ML20154F067

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Applicant Reply to Intervenors Motion for Acceptance of Addl Reply to Commission Order of 880714 Re ALAB-895 (Petition for Waiver of Rules Precluding Financial Qualification Inquiry).* Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20154F067
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/12/1988
From: Trout J
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#388-7089 ALAB-895, OL-1, NUDOCS 8809190238
Download: ML20154F067 (46)


Text

--

. et d'

  • DOC E ii.D U % r."

September 12, 1988

'E0 MT 16 P4 :17 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {pg . , '; y suu .

before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW KAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL-1

) On-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning and Safety

) Issues

)

APPLICANTS' REPLY TO INTERVENORS' "MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL REPLY TO COMMISSION ORDER OF JULY 14, 1988 REGARDING ALAB-895 (PETITION FOR WAIVER OF RULES PRECLUDING FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION INQUIRY)"

i Or. Angust 26, 1988, inturvancro SAPL, Tovra of Hampton, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the Mcw England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (collectively "Intervc:nors") filed with the Commission a document entitled "Motion for Acceptance of Additional Reply to Commission Order of July 14, 1988 Regarding ALAB-895 (Petition For Waiver of Rules Precluding Financial Qualification Inquiry) ." In their motion, Intervenors 4

request "to be allowed to bring to the Commission's attention . . . the attached ' Request for Financial Information' regarding Seabrook Unit 1, filed by the NRC staff under date of August 11, 1988."

$$ hb [

G

)So3

r Although Intervenor'e motion only asks for permission to submit the NRC Staff's questions to the Commission, the thrust of their pleading is devoted to an attempt by Intervenors' to psychoanalyze the Staff's motives for posing the questions, and to Intervenors' lengthy discourse on what they perceive to be the implications of what they diagnose as being the Staff's motives. Both Intervenors' diagnoses and their legal reasoning therefrom are groundless.

4 As Intervenors themselves concede on page 3 of their motion, the Staff Pss an inquiry and oversight function entirely apart frrm the adjudicatory aspects of the licensing procesu. 10 C.F.R. I 2.102(a). The Staff's August 11, 1988 "Request for Financial Information" was just one of many oversight inquiries posed during the course of licensing Seabrock Station. It followed up upon a similar inquiry of August 17, 1987, which was specifically referenced in the request. Indeed, the Staff long ago indiented that it would continue periodically to make ruch inquiries.1 Therefore Intervonors' conclusion, that the Staff's latest request for information represents a da facto chift in the Staff's 1 NRC Staff Resoonses to SAPL Response to Aeoeal Board Memorandum and Order of January 29. 1988 Recardino Financial Oualification Rule and Massachusetts Attorney General 2Ames M. Shannon's Petition Under 10 C.F.R. 4 2.758 For Waiver of or an Exceotion From the Public Utility Exemption From the Recuirements of a Demonstration of Financial Oualification at 21 n.24 (March 29, 1988).

I e

1 I

position as to whether Intervenors have made a prima facie case on financial qualification, is without foundation.

Intervenors then seem to argue that the fact that the Staff requested information in and of itself indicates that the questions are "material" within the meaning of Union of Concerned Scientists v. HEC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984),

cert. denied sub__ngs. Arkansas Power & Licht Co. v. Union of Cpncerned Scientista, 469 U.S. 1132 (1985). The assertion that any and every Staff oversight inquiry automatically triggers an adjudicatory hearing on the subject (s) of the inquiry is totally without support and completely foreign to the regulatory scheme. Hgg does not so hold.

Applicants have no objection to Intervenor's request to bring to the commission's attention the series of questions, posed by the Staff to Applicants, containod in the document profferrad by Intervenors -- provided, however, that if the Commission is to receive the questions, it should also be given the answorn.

Accordingly, and in that connection, App *icants hereby cross-move that the commission also receive Applicants responses to the Staff's "Request for Financial Information."

These responses are incorporated in NYN-88115, Letter of R.J.

Harrison to U.S. Nucluar Regulatory Commission (August 31, 1988), the text and first six enclosures to which are attached hereto as Attachment A. Enclosures 7 to 18 to NYN-e 88115, due to their bulk, are not attached hereto, but have been sent to the Staff, and are available to Intervenors in the public document room. In addition, as noted at page 9 of NYN-88115, on or before September 15, 1988, Applicants expect to file with the Staff a further response documenting contractual arrangements now in place that ensure adequate funding for the Seabrook project, including low-power operation, through at least December 31, 1989.

Respectfully submitted,

- V Th6mds G. Dignan, Jr.

George H. Lewald Jeffrey P. Trout Ropes & Cray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 pp.nn.nel for_.Aonlicants G

Robert J. Harrison

) .

{l

  • hesioent one en,ef beceve cac.

. I il Public Service of New HampeNro August 31, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Document Control Desk Re f e rence s , a) Facility Operating License NSF-56, Docket No. 50-443 b) USNRC letter dated August 1, 1988, "Financial Coverage for the Cost of Low Power Operation - Request for Additional Information" B. Boger to R. J. Harrison c) USNRC letter dated August 17, 1987, "Racent Filings by Public Service Company of New Hampshire Before the Securities and Exchange Commission",

B. A. Boger to R. J. Harrison d) PSKH letter dated September 3,1987, "Ra t Request for Financial Information", NYN-87104 in Docket No. 50-443 Re: Raquest for Additional Information Gentlemen In referen:a (b), the NRC requested clarification with regards to the applicants' sbility to provide financial coverage for the cost of low power operatioe of Seabrook and the cost of soy permanent shutdown of the facility and crintenanci in a safe conditiet,following low power operation.

Enclosed aerewith are detailed reepoases to your questions which we have prepared to the best of our ability based upon the assumptions you specified or as indicated therein. Included with these responses are copies of the Joint Owners' interim financial statements and other reports which you requested.

If you need any further information or clarification, please contact the undersigned, or Edward A. Brown, President and CEO of New Hampshire Yankee Division.

Very truly yours, 4AAAAW

. J. Harrir.on RJH:fe Enclosures cc ASLB Service List iOOO Elm St . P O. Box 330. Monchester. NH O3105 Totephone (603) oo9 4000 . TWX 7102207505

l 1

. i i

SERVICE LIST  ;

Copies of the foregoing letter and enclosures 1 through 6 are being sent by federal express to the following individuals:

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 East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Thomas S. Moore Mr. Richard Donovan Atomic Safety and Licensing FEMA, Region I Appeal Panel 442 John W. McCormack Post U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office and Court House Commission Post Office Square East West Towers Building Boston, MA 02109 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Board of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Town Office Board Panel Atlantic Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory North Hampton, UH 03862 Commission East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge 1:mmoth A. Dianu Curran, Esquiro Luebke Andrea C. Farater, Esquire 4515 Willard Avenue Harmon & Weiss Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Suite 430 2001 S Street, N.W.

I Washington, DC 20009 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814

s e

Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Office of General Counsel Selectman's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 10 Central Road Commission Rye, NH 03870 One White Flint North, 15th F1.

11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Robert A. Backus, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Backus, Meyer & Solomon Assistant Attorney General 116 Lowell Street Department of the Attorney P.O. Box 516 General Manchester, NH 03105 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fir.

Boston, MA 02108 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. Calvin A. Canney Assistant Attorney General City Manager Department of the Attorney City Hall General 126 Daniel Street Augusta, ME 04333 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Paul McEachern, Esquire R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Lagoulis, Clark, Mill-Shaines & McEachern Whilton & McGuire 25 Maplewood Avenue 79 State Street P.O. Box 360 Newburyport, MA 01950 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Peter S. Matthewn Chairman, Eoard of Selectmen Mayor RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 Newburyport, MA 01950 Kensington, NH 03827 l

  • Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. William S. Lord i

U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 Town Hall - Friend Street (Attn Tom Burack) Amesbury, MA 01913

  • Senator Gordon J. Humphrey one Eagle Square, Suite 507 concord, NH 03301 (Attn Herb Boynton)

Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Town Manager Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 i

H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire office of General Counsel Murphy and Graham Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esquire 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Newburyport, MA 01950 Due to their bulk, enclosures 7 to 18 are only being sent to the NRC Staff. The documents are available in the public document room.

  • U.S. First Class Hail r

i

J Enclosure to NYN-88115 NRC Ouestion 1:

Please provide detailed estimates of (a) the total cost to operate Seabrook Unit No. 1 at low power only (up to five percent) ; and (b) the total cost to permanently shutdown the facility after low power operation only and to maintain it in a safe condition, should that become necessary. Also provide an estimate of the cost to store and to dispose of the irradiated fuel assuming low power operation only. Describe in detail the ' assumptions underlying the estimates. Include assumptions as to power level, duration of operation, method of fuel storage and disposal and method of permanent shutdown and safe maintenance. In response to the above, the applicants (i.e., the Joint owners) should update their response to the NRC letter dated August 17, 1987. This request for information is in addition to the reporting requirements of the NRC's decommissioning rule published in the Federal Recister on June 27, 1988, (53 FR 24018).

Resconse to NRC Ouestion it sais question is substantially identical to Question 1 as set forth in the NRC letter dated August 17, 1987 referred to above and the information with resp 3ct to parts (a) and (b) of the question supplied in response to that question is still generally valid, except for the current funding ,

forecast and the monthly expenditures following a permanent shut-down decision. See PSNH letter to NRC, dated September 3, 1987, in Docket No.00-443. The current funding forecast for the period July - December, 1988 is provided in response to NRC Question No. 3 below. The current estimat6 of monthly expenditures af ter permanent shut-down is $4.8 million including $1.9 million for property taxes.

In addition, the Project has developed the costs

i I

l 1

necessary to designate the Seabrook site for completely unrestricted use af ter the shipmer.t of the fuel. After the normal decontamination process, only a limited number of components would require special disposal (other than the fuel). These components include the reactor vessel, the core internals, incore instrumentation and rod control assemblies.

The actual magnitude of the radioactivity external to the fuel would be low due to the component material and the limited power operation. Remote handling of the vessel and internals would not be required as these pieces of equipment would be classified as low level waste material.

The costs associated with the decontamination, removal, packing, shipping and burial of the rod control assemblies and the incore detectors is $250,000.00. The costs to decontaminate, remove, pack, ship and bury the reactor vessel and internals, if necessary, would be $3.8 million.

2-

I i

Egc ouestion 2:

Please provide a detailed statement of the sources of funds for covering total costs of low power operations and total costs of permanent shutdown of the facility and maintenance as a safe condition after a period of low power operations only. Indicate the assumptions underlying the projection of each source of funds.

Resoonse to NRC Ouestion 2:

Funding of Seabrook Project, for the total costs of both on-going operations and for any permanent shutdown of the facility, is the RIS rata, several responsibility of the several utilities (the "Joint Owners") which are participants under the Agreement for Joint Ownership, Construction and Operation of New Hampshire Nuclear Units, dated as of May 1, 1973, as amended (the "Joint Ownership Agreement"). The ownership Shares of these utilities are shown in Attachment

1. Pursuant to the Joint Ownership Agreement, the mechanics of establishing the level of this funding involve quarterly approvals by the Joint Owners collectively of itemized cash budgets for six months' periods on a revolving basis in accordance with the procedures set forth therein. The funding level to meet the budget forecast is subsequently determined on a monthly basis by the Joint Owners Executive Committee or the Joint Owners. Once a funding level has been established, each Joint Owner provides its Ownership Share of the budgeted operating expenses of the Seabrook Project.

Invoices are rendered as required and payments are due monthly. Each Joint owner raises such funds as part of its normal financial sources.

It has been the policy of the Seabrook Project since the summer of 1984 to maintain a positive cash balance in the Project account from which its monthly obligations are paid.

This policy was designed to assure additional flexibility should fluctuations in monthly cash requirements or delays in receipt of Joint owner payments occur. The Project account, as supplemented by the Joint owner monthly payments, is the source for meeting Seabrook Station's cash operating requirements. At January 1, 1988 the Project account had a balance of approximately $21.8 million, or about two months' cash needs.

i The implicit assumption underlying this discussion is that each Joint ownor in the final analysis will perform its legal obligations as a party to the Joint ownership Agreement l

and a licensee of the NRC. Experience has shown that routino performance of legal obligations by a Joint owner may be affected by other circumstances. Currently, two of the Joint

! Owners are in default under the Joint ownership Agreement and i one is in arrears. (See Responses to NRC Question 3, 4 and 5 for further details.) As indicated in these responses, l

drawings from the Project account and other contingency arrangements have been successfully implemented in those instances to deal with the interruptions of payments from these individual Joint Owners. As indicated in the Response to NRC Question 4 below, another contingency arrangement has been put in place to deal with the current MMWEC situation.

Another Joint owner, despite being in bankruptcy proceedings, remains current on its obligations under the Joint Ownership Agreement. (See Response to NRC Question 6). However, it should be emphasized that in all instances of failure to comply with the terms of the Joint ownership Agreement the Joint Owners reserve their rights to seek legal redress and enforcement of the terms of that agreement.

)

I

-S-

NRC Ouestion 3:

Provide copies of the latest funding forecast approved by the joint owners. Also provide copies of the funding performance for the most recent six months.

Resconse to NRC Ouestion 3:

Enclosed herewith as Attachment 2 (2 pages) is the Funding Forecast for Seabrook Station for the six months period, July through December, 1988, as approved by the Joint Owners Executive Committee. This schedule provides a breakdown by major categories of the cash expenditures anticipated during each month of that period.

Encle ed herewith is Attachment 3 (1 page) is a schedule entitled ' Uncollected Participant Funding Requests." This shows the status through August, 1988 of the two Joint Owners which are presently in d6 fault on payment of their funding obligations under the Joirat Ownership Agreement and one Joint owner in arrears.

Enclosed herewith as Attachment 4 (3 pages) is a schedule entitled "Analysis of Funding Performance: Billings

v. Funding, Year to Date 1988." The first page of this schedule chows the total billings by month and the total participant payments and supplementary advance payments received by month. The discrepancy between total billings and total receipts was funded from the balance remaining in the Project account or supplementary advance payments (see l

I Response to NRC Question 2). The second page of this schedule shows the detailed breakdown by Joint Owner of the monthly participant payments. The third page of this schedule shows the detailed breakdown of the supplementary advance paymen'ts by contributor and in May reflects the partial reirbursement of some of these advances by New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. which in that month

brought itself current again after a period of financial 1

strictures.

I l

I i

I i l

l l

[

NRC Ouestion 4:

Provide a detailed statement of the joint owners' plan for covering the 11.6 percent share of Seabrook costs that is no longer being paid by Massachusetts Mur.icipal Wholesale Electric Company (MMWEC). Identify any r.9W or prospective owner (s) or other participant (s) in the project and describe in detail the arrangements for their participation and for covering the share of costs formerly paid by MMWEC. Describe how MMWEC's share of costs will be covered by the time low power operation is authorized. (For this purpose assume that low power authorization is received after September 1, 1988.)

Resconse to NRC Ouestion 4:

On June 1, 1988 when MMWEC announced its intended "withdrawal from the Seabrook Station nuclear project", and that it would make no further payments to the Seabrook Froject and that it would seek an agreenent "to take MMWEC out of the project in a financially responsible manner", the Project account referred to above in Response to NRC Question 2 contained a positive balance in MMWEC's favor sufficient to cover MMWEC's share of the anticipated billings for the month of June and part of July. On July 13, 1988, Norther.st Utilities ("NU"), the registered holding company parent of The Connecticut Light and Power Company, one of the Joint Owners, announced that it would advance sufficient funds in lieu of the MMWEC obligation to permit the Project to meet its obligation through August, 1988. On July 20, 1988

$2,249,000 was advanced to the Project by NU, which will cover MMWEC's share to September 9, 1988.

e On August 30, 1988 NU announced that it had concluded arrangements under which it will provide further funding "for the (MMWEC) portion of the Seabrook Nuclear Project that is subject to default" through November 30, 1988 (see Attachment 5). This will permit the Project to "cover" the MMWEC share through that period.

The status of MMWEC's participation in the Project has I

(

been the subject of active negotiation for some time.

MMWEC's unilateral announcement on June 1 that it was ceasing further payments complicated these negotiations. As indicated, the short-term financial consequences of that announcement are being covered by NU's payments through November 30, 1988. In addition, The United Illuminating company has assombled investors who intend to cover the longer-term censequences of the MMWEC default. These investors will provids the Project up to $30 million of additional funds as MMWEC's payments fall due between Novenber 30, 1988 and December 31, 1989, which amount exceeds MMWEC's share of the presently estimated Project billings during that period. The contracts to document this arrangement are in preparation and expected to be completed on or before September 15, 1988. A further response which provides the requested details of these arrangements will be filed at that time.

~ _ . . . .. .. -= . - .. - .

= l i

t NRC Ouar11SD.11 Plasse identify any other joint owner (s) that is in i default, (or that is expected to be in default in the next l twelve months) or in arrears on its seabrook payments.  :

Describe the circumstances of the default (or potential l; default) or the arrearage and indicate how the unpaid share is being (or will be) covered. Describe the plan for j covetage of the share through low power operation up until j i issuance of a full power license. (For this purpose, assume

a full power license is issued i the summer, 1989.) l i I Ruscense to NRC Ouestion 51 l 4

As indicated in prior responses, there are currently two  !

t Joint Owners, other than KMWEC, which are in default or in  !

arrears on their Seabrook payments: f f

As a result of severe financial difficulties, Vermont  !

Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc.

I t (VEC&T), the owner of a 0.41259% share, ceased funding ite ,

t L sharo of the project costs in February,1986 and through '

t August, 1988 is in default for an aggregate of $2,445,811.

I VEGAT's chare of the projected costo for the next twelve l 6

months (through August, 1989) is estimated to be f

' I approximately $663,000. The deficiency resulting from j

i VEG&T's failure to pay has to date been covered by [

j l

supplementary advance payments received from others (see page t l

3 of Attachment 4) and it is anticipated that this

arrangement will continue during the next twelve months. l New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NH Coop), the owner of a 2.17391% share, is currently in arrears on its l I

i t i i

!  ! I i  !

J .. . - - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ ,_ . ,_._. _ _ _ - . _ ._.

e Seabrook payments for an aggregate of $196,925. This amount has been accumulating since February,1986 as the result of an on-going dispute with respect to certain project costs for public information expenditures. During that same period NH Coop paid the balance of its billings which amounted to approximately $5.3 million. Negotiations are continuing between the Project ar.d NH Corp to resolve the arrearage.

I j These expenditures are being paid out of NH Coop's portion of i the cash balance in the Project account remaining from earlier advance payments received from NH Coop.

l l

i

)

i j

NRC Ouestion 6:

Describe the ef fect of bankruptcy on PSNH's ability to cover its share of Seabrook costs both currently and through a period of low power operation. Please summarize any pronouncements of the Bankruptcy Court that af fect PSNH's ability to pay its total share of seabrook costs both currently and through low power operation up until issuance of a full power license. Indicate if PSNH is up-to-date on payment of its share of costs to the project and explain how PSNH expects to continue to be up-to-date on its payments

) through low power operation up until issuance of a full power license. (For these purposes, assume a full power license is issued in the summer 1989.)

j ResDonse to NRC Ouestion 6:

The bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 11 was initiated by PSNH on January 28, 1988. Since that date, PSNH has operated its business as debtor in pcssession. The pre-1 I commercial activities of Seabrook Station have continued without interruption. But for tha delays in payment of PSNH's share of some prepetition indebtedness, there nas been no delinquency in meeting the Project's payment obligations.

PSNH has ret each Project hill on time and in full since the filing dato and is currently up-to-date on its payments due to the Project. PSNH expects to continue to uset its j Seabrook obligations through low power operation up until l issuance of a full power license from the revenues generated by its on-going utility operations. PSNH's not revenues have, in fact, increased since the bankruptcy filing and are i

expected to be more than adequate to meet PSNH's share of the I

4 4

I i

obligations enumerated in Response to NRC Question 1 above.

Any effect the bankruptcy proceeding itself has had on PSNH's ability to cover its share of Seabrook costs has been ,

positive, and it is anticipated that this will continue in [

the future, in*cluding during low power testing. Filing the bankruptcy petition in ef fect "froze" payment of many prepetition debts, thus keeping funds available to meet Seabrook costs and the bankruptcy court will allow PSNH to emerge from bankruptcy only under a plan which provides means to satisfy all PSNH obligations, including those related to Seabrook, on a going forward basis. While it is possible  ;

that creditors or other parties involved in the proceeding may attempt to use the Bankruptcy Court as a forum to smaail continued funding or los power testing, such action would fsee substantial legal hurdles and determined resistance by  !

PSNH and the other Joint Owners. PSNH believes that such action weuld have a low chance of success. l Actions and pronouncements of the Bankruptcy court havo been consisteritly encouraging in this regard. For example, f r

as alluded to above, on June 3 the Court allowed PSNH to use j monies contributed propetition to pay its share of vendor -

l costs and ordered the bank holding deposits of Project funds j i

to release all such monies contributed by PSNH. On June 9, the Court rejected the claim of certain creditors for payments during the bankruptcy that may, as a practical i

h matter, have impinged PSNH's ability to continue funding.

I Very early in the case, the Court rejected proposals for open-ended discovery and in-court evidentiary proceedings l

l regarding Seabrook. In addition, the Court has granted PSNH additional time to attempt to negotiate its way out of bankruptcy, thereby refusing to allow other parties the chance to force a reorganization that did not includa continued funding.

The Etakruptcy court has also indicated that it does not l see itself 2s the forum in which determinations about whether or when Seabrook should go forward should be made. At the June 9 hearing referred to above, the Court stated that "if Seabrook is lost, it is not lost because of uncertainties or attrition or myths or anything else relating to confusion about what is going on in the Bankruptcy Court, but it is lost because of those things that are the bailiwick of these other agencies that protect public health and safety. That, I think, is vital here." Transcript, June 9, 1988 l

pp. 143-144. Cf. Order Denying the Third Mortgagees' Motion for Adequate Protection, dated July 20, 1988, footnote on I page 9, (see Attachnent 6).

l

NRC Ouestion 7;

'escribe the status of efforts to spin off New Hampshire Yanks Electric Corporation as an independent company.

Explair any efforts on responses to the above question if the reorganization were to be accomplished.

Renconse to NRC Ouestion 7:

In the summer of 1984 the Joint Owners decided to create l a new corporate entity which would be owned by them and which l would become their managing agent under the Joint Ownership

Agreement with responsibility for completing and operating Seabrook Station. Pending receipt of the regulatory approvals needed for such a reLtructuring, these functions of managing agent were to be, and have been, performed on an interim basis by the establishment at that time of New l

Hampshire Yankee Division (NHYD) of Public Service Company of 1

New Hampshire (PSNH). This interim function of NHYD and the I subsequent transition to NHYEC was fully disclosed to the Commission at a meeting on August 9, 1984 and subsequently i

l confirmed in writing. See "Summary of Management Meeting 1

l between PSNH and NRC" issued by the NRC on August 16, 1984 in 1

I Docket No. 50-443 and PSNH Letter to NRC, dated August 31, 1984, SBN-707 in Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444.

As explained at that time, the purpose of the management restructuring is to create a management organization for l

Seabrook Station which is independent and not directly 1

l j

affected by the financial or political pressures affecting PSNH. A primary consideration is the transfer of all operating personnel from their present status as employees of PSNH to become employees of the new entity. The restructuring would in no way modify the existing financial support for the project as evidenced by the commitments of the Joint Owners under the Joint Ownership Agreement.

Implementation of this new structure was immediately started. A New Hampshire corporation, New Hampshire Yankee Electric Corporation (NHYEC), was organized for that purpose.

Regulatory approval for the organization of NHYEC and for the sale of its stock to the Joint Owners in proportion to their ownership Shares of Seabrook Station was obtained from the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission in October, 1984 and June, 1985, respectively. Proceedings for other required regulatory approvals were initiated before the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (Mass DPU) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Since the Mass DPU has failed te date to take any action on the proceeding before it, the Joint Owners have recently revised their approach. It is now contemplated that, after receipt of the requisite SEC appreval, those Joint Owners which are not subject to Mass DPU jurisdiction will acquire stock of NHYEC, permitting NHYEC to commence business operations and that the Massachusetts Joint Owners will 2

. l I

subsequently acquire NHYEC stock if and when Massachusetts DPU approval is received. When NHYEC is authorized to conduct business, the Joint Owners and NHYEC will file an l

operating license amendment application with the NRC for approval of the actual transition of renponsibilities from NHYD to NYHEC. This license amendment would document that all functions now being performed by NHYD would be transferred to NHYEC. NHYEC would be designated as a '

licensee of Seabrook Station "technically qualified" to operate the unit. The personnel of NHYD vould be transferred I

to NHYEC, but their organizational structure would not change. The amendment would in no way alter the obligations, the ownership interests, or the assets of the existing twelve Joint Owners as NRC licensees.

L I

On August 3, 1988 an amended application was filed with [

l l

the SEC describing this revised approach and requesting SEC l approval of the NHYEC stock acquisition by those Joint Owners subject to the Public Ut;t.cy Holding Company Act of 1935.

See SEC File No. 70-7214. A Notice of Intention relating to the transaction was also filed by PSNH with the Bankruptcy l Court. (Sce Response to NRC Question 6 above.) Timing of favorable SEC action is uncertain. The NRC filing would be f expected to promptly follow after SEC approval and requisite t l

action by the Court.  ;

i l Implementation of the NHYEC reorganization of the t I

i l 1

1 project management would not have any impact upon the foregoing responses. The reorganization is a management consolidation and restructuring which is designed to improve efficiency and effective management control. It in no way alters the underlying ownership interests and financial obligations of the Joint owners of Seabrook Station which are i

set forth in the Joint ownership Agreement. That document

> remains the legally-binding contract which defines the rights and obligations of the parties thereto.

i

)

i i

l l

i l

i l

l l

[

i NRC Ouestion 8 1 Provide the following for each joint ownert

a. Copies of the most recent published, interim financial statements (and interim report to stockholders for the investor-owned utilities).
b. Copi'es of the 1987 SEC Form 10-X, the most recent ,

SEC Form 10-Q and the most recent SEC Forn 8-X, for 1 the joint owners that file these reports.

Re3conse to NRC Ouestion 8:

Enclosed herewith are the requested materials for each i

Joint Owner as follows!

f

1. Public Service coneany of 11ew Hameshire (Attachment 7)

- Quarterly Report to Shareowners, dated June 8, 1988 i - Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1987 1

- Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended

June 30, 1988 1

- Cu'.! rent Report on Form 8-K, dated June 30, 1988

2. The United Illuminatino Cocoany (Attachment 8):

- Annual Report on form 1L K for 1987 a - Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter anded June 30, 1988 l 3. EUA Power Corocration (Attachment 9):

- Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1987

- Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended June 30, 1988 (See also Attachment 14 below.)

4. Massachusetts Municieal Wholesale Elaetric comeany (Attachment 10):

- 1987 Annual Report

- Financial Statements with Supplement.ary Information

5. New Enaland Power Comeany ( Attachmer.t 11) : i

- Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1987

- Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended June 30, 1988

- Current Report on Form 8-X, dated June 6, 1988

- New England Electric System (NEES) Annual Report ,

on Form 30-X for 1987

- NEES Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended June 30, 1988

- NEES Current Report on Forn 8-X, dated June 6, 1988

6. The connecticut Licht and Power Comnany (Attachment 12):

- Annual Report on Form 10-X of Northeast Utilities (NU) '

and subsidiaries

- Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended '

June 30, 1988

- Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 22, 1988

- NU Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended June 30, 1988

- NU Current Repcrt on Form 8-K, dated June 22, 1988

7. Canal Electric Coneany (Attachment 13):

- Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1987

- Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended June 30, 1988

- Current Report on Form 8-X, dated March 30, 1988 L

8. Montaue Electric Coreany (Attachment 14):

- Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1987 of Eastern ,

Utilities Associates (EUA)  !

- 1987 Financial Supplement

- EUA Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended June 30, 1988

- Annual Report on Form 10-X for 1987 of Eastern Edison Company (EEC)

- EEC Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for quarter ended June 30, 1988

- Annual Report on Form 10-X for 1987 of Blackstone l Valley Electric Company (BVEC)

- BVEC Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for quarter ended June 30, 1988 (See also Attachment 9 above.)

9. New Hameshire Electric Coocerative. Inc.

(Attachment 15):

- Financial and Statistical Report, REA Form 7, month ending December 31, 1987 l

- Financial and Statistical Report, REA Form 7, month ending June 30, 1988

10. Vermont Electric Generation and Transmission gepperative. Inc. (Attachment 16):

1

- Operating Report - Financial, REA Form 12a, for month ending December 31, 1987 amended

- Financial and Statistical Report, REA Form 7, for I

month ending December 31, 1987, amended per 1987 audit statement

- Financial Statements, December 31, 1987 and 1986, dated March 4, 1988

- Financial State =ents, December 31, 1987 and 1986, dated March 4, 1988 with note dated March 16, 1988

11. Taunton Municioal Lichtina Plant (Attachment 17):

- Annual Repo,et 1987

- Financiel Statements and Auditor's Report, December 31, 1987 and 1986

- Return of the City of Taunton to the Department of Public Utilities for 1987

12. Hudson Licht and Power Deeartrent (Attachment 18):

- Return of the Town of Hudson Light and Power Department to the Department of Public Utilities for 1987 i

1 i

4 I

l i

i f

1

Attachment 1 to NYN-88115 ggabrook Joint Ownen Owner ownershin shares Public Service Cor.pany of New Hampshire 35.54942%

The United Illuminating Company 17.50000 EUA Power Cerporation 12.13240 Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company 11.59340 New England Power Company 9.95766 The Connecticut Light and Power Company 4.05985 Canal Electric Company 3.52317 Montaup Electric Company 2.89989 New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc. 2.17391 Vermont Electric Generation and 0.41259 Transmission Cooperative, Inc.

Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant 0.10034 Hudson Light and Power Department 0.07737 100.00000%

Attachment 2 to NYN-8 8115 (2 pages)

Seabrook Station Unit 1 And Common Funding Forecast

- Six Months - '

Six Month Sep 88 Oct 88 Nov 88 Dec 88 TOTAL Jul 88 Aug 88 FUNDING FORECAST PRE COMMERCIAL / CAPITAL 67,965.7 (Excl. E Plan) 9.018.1 10.295.9 8.491.4 10.880.4' 9.038 0 20.241.9 EMERGENCY PLANNING & 1,840.7 2.0296 2.340.7 13.176.8 2.565 6 2.701.1 1.699.1 C0MMUNITY RELATIONS OPERATIONS & 27.1 33.1 25.1 168.2 27.3 29 7 25 9 MAINTENANCE 40.0 1.0 18.0 1.0 1.0 18 0 1.0 NUCLEAR FUEL 11,629.0 13,027.7 10,217.4 12,766.2 11,101.7 22.608.7 81,350.7 TOTAL

($ Thousands)

  • Note: $1.761 Million Addition for NHY Portion of PSNH Early Retirement Program.

To Be Paid in October 1988.

1 1

~.. ... ,.. ,.,...

J"?%im -, o ..o i, . , . s i Page 1 of 2

l

. l l

Seabrook Station Unit 2 Funding Forecast

- Six Months -

l Six Montn i l

Jul 88 Aug 88 Sep 88 Oct 88 Nov 88 Dec 88 TOTAL UNIT 2 COSTS 113.7 121.0 107.5 122.2 117.5 127.5 709.4 EXPENDITURE l FORECAST 113.7 121.0 107.5 122.2 117.5 127.5 709.4

($ Thousands) 4 j.

1 l

r l

l r

i i

i  !

1 L t

t i

Seatroom State l N.. a.- w e vense, osweat meet s>n: o.n., v t.no an o es l Page 2 of 2 l

t l

Attachment 3 to NYN-88115 SEA 3 ROCK STAT:CN WCOLLECTED PARTIC! PANT TUNDING REQUESTS (l)

SEABROCK PARTICIPANT ARREARS DETAULT TOTAL ..

New Hampshire Electric Cooperative $ 196,925.00 $ 196,9:5.00 Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company $5,030,772.00 5,030,77 .00 Vermont Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative, Inc. 2,445,811.00 2,445,$11.00 3 196,905,00 57,476,583.00 37,673,5*R.00 ,

NOTE (1) Outstanding balances represent funding require =ents through August, 1988.

August 18, 1938

Attachment 4 to Nii3-88115 SEABEG0K STATION ANALYSIS OF FUNDING PERFORMANCE: BILLINGS VS. FUNDING '

YEAR TO DATE 1988 FUNDING ANALYSIS DISBURSINC ACCNT PARTICIPANT SUPPLEMENTARY MONTH BILLINCS PAYMENTS ADVANCE PAYMENTS TOTAL (See Page 2) (See Page 3)

JANUARY $ 19.0%,900.00 $ 18,602,958.00 $ 142,000.00 $ 18,744,958.00 FEBRUARY I2,363,900.00 12.044,t08.00 263.000.00 12,307,108.00 MARCH 11.918,000.00 11,609.741.00 260,121.08 11,869.862.08 APRIL 11,565,300.00 11.266,1%.00 M 7,000.00 11,913,164.00 HAY 12.122.400.00 13,223,342.00 <956,607.24) 12,266,734.76 JUNE 18,502.000.00 16,280.653.00 60.000.00 16,340,653.00 l

JULY II,742,700.00 10,332,871.00 2,279,000.00 12,611,871.00

__ t AtK;UST 13,148,700.00 11.570,068.00 65,000.00 11,635,068.00 TOTAL $110,459,900.00 $104,929,905.00 $2,759.513.84 $107,689,418.84 August 18, 1988 Page 1 of 3

~ _ _ _ - _ . _ - - - - _ . . _ - - - -

SFANKIK STATHW .

HNJIE MRRetWaE FMN EXtnTrlW. OP96 TIE BIILINE (1) wAn lo Im E 1988 2Amaux rarICIrwr Jmewtf munweY nuum Arw. mr Juset Jut Y Anasr JurAr.

CANAL DJrfRIC QMWff $ 672,816 $ 435,601 $ 419,891 $ 407,MS $ 427,093 $ 651,857 $ 413,715 $ %3,251 $ 3,891,68 Useerr10Tr UQfr NE) RMJL UMWlY 775,305 *iOI ,9% 483,853 469,5 % 492,151 751,153 4M,736 533,817 4,4 % ,50 U!A RMR 05tPURATI(M 2,316,913 1,500,038 1,45,9r.0 1,403,149 1,470,739 2,3f.4,738 1,424,671 1,595,253 13,401,44 IIIGN UQfr AN> KMJt If3Wr!MJfr 14,775 9,%6 9,221 8,9f,8 9,379 14,315 9,085 10,173 85, 4 mSSAcarETIS MMICIPAL nes113A!I HJrIRIC UNPANY (2) 2,213,979 1,433.3 %  !,181,701 I,340,811 I,405,398 7,775,28 MwrAur afr!RIC OMwir 553,789 358,539 %5,609 33%,381 351,536 5 % ,538 %0,525 381,298 3,203,21 few tM M ft) R MJt O M Wff 1,901,W. 1,231,155 1,186,7 % 1,151,633 1,207,107 1,8r.2,366 1,169,298 1,309,303 10,999,224 fem IWS"; HIRE DJr!RIC GIIPtJIATIVE (3) 1,414,4R8 402,217 255,2M 285,841 2,357,82 RmuC SDEVIT GMWff CF SEM WWTSHIPE 6,792,657 4,397,768 4,239,163 4,113,710 4,311,867 6,581,0 % 4,IM,810 4.676,916 39,289,9r.-

TAismM NNICIPAI, UGfrIE FUWrt 19,162 12,406 11,959 11,605 11,783 12.1 % 18, % 5 13,193  !!0,83, IMITED IUIMIWLTIE GMWfr 3, % I,958 2,163,683 2,085.650 2,023,928 2,121,420 3,237,850 2,0 % ,972 2,301,023 19,330,48; VDetwr DJr!RICAt. QJeJIATIGf AfE)

TRAIOGSSI(N GIRJtATIVE, IE. (4)

$18,602,958 $12,0r,4,108 $11,609.741 $11,266,I% $13,223,342 $16,280,653 $10,332,871 $11,570,068 $104,929,'V Mm3:

(1) Fiswling perforusmce is listed for the amth itseled, actual receipt of psyuent any differ slightly.

(2) poter craned ftsmiing me of June 1988.

(3) Mw Itapuhire Electric Cmgerative ,% .M payernts as of May 19R8 incitating fism!s to reimburse contributors for suppleuristary afvece gayments.

(4) Verwent Electric Cmeraticas mal Transseission Cmperative. Inc. craned ftseling an of Fetmanry 1986.

Aegeant 18, 1998 IWee 2 of 3

l EAlWEllK STATI(M RN)DC IY]tFLEMWEZ FRM 2PPtJMNTARY ADVARE PAINNIS (1)

YEAR 1) DME 19R8 INL1Frio

'IU O WfRINTIIM JAM 1ARY FUN 6tARY N1t!L PWW401 tmY (2) Jtw. .RitJ Afr21st 17tAL DAIE CANM. tJJCIRIC UNANY $3,000.00 $5,GR).0) $10,283.31 $5,000.00 $4,G n.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $ 34,283.31 $123,882 OpetLT10fr IJ0fr ME) RMJt o wANY 3,GJ0.00 5,00.9) 4,H U.0) 14,392.76 5,0 0.00 2,000.00 5,000.00 38,392.76 147,540 09061T10fr IJ0fr ME) RMJt OMIWWY (3) 2,249,000.00 2,249,000.00 2,249,0 0 EASIUDI LTTILITIES ASSOCIATES 56,GN).00 118,0 0.00 103,575.65 266,000.00 (445,500.00) 18,010.00 9,000.00 19,000.00 144,075.65 337,434 ffM FN2AfE) DIETRIC SYSIDI 8,000.00 13,000.00 30,585.07 72,GJ0.00 < 58,000.00) 12.010.00 6,000.00 13,0 0).00  % ,585.07 358,758 ItmLIC 9]tvIm awANY &

ftM twE"2 TIRE 27,000.00 27,000.00 976,341.

LNITU) IUJMIIRTifC ONANY 45,000.00 122,GJ0.00 111,677.05 309,000.00 <472,500.00) 21,000.00 11,000.00 23,000.00 IX),177.05 638,057.

$142,000.00 $263,30.00 $260,121.08 $647,000.00 $<956,607.24) $60,000.00 $2,279,000.00 $65,000.00 $2,759,513.84 $4,831,015.

N7!5:

(I) ScIv <ble of payernt regwesents contributions to offset Joint Osm rs in default.

(2) Certain credits in May reflect Nw limyshire E!cetric Conperative reiduarseernt to applicable contrilmators.

(3) Guitrit=sti<m con behalf of Gwww cticut Light arw! Iine r Ow is for psyurnts it is asilting in lieu of 196sE.

Anupnt 18, 19R8 Page 3 of

Attachm:nt 5 to NYN-88115 mm m as s e m a c m comum

!"ItIMEWW.3lAVIItB m n , y ..n y v s m c.".*$ W.stt sm NORTHEAST UTILITIES IN PACT ON SEASROOK COSTE HARTFORD, CCNN. -DJ- NORTHEAST UTIL! TIED SAID IT 5!GNED AN AGREEMGNT WITH THREE OTHER NEW ENGLAND UTILITIES UNDER WHICH !T WILL PROVIDE THREE MONTH 5 OF FUNDING FOR THE PORTION OF THE SEABRC0K NUCLEAR PROJECT Tn4T IS SUBJfCT TO DEFAULT.

THE UT!LITY SAID ! T w i t.L P!CK UP ADOUT $5 MILLION IN SEQ 3 ROCK COSTS, WHICH WILL FUND THE SHARE OF SEABROCK COSTS OF MASSAOHUSETTS MUNICIDAL WHOLESALL ELECTRIC CD.

MASSACHUSF.TTS MUNICIPAL, WHICH OWNB 11.6 PC OF BEAERCOK, SAID EAALIEA THIS YEAA IT WOJLD NOT PROVIDE ADDITICNAL PAYMENTS FOR THE DEABR004 PROJECT.

AS PART CF THE AGREEMENT, C0K",0NWE4LTH ENER0Y SYSTEMS. EASTTAN UTILITIES ASSOCIATES AND NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC SYSTEM WILL PURCHASE ABOUT 875 NEGAWOTTS A YEAR UVER F!vg NEARS FRCM NORTHEAST UTILITIES, THE U11LITY SAID.

THE PU(ERS OF THE E..ECTRICITY ARE SEABRCCK SHAREHOLDERS.

IN JULY, NORTHEAG1 SIGNED A t! MILAN AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH IT WILL PAY FOR 41 MILLION CF SF.ABRQ0( COSTS IN RETURN FOR THE PURCHASC Or ELECTRIC 11Y FROM NORTHEAS? SY FOUR OfhER SEABR03K 3HAREHOLDERS.

-S- d. 15 PM EDT 08-30-86:

Attachment 6 to NYN-8811_5 I (6 pages) b<3 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAKPSHIRE I

CHAPTER 11 PROCEEDING OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

{*

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, CASE NO. 88-43.

I  !

Defore Honorable James E. Yacos {

f Je3ge in Bankruptcy

' l

  • l i
' I
  • f . MOTION TO EXTEND PLAN EXCLUSIVITY PERIOD f

t

  • a
1 VOLUME ONE 1 Thursday, Ms.y 19, 1988 l* Federal Building of W O VOLUMES '

275 Chestnut Street (Morning session)

Manchester, New Hampshire

! 8 h v v APPEARANCES l

s 4 d l RICHARD LEVIN, ESQUIRE .

]u ,f DEBTOR PSNH:

00N WILLENBURG, ESQUIRE l $ /

" Stutman, Troister & Glatt l I 3699 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 y

S Los Angeles, California 90010 ,

I b e 4

THOMAS R. JONES, ESQUIRE l

h

$ 1 Cahill Gordon & Reindel I ( 80 Pine Street O k New York. T9w York 10005 8 MARTIN L. GROSS, ESQUIRE Sulloway, Hollis & Sodan g I 9 Capitol Street b Concord, New Hampshire 03301 1

- 4e.

t' I

. 4 1 realistic matter. It's not going to occur on ene 2 date. One thing I cannot do in this court, being i

3 a one-man band, is conduct something like this in l I

4 a series of segmented hearings and hope to be able 5 to rule after the last segmented hearing.

6 If I'm going to go to that kind of I 7 hearing, it's going to have to be set for a week 8 or sonething, and I would have to be able to 9 complete that record and rule on it wh,le I'm 10 still reasonably fresh on the facts. But my basic I

11 reasoning here, tentatively, is that it's in i a

, 12 nobody's interest at this stage to divert l

\

13 attention from an all out effort to get into a 14 conceptual plan, get to a situation of record in 15 this case that it can assure all these other 16 regulatory agencies that, but for safety and 17 health considerations, which is their bailiwick 18 from a reorganization standpoint and economic l 19 sense, this entity is in a financially stable h

20 situation or track toward that resolved, 21 reorganized company s';atus.

22 So that if Seabrook is lost, it is not t I

23 lost because of uncertainties or attrition or  ;

i

144

.d 1 myths or anything else relating to confusion about 2 stat's going on in the Bankruptcy Court, but it is 3 lost because of those things that are the i

4 bailiwick of these other agencies that protect ]I 5 public health and safety. That, I think, is vital 6 here.

7 I think there is a window of g i opportunity of about six nonths; that after which '!

9 this whole thing is going to start to unravel in a 10 l lot of directions, one of which will be this kind 11 of all-out evidentiavi hearing on valuation.

12 As you all know, that is war. That is 13 war. And I can take a month off and I can try 14 that. We'll live or die with this backwoods 15 judge's valuation, or what s o r.e appellant court 16 tells me, but you all know that isn't the way to 17 resolve reorganization if you can avoid it.

18 I think this matter really is 19 premature at th'is stage on what I've heard. I 20 realize I any be cutting the equity cushion a 21 little closer than has been done in sone othcr 22 cases, but I don't think any of those other i I

23 cases -- barring your showing me to the contrary,

FILED UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT JUL 201933 DISTRICT OF NEV MAMPSHIRI U S. BANKRUNCi COUR7 In re:

FUBLIC SERVICE COMPANT OT NEV RAMPSRIRE, SKf88-00013 Debtor Chapter 11 ORDER DENTINO THE TRIRD MORTGACEE5' MOTICM FOR ADIQUATE PROTECTION IN D E TotM OF CURAENT AND CONTINUING INTEREST PATHENTS UYDER TRE DIRD MORTCAOL SONDS 3, 1988 by first Upon consideration of the Motion dated May l

Tidelity. N.A.. New Jersey ("Tirst Tidslity"), as trustee under the l

Rird Mortgage Bond Indenture, dated Tebruary 15, 1986 as amended and supplemented (the "Third Mortgage Indenture"). Citicorp. Consolidated Utilities & Cese:unications. Inc. ("CUC"), and Amosk6ag Bank, as trustee under the Pollution Control Revenue Bond Indenture. 1986 Series A (collectively, the "nird Mortgagees" or the "Movants") for an order thquiring the above-captioned debtor (the "Debtor" or "FSNR") to afford adequate protection threugh the payment of interest on the Third Mortgage Bonds (as hereinaf ter defined) as and when such parrants are due, including any paysents which have become due and have not been paid subsequent to the filing of the Chapter 11 case (the "Third Mortgages Motion" cr the "Motion") and the responses and sonoranda in opposition by the Debtor, the official Committe e of Unsecured Creditors (the "Creditors' Cousittee"), the Official Cosmait te e of Equity Security Holders (the "Equity Cossittee") , and upon the submissions of cther certain stipulation aaeng the Third parties in interest, and upon that Mortgagees, the Debtor and the Creditors' Coneittee, approved by order I

into political issues swirling around the question of putting the plant operation. This "observational phenomenon" modifying the subject viewed en is not limited to quantus physics.

6. In view of the f oregoing determinations, the Court concludes that adequate protection in the fors of current interest payments is not now required and shall not now be granted. Also in view of the and does not, now decide f oregoing determinations, the court need not, N whether, e,s a matter of lav, adequate protection is recuired for an oversecured creditor only when the value of the collateral _is.

deteriorating, and not as protection against the accrual of postpetition See, United Savinas Association of Texas interest on oversecured debt.

v. Timbers of Invood potest Associates. Ltd., 98 L. Ed.2d 740 (1988). J Accordingly, it is hereby ORDI7,ID. ADJUDGED AND DECKEED:

A. Consistent with the findings of f act and conclusiens of law herein, the Motion is denied without prejudice to Movants' right to renew the Motion, pursuant to Amended Order Establishing Notice

    • This court has made it clear at various stages of this case that it will leave eyfrormental and nublic safety is_ su e s_

relatina to Seabreok to the averooriste regulatory agenein having the expertise to deal with such satsers but that it reserves all powers permitted it under the Bankruptcy Code to assure that questions relating to the financial condition and financial restructuring of the debter remain f or determination the at an appropriate point in the reorganisation court, that the relevant court therefore has serious concern a re gula tory agencies be able to prosptly ecme to deter zinatien of any saf ety and environmental issues relating to Seabrook without being distracted by a premature "vsluation sideshow" in this court that can only serve to c.onfuse the matters appropriate fer deternination by such agencies.

9

. I Procedure, entered April 19. 1988. for a hearing no earlier than February 15, 1989.

3. As additional adequate protection, however, the Court directs the Debtor to grant, and the Debtor hereby is dessed to grant, the Third security and lien on Mortgagees' a post vetition interest in Post-petition Collateral (as defined in the Senior Debt order), subject and subordinate to the interests of the holders of the Senior Secured lorrowing in such Collateral, upon terse and conditions comparable to those set forth in paragraph H of the Senior Debt Order.

C. In view of the foregoing disposition of the Motion, discovery.

i which was contemplated by the Stipulation in anticipation of an 4

evidentiary hearing on the f acts raised by the Motion is unnecessary at this time, and paragraphs 2 thrcush 6. inclusive, of the Stipulation are hereby vacated.

1 DONE and 073 ERD this 20th day of July, 1988 at hanchester. New Raspshire.

W Docketed M,N. JUL 2 0 EL JA S E. YACOs IAWJL77CY JL*0GI l

1 i

Debtor to $srve on Tull List I Cil*.?/ that this il 4 trut FM f.tt'."Ilt co;y of the reter:s ca f!e w.;h The i'Jmttd S'.t'.a s 31','ectry C wit

4) < sO

, Deputy C:.rk, U S. Etnitrup cy Ccurt Manchss:ct. Hw hsmptnn l

l 10

i N(,al*If

. Sr j CERTITICATE OF SERVICE .g g g p437 '

l I, Jeffrey P. Trout, one of the attorneys for the ' '

Applicants herein, hereby certify that on September 12,s1988, .

ImadeserviceofthewithindocumentbymailingcopieskterQ;,,"','(; .

thereof, postage prepaid, to: }

I 4

Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts (

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission t Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l i Kenneth M. Carr Frederick M. Bernthal Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 J

Kenneth C. Rogers I

] Huclear Regulatory Commission l d

Washington, DC 20555  !

j Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber  :

l Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing  !

j Appeal Panel Appeal Panel l i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  !

j Commission Commisalon  !

i Washingt.on, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 I i

Thomas S. Moore Mr. Richard R. Donovan Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management i Appeal Panel Agency l 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal Regional Center i Commission 130 228th Street, S.W.  !

l Washington, DC 20555 Bothell, WA 98021-9796 (

I 4

I Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Robert Carrigg, Chairman }

Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Board of Selectmen )

Atomic Safety and Licensing Town Office  !

Board Panel Atlantic Avenue f' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory North Hampton, NH 03862 l

i Commission l Washington, DC 20555 ,

1 '

i Judge Emmoth A. Luebke Diane Curran, Esquire I

Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C. Forster, Esquire Harmon & Weiss 1 Board Panel ,

i 550 Friendship Boulevard Suite 430 l Apartment 1923N 2001 S Street, N.W. l f Washington, DC 20009  :

1 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 I

4

! l l

i 1

s Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6397 Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office 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 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Leard Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.C. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esqaire 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 Avenu; General P.O. Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fir.

Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108 Mrs. Sandra Cavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manger RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S. Senate Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Washington, DC 20510 Whilton 6 McGuire (Attn Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, 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 1

O 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 Charles P. Graham, Esquire office of General Counsel Murphy and Graham Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street ilaapton, NH 03041 concord, NH 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esquire 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Newburyport, MA 01950

%. /

~

Gdff{ty P. Trout i

I