ML20205R482

Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Jm Shannon late-filed Contentions Concerning Joint Applicant Decommissioning Plan for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.*

ML20205R482
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/02/1988
From:	MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20205R446	List: ML20205R442 ML20205R459 ML20205R482 ML20205R492 ML20205R515 ML20205R544
References
OL-1, NUDOCS 8811100044
Download: ML20205R482 (7)

Text

W , ~ ~

Q tiovember 2, 1988 ATTACHMENT 1 MASSACFJSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S LATE FILED C0t1TENTIONS CONCERNIt1G THE JOINT APPLICANTS' DECOMMISSIONING PLAN FOR THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATI0t1 0011100044 001102 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR.

Contention No. 1:

A determination that there is reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to allow safe and timely decommissioning of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station in the event that low power operation occurs but a full power license is not granted cannot be made from the filing by the Joint Applicants in response to CLI-88-07 2.

Bases for Contention No. 1:

(a) The provisions of the newly promulgated 10 C.F.R. 50.33(k)(1) and 50.75 are applicable to applications for low power operating licenses and the Joint Applicants' application for a low power license for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station must be denied because it lacks the certification required under 10 C.F.R. 50.75(b).

The rulemaking in which the Commission's decommissioning regulations were adopted expressly provided that the requirement of reasonable assurance of the availability of funds is applicable to all operating reactors, power and non-power. See 53 Fed. Reg. 24018 at 24040. In light of the fact that a specific exemption was made for reactors already permanently shut down (see id at 24027) and of the discussion of the reasons for not maEing a similar exemption for research reactors (see id, at 24039-24040), a necessary implication of the rulemaking is that the requirements for reasonable assurance is applicable to a low power reactor.

The necessity of conformance by the Joint Applicants with the certification requirement in 10 C.F.R. 50.75(b) and their failure to so conform is btyond cavil given the express finding of the Commission that in light of, among other factors, the financial plight of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, that an internal reserve approach to providing reasonable assurance by public utilities would "not provide reasonable assurance that decommissioning will be carried out in a nanner which protects public health and safety " Id. at 24031-24034.

(b) Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.75(b) and 50.75(c)(1), electric utility applicants for operating licenses for PWR type plants of less than 1200 MW power level are required to submit decommissioning reports containing "a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount which nay be more but not less than' the amount given by the following formula: $(75 + 0.0088P)

x 1,000,000 where P represents the power level in megawatts, Under the Commission's regulations, then, the minimum amount

-- i.e. that amount required if the plant's power level is taken to be five (5) percent of its rated capacity -- of funding for which reasonable assurance must be provided by the Joint Applicants is $75.484 million: $(75 + 0.0088 x (0.05] x 1100) x 1,000,000) or $(75 + .484) x 1,000,000.

The submission by the J' int Applicants contains only a description of "steps (taken to) provide comparable

' reasonable assurance,'" not a certification, and even this inadequate provision for "reasonable assurance" is with reference to an amount equal to only $21 million. Thus the Joint Applicants have not complied with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.75 and their application for a low power operating license should be denied.

(c) There is insufficient documentation and back up material provided in the Joint Applicants' filing in response to CLI-88-07 with which to assess the reasonableness of the decommissioning cost estimate used therein to establish reasonable assurance.

For example, the Joint Applicants' filing contains a decommissioning cost estinate of $21 million. This is substantially less than the estimates upon which the NRC relied in its decommissioning rulemaking as well as those prepared for Seabrook and other plants after 40 years operation. There is not sufficient documentation to determine whether this difference in estimates is a plausible, much less a reasonable, result of the fact that the estimate is predicated on the plant operating only for a short period of time at low levels of power. No comparison can be made with the post-40 year operation estimates prepared for Seabrook or other plants. In light of the fact that much of the physical dismantling work should be the same whether or not the plant operates for a long or a short period of time, or at full or low power, the inability to make evaluative comparisons between the Joint Applicants' seemingly low estimate and other estimates for Seabrook and other plants compels a conclusion that the Joint Applicants'

$21 million estimate is unacceptable.

(d) The decommissioning plan and cost estimate are premised upon unreasonable and unsupported assumptions regarding the issuance of approvals by the Commission (e.g., of decommissioning plans), the Executive Branch of the Federal Gosernment (export of special nuclear materials), and the Department of Transportation (shipment of low level waste in new canisters).

(e) The decommissioning cost estimate used in the plan is understated because without any explanation for variance from standard practice, the Joint Applicants use a "contingency factor" of seven (7) percent in their decommissioning cost estimate whereas the industry standard is to use a twenty five (25) percent contingency factor.

(f) The decommissioning cost estimate used in the plan is incomplete and, thus, understated because it does not (1) identify any low level waste disposal facility where the low level waste from the plant may be disposed of, (2) specify the terms and rates under which the low level waste from the plant can be shipped to a low level waste disposal facility, (3) provide support for assumed costs of the disposal at a low level waste disposal facility of the low level waste from the plant.

There is no information in the plan filed by the Joint Applicants concerning where the low level waste from the plant will be disposed of nor the source or basis of the estimated costs of disposal which appear in the cost estimates. (Plan at p. 8-14) This is unacceptable in light of the fact that there is widespread concern regarding the continued viability of many interstate compacts for the disposal of low level radiological waste and that burial is a large percentage of decommission cost (10-20%) and costs of burial have been rising at rates 3 to 4 times the general rate of inflation.

There is also no information concerning the carrier (s) and the tern and rates under which such carrier (s) will carry the low level waste from the plant.

(g) The decommissioning cost estimate used in the plan is understated because it incorporates an unsupported and unlikely assumption that the spent fuel resulting from low power operation could be shipped abroad within five years of commencement of decommissioning and, thus, does not fully account for decommissioning activities that must continue during the reasonably likely period during which the spent fuel is stored onsite. This assumption ignores the fact that such a shipment would be unprecedented and contrary to U.S. policy on the distribution of special materid!s.

Further, the assumption ignores the fact that such a shipment would constitute a major federal action and the requirement of an environmental impact statement would affect the schedule.

4 (h) The duration of low power operation in decommissioning plan and cost estimate used in the Joint Applicants' filing is unreasonably short in light of the experience at other plants and the past statements of the Joint Applicants offerred to justify the issuance of a low power operations license in the absence of any meanir;gful expectation that a full power operations license would be issued in the near term..

(i) The so-called ' demonstration of their bona fides" undertaken by the Joint Applicants is wholly inadequate to indicate to the Commission that there is reasonable assurance t'at adequate funds will be available for decommissioning the Seabrook fluclear Power Station. As described in the Joint Applicants' response to CLI-88-07, reasonable assurance has been provided by:

(1) reference to a vote of the Joint Owners to establish a "separate and segregated ' Pre-operation Decommissioning Account' in the control of the Disburcing Agent or the sole purpose of defraying e..penditures incurred in implementing the Plan";

(2) reference to a vote of the Joint Owners "to fund that account, promptly after issuance of a Commission order requiring such funding, in the amount of $21,069,500*;

(3) reference to a vote of the Joint Owners to "autnori:e approximately half of such amount to be transferred from the Project account presently controlled by the Disbursing Agent';

(4) an unsupported assertion that "the balance presently ,

available in the Project account in respect of each Joint t Owner substantially exceede its share of the required amount (approximately one half of $21,069,500), except in the case of MMWEC, an 11.59340% owner, and Vermont Electric Transmission and Generation Cooperative, Inc., a 0.41259%

owner";

(5) an unsupported assertion that the funding other than l that to be provided by the transfer referenced in (c) above

'is reasonably assured because it is de minimis in relation to the Joint Owners operating revenues *;

i (6) an assertion that "MMWEC has publicly announced that it has funds available to meet up to $10 million of its decommissioning obligations';

(7) an unsupported assertion that 'the $85,000 attributable to the Vt. Coop's share would be paid on its behalf from the sane sources which have been funding its on-going share of costs";

(3) eference to a vote of the Joint Owners "directing that the EUA Power share (12.13240%) of such amount be paid out from the fund created under the existing Decommissioning Costs Security Agreement in which $10 million is currently deposited."

In light of PSNH's pending bankruptcy and the Bankruptcy Court's control over PSNH's assets and operations with respect to transactions outside of the ordinary course of its business as well as MMWEC's continued refusal to make contributions to the operations costs of the Seabrook plant, these references and assertions do not provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to allow the safe and timely decommissioning of the Seabrook Nuc' ear Power Station following low power operation in the event that a full power operation license is not granted.

Reference to intentione expressed in votes of some unidentified majority of the Joint Owners to undertake certain actions, collectively and individually, in the future does not provide the reasonable assurance required by the Commission's decommissioning regulations. It does not provide the requisite degree of certainty that funds will be i available. Votes are not irrevocable. Votes cre not '

e1forceable by the Commission or persons not party to the Jolnt Ownership Agreement. Votes do not bind the New Hampshire Bankruptcy Court with respect to the use of PSNH nonies. Votes are nothing more than expressions of present intentions more or less binding upon all the Joint Owners ,

until revoked or rescind. '

Reference to a statement in a press release by MMWEC that it has a certain sum of money does not provide any assurance, reasonable or otherwise, that that money will ne employed in or devoted to any particular use.

An unsupported assertion that some unidentified source of funds will pay monies on behalf of the Vt. Coop into the "Pre-operation Decommissioning Account" does not provide any assurance that such monies will be available to allow the safe and timely decommissioning of Seabrook in the event that a I

b

1 4

4

{ ATTACHMENT 2 4

1 I

1 i

t I

l l

1 l

1 4

l AFFIDAVIT OF PETER STRAUSS i

I i

i f

i i

i t

4 i

i l

i l

t l