ML20024F361

Petition of Jf Doherty for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in OL Proceeding.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20024F361
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/06/1983
From:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309090312
Download: ML20024F361 (11)

Text

. . . . - _

, . m_

gy .

September 6, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 00CxETED 3EFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD

)

~83 SEP -8 P2:36 Public Service Company of 5.0- 3 OL New Hampshire, et al. DocketNos.[$M44_g/fg L(Seabrook Statign',1. Units 1 L,'2) U3CH JOHN F. DOHERTY'S PETITION FOR-LEAVE TO INTERVENE SERVED SEP 8 1983 John'?. Doherty, of 318 Summit Ave., Apt. #3, 3righton, Mass. 02?35 (a section of Boston), (617) 232-3853, now files this 4

Petition for Leave to Intervene in the above styled oDerating li-censes uroceeding under Section 2 714 of Part.10 of the Code of Federal Regulhtions, and 42 United States Code, Sec. 2201, the Atomic Energy Act. Petitioner has resided at the above a'ddress since June 22, 1983, and this address is his permanent address.

From August 20, 1977,until June 1, 1983, Petitioner resided in Texas.

Standine Petitioner resides accroximately a0 miles from the site of the Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2. Petitioner is within the zone of effects of 7athways of radiation exposure as excressed in Sec.

5.0.3.1, (P. 5-22) of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for this facility, NUREG-0895, of December, 1982, and thus will be injured in fact by operation of the Seabrook Stations, sub. ject of these croceedings. Moreover, Petitioner has used the Seabrook and Hampton Beach areas for recreational nurposes and will continue to'do so. Petitioner has also frecuently travelled on Route 95 to Maine where his family members have frecuently resided and will continue to do so. This.hiebway is ap5roximately 3 miles from the site of the Seabrook, reactors. Petitioner frecuently eats seafood,

some-of which is almost certainly fished or otherwise detained within 50 miles of the Seabrook site. Such marine anicals are effec-ted by licuid effluent from the subject reactors in that radio = .

active , materials from the effluent are concentrated by marine animal 7hysiological orocesses in the edible flesh which in turn e309090312 830906 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR mv b 0 2)

O p * . .

nay be consumed by Petitioner.

In his residence and in travel or recreation, Petitioner iseffectedfbyradioactiveemissionsingaseouseffluentssuch as those listed in Table D.1 (P. D-4) of UUREG-0895 In the event of serious accidents, exuosure of Petitioner to radioactivity from the Seabrook reactors in his residence or closer" to the site will be greater, which is yet another way Petitioner is effected by the licensin5 in these two dockets which are.the responsiblity of the Atomic Safety & Licensin5 Board.

Petitioner'is a rate payer of the Boston Edison utility.

This utility ourchases oower from the Massachusetts Municipal t'holesale Electric Comoany, which ic one of the Applicants in this proceeding (48 Fed. Rec. 32,4171 Hence Petitioner has an economic interest in the two licensings as well. l Por the above reasons, Petitioner has standing to inter-vene in the above matter, because his health and safety interest, specifically to be free as possible from radiation in his envir-onnent will~be effected ~by the determination by the Board of the conditions 4 of operation for the two Seabrook reactors.

Petitioner desires to participate as a party. Petitioner, as a ,

rate cayer in Massachusetts also has an economic interest in the two licensings. -

l Doherty Contention 1 l g

Public Service Company of New Hampshire's Apolication for

[

an Ooerating License for Seabrook Station. Unit 2, is premature i because the unit is but 22% complete and many more than_ four: years 5 i

are likely to remain before the unit is substantially completed  ;

in conformance with N.g.C. rules and regulations. A'pplication for '

an ouerating license for this unit now, violates 10 CIE 50 57(aX1) $

,_ and grantin5 the operating license.with the unit but 22% comuleted y or not substantially completed threatens those health, safety, i

=

and economic interests of Petitioner set forth above. The Board i should deny the oper'ating license for Unit 2 until the Aoplicant Er has substantially completed it.

f

=

=

=

I h/ 4

_3_

Suncortine Statement for the Contention That Seabr'ok' c Unit 2 is but 22% complete is shown clearly by a photo (Exhibit A) of the plant site in the Boston Globe of August 21, 1983, and a statement attributed to a Public Ser-

~

vice Comnany e=ployee, Nicholas Ashoch, on that same page.

That the Seabrook Unit 2 is unlikely to be comoleted for many years more than its planned completion date of July 1987, (Seabrook Unit 1, July, 1934) is evidenced by a long history of delay of construction. Nuclear Safety, Vol. 23, No. 6, Nov-Doc 1932, gave the completion date for Seabrook, Unit 2, as 1984; Nuclear News in its August 1979 edition, page 82, hotes the estimated date of start-up at the time the reactor was ordered was August, 1981, which is two years ago. Thus, Seabrook Unit 2 is two years plus 78% behind schedule. Conservatively subtracting one year because of the Environmental Protection Agency objections to the original project coolin5 systems, it has ctill taken six years and two months for 22% of the construction for Unit 2. Carried forward, without any speed.up, it would require aoproximately 20 years more to comolete Unit 2.

The recent financial picture and partner conduct of the sixteen Saabrook Station owners points to further delay for construction of

~

i Unit 2. Partners in Seabrook Unit 2, United Illuminating C.omaany of New Haven (17 5%).and Northeast Utilities of Connecticut Li5h t and Power (u.0%) have been ordered by the Connecticut Denartment of Public Utility Control, "to make every effort to disengage" from Snabrook Unit 2. .Th'e utiliti~eEl ann 6unced they will not appeal this.

order. In March, 1983, New England Power (10%) announced it wanted to sell its share of Seabrook Unit 2. The Staff of the New Hamoshire

'?ublic Utility Commission recommended cancellation of Seabrook Unit 2 in April, 1983 This agency regulates.the managing partner for ,

Snabrock Station. Units 1 & 2, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (35%). Thus, with ecuity holder and regulatory agency resistance 5rowin5 it is -likely Seabrook Unit 2 will be substantially delayed.

The central point of the contention is that Fetitioner's health, safety, and economic interests are injured by cremitting an opera-ting license for a 22% coupleted plant. The basis for this is that

_e_  :

with 78% of the olant on. paper the Board cannot adecuately [

control the outcome of the plant's systems and hence ouera- E tion sufficiently to protect Petitioner's interests. In f e

carticular, the followin.g systems are not comoleted or even =

n installed in part: Eigh Pressure Core Injection, High Pressure ~

Core Soray, Low Pressure Core In.jection, Low Pressure Core I Spray, Pre.ssuricer, Standby Licuid Control System, Containment e Spray, Residual Heat Removal System, Reactor Coolant Leak h Detection, ESF Secuencer and Make-Up System (CVCS). $

The. Code of Federal Regulations provision, 10 CFR 50.57(a)(1) $

recuires construction substantially completed for an operating b license to be Branted. An operating license hearina has never 5 e

been held when there was a single plant to be licensed less than or equal to 22% constructed.

{

Yet, Seabrook Unit 2 must obtain y 2n operatinE license for itself alone, a single license is not

=:

granted for two reactors. E t

The code orovision must be granted respect. It states, g

" construction" of the facility cust be substantially completed 5 e

before an operating license may be issued. Significantl7 it is y is in a section, " issuance of an operating license". The fact @:_

another plant on the same site may be substantially constructed j{

may not enter into this determination in a cuantitative way. {_

The word " substantial" in 10 C.F.R. 50 57(a)(t) means here j@

some measure of real value toward construction of the olant. Os

=-

Construction means the actual final hardware of the olant estab-E Em lished in systems as they will be when the clant ooerates at 50 maximum rated power. The Board's ultimate determination is whether or not the Seabrook Uni.t 2, with its construction sub-stan'tially completed may be operated without undue risk to the

}f 5E eublic health and safety. The Applicants urge that with 22% of h the olant completed the rest must follow exactly as planned so E5 that the Board can ignore th'e oossiblity of any. changes due to lb regulations, conctruction error not corrected for any reason, jh or unavailability of materials. To do as Acolicants urge would 51 be to deorive this Petitioner of the benefits of the Code pro- b vision which is to insure his health, safety, and economic j[

interests. M

=

.5.

1E

=

y .

=

jj

,?!

.=

Justification for 2.714(a)(1)(i) late filine of this Contention under 10 CFR

- (v).

5 j$ As this Petition is filed after the period for filing jf Petitions for Leave to Intervene, Petitioner offers the fol-lowing information as an explaination for the late date of 3 -

5 the Petition; followin6 the secuence of factors in 10 CFR 2.744(a)('

h (i) Good cause for failure to file on time.

3 This Petitioner possessed no standing to Petition for In-j tervention prior to June 23, 1983, the date he moved his belongings into his current residence. For three weeks j -

nrior to this address he had no fixed abode, and prior to E June 1,1983, he lived 1,800 miles from his now permanent c address.

j On August 26, 1983, Petitioner nresented a limited i

anpearance statement under 10 CFR 2.715(a) at Dover, New Hamnshire, before a majority of the Board, presenting this issue, requesting Board action. The Board took none, j evidently not being emoowered to do so. At the beginning

{

of the ceriod between June 23, 1933, and Au ust 26, 1993, this Petitioner-had believed that due to decreased demand and lack of construction, Seabrook Unit 2 would not be nominated for a license to operate soon. Indeed, when the July 15, 1983 Federal Resister notice of hearing wns found on approximately July 29, 1983, this Petitioner was sur-prised simply because a plant substantially uncompleted l

did not seem likely to be up for licensing at this time because of 10 CFR 50 57 (a)(1) which Petitioner knew.

While this.?etitioner knew Nuclear Safety had given a

! pletion date.of.1984 for Seabrook Unit'2 in its Vol. 22, No. 5 at pg. 689 and Vol. 23, No. 6, at pg. 764, this date appeared outdated.

Dates 5i ven for the South Texas Nuclear Pro.iect for completion were clearly outdated in

~

the aforementioned volumes.which Petitioner knew for cer-tain sin.ce the STN? was relevant to the Allens Creek uro-ceeding in which Petitioner was a party. Also, the dates in Nuclear Safety were in conflict with those in an Atomic Industrial Forum News Release oublished in the Fall 1981, e

y The Inerev Directory, Published by EIC, on p. 139.. (Ixhibit 3)

This was obtained from a library reference area at the University of Houston, but Petitioner has not located it in the Boston area.

This Petitioner did not form a plan to return to Boston, where he had resided from 1960 to 1977, until Anril of 1983 Petitioner urEes there was Eood cause for this Petitioner to believe a largely incomplete plant would not be seeking an operatin5 license in August of 1983 The August, 1979 Huclear News (p. S2) stated

.Seabrook Unit 2 was 3% complete. Th'ui,' the ambiguity of the completion dates, plus the wording of 10 CFR 50 57(a)(1) combined to dis-alert this Petitioner, and Petitioner would submit this justifies an aporoximate two month delay in filin5 this*?etition for Leave to Intervene.

(ii) Availability of other means to urotect Petitioner's interest Commission rule permit petitions for hearings on amend-ments to operatin5 licenses. However, this is not sufficient to protect the interests of Petitioner. Petitioner would be forced into a state of perpetual readiness; to be on constant lookout for amendment announcements for a period clausibly twenty years in length. This is a greater recuirement than bein5 alert to the announcement the Applicant's are now seeking and operating license. Amendments with hearing oppor-tunities will not occur for every change in the plant, either olanned or accidental. The Ehreshold to have a hearing on an amendment is not that of a Contention in an Operating License hearing as it would have to be for there to be available other means to urotect this Petitioner's interests under these rules.

~

! The hearing on amendments procedure does not permit a comprehen- '

sive examination of the plant as constructed, however, and it is this that Petitioner urges is needed to protect' his interests.

At least in part, this is because over the years a tradition of l - careful scrutiny has developed for Operating License Boards over the years. ,

(iii) The extent to which the netitioner's nartici'ation mav l

reasonab17 be exoected to assist in develominz a sound l

record.

Petitioner particitated in all chases of the Allens Creek

V , .- -?-

construction termit proceedings from 1978 to 1982.

The issue here raised goes to the soundness of one of the two licensings under consideration. If the Seabrook Unit 2 license is eranted, the record will be improved by a consideration by the Board of what effect, if any, licensing a clant 22fs complete and faced with financial uncertainties likely to stretch total construction time,,can have on the health, safety, and economic interests of the public. In view of the language of 10 CFR 50.57(a)(1), evidence taken on this contention would strengthen the record.

(iv)'The extent to which the cetitioner's interest will be reoresented by existine carties. '

Petitioner is unaware the existing parties will pre-sent or otherwise raise this issue in the proceeding.

It is not among the contention list :- , in the Board's Order following the pre-hearing conference (s).

(v) The extent to which the cetitioner's carticitation will broaden the issues or delay the Droceedine.

Participation of any Petitioner broadens the issues and delays the traceedings, so the question must be, by how much will these occur. ,At stake is a single issue effec-ting one of the two li6ensings. It can be exoected the Anplicants will cresent alengthy def_ense against the con-tention, but the Staff, much less, because the Staff's.

commitment is not normally to this type of issue. Indeed,.

~

Staff may conceivably side with Petitioner. However, the issue of compliance with the rules of_the Commission is a vital asnect of the regulatory process, so the Board should hear the issue, and not refuse to hear it because it is unworthy of the time required, as it might with a low prob-ability ace'ident secuence,':for example.

O O

+

= . __

Conclusion For the reasons above, Petitioner therefore prays the Board admit his Contention #1 to the proceeding with Petitioner as a party as ner 10 C.F.R. 2 714(g). O e i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 Copies of " JOHN ?. DOHERTY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO .'

INTERVEITE" were served on th (parties below by First Class  :

U. S. Postal Service, thi 4( 1983, from Boston, Mass. [

Helen F. Hoyt, Esc. i Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judre Dr. Emmeth Luebke Administrative Judge 1 E Administrative Judge / l Roy F. Lessey Esq. r.

Nuclear Re=ulatory Commission 2!

Thomas Dignan,, Esq.

Docketing & Service Applicants 2/  !

Nuclear Regulatory Con =ission  !

5 William S. Jordan, Esq. Robert A. Backus, Esq Seacoast Anti-Pollu-b .e.

New England Coalition on Nuclear E Pollution E..

=

=

w.-

e

.4 n.

i (j i -  ?

~

=.

a:

1/

. . ..~...

==

m

- All members Licensing of theU.

Board, Board S. U.were R. C., served at " Atomic Safety & n Washington D. C. b p

/ 205'5" 5

E.

Attorney Legal LesseyU.

Director, was S. served N. R. C., at the " Office of the Executive ta if Washincton D.-C. 20955" 2!  !!!!.

m Attorney Dignan Boston, Mass. was served at Ropes & Gray, 225 Franklin St.,

02110. 5

.=

.:=

N*

==

g..

e7

t:t:r W

.:=

5^

.T.:.k 5$

bk

==

EXm8ir A

.. m Sk.epticum h:wmn m,-

g%;N$s%g,nWvg W f%w

.i g~ gg$,gg y w voiced over gf g ra @a n Seabrook 2 g ~

ESEABROOK y1  ! im Wg MM.4 ya g uqc; Continued from Page 65 r

y(t} [  ! ~

1- r i

] l4 -[5 a  % h. i

• i.2 does not directly regniate electric b En_ _  ; e  :

companies, but it represents the p eM -

thinking of. Gov. Joseph Brennan . g., p[* 3 n,N ,g.asm

• l.-

-"h and likely will be reflected in delib- -

c . . _  :., - " , ,

crations by regulators. e

' d.M

-

• 5'

-;. w -- aNA.-nf! '

According to the latest tally, at %; + "',4.__._. - . ~ .mm? Mfh:=weh-m . .-., :- .- sspb ;.: - :.3..rg.,--nu least eight of Seabrook's 16 owners , .

- - ~- are seeking to delay the project. or ,,

ygqqf g#, ,. m. ggy sell off part of their holdings. In ~ ...

.___u . - _ - f .- -

. e-~~

some cases, the utilities have taken g . .

.,,, g i A_: u. . ~. --

those actions on their own. while g  ;- M.

7-: , , . . q e, , . g ,.

., , l ;. A #

' in others they are under the order  ;

of utility commissioners. In neither a M %. -i'3 F'i -1 74.i,,.

J c-N~.h. r Tijf7 'EN;h. , ;J

---*y -..NEQ'IN@t*L.a:tdd'7?

. e fc

-*f_*_"

case is there a market for Seabrook shares. N'.*T]

sn -

r..w5 lfs N @% g w_sa - - -

, .M Regulation the bane of Seabr'ook ~~

"These are not positive develop- .1

] '

ments. They don't make things P N g

easier for us, but it doesn't change our belief customers will be better ,W_wqe.gegm-L., ~ _. , -_

'off if we can complete Seabrook 'l ansc~ w. C _- ;_ _ 2'~ r and 2 as soon as posible. Nicholas gM4DastC"*

• Ashooh, spokesman for Seabrook's , , - 1---

n, .-

u -

major builder. Public Service Co. of ~ . -

a New Hampshire responded in an n-

_ _ _ q i ,g __h .

interview._ Unit 1, which even crit: ~ +-- r -M =

ics conede wth crocabtv be fin- Nuclear power plant at Seabrook. N.H. Q_ E . -

,.}

jshed. ts ~/9 Dercent built and the otost photo av JostPM DfNNEHY second reactor is 22.5 percent com. g, plete. During the hearings w c. , ._

brook's sponsors are expec. Sea.. and repeated delays in start-up defegd their estimates that inted to times. In addition, some cited:-Ge a nu-Ashooh acknowledges Seabrook clear accident the seacoast around recent stabilization in the price'of 2 is taking its knocks in state regu- Sea 6 rook could be evacuated ino!!. sixwhich makes new nucleagen-eration no bargain. e.

latory circles. " Regulation has al- hours and five minutes on a sunny ways been the bane of Seabrook, summer weekend when the beach .

e gs. PadOg.D-from day one . . ." he said. Earlier is crowded with tourists. The esti- chairman of the Massachusetti in the project. Intervention came matejumps to 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> and 15 min- y a mmission@@

from the federallevel. he said. "but utes in bad weather' g to increasingly diminwhed now it seems we're seeing more ac. support for Seabr ,t 2. "I thldk tivity on the regional level." @.* 28 @c M that everyone realu. ; the pro,tiat:ft-The New England Coalition on ity of completion is lower novrgn Still. federal scrutiny of Sea. Nuclear Pollution, the Seacoast it was. ' he said.

brook continues. Last week, the Anti Pollution teague and the state Maine Utility Comr. R$@~

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's of Massachusetts all questiop the Gelder added: "As events patg Atomic Safety and Licensing Board . adequacy of Public Service Co. s more commissions have becem(e -

gathered in Dover and Exeter for evacuation estimates. They are more certain that Seabrook 21Di61

- the first round of hearings on parties to the case, along with New for their companies . To the ei-

'~

whether Se'abrook should be grant. Hampshire (which has doubts tent that adds up. It makes the ed an operating !! cense;It is a high- about notification of the state dur- likelihood of Seabrook 2's being stakes proceeding' If the NRC Ing an accident) and Maine, an in- completed more uncertain." He should deny the license and the terested observer. The borders of said that in Maine, commissicy.rT courts should uphold the denfa!. both Maine and Massachusetts are skepticism about Seabrook intensi-the owners of Seabrook would be near Seabrook. fled about one year ago.

out their investment, which totals -.

S2,1 billion to date.

But the issues to be addressed in

_ , the NRC hearings, primarily emer- with the biggest stake in Sea- l brook's future. Comr. Vincent laco-But Seabrook's backers can concerns stay regulators voicedgency planning. are far from the ] ~ pin take comfort in the knowledge the i NRC has never denied a plant an last week. They worried about the regulatory opintod has turned  !

operating license. The decision is increased cost of the plant, the against Seabrook 2. "I dcn't know I strain it has pta__o.n. .the utti!Ues try- mmmu if it's a- trend." n "' he ' said of cther  !

' ummummam

'HD E

- 95o) 9 m

""" q ur g  !

p y *'s A a O'2 m" C .

1 t

wem TEM?M[.WTWfiTilik w2-we+2= _.-#

. Pe Rhe A c

B EMF

,. - #3

-.~!HMiinbmemem-mes g- umme a:Iev u .N u a 00 m m - = r m

.-mma w -

f,s%g_ --

_ M

'_gkyy

q:k .:

n

=

e.xHistr E J: '

E

.m 3 s  !,

i .

y ai Q gia HEREE sipMi-? w; EWi E lapIE !

5 ym

_ = g_ $j pl1 i'3EE h .,

wy; -a. _

_g l

lbO '$

$-- -- n a

~. . : 7wx g ingm.w..x .wrsta.u,5::. . u.a. m,.w+sms3; L.3

q. ,;' M g w... r & & t; & w < . '.: W - n T p.v.< nt w c:Fy c

-y,p c ' - * .:.. .

x. ... ... . .

, 1:; . ;*:: ~,; - +'~;;i,, ,,. ' . '~ ., _~u.. - . ..:. ..x,;f, _ T - ':g, _ ;. .:q -,'...

-* _. _s. w..,]*j

. . . . - ~- .

.x y -

~

,. . ..  ?"^ )m :I-:!- ?.T ,? 'b. Yf.- .  ?'hh'.' . ' ~

• t' YY ' '-

I

T& % ~ M nE % % .2$ y~'?:T-5c.i.- B M M ? :- T .

'5kjggguggiigs%Bgge-s ,iF g J +=.s55*

a 26 " W g g[, __

s m 2 b == / r  ;  ; w m m2 RR S4MRRh a rN'"-- h g; g A w- y;!sa g, ima. :7 '" A g h__ _

~~

o

.  % Ne tear Utilities (confd)

1. . N;t Ci m m'l Stit) and Utility Plant Location M W3 Type /M fr. Optratiin WISCONSIN 3airyland Power Coop. Lacrosse . Genos 50 8WR/AC 11/69 Wisconsin Electree Power Co. Point Beach 1 Two Creeks 497 PWR/W Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 12/70 Point Beech 2 Two Creeks 497 PWR/W 10/72 Wisconsin Public Service Corp. Kewounee Cartton Township 535 PW R/W 6/74 IWisconsin howor and Light Co., .

Medison Gee and Electric Co.)

EXHirerr B OPERATING LICENSE ISSUED FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1981 Not

"%nt Location M We Type /Mir. Utility

//. tham McGuere 1* Cowans Ford. NC 1.180 PWR/W Duke Power Co

-Received full-power operating 1. cense only.

tf .- /l b ?s

/ .

A4h4%f' /d% V i C]'.f

.i PROJECTS DELAYED FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1981 Not Delayed Total -

Slaxt ' Location - MWe Type /M f r. Utility From To Months

'Jtens Creek 1 (O) Wallis. TX 1.200 BWR/GE Houston Ughting & Power Co. 2/88 0/91 34 Stack Fra 1 (LWA) Inola. OK 1.150 BWR/GE Public Service Co.of Oklahoma 7/85 7/91 72 llack Fra 2 (LWA) inota. OK 1.150 BWR/GE Puolic Service Co. of Oklahoma 7/88 7/94 72 lallaw:y 2 (C) Cattaway County, MO 1.150 PWR/W , Union Electnc Co. 4/88 4,90 24 Jarroll County 1 (0) Savanne.ll 1.120 PWR/W Commonwealth Edison Co. 10'92 *

!arrott County 2 (0) Savanna. lL 1.120 PWR/W Commonwealth Edison Co. 10/93

• Cherokee County. SC *

herokee 1 (C) 1.280 PWR/CE Duke Power Co 1/90 -

l 1her;kee 2 (C) Cherokee County. SC 1.280 PWR/CE Duke Power Co. 1,92

• i eSalle 1 (C) Seneca.ll 1.078 BWR/GE Commonwealth Edison Co. 6/81 4/82 10

. aSalle 2 (Cl Seneca. !L 1.078 BWR/GE Commonwealth Edison Co. 6/82 12/82 6 amenck 2 (C) Limerick Township. PA 1.055 BWR/GE Pheladelphia Electnc Co. 4,87 10/87 6 ian Onofra 2 (C) San Clemente. CA 1.100 PWR/CE Southern California Edison Co. 12/81 6/82 6 l ' ionCacfceAIC) San Clemente. C A 1.100 PWR/CE Southem California Edison Co. 2/83 7/83 5

a4e

.**ebrook 1C*

w 2(Q.l.

Seabrook, NH 1.150 PWR/W _Pubhc Service Co. of New Hampshere 0/83 2/84 14 Seabrook NH 1.150 PWR/W Public Service Co. of New Hampshirs 0/85 5/86 17

, / rgil C. Summer 1 (C) Parr SC 900 PWR/W South Carolina Electnc & Gas Co. 6/81 6/82 12 l ;usowehanna 1 (C) Berwick PA 1.050 BWRIGE Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. 5/82 5/83 12

, ,ascuehanna 2 (C) Berwick. PA 1.050 8WR/GE Pennsylvania Power & Light Co 5/83  !!BA 12

.Jatts Bar 1 (C) Spring City. TN 1.177 PWR/W Tennessee Valley Authonty 11/82 1/84 26 Natts 8ar 2 (C) Spring City. TN 1.177 PWR/W Tennessee Valley Authonty 8/83 10/84 14 VPPSS 1 (C) thchland. WA 1.267 PWR/8&W Washington Pubhc Power Supply System 2e86 6/86 4 VPPSS 2 (C) Richland. WA t.093 BWR/GE Washington Public Fower Supply System 9<83 2/84 5

.VPPSS 3 (C) Satsop. WA 1.240 PWR/CE Washington Public Power Suppiy Synsm 9/86 12/86 3

--tPPSS 4 (C) R chland. WA 1.267 PWR/8&W Washington Publ c Power Supply System 2/87 6,87 4

! VPPS 5 (C) Satsop. WA 1.240 PWR/CE Washington Pubhc Power Supply Svstem 9/87 12/87 3 7

• stal. 25 reactors = 28.622 MWe' 139