ML20205R459
| ML20205R459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1988 |
| From: | Jonas S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205R446 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-1, NUDOCS 8811100036 | |
| Download: ML20205R459 (9) | |
Text
r s
4 FC'. F.E i fT tiovember 2/ 1588 T
TG NOV -3 P2 :03 UNITED STATES OF A LRICA t1UCLEAR REGULATORY CtMMISSI0t1 CU " !
00 Chi' '.
before the COMMISSION
)
In the !!atter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPA!!Y OF
)
Docket tios. 50-443-OL-1 t1EN HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Unit 1
) (Onsite Emergencg Planning and 2)
)
and Safety Issues)
)
MOTION OF MA'iSACHUSETTS ATTORt1EY GEt1ERAL JAMES M.
SH Ati!1011 UNDER 10 C.F R.
2.734 TO REOPEN THE RECORD TO CONSIDER EVIDEt1CE CON 1Rt1ING THE JOIt1T APPLICAt1TS' D ECOMMISS I0t1It1G PLAtt FOR THE s EABROOK 11UCLEAR POWER STATION At1D TO ADMIT THE ATTACHE.7 LATE FILED C0!1TEt1TI0t1S CONCERT 1It1G SAID DECOMMISSI0t1It1G PLAtt Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.734, Massachusetts Attorney General James M.
Shannon hereby moves the 11uclear Regulatory Commission ("Commission") to reopen the record in the above referenced proceeding to consider evidence concerning the Joint Applicants' newly filed decommissioning plan for the Seabrook tiuclear Power Station ("Seabrook") and to admit the attached late filed contentions concerning said decommissioning plan.
In support of this motion, the Massachusetts Attorney General states:
8011100036 Og O 43 PDR ADOCK O PDR 0
l
\\
O INTRODUCTION on March 7, 1988, the Massachusetts Attorney General, in response to an order issued on January 29, l?88 by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ("Appeal Board"), filed a timely petition seeking a waiver of or sxception from the Commission's regulations to the extent necessary to require the Joint Applicants to demonstrate their financial qualifications to operate Seabrook at low power and to permanently shut it down and maintain it in a safe condition should it not receive a full-power license.
On July 5, 1988, the Appeal Board issued a decision in which it found that the Massachusetts Attorney General had made a pritaa facie showing that the requested waiver or exception should be made and, pursuant to the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.758, certified the waiver petition to the Commission.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7, 26 (1988).
On July 14, 1988, the Commission issued an unpublished order providing for responsive pleadings to be served on July 22 and August 2, 1988 concerning the Appeal Board's decision.
Public Gervice Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Nuclear Power Station) (slip at 2)(1988).
On June 27, 1988, the Commission published new regulations to be effective on July 27, 1988 which addressed the decommissioning of licensed facilities and the means of assuring ths; adequate funding would be available to conduct such decommissioning in a tinely manner.
53 Fed. Reg. 24018 (June 27, 1988).
By order dated September 22, 1988, the Commission indicated that, 2
l i
i
the unique and unusual circumstances of this case, requires that before low power may be authorized, applicants provide reasonable asaurance that adequate funds will be available so that safe decommissioning will be reasonably assured in the event that low power operation has occurred and a full power license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Nuclear Power Station) CLI-88-07, 28 NRC (1988)(slip at 2).
The Commission requested that the Joint Applicants file "adequate documentation of their (decommissioning] plan and appropriate commitments under that plan to provide reasonable assurance" and directed interested parties to file "any motions and late-filed contentions based on applicants' plan to fund the decommissioning of the plant in the event that a full power license is not granted" within ten days after service of the Joint Applicants' plan.
Id. 28 NRC at (slip at 3).
This motion and the attached contentions are submitted in response to CLI-88-07 THE CONTENTIONS By this motion, the Massachusetts Attorney General seeks to raise for consideration by the Commission issues concerning the merits of the Joint Applicants' decommissioning filing for purposes of providing "reasonable assurance that adequate funding for decommissioning will be available in the event that a full power license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1.'
The attached contentions address both the Joint Applicant's decommissioning plan and cost estimate as well as the "commitments" made to assure the availability of adequate funds.
See hereto.
3
THIS MOTION MEETS THE REQUIRE'4ENTS OF 10 C.F.R. 2.734 The tests for reopening an evidentiary record are whether the issues could have 'oeen raised earlier, whether the motion addresses a significant safety or environmental issue, and whether a materially different result would have been likely had the new evidence been considered initially.
As discussed below, the instant motion meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.734(a) for the reopening of the record.
First, as described above, the Commission's decommissioning rules did not become effective until July 27, 1988 and it was not until October 20, 1988 that the Joint Applicants filed a decvmmissioning plan or attempted to provide assurance that adequate funds would available to cover the cost of such decommissioning.
Thus, the Massachusetts Attorney General could not have raised earlier the issues addressed by the attached contentions and has met the standard of 10 C.F.R. 2.734(a)(1).
Second, it is plain from the Commission's rulemaking that the decommissioning of Seabrook and the assurance that adequate funding will be available to carry out such decommissioning in a safe and timely manner are matters of significant safety and environnental concern.
See 53 Fed. Reg. 24018, 24019 and 24033 (June 27, 1988)("Inadequate or untinely consideration of decommissioning, specifically in the areas of planning and financial assurance, could result in significant adverse, safety and environmental impacts.
These impacts could lead to increased 4
occupational and public doses..." and "In carrying out its licensing and related regulatory responsibilities under these acts (Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Energy Reorganization Act of 1974}, the NRC has determined that there is a significant radiation hazard associated with nondecommissioned nuclear reactors." (emphasis supplied]).
Thus, the instant motion meets the standard of 10 C.F.R. 2.734(a)(2).
Third, given the wholly speculative nature of the "reasonable assurance" showing of the goint Applicants, the Licensing Board would have reached a materially different result regarding the issuance of a low power license had the Commission's decommissioning rules been in effect and the Joint Applicants presented the same "reasonable assurance" showing to that panel as satisfying the requirements of those rules.
The plan and cost estimato upon which the showing is based are, as demonstrated in Attachment 2 hereto, remarkable only for their heroic a saunptions and what they omit in terms of supporting documentation.
They do not provide any basis to conclude that the "conmitments" made by the Joint Applicants, if the references and assertions by the Joint Applicants can be characterized as "commitments" and are at all probative on the question of reasonable assurance, with repect to the availability of $21 nillion would be adequate to allow complete, much less safe and timely decommissioning of Seabrook.
Further, the "commitments" themselves are illusory.
They are in most respects contigent upon decis',ons outside of the control c f the unidentified 5
l majority of the Joint Owners who voted to do certain things in the future:
e.g., decisions by the New Hampshire Bankruptcy Court, decisions by the MMWEC Board of Directors, and decisions by unidentified benefactors of the Vt. Coop.
See Attachment 3 hereto and MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M.
SHANNON'S PETITION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.758 FOR A WAIVER OF OR AN EXCEPTION FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A DEMONSTRATION OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION incorporated by reference herein. They could hardly be found to meet the standards for reasonable assurance set forth in 10 C.F.R. 50.75.
Thus the Massachusetts Attorney General has met the standard of 10 C.F.R. 2.734(a)(3).
THIS MOTION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) l The tests for the admission of late-filed contentions are I
whether good cause exists for failure to file earlier, whether there are other means by which the petitioner's interests will be protected, whether the petitioner's participat. ton may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record, whether the petitioner's interests will be represented by existlng parties, and whether the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
As discussed below, the instant notion meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) for the admission of late-filed contentions.
First, as discussed with reference to reopening the record, the Massachusetts Attorney General could not have filed the 6
e instant contentions any earlier and, thus, good cause exists for the failure to file them earlier.
Second, as the Commission itself has recognized, "the record (in this case) is closed for the consideration of new issues and litigation on this issue may only be pursued if at least one late-filed contention is admitted."
CLI-88-07, 28 tlRC at (slip at 3).
Thus, there is no other means by which to protect the Massachusetts Attorney General's interest in ensuring that an adequate decommissioning plan is in place and reasonable assurance exists that funds will be available to carry out decommissioning *n a safe and timely manner in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
Third, the Massachusetts Attorney General has been an active participant in most aspects of this case and his participation though probing cross examination of the Joint Applicant's witnesses and his sponsorship of expert witnesses has materially assisted in the development of the evidentiary record.
Such participation can also be expected with respect to the consideration of the Joint Applicant's decommissioning plan and the assurance that funds will be available to carry out such decommission in a safe and timely manner.
Officials of and consultants to the Joint Applicants will be examined and the testimony of appropriate expert (s) from the firm of MHB Technical Associates will be offered.1 Thus, it may be reasonably expected 1.
Such testimony will encompass subjects such as those discussed in the Affidavit of Peter Strauss which is attached hereto as Attachment 2.
7 t
e that the participation of the Massachusetts Attorney General will materially assist in the development of a sound evidentiary record on the issues concerning funding for decommissioning Seabrook in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
Fourth, no other party to this litigation has yet raised issues relating to the Joint Applicants' decommissioning plan and provision for funding and, most importantly, no other party can represent the substantial interests of the people and government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the existence of an adequate decommissioning plan and assurance of the availa'oility of funds to allow safe and cimely decommissioning of Seabrook in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
Thus, the standard of 10 C.P.R.
2.714(a)(1)(iv) is met.
Fifth, the issues raised in the contentions set forth in hereto pertain only to the inadequacies of the filing of the Joint Applicants and do not concern any other matters.
The Commission has by its own order required that Joint Applicants provide reasonable assurance concerning the availability of funding for decommissioning of Seabrook in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
CLI-88-07, __
NRC Resolution of the issues raised in the attached contentions is a necessary step in determining whether reasonable assurance exists and their litigation, thus, will not broaden or delay the instant proceeding.
8
CONCLUSIOt1 WHEREFORE, the Massachusetts Attorney General moves that the Commission order that the record in the instant proceeding be reopened and that the contentions set forth in Attachment 1 hereto be admitted for litigation in the instant proceeding.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED JAMES M.
SHANNOtl ATTORtlEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH-OP MASSACW ETTS
/ bj.-- -
by pheK Jonas George B.
Dean Assistant Attorneys General One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2200 i
DATED:
November 2, 1988 l
l 9