New Hampshire Tne Honorable Arnold Wight, P. O. Box 330 New Hampshire House of Representatives Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Science. Technology ana Energy Committe State House G. Sanborn U. S. NRC - Region I Concord. New Hampshire,03301 631 Park Avenue Resident inspector King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 .Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Hs. Elizabeth H. Weinhold ' c/o U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 700 3 Godfrey Avenue Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Robert A. Backus Esq. Mr. John DeVincentis, Project Manager O'Neill. Backus and Spielman Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road 116 !.owell Street Farmingham, Massachusetts 01701 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Norman Ross, Esq. Mr. A. M. Ebner, Project Nanager 30 Francis Street United Engineers an'd Constructors 30 South 17th Street Brookline, Massachusetts 02146 . Post Office Box 8223 Karin P. Sheldon, Esq. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Sheldon. Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N. W. Mr. W. Wright. Project Manager Westinghouse Electric Corporation Washington O. C. 20006 Post Office Box 355 Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15230 Laurie Burt Esq. Office of the Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Thomas Oignan, Esq. Ropes and Gray One Ashburton Place 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Boston, Massachusetts 02110

0. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq.

New Hampshire Attorney General General Counsel State House Annex Public Service Company of New Hampshire Concord, New Hampshire 03301 P. O. Box 330-Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Office of the First Selectman Town of Seabrook Seabrook, New Hampshire 03B74 m O e..

) DD $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Harold R. Denton, Director In the Matter of .) ) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE 50-444 (Seabrook Nuclear Station, (10 C.F.R. 2.206) Units 1 and 2) ) DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 On February 5,1982, Mr. Robert A. Backus, en behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, submitted a petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 requesting that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issue an order to show cause why Construction Pennits Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 of the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCNH) should ' not be suspended or revoked because of an alleged lack of financial qualification. Effective March 31, 1982, the Comission's regulations were amended eliminating the financial qualification requirements. 47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31,1982). This action was taken after careful study and extensive consideration of public coments. The reasons for eliminating these requirements included the Comission's determination that the financial condition of a utility, in and of itself, does not affect 'the quality of the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant in a manner which is direct enough to warrant the expenditure of the substantial amount of the Comission's resources necessary for its evaluation, It was decided that these resources would be better used if

9 ~. directed to the examination of those factors which affect the public health and safety more directly. l The Comission continues to be concerned with the radiological protection of the public health and safety in all aspects of the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. In those instances where financial constraints of a utility can be directly connected to a particular public health and safety problem, the Comission will take the appropriate action. However, the petitioner has raised no such connection in his petition, and routine inspections to date have revealed no degradation of quality assurance. in the construction of the Seabrook facility. Furthermore, as part of the nationwide NRC inspection program, a Construction Assessment Team is currently investigating the quality of construction at the Seabrook facility. The results of the investigation will be examined to insure that proper quality assurance programs are being followed. Financial constraints, in a vacuum, are an insufficient basis for initiating show-cause proceedings against a utility. In light of this, the petitioner's request is hereby denied. A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Comission for the Comission's review i accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c). MN/$ Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6 day of July 1982. 4

c j 7 .. e, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP. MISSION [DocketNos. 50-443,50-444] PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) NOTICE OF' ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION On February 8,1982, Mr. Robert Backus, on behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League filed a request under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 for an order to show cause why Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-135 and CPPR-136 should not be suspended or revoked because of an alleged lack of financial qualification of the lead applicant, Public Service Company of New Hampshire. Effective March 31, 1982, the Comission's regulations were amended to eliminate financial qualification requirements. In light of this, I have determined not to grant the request of Mr. Backus. The reasons for this decision are set forth in a " Director's Decision under 10 C.F.R. 2.206", which is available for inspection in the Commission's Public Document-Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and in the local public do ument room at the Exeter Public Library, Front Street, Exeter, New Hamp-shire 03883. A copy of the decision will also be filed with the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 2.206(c). Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6 day of July, 1982. FORTHEfiUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION "NY Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation g

....n..... ACCEJSION NBR 82.02100368 Doc. DATES 82/02/05 NUTARIZED: ND DOCKET

• FCCILg50.-443.Seebrook nucloor Station, Unit 1,

Public Servico C'. 05000443 o 50-4u4 Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Public Service Co. 0500044c A'UTH.NAME AUTHUR AFFILIATION BACXUS,R.A.

Backus, R.A.

GECIP.NAME RECIPIF.NT AFFILIATION DENTON,H. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director

SUBJECT:

Forwarcs request for orcer to show cause why -cps f or proposed nuclear power plants should not be suspended or revoked. Certificate of Svc encl. DISTRIBUTION CODE: B001S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR 1. ENCL _b SIZE:_hd..~_b.. TITLE: PSAR/FSAR AMDTS and Relatec Correspondence NOTES: 4 RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ~ ID CODE /NAFE LTTR ENCL ID CODE / NAPE LTTR ENCL %CTIONt A/D LICENSNG 1 0 BC 1 0 LIC BR 83 LA 1 0 WHFEIE. 01 1 1 ENTERNAL: ELD 1 0 IE' 06 3 3 IE/DEP/EPDB 35 1 1 IE/DEP/EPL8 36 3 3 MPA 1 0 NRR/DE/CEB 11 1 1 NRR/DE/EQB 13 3 3 NRR/DE/GB 28 2 2 NRR/DE/HGEB 30 2 2 NRR/DE/MEB 15 1 1 NRR/DE/MTEB 17 1~ 1 NRR/DE/QA8 21 1 1 NRR/DE/SAB 24 1 1 NRR/DE/SE8' 25 1 1 NRR/DHFS/HFEB40 1 1 NRR/OHFS/LG8 32 1 1 NRR/DHFS/0L8 34 1 1 NRR/DHFS/PTR820 1 1 NRR/DSI/AEB 26 1 1 NRR/DSI/ASB 27 1 1 NRR/DSI/CPB 10 1 1 NRR/DSI/CS8 09 1 1 NRR/DSI/ETSB 12 1 1 NRR/DSI/ICSB 16 1 1 NRR/DSI/PSB 19 1 1 NRR/DSI/RA8 22 1 1 NRR/DSI/RSB 23 1 1 NRR/ DST /LG8 33 1 1 REG FILE 04 1 1 (XTERNAL: ACRS 41 16 16 BNL(AMDTS ONLY) 1 1 FEMA-REP DIV 39 1 1 LPDR 03 1 1 NRC POR 02 1 1 NSIC 05 1 1 NTIS 1 1 k f\\\\. TOTAL P: /BER OF COPIES REcu1 RED: LTTR 63 ENCL 58

t. ,ya** law OrricCD cv R o s E RT A. B AC K U S 116 LOWELL STRCET seerava sacaus R o. Box SIS ss== = s = t* rutaat ta= cazota MANCH ESTER. N. H. ca sos ~ antacootsos ese rara m sonessusu unsse February 5, 1982 gsg. Ik N s S \\ /:,e ' ' /E;y 3 ~ ~ 3.9 n h~ s Harold Denton Director D m Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 PI:. Public Service Company of NH Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444

Dear Mr. Denton:

Enclosed please find a Request for an Order to Show Cause Why Construction Permits for the Proposed Nuclear Power Plant at Seabrook Should not be Suspended or Revoked.. I am assuming that your staff has available to it the NHPUC Decision in DR 81-87 on which we rely. We look forward to your determination within a reasonable time. ~ Thank you. Very trulv

urs,

/,/ &~ cert A. Backus RAB/sid Enc. cc: As cer attached service list . TP, / I / / '. h h l PDR ADOCK 05000443 E. R P8R-

* { '~ i s ** P ~ CERTIFICATE OF SER'/ ICE I, Robert A. Backus, certify that I have mailed, postage prepaid, first class or airmail of the within to the following: Roy Lessey, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Washington, DC 20555 Thomas Dignan, Esq. Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street / Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq. Assistant Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Tupper Kinder Office of the Attorney General State of New Hampshire 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Ellen Weiss, Esq. Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 1;mer Rocer's'A. Bet.TUEs February 5, 1982 -}}