ML20042H026
| ML20042H026 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1990 |
| From: | Nash D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| A, NUDOCS 9005170081 | |
| Download: ML20042H026 (3) | |
Text
-
l May 14, 1990 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 7
FROM:
Darrel Nash, Section Chief Policy Development and Financial Evaluation Section Policy Development and Technical Support Branch i
Program Management, Policy Development i
and Analysis Staff t
SUBJECT:
NORTHEAST UTILITIES' PLANNED PURCHASE OF PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.AND ITS SHARE OF'SEABROOK This is to inform you of the facts we have found so far and further action we will take to'get full information regarding(Northeast Utilities' (NU) purchaseof Public Ser t
I has made statements concerning its plans for a transition period for management t
changeover at Seabrook prior to actual approval of its buyout of PSNH.
Additionally, statements by NU management concerning potentiel savings of up to 30% in New Hampshire Yankee's (Seabrook's) annual operating budget have provoked NRC safety concerns not only because of a substantial reduction of expenditure of )otential safety significance, but also because of the uncertainties that suci statements can raise with employees.
Since issuing these statements NU apparently recognizes that its statements on changes to Seabrook operations were at the very least premature and may not be feasible. They understand that NRC, Seabrook joint owner, and other approvals must be obtained before the buyout can become effective.
So far, we have found the following:
MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.
There do not appear to be any imediate safety concerns at Seabrook.
The employee uncertainty there has not translated into reduced safe operations so far.
2.
NU's Executive Vice President for Engineering and Operations,
~;
John Opeka, and Ed Brown, President and CEO of PSNH's New Hampshire Yankee Division, tentatively plan to call you later this week.
According to Rich Kasich, our contact at NU, the purpose of this call is to assure you that there will be "no more surprises" regarding the transfer of ownership and that NU recognizes the need j
for NRC approval of transfer of Seabrook operating responsibility, 3.
RichKasichhasdeclinedtogiveus(orVicNerses)informationonthe proposed cuts in Seabrook's operating budget. NU and New Hampshire Yankee will be prepared to talk jointly to the staff at the public meeting tentatively scheduled for June 11. This meeting will cover organizational, budget, staffing and other aspects of the PSNH buyout as they affect Seabrook operations, j
4 9005170081 900534 PDR ADOCK 05000443 P
ppg g fo g i
ll0
'ThImas.E.Murley May 14, 1990 l
~
4 4.
Prior to this meeting, Kasich has promised to arrange a prebriefing for us at NU headquarters.
I will continue to push Kasich to arrange this prebriefing as quickly as possible.
S.
I plan to meet with the Director of Finance and the Chief Economist of the New Hampshire public Uti]ities Commission the week of May 14.
I will get from them as much ipormation as they have on the NU-pSNH buyout, perticularly as it relates to Seabrook.
I will concentrate on NU's and New Hampshire Yankee's testimony before the PVC in late Decenber and again in April as compared to recent NU statements.
i This visit should also help establish a point of contact for future exchanges of information. We will prepare a trip report with all relevant information.
ANTITRUST AND !$$UES BEFORE FERC l
1.
Although a sut,.idiary of NU, Connecticut Light & power Co., owns a small portion of Seabrook (approximately 41) underwent both construction permit and operating license antitrust reviews in t
1973 and 1986 respectively, NV was not reviewed as an entity in either review.
NU is a new owner and is subject to an antitrust review by the staff and the Department of Justice.
(This represents a different situation than tie SEC/SDG&E merger where OGC indicated that each entity had undergone an antitrust review and recommended against conducting a review for the combined new entity.)
2.
The merger must also be approved by the FERC. Although FERC's mandate and areas of concern are different from those sf the NRC, recent FERC merger reviews have addressed competitive implications.
l The principal competitive issue being addressed in the FERC AdministrativeLawJudge(ALJ)proceedingisaccesstoNU's transmission grid. Although we have not reviewed the competitive implications of the merger, we anticipate that if the NRC conducts a review of the merger, transmission access will also be the area of focus for the NRC. We could rely heavily, if not solely, on the record established in the FERC proceeding to satisfy our review mandate.
3.
The energy deficient New England area is heavily dependent Jpon imported Canadian powar. Canadian imported power for the most part flows over W 't or PSNH's transmission grid. Consequently, the combined NU/PSNH will control significant portions of the new i
power supply in the New England area. Many parties have intervened at the FERC and in an attempt to placate their concerns, NU has offered 400MW of transmission capacity in its transmission grid to power systems in New England. Two of the larger intervenors, United Illuminating and New England Power Co., have entered into settlement agreements with NU that provide for access to the NU transmission grid. Boston Edison Co., the remaining large intervening power system (representing several smaller systems as well) has not entered into a settlement agreement with NU to date.
,,, Time s E. Mu rl ey May 14, 1990 4
The FERC ALJ hearing schedule calls for e.n initial decision by the end of this calendar year and a decision by the FERC in the spring i
of 1991.
5.
Bill Lambe met with FERC staffers involved in the proceeding and have obtained the more substantive filings submitted by NU to date.
We intend to track the FERC proceeding as it progresses.
ORIO1RAL 81ohT.D BY l
Darrel Nash Section Chief i
PolicyDevelopmentandFinancialEvaluationSection Policy Development and Technical Support Branch Program Management,fPolicy Development i
and Analysis Staf iCentral' File 3[HEMO FOR T. MURLEY]
DISTRIBUTION:
PMAS: PTSB:R/F NRCPDR LPDR FG111espie MYirgilio DNash RWood WLambe i
4
, l'n
$\\
~
RR C:P5TB R :D:PMA5:NRR :
fC :P
- .V. t :
04E :DNash:ng
- MVi ilio
- F spie :
....:............:............:f4$90
\\TE : f//o/90
- 6/p/90 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.