ML20151G583

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Informs Commission That Massachusetts Atty General (Mag) Disagrees W/Aslab Memorandum & Order Re Mag Financial Qualification Petition.Believes Aslab Decision Narrowly Grounded & Urges Commission to Adopt Broader Reasoning
ML20151G583
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 07/19/1988
From: Jonas S
MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To: Carr K, Roberts T, Zech L
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#388-6773 OL-1, NUDOCS 8807290024
Download: ML20151G583 (2)


Text

(J(,77a one m Nuunta" g3/gy_a- t k b THE COMMONWEALTH OF massa'd>10BEWs r - -

3 'E 9 . DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL I

i JOHN W. McCoRMACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING 4

s

'.2 oNE ASHBURToN PLACE. BOSTON 02108-1698 JAMES M. SHANNoN 18 JL 22 A11:50 ATTORNE v GENE A AL July 19, 1988

("f f {Q Ui 5 ( ' . I t. i s. h (

u0CKEI M 4 M !(1, 5 RANCH Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas-M. Roberts Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C. Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street Washington, DC 20555 Re: Massachusetts Attorney General's Financial Qualifications petition

Dear Commissioners:

On July 5, 1988, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board certified to the Commission the Massachusetts Attorney General's petition regarding the financial qualifications of the Seabrook joint owners. In doing so the Appeal Board denied the petitions of the other Intervenors in the Seabrook case.

On July 12, 1988, those Intervenors, the Seacoast Anti-pollution League, the Town of Hampton and the New England Coalition on Nuclear pollution appealed that denial to the Commission.

The purpose of this letter is to inform the Commission that while the Massachusetts Attorney General is not appealing the decision of the Appeal Board, because his petition was certified, he does have disagreements with the Appeal Board's Memorandum and Order. As pointed out in the Attorney General's original petition and reiterated in the joint Intervenors' appeal, we believe that the purpose of the Commission's public utility exemption from the financial qualifications rule was to eliminate unnecessary review of financial qualifications on a case-by-case basis in light of the generic finding that the state rulemaking process would assure the availability of sufficient funds for operation and decommissioning. That purpose no longer applies to pSNH because New Hampshire law forbids the recovery from ratepayers of the costs associated with a plant not yet in operation and because the availability 8807290024 880719 I PDR ADOCK 05000443 l C PDR

' l 1

h

.i f

July 19, 1988 Page Two of funds to PSNH is within the control of the Bankruptcy Court, not the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission. Instead of relying on those good and sufficient. reasons for certifying the petition, the Appeal Board based its ruling on the decision of the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company to cease its monthly payments for Seabrook and to remove itself from the Seabrook project. We believe that the Appeal Board's-decision was too narrowly grounded and to that extent was inconsistent with 10 C.F.R. S 2.758. Therefore, we urge the Commission to adopt the broader reasoning, to grant all of the petitions before the Appeal Board, and to require the Applicants to demonstrate that they are financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by an operating license.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours, 49' /'

S phen . Jonas Deputy Bureau Chief public Protection Bureau (617) 727-2000 SAJ/BT cc: Seabrook Service List

- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _