ML20150F935
| ML20150F935 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1988 |
| From: | Lewald G PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6013 OL-1, NUDOCS 8804060088 | |
| Download: ML20150F935 (25) | |
Text
c.
:/,,.6/3 DOCKETED USNRC March 29, 1988
'88 APR -4 P4 :06 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFICE Of ;; cgg,.;v Dmit 6 7 ;,,,.;g; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
On-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO BRIEF OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE REGARDING FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION RULE 0904060088 080329 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
PDR 050.3
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace Introduction.
1 2
Argument A.
Intervenors' "Petition" Sounds in Rule Making Rather Than in,an A,djudicatory Proceeding 2
B.
Assuming Intervenors Are Entitled To Petition Under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.750 They Mave Failed To Satisfy The Requisites Of That Section.
7 Conclusion 18
=.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Administrative Decisions:
Pane Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), LBP-84-30, 20 NRC 426, 433 n.7.
(1984) 17 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-653, 16 NRC 55, 72 (1981) 9 Public Service Companv of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-758, 19 NRC 7 (1984) 4 Public Service Company of New Hampshirs (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-865, 25 NRC 430 (1987) 8 Memorandum and Order (January 29, 1988) 2, 3,
8 Memorandum and Order (November 25, 1987) 4 Memorandum and Order (August 20, 1987) 8, 14, 15 Statutes:
11 U.S.C. 5 1129(a)(6) 12 Reculations:
10 C.F.R. 5 2.104 (c) (4) 3 2-4, 8
10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758(a) 7 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758(b) 5, 7-9, 18 5,
7 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758(c) 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 (e) 5
-lii-
Pace 10 C.F.R. 5 50.33 4
10 C.F.R. 5 50.33 (f) 3, 10 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57 4
3, 10 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(a) (4) 49 Fed. Reg. 13044 (April 2, 1984) 6, 10 49 Fed. Reg. 35747 (September 12, 1984) 6, 10 t
-iv-2
March 29, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
On-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' REPLY TO BRIEF OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE REGARDING FINANCI AL OUALIFICATION RULE Introduction On August 20, 1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board denied the petition of intervenors Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP), and Town of Hampton (TOH) (collectively referred to hereinafter as Intervenors) to waive the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's financial qualification rule.
Intervenors' appeal from that decision was briefed and argued by the parties before this Appeal Board.
On January 28, 1988, Applicants informed this Board while the appeal was sub -
iudice that Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) had filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
On January 29, 1988, this Board issued a Memorandum and Order allowing Intervenors to amend their oriainal notition, or t.2 file a new one pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758, in a further attempt to establish a prima facie case that the application of the Commission's financial qualification rule with resoect to las power operation would not serve the purposes for which it was adopted.
(Emphases added.)
Id. at 3.
The Board cautioned the parties to comply fully with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 and other applicable Rules of Practice.
The Board also urged all parties to read carefully the December 28, 1987 transcript of the oral argument on the intervenors' appeals in preparing their respective filings.
Id. at 2.
Instead of a new or amended petition, Intervenors' pleading is in the form of a brief filed on February 23, 1988 (Int. Brief).
The Brief is not even directed at the issue delineated by this Appeal Board, i.e., the need for a suspension of the financial qualification rule vis-a-vis 12E cower coeration.
Rather it is directed at full power operation.
Int. Brief at 2.
Applicants herein respond against this backdrop. - _ _ _ _
~
Arcument A.
Int e rv enors ' "Petition" Sounds in R.ule Makina Rather Than in an Adiudicatory Proceedina.
Intervenors' brief of February 23, 1988 does not specify which regulations it would have the Commission waive; Intervenors' original petition of July 31, 1987 specifies only 10 C.F.R. 5 5 50.33(f) and 50.57(a) (4) "To The Extent Necessary To Require Applicants To Demonstrate Financial Qualifications To Operate And To Decommission Seabrook l and indeed Station."
Despite suggestions of the NRC staff of this Board 2 that a waiver of 5 2.104 (c) (4) 3 would be required before the On-site Licensing Board could consider Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Seabrook, intervenors have held back and have shown no disposition to add 5 2.104 (c) (4) to their petition.
Intervenors advanced their 2.758 petition in the context of a Motion (July 31, 1987) simultaneously filed with the Commission, For Leave To File A Supplement To Intervenors' Application For A Stay Of Licensing Board Order Authorizing Operation Up To Five Percent Of Rated Power.
The stay 1
NRC Staff's Resoonse to Intervonors' Petition to Waive Reculation.
(August 17, 1987) at n.2.
2 Memorandum and Order (January 29, 1988) supra, at i n.1.
3 10 C.F.R. 5 2.104 (c) (4) provides that the "issue of financial qualification shall not be considered by the presiding officer in an operating license hearing if the applicant is an electric utility seeking a license to operate a facility of the type described in 5 50.21(b) or 5 50.22."
~
Intervenors sought was for the period pending presentation of adequate evidence by Applicants of their financial qualifications to operate and decommission seabrook Station.4 At the time Intervenors filed their stay motion and waiver petition, the On-site Licensing Board had closed the hearing J
record and had rendered a partial initial decision in which i
it decided all the issues the~n before it, none of which involved financial qualifications.
Rather than moving to reopen the record and for admission of a late-filed contention challenging financial qualifications along with their 5 2.758 petition, Intervenors chose instead to end run t
the adjudicatory hearing process, In an operating license case, it is well settled that the licensing board adjudicates only those matters in t
i controversy; the responsibility for making ultimate Part 50 l
findings as to the contents of the operating license application and issuance of an operating license is upon the Director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Public Service Company of New Haroshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 t
and 2) ALAB-758, 19 NRC 7, 10-11, n.18 (1984).
Commission financial qualification regulations 55 50.33 and 50.57, however, provide "that in the case of an electric utility applicant information sufficient to demonstrate to the l
1 4
Dismissed by Commission on November 25, 1987, 3
Memorandum and Order (Lifting The Order Staying The Director
]
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation From Authorizing Low Power r
Operation Due To The Lack Of An Emergency Plan For Massachusetts) at 8.
(November 25, 1987).
4
4 (Director) its financial qualifications need not be provided, and findings of financial qualifications are not necessary."
In light of the foregoing, Intervenors elected not to attempt to reopen the adjudicatory hearing so as to submit a late-filed financial qualifications contention, but to move directly against the Part 50 regulations themselves to remove the electric utility applicant exception, ignoring the licensing board.
Were intervenors to be successful, they need do nothing further.
Applicants would bc forced to establish their financial qualifications under new rules to the NRC Staff.
Intervenors, in electing not to contest Applicants' financial qualifications within the adjudicating hearing process, appear to have removed themselves from any relief provided for in S 2.758(b), (c) and (d) and relegated themselves to rule making petitioners.
See 5 2.758(e).
It is only a party to an adjudicatory procr eding involving initial licensing subject to subpart G of the Commission's Rules of Practice (Part 2) who may petition that a specified Commission rule or regulation be waived or an exception made for the particular proceeding under 5 2.758(u).
Not surprisingly, Intervenors' position, as taken in its February 23, 1988 brief, sounds in generic terms applicable to rule making.
What is suggested is that a bankruptcy par gg and the presence of bankruptcy uncertainties require an NRC financial qualification inquiry of applicants for a _ _ _ _ _ _ _
nuclear operating license whose financial qualifications would otherwise not be subject to question under Commission rules.
Although the commission's financial qualification rule currently in place eliminates financial qualification review and findings for electric utilities that are applying for operating licenses if the utility is a regulated utility, this does not mean that the Commission has turned its back on the subject.
When the Commission proposed the rule "Elimination of Review of Financial Qualification of Electric Utilities in Opereting License Reviews and Hearings for Nuclear Power Plants", 49 Fed. Reg. 13044, (April 2, 1984),
the Commission declared at 13046 that, By this proposed rule, the Commission does not intend to waive or relinquish its residual authority under Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to require such individual information in individual cases as may be necessary for the Commission to determine whether an application should be granted or denied or whether a license should be modified or revoked.
The Commission's declaration in this regard was reiterated upon adoption of the final rule in September of that year.
See Statement of Consideration, "Elimination of Review of Financial Qualification of Electric Utilities in Operating License Reviews and Hearings for Nuclear Power Plants", 49 Fed. Reg. 35747 at 35755 (September 12, 1984).
On this score witness, for example, NRC Staff inquiry of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) (August 17, 1987) and ____
PSNH's reply (September 3, 1987) in regard to Applicants' ability to provide financial coverage for the cost of low power operation of Seabrook, the cost of any permanent shutdown of the facility, and maintenance in a safe condition following the low power operation (Exhibits C and E respectively to Intervenors' Brief of September 24, 1987).
Thus, as a matter of procedure, the brief is deficient.
B.
Assumina Intervenors Are Entitled To Petition Under 10 C.F.R.
E 2.758 Thev Have Failed To Satisfy The Recuisites Of That Section.
Under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758(a) Commission rules cannot be challenged in an operating license hearing except as provided in 5 2.758(b).
Under 5 2.758(b) a party may petition that the application of the rule in question be waived or an exception made for the particular proceeding, upon the sole ground of a showing that special circumstances with respect to subject matter of the proceeding are such that the rule would not serve its intended purpose; subsection (b) also requires that the petition be accompanied by an affidavit that explains why the regulation would not serve its intended purpose and sets forth with particularity the special circumstances alleged to justify the waiver or exception requested.
Under 5 2.758(c), if the presiding officer determines that the petitioner has not made a prina facia showing called for by subsection (b) the matter is not to be further considered.
If on the other hand the presiding officer. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
determines that a pr.ima facio showing has been made, he is to certify the matter directly to the Commission.
Despite the opportunity afforded Intervonors by this Appeal Board in its Memorandum and Order of January 29, 1988, in light of PSNH's voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, Intervenors elected not to file a new or amended petition as such.
Instead, they filed a brief, unaccompanied by any sort of an affidavit, but to which a newspaper clipping and partial copies of transcripts are appended.
Their presence is said to show
"(PSNH) has taken the position that bankruptcy creates major uncertainties."
Int. Brief at 10.
Even if true, this conclusion is hardly dispesitive of any issue pertinent to a requisite showing required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758, as discussed infra at 12.
Despite this Appeal Board's express caution, Menorandum and Order (January 29, 1988) at 4 n.2, Intervenors have not
+
complied with any of the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.758.
Notwithstanding the requirements of 5 2.758(b), the only affidavit Intervenors submitted on this issue "in any of their petitions" was that of Dale G.
Bridenbaugh dated March 31, 1987,5 which gave the affiant's opinion of costs to 5
The Bridenbaugh Affidavit is Exhibit B to Intervenors' initial petition.
This affidavit, as noted by the Licensing Board in its August 20, 1987, Memorandum and Order (Denying Petition to Waive Regulations) "had been attached previously to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts application of April 6,
1987 for a stay of Licensing Board Order (LSP-87-10).
In ALAB-8 65, 25 NRC 430 (May 8, 1987)..
be expected from low power operation.
That affidavit does not support an argument that a financial qualification inquiry is necessary in this particular proceeding, let alone what Section 2.758(b) calls for, i.e.,
(A]n affidavit that identifies the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which application of the rule or regulation (or provision thereof) would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted, and shall set forth with particularity the special circumstances alleged to justify the waiver or exception req'uested.
Applicants have informed this Board of PSNH's filing for l
reorganization under the bankruptcy laws and Applicants believe this fact is properly before this Board.
By itself, however, the fact of the reorganization proceeding does not make a case for waiver as Intervenors contend.
In order to prevail on their petition, Intervenors must make a prima facie showing that application of the rule in question in the instant proceeding would not serve the purpose for which the rule was adopted.
It has been held in Commission case law that the crima facie standard of proof is that "[p) rima facie evidence must be legally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved."
Pacific Gas &
Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2) ALAB-653, this Appeal Board denied the Massachusetts motion as well as other motions for stay after discussing inter alla the points raised in the Bridenbaugh Affidavit.
Id. at n.6....
16 NRC 55, 72 (1981).
It would appear this Board is in accord.6 Intervonors' petition, as previously noted, seeks a waiver of two Commission regulations, SS 50.33(f) and
- 50. 57 (a) (4 ) concerning the financial qualification of electric utility applicants, to the extent these regulations exempt such applicants from h'aving to demonstrate their financial qualification to operate and decommission the facility.
The Commission's current financial qualification rule was first proposed so as to eliminate financial qualification reviews for electric utilities applying for operating licenses, if the utility were a regulated utility.
"Elimination of Review of Financial Qualification of Electric Utilities in Licensing Hearings for Nuclear Plants", 49 Fod.
Reg. 13044 supra.
The proposed rule was based on the Commissica's belief that "case-by-case" review of financial qualification for those electric utilities at the operating license stage was unnecessary due to the ability of such utilities to recover through rate-making, to a sufficient degree, the cost of construction and to conduct safe operation.
Id. at 13045.
This belief of the Commission was repeated upon adoption cf the final rule.
Id. at 35748.
6 "Does (prima facie) not mean that you have established your case in each and every element that is necessary to establish, and that unless it is rebutted that it would stand alone."
Transcript of Oral Argument at 34, December 8, 1987.
1 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Thus, in light of the foregoing, for Intervenors to prevail on their petition, they must make a prina facie showing that special circumstances exist in this proceeding, such that the applic:ation of the commission financial qualification rule vould not serve the purpose intended.
In other words, they must show that the commission's assumption that electric utility applicants will be able to recover the cost of safe opercation through rate making is unfounded with respect to Seabrook owners.
In support of their waiver position, intervencrs contend in their brief that the very fact of the bankruptcy of the lead applicant, PSNH, itself constitutes a prina facie showing that special circumstances exist in this proceeding such that the Commission's financial qualification rules would not serve the purpose for which they were adopted.
This is so, Intervenors argue, because a utility bankruptcy simply had never previously occurred, at least during the history of nuclear regulation; therefore, the Commission could not have taken a bankruptcy into account in promulgating its financial qualification rule.
Thus, the assurance of financial qualification that flowed from the rate-making process, they contend, cannot be said to exist in
\\
the case of a bankrupt utility.
Intervenors' conclusion seems to rest upon the conjectural assumption that the rate-setting process may no longer be available to PSNH.
Int. Brief at 2, 5-6.
But in.-
this connection, in their next breath, as it were, they express their belief that it is "highly unlikely that the banktuptcy judge would attempt to exercise rate-setting authority."
Int. Brief at 5 n.3.
Later, Intervenors pose the "uncertainty":
"Does the Bankruptcy Court in fact have rate-setting power at all?" and then answer:
"Most scholars think not.
See 11 U.S.C.
5 112 9 (a) (6). "
Id. at 7.
- Thus, while raising the issue, Intervenors instruct us not to expect any disturbance in rate-setting authority by virtue of PSNH's bankruptcy.
The second string to Intervenors' bow is the contention that the financial qualification rule should be waived in light of the uncertainties introduced by bankruptcy.
To this end Intervenors have appended certain materials such as a newspaper clipping and partial copies of transcripts to their brief.
These material.s do not amount to the requisi*e showing that "the local public utility commission will not allow the total cost of operating the facility to be recovered through rates."
49 Fed. Reg. 35747 (September 12, 1984) at 35751.
Indeed, Intervenors' materials do not even address this issue.
The first appendage, the newspaper clipping, carries __
l little weight.7 A newspaper clipping is hardly sufficient evidence in this setting to support a decision.8 Intervenors also appended to their brief a three-page excerpt of some 1985 testimony of a PSNH official before the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission and various pages of a transcript of attorneys' arguments before the Bankruptcy court on a discovery motion.
Intervenors append these materials to show "(PSNH) has taken the position that bankruptcy creates major uncertainties."
Int. Brief at 10.
No one could dispute the simple statement that "bankruptcy creates major uncertainties," but this does not create the crima facie case here required.
Nor does Intervonors' speculation about issues such as whether the licensing effort will continue unabated, whether various interests in the plant will be sold, whether a buyer would be financially qualified.
While these questions may be of absorbing interest to the parties, they are hardly relevant to Intervenors' petition.
7 Intervenors state they attached "newspaper accounts",
Int. Brief at 4, 3 n.2, but Applicants' copy only contains one clipping from Enerov Daily which does not support all the statements in Intervenors' footnote and certainly does not support the statements, Int. Brief at 4, concerning the qualifications of other joint owners of Seabrook.
8 Even if it were evidential, the clipping would not support a decision in Intervenors' favor since it notes that "Moody's considers these (PSNH monthly maintenance) payments likely" and "(e)ven if the company was barred by the courts from making its share of ongoing payments, Moody's believes that the share would likely be paid by other joint owners intorested in protecting their own investments."
Intervonors have utterly f ailed to make the required prima facio showing.
Drawing on the fact of bankruptcy, the best that intervenors can muster is speculation and conjecture.
Nothing has been advanced in Intervenors' Brief or its appendages to suggest that once Scabrook is licensed and "on line" that FSNH (or any successor company, if that be the result of reorganization) and the other Scabrook owners would be precluded from recovering costs so as to safely operate and maintain the plant through rate-making proceedings before the governing regulatory commission.
While the fact of bankruptcy (PSNH's Chapter 11 Reorganization Petition) is new, discussion in decided cases and in briefing the point for this Appeal Board and the Licensing Board concerning this possible event is not.9 Bankruptcy as a fait accornli was, of course, not before the Licensing Board.
However, the effect of Applicant's (PSNH) distress and possible bankruptcy were indeed put in issue and because of this considered in the Board's Memorandum and Order (August 20, 1987) from which this appeal is taken.
The Licensing Board's Memorandun and Order at 9 lists Inte rvenors ' arguments, (1) that Applicants' lead owner (PStiH)
'is on the brink of bankruptcy'...; (2) that 'if a full power license is denied' 9
NRC Staff's Response to Intervenors' Petition to Waive Reculation August 17, 1987 at 10-12; NRC Staff's ResDonse to Intervenors' Appeal of Memorandun and Order penyinc Petition to Waive Reculation (November 5, 1987) at 13 n.13. ____
Applicants will be unable to recover their costs through rate-making i
proceedings, and PSNH's potential bankruptcy therefore presents
' uncertainties' as to whether applicants will have ths ability to operate the facility at low power, shut it down permanently, and maintain it in a safe l
condition... ; (3) that the Applicants l
'may lack the tens of millions of dollars necessary 'to permanently shut down the facility and maintain it in a safe condition,' 11 a full power license is later denied'
- (4) that 'the direction of Applicants' management may be radically altered if PSNH is superseded by a bankruptcy trustee' (5) that if a' trustee is appointed, it is
' uncertain' whether he 'may decline to pursue a full power license'
- and (6) that such a trustec 'may refuse to expend additional monies' on Seabrook, and '(a) Bankruptcy Court, rather than the Applicants, may ultimately determine if additional monies will be spent on Seabrook Station....
i Intervenors urged on the Licensing Board that the 4
special circumstances as postulated in their arguments demanded that Applicants demonstrate clear evidence of their financial means to operate, and to decommission, safely.
Id.
t at 10.
The Licensing Board observed that even if it assumed
)
that special circumstances had been shown, they are wholly e
i speculative in nature and therefore the Intervenors have failed to make a crima facie showing.
Particularly, in the event of bankruptcy, the Licensing Board found:
Second, even if PSNH does file in
]
bankruptcy, there is no suggestion that other Applicant-members of the consortium are financially incapable of operating and safely maintaining the facility.
Moreover, it is a matter of speculation 1
as to whether a bankruptcy trustee would I ;
i i
I be appointed and whether he would discontinue efforts to secure a full power operating license.
Further, no i
reason has been presented suggesting that any successor to PSNH (be it a reorganized company, or an acquiring company, or a trustee in bankruptcy) would not persevere in efforts to secure a full power operating license and to put the plant into commercial operation, and there'oy recover the large investment through its inclusion in the rate base.
Finally, as observe ~d above, although barrenly speculating that it is unlikely that a full power license will be granted, the petitioners apparently do 7
not deny that, if full power is commenced, the New Hampshire PUC will authorize adequate funding for safe operation through the rate making 4
process, will permit charges against i
customers for payment into the r
decommissioning cost fund, and will allow i
costs of CWIP to be included in the rate bas 9.
Intervenors offer nothing here that would suggest these 4
Licensing Board findings ought not to stand.
f In Shoreham, the Licensing Board observed on a similar i
note that:
i In the present context of financial qualifications, there is no basis to 1
speculate even if Intervenors' most dire financial forecasts are realized, that i
the plant could not be operated in accordance with all safety requirements
)
by either a restructured LILCO or by some other entity.
This would be subject to an NRC assessment of any significant change in the entity proposing to operate
.l the Shoreham plant (e.g., LILCO in some
)
form of bankruptcy or a different utility operator) if and when such a proposed a
i change is necessitated by the outcome of 1
the State rate proceedings or other circumstances.
Indeed, based on the PSC's general position (see note 8, below), it is more speculative to assume l
< q
r i
i 1
that no entity would be permitted the rate relief to cover the costs of operation of Shoreham than it is to assume that there would be a variety of financial arrangements which would permit some qualified entity to do so.
For i
example, an entity not saddled with LILCO's present terms of debt service on construction funds could need a lesser
)
degree of rate relief than LILCO would to cover its costs.
Lona Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
LBP-84-30, 20 NRC 426, 433 n.7.
(1984).
What is clear from l
these analyses is that the prima facie showing necessary to f
gain Commission waiver attention remains the same, y11 that t
the rate-making process will be shut down to Seabrook owners (because of the bankruptcy) and, as a consequence, rate relief in the form of a return on investment, the event of a i
full power license and commercial operation cannot be had.
l Moreover, the filing made herein is bereft of any evidence of f
any kind that PSNH is not presently making its payments to t
the Seabrook Project.
Nor is there any evidence offered from
[
i which it can even be inferred that safety is being l
\\
compromised in any way at the site or that necessary i
personnel are not being paid.
In short, Intervenors ' brief, f
i even if it qualified as an amended "petition," remains as
[
j premature as the first one.
l 3
1 l
4 i
- 3 i
I i
Conclusion To the extent that Intervenors' brief be considered a waiver petition under 10 C.F.C. 2.758(b), it should be denied.
7)
)
-hc>y f 5
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
George H.
Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Aeolicants PXaE TED UM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10 MH -4 P4 :06 I, George H.
Lewald, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on March 2,,1988, I made service of the within document by mailing c f(s y,,.,
,gj'h thereof, postage prepaid to:
- gang, Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Thomas S. Moore Mr. Ed Thomas Atomic Safety and Licensing FEMA, Regicn I Appeal Panel 442 John W. McCormack Post U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office and Court House Commission Post Office Square Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02109 Administrative Judge Sheldon J.
Robert Carrigg, Chairman Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Board of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Town Office Board Panel Atlantic Avenue U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory North Hampton, NH 03861 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Judge Emmoth A.
Luebke Diano Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C.
Forster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss 5500 Friendship Boulevard Suite 430 Apartment 1923N 2001 S Street, N.W.
Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Washington, DC 20009 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee, Esquire i
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 25 Capitol Street Concord, HH 03301-6397 Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Of fice of the Executive Legal Board Panel Docket (2 copies)
Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
- F Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J.
P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire Matthew T.
Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O.
Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th F1r.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A.
Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S.
Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Mr. Peter S.
Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F.
Powers, III Mr. William S.
Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen l
Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 l
l l
-2 l
i.
3 e
Gary W.
Holmes, Esquire Richard A.
Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03B41 Concord, NH 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Silverglate, Gertner, Baker McKay, Murphy and Graham Fine, Good & Mizner 100 Main Street 88 Broad Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 s c#1) 8 db Ceorg6 H.
Lewald e I