ML20205R515
| ML20205R515 | |
| 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 8811100054 | |
| Download: ML20205R515 (12) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e L
Jnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0:tooer 20, 1933 Attention:
Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman Page 9 Thomas M. Roberts, Commission Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner l
Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner i
James R. Curtiss, Commissioner l
"financially responsible" termination of its participation in the Seabrook project, nevertheless has "funds necessary to cover a potential $10 million fecommissioning exposure in the bank", an amount more than sufficient to cover its exposure under the circumstances posited by the Commission's order $.
Finally, EUA Power Corporation ("EUA Power") with its 12.1324:
share is not currently generating operating revenues; however, in anticipa-tion of that fact when it acquired its interest in Seabrook in 1)S6 it established a Decommissioning Costs Security Agreement with State Street Sank and Trust Company, into which $10 million of securities have been deposited, again an amount more than sufficient to cover its exposure under the circumstances posited by the Commission's order.
NHY submits that the foregoing demonstrates that costs of the hypothesized pre-full power-authorization decommissioning of Seabrook would be de minimis in comparison to the aggregate revenues and available funds from which they would be payable and therefore reasonable assurance exists that these costs would be funded.
NHY is aware that the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR 50.75, establish the "requirements for indicating to the NRC how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available for decommissioning" which by their terms are applicable to consideration of decommissioning in the context of anticipated routine full power operations.
In accordance with these regula-tions applicable to full power, full term operation NHY will file a i
decommissianing report, as required by 10 CFR 50.33 (k), which contains the final decision of the NH Committee with respect to funding requirements, the i
schedule of payments with respect thereto which are to be paid into an external sinking f und during the life of the facility, a copy of the trust l
tnstrument creating that external sinking fund, and evidence with respect to the 9equest for tuling Amounts applicable thereto filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
i in the interim, as a demonstration of their bona fides, the Joint Owners have taken the following steps to provide comparable "reasonable assurance"
[
of their ability to fund the $21 million required to implement the Plan:
On October 19, 1988, the Joint Owners voted to establish a separate and segregated "Pre-operation Decommissioning Account" in the control of the
[
Disbursing Agent for the sole purpose of defraying expenditures incurred in implementing the Plan.
They also voted to fund that account, promptly after i
i SSee Attacheent 2 to NYN-$3124 PSNH Letter to Staff dated September 13, 1988, in Docket No. 50-443.
(
6011100054y$h}h$43 PDR ADOCK pDR G
Cnited states Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0:tacer 23. 1933 Attentt:n:
- ando W.
Ze:h, Jr. Chairman Page ;)
Thomas M.
Roberts, Commtssion Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers. Commisstoner James R. Curtiss, Commisstoner af a C'emissi:n order requiring such fanding, in the amount of tssuance
$21,069.500, those funds to be held by the Disbursing Agent until expended in accordance with the Plan or until Seabrook Unit I receives suthorization to proceed above 51 power, whi:hever first occurs.
The votes authorize approximately half of such amount to be transferrad from the Project account presently controlled by the Disbursing Agent and the other half would be new monies paid in by the 'oint Owners.
The first half is reasonably assured be:ause the balance presently available in the Project account in respe:t of es:h Jotnt owner substantially ex:eeds its share of the required amount.
ex:ept tn the case af MMWEC, an 11.59340% owner, and vermont Electri:
Transmtssion and Centration Cooperative, Inc., a 0.41259% owne r ("Vt.
Coop").
The latter half is reasonably assured because it is de minimis in relst ton to the Joint Owners operating revenues.
As to MMWEC and the Vt.
Coop, MMWEC has publi:1y arnounced that it has funds available to meet up to
$10 million of its decommissioning obligations and the $35,000 attributable to the Vt. Coop's share would be paid on its behalf from the same sour:es whi:h have been funding its on going share of costs.
Finally, the votes also dire:ted that the EUA Power share (12.13240%) of such amount be paid f rom t.ie fund created under the existing Decommissioning Costs Se:urity out Agreement in whi:h $10 mtllion as currently deposited.
In conclusion, NHY submits, on behalf of the Joint Owners, that the faregoing provides reasonable assurance that the funds necessary to implement the Plan, if that should be:ome necessary, will be available.
Very truly yours,
_ _ = -
~1 wS Edward A.
Brown Prestdent and Chief Executive Officer Enclosures cc:
Atomt: Safety and Li:ensing Board Servi:e List Mr. William T. Russell Regional Administrator "ntted States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regton !
475 Allendale Road King of Prussta. PA 19406 Mr. Victor Nerses. Project Manager Project Dtrectorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects United States Nuclear Regulatory Commt.sion Wasnington. DC 20555 Mr. David C. Ruscitto Sentor Resident Inspector P. O.
Sox 1149 Seabrook. NH 03874
Two big Seabrook owners near financial pact F **"Y ute SP8 5 milli <m erwar en easts Tir reprrwnts vverat ed tier truwe than 30 sin months af ter Scatersm>k's I.orgest UO'd"NdIy" carrtre nwnpany, in turn. wninki Irt communifics that leuy gnwcr from owner dcolared funkruptcy, rast a I
1%talle Servkr <mst ed lis ownmitnernt to Two rd Ihr Seatsen k newarar gJant's imy Isack gerwcr nrwr Malms k is run-MMWEC. rallesi lie argotiathes "temi huge chawf over the pl. ant's firuru cs littie, tews late." What Ibblic Servsrr is Northeast iltilitics. arw>ther Sca-largest owrwrs are almast to sign an ning, whk-ti onsht haw ant nwwr flun agreement that wouk1 remow a nu),4 S'so mi!!ksri.
<dfering, hr sakt. "es rwdhing nwnp.arnt brook nwrier, taas tren picking up finanrt.at ointacle facing sie reactor -
to the $H25 millkw MMWEC has ina-MMWEC's engrnws - tmst it will st<gi last fle dral milli must withstarwf struta-T1e arrangement is letng emtsamt rown! few Scalwisik. Wit h prirrigul a nd paying Drr. I.
ny by o interal laankrupiry hadge.
hy $ralwinsk supgutters arid l>l.astnf try Interest. Its Seatwr=>k cagenws are in critki - tant all skies twde the irony of t he id!!kms."
I lair Servser arul MMWEC have lut,lte Servkr Cn ed New Itamtv
"I I""
d W mn mdM M** m a m Negrdlatkms tetwrcra the twn gurwcr agrwment. !wmem. antading to C.ary share w<msbl. <m Drc. I trgin guying I, "
Sratensk related cmgenws omried by PI d nwngunics grew sus ed MMWtra ders -
II""I 'I* "I'rtric ownp.ariy's gearral Ihe Massarhu etio Munk1p.al Wiu>Ir-U skm last summer to st<5s paying $2 mil snaruger.1ture terms. he unkt in an in-Jeffrey tirrnstein, an aterwnry who Ikm a vrwarith fra hills fear 81s II 6 grreent ICF*lf". 8'*3*k sair Elev1ric Co, arut it w,mdd contrib-share of Scatwrw>k. Tiut w<wd. n=ning SFAllROOK. I* age 59 Two Scabrook owners near financial pact 5 SEABIt00K test Irfewc 11 gris a full powcr 11-by the boards of directors of Cssntinoni frewn Page 47 cenw.
MMWEC and I%talle Mrvkr azul e Public Service, in t urn, t>y t hr jiwigr overwring !'istAir Scr e 5%talse Servkr wmskt pay esp
- 'uskt tr frmt irrmi its erwnmit-yke's bankrispery.
to $30 millkwa to n>ver MMWECs ment to tusy esp to SO megawat ts of
,Q y
cagensrs few ogerating arwi main-I"'wcr a par for three years from
. "j g
<o tasning the plant. arw11nr progerty MMWEC once Scabr<mk ogens.
I I'
tancs. until $ratwarak trgins tvwn armt 29 megawatts carh ed tie rnerrt31 agerathwt In tier uriru, swst hw 3 ram Ifunt des tfrwvi to resolve this longstarnfing Sca-o,O tr I#'"E P"NNC*
- II IFI' "' I'"'S M"
gnstni event flwre onts carmt say how expensive such pur-
'"8 II# b'"A ' "
Id'" 3*N'lems Q
$30 million. Ilunt said. "otter chasrs wmilit tr. tmst oilers past lrdnt owrwrs wnuM te oldtgaing -
tte nats at at least s'>0 anillion.
w mnnh w d Q a-o Tie New Itamgnhire ut!! sty armi gunwaldy as high as $100 mil.
mA and high detd nests they rc O
wenskt pay arwdfrr $195 millkeri 88""
~
eo In cash ~to retmissrv us for ause.
e MMWEC also would drop The dral aho nuald trip caw c's tr "O
- rd pnrket legalengensrw~ arut pro-any plans to suc 1%Isler ServkrInt the Nurirar Mcgulatory Csunmit skir sawrw rrinrf to MMWEC rate-alleged mismanagement of the ston's conectns alwnst whef twr M
Iuvers flurst s sht MMWEC aho Seabrrmak reactor arut t%tdie Scr-Scatwas.k's trwswes are finarrially d
windi f ar emnsvil from artmtasrs.
vtre w'neald agree not tse sesc epaahiksi to largiri kow-guinct tests.
C ing Northc.sst titilifics for $6 5 IIMWEC I'* IlI8"R 'a lMV IIS "Irt -
the second of three permits :
to mit! Jews 18 sprint rm MMWECs Sra allsig onf o for tir pl. ant.
nreds to ogerate. T1.c ownmswk wi y
twas,k o,.ts Wstil.am Morrissey, a Puhler ers gwotutdy will ein hlr ens a brw e if Srahren.k is rarwellrd tr.
Service sgmkrsm.sn. dee llnett to gamer Iktnw later thh nwwith O
frac it gets an nieraling Ikynw.
nwament ori the deaf. ss)Ing only MMMT wasM fure to sgerw1)isst that we don I h. ave a signed
$10 mittkwi to drvvetaminate or agreenent wt!h MMWEL. we are g
otterrwtw dhmantic fle rearkw.
aflittrgedt.attnv.
g Scabrook s owners have said flunt, l...crcr. Naki th.at "we lunkruptcy case will otsjrti to fisc those decommissioning costs tu rc ali s tar terms wntknf mst. iti MMWFC-Puhile Servis c deal wusid le atenst $21 millkm lurw a furu thm susw 84 RetIing fisul "Why, ed all tiar utthtles liut own ever critkN sey 18 nasH nnt $ltul duurrerets dr.sfInt arut apgwovnt
$r;.stersenk. sfumal mer in tusik -
millkwi <w norwe to slust *be plarit ley End h skies " Ttuaw diniments.
rugdry le carryisig thrw n str' atter it new1. arts bow immer Icsis he ant. tat -.=eer 4.-.
.e
6 4
Novembe99@[I[i988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA flUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt1 before the COMMISSIO!1
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPA!1Y OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Unit 1
) (Onsite Emergency Planning and 2)
)
and Safety Issues)
)
MOTIOt1 OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORt1EY GENERAL JAMES M.
SHANNO!1 TO REOPEN THE RECORD TO CO!! SIDER EVIDEt1CE CONCERNIt1G THE JOI!1T APPLIC ANTS ' FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS TO OPERATE THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER STATION Af1D TO ADMIT THE ATTACHED LATE-FILED CONTEt1TIOt1S CONCERNING SAID fit 1ANCIAL QUALIFICATIO!1S Massachusetts Attorney General James M.
Shannon hereby moves the fluclear Regulatory Commission ("Commission") to reopen the record in the above referenced proceeding to consider evidence concerning the Joint Applicants' financial qualifications to operate the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station ('Seabrook") and to admit the attached late filed contentions concerning said financial qualifications.
In support of this motion, the Massachusetts Attorney General states:
INTRODUCTION On March 7, 1988, the Massachusetts Attorney General, in response to an order issued on January 29, 1988 by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ("Appeal Board"), filed a timely petition seeking a waiver of or exception 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 naintain it in a safe condition should it not receive a full-power license.
On July 5, 1988, the Appeal Loard issued a decision in which it found that the Massachusetts Attorney General had made a prima 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 Service 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 asauring that adequate funding would be available to conduct such decommissioning in a safe and timely manner.
53 Fed. Reg. 24013 (June 27, 1988).
By order dated September 22, 1906, the Commission indicated that, 2
the unique and unusual circumstances of this case, requires that before low power may be authorized, applicants provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available so that safe decommissioning will be reasonably assured in the event that low power l
operation has occurred and a full power license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1.
Public Service Company of tiew Hampshire (Seabrook !1uclear Power Station) CLI-88-07, 28 !!RC (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 r
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 f1RC at (slip at 3).
The Commission referenced the pendency of the waiver petition certified by the Appeal Board in ALAB-895, but did not address its resolution other than to indicate that the rule waiver issue would be addressed in a subsequent memorandum and order.
Id. 28 11RC at (slip at 2 i
n.1).
The instant motion and contentions are being filed i
simultaneous with the MOTION OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GEt1ERAL JAMES M.
SH ANNO!1 U!! DER 10 C.F.R. 2.734 TO REOPE!1 THE RECURD TO
{
CON 3IDER EVIDEtiCE cot 1CER!!ING THC JOINT APPLICANTS' s
DECOMMISSIONING PLAN FOR THE SEABROOK NUCLEAR POh'ER STATIOtt AND TO ADMIT THE ATTACHED LATE-FILED CONTENTIONS CONCERNItlG SAID DECOMMISSIONING PLAN, notwithstanding the fact that the 3
[
Commission has not yet ruled on the rule waiver petition, in an effort to place all of the financial issues fully before the Commission so that consideration of such issues will proceed expeditiously and in an organized manner.
Of course, the Massachusetts Attorney General does not, by this filing, intend and should not be construed to have waived any rights to file additional motions or contentions concerning the financial qualifications of the Joint Applicants to operate Seabrook subsequent to the Commission's ruling on the rule waiver petition.
THE CONTENTIONS By this motion, the Massachusetts Attorney General seeks to raise for consideration by the Commission, in the event that the pending waiver petition is granted, issues concerning the Joint Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Seabrook at low power.
As articulated for the first time in the recent decommissioning rulemaking, operation of a licensed facility includes the storage and disposal of nuclear fuel prior to decommissioning the facilit}..
See 5 Fed. Reg. 24018, 24019 (June 27, 1988)("Decommissioning activities do not include the removal and disposal of spent fuel which is considered to be an operational activity
...");
compare 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f)(2)
(1988) with 53 Fed. Reg. 24049 (10 C.F.R. 50.33(f)(2) 4
republished as amended).1 Thus, the attached contentions address the financial qualifications of the Joint Applicants to operate Seabrook -- including the storage and disposal of the spent fuel resulting from low power operation -- (see Attachment I hereto) i and the accompanying motion and contentions referenced above L
address the financial qualifications of the Joint Applicants to
[
decommission Seabrook in a safe and timely manner.2
{
THIS MOTION !! EFTS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 C.F.R. 2.734 l
The tests for reopening an evidentiary record are whether the issues could have been 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.
10 C.F.R.
Prior to its amendment, 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f)(2) required an applicant to demonstrate that it "possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover estimated operation costs for the period of the license, plus the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition."
(underscoring supplir.d).
The amendment to 10 C.F.R. 50.33(f)(2) deleted the underscored text.
2.
The Massachusetts Attorney General, through the filing l
of this and the accompanying motion and contentions, has l
attempted to place before the Commission for resolution all I
issues relating to the financial uncertainty attendir.g low power operation and decommissioning following such operation.
In his carlier rule waiver petition, the Missachusetts Attorney General had raised issues concerning matters that are now, in the aftermath of the decommissioning rulemaking, characterized as "operations" activities and natters that are now characterized as
[
"decommissioning' activities.
However characteri:ed, the protection of the public health and safety as well as 1
environmental considerations demand that these issues be litigated fully prior to the issuance of a low power operations license.
i I
5 I
I
2.734(a).
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 discussed above, the Commission has yet to.ddress the rule waiver petition.
Thus, in a sense, this motion to reopen is prematurer in that it concerns evidence and issues that cannot be considered in the absence of a waiver of the public utility exemption from tho requirement that financial q'talifications be demonstrated prior to the issuance of an operating license.3 In this circumst47.:., then, the Massachusetts Attorney General cv 1 not have raised earlier the issues addressed by the attached contentions and has met the I
standard of 10 C.F.R. 2.734(a)(1),
Second, in the Commission's rulemaking adopting the public utility exemption from the requirement of a demonstration of financial qualification, the Commission specifically refrained from concluding that there was not a causal link between a licensee's finances and safety.
49 Ped. Reg. 35747, 35751.
Indeed, the recent rulenating concerning decommissioning confirms the notion that the provision for assurance of adequate funding for the storage and disposal of spent fuel (only one aspect of operation of a licensed facility) is a matter of sigr.zficant 13 noted above, this motion is submitted now to facilitate the expeditious and efficient consideration of the important financial issues relating to the licensure of seabrook.
It should be viewed as useful to the Commission's resolutton of the rule waiver petition that is pending and, obviously, cannot b.
'uled upon unless and until that petition is granted.
6
O i
safety and environmental concern.
See e.g.,
at 74019 and 24033 (June 27, 2988).
See also ALAB-895, 28 NRC i
at 14 n. 23.
If the provision for reasonable assurance on the availability of adequate funds to store and dispose of low level r
waste (i.e.,
irradiated plant components other than the spent fuel) is a matter of safety and environmental significance, then like provision for spent fuel -- high level nuclear waste f
including such by-products as Plutonium, Cesium-137 and strontium-90 -- must perforce be an issue of substantially I
greater safety and environmental significance.
Thus, the instant i
motion meets the standard of 10 C.F.R. 2.734(a)(2).
Third, given the bankruptcy of PSNH and some of the public j
power participants, the te:mination of payments by MMWEC towards
(
the costs of the project, the peculiar nature of EUA Power Corp.,
the lack of any expression of intention by any p&rty to purchase f
L PSNH's or MMWEC's shar;J of the project, and the substantial costs associated with low power operation (3ee 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), there can be no I
doubt but that the Licensing Board would have res-hed a i
materially different result with respect to th,
'a t ance of a low l
l power license had the Joint Applicants not been s"apted f rom the j
requirement of a demonstration of financial qualification.
Cf.
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (Mfilstone Nuclear Power 7
~ w Station, Unit 3), LBP-74-58, 8 AEC 187 (1974).
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)
The tests for the admission of late-filed contentions are 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 participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record, whether the petitioner's. interests will be represented by existing parties, and whether the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
As discussed below, the instant motion meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1) for the admission of late-filed contentions.
Firet, as discussed with reference to reopening the record, the Massachusetts Attorney General could not have filed the instant contentions any earlier and, thus, good cause exists for the failure to not file them earlier.
10 C.F.P 2.174(a)(1)(J).
I Second, as the Commission itself has recognized with respect to the question of the assurance that adequate funds will be available to the Joint Applicants to allow the timely and safe decommissioning of Seabrook in the event that a full power l
license is not gra~ted, "the record (in this case) is closed for 1
l I
l
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 NRC at (slip at 3).
Here, too, there is no other means by which to protect the Massachusetts Attorney General's interest in ensuring that reasonable assurance exists thnt funds will be available to cover the costs of safe low power operation, including the storage and disposal of the spent fuel resulting from such operation in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
Thus, the standard set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.174(a)(1)(ii) is met.
Third, the Massachusetts Attorney General has been an active participant in most aspects of this case and his participation through probing cross examination of the Joint Applicants' witnesses and his sponsorship of expert witnesses has materially assisted in the development of the evidentiary record.
Such participatlon can also be expected with respect to the consideration of the Joint Applicants' financial qualifications to operate Seabrook at low power.
officials of and consultants to the Joint Applicants will be examined and the testimony of apptopriate experts will be offered.4 Thus, it may be reasonably expected that the participation of the Massachusetts Attorney General will materially assist in the development of a sound evidentia ecord on the issues concerning the financial 4.
timony will cover material similar to that set forth in the Atfidavits appended co the rule waiver petition as well as in Attachment 2 hereto.
This material will include among subject the operatior and maintenance expenses associated with the on-site storage of spent fuel.
9
qualifications of the Joint Applicants to operate Seabrook at low power, including the storage and disposal of the spent fuel resulting from such low power operation in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
Fourth, no other party can represent the substantial interests of the people and government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in ensuring the existence of reasonable assurance that tne Joint Applicants have the financial qualifications to operate Seabrook at low power, including the storage and disposal of the spent fuel resul*;ing from such low power operation in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
Thus, the standard of 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1)(iv) is met.
Fifth, the issues raised in the contentions set forth in hereto are close.'y related to those involved in the determination of whether the Joint Applicants have shown reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to allow the safe and timely decommissioning of seabrook in the event that a full power license is not granted.
Indeed, it la I
axiomatic that there can be no assurance, reasonable or otherwise, that adequate funds will be available to the Joint Applicants to decommission Seabrook in a safe and timely manner in the event that low power operation takes place but a full power license is not granted unless there is a reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to them to store and dispose of the spent fuel resulting from such low power operation.
The Commission has by its own order required that 10
\\
r l
Joint Applicants provide reasonable assurance concerning the 1
availability of funding for decommissioning of Seabrook in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
CLI-88-07, 28 IIRC Resolution of the issues raised in the attached contentions will not unreasonably broaden or delay in any way the resolution of the matter raised by the Commission 5 and, in any event, the resolution of many of those issues is a necessary prerequisite to a determination of whether reasonable assurance exists concerning the availability of funding for decommissioning of Seabrook in the event that a full-power license is not granted.
Tnus, their litigation will not broaden or delay the instant proceeding.
5.
Indeed, as discussed above, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed his petition seeking a rule waiver in March.
Had that petition been acted upon earlier, proceedings regarding the financial qualifications of the Joint Applicants would already be underway and the Commission's resolution of the decommissioning issues would have been expedited by the resulting record and findings concerning the storage and disposal of the spent fuel resulting from low power operation of Seabrook, 11
e CONCLUSION 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.
SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
/
by W AM o ri~as George B.
Dean Assistant Attorneys General One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2200 DATED:
November 2, 1988 12